Abstract
The role of the sensorimotor system in second language (L2) semantic processing as well as its clinical implications for bilingual patients has hitherto been neglected. We offer an overview of the issues at stake in this under-investigated field, presenting the theoretical and clinical relevance of studying L2 embodiment and reviewing the few studies on this topic. We highlight that (a) the sensorimotor network is involved in L2 processing, and that (b) in most studies, L2 is differently embodied than L1, reflected in a lower degree or in a different pattern of L2 embodiment. Importantly, we outline critical issues to be addressed in order to guide future research. We also delineate the subsequent steps needed to confirm or dismiss the value of language therapeutic approaches based on embodiment theories as a complement of speech and language therapies in adult bilinguals.
Highlights
The term “embodiment” refers to the grounding of cognition in systems involved in low level perceptual and action information processing
All the other studies discussed in this review report that L2 is differently embodied than L1, usually expressed as a lower degree (Vukovic and Shtyrov, 2014; Foroni, 2015; Qian, 2016; Baumeister et al, 2017) of embodiment in L2 or as a different pattern (Sheikh and Titone, 2016; Ahlberg et al, 2017) of embodiment
To investigate if (1) action and language understanding use the same motor circuitry and if (2) this motor activation plays a functional role in language understanding
Summary
The term “embodiment” refers to the grounding of cognition in systems involved in low level perceptual and action information processing. One could argue that in moderately proficient bilinguals (and late AoA), the link between the L2 lexical store and the semantic system is most likely not as developed as that of L1 Such a weaker connection could translate to different embodiment effects in L2. According to Dudschig et al (2014), such facilitation could be due to (a) an automatic activation of L1 words and their experiential associations when processing L2 words or (b) a direct connection made during L2 learning to the sensorimotor experiences made during L1 learning Even if the latter interpretation was favored due to the early onset of the embodiment effect, the former cannot be excluded, as the results by Vukovic and Williams (2014) suggest. Facial muscle EMG activity Written L1 and L2 and SC responses were emotion-laden words obtained during the encoding phase of a classical memory task, in which participants performed a categorization task, which required them to categorize words into “associated to emotion” or “not associated to emotion.”
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
