Abstract

The focus of the current topic is the analysis and interpretation of second language (L2) and multilingual data. Looking at data from speakers who have learned their additional languages after the mother tongue has become well established is of special interest. It advances our knowledge about how different language systems share space in the same mind, a question to be asked of any kind of multilingual at any age—and secondly it can tell us more about potential differences between early and later learned languages (Kim et al., 1997; Kovelman et al., 2008). More recent research points to brain areas activated in late learners of L2s becoming more and more like those of L1 acquirers as their proficiency advances (Green, 2003). At earlier stages of acquisition, adults may simply adopt compensatory strategies, for example recruiting new cognitive resources that have become available with increasing maturity to complete communicative tasks that are demanding either because, unlike very young children, they personally want or are compelled by interlocutors to communicate complex ideas, or because the requirements of a given experiment simply make the tasks demanding. This will therefore implicate regions of the brain that are much less involved in young language users and these may stay involved even where higher levels of L2 ability render them much less important or even unnecessary. In any case, to get the full picture we need ways of tracking this strategic activity, one aspect of which is the deployment of explicit processes, both those involving conscious awareness and those that may be raised to awareness but can also operate subconsciously but there will surely be processes that only operate subconsciously as well (Sharwood Smith and Truscott, 2011). These will affect not only the spontaneous uses of L1 and L2 but also performance on experimental tasks. Tracking brain activity with sophisticated apparatus is not enough of course: the data needs to be analyzed and for this we need very sophisticated theoretical frameworks to guide interpretation.

Highlights

  • While research techniques such as brain imaging are gradually acquiring greater precision, helping to reveal much more about brain activity associated with linguistic processing, there still remain many problems interpreting results

  • One problem concerns the choice of which theory and which concepts and categories to import from a neighboring research domain. Another one, related to that, is locating conceptual models and frameworks in related domains that can be combined in such a way as to promise the best possible explanation

  • If they were interpreted, that would constitute a serious category error—confusing abstract theoretical linguistic concepts for ones that are custom designed to describe and explain events in real time. It would constitute a new and different type of claim entirely, i.e., that the abstract concepts can do double duty and describe real-time events as well. Unless there is such a claim, working with linguistic theory means operating at a different level of description from psycholinguistic processing theory

Read more

Summary

Introduction

While research techniques such as brain imaging are gradually acquiring greater precision, helping to reveal much more about brain activity associated with linguistic processing, there still remain many problems interpreting results. For example, syntactic and semantic processing can be teased apart on the basis of participants’ differing responses to examples of, respectively, syntactic and semantic anomaly which allows researchers to identify separate neural signatures and provide support for particular accounts of the status of language vis-a-vis other types of cognition.

Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

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 call