L1-L2 Differences Research Articles

Pragmatic competence and pragmatic tolerance in foreign language acquisition—revisiting the case of scalar implicatures

Abstract Previous L2 studies used binary Truth-Value-Judgment (TVJ) tasks to investigate L1–L2 differences in scalar implicature derivation (some X implicates some but not all X). They examined participants’ judgments of sentences with weak scalar expressions (“Timothy ate some of the pretzels”) when stronger ones are true (“Timothy ate all of the pretzels”). Some studies indicate adult L2 learners are less likely than L1 users to accept such statements while others found the opposite, concluding that implicature derivation is “costly” for L2 learners, rendering them less pragmatically competent than L1 users. Importantly, related L1 research suggests that TVJ tasks only capture sensitivity to under-informativeness. This sensitivity might be completely overridden by metalinguistic attitudes in binary tasks, whereas graded tasks reveal nuanced judgment patterns. Exploring L2 response behaviors, we tested English L1 speakers and competent German L2 English learners using binary and graded tasks. In both tasks, we found evidence of pragmatic responding with no evidence of differences between groups. Bayes factor analyses of the graded data favored H0 over the hypotheses that L2 learners provide fewer or more rejections to under-informative input than L1 learners. We explore implications for L2 learners’ pragmatic abilities, differences with previous studies, and the role of TVJ tasks in under-informative contexts.

Dual drivers of bilingual semantic accent: Semantic relations and input limitations

Research question: Second language (L2) learners may have a “semantic accent,” using L2 words differently from a native speaker. The current studies investigate how learning conditions and the need to use different semantic dimensions may constrain the acquisition of L2 meanings. Approach: In Experiment 1, we asked whether first language (L1) Mandarin speakers would successfully learn English carry and hold with intensive input in a laboratory training procedure. In Experiment 2, we asked whether the difficulties observed were due to differing semantic dimensions per se or to the need to move from a larger number of fine-grained native distinctions to a smaller number of broader English meanings. Data and analysis: Word definitions and label choice after training were scored for consistency with native performance. Conclusions: Experiment 1 supported the idea that intensive input helps, but Experiment 2 suggested that any kind of semantic difference from L1 is challenging even with intensive input. Originality: The current study clarifies the contributions of learning conditions and L1-L2 semantic differences in semantic accent. Implications: Reducing semantic accent may require instruction in specific L1-L2 differences and cultivation of metacognitive sensitivity to the potential for differences.

Differences in prominence-related acoustic measurements in L2 read speech as a function of L1 framing typology

Speech production in a non-native language is often influenced by their first language’s (L1) phonology. One factor that might affect their production prosodically is typological differences in event construal, specifically motion events. Building on this concept, prior studies on gestures and spontaneous speech show that how speakers frame motion events in their L1 can transfer to their second language (L2) through grammatical patterns. However, no study has looked at how L1-L2 differences in framing motion events may affect speakers’ L2 production prosodically. To explore whether those differences affect how L2 speakers prosodically produce motion events, this study collected read speech from two spoken corpora of L2 English learners. We chose L2 learners from different L1 backgrounds that differ in the way they grammatically construct motion events. English production from Korean and Turkish L1 speakers (which are typologically similar) were compared to that of L1 German speakers (which is typologically similar to English), along with productions by L1 English speakers. Duration and various acoustic measurements of pitch and intensity were extracted and analyzed. Results indicated some similarities among learners of the same typology along with differences between the L1 and L2 English speakers. Implications on conceptual transfer will be discussed.

Testing the Interpretability Hypothesis: Evidence from acceptability judgments of relative clauses by Persian and French learners of L2 English

Many studies have explored the second language (L2) acquisition of relative clauses (RCs) and whether L2 speakers transfer a resumptive strategy from first language (L1) to L2. While evidence seems to suggest that there are significant L1–L2 differences in the processing of RCs, relatively little is known about the source of non-target-like L2 behaviour. The present study investigates the grammatical acceptability of different RC types in L2 English and whether reliance on a resumptive strategy is a syntactic or processing issue. The participants included 71 L1-Persian L2-English, 52 L1-French L2-English, and 44 native English speakers, who completed a proficiency c-test, a grammaticality judgment task, and a reading span working memory (WM) task. Unlike French, which is similar to English in the syntactic derivation of RCs, Persian is a structurally wh-in-situ language that syntactically allows resumption in direct object and object-of-preposition RCs. The results showed that unlike L1-French speakers, L1-Persian speakers were more likely to accept resumptive pronouns in L2-English RCs; however, both L1 and L2 groups overwhelmingly preferred a gap over a resumptive strategy. The results suggest that given sufficiently high proficiency and long immersion experience, L2 speakers can match native speakers in terms of RC syntactic representations, suggesting that the issue faced by learners is a processing issue rather a representational one as suggested by the Interpretability Hypothesis.

Dependency resolutions of null and overt subjects in English speakers’ L2 Chinese: Evidence for the cue-based model

This study investigates whether there are different first-language–second-language (L1–L2) dependency resolutions by focusing on less-studied crosslinguistic variances in L2 acquisition of Chinese, a null-subject language, by speakers of English, a non-null-subject language. The overt subject pronoun of a Chinese main clause has free orientation and its antecedent can be the subject or object of the preceding causal subordinate clause, depending on pragmatic biases. The null subject of a Chinese main clause, however, is subject-oriented, and this subject orientation is not affected by any pragmatic bias. English does not allow null subjects and, like Chinese, overt subject pronouns in English have free orientation. An acceptability judgement task and an interpretation task were adopted, and the results suggest that only the free orientation of overt subjects, but not the subject orientation of null subjects, is acquirable for English-speaking learners; they are found to be influenced by the pragmatic bias. This provides evidence for the cue-based model (Cunnings, 2017), which states that L1–L2 differences in dependency resolution can be explained in terms of L1–L2 differences in susceptibility to interference and L2ers’ over-reliance on discourse-based/pragmatic cues. It is also observed that in L1 Chinese, competition between the target antecedent and distractors occurs during the reading of the sentence, while in L2 Chinese, this occurs after the reading of the sentence. These findings add to our growing understanding of different mechanisms in L1 vs. L2 dependency resolutions.

Focus interpretation in L1 and L2: The role of prosodic prominence and clefting

AbstractAlthough the importance of prosody in processing information structure (IS) has been shown in many languages including English and Mandarin, the interacting effects of prosody with other linguistic systems, such as syntax, are relatively under-studied, especially in L2. This paper reports two question-answer appropriateness rating experiments, investigating intermediate-to-high proficiency Mandarin listeners’ integration of prosodic prominence and clefting cues in the interpretation of focus in their L1 and L2 (English). It was found that prosodic prominence was more effective than clefting as a cue to focus in L1 Mandarin. However, clefting was as effective as prominence in L2, showing L1–L2 differences in integrating multiple cues. The findings are discussed in terms of Mennen’s L2 intonation learning theory (2015) and Bates and MacWhinney’s Competition Model (1989), which provide a framework for understanding difficulties in acquiring the use of particular cues in L2. The current study contributes to our limited knowledge of a crucial part of L2 learning: how L2 learners process IS.

Second Language Sentence Processing

Second language (L2) sentence processing research studies how adult L2 learners understand sentences in real time. I review how L2 sentence processing differs from monolingual first-language (L1) processing and outline major findings and approaches. Three interacting factors appear to mandate L1–L2 differences: ( a) capacity restrictions in the ability to integrate information in an L2; ( b) L1–L2 differences in the weighting of cues, the timing of their application, and the efficiency of their retrieval; and ( c) variation in the utility functions of predictive processing. Against this backdrop, I outline a novel paradigm of interlanguage processing, which examines bilingual features of L2 processing, such as bilingual language systems, nonselective access to all grammars, and processing to learn an L2. Interlanguage processing goes beyond the traditional framing of L2 sentence processing as an incomplete form of monolingual processing and reconnects the field with current approaches to grammar acquisition and the bilingual mental lexicon.

DO L1-L2 DIFFERENCES IN DISCOURSE PROCESSING REFLECT PROCESSING DEMANDS OR DIFFICULTY OF FORM-FUNCTION MAPPING?

AbstractWe examined what causes L1-L2 differences in sensitivity to prominence cues in discourse processing. Participants listened to recorded stories in segment-by-segment fashion at their own pace. Each story established a pair of contrasting items, and one item from the pair was rementioned and manipulated to carry either a contrastive or presentational pitch accent. By directly comparing the current self-paced listening data to previously obtained experimenter-paced listening data, we tested whether reducing online-processing demands allows L2 learners to show a nativelike behavior, such that contrastive pitch accents facilitate later ruling out the salient alternative. However, reduced time pressure failed to lead even higher proficiency L1-Korean learners of English to reach a nativelike level, suggesting that L2 learners’ nonnativelike processing and representation of the prominence cue in spoken discourse processing can be due to the inherent difficulty of fully learning a complex form-function mapping rather than to online-processing demands.

Articulatory settings and L2 English coronal consonants.

Background/aims: We explore the potential contribution of Articulatory Settings (AS) theory to L2 speech production research, testing the hypothesis that L2 segmental speech learning should involve a gradual, overall shift in both place and constriction degree, simultaneously affecting all consonants of a series as opposed to a set of parallel but unrelated changes in learners' production of individual sounds. Methods: We conducted an electropalatography study of four francophone learners' production of French and English word-initial and -medial /t d s z n l/ via carrier-sentence reading tasks. Results: L1-L2 differences in tongue shape are more common than those in constriction location, first and foremost for sonorants, and, thus, our results are not completely consistent with AS theory's claims. Conclusions: AS theory provides a potentially rich framework for exploring the L2 speech learning of consonantal phenomena including low-level L1-L2 differences in place of articulation. We propose that the observed lack of systematic between-language articulatory differences could be attributed to a number of factors to be explored in future research, such as the targeting of voicing and manner differences before the adjustment of small place differences as well as individual patterns of entrenchment of L1 articulatory routines.

(Not) acquiring meaning in a second language: Are input deficits key?

Word meanings are not always parallel across languages, and second language (L2) learners often use words in non-native ways. Is the learning problem inherent in maintaining conflicting word-to-meaning mappings within an integrated lexical network, or is it due to insufficient attention to and input for acquiring L2 mappings? To help discriminate between these possibilities, we gave English speakers repeated exposures to 40 brief videos of actions, labeled with five novel words that cross-cut English labeling patterns. Half the participants were told only to learn the labels for the actions. The other half were told to figure out their meanings, which might differ from English. The Figure Out Meanings group made test choices faster and were also slightly more likely to produce definitions capturing the intended meanings. However, both groups performed well above chance in generalizing the novel words. High levels of choice performance for both groups point to insufficient input, rather than inherent properties of lexical networks, as the critical limiting factor in more typical L2 learning contexts. Speed and definition performance hint at some advantage to explicit attention in sorting out L1-L2 differences.

Unclogging the Bottleneck: The role of case morphology in L2 acquisition at the syntax-discourse interface

ABSTRACT The Bottleneck Hypothesis argues that properties of inflectional morphology explain why second-language learners may face persistent difficulties in articulating meaning in target-language forms. In particular, the acquisition task proves even harder when first and second languages differ in the way they organize the mapping of functional features onto inflectional morphemes. Against this backdrop, the present study focuses on the interplay between case morphology and acquisition of syntax-discourse interface phenomena in the second language German of French native speakers. Whereas the Bottleneck Hypothesis predicts that discourse-driven syntactic alternations come for free when case morphology is in place, a concurrent prediction is made by the Interface Hypothesis, which suggests that the syntax-discourse interface is vulnerable per se, irrespective of L1-L2 differences at the interface between morphology and syntax. We tested 45 L2 learners in (i) a semicontrolled production task in context (element rearrangement task) targeting argument reordering (object fronting) as a function of the information status of discourse referents; (ii) a fill-in-the-blanks task involving the use of case endings; and (iii) a general proficiency test. Contra the Interface Hypothesis, results showed that argument reordering was affected by discourse properties of referents. Turning to the Bottleneck Hypothesis, learners’ command of case was identified as a reliable predictor of convergence in discourse-to-syntax mappings, which confirms the key role of inflectional morphology in the acquisition of other grammar areas, including interfaces between grammar and grammar-external domains such as discourse.

Entrenchment effects in code-mixing: individual differences in German-English bilingual children

Abstract Following a usage-based approach to language acquisition, lexically specific patterns are considered to be important building blocks for language productivity and feature heavily both in child-directed speech and in the early speech of children (Arnon, Inbal & Morten H. Christiansen. 2017. The role of multiword building blocks in explaining L1-L2 differences. Topics in Cognitive Science 9(3). 621–636; Tomasello, Michael. 2003. Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press). In order to account for patterns, the traceback method has been widely applied in research on first language acquisition to test the hypothesis that children’s utterances can be accounted for on the basis of a limited inventory of chunks and partially schematic units (Lieven, Elena, Dorothé Salomo & Michael Tomasello. 2009. Two-year-old children’s production of multiword utterances: A usage-based analysis. Cognitive Linguistics 20(3). 481–508). In the current study, we applied the method to code-mixed utterances (n = 1,506) of three German-English bilingual children between 2 and 4 years of age to investigate individual differences in each child’s own inventory of patterns in relation to their input settings. It was shown that units such as I see X as in I see a Kelle ‘I see a trowel’ could be traced back to the child’s own previous productions. More importantly, we see that each child’s inventory of constructions draws heavily on multiword chunks that are strongly dependent on the children’s language input situations.

Input–output relation in second language acquisition

Abstract Studies on the role of input in L2 acquisition often estimate L2 input properties through L1 corpora and focus on L2-English. This study probes the initial stage of L2-Korean learning for adult English-speaking beginners of Korean to investigate input-output relations in the acquisition of L2 that is typologically different from English in a more direct manner. We specifically ask how L2 beginner input affects L2 beginner production with respect to Korean postpositions. For this purpose, we investigate how the beginners receive input regarding Korean postpositions from a textbook and to what extent the input characteristics are manifested in learner writing. We found that, whereas the presentation of certain postpositions in the textbook was generally reflected in learner writing, individual postpositions showed disparity in their use between the textbook and the writing. Implications of the findings are discussed in light of L1-L2 differences and how the textbook presents form-function pairings of these postpositions.

Examining the effectiveness of language-switching practice for reducing cross-language competition in L2 grammatical processing

AbstractThis study examined the extent to which language-switching practice enhanced L2 learners’ L2 grammatical processing by improving language selection abilities. Thirty-six English-speaking learners of French completed the same language-switching practice of L1 and L2 sentences, but received different types of pre-practice explicit information (EI) designed to address L2 learning difficulties resulting from crosslinguistic influence: one group (n = 17) received EI about English–French differences for viewpoint aspect, and a second group (n = 19) received EI about viewpoint aspect in French only. This design investigated the extent to which pre-practice linguistic knowledge moderated the effectiveness of the language-switching practice. Longitudinal analyses showed that increasing amounts of practice improved language selection abilities (increased accuracy, reduced reaction time costs), but only for learners who received EI about L1-L2 differences. These findings that language-switching was moderated by type of pre-practice EI have important implications for theories of L2 learning and instruction.

Native speakers like affixes, L2 speakers like letters? An overt visual priming study investigating the role of orthography in L2 morphological processing.

In an overt visual priming experiment, we investigate the role of orthography in native (L1) and non-native (L2) processing of German morphologically complex words. We compare priming effects for inflected and derived morphologically related prime-target pairs versus otherwise matched, purely orthographically related pairs. The results show morphological priming effects in both the L1 and L2 group, with no significant difference between inflection and derivation. However, L2 speakers, but not L1 speakers, also showed significant priming for orthographically related pairs. Our results support the claim that L2 speakers focus more on surface-level information such as orthography during visual word recognition. This can cause orthographic priming effects in morphologically related prime-target pairs, which may conceal L1-L2 differences in morphological processing.

Comparing L1-L2 differences in lexical bundles in student and expert writing

Numerous studies have compared the use of lexical bundles between L1 and L2 academic writing or between students and expert writing. However, the results of these studies are mixed due to differences in the control of potentially confounding variables (e.g. discipline, the level of expertise). It is still unclear whether the L1 background, or the level of expertise (i.e. student versus expert) accounts for the differences in the use of lexical bundles. To clarify this issue, the present study compared L1-L2 differences in the use of lexical bundles in master’s theses and research articles by controlling discipline (i.e. applied linguistics), the level of expertise, and the research paradigm (i.e. quantitative texts). The study shows that L2-English academic writers employ more bundle types and tokens than L1-English academic writers regardless of levels of expertise. Structurally, both L1 and L2 academic writers use proportionally more phrasal bundles as their levels of expertise increase. Functionally, L1 academic writers use proportionally more participant-oriented bundles than L2 academic writers regardless of levels of expertise. Our findings also indicate that both L1 background and the level of expertise affect the structural differences in lexical bundles. In addition, the L1 background matters to the functional differences in lexical bundles.

The Primacy of L1-Based Cohesive Devices Over the Organization of Ideas in the Spoken English of Chinese EFL Learners

L1 influence research on L2 learners’ spoken performance has focused on learners’ use of L1-based cohesive devices and propositional organization. The problem in these studies was that even though L2 learners were using L1-based cohesive devices, they were not making any grammatical or pronunciation errors, but their L2 speech patterns were not consistent with native speaker standards. This study investigated the ways in which 6 Chinese English as a foreign language (EFL) learners were influenced by their L1-based cohesive devices and organization of ideas during 30 hours of face-to-face interactions with 2 English native speakers. Data analysis involved transforming the transcribed data of interactions into a system of codes and categories (Corbin & Strauss, 2015), and the Excel software was used to generate the means, percentages, and ranks of different categories. Data analysis determined that Chinese L1-based cohesive devices and organization of ideas were manifested in the 6 Chinese participants’ speech as a coherent system of communication. Moreover, the researchers found that the most frequently-used L1-based cohesive device in the Chinese students’ L2 speech was the use of connectors which were employed to “add” new points to the speakers’ arguments. Implications for pedagogy included action research projects to scrutinize the introduction of a series of communicative tasks in the classroom that utilize scaffolding to highlight L1-L2 differences. The aim of these tasks is to raise students’ consciousness and help them “notice the gap” between L1-L2 discourse systems in the use of cohesive devices and organization of ideas.

Tercüme etmeden önce iki kere düşünün: Okunan şey her zaman söylenmez

One of the most difficulties Algerian learners of
 English encounter is the ignorance of the cross-linguistic differences between
 the first language (L1) and English. Students, whose first language is Arabic
 and majored in English do not necessarily excel at translation or
 interpretation in their written and oral productions; that is to say, being
 proficient in a foreign language does not guarantee the ability to translate
 into the native language. Accurately, it is widely maintained that what
 precedes any act of translation/interpretation is contrastive analysis (CA) and
 Error Analysis, i.e. it is believed that contrasting and comparing languages
 require greater cognitive depth, force attention, promote noticing; raise the
 learners’ awareness of the L1-L2 differences and provide practice in the areas
 of these differences. What aggravates the situation is that French as a second
 language in Algeria may interfere as an additional language which can boost or hinder
 the translation process. In this paper, we will spotlight the importance of CA
 and Error analysis in translation, and then illustrating how language
 interference can hinder the translation process. Finally, some recommendations
 and suggestions about the betterment of learning and translation process will
 conclude this paper. 

Literate and preliterate children show different learning patterns in an artificial language learning task

Literacy affects many aspects of cognitive and linguistic processing. Among them, it increases the salience of words as units of linguistic processing. Here, we explored the impact of literacy acquisition on children’s learning of an artifical language. Recent accounts of L1–L2 differences relate adults’ greater difficulty with language learning to their smaller reliance on multiword units. In particular, multiword units are claimed to be beneficial for learning opaque grammatical relations like grammatical gender. Since literacy impacts the reliance on words as units of processing, we ask if and how acquiring literacy may change children’s language-learning results. We looked at children’s success in learning novel noun labels relative to their success in learning article-noun gender agreement, before and after learning to read. We found that preliterate first graders were better at learning agreement (larger units) than at learning nouns (smaller units), and that the difference between the two trial types significantly decreased after these children acquired literacy. In contrast, literate third graders were as good in both trial types. These findings suggest that literacy affects not only language processing, but also leads to important differences in language learning. They support the idea that some of children’s advantage in language learning comes from their previous knowledge and experience with language—and specifically, their lack of experience with written texts.

Can Mimicking Infants’ Early Experience Facilitate Adult Learning? A Critique of Hudson Kam (2017)

ABSTRACTWhy do adults seem to struggle more than children in learning a second language, despite being better at a range of other cognitive skills? The source of L1-L2 differences in language learning is one of the most debated topics in the study of language. One hypothesis is that L1-L2 differences are primarily experience-based, with language learning abilities themselves showing a high degree of plasticity. Hudson-Kam (2018) recently presented findings that seem to go against this hypothesis: in five studies, adults failed to show better learning in a more infant-like environment. In this article, I offer a theoretical and empirical critique of these findings and outline some open questions for investigating experience-based explanations for L1-L2 differences. In short, the main critique has to do with how we define what infant-like (or child-like) learning is and how we identify which aspects of children’s experience facilitate which aspects of language learning.