Search

To test the contributions of processing to L2 syntax learning, this study explores (cross-) linguistic and cognitive predictors of sentence reanalysis in the L2 comprehension of relative clauses among low-intermediate L1 German adolescent learners of L2 English. Specifically, we test the degree to which L2 comprehension is affected by L2 proficiency, reanalysis ability in a related, earlier-acquired L2 structure (questions), reanalysis ability of relative clauses in the L1, cognitive control, and cognitive capacity. In visual-world eye-tracking experiments, 141 adolescent German-speaking L2 learners of English selected target pictures for auditorily presented questions and relative clauses in the L1 and in the L2. The results showed a strong subject preference for L2 relative clauses. Learners' L2 proficiency and their processing of object questions in the L2 predicted reanalysis for object relatives in eye movements, reaction times, and comprehension accuracy. In contrast, there was no evidence that cognitive control or working memory systematically affected the processing of object relatives. These findings suggest that linguistic processing outweighs cognitive processing in accounting for individual differences in low-intermediate L2 acquisition of complex grammar. Specifically, learners recruit shared processing mechanisms and routines across grammatical structures to pave a way in the acquisition of syntax. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In two experiments, we examined inhibitory control processes in three groups of bilinguals and trilinguals that differed in nonnative language proficiency and language learning background. German 5- to 8-year-old second-language learners of English, German-English bilinguals, German-English-Language X trilinguals, and 6- to 8-year-old German monolinguals performed the Simon task and the Attentional Networks Task (ANT). Language proficiencies and socioeconomic status were controlled. We found that the Simon effect advantage, reported in earlier research for bilingual children and adults over monolinguals, differed across groups, with bilinguals and trilinguals showing enhanced conflict resolution over monolinguals and marginally so over second-language learners. In the ANT, bilinguals and trilinguals displayed enhanced conflict resolution over second-language learners. This extends earlier research to child second-language learners and trilinguals, who were in the process of becoming proficient in an additional language, while corroborating earlier findings demonstrating enhanced executive control in bilinguals assumed to be caused by continuous inhibitory control processes necessary in competition resolution between two (or possibly more) languages. The results are interpreted against the backdrop of the developing language systems of the children, both for early second-language learners and for early bilinguals and trilinguals. (Contains 2 figures and 3 tables.)

In five experiments, we examined cross-language activation during speech production in various groups of bilinguals and trilinguals who differed in nonnative language proficiency, language learning background, and age. In Experiments 1, 2, 3, and 5, German 5- to 8-year-old second language learners of English, German-English bilinguals, German-English-Language X trilinguals, and adult German-English bilinguals, respectively, named pictures in German and in English; in Experiment 4, 6- to 8-year-old German monolinguals named pictures in German. In both language conditions, cognate status was manipulated. We found that the bidirectional cognate facilitation effect was significant in all groups except the German monolinguals (Experiment 4) and, critically, the child second language learners (Experiment 1) in whom only native language (L1) German had an effect on second language (L2) English. The findings demonstrate how the integration of languages into a child's system follows a developmental path that, at lower levels of proficiency, allows only limited cross-language activation. The results are interpreted against the backdrop of the developing language systems of the children both for early second language learners and for early bi- and trilinguals. (Contains 2 figures and 3 tables.)

Aims and objectives: We investigate how varying usage patterns in speakers of closely related language varieties might impact executive function. More specifically, bidialectals with more balanced usage were predicted to show better inhibitory control than less balanced bidialectals. Design: Thirty-four adult bidialectals of Standard German and Swabian German performed two executive function tasks (flanker and Simon). Data and analysis: The participants' reaction times on the two executive function tasks were analysed using regression models. Data and R code are available online. Findings: Contrary to predictions, Swabian-dominant bidialectals showed smaller flanker and Simon effects than balanced German-Swabian bidialectals. Furthermore, contrary to some previous studies, executive function task performances correlated significantly. Originality: We discuss how bidialectal language usage patterns can be assessed and how arbitrary analytical decisions affect findings regarding the effects of bidialectalism on executive function. Significance: These findings shed a new light on the effects of bilingualism/bidialectalism on executive function. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Proficient bilinguals demonstrate slower lexical retrieval than comparable monolinguals. The present study tested predictions from two main accounts of this effect, the frequency-lag and competition hypotheses. Both make the same prediction for bilinguals but differ for trilinguals and for age differences. 200 younger or older adults who were monolingual, bilingual, or trilingual performed a picture naming task in English that included high and low frequency words. Naming times were faster for high than for low frequency words and, in line with frequency-lag, group differences were larger for low than high frequency items. However, on all other measures, bilinguals and trilinguals performed equivalently, and lexical retrieval differences between language groups did not attenuate with age, consistent with the competition view. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We tested the predictions of the Revised Hierarchical Model (Kroll & Stewart, 1994) to examine how children map novel words to concepts during early stages of L2 learning. Fifth grade Dutch L2 learners with 8 months of English instruction performed a translation recognition task followed by translation production in both directions. The children were already sensitive to L2 word meaning in translation recognition, showing longer RTs and lower accuracies for semantically related than semantically unrelated word pairs. In translation production, they were faster in backward than forward direction as predicted by the RHM. Critically, these children had learned L2 words in contexts enriched by pictures and listening/speaking exercises. Depending on the task, Dutch beginning L2 learners exploit conceptual information during L2 processing and map L2 word-forms to concepts. This study also contributes to accumulating evidence that manner of L2 instruction may majorly impact the activation of lexical and conceptual information during translation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In a picture naming study, we examined cross-language activation during speech production in three groups of trilinguals: L3-immersed German–English–Dutch, non-L3-immersed Dutch–English–German, and L3-immersed Russian–English–German trilinguals. All trilinguals named pictures with cognate and non-cognate names in their L2 and their L3. Specifically, we examined cognate effects in same-script trilinguals who were either immersed or not immersed in their L3 and trilinguals whose first language (Russian) differs in script from their other two languages (German, English) to address the questions (1) whether, as non-target language knowledge is co-activated, cognate effects accrue across languages during word production, and (2) whether immersion in L3 is a modulating factor in cross-language activation. We found cognate facilitation in the same-script trilinguals across all languages, although with patterns modulated by the trilinguals’ L3-immersion status and L3 proficiency, corroborating and extending earlier findings in bilingual adults and children. Critically, we also found cognate effects in the different-script trilinguals when the pictures had cognate names in all three languages, indicating that the L1 Russian phonology was activated during naming in L2 English when L3 German was also present, and vice versa. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In their review, Emmorey, Giezen and Gollan (Emmorey, Giezen & Gollan) contrast bimodal bilinguals (individuals who are fluent in a signed and a spoken language) and unimodal bilinguals (individuals fluent in two spoken languages) to highlight the implications of bimodal bilingualism for language processing, the cognitive effects of bilingualism, and the neural organization of languages. For this purpose, the authors focus on the evidence for language mixing in bimodal bilinguals (so-called ‘code-blends’) by hearing children of deaf parents and explore how language co-activation and control differentially impacts the processing of languages compared to unimodal bilinguals. The sustained controlling of two languages from differing modalities in bimodal bilinguals, according to the authors, may lead to modality-specific cognitive advantages in contrast to unimodal bilinguals. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]