L1 activation during L2 processing is modulated by both age of acquisition and proficiency

被引:12
|
作者
Berghoff, Robyn [1 ]
McLoughlin, Jayde [1 ]
Bylund, Emanuel [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Stellenbosch Univ, Stellenbosch, South Africa
[2] Stockholm Univ, Stockholm, Sweden
关键词
Cross-language activation; Age of acquisition; Proficiency; Visual world paradigm; CROSS-LANGUAGE ACTIVATION; VISUAL WORD RECOGNITION; 2ND-LANGUAGE LEARNERS; BILINGUAL BRAIN; PHONOLOGICAL REPRESENTATIONS; LEXICAL COMPETITION; MASKED REPETITION; SENTENCE CONTEXT; 2ND LANGUAGES; 1ST LANGUAGE;
D O I
10.1016/j.jneuroling.2020.100979
中图分类号
H0 [语言学];
学科分类号
030303 ; 0501 ; 050102 ;
摘要
It is well established that access to the bilingual lexicon is non-selective: even in an entirely monolingual context, elements of the non-target language are active. Research has also shown that activation of the non-target language is greater at higher proficiency levels, suggesting that it may be proficiency that drives cross-language lexical activation. At the same time, the potential role of age of acquisition (AoA) in cross-language activation has gone largely unexplored, as most studies have either focused on adult L2 learners or have conflated AoA with L2 proficiency. The present study examines the roles of AoA and L2 proficiency in L2 lexical processing using the visual world paradigm. Participants were a group of early L1 Afrikaans-L2 English bilinguals (AoA 1-9 years) and a control group of L1 English speakers. Importantly, in the bilingual group, AoA and proficiency were not correlated. In the task, participants viewed a screen with four objects on it: a target object, a competitor object whose Afrikaans translation overlapped phonetically with the target object, and two unrelated distractor objects. The results show that the L2 English group was significantly more likely to look at the cross-language competitor than the L1 English group, thus providing evidence of cross-language activation. Importantly, the extent to which this activation occurred was modulated by both L2 proficiency and AoA. These findings suggest that while these two variables may have been confounded in previous research, they actually both exert effects on cross-language activation. The locus of this parallel activation effect is discussed in terms of connectionist models of bilingualism.
引用
收藏
页数:13
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Convergent outcomes in L2 acquisition and L1 loss
    Montrul, S
    First Language Attrition: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Methodological Issues, 2004, 28 : 259 - 279
  • [22] The moderating effects of L2 proficiency on the relationship between reading and writing in L2 and across L1 and L2
    Kim, Kyung Ja
    Pae, Tae-Il
    FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS, 2023, 56 (01) : 75 - 101
  • [23] The acquisition of Spanish morphosyntax - The L1/L2 connection
    Baauw, S
    LINGUA, 2006, 116 (06) : 909 - 919
  • [24] ON THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN L1 AND L2 ACQUISITION OF PHONOLOGY
    PIPER, T
    CANADIAN JOURNAL OF LINGUISTICS-REVUE CANADIENNE DE LINGUISTIQUE, 1987, 32 (03): : 245 - 259
  • [25] Starting age and L1 and L2 interaction
    Djigunovic, Jelena Mihaljevic
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUALISM, 2010, 14 (03) : 303 - 314
  • [26] Can UG and L1 be distinguished in L2 acquisition?
    Hale, K
    BEHAVIORAL AND BRAIN SCIENCES, 1996, 19 (04) : 728 - &
  • [27] Linking L2 proficiency and patterns of functional connectivity during L1 word retrieval
    Borodkin, Katy
    Livny, Abigail
    Kushnir, Tammar
    Tsarfaty, Galia
    Maliniak, Omer
    Faust, Miriam
    BRAIN AND LANGUAGE, 2021, 216
  • [28] The role of proficiency and working memory in gender and number agreement processing in L1 and L2 Spanish
    Sagarra, Nuria
    Herschensohn, Julia
    LINGUA, 2010, 120 (08) : 2022 - 2039
  • [29] Attitude Toward Reading: L1 or L2 or Both
    Akbari, Hadi
    Ghonsooly, Behzad
    Ghazanfari, Mohammad
    Shahriari, Hesamodin
    SAGE OPEN, 2017, 7 (03): : 1 - 10
  • [30] Child L1, child L2 and adult L2 acquisition: Differences and similarities
    Unsworth, S
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE 28TH ANNUAL BOSTON UNIVERSITY CONFERENCE ON LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT, VOLS 1 AND 2, 2004, : 633 - 644