working memory and nativelikeness in the processing of focus structure robert reichle 1 annie...
TRANSCRIPT
Working Memory and Nativelikeness
in the Processing of Focus Structure
Robert Reichle1
Annie Tremblay2
Caitlin Coughlin2
1Department of Foreign LanguagesCenter for the Interdisciplinary Study of Language and Literacy
Northern Illinois University
2Department of LinguisticsUniversity of Kansas
2
Second Language ProcessingSecond Language Processing
• For late L2 learners, L2 processing is difficult• Corresponding features/structures in the
native language do not ensure success in the L2
• Variability is typical• Native-like attainment is not typical• Why?• (e.g., Babcock et al., 2008; Chen et al., 2007; Clahsen et al., 2010; Coughlin & Tremblay,
to appear; Hopp, 2006, 2010; Jiang, 2004, 2007; Keating, 2009; Lew-Williams & Fernald, 2007; Neubauer & White, 2009; Sagarra & Herschensohn, 2010; Sato & Felser, 2008; Silva & Clahsen, 2008)
3
Proposed ExplanationsProposed Explanations
• Cognitive Processing Hypothesis (CPH) (McDonald, 2006; see also Hopp, 2010)
o Relative to native speakers, L2 learners have
• Lower L2 working memory (WM) capacity• Poorer L2 decoding abilities• Slower L2 processing speed
What about general L2 proficiency and general WM capacity?
All correlated with L2 proficiencyAll correlated with L2 proficiency
4
Proposed ExplanationsProposed Explanations
• Cognitive accounts:Quantitative (computational) difference
• Shallow Structure Hypothesis:Qualitative (representational) difference
• Declarative/Procedural Model:Qualitative-to-quantitative difference
5
Event-Related Potentials (ERPs)Event-Related Potentials (ERPs)
• Can shed light on the qualitative vs. quantitative difference
o (e.g., graphs from Osterhout et al., 2006, p. 204; Friederici, Steinhauer, & Frisch, 1999; Friederici, 2002; Hahne & Friederici, 1999, 2001; Hagoort & Brown, 1999; Kaan et al., 2000; Kutas & Hillyard, 1980; Osterhout, Bersick, & McLaughlin, 1997; Osterhout & Holcomb, 1992; Osterhout & Mobley, 1995; Steinhauer, Halter, & Friederici, 1999)
5
Lexical/semantic processing Morphosyntactic/grammatical processing
6
Event-Related Potentials (ERPs)Event-Related Potentials (ERPs)
• Left anterior negativity(LAN)o phrase structure and
morphosyntax violations are often associated with a left anterior negativity effect
o index increased working memory load stemming from the storage of syntactic dependencies in working memory (e.g. Cowles, 2003; Kluender & Kutas, 1993; Münte, Schiltz, & Kutas, 1998)
(e.g., figures from Neville et al., 1991; Friederici, Pfeifer, & Hahne, 1993; Kluender & Kutas, 1993; Münte, Heinze, Matzke, Wieringa, & Johannes, 1998; Osterhout & Holcomb, 1992)
7
• Proficiency effects on sensitivity to agreement violations (inflectional morphology)
o Artificial language learning: with language training, N400 P600
o (e.g., Morgan-Short et al., 2010)
o Real language learning: with increasing proficiency, N400 P600
o (e.g., Bowden et al., 2007; Hahne et al., 2006; Osterhout et al., 2006; Rossi et al., 2006; Steinhauer et al., 2006; Gillon Dowens, Vergara, Barber, & Carreiras, 2010; McLaughlin, Osterhout, & Kim, 2004; McLaughlin, Tanner, Pitkänen, Frenck-Mestre, Inoue, Valentine, & Osterhout, 2010; Tanner, Osterhout, & Herschensohn, 2009; Ojima, Nakata, & Kakigi, 2005)
Event-Related Potentials (ERPs)Event-Related Potentials (ERPs)
8
Focus MarkingFocus Marking
• Focus indicates something new or relevant about the topic
• Focus is marked in different ways across languages (Lambrecht 1994, 2001)
• English: syntactically word accent• French: syntactically word accent
9
Focus MarkingFocus Marking
10
• LANs and focus structureo LANs for contrastive focus compared to informational focuso Interpreted as an index of increased WM load as the set of
referents is kept active in WM (Cowles, 2003)
o Instead of fully left lateralized, broadly distributedo This (L)(A)N is found in L1 French; L2 proficiency found to
modulate effect in L2 French (Reichle, 2010; Reichle & Birdsong, under revision)
• Since focal status must be kept active in WM, we predicted a similar LAN for licensed informational focus compared to no focus
Focus MarkingFocus Marking
11
• Syntax-discourse interfaceo Sorace has proposed that phenomena at the syntax-
discourse interface can pose problems for near-native L2 learners (e.g. Sorace, 2000; Sorace, 2003; Sorace & Serratrice, 2009)
• Thus, this type of focus marking in L2 French may be difficult for learners
Focus MarkingFocus Marking
12
Present StudyPresent Study
• Proficiency may not be the only factor in determining whether L2 learners show sensitivity to focus structure
• Aims of this studyo Determine whether Cognitive Processing
Hypothesis can account for L2 learners’ ERP signatures
o Can WM capacity explain individual variability?
13
Present StudyPresent Study
• Hypotheses:
1. In discourse contexts where focus is licensed, an LAN would index the increased WM load required to track the focal referent across discourse, compared to sentences with no preceding focus marking.
2. These LANs would be modulated by WM capacity and L2 proficiency.
14
ParticipantsParticipants
•10 English L2 learners of French (mean age: 22)
•7 L1 French controls (mean age: 26)
English cloze test: Brown (1980)French cloze test: Tremblay (2011); Tremblay & Garrison (2010)
15
MaterialsMaterials
• 4 conditions (36 sentences/condition)
o 25% of sentences followed by a true-or-false comprehension question
16
WM TasksWM Tasks
• Adapted from Waters & Caplan (1996)• Similar sentences, but different lexical
items and different words to recall• Control for frequency and length of the
lexical items to be recalled• (for details, see Coughlin & Tremblay, 2012)
• Dependent variables: word recall in French and Englisho Correlate between the two languageso Do not correlate with proficiency
17
ProceduresProcedures
Session 1•ERP session in the L2•WM task in the L2•Cloze test in the L2•Language background questionnaire
Session 1•ERP session in the L2•WM task in the L2•Cloze test in the L2•Language background questionnaire
Session 2•ERP session in the L1•WM task in the L1
Session 2•ERP session in the L1•WM task in the L1
18
Data AnalysisData Analysis
• Time window for negativity: 300-500 ms.• ANOVAs:
2 (Condition) x 3 (Laterality) x 3 (Anteriority)
• Linear regressions between individual variables and effect of negativity/positivity
19
ResultsResultsL1 English
Licensed: Who is it exactly who makes the soup?Extraneous: Who makes the soup?Target sentence: It is the chef who makes the soup.
20
ResultsResultsL1 English
Licensed: Who is it exactly who makes the soup?Extraneous: Who makes the soup?Target sentence: It is the chef who makes the soup.
Condition * Hemisphere: p < .01Condition * Anteriority: p = .07
21
ResultsResultsL1 English
Licensed: Who is it exactly who makes the soup?Extraneous: Who makes the soup?Target sentence: It is the chef who makes the soup.
Condition * Hemisphere * EngWordSpan: p = .06
22
ResultsResultsL2 French
Licensed: Qui c’est qui fait la soupe?Extraneous: Qui fait la soupe?Target sentence: C’est le cuisinier qui fait la soupe.
23
ResultsResultsL2 French
Licensed: Qui c’est qui fait la soupe?Extraneous: Qui fait la soupe?Target sentence: C’est le cuisinier qui fait la soupe.
Condition: p = .1
24
ResultsResultsL2 French
Licensed: Qui c’est qui fait la soupe?Extraneous: Qui fait la soupe?Target sentence: C’est le cuisinier qui fait la soupe.
F3, Fz: Condition*Language*Site, p = .088
25
DiscussionDiscussion
• English L2 learners of Frencho Quantitively different in the L1 as a function of
WM capacityo Qualitatively the same ERP effect (LAN) in L1
and L2, but with different distributiono In L2, trended towards a significant negativity
effect but did not display a significant effect at the group level
o This marginal negativity was widespread rather than anterior or lateralized, as it was in the L1
26
DiscussionDiscussion
• English L2 learners of Frencho Consistent with findings that L2 LANs are not
fully localized (laterality/anteriority) until higher levels of proficiency (e.g. Steinhauer et al., 2009)
o Consistent with notion that processing factors such as WM capacity quantitatively modulate brain signatures in the L1, but no direct evidence for the L2 processing account put forth by McDonald (2006)
o Reinforce the notion that phenomena at the syntax-pragmatics interface are likely to pose processing difficulties in the L2
27
DiscussionDiscussion
• English L2 learners of Frencho In L1 English, WM capacity positively correlated
with LAN effect size. Suggests that higher-WM participants better able to keep the focal status of referent in WM across sentences.
o Lack of similar correlation in L2 French suggests all learners encountered processing difficulty
o Marginal Language*Condition interaction at anterior sites suggests quantitative difference in effect size between L1 and L2
28
Further ResearchFurther Research
• Higher-proficiency English L2 learners of French• Native speakers of English in a French-speaking
environment• To test other aspects of Cognitive Processing
Hypothesis, look at other individual variables that might correlate with quantitative ERP differences
• Test other areas of morphosyntactic processing, such as SV agreement (Reichle, Tremblay, & Coughlin, to appear; Reichle, Tremblay, Frenck-Mestre, & Coughlin, in progress)
29
Merci!Merci!
30
AcknowledgmentsAcknowledgments
• All the research participants at NIU• NIU Center for the Study of Family Violence and
Sexual Assault• NIU Center for the Interdisciplinary Study of
Language and Literacy• University of Illinois Humanities/Arts Scholarship
Support