Study Guides (238,613)
Canada (115,253)
Psychology (554)
PSYC 341 (26)

LN8 brain-based evidence on CPH Steinhauer.pdf

11 Pages
Unlock Document

McGill University
PSYC 341
Richard Koestner

Outline of my talk „ Critical period hypothesis and Fundamental Difference Hypothesis in SLA How critical is the critical period in second „ ERPs in L1 + L2 language acquisition? Evidence from event- „ Recent ERP studies from our lab ((an)d others) rellatedd brraiin poottenttialls (ERRPPss)) „ AoA, L2 proficiency and L1 transfer Karsten Steinhauer „ Phonological processing: ‘appy’ or ‘happy’ ? McGill University „ Implicit and explicit L2 acquisition „ Morpho-syntax at very low L2 proficiency „ Conclusions Psych-341 12 March 2013 Age of acquisition (AoA) Effects in SLA (Second Language Acquisition) AoA-dependent differences between L1 and (late) L2 Critical Period Hypothesi(Penfield, 1957; Lennebeand 1964) Fundamental Difference Hypothesis (FDH;Bley-Vroman, 1989):2003 „ L1 (early acquired first language) „ “Due to loss of brain plasticity in childhood/puberty, „ Fast „ Automatic,language-specific (modules, UG,LAD) L1 and late L2 are learned and processed differently” „ Implicit (!), procedural[ized] 2 types of claims (controversial): „ Late L2 post CP second lagug)age) 1. Limited L2 attainment (fossilization) „ (Slow) (Birdsong, 1999; Hyltenstam & Abrahamsson, 2003; 2008, 2009) „ Less automatic, domain-general cognition 2. Neurobiological dimension of Critical period hypothesis: Different „ Explicit, declarative(even for simple structures) neurocognitive processes underlying L1 and L2 „ Age of acquisition (AoA) is critical t(around puberty: ~12-16 y) „ Especially in phonology and morpho-syntax (less so in conceptual semantics) (JoLong, 2003; Neville, 2007 etc.), 1999; Weber-Fox et al., 1996; Doughty & (Bley-Vroman, 1989; DeKeyser, 2000, 2010; M. Paradis, 2002; Pinker, Ullman, 2001; Hyltenstam & Abrahamsson, 2009) Support for the ‘critical period’ in SLA Counter-evidence „ Birdsong and Molis (2001): Replication of J&N89 with Spanish „ Johnson & Newport (1989):Chinese/Korean learners of English. learners of English. „ Age of arrival (~ age of L2 exposure) predicts final L2 attainment only up „ AoA > 17 years does predict final L2 attainment. to 17 years of age. Later exposure is not correlated with final L2 attainment (‘end state’). „ Native-like L2 attainment is not rare. „ Late learners never reached ‘native-like’ performance levels. „ Relationship L1/L2 (transfer effects) may be crucial „ White & Genesee (1996) found native-like competenceand performance in late Francophone learners of English even for stuccuresshatdd notalow forranssffeeubacenccyy)). Birdsong/Molis 2001 1 Alternative accounts for L2 age effects Current theories: L2 = L1 or L2 ≠ L1? Three possibilities for the relationship between brain „ Neurocognitive ‘entrenchment’ in L1 mechanisms for early L1 and late L2ll under di:cussion) „ Socialization in L1 (+ L1 culture) A. L2 ≠ L1 (“fundamental difference hypothesis” etc) „ Motivation to acquire an L2 (what is ‘good enough’) completely compatible with critical period hypothesis B. L2 = L1 (same mechanisms; but difficult to explain differences „ HoourrsoffL2 exxpossuree(asolue nd elate o L1ÆÆ in attainment; Æ entrenchment, motivation, other factors) dominance) „ Type of L2 exposure (e.g., class room vs. immersion) C. initially L2 ≠ L1, then L2ÆL1 … until L2 = L1 (exception) (with increasing L2 proficiency, the L2 processing changes and converges on L1 mechanisms (Birdsong, 1999; Marchman, 1993; Hakuta/Bialystok, 2000; Morgan- ! Importantly: Brain research can test these 3 hypotheses: Short et al, in press) We can directly compare L1 and L2 brain mechanisms! 7 Are L1/L2 differences inevitable? What does Neuroscience add ? „ Do highly proficient late L2 learners rely on the same (automatic/implicit) neuro-cognitive mechanisms as native speakers? „ SLA researchers reported difficulties denttiiffyiing qualliitdiifffferences iin processing (e.g., implicit vs. explicit) (e.g., Doughty, 2004) and suggested neuroscientific approaches. „ Æ fMRI and EEG/ERPs What does Neuroscience add ? What does Neuroscience add ? „ WHERE in the brain „ WHERE in the brain „ WHEN in the brain „ Brain surgery „ Brain surgery „ Disorders (even coma patients!) „ Brain scans / (f)MRI „ Brain scans / (f)MRI „ EEG (electro-encephalography) „ Pretty pictures, but slow „ Pretty pictures, but slow„ Excellent time resolution (ms) 1 pic / ~ 6 seconds 1 pic / ~ 6 seconds 500 data points / 1 second 2 What does Neuroscience add ? Research Questions + Approach: „ Do late second language (L2) learners process „ Speech/language is fast and dynamic ! their L2 differently than native-speakers? „ ~ 3 words/second (even faster in reading) „ Sound recognition, word recognition, meaning, grammar, integration „ Do L1 background and type of L2 exposure matttte? ? „ Processing dynamics in L2 learners may be different „ Approach: various experimental designs using event-related brain potentials (ERPs) „ Æ EEG (electro-encephalography) is a good technique to test this (focus of this talk) „ Main focus on (morpho-)syntax EEG / ERPs ERPs – a measure of the brain’s electrical Electroencephalography / Event-Related Potentials activity time-locked to stimulus onset • measure the brain’s neural activity time-locked to stimulus onset A happy participant • continuous online measure (real-time without delays) • excellent time resolution for a single target word (1ms)[but poor spatial resolution] • no task required; recordable at any age (newborns, coma patients) • Distinct ERP Negative components for specific polarity is cognitive processes plotted upwards ! EEG Æ Event-related brain potentials (ERPs) Violation paradigms and ERP differences Conceptual Semantics: EEG John ate broccoli at dinner. „ He spread the warm bread with butter. • N400 electrodes „ He spread the warm bread with *socks. (sensors) (Morpho-) Syntax: „ The ce-cream waaseaten. • Left-anterior -5μVV N400 „ The ice-cream was in the *eaten. negativity (LAN) „ The children play in the garden. • P600 EEG amplifier „ The children *plays in the garden. + 5μV 3 EEG Æ Event-related brain potentials (ERPs) EEG Æ Event-related brain potentials (ERPs) John ate broccoli at dinner. John ate broccoli at dinner. John ate democracyat dinner. John ate democracyat dinner. - VVμ - VVμ N400 N400 effect LaVrgge0ap of EEG amplifier EEG amplifier amplit4u0d0esef(fNe4c0t0 effects) indicate difficulties in + 5μV + 5μV integrating word meanings 300 – 500 ms For example … (slower than normal) + The pizza 4 was too hot to drink. Good or bad? 5 lexical/semantic processing difficulties: N400 N400 „ How about late L2 learners? Graded amplitudes of ERP components: the more difficult, the larger the N400 Kutas, Lindamood & Hillyard, 1984 ERPs in L1 and L2 (Weber-Fox & Neville, 1996; Hahne & Friederici, 2001) N400 „ How about ERPs for morpho-syntax? delayed N400 Lexical-semantic processing in late L2 learners seems to be very similar to that of native speakers: - slightly delayed, but involving the same brain mechanisms L1 profile for grammar (here: word order): two brain waves Correct: He hoped to enjoy the meal with friends Violation: He hoped to meal the enjoy with friends -5 μV „ And in late L2 ? Early left negativity: Assumed to reflect highly automatic Eaarrllyy lleefftt grammar processing + 5μV ngaattiivviittyy parietal CPH: Should be P600 found only in native speakers, not in late L2 learners 6 ERPs in L1 and L2 (Weber-Fox & Neville, 1996; Hahne & Friederici, 2001) State of the art … in 2001 •No ‘automatic’ LAN components in SLA N400 (Potentially no access to Broca’s area (LAD? UG?) in late L2 , instead compensatory strategies [pragmatics, delayed semantics] that elicit other, N400-like ERP components Same claims even in 2009, 2011 by Helen Neville !! N400 • BUT: Confound of AoA and proficiency in most studies (ELAN (Perani et al., 1998: fMRI evidence !) +P600 • In addition: baseline and other problems ! No effect or Æ Teasing apart AoA and proficiency: artificial small P600 language learning ! Artificial Language and ERPs (Friederici, Steinhauer & Pfeifer, 2002) Grammar of ‘BROCANTO’ (Friederici, Steinhauer & Pfeifer, 2002) Miniature Language ‘BROCANTO’ Small set of grammar rules, small vocabulary (14 words) Sentences refer to moves of a computer game Grammar rules are independent of game rules No baseline/prosody confounds! Trained group (N=28): Trained in both grammar and Trained group vocabulary Lexical tasks: 89%, SD 14 Syntactic tasks: 93%, SD 4 Control group Untrained control group (N=31): Just vocabulary training Lexical tasks: 86%, SD 5 Syntactic tasks: 58%, SD 5 “Native-like” anterior negativity and P600 in proficient No effects at all in the control group late L2 learners (even for new rules) Æ Proficiency rather than AoA determines the brain activation Data challenge CPH / FDH Replicable in natural language acquisition ??? 7 L2 profi
More Less

Related notes for PSYC 341

Log In


Don't have an account?

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.