natasha.ppt
- 1. What Makes Second Language Learning So Difficult? Natasha Tokowicz
- 2. Difficulties in Adult Second Language Learning • A lot of information to learn • Embarrassment at speaking language Differences between the new language and your native language (e.g., The Competition Model, MacWhinney & Bates, 1989)
- 3. So, Why Learn Another Language?
- 4. So, Why Learn Another Language?
- 5. So, Why Learn Another Language? • Communicate with people of different language backgrounds – Especially an important message! • Identify with another group • Learn about another culture • Learn more about your own language
- 6. What factors make adult second language learning difficult? • Exp. 1: Meaning differences across languages – Multiple translations-more than one way to say something • Exp. 2: Syntactic differences across languages – Grammatical constructions that differ • Experiment in progress – ERP techniques
- 7. Current Knowledge Both Helps and Hurts • Adult second language learners: – Full set of concepts – Full set of labels for these concepts – Full grammatical system – Full system for contrasting sounds • Sometimes these will transfer appropriately – E.g., same or similar labels (cognates): e.g., color-color Mismatches between languages create problems
- 8. Connecting Meanings to Labels • Initially, concepts are strongly connected to L1 words • Eventually concepts must get connected to L2 words for comprehension or production
- 9. Two Labels for the Same Meaning? • Most models assume the concepts activated by the two languages are the same – Exception: Distributed Feature Model • Word concreteness – cat – health • Cognate status of translation pair – color-color – house-casa
- 11. Distributed Feature Model De Groot (1992)
- 12. Why Else Meanings May Differ • Different lexical concepts – “sibling” in Dutch = broers en zussen (brothers and sisters) • Culturally-specific concepts – “gezellig” in Dutch = ??? • Culturally-distinct meanings – “sombrero”, “iglesia” Broadness of application of terms in the two languages--semantic boundaries
- 13. Prepositions (Ijaz, 1986) Semantic boundaries differ across languages – German learners of English under-emphasize contact and over-emphasize movement for “on” • close translation equivalent of “on” in German is “auf”, which can denote a motional meaning like the English word “up” • Result is multiple translations, which are problematic for the L2 learner
- 14. Sources of Multiple Translations • Imprecise correspondence across languages • Synonymy – sofá sofa or couch • Ambiguity within a language – glass vidrio or vaso in Spanish – to be ser or estar in Spanish
- 15. Ambiguity at Its Worst: “Trunk” “achterbak” or “kofferbak” “romp” “stam” or “boomstronk” “slurf”
- 16. Experiment 1 • What happens when meanings differ? • Different consequences depending on type of multiple translations – synonyms – multiple meanings • Translation Task
- 19. “gato”
- 20. Method of Experiment 1 • Participants: adult L2 learners – 24 Dutch-English Speakers • Translated words aloud in both directions – L1 to L2 – L2 to L1 • Recorded responses – Accuracy – Reaction time for correct responses
- 21. Design • Manipulated – Number and type of translations • Number of meanings • Number of forms for meaning selected – “Conceptual salience” (CS) • A composite measure of concreteness and context availability
- 22. Stimuli • Number of translations norms – Number of translations – Number of meanings translated • E.g., if said “slurf”, translated snout meaning • Semantic similarity ratings – How similar in meaning are these words? • All pairs were considered translation equivalents • Form similarity ratings – How similar are these words in spelling/sound? • All pairs were considered translation equivalents
- 23. Predictions for Experiment 1 • High conceptual salience words faster than low conceptual salience words • Multiple forms slower than one form – Need to select one to say (e.g., vaso, vidrio) • Multiple meanings slower than one meaning – Need to select one to translate (e.g., trunk)
- 24. Data Analysis of Experiment 1 • Hierarchical regression analysis • Covaried effects of word length and frequency • Directionality taken into account – Data collapsed across direction
- 25. Results of Experiment 1 • Unambiguous words show CS effect • Cost for multiple forms similar for high and low CS words • Cost for multiple meanings only for high CS words
- 26. Accuracy Data: Experiment 1 • Unambiguous words show CS effect • High CS words with multiple meanings lower in accuracy
- 27. Tokowicz & Kroll Model of Language Production • Adapted from Poulisse & Bongaerts (1994) • Stages of language production • Sources of competition
- 28. Tokowicz & Kroll Model Meaning Level Word Level strawberry “aardbei” door strawberry raspberry deur aardbei framboos
- 29. Tokowicz & Kroll Model Meaning Level Word Level strawberry “aardbei” door strawberry raspberry deur aardbei framboos
- 30. Tokowicz & Kroll Model Meaning Level Word Level strawberry “aardbei” door strawberry raspberry deur aardbei framboos
- 31. Tokowicz & Kroll Model Meaning Level Word Level strawberry “aardbei” door strawberry raspberry deur aardbei framboos
- 32. Tokowicz & Kroll Model Meaning Level Word Level strawberry “aardbei” door strawberry raspberry deur aardbei framboos
- 33. Tokowicz & Kroll Model Meaning Level Word Level strawberry “aardbei” door strawberry raspberry deur aardbei framboos
- 35. Tokowicz & Kroll Model Multiple Forms Meaning Level Word Level throat “strot” door throat mouth deur strot keel
- 36. Tokowicz & Kroll Model Multiple Forms Meaning Level Word Level throat “strot” door throat mouth deur strot keel
- 37. Tokowicz & Kroll Model Multiple Forms Meaning Level Word Level throat “strot” door throat mouth deur strot keel
- 38. Tokowicz & Kroll Model Multiple Forms Meaning Level Word Level throat “strot” door throat mouth deur strot keel
- 39. Tokowicz & Kroll Model Multiple Forms Meaning Level Word Level throat “strot” door throat mouth deur strot keel competition
- 40. Tokowicz & Kroll Model Multiple Forms Meaning Level Word Level throat “strot” door throat mouth deur strot keel
- 42. Tokowicz & Kroll Model Multiple Meanings Meaning Level Word Level calf “kuit” door calf thigh calf cow deur dij kuit koe
- 43. Tokowicz & Kroll Model Multiple Meanings Meaning Level Word Level calf “kuit” door calf thigh calf cow deur dij kuit koe
- 44. Tokowicz & Kroll Model Multiple Meanings Meaning Level Word Level calf “kuit” door calf thigh calf cow deur dij kuit koe
- 45. Tokowicz & Kroll Model Multiple Meanings Meaning Level Word Level calf “kuit” door calf thigh calf cow deur dij kuit koe competition
- 46. Tokowicz & Kroll Model Multiple Meanings Meaning Level Word Level calf “kuit” door calf thigh calf cow deur dij kuit koe
- 47. Tokowicz & Kroll Model Multiple Meanings Meaning Level Word Level calf “kuit” door calf thigh calf cow deur dij kuit koe
- 48. Interim Summary • Multiple forms create competition • Multiple meanings create competition if simultaneously active • Conceptual salience interacts with type of multiple translations
- 49. Extensions • Add sentence or paragraph context – Reduce or eliminate conceptual salience effect – Reduce meaning effect – Not reduce form effect • Developmental change – Less proficient learners will show less competition
- 50. Competition at Other Levels of Language Production • Start out like L1 and shift to L2 – Like prepositions (e.g., McDonald, 1987) • Does the L1 really interfere with L2 grammatical processing?
- 51. Experiment 2: Grammaticality Judgment • What happens when the two languages are in direct conflict? • 14 Native English speakers learning Spanish as a second language • Read grammatical and ungrammatical sentences in Spanish • Push button responses regarding grammaticality
- 52. Grammatically Acceptable Stimuli • Correct in Spanish (not English) – Se lavó el coche. *Was washed the car. • Correct in both languages – El coche fue lavado. The car was washed.
- 53. Grammatically Unacceptable Stimuli • Correct in English (not Spanish) – *El coche estuvo lavado. The car was washed. • Correct in neither language – *El coche lavado. *The car washed.
- 54. Predictions-Experiment 2 • If L1 grammar interferes with L2 grammar: – “yes” responses Should see difference between “both” and “Spanish” conditions – “no” responses Should see difference between “neither” and “English” conditions Should be difficult to reject English sentences
- 55. Reaction Time Data-Experiment 2 • RT corrected for length of sentences • More difficult to reject English sentences • No difference between Spanish and Both
- 56. Accuracy Data-Experiment 2 • Accuracy corrected for length • More accurate at rejecting English sentences • False alarms in Neither condition
- 57. Conclusions • Stimuli in “both” condition less familiar?, or • Accuracy in L1 leads learners to question acceptability in “Both” condition? • Good at English only, but slow Strategic effects?
- 58. Event-Related Brain Potentials • Temporally sensitive measure of on-line processing • Derived from the electroencephalographic (EEG) record • Reflect synchronous depolarization of populations of neurons
- 59. ERP Setup • Electrodes are placed painlessly on the surface of the scalp • These electrodes record brain activity – Background activity – Stimulus-locked activity
- 60. ERP Components • Grammatical violations elicit a “P600” response – A positive-going deflection in voltage that occurs between approximately 500 and 700 ms post stimulus Osterhout & Nicol (1999)
- 61. ERP Components • Semantic violations elicit a “N400” response – A negative-going deflection in voltage that occurs between approximately 300 and 500 ms post stimulus Osterhout & Nicol (1999)
- 62. Grammaticality Judgment-ERP • Native English speakers learning Spanish as a second language • Read grammatical and ungrammatical sentences in English and Spanish – Separate blocks for English and Spanish • Push button responses regarding grammaticality
- 63. The
- 65. old
- 67. blender
- 69. doesn’t
- 71. crushing
- 73. ice
- 75. cubes.
- 77. ?
- 78. Predictions • Ungrammatical sentences will elicit a P600 response compared to grammatical sentences – Significantly more positive amplitude between 500 and 700 ms post-stimulus
- 79. Acceptability in English N400 P600 Acceptable Unacceptable The old blender doesn’t crushing ice cubes.
- 80. Acceptability in Spanish Acceptable Unacceptable P600? N400 Él trabajando cada día.
- 81. Summary • Why is second language learning so difficult? – Differences between the two languages • Multiple levels – Multiple forms – Multiple meanings – Different grammatical constructions
- 82. Future Directions • On-line examination of semantic differences – E.g., The pizza was too hot to eat/*drink. • Are the effects similar for different language pairs that have more/fewer differences? • Are there competition effects in phonology? • Would context reduce the competition observed in Experiment 1?
- 83. Acknowledgments • Brian MacWhinney • Judith Kroll • NIH • NSF • Sigma Xi • Penn State RGSO