Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-frp75 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-28T12:50:21.765Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Acquiring L2 sentence comprehension: A longitudinal study of word monitoring in noise*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2012

GEORGINA OLIVER ,
MARIANNE GULLBERG ,
FRAUKE HELLWIG ,
HOLGER MITTERER  and
PETER INDEFREY
GEORGINA OLIVER
Affiliation:
Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen & University College London, Department for Speech, Hearing and Phonetic Sciences
MARIANNE GULLBERG
Affiliation:
Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen & Lund University, Centre for Languages and Literature
FRAUKE HELLWIG
Affiliation:
Radboud University Nijmegen, Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour & Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Institut für Sprache und Information
HOLGER MITTERER
Affiliation:
Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen
PETER INDEFREY*
Affiliation:
Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen & Radboud University Nijmegen, Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour & Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Institut für Sprache und Information
*
Address for correspondence: Peter Indefrey, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Institut für Sprache und Information, Universitätsstr. 1, D-40225 Düsseldorf, GermanyPeter.Indefrey@phil.uni-duesseldorf.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study investigated the development of second language online auditory processing with ab initio German learners of Dutch. We assessed the influence of different levels of background noise and different levels of semantic and syntactic target word predictability on word-monitoring latencies. There was evidence of syntactic, but not lexical-semantic, transfer from the L1 to the L2 from the onset of L2 learning. An initial stronger adverse effect of noise on syntactic compared to phonological processing disappeared after two weeks of learning Dutch suggesting a change towards more robust syntactic processing. At the same time the L2 learners started to exploit semantic constraints predicting upcoming target words. The use of semantic predictability remained less efficient compared to native speakers until the end of the observation period. The improvement and the persistent problems in semantic processing we found were independent of noise and rather seem to reflect the need for more context information to build up online semantic representations in L2 listening.

Keywords

sentence processingsecond languagenoiseword monitoringlongitudinal

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 15 , Issue 4 , October 2012 , pp. 841 - 857
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

This research was supported by the Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (NWO). We would like to thank an anonymous reviewer and Jan Hulstijn for their helpful comments.

References

Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R., & van Rijn, H. (1998). The CELEX Dutch database. Release N32. http://www.mpi.nl/world/celex (accessed October 10, 2004).Google Scholar
Bradlow, A. R., & Bent, T. (2002). The clear speech effect for non-native listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 112 (1), 272–284.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Caramazza, A., & Brones, I. (1979). Lexical access in bilinguals. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 13, 212–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006). How native-like is non-native language processing? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10 (12), 564–570.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Craig, C. H. (1988). Effect of three conditions of predictability on word-recognition performance. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 31, 588–592.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cutler, A., Cooke, M., Lecumberri, M. L., & Pasveer, D. (2007). L2 consonant identification in noise: Cross-language comparisons. Presented at the Interspeech ’07, Antwerp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cutler, A., Weber, A., Smits, R., & Cooper, N. (2004). Patterns of English phoneme confusions by native and non-native listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 116 (6), 3668–3678.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davidson, D. J., & Indefrey, P. (2009). Electrophysiological responses to crossed versus nested structures in German learners of Dutch. Language and Cognitive Processes, 24, 1335–1369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Groot, A. M. B. (1992). Determinants of word translation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 18, 1001–1018.Google Scholar
De Groot, A. M. B., & Nas, G. L. (1991). Lexical representation of cognates and noncognates in compound bilinguals. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 90–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2001). Automaticity and automatization. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Cognition and second language instruction, pp. 125–151. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dijkstra, T., Grainger, J., & van Heuven, W. J. B. (1999). Recognition of cognates and interlingual homographs: The neglected role of phonology. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 496–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Favreau, M., & Segalowitz, N. S. (1983). Automatic and controlled processes in the first-and second-language reading of fluent bilinguals. Memory and Cognition, 11 (6), 565–574.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Florentine, M. (1985). Speech perception in noise by fluent, non-native listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 77, s106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Florentine, M., Buus, S., Scharf, B., & Canevet, G. (1984). Speech reception thresholds in noise for native and non-native listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 75, s84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frenck-Mestre, C. (2005). Eye-movement recording as a tool for studying syntactic processing in a second language: A review of methodologies and experimental findings. Second Language Research, 21, 175–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garcia Lecumberri, M. L., & Cooke, M. (2006). Effect of masker type on native and non-native consonant perception in noise. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 119 (4), 2445–2454.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gong, J. (2006). Comparing non-native and native speech perception in noise. Masters thesis, University of Sheffield.Google Scholar
Gullberg, M., & Indefrey, P. (2003). Language background questionnaire. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. http://www.mpi.nl/research/researchprojects/the-dynamics-of-multilingual-processing (accessed January 30, 2005).Google Scholar
Hoen, M., Meunier, F., Grataloup, C.-L., Pellegrino, F., Grimault, N., Perrin, F., Perrot, X., & Collet, L. (2007). Phonetic and lexical interferences in informational masking during speech-in-speech comprehension. Speech Communication, 49, 905–916.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hulstijn, J. H. (2010). Measuring second language proficiency. In Blom, E. & Unsworth, S. (eds.), Experimental methods in language acquisition research (EMLAR), pp. 185–199. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalikow, D. N., Stevens, K. N., & Elliott, L. L. (1977). Development of a test of speech intelligibility in noise using sentence materials with controlled word predictability. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 61 (5), 1337–1351.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kilborn, K. (1992). On-line integration of grammatical information in a second language. In Harris, R. (ed.), Cognitive processing in bilinguals, pp. 337–350. Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, W., & Tyler, L. K. (1980). The temporal structure of spoken language understanding. Cognition, 8, 1–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mayo, L., Florentine, M., & Buus, S. (1997). Age of second-language acquisition and perception of speech in noise. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 40, 686–693.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nabelek, A. K., & Donahue, A. M. (1984). Perception of consonants in reverberation by native and non-native listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 75, 632–634.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Newell, A., & Rosenbloom, P. S. (1981). Mechanisms of skill acquisition and the law of practice. In Anderson, J. R. (ed.), Cognitive skills and their acquisition, pp. 1–55. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Odlin, T. (1989). Language transfer. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Odlin, T. (2003). Cross-linguistic influence. In Doughty, C. J. & Long, M. H. (eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition, pp. 436–486. Malden, MA: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, L., Gullberg, M., & Indefrey, P. (2008). On-line pronoun resolution in L2 discourse: L1 influence and general learner effects. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30 (3), 333–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roussohatzaki, M., & Florentine, M. (1990). Perception of American-English in noise by Greek listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 87, s72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schepens, J., Dijkstra, T., & Grootjen, F. (2012). Distributions of cognates in Europe as based on Levenshtein distance. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15 (1), 157–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segalowitz, N., & Hulstijn, J. (2005). Automaticity in bilingualism and second language learning. In Kroll, J. F. & De Groot, A. M. B. (eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches, pp. 371–388. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Segalowitz, N. S., & Segalowitz, S. J. (1993). Skilled performance, practice, and the differentiation of speed-up from automatization effects: Evidence from second language word recognition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 14, 369–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segalowitz, S. J., Segalowitz, N. S., & Wood, A. G. (1998). Assessing the development of automaticity in second language word recognition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 19, 53–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharwood-Smith, M., & Kellerman, E. (1986). Crosslinguistic influence in second language acquisition: An introduction. In Kellerman, E. & Sharwood Smith, M. (eds.), Crosslinguistic influence in second language acquisition, pp. 1–9. New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Shi, L.-F. (2010). Perception of acoustically degraded sentences in bilingual listeners who differ in age of English acquisition. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 53, 821–835.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shimizu, T., Makishima, K., Yoshida, M., & Yamagishi, H. (2002). Effect of background noise on perception of English speech for Japanese listeners. Auris Nasus Larynx, 29, 121–125.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed