what makes second language learning so difficult? natasha tokowicz

What Makes Second Language Learning So Difficult?

Natasha Tokowicz

Difficulties in Adult Second Language Learning

• A lot of information to learn

• Embarrassment at speaking languageDifferences between the new language and

your native language(e.g., The Competition Model, MacWhinney & Bates, 1989)

So, Why Learn Another Language?

So, Why Learn Another Language?

QuickTime™ and a decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

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

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

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

Connecting Meanings to Labels

• Initially, concepts are strongly connected to L1 words

• Eventually concepts must get connected to L2 words for comprehension or production

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

Conceptual Salience

Highconceptual

salience

Lowconceptual

salience

Distributed Feature ModelDe Groot (1992)

L1lexical(word)level

conceptual(meaning)

level

lexical (word)level

conceptual(meaning)

level

Concrete WordsCognate Translations L2

L1: First LanguageL2: Second Language

L1 Abstract WordsNoncognate Translations

L2

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

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

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

Ambiguity at Its Worst: “Trunk”

“achterbak” or “kofferbak”“romp”

“stam” or “boomstronk”

“slurf”

Experiment 1

• What happens when meanings differ? • Different consequences depending on type

of multiple translations– synonyms– multiple meanings

• Translation Task

+

cat

“gato”

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

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

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

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)

Data Analysis of Experiment 1

• Hierarchical regression analysis

• Covaried effects of word length and frequency

• Directionality taken into account– Data collapsed across direction

Results of Experiment 1

Low High

800

900

1000

1100

1200

One Meaning, One Form for Meaning Selected

Two Meanings, One Form for Meaning Selected

One Meaning, Two Forms for Meaning Selected

Conceptual Salience

Estimated Translation Latency (ms)

• 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

Accuracy Data: Experiment 1

• Unambiguous words show CS effect

• High CS words with multiple meanings lower in accuracy

Low High0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100One Meaning, One Form for Meaning Selected

Two Meanings, One Form for Meaning Selected

One Meaning, Two Forms for Meaning Selected

Conceptual Salience

Estimated Accuracy (%)

Tokowicz & KrollModel of Language Production

• Adapted from Poulisse & Bongaerts (1994)

• Stages of language production

• Sources of competition

Tokowicz & Kroll Model

MeaningLevel

WordLevel

strawberry “aardbei”

door strawberry raspberry deur aardbei framboos

Tokowicz & Kroll Model

MeaningLevel

WordLevel

strawberry “aardbei”

door strawberry raspberry deur aardbei framboos

Tokowicz & Kroll Model

MeaningLevel

WordLevel

strawberry “aardbei”

door strawberry raspberry deur aardbei framboos

Tokowicz & Kroll Model

MeaningLevel

WordLevel

strawberry “aardbei”

door strawberry raspberry deur aardbei framboos

Tokowicz & Kroll Model

MeaningLevel

WordLevel

strawberry “aardbei”

door strawberry raspberry deur aardbei framboos

Tokowicz & Kroll Model

MeaningLevel

WordLevel

strawberry “aardbei”

door strawberry raspberry deur aardbei framboos

Tokowicz & Kroll ModelMultiple Forms

MeaningLevel

WordLevel

throat “strot”

door throat mouth deur strot keel

Tokowicz & Kroll ModelMultiple Forms

MeaningLevel

WordLevel

throat “strot”

door throat mouth deur strot keel

Tokowicz & Kroll ModelMultiple Forms

MeaningLevel

WordLevel

throat “strot”

door throat mouth deur strot keel

Tokowicz & Kroll ModelMultiple Forms

MeaningLevel

WordLevel

throat “strot”

door throat mouth deur strot keel

Tokowicz & Kroll ModelMultiple Forms

MeaningLevel

WordLevel

throat “strot”

door throat mouth deur strot keel

competition

Tokowicz & Kroll ModelMultiple Forms

MeaningLevel

WordLevel

throat “strot”

door throat mouth deur strot keel

Tokowicz & Kroll ModelMultiple Meanings

MeaningLevel

WordLevel

calf “kuit”

door calf thigh calf cow deur dij kuit koe

Tokowicz & Kroll ModelMultiple Meanings

MeaningLevel

WordLevel

calf “kuit”

door calf thigh calf cow deur dij kuit koe

Tokowicz & Kroll ModelMultiple Meanings

MeaningLevel

WordLevel

calf “kuit”

door calf thigh calf cow deur dij kuit koe

Tokowicz & Kroll ModelMultiple Meanings

MeaningLevel

WordLevel

calf “kuit”

door calf thigh calf cow deur dij kuit koe

competition

Tokowicz & Kroll ModelMultiple Meanings

MeaningLevel

WordLevel

calf “kuit”

door calf thigh calf cow deur dij kuit koe

Tokowicz & Kroll ModelMultiple Meanings

MeaningLevel

WordLevel

calf “kuit”

door calf thigh calf cow deur dij kuit koe

Interim Summary

• Multiple forms create competition

• Multiple meanings create competition if simultaneously active

• Conceptual salience interacts with type of multiple translations

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

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?

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

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.

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.

Predictions-Experiment 2

• If L1 grammar interferes with L2 grammar:– “yes” responses

Should see difference between “both” and “Spanish” conditions

– “no” responsesShould see difference between “neither” and

“English” conditions

Should be difficult to reject English sentences

Reaction Time Data-Experiment 2

• RT corrected for length of sentences

• More difficult to reject English sentences

• No difference between Spanish and Both

Accuracy Data-Experiment 2

• Accuracy corrected for length

• More accurate at rejecting English sentences

• False alarms in Neither condition

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?

Event-Related Brain Potentials

• Temporally sensitive measure of on-line processing

• Derived from the electroencephalographic (EEG) record

• Reflect synchronous depolarization of populations of neurons

ERP Setup

• Electrodes are placed painlessly on the surface of the scalp

• These electrodes record brain activity– Background activity

– Stimulus-locked activity

ERP Components

• Grammatical violations elicit a “P600” response– A positive-going deflection in voltage that

occurs between approximately 500 and 700 ms post stimulus

Legend:

Osterhout & Nicol (1999)

ERP Components

• Semantic violations elicit a “N400” response– A negative-going deflection in voltage that

occurs between approximately 300 and 500 ms post stimulus

Legend:

Osterhout & Nicol (1999)

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

The

old

blender

doesn’t

crushing

ice

cubes.

?

Predictions

• Ungrammatical sentences will elicit a P600 response compared to grammatical sentences– Significantly more positive amplitude between

500 and 700 ms post-stimulus

Acceptability in English

N400

P600

Acceptable Unacceptable

The old blender doesn’t crushing ice cubes.

Acceptability in Spanish

Acceptable Unacceptable

P600?

N400

Él trabajando cada día.

Summary

• Why is second language learning so difficult?– Differences between the two languages

• Multiple levels– Multiple forms

– Multiple meanings

– Different grammatical constructions

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?

Acknowledgments

• Brian MacWhinney

• Judith Kroll

• NIH

• NSF

• Sigma Xi

• Penn State RGSO