Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T14:08:37.530Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Automatic semantic integration during L2 sentential reading

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 May 2017

SUNYOUNG AHN Open the ORCID record for SUNYOUNG AHN [Opens in a new window]  and
NAN JIANG
SUNYOUNG AHN*
Affiliation:
Harvard University
NAN JIANG
Affiliation:
University of Maryland
*
Address for correspondence: Sunyoung Ahn, Department of East Asian Languages and Civilizations, Harvard University, 5 Bryant Street, Cambridge, MA[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Research has shown that L1 speakers can routinely generate mental imagery corresponding to sentence meaning in reading comprehension. This may reflect an efficient process of semantic integration in which information from the input combines with an individual's linguistic and real world knowledge to form a semantic representation of a sentence. Semantic integration in L2 reading has received limited attention. The present study attempted to examine the activation of mental imagery in reading among L2 speakers and thus to assess the efficiency of semantic integration during L2 reading. L2 Korean learners were tested on a sentence-based picture recognition task in which they were asked to respond to a picture immediately after reading a sentence related to the picture. Results showed that L2 Korean learners resembled native Korean speakers in their ability to generate mental imageries that reflected subtle semantic differences in sentence input.

Keywords

semantic integrationembodied cognitionmental imageryL2 readingL2 Korean learners
Type
Research Article
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 21 , Issue 2 , March 2018 , pp. 375 - 383
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

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.)

Footnotes

*This study was supported, in whole or in part, by funding from the Ann G. Wylie Dissertation Fellowship and the Second Language Acquisition program at the University of Maryland. Any findings and conclusions expressed in this material are our own and do not necessarily reflect the views of any of our institutions. We thank Dr. Sunhwa Jeong, previously at Chung–Ang University; Dr. Young–Joo Kim, Kyung Hee University; Dr. Mark Peterson, Brigham Young University; and Dr. Youngkyu Kim, Ewha Womans University for crucial help with data collection. Finally, we thank two anonymous reviewers for support and comments on the earlier version of this manuscript.

References

Ahn, S., Jiang, N., & Osthus, P. (2012). Mental imagery in second language processing. Presented at the Second Language Research Forum 2012, Pittsburgh, PA.Google Scholar
Ardal, S., Donald, M. W., Meuter, R., Muldrew, S., & Luce, M. (1990). Brain responses to semantic incongruity in bilinguals. Brain and Language, 39, 187–205.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barsalou, L.W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577–660.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bates, D. M. (2005). Fitting linear mixed models in R. R News, 5, 27–30.Google Scholar
Coppens, L. C., Gootjes, L., & Zwaan, R. A. (2012). Incidental picture exposure affects later reading: evidence from the N400. Brain and Language, 122, 64–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cunnings, I. (2012). An overview of mixed-effects statistical models for second language researchers. Second Language Research, 28, 369–382.Google Scholar
Forster, K. I., & Forster, J. C. (2003). DMDX: A windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35, 116–124.Google Scholar
Foucart, A., Romero-Rivas, C., Gort, L. B., & Costa, A. (2016). Discourse comprehension in L2: Making sense of what is not explicitly said. Brain and Language, 163, 32–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foucart, A., Martin, C. D., Moreno, E. M., & Costa, A. (2014). Can bilinguals see it coming? Word anticipation in L2 sentence reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40, 1461–1469.Google Scholar
Gernsbacher, M. A. (1990). Language comprehension as structure building. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hahne, A. (2001). What's different in second-language processing? Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 30, 251–266.Google Scholar
Hahne, A., & Friederici, A. D. (2001). Processing a second language: Late learners’ comprehension mechanisms as revealed by event-related brain potentials. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4, 123–141.Google Scholar
Hu, G., & Jiang, N. (2011). Semantic integration in listening comprehension in a second language: Evidence from cross-modal priming. In Trofimovich, P. & McDonough, K. (eds.), Applying priming methods to L2 learning, teaching and research, pp. 199–218. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Jiang, N. (2012). Conducting reaction time research in second language studies. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kutas, M., & Kluender, R. (1994). What is who violating? A reconsideration of linguistic violations in light of event-related brain potentials. In Heinze, H. J., Munte, T. F, & Mangun, G. R. (eds.), Cognitive electrophysiology, pp. 183–210. Boston: Birkhauser.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee-Ellis, S. (2009). The development and validation of a Korean C-Test using Rasch Analysis. Language Testing, 26, 245–274.Google Scholar
Martin, C. D., Thierry, G., Kuipers, J.-R., Boutonnet, B., Foucart, A., & Costa, A. (2013). Bilinguals reading in their second language do not predict upcoming words as native readers do. Journal of Memory and Language, 69, 574–588.Google Scholar
Ojima, S., Nakata, H., & Kakigi, R. (2005). An ERP study of second language learning after childhood: Effects of proficiency. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17, 1212–1228.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Osterhout, L., McLaughlin, J., Pitkänen, I., Frenck-Mestre, C., & Molinaro, N. (2006). Novice learners, longitudinal designs, and event-related potentials: A means for exploring the neurocognition of second language processing. Language Learning, 56, 199–230.Google Scholar
Pecher, D., & Zwaan, R. A. (2005). Grounding of cognition: The role of perception and action in memory, language, and thinking. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pecher, D., Van Dantzig, S., Zwaan, R. A., & Zeelenberg, R. (2009). Language comprehenders retain implied shape and orientation of objects. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 1108–1114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pickering, M. J., Clifton, C., & Crocker, M. W. (2000). Architectures and mechanisms in sentence comprehension. In Crocker, M. W., Pickering, M. J. and Clifton, C. (eds.), Architectures and mechanisms in language processing, pp. 1–28. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Core Team, R. (2012). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing (Version 2.15.3) [Software]. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org/ Google Scholar
Snodgrass, J. G., & Vanderwart, M. (1980). A standardized set of 260 pictures: Norms for name agreement, familiarity and visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory, 6, 174–215.Google ScholarPubMed
Stanfield, R. A., & Zwaan, R. A. (2001). The effect of implied orientation derived from verbal context on picture recognition. Psychological Science, 12, 153–156.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taylor, L. J., & Zwaan, R. A. (2009). Action in cognition: The case of language. Language & Cognition, 1, 45–58.Google Scholar
Weberâ–Fox, C. M., & Neville, H. J. (1996). Maturational constraints on functional specializations for language processing: ERP and behavioral evidence in bilingual speakers. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 8, 231–256.Google Scholar
Wicha, N. Y. Y., Moreno, E. M., & Kutas, M. (2003). Expecting gender: An event related brain potential study on the role of grammatical gender in comprehending a line drawing within a written sentence in Spanish. Cortex, 39, 483–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwaan, R. A., & Yaxley, R. H. (2003). Spatial iconicity affects semantic–relatedness judgments. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 954–958.Google Scholar
Zwaan, R. A., Stanfield, R. A., & Yaxley, R. H. (2002). Language comprehenders mentally represent the shapes of objects. Psychological Science, 13, 168–171.Google Scholar