Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T22:26:39.934Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The nature of first and second language processing: The role of cognitive control and L2 proficiency during text-level comprehension

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 July 2018

ANA PÉREZ ,
LAURA HANSEN  and
TERESA BAJO
ANA PÉREZ*
Affiliation:
University of Granada (Spain)
LAURA HANSEN*
Affiliation:
University of Granada (Spain)
TERESA BAJO
Affiliation:
University of Granada (Spain)
*
Address for correspondence: Ana Pérez and Laura Birke Hansen, Mind, Brain and Behavioral Research Centre (CIMCYC), Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Granada., C/ Profesor Clavera s/n, CIMCYC, 18011, Granada, Spain. [email protected]; [email protected]
Address for correspondence: Ana Pérez and Laura Birke Hansen, Mind, Brain and Behavioral Research Centre (CIMCYC), Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Granada., C/ Profesor Clavera s/n, CIMCYC, 18011, Granada, Spain. [email protected]; [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Text comprehension relies on high-level cognitive processes as it is the ability to revise an erroneous inference. Recent models of language processing hold that native language processing is proactive in nature (highly predictive), whereas processing seems to be weaker in the second language. However, if a prediction fails because unexpected information is encountered, reactive processing is needed to revise previous information. Twenty-four highly proficient late bilinguals were presented with narratives in L1-English and L2-Spanish. Each text demanded the revision of an initial predictive inference. Reading times and N400 amplitude suggested inferential revision is less efficient in the L2 compared to the L1. Importantly, these effects were modulated by individual differences in cognitive control and L2 proficiency. More efficient L1 comprehension was related to a balance between proactive and reactive control and lower L2 proficiency, whereas more native-like L2 comprehension was associated with a strong proactive control and higher L2 proficiency.

Keywords

late bilingualsreading comprehensioninferential revisioncognitive controlL2 proficiency
Type
Research Article
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 22 , Issue 5 , November 2019 , pp. 930 - 948
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

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 research was supported by a doctoral research grant from the Spanish Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports (FPU AP2010–3434) to Laura Hansen, by a postdoctoral contract funded by Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (PSI2012–33625) to Ana Pérez, and by grants of MINECO (PSI2012- 33625; PCIN-2015-132; PSI2015-65502-C2-1-P) and Junta de Andalucía (Excelencia2012-CTS 2369) to Teresa Bajo.

Supplementary material can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728918000846

1

First authorship is shared between the first two authors of the manuscript.

2

Present affiliation/address: Theoretical and Applied Linguistics (TAL), University of Cambridge, English Faculty Building, 9 West Road, Cambridge, CB3 9DP, United Kingdom.

3

Present affiliation/address: Mühlenbergklinik Holsteinische Schweiz, Frahmsallee 1-7, 23714 Bad Malente, Germany.

References

Alonso, M. A., Fernández, A., & Díez, E. (2015). Subjective age-of-acquisition norms for 7,039 Spanish words. Behavior Research Methods, 47, 268–274.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
Arrington, C. N., Kulesz, P. A., Francis, D. J., Fletcher, J. M., & Barnes, M. A. (2014). The contribution of attentional control and working memory to reading comprehension and decoding. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18, 325–346.Google Scholar
Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 255–278.Google Scholar
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). lme4 package. Retrieved from https://cran.r-project.org/Google Scholar
Baus, C., Costa, A., & Carreiras, M. (2013). On the effects of second language immersion on first language production. Acta Psychologica, 142, 402–409.Google Scholar
Beeman, M. J., Bowden, E. M., & Gernsbacher, M. A. (2000). Right and left hemisphere cooperation for drawing predictive and coherence inferences during normal story comprehension. Brain and language, 71, 310–336.Google Scholar
Bialystok, E., Craik, F. I. M., & Luk, G. (2012). Bilingualism: Consequences for mind and brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16, 240–250.Google Scholar
Birdsong, D., & Molis, M. (2001). On the evidence for maturational constraints in second-language acquisition. Journal of Memory and Language, 44, 235–249.Google Scholar
Blumenfeld, H. K., & Marian, V. (2013). Parallel language activation and cognitive control during spoken word recognition in bilinguals. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25, 547–567.Google Scholar
Borella, E., Carretti, B., & Pelegrina, S. (2010). The specific role of inhibition in reading comprehension in good and poor comprehenders. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43, 541–552.Google Scholar
Braver, T. S., Paxton, J. L., Locke, H. S., & Barch, D. M. (2009). Flexible neural mechanisms of cognitive control within human prefrontal cortex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106, 7351–7356.Google Scholar
Braver, T. S. (2012). The variable nature of cognitive control: a dual mechanisms framework. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16, 106–113.Google Scholar
Brysbaert, M., Warriner, A. B., & Kuperman, V. (2014). Concreteness ratings for 40 thousand generally known English word lemmas. Behavior research methods, 46, 904–911.Google Scholar
Cain, K., & Oakhill, J. V. (1999). Inference making ability and its relation to comprehension failure in young children. Reading and Writing, 11, 489–503.Google Scholar
Chang, C. B. (2012). Rapid and multifaceted effects of second-language learning on first-language speech production. Journal of Phonetics, 40, 249–268.Google Scholar
Chiew, K. S., & Braver, T. S. (2014). Dissociable influences of reward motivation and positive emotion on cognitive control. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 14, 509–529.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006). How native-like is non-native language processing? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 564–570.Google Scholar
Costa, A., Hernández, M., & Sebastián-Gallés, N. (2008). Bilingualism aids conflict resolution: Evidence from the ANT task. Cognition, 106, 59–86.Google Scholar
Davis, C. J. (2005). N-Watch: A program for deriving neighborhood size and other psycholinguistic statistics. Behavior research methods, 37, 65–70.Google Scholar
Davis, C. J., & Perea, M. (2005). BuscaPalabras: A program for deriving orthographic and phonological neighborhood statistics and other psycholinguistic indices in Spanish. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 665–671.Google Scholar
De Rosario-Martínez, H. (2015). Phia package. Retrieved from https://cran.r-project.org/Google Scholar
Dufour, R., & Kroll, J. F. (1995). Matching words to concepts in two languages: A test of the concept mediation model of bilingual representation. Memory & Cognition, 23, 166–180.Google Scholar
Dussias, P. E., & Piñar, P. (2010). Effects of reading span and plausibility in the reanalysis of wh-gaps by Chinese-English second language speakers. Second Language Research, 26, 443–472.Google Scholar
Duyck, W., & De Houwer, J. (2008). Semantic access in second-language visual word processing: Evidence from the semantic Simon paradigm. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 961–966.Google Scholar
Foucart, A., Martín, 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.Google Scholar
Foucart, A., Romero-Rivas, C., Gort, B. L., & Costa, A. (2016). Discourse comprehension in L2: Making sense of what is not explicitly said. Brain and language, 163, 32–41.Google Scholar
Frey, L. (2005, January). The nature of the suppression mechanism in reading: Insights from an L1-L2 comparison. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 27, 714–719.Google Scholar
Grüter, T., Lew-Williams, C., & Fernald, A. (2012). Grammatical gender in L2: A production or a real-time processing problem? Second Language Research, 28, 191–215.Google Scholar
Grüter, T., & Rohde, H. (2013). L2 processing is affected by RAGE: Evidence from reference resolution. In the 12th conference on Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition (GASLA).Google Scholar
Grüter, T., Rohde, H., & Schafer, A. (2014, May). The role of discourse-level expectations in non-native speakers’ referential choices. In Proceedings of the annual Boston university conference on Language Development.Google Scholar
Hopp, H. (2013). Grammatical gender in adult L2 acquisition: Relations between lexical and syntactic variability. Second Language Research, 29, 33–56.Google Scholar
Horiba, Y. (1996). Comprehension processes in L2 reading: Language competence, textual coherence, and inferences. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 433–473.Google Scholar
Horiba, Y., & Fukaya, K. (2015). Reading and learning from L2 text: Effects of reading goal, topic familiarity, and language proficiency. Reading in a Foreign Language, 27, 22–46.Google Scholar
Kaan, E. (2014). Predictive sentence processing in L2 and L1: What is different? Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 4, 257–282.Google Scholar
Kroll, J. F., Bobb, S. C., & Hoshino, N. (2014). Two languages in mind: Bilingualism as a tool to investigate language, cognition, and the brain. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23 (3), 159–163.Google Scholar
Kuperman, V., Stadthagen-Gonzalez, H., & Brysbaert, M. (2012). Age-of-acquisition ratings for 30,000 English words. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 978–990.Google Scholar
Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1980). Reading senseless sentences: Brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science, 207, 203–205.Google Scholar
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2015). lmerTest package. Retrieved from https://cran.r-project.org/Google Scholar
Lau, E. F., Holcomb, P. J., & Kuperberg, G. R. (2013). Dissociating N400 effects of prediction from association in single-word contexts. Journal of cognitive neuroscience, 25, 484–502.Google Scholar
Levy, B.J., McVeigh, N.D., Marful, A., & Anderson, M.C. (2007). Inhibiting your native language: The role of retrieval-induced forgetting during second-language acquisition. Psychological Science, 18, 29–34.Google Scholar
Li, P., Sepanski, S., & Zhao, X. (2006). Language history questionnaire: A web-based interface for bilingual research. Behavior Research Methods, 38, 202–210.Google Scholar
Linck, J. A., Kroll, J. F., & Sunderman, G. (2009). Losing access to the native language while immersed in a second language: Evidence for the role of inhibition in second-language learning. Psychological Science, 20, 1507–1515.Google Scholar
Ma, H., Hu, J., Xi, J., Shen, W., Ge, J., Geng, F., & Yao, D. (2014). Bilingual cognitive control in language switching: An fMRI study of English-Chinese late bilinguals. PloS one, 9, e106468.Google Scholar
Malt, B. C., Li, P., Pavlenko, A., Zhu, H., & Ameel, E. (2015). Bidirectional lexical interaction in late immersed Mandarin-English bilinguals. Journal of Memory and Language, 82, 86–104.Google Scholar
Martín, M.C., Macizo, P., & Bajo, M.T. (2010). Time course of inhibitory processes in bilingual language processing. British Journal of Psychology, 101, 679–693.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
McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (1980). The comprehension processes and memory structures involved in anaphoric reference. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 668–682.Google Scholar
McNamara, D. S., & Magliano, J. (2009). Toward a comprehensive model of comprehension. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 51, 297–384.Google Scholar
Morales, J., Yudes, C., Gómez-Ariza, C. J., & Bajo, M. T. (2015). Bilingualism modulates dual mechanisms of cognitive control: Evidence from ERPs. Neuropsychologia, 66, 157–169.Google Scholar
Morales, J., Gómez-Ariza, C. J., & Bajo, M. T. (2013). Dual mechanisms of cognitive control in bilinguals and monolinguals. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25, 531–546.Google Scholar
Morales, L., Paolieri, D., & Bajo, M.T. (2011). Grammatical gender inhibition in bilinguals. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 284.Google Scholar
Moreno, S., Bialystok, E., Wodniecka, Z., & Alain, C. (2010) Conflict resolution in sentence processing by bilinguals. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 23, 564–579.Google Scholar
Newman, A. J., Tremblay, A., Nichols, E. S., Neville, H. J., & Ullman, M. T. (2012). The influence of language proficiency on lexical semantic processing in native and late learners of English. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 24, 1205–1223.Google Scholar
Nieuwland, M. S., Ditman, T., & Kuperberg, G. R. (2010). On the incrementality of pragmatic processing: An ERP investigation of informativeness and pragmatic abilities. Journal of memory and language, 63, 324–346.Google Scholar
Nieuwland, M. S., & Kuperberg, G. R. (2008). When the truth is not too hard to handle: An event-related potential study on the pragmatics of negation. Psychological Science, 19, 1213–1218.Google Scholar
Pérez, A., Cain, K., Castellanos, M. C., & Bajo, T. (2015). Inferential revision in narrative texts: An ERP study. Memory & Cognition, 43, 1105–1135.Google Scholar
Pérez, A., Joseph, H. S., Bajo, T., & Nation, K. (2016). Evaluation and revision of inferential comprehension in narrative texts: an eye movement study. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31, 549–566.Google Scholar
Pérez, A. I., Paolieri, D., Macizo, P., & Bajo, T. (2014). The role of working memory in inferential sentence comprehension. Cognitive processing, 15, 405–413.Google Scholar
Ransdell, S., Arecco, M. R., & Levy, C. M. (2001). Bilingual long-term working memory: The effects of working memory loads on writing quality and fluency. Applied Psycholinguistics, 22, 113–128.Google Scholar
Rodríguez-Fornells, A., Krämer, U. M., Lorenzo-Seva, U., Festman, J., & Münte, T. F. (2012). Self-assessment of individual differences in language switching. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 1–15.Google Scholar
Schielzeth, H. (2010). Simple means to improve the interpretability of regression coefficients. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 1, 103–113.Google Scholar
Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-Prime: User's guide. Psychology Software Incorporated.Google Scholar
Segalowitz, N., Watson, V., & Segalowitz, S. (1995). Vocabulary skill: Single-case assessment of automaticity of word recognition in a timed lexical decision task. Second Language Research, 11, 121–136.Google Scholar
Slabakova, R. (2006). Is there a critical period for semantics? Second Language Research, 22, 302–338.Google Scholar
Tremblay, A., & Ransijn, J. (2015). LMERConvenienceFunctions package. Retrieved from https://cran.r-project.org/Google Scholar
Van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension (pp. 11–12). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Wartenburger, I., Heekeren, H. R., Abutalebi, J., Cappa, S. F., Villringer, A., & Perani, D. (2003). Early setting of grammatical processing in the bilingual brain. Neuron, 37, 159–170.Google Scholar
Yang, Y. F. (2002). Reassessing readers’ comprehension monitoring. Reading in a Foreign Language, 14, 18–42.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Pérez et al. supplemantary material 1

Appendix

Download Pérez et al. supplemantary material 1(File)
File 19.2 KB