Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T07:18:06.045Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

World knowledge and novel information integration during L2 speech comprehension*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 January 2016

CARLOS ROMERO-RIVAS ,
JOANNA D. COREY ,
XAVIER GARCIA ,
GUILLAUME THIERRY ,
CLARA D. MARTIN  and
ALBERT COSTA
CARLOS ROMERO-RIVAS*
Affiliation:
Center for Brain and Cognition, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain
JOANNA D. COREY
Affiliation:
Center for Brain and Cognition, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain
XAVIER GARCIA
Affiliation:
Center for Brain and Cognition, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain
GUILLAUME THIERRY
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, Bangor University, Bangor, UK
CLARA D. MARTIN
Affiliation:
Basque Center on Cognition, Brain and Language (BCBL), San Sebastian, Spain IKERBASQUE, Basque Foundation for Science, Bilbao, Spain
ALBERT COSTA
Affiliation:
Center for Brain and Cognition, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, SpainInstitució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats (ICREA), Barcelona, Spain
*
Address for correspondence: Carlos Romero-Rivas, Center for Brain and Cognition, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Carrer de Tànger, 122, 08018 Barcelona, Spain[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this study we explore whether world knowledge (WK) processing differs between individuals listening to their native (L1) or their non-native (L2) language. We recorded event-related brain potentials in L1 and L2 speakers of Spanish while they listened to sentences uttered by native speakers of Spanish. Sentences were either congruent or incongruent with participants’ WK. In addition, participants also listened to sentences in which upcoming words could not be anticipated on the basis of WK. WK violations elicited a late negativity of greater magnitude and duration in the L2 than the L1 group. However, sentences in which WK was not helpful regarding word anticipation elicited similar N400 modulations in both groups. These results suggest that WK processing requires a deeper lexical search in L2 comprehension than in L1 comprehension.

Keywords

world knowledgeL2 processingspeech comprehensionN400bilingualism
Type
Research Article
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 20 , Issue 3 , May 2017 , pp. 576 - 587
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

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 approved by the ethics committee of the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Finance, which funded this study. We thank Silvia Blanch and Xavier Mayoral for their technical support, and Meritxell Ayguasanosa for assistance in testing participants. This research was funded by an FPI grant (BES-2012-056668) and two project grants (PSI2011-23033 and Consolider INGENIO CSD2007-00012) awarded by the Spanish Government; by one grant from the Catalan Government (SGR 2009-1521); and by one grant from the European Research Council under the European Community's Seventh Framework (FP7/2007-2013 Cooperation grant agreement 613465-AThEME). C.D.M. is supported by the IKERBASQUE institution and the Basque Center on Cognition, Brain and Language. A.C. is supported by the ICREA institution and the Center for Brain and Cognition.

References

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
Braunstein, V., Ischebek, A., Brunner, C., Grabner, R. H., Stamenov, M. & Neuper, C. (2012). Investigating the influence of proficiency and semantic processing in bilinguals: An ERP and ERD/S analysis. Acta Neurobiologiae Experimentalis, 72, 421–438.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.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
Federmeier, K. D., & Laszlo, S. (2009). Time for meaning: electrophysiology provides insights into the dynamics of representation and processing in semantic memory. In The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, ed. Ross, B. H., pg. 1–44. San Diego, CA: Elsevier.Google Scholar
FitzPatrick, I., & Indefrey, P. (2010). Lexical competition in non-native speech comprehension. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22, 1165–1178.Google Scholar
FitzPatrick, I., & Indefrey, P. (2014). Head start for target language in bilingual listening. Brain Research, 1542, 111–130.Google Scholar
Forster, K. I. (1979). Levels of processing and the structure of the language processor. In Sentence Processing: Psycholinguistic Essays Presented to Merrill Garrett, ed. Cooper, W. E. & Walker, C. T., pg. 27–85. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Foucart, A., Moreno, E., Martin, C. D., & Costa, A. (2015). Integration of moral values during L2 sentence processing. Acta Psychologia, 162, 1–12.Google Scholar
Hagoort, P. (2003). Interplay between syntax and semantics during sentence comprehension: ERP effects of combining syntactic and semantic violations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15, 883–899.Google Scholar
Hagoort, P., Hald, L., Bastiaansen, M., & Petersson, K. M. (2004). Integration of Word Meaning and World Knowledge in Language Comprehension. Science, 304, 438–441.Google Scholar
Hahne, A. (2001). What's different in second-language processing? Evidence from event-related 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
Hald, L. A., Steenbeck-Planting, E. G., & Hagoort, P. (2007). The interaction of discourse context and world knowledge in online sentence comprehension. Evidence from the N400. Brain Research, 1146, 210–218.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (2002). Foundations of language: brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kutas, M., & Federmeier, K. D. (2011). Thirty years and counting: finding meaning in the N400 component of the event-related brain potential (ERP). Annual Reviews in Psychology, 62, 621–647.Google Scholar
Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1980). Reading senseless sentences: brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science, 207, 203–205.Google Scholar
Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1984). Brain potentials during reading reflect word expectancy and semantic association. Nature, 307, 161–163.Google Scholar
Lau, E. F., Phillips, C., & Poeppel, D. (2008). A cortical network for semantics: (de)constructing the N400. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 9, 920–933.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
Martin, C. D., Garcia, X., Breton, A., Thierry, G., & Costa, A. (2014). From literal meaning to veracity in two hundred millisecons. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8 (40), 1–12.Google Scholar
Martin, C. D., Garcia, X., Breton, A., Thierry, G., & Costa, A. (2015). World knowledge integration during second language comprehension. Language, Cognition, and Neuroscience. DOI: 10.1080/23273798.2015.1084012 Google Scholar
Moreno, E. M., & Kutas, M. (2005). Processing semantic anomalies in two languages: an electrophysiological exploration in both languages of Spanish-English bilinguals. Cognitive Brain Research, 22, 205–220.Google Scholar
Moreno, E. M., Rodríguez-Fornells, A., & Laine, M. (2008). Event-related Potentials (ERPs) in the study of bilingual language processing. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 21, 477–508.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
Oliver, G., Gullberg, M., Hellwig, F., Mitterer, H., & Indefrey, P. (2012). Acquiring L2 sentence comprehension: A longitudinal study of word monitoring in noise. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15, 841–857.Google Scholar
Rapp, D. N. (2008). How do readers handle incorrect information during reading? Memory & Cognition, 36, 688–701.Google Scholar
Singer, M. (2006). Verification of text ideas during reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 574–591.Google Scholar
Weber-Fox, C. M., & Neville, H. J. (1996). Maturational constraints on functional specialization for language processing: ERP and behavioral evidence in bilingual speakers. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 8, 231–256.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weber-Fox, C. M., & Neville, H. J. (2001). Sensitive periods differentiate processing of open- and closed-class words: An ERP study of bilinguals. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 44, 1338–1353.Google Scholar