Distributional effects and individual differences in L2 morphology learning

Second language (L2) learning outcomes may depend on the structure of the input and learners’ cognitive abilities. This study tested whether less predictable input might facilitate learning and generalization of L2 morphology while evaluating contributions of statistical learning ability, nonverbal intelligence, phonological short-term memory, and verbal working memory. Over three sessions, 54 adults were exposed to a Russian case-marking paradigm with a balanced or skewed item distribution in the input. Whereas statistical learning ability and nonverbal intelligence predicted learning of trained items, only nonverbal intelligence also predicted generalization of case-marking inflections to new vocabulary. Neither measure of temporary storage capacity predicted learning. Balanced, less predictable input was associated with higher accuracy in generalization but only in the initial test session. These results suggest that individual differences in pattern extraction play a more sustained role in L2 acquisition than instructional manipulations that vary the predictability of lexical items in the input

Pitch ability as an aptitude for tone learning

Tone languages such as Mandarin use voice pitch to signal lexical contrasts, presenting a challenge for second/foreign language (L2) learners whose native languages do not use pitch in this manner. The present study examined components of an aptitude for mastering L2 lexical tone. Native English speakers with no previous tone language experience completed a Mandarin word learning task, as well as tests of pitch ability, musicality, L2 aptitude, and general cognitive ability. Pitch ability measures improved predictions of learning performance beyond musicality, L2 aptitude, and general cognitive ability and also predicted transfer of learning to new talkers. In sum, although certain nontonal measures help predict successful tone learning, the central components of tonal aptitude are pitch-specific perceptual measures

Native and Non-native Idiom Processing: Same Difference

This dissertation looks at idiom processing in native (L1) and non-native (L2) speakers. The duality of meaning represented by idioms (e.g., the idiom piece of cake means figuratively very easy but literally describes dessert) poses issues for theories of language processing and composition. While L1 speakers can easily comprehend idioms, L2 speakers have more difficulty in doing so. However, it is still unclear whether these difficulties are evidence of differential processing in L1 and L2 listeners. This work looks at idiom processing in both speaker groups via a collection of experimental studies in order to answer the overarching question: How do L1 and L2 idiom processing compare? In doing so, a number of issues are considered, such as: the timeline of meaning activation for figurative (idiomatic) meaning as well as literal constituent and phrasal meaning; the flexibility in this process during comprehension; the impact of idiomatic properties on processing; recognition memory for equal figurative and literal phrases after learning; and brain activation during comprehension. The work includes a database of American English idioms with L1 and L2 (German L1) norming values as well as experimental methods in L1 and L2 speakers such as cross-modal priming, eye-tracking, self-paced reading, training and recognition, and fMRI. The evidence presented suggests that L1 and L2 idiom processing differ based on general L1 and L2 differences, however, a single idiomatic processing method which considers both figurative and literal meaning is responsible for both speaker groups

Proficiency in Speaking English as a Second Language: Effects of Bilingual Profile

This study examines how aspects of bilingual profile, particularly learning and exposure in L2 English, relate to aspects of L2 spoken proficiency. Norwegian-English bilinguals completed a questionnaire describing their language background, proficiency, learning, and exposure in their L2 English. Next, participants performed a vocabulary depth task determining correct similar or opposite words of a target word, after which they completed a sentence comprehension task at varying levels of syntactic complexity determining the correct answer to questions referring to either the agent or patient in the sentence structure. Additionally, participants performed one of four novel partially controlled picture description tasks in which they verbally described what they saw. Results showed that learning and exposure to L2 English increased fluency measures, such as speech rate. Moreover, learning by gaming also influences fluency in that it induces shorter speaking time but enhances the compactness of the speech. Moreover, results indicate that L2 English learning and exposure through school does not enhance fluency, while exposure through friends does. Furthermore, exposure to L2 English through family hinders increased proficient fluency

Back to basics: how measures of lexical diversity can help discriminate between CEFR levels

This study contributes to ongoing discussions on how measures of lexical diversity (LD) can help discriminate between essays from second language learners of English, whose work has been assessed as belonging to levels B1 to C2 of the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR). The focus is in particular on how different operationalisations of what constitutes a “different word” (type) impact on the LD measures themselves and on their ability to discriminate between CEFR levels. The results show that basic measures of LD, such as the number of different words, the TTR (Templin 1957) and the Index of Guiraud (Guiraud 1954) explain more variance in the CEFR levels than sophisticated measures, such as D (Malvern et al. 2004), HD-D (McCarthy and Jarvis 2007) and MTLD (McCarthy 2005) provided text length is kept constant across texts. A simple count of different words (defined as lemma’s and not as word families) was the best predictor of CEFR levels and explained 22 percent of the variance in overall scores on the Pearson Test of English Academic in essays written by 176 test takers

Blog posts and traditional assignments by first- and second-language writers

This study investigates differences in the language and discourse characteristics of course blogs and traditional academic submissions produced in English by native (L1) and advanced second language (L2) writers. One hundred and fifty two texts generated by 38 graduate students within the context of the same Master’s level course were analysed using Coh-Metrix indices at the surface code, textbase and situation model levels. The two text types differed in their lexical sophistication, syntactic complexity, use of cohesion and agency. Overall, the traditional course assignments were more formal, lexically sophisticated and syntactically complex, while the blog posts contained more semantic and situational redundancy, resulting in higher readability, and communicated a clearer sense of agency. There were also reliable differences between the textual artefacts generated by the L1 and L2 writers, one of which was a more traditional impersonal academic style of the L2 texts. Although no interaction was observed between the two independent variables in the Coh-Metrix analyses, an additional analysis of human ratings showed that the blog posts were rated lower on the use of language than traditional assignments for the L2, but not L1, writers. Limitations of the computational text analysis and pedagogical implications of the findings are considered