What Makes Second Language
Learning So Difficult?
Natasha Tokowicz
Difficulties in Adult Second
Language Learning
• A lot of information to learn
• Embarrassment at speaking language
Differences 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
decompress or
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
High Low
conceptual conceptual
salience salience
Distributed Feature Model
De Groot (1992)
Concrete Words lexical
L1 L2
Cognate Translations (word)
level
conceptual
(meaning)
level
lexical
L1 Abstract Words L2 (word)
Noncognate Translations level
conceptual
(meaning)
level
L1: First Language
L2: Second Language
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
1200
One Meaning, One Form for Meaning Selected • Unambiguous
words show CS
Two Meanings, One Form for Meaning Selected
One Meaning, Two Forms for Meaning Selected
1100 effect
• Cost for multiple
1000 forms similar for
high and low CS
900
words
• Cost for multiple
800
meanings only for
Low
Conce ptual Salie nce
High
high CS words
Accuracy Data: Experiment 1
100
• Unambiguous
90
One Meaning, One Form for Meaning Selected
Two Mea nings, On e Form for Mea ning Selected
words show CS
80
One Meaning, Two Forms for Mea ning Selected
effect
Estimated Accuracy (%)
• High CS words
70
60
50 with multiple
40 meanings lower
30
in accuracy
20
10
0
Low High
Conceptual Salience
Tokowicz & Kroll
Model of Language Production
• Adapted from Poulisse & Bongaerts (1994)
• Stages of language production
• Sources of competition
Tokowicz & Kroll Model
Meaning
Level
Word
door strawberry raspberry deur aardbei framboos Level
strawberry “aardbei”
Tokowicz & Kroll Model
Meaning
Level
Word
door strawberry raspberry deur aardbei framboos Level
strawberry “aardbei”
Tokowicz & Kroll Model
Meaning
Level
Word
door strawberry raspberry deur aardbei framboos Level
strawberry “aardbei”
Tokowicz & Kroll Model
Meaning
Level
Word
door strawberry raspberry deur aardbei framboos Level
strawberry “aardbei”
Tokowicz & Kroll Model
Meaning
Level
Word
door strawberry raspberry deur aardbei framboos Level
strawberry “aardbei”
Tokowicz & Kroll Model
Meaning
Level
Word
door strawberry raspberry deur aardbei framboos Level
strawberry “aardbei”
Tokowicz & Kroll Model
Multiple Forms
Meaning
Level
Word
door throat mouth deur strot keel Level
throat “strot”
Tokowicz & Kroll Model
Multiple Forms
Meaning
Level
Word
door throat mouth deur strot keel Level
throat “strot”
Tokowicz & Kroll Model
Multiple Forms
Meaning
Level
Word
door throat mouth deur strot keel Level
throat “strot”
Tokowicz & Kroll Model
Multiple Forms
Meaning
Level
Word
door throat mouth deur strot keel Level
throat “strot”
Tokowicz & Kroll Model
Multiple Forms
Meaning
Level
competition
Word
door throat mouth deur strot keel Level
throat “strot”
Tokowicz & Kroll Model
Multiple Forms
Meaning
Level
Word
door throat mouth deur strot keel Level
throat “strot”
Tokowicz & Kroll Model
Multiple Meanings
Meaning
Level
Word
door calf thigh calf cow deur dij kuit koe Level
calf “kuit”
Tokowicz & Kroll Model
Multiple Meanings
Meaning
Level
Word
door calf thigh calf cow deur dij kuit koe Level
calf “kuit”
Tokowicz & Kroll Model
Multiple Meanings
Meaning
Level
Word
door calf thigh calf cow deur dij kuit koe Level
calf “kuit”
Tokowicz & Kroll Model
Multiple Meanings
Meaning
Level
competition
Word
door calf thigh calf cow deur dij kuit koe Level
calf “kuit”
Tokowicz & Kroll Model
Multiple Meanings
Meaning
Level
Word
door calf thigh calf cow deur dij kuit koe Level
calf “kuit”
Tokowicz & Kroll Model
Multiple Meanings
Meaning
Level
Word
door calf thigh calf cow deur dij kuit koe Level
calf “kuit”
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” responses
Should 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
Lege nd:
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
Lege nd:
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
P600
Acceptable
Unacceptable
N400
The old blender doesn’t crushing ice cubes.
Acceptability in Spanish
P600? Acceptable
Unacceptable
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