Language learning difficulty depends systematically on the learner's native language
the verdict
SUPPORTED
the evidence backs this
refutedsupported
the weight of evidence
3 sources for · 0 against
Peer-reviewed studies report that linguistic distance and systematic differences between a learner's native language and the target language significantly influence second language acquisition and processing difficulty.
Despite burgeoning evidence that listeners are highly sensitive to statistical distributions of speech cues, the mechanism underlying learning may not be purely statistical tracking. Decades of research in animal learning suggest that learning results from prediction and prediction error. Two artificial language learning experiments test two predictions that distinguish error-driven from purely statistical models; namely, cue competition – specifically, Kamin’s (1968) ‘blocking’ effect (Experiment 1) – and the predictive structure of learning events (Experiment 2). In Experiment 1, prior knowledge of an informative cue blocked learning of a second cue. This finding may help explain second language learners’ difficulty in acquiring native-level perception of non-native speech cues. In Experiment 2, learning was better with a discriminative (cue–outcome) order compared to a non-discriminative (outcome–cue) order. Experiment 2 suggests that learning speech cues, including reversing effects of blocking, depends on (un)learning from prediction error and depends on the temporal order of auditory cues versus semantic outcomes. Together, these results show that (a) existing knowledge of acoustic cues can block later learning of new cues, and (b) speech sound acquisition depends on the predictive structure of learning events. When feedback from prediction error is available, this drives learners to ignore salient non-discriminative cues and effectively learn to use target cue dimensions. These findings may have considerable implications for the field of speech acquisition.
How linguistic distance affects second language acquisition is a major concern in cross-language transfer research. However, no study has explored how systematic differences between Chinese and learners’ native language (L1) influences Chinese character, vocabulary, and grammar acquisition, or how these influences change as Chinese proficiency improves. To address this, we employed the World Atlas of Language Structures (WALS) index method to multidimensionally quantify the linguistic distance between Chinese and L1, and examined the effect of systematic linguistic distance on acquisition of Chinese character (Quasi-Experiment 1), vocabulary (Quasi-Experiment 2), and grammatical knowledge (Quasi-Experiment 3) in Chinese as a second language (CSL) learners with elementary, intermediate, and advanced Chinese proficiency levels. We examined a random sample of 58,240 CSL learners’ test scores from 24 different L1 backgrounds, and analyzed 2,250 CSL learners’ Chinese character, vocabulary, and grammar scores in each of the three quasi-experiments. We found that closer linguistic distance facilitated more favorable Chinese character and vocabulary acquisition at elementary, intermediate, and advanced Chinese proficiency levels, and that the influence of linguistic distance on CSL learners’ vocabulary acquisition tended to decrease as Chinese proficiency increased. Finally, linguistic difference did not significantly affect CSL learners’ grammar acquisition at elementary proficiency, but as Chinese proficiency improved, an L1 interference effect occurred among CSL learners with a short linguistic distance from Chinese, which hindered grammar acquisition. These results suggest that linguistic distance has differential proficiency-dependent effects on Chinese character, vocabulary, and grammar acquisition.
Abstract Evidence shows that second language (L2) processing depends on the Age of Acquisition (AoA), proficiency and differences between L1 and L2 grammar. Here we focus on the influence of the latter factor on L2 processing. To this end, we tested early (AoA = 3 years) and highly proficient Spanish-Basque and Basque-Spanish bilinguals by means of Event-Related Potentials (ERPs) while processing noun morphology in Basque (Experiments 1 and 2) and Spanish (Experiments 3 and 4). Both behavioral and electrophysiological results revealed significant differences between L1 and L2 speakers: non-natives made more errors and elicited a smaller P600 for violations than natives when processing ergative and allative morphology in Basque and accusative, dative and allative in Spanish. These findings reveal that, even for early and highly proficient bilinguals, (a) L2 processing is modulated by L1 grammar and (b) native vs. non-native differences obtain only when L1 and L2 morphological categories differ but not otherwise.
Everything we examined (3)
This check searched the claim as stated. It did not run a separate search for evidence against it.