Explicit and Implicit Second Language Training Differentially Affect the Achievement of Native-like Brain Activation Patterns

Abstract

It is widely believed that adults cannot learn a foreign language in the same way that children learn a first language. However, recent evidence suggests that adult learners of a foreign language can come to rely on native-like language brain mechanisms. Here, we show that the type of language training crucially impacts this outcome. We used an artificial language paradigm to examine longitudinally whether explicit training (that approximates traditional grammar-focused classroom settings) and implicit training (that approximates immersion settings) differentially affect neural (electrophysiological) and behavioral (performance) measures of syntactic processing. Results showed that performance of explicitly and implicitly trained groups did not differ at either low or high proficiency. In contrast, electrophysiological (ERP) measures revealed striking differences between the groups’ neural activity at both proficiency levels in response to syntactic violations. Implicit training yielded an N400 at low proficiency, whereas at high proficiency, it elicited a pattern typical of native speakers: an anterior negativity followed by a P600 accompanied by a late anterior negativity. Explicit training, by contrast, yielded no significant effects at low proficiency and only an anterior positivity followed by a P600 at high proficiency. Although the P600 is reminiscent of native-like processing, this response pattern as a whole is not. Thus, only implicit training led to an electrophysiological signature typical of native speakers. Overall, the results suggest that adult foreign language learners can come to rely on native-like language brain mechanisms, but that the conditions under which the language is learned may be crucial in attaining this goal.

The Role of Procedural Memory in Adult Second Language Acquisition

“…In contrast to many artificial grammar learning paradigms, the artificial language Brocanto2, modeled after the artificial language Brocanto (Friederici, Steinhauer, & Pfeifer, 2002), is based on universal requirements of a natural language and is fully productive and meaningful. Previous research with these artificial languages has shown that learners evidence processing patterns that are similar to those found in natural language processing (Friederici et al, 2002;Morgan-Short, Finger, et al, 2012;Morgan-Short et al, 2010;Morgan-Short, Steinhauer, et al, 2012), suggesting the use of Brocanto2 in the current study has ecological validity in regard to L2 acquisition. At the same time, the use of the artificial language allows learners to reach high proficiency in a shortened amount of time and allows for control over confounding variables as compared to natural languages.…”

“…Many learners acquire their L2 in classroom contexts where there is frequent, explicit instruction of grammatical rules. Evidence suggests that different learning contexts may have an effect on both L2 learning outcomes (Norris & Ortega, 2000) and on the neurocognitive bases for such outcomes (MorganShort, Finger, Grey, & Ullman, 2012;Morgan-Short, Sanz, Steinhauer, & Ullman, 2010;Morgan-Short, Steinhauer, Sanz, & Ullman, 2012). Thus it is important to consider, the role that procedural memory may play in different types of L2 contexts or training conditions.…”

Idiosyncratic Grammars: Syntactic Processing in Second Language Comprehension Uses Subjective Feature Representations

“…A controversial topic in the literature is whether or not native-like syntactic language processing is possible in adult L2 speakers and which factors determine the success of L2 acquisition (Morgan-Short, Steinhauer, Sanz, & Ullman, 2012;Gillon Dowens, Guo, Guo, Barber, & Carreiras, 2011;Clahsen & Felser, 2006;McDonald, 2000). Recently, this debate has focused on ERP data, as this method provides a direct measure of online language processing (e.g., Kotz, 2009;Chen, Shu, Liu, Zhao, & Li, 2007;Rossi, Gugler, Friederici, & Hahne, 2006).…”

Explicit versus Implicit Instruction: Which Is Preferable for Learning an Artificial Morphological Rule in Children?

“…Training may be considered explicit or implicit when learners do or do not receive information concerning the nature of the to-be-learned rule [2,13]. Although substantial evidence has accumulated in support of explicit instruction [2,3,6,11,13,14,15,16], this approach is fraught with controversy [17,18,19,20]. Moreover, most experiments addressing the issue of implicit-explicit instruction have been performed on adults [3,6,7,18,21,22].…”