Research in the field of high-proficiency in L2 speakers most commonly focuses on the age of acquisition and the corresponding critical period hypothesis. More current research tends to focus on...Show moreResearch in the field of high-proficiency in L2 speakers most commonly focuses on the age of acquisition and the corresponding critical period hypothesis. More current research tends to focus on the high-proficiency L2 speaker’s sentence structure or syntax, and their influence on comprehensibility. In this case study, a high-proficiency L2 speaker was phonetically analyzed to describe his L2 accent choices successfully and find possible deviations in his General American accent, according to listeners. 17 American born listeners were recruited to mark deviations based on an 8-minute long audio-clip containing high-proficiency L2 sentence fragments. This audio file was accompanied by a script (appendix 1), which allowed the listeners to highlight deviations, accentedness, or foreignness. The same materials were also presented to an expert listener who would be able to shed more light on the speaker’s possible deviations. Results suggested that the speaker indeed still exhibited some slight deviations according to the listeners. Elements of foreignness were found in in the /g, /l/, /t/, /ɾ/, /ɹ/, /æ/, /ɛ/, /ɪ/, and /ɑ/ sound, and the word ‘campfire’ was most commonly marked as deviating according to the listeners.Show less
Speaking, reading, writing and understanding two languages – better known as bilingualism – has been a common trait among people that live in countries with two national languages (e.g., Dutch and...Show moreSpeaking, reading, writing and understanding two languages – better known as bilingualism – has been a common trait among people that live in countries with two national languages (e.g., Dutch and French in Belgium). Today, bilingualism is an increasingly common phenomenon due to globalization, growing transnational migration and open borders (Abutalebi & Weekes, 2014). From an academic perspective, bilingualism has become an emerging topic in the field of (psycho)linguistics. Over the past decades, researchers have been focused on examining language processing mechanisms in bilinguals as opposed to monolinguals (e.g., Blumenfeld & Marian, 2011; Bialystok et al., 2008). A rationale for this, is that the presence of two languages provide us more detailed language and cognitive models, which in turn inform our understanding of how languages work and vice versa (Kroll et al., 2012). An important insight in bilingual language processing, for example, is that both languages are simultaneously active, independently of the language of the task (e.g., Colomé & Miozzo, 2010; Hermans et al., 2011). This parallel activation results in competition between the two languages (linguistic interference), which suggests that bilinguals can supress (inhibitory control) the irrelevant language (e.g., Hermans et al., 2011; Marian & Spivey, 2003). A growing body of research found evidence that early bilinguals (i.e., earlyage bilingual acquisition) have stronger inhibitory control skills compared to monolinguals (e.g., Blumenfeld & Marian, 2011; Bialystok et al., 2008). However, much less research has been done on task performance in late language learners (i.e., learning a new language after native language acquisition and at an older age). Early bilinguals, who constantly have to control interference from two competing languages and have done so their whole life, differ a great deal from late language learners, who have done so less than early bilinguals as they are still in the middle of the process of learning a new language (Festman and Münte, 2012). 3 In the present study, I aimed to shed light on linguistic interference and inhibitory control processes in late language learners. In the following sections, I will first discuss early versus late bilingualism and how both groups are reflected in different models of bilingual processing. Then, I will explain bilingualism in light of parallel activity, linguistic interference, inhibitory control and Stroop performance. Next, I will outline the current study and research questions, after which the methodology is presented. Lastly, I will reveal the results, elaborate on implications for the present study, discuss suggestions for future research and give a small conclusion.Show less
In second language (L2) research and in some types of L2 testing, measures of complexity, accuracy and fluency (CAF) are widely applied both to capture performance of language learners as well as...Show moreIn second language (L2) research and in some types of L2 testing, measures of complexity, accuracy and fluency (CAF) are widely applied both to capture performance of language learners as well as to assess L2 learners’ proficiency underlying their performance. In spite of the long research interest in CAF, many questions are still raised, including a significant question as to what extent L2 CAF measures are correct indicators of L2 proficiency. A speaking-oriented study by De Jong et al. (2015) indicates that measures of L1 and L2 fluency are strongly correlated and therefore concluded that there was a large overlap for many aspect of fluency. This study aimed to examine L2 complexity, accuracy and fluency measures and compared them to L1 behavior. Furthermore, the current study also considered whether such correlations are stronger for high-proficient L2 Speakers. Spontaneous speech of 10 native speakers of Armenian and 19 native speakers of Arabic with L2 Dutch is recorded and analyzed with regard to complexity, accuracy, and fluency. Analysis revealed that measures of Complexity, accuracy, and fluency (CAF) in L1 do not significantly correlate with the equivalent measures in L2. The findings would support the threshold hypothesis (LTH), indicating that some threshold of proficiency needs to be attained in L2 before L1 skills can be transferred in the L2.Show less
