The Interaction of Semantics and Emotions in SLA Ton Dijkstra Agnes Sianipar Donders Centre for Cognition Centre for Language Studies York, May

How to study the process of learning a new language? We would like to study the learning as it occurs in daily life We would like to study the learning longitudinally We would like to study what exactly is learned

How to study the process of learning a new language? We would like to study how processing changes by the learning We would like to study the learning in a scientific, but still practical way  Help from ‘In’to Languages’, our language teaching institute  All stimulus materials to be learned are known; they offer (restricted) possibilities for stimulus selection.

Semantics and emotions in Second Language Acquisition (SLA) Psycholinguistics is extending investigations of bilingual processing to early stages of SLA Many SL learners are adult and acquire a foreign language at a later age; they are late and unbalanced bilinguals This shift in theoretical focus is accompanied by methodological developments:  Application of new behavioral and EEG (ERP) methods  Psycholinguistic investigation of SLA in a societally-relevant way, i.e. linked to actual learning in the class-room  Longitudinal investigation of SLA

Word meaning A word refers to: –Particular object/concept (Literal/Semantic meaning) –Particular emotion (Affective/Connotative meaning) Semantic/linguistic meaning: “Referential meaning (the real-word object/concept picked out or described by an expression) and sense meaning.” (Finegan, 2014, p. 192) Affective meaning: “…is a semantic attribute conveying, often implicitly, the pleasant or unpleasant nature of an object or experience.” (Cato et al., 2004) Affective meaning: Valence vs. arousal Semantic and affective meaning are related

party ConceptValence

cancer ConceptValence

Expressing emotion in L1 and L2 Dewaele (2004) & Harris et al. (2003): Emotionality of taboo words and swearwords in L1 > L2 Bond and Lai (1986): Bilinguals discussing embarrassing topics in L1 < L2 Javier (1989): Patients in therapy do code-switching as a coping mechanism Marian & Neisser (2000): Language effects in bilinguals’ autobiographical memory  L2 has a distancing function in bilinguals’ affective processing – difference in emotionality?

First language Emotion Second language The emotional context of learning theory (Harris et al., 2003)

Longitudinal studies in SLA Previous studies focused on the development of mappings between L2 word forms and their semantic meanings Adult L2 learning promotes rapid changes in –Accuracy/d’ scores: VILLA Project (Starren et al.) –ERPs: McLaughlin et al., 2004; Stein et al., 2006 –Regional brain volume and cortical thickness: Stein et al., 2012; Mårtensson et al., 2012 –Brain connectivity: Xiang et al., 2010

Longitudinal studies in SLA None of the previous SLA research asked: –Do L1 and L2 tap onto the same semantic and affective meaning systems? –Are the systems also coupled in L2 in the early stage of L2 learning? primed German – Dutch lexical decision task –Previous studies showed that semantic and affective priming affect N400 and LPC –We do 50-ms time-bins analysis to determine the onset and offset of semantic and emotion effects on ERPs

SLANG: Germans learning Dutch 32 (24) German young adults in the first six months of their stay in Nijmegen: –Prospective students of Radboud University Nijmegen –No prior knowledge of Dutch –Mean age: 19.6 years (18 – 25 y) –8 males / 24 females –Right-handed –‘Monolingual’ German –Took part in a 5-week, intensive Dutch language course from In’to Languages –Staatsexamen NT2 (state exam Dutch as second language)

SLANG: Timeline 4 testing moments: 1.Second course week (5-10 days of instruction ) 2.Last week before State exam (19-23 days of instruction) 3.First month of academic year in Nijmegen (≈ 9/10 weeks after starting language course) 4.Fourth month of academic year (≈5.5 months)

(1) Single Dutch lexical decision: emotion effect Larger LPC for positive words already after 1 week of instruction High and low arousal included!

During course: More positive going LPC for positive words After course: reorganization At 5.5 months: native-like with negative words standing out No interaction with cognate status LPC onset decreases over time Native speakers: N400 reduction for emotion words

Conclusions single lexical decision After 5.5 months in L2 country, discriminating Dutch words from nonwords is far from native-like Words have an advantage over non-words for L2 learners Positive words have a special status in first stages of L2 acquisition (fewer errors, faster RTs, larger LPC) Cognates can help or hinder a decision, based on familiarity and valence Already after 1 week, different brain response to words than to nonwords, and positive words stand out from neutral and negative words

(2) Primed lexical decision Affective Congruence Semantic Relatedness Target Valence German primes Dutch targets CongruentRelatedPositivesüßSMAAK CongruentRelatedNeutralFahrerSTRAAT CongruentUnrelatedPositiveLohnSMAAK CongruentUnrelatedNeutralNeugierSTRAAT IncongruentRelatedPositivesauerSMAAK IncongruentRelatedNeutralStauSTRAAT IncongruentUnrelatedPositiveNatterSMAAK IncongruentUnrelatedNeutralBahreSTRAAT

Predictions Increase in L2 exposure and proficiency from one session to another: –Higher accuracy / sensitivity rates –Faster RTs –Lower amplitude of N400 Semantic priming effect (Unrelated - Related) and affective priming effect (Incongruent – Congruent) in accuracy, RT, and N400/LPC amplitude in Late stage of L2 learning A cross-language interaction between semantic and affective priming in N400 amplitude in Late stage of learning.

Sensitivity rates

Discussion Increased sensitivity/d’ scores from session to session Accuracy rates increased linearly from Session 1 to 3, but the increase from Session 3 to 4 was not significant  Our participants were quickly learning the L2 in the first half-year of using their L2

Table 2. The F-values and effect size in N1/P1 and P2/N2 time-windows. SOURCESdf ms (N1/P1) ms (P2/N2) QuadrantMidlineQuadrantMidline Fnp2F F F Quadrant x Affective Congruence 3,576.64**0.26 Left Posterior 1,194.30#0.18 Right Posterior 1,195.10*0.20 Semantic Relatedness 1, *** *** ** **0.37 Session x Semantic Relatedness 3, * *0.17 Session 1 1, Session 2 1, ** **0.40 Session 3 1, * Session 4 1, *0.20 Quadrant x Semantic Relatedness 5,957.85*** *0.15 Left Anterior 1, *** *0.26 Right Anterior 1, *** **0.40 Left Central 1, ** *0.25 Right Central 1, *** **0.40 Left Posterior 1, ** *0.29 Right Posterior 1, *** ***0.58 Target Valence 1, ** **0.46 Quadrant x Target Valence 5,954.44**0.19 Left Anterior 1, **0.36 Right Anterior 1, **0.46 Left Central 1,199.20**0.33 Right Central 1, **0.41 Right Posterior 1,194.74*0.2 Note: ***p <.001, **p <.01, *p <.05, #p <.1 Results across sessions: N1/P1 and P2/N2 Sianipar, Middelburg, & Dijkstra, under revision

Table 3. The F-values and effect size in N400 and LPC time-windows. SOURCESdf ms (N400) ms (LPC) QuadrantMidlineQuadrantMidline Fnp2F F F Session3,578.10*** *** *** *0.18 Session 1 vs. Session 2 1, ** **0.37 < 2.50< 0.12< 2.50< 0.12 Session 2 vs. Session 3 1, ** **0.40 Session 3 vs. Session 4 1, *0.22 Target Valence1, *** *** * *0.25 Session x Affective Congruence x Semantic Relatedness 3,573.13* # ** *0.17 Session 1: Congruence x Relatedness1, Session 2: Congruence x Relatedness1, Session 3: Congruence x Relatedness1, # #0.18 Session 4: Congruence x Relatedness1, *** ** *0.24 Related: Incongruent vs. Congruent1, ** Unrelated: Incongruent vs. Congruent1,196.26* * *0.23 Congruent: Unrelated vs. Related1, ** Incongruent: Unrelated vs. Related1, ** *0.23 Affective Congruence x Target Valence 1,194.57*0.19 Congruent: Neutral vs. Positive1, **0.37 Incongruent: Neutral vs. Positive1, ***0.64 Note: ***p <.001, **p <.01, *p <.05, #p <.1 Results across sessions: N400 and LPC Sianipar, Middelburg, & Dijkstra, under revision

Discussion: Semantic priming effects To what extent is the semantic system shared in L2 learners? L1->L2 semantic priming effect on Accuracy rates (Unrelated < Related) is small but significant. Early ERP effects (frontal N1/parietal P1: ms and frontal P2/parietal N2: ms) These suggest the rapid influence of semantic relatedness on L2 semantic accessibility already in an early stage of target processing (e.g., McCandliss, et al., 1997; Midgley et al., 2009).

Discussion: Semantic priming effects Session affected L1-L2 semantic priming effects in P2/N2 time-windows. Semantic priming effect on P2 started to emerge in Session 2 and was reduced in Session 3 and 4  Decrease in semantic processing demands (McCandliss et al., 1997). Participants in the early stage of L2 learning need more effort to inhibit pre-activated irrelevant (L1) lexical representations due to L1 semantic activation (e.g. Jackson et al., 2010)  Learning-related changes in attentional control on L2 lexical and semantic accessibility. Evidence for integrated lexicon and semantic network in L2 learners.

Discussion: Affective priming effects To what extent is the affective meaning system shared in L2 learners? No affective priming effect in the Accuracy rates. ERPs: affective priming effect on right parietal P1 ( ms)  L1 affective quality can modulate L2 processing in perceptual stage (e.g., Skrandies, 1998; Rellecke et al., 2011). Evidence for shared affective meaning system in L2 learners

Discussion: Target valence effect A target valence effect was found in N1/P1 ( ms) and late ERPs (N400 and LPC). The following slides show this effect over-all and for each session.

Finally: Link semantic and affective priming? We have seen semantic and affective priming effects in early stages of L2 learning. When do these systems link up in L2 learning?

* *

Discussion The interaction between Semantic and Affective Priming became significant in session 4, after half a year of immersion learning An alternative approach is to consider the relationship between Semantic Priming and Target Valence The ERPs for semantically related and unrelated trials were persistently dissociated for neutral and positive targets.

 Semantic Priming Effects on N400: Congruent pairs > Incongruent pairs Incongruent pairs > Congruent pairs  Semantic Priming Effects on LPC:

 Affective Priming Effects on N400: Related pairs > Unrelated pairs (both were significant) Unrelated pairs > Related pairs  Affective Priming Effects on LPC:

Discussion Are the semantic and affective systems also coupled in L2? Interaction between semantic and affective priming / target valence in N400 ( ms) and LPC (550 – 700 ms) time- windows  The two systems together influence semantic integration in L2 processing as L2 exposure increases (cf. Degner et al., 2012). The coupling was not observed in Sessions 1, 2, and 3.  Lacking of emotionality in L2 due to lack of coupling of semantics and affective meanings.

Consequence for models? Models of bilingual processing must be extended to include affective meaning Models must take into account that affective and semantic meaning have different time courses in development during L2 learning

Special thanks to: Renée Middelburg Geertje van Bergen Marianne Starren José Bakx