Brain sciences · 2024
Embodied Semantics: Early Simultaneous Motor Grounding in First and Second Languages.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Britz Juliane, Collaud Emmanuel, Jost Lea B, Sato Sayaka, Bugnon Angélique, Mouthon Michael, Annoni Jean-Marie
Аннотация
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Although the embodiment of action-related language is well-established in the mother tongue (L1), less is known about the embodiment of a second language (L2) acquired later in life through formal instruction. We used the high temporal resolution of ERPs and topographic ERP analyses to compare embodiment in L1 and L2 and to investigate whether L1 and L2 are embodied with different strengths at different stages of linguistic processing.
METHODS: Subjects were presented with action-related and non-action-related verbs in a silent reading task. Subjects were late French-German and German-French bilinguals, respectively, and we could therefore collapse across languages to avoid common confounding between language (French and German) and order of acquisition (L1, L2).
RESULTS: We could show distinct effects of embodiment and language. Embodiment affected only the sensory and lexical stages of processing with increased strength and power of the N1 component for motor vs. non-motor verbs, and language affected the lexical and semantic stages of processing with stronger P2/N400 components for L2 than for L1. Non-motor verbs elicited a stronger P1 component in L2.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that processing words in L2 requires more effortful processing. Importantly, L1 and L2 are not embodied differently, and embodiment affects early and similar stages of processing in L1 and L2, possibly integrating other process of action-language interaction.
METHODS: Subjects were presented with action-related and non-action-related verbs in a silent reading task. Subjects were late French-German and German-French bilinguals, respectively, and we could therefore collapse across languages to avoid common confounding between language (French and German) and order of acquisition (L1, L2).
RESULTS: We could show distinct effects of embodiment and language. Embodiment affected only the sensory and lexical stages of processing with increased strength and power of the N1 component for motor vs. non-motor verbs, and language affected the lexical and semantic stages of processing with stronger P2/N400 components for L2 than for L1. Non-motor verbs elicited a stronger P1 component in L2.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that processing words in L2 requires more effortful processing. Importantly, L1 and L2 are not embodied differently, and embodiment affects early and similar stages of processing in L1 and L2, possibly integrating other process of action-language interaction.