Native-likeness (similarity between non-native and native users of the same language) depends on second language proficiency (L2p). However, evidence comes mainly from phonological or syntactic tasks, prompting an underexplored question: can higher L2p also entail a more native-like organization of semantic memory?
Methodology:
We asked high and low proficiency bilinguals to describe concepts in their second (English) and first (Spanish) language. We then compared their responses with semantic structure norms from native speakers of each language, and derived measures of semantic native-likeness through a validated semantic proximity measure.
Data and analysis:
We examined whether semantic native-likeness scores discriminated between high and low L2p levels at the group level (via inferential statistics) and at the individual level (via machine learning analyses).
Findings:
We found that semantic associations in English were more native-like in high than in low L2p bilinguals. Machine learning analyses showed that this pattern was highly consistent across individual subjects. Responses in Spanish did not differ between groups.
Originality:
This is the first study assessing semantic native-likeness through concept-feature associations in high and low L2p bilinguals, both at the group- and the individual-level.
Significance:
Our findings suggest that increased L2p entails a more native-like organization of semantic memory, informing models of bilingual cognition and its links with experience-related variables.
AbrahamssonN.HyltenstamK. (2008). The robustness of aptitude effects in near-native second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30(4), 481–509. https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226310808073X
2.
Al-MejibliI. S.AlwanJ. K.Abd DhafarH. (2020). The effect of gamma value on support vector machine performance with different kernels. International Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering, 10(5), Article 5497.
3.
BartolottiJ.MarianV.SchroederS. R.ShookA. (2011). Bilingualism and inhibitory control influence statistical learning of novel word forms. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, Article 324. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00324
4.
BhavsarH.PanchalM. H. (2012). A review on support vector machine for data classification. International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Engineering & Technology (IJARCET), 1(10), 185–189.
5.
BialystokE.ShorbagiS. H. (2021). Subtle increments in socioeconomic status and bilingualism jointly affect children’s verbal and nonverbal performance. Journal of Cognition and Development, 22(3), 467–490. https://doi.org/10.1080/15248372.2021.1901711
6.
BiondoN.MolinaroN.ManciniS. (2023). The neurolinguistics of the second language morphological system: The role of grammar-related and speaker-related factors. In Morgan-ShortK.Van HellJ. G. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and neurolinguistics (pp. 115–132). Routledge.
7.
BirbaA.GuerreroD. B.CaroM. M.TrevisanP.KoganB.SedeñoL.IbáñezA.GarcíaA. M. (2020). Motor-system dynamics during naturalistic reading of action narratives in first and second language. NeuroImage, 216, Article 116820. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.116820
8.
BirdsongD. (2005). Nativelikeness and non-nativelikeness in L2A research. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 43(4), 319–328. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2005.43.4.319
9.
BowdenH. W.SteinhauerK.SanzC.UllmanM. T. (2013). Native-like brain processing of syntax can be attained by university foreign language learners. Neuropsychologia, 51(13), 2492–2511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2013.09.004
BruggemanL.CutlerA. (2023). Listening like a native: Unprofitable procedures need to be discarded. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 26(5), 1093–1102. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728923000305
BuchananE. M.De DeyneS.MontefineseM. (2020). A practical primer on processing semantic property norm data. Cognitive Processing, 21(4), 587–599. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-019-00939-6
14.
BuchananE. M.ValentineK. D.MaxwellN. P. (2019). English semantic feature production norms: An extended database of 4436 concepts. Behavior Research Methods, 51(4), 1849–1863. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-019-01243-z
15.
Byers-HeinleinK.MitchellL.TsuiR. K.-Y. (2024). Cognates are advantaged over non-cognates in early bilingual expressive vocabulary development—ERRATUM. Journal of Child Language, 51(3), Article 720. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000924000059
16.
BylundE.HyltenstamK.AbrahamssonN. (2020). Age of acquisition-not bilingualism-is the primary determinant of less than nativelike L2 ultimate attainment. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 24(1), 18–30. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728920000188
Champoux-LarssonM.-F.DylmanA. S. (2020). Different measurements of bilingualism and their effect on performance on a Simon task. Applied Psycholinguistics, 42(2), 505–526. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716420000661
19.
Chaouch-OrozcoA.González AlonsoJ.DuñabeitiaJ. A.RothmanJ. (2022). The elusive impact of L2 immersion on translation priming. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 45(2), 393–415. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263122000249
20.
Chaouch-OrozcoA.González AlonsoJ.DuñabeitiaJ. A.RothmanJ. (2024). Are translation equivalents really equivalent? Evidence from concreteness effects in translation priming. International Journal of Bilingualism, 28(2), 149–162. https://doi.org/10.1177/13670069221146641
21.
Chaouch-OrozcoA.Martín-VillenaF. (2024). Network science reveals the early signs of L1 lexical attrition: Introducing the Lexical Attrition Foundation (LeAF) framework. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 2024, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728924000063
22.
ChengL. S. P.BurgessD.VernooijN.Solís-BarrosoC.McDermottA.NamboodiripadS. (2021). The problematic concept of native speaker in psycholinguistics: Replacing vague and harmful terminology with inclusive and accurate measures. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 715843. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.715843
23.
ChouI.HuJ.MuñozE.GarcíaA. M. (2021). Discourse-level information recall in early and late bilinguals: Evidence from single-language and cross-linguistic tasks. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 757351. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.757351
CremerM.DingshoffD.de BeerM.SchoonenR. (2011). Do word associations assess word knowledge? A comparison of L1 and L2 child and adult word associations. International Journal of Bilingualism, 15(2), 187–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006910381189
26.
DevereuxB. J.TylerL. K.GeertzenJ.RandallB. (2014). The Centre for Speech, Language and the Brain (CSLB) concept property norms. Behavior Research Methods, 46(4), 1119–1127. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0420-4
27.
DijkstraT. O. N.WahlA.BuytenhuijsF.Van HalemN.Al-JibouriZ.De KorteM.RekkéS. (2018). Multilink: A computational model for bilingual word recognition and word translation. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 22(4), 657–679. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728918000287
28.
DollmannJ.KoganI.WeißmannM. (2019). Speaking accent-free in l2 beyond the critical period: The compensatory role of individual abilities and opportunity structures. Applied Linguistics, 41(5), 787–809. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amz029
29.
DongY.GuiS.MacwhinneyB. (2005). Shared and separate meanings in the bilingual mental lexicon. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 8(3), 221–238. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728905002270
30.
Durand LópezE. M. (2021). A bilingual advantage in memory capacity: Assessing the roles of proficiency, number of languages acquired and age of acquisition. International Journal of Bilingualism, 25(3), 606–621. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006920965714
31.
EsfandiariL.NilipourR.NejatiV.MaftoonP.KhosrowabadiR. (2020). An event-related potential study of second language semantic and syntactic processing: Evidence from the declarative/procedural model. Basic and Clinical Neuroscience Journal, 11(6), 841–854. https://doi.org/10.32598/bcn.11.6.2401.1
32.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA. G.BuchnerA. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis programfor the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191.
33.
FerragneE.Guyot TalbotA.KingH.NavarroS. (2024). Exploring the accent mix perceptually and automatically: French learners of English and the RP–GA divide. Languages, 9(2), Article 50. https://www.mdpi.com/2226-471X/9/2/50
34.
FriedmanN. P. (2016). Research on individual differences in executive functions: Implications for the bilingual advantage hypothesis. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 6(5), 535–548. https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.15041.fri
35.
GarcíaA. M.MuñozE.KoganB. (2020). Taxing the bilingual mind: Effects of simultaneous interpreting experience on verbal and executive mechanisms. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 23(4), 729–739. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728919000063
36.
GreenD. W. (2003). Neural basis of lexicon and grammar in L2 acquisition: The convergence hypothesis. In van HoutR.HulkA.KuikenF.TowellR. J. (Eds.), The Lexicon–Syntax interface in second language acquisition (pp. 197–218). John Benjamins.
37.
HartantoA.SuárezL. (2016). Conceptual representation changes in Indonesian–English bilinguals. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 45(5), 1201–1217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-015-9399-6
38.
HernándezM.CostaA.ArnonI. (2016). More than words: Multiword frequency effects in non-native speakers. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31(6), 785–800. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2016.1152389
39.
HulstijnJ. H. (2012). The construct of language proficiency in the study of bilingualism from a cognitive perspective. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15(2), 422–433. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728911000678
40.
IacobucciD.PosavacS. S.KardesF. R.SchneiderM. J.PopovichD. L. (2015). The median split: Robust, refined, and revived. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25(4), 690–704. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2015.06.014
41.
IbrahimA.CowellP. E.VarleyR. A. (2017). Word frequency predicts translation asymmetry. Journal of Memory and Language, 95, 49–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2017.02.001
42.
JonesS. K.Davies-ThompsonJ.TreeJ. (2021). Can machines find the bilingual advantage? Machine learning algorithms find no evidence to differentiate between lifelong bilingual and monolingual cognitive profiles. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 15, Article 621772. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2021.621772
43.
KarimiM. N.Hosseini RadZ. (2021). Bilingual advantage hypothesis: Testing the fit among L1-dominant child and adolescent bilinguals. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 60, Article 101017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2021.101017
44.
KasparianK.SteinhauerK. (2016). Confusing similar words: ERP correlates of lexical-semantic processing in first language attrition and late second language acquisition. Neuropsychologia, 93, 200–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2016.10.007
KrollJ. F.De GrootA. M. (2020). Lexical and conceptual memory in the bilingual: Mapping form to meaning in two languages. In WeiL. (Ed.), The bilingualism reader (pp. 405–427). Routledge.
47.
KrollJ. F.StewartE. (1994). Category interference in translation and picture naming: Evidence for asymmetric connection between bilingual memory representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 33(2), 149–174. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1994.1008
48.
KrollJ. F.Van HellJ. G.TokowiczN.GreenD. W. (2010). The revised hierarchical model: A critical review and assessment. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13(3), 373–381. https://doi.org/10.1017/S136672891000009X
49.
KrumpeT.ScharingerC.RosenstielW.GerjetsP.SpülerM. (2018). Using a machine learning approach to complement group level statistics in experimental psychology: A case study to reveal different levels of inhibition in a modified Flanker Task. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/502278v1
50.
KutasM.FedermeierK. D. (2011). Thirty years and counting: Finding meaning in the N400 component of the event-related brain potential (ERP). Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 621–647. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.131123
51.
Lev-AriS. (2015). Comprehending non-native speakers: Theory and evidence for adjustment in manner of processing. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, Article 1546. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01546
52.
Lev-AriS.KeysarB. (2012). Less-detailed representation of non-native language: Why non-native speakers’ stories seem more vague. Discourse Processes, 49(7), 523–538. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2012.698493
53.
LiP.ZhangF. A. N.TsaiE.PulsB. (2013). Language History Questionnaire (LHQ 2.0): A new dynamic web-based research tool. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17(3), 673–680. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728913000606
54.
LiP.ZhaoX. (2006). A self-organizing connectionist model of bilingual lexical development. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 28, Article 28.
LópezB. G.VaidJ. (2018). Divergence and overlap in bilingual conceptual representation: Does prior language brokering experience matter?Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 21(1), 150–161. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728916001073
57.
MacCallumR. C.ZhangS.PreacherK. J.RuckerD. D. (2002). On the practice of dichotomization of quantitative variables. Psychological Methods, 7(1), 19–40. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.1.19
58.
McRaeK.CreeG. S.SeidenbergM. S.McNorganC. (2005). Semantic feature production norms for a large set of living and nonliving things. Behavior Research Methods, 37(4), 547–559.
59.
MorrisonC.TalerV. (2023). ERP differences between monolinguals and bilinguals: The role of linguistic distance. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 26(2), 293–306. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728922000657
60.
ParadisM. (2009). Declarative and procedural determinants of second languages. John Benjamins Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.40
61.
PedregosaF.VaroquauxG.GramfortA.MichelV.ThirionB.GriselO.BlondelM.PrettenhoferP.WeissR.DubourgV. (2011). Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825–2830.
62.
PeñalozaC.GrasemannU.DekhtyarM.MiikkulainenR.KiranS. (2019). BiLex: A computational approach to the effects of age of acquisition and language exposure on bilingual lexical access. Brain and Language, 195, Article 104643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2019.104643
63.
Pérez-RamónR. (2024). Discrimination of degrees of foreign accent across different speakers. Languages, 9(3), Article 72. https://www.mdpi.com/2226-471X/9/3/72
64.
Perez RamonR.LecumberriM.CookeM. (2020). The effect of language proficiency on the perception of segmental Foreign accent. In Proceedings of interspeech2020 (pp. 2362–2366). https://doi.org/10.21437/Interspeech.2020-1023
65.
PliatsikasC. (2019). Understanding structural plasticity in the bilingual brain: The Dynamic Restructuring Model. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 23(2), 459–471. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728919000130
66.
RossiE.Pereira SoaresS. M.PrystaukaY.NakamuraM.RothmanJ. (2022). Riding the (brain) waves! Using neural oscillations to inform bilingualism research. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 26(1), 202–215. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728922000451
67.
RovettiJ.SumantryD.RussoF. A. (2023). Exposure to nonnative-accented speech reduces listening effort and improves social judgments of the speaker. Scientific Reports, 13(1), Article 2808. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-29082-1
68.
SannerS.WilsonA. H.SamsonL. F. (2002). The experiences of international nursing students in a baccalaureate nursing program. Journal of Professional Nursing, 18(4), 206–213. https://doi.org/10.1053/jpnu.2002.127943
69.
SantilliM.VilasM. G.MikulanE.Martorell CaroM.MuñozE.SedeñoL.IbáñezA.GarcíaA. M. (2018). Bilingual memory, to the extreme: Lexical processing in simultaneous interpreters. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 22(2), 331–348. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728918000378
SheJ. S.MaG.WenP.ZinszerB. D. (2023). Language models show within-and cross-language similarities in concrete noun meaning, but not differences between L1 and L2 English speakers. In Proceedings of the annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (Vol. 45). https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4748z6vz#main
72.
SinhaV.LissemoreF.LernerA. J. (2022). Graph theory analysis of semantic fluency in Russian-English bilinguals. Cognitive and Behavioral Neurology, 35(3), 179–187. https://doi.org/10.1097/wnn.0000000000000312
73.
SpinelliG.GoldsmithS. F.LupkerS. J.MortonJ. B. (2022). Bilingualism and executive attention: Evidence from studies of proactive and reactive control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 48(6), 906–927. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0001095
74.
TalerV.JohnsB. (2022). Using big data to understand bilingual performance in semantic fluency: Findings from the Canadian Longitudinal Study on aging. PLOS ONE, 17(11), Article e0277660. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0277660
75.
Tiffin-RichardsS. P. (2024). Cognate facilitation in bilingual reading: The influence of orthographic and phonological similarity on lexical decisions and eye-movements. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728923000949
76.
TokowiczN.KrollJ. F.de GrootA. M. B.Van HellJ. G. (2002). Number-of-translation norms for Dutch—English translation pairs: A new tool for examining language production. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 34(3), 435–451. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195472
77.
UddinS.KhanA.HossainM. E.MoniM. A. (2019). Comparing different supervised machine learning algorithms for disease prediction. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 19(1), 1–16.
78.
UllmanM. T. (2001a). A neurocognitive perspective on language: The declarative/procedural model. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2(10), 717–726. https://doi.org/10.1038/35094573
79.
UllmanM. T. (2001b). The neural basis of lexicon and grammar in first and second language: The declarative/procedural model. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4(2), 105–122. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728901000220
80.
Van HellJ. G.De GrootA. M. B. (1998). Conceptual representation in bilingual memory: Effects of concreteness and cognate status in word association. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1(3), 193–211. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728998000352
81.
VivasJ.VivasL.ComesañaA.ConiA. G.VoranoA. (2017). Spanish semantic feature production norms for 400 concrete concepts. Behavior Research Methods, 49(3), 1095–1106. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-016-0777-2
82.
VivasL.YerroM.RomanelliS.García ConiA.ComesañaA.LizarraldeF.PassoniI.VivasJ. (2022). New Spanish semantic feature production norms for older adults. Behavior Research Methods, 54(2), 970–986. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-021-01660-z
83.
VukovicN. (2013). When words get physical: evidence for proficiency-modulated somatotopic motor interference during second language comprehension. In Proceedings of the annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (Vol. 35). https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0jb6s58t
84.
WardT. B.ChuA. H.VaidJ.HerediaR. R. (2005). Divergence and overlap in bilingual concept representations. In Proceedings of the annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (Vol. 27). http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/7tn4788v
85.
WartenburgerI.HeekerenH. R.AbutalebiJ.CappaS. F.VillringerA.PeraniD. (2003). Early setting of grammatical processing in the bilingual brain. Neuron, 37(1), 159–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0896-6273(02)01150-9
86.
WeimerN. R.ClarkS. L.FreitasA. L. (2019). Distinct neural responses to social and semantic violations: An N400 study. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 137, 72–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2018.12.006
ZhouR. Y.KnokeD.SakamotoI. (2005). Rethinking silence in the classroom: Chinese students’ experiences of sharing indigenous knowledge. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 9(3), 287–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603110500075180
89.
ZinszerB. D.MaltB. C.AmeelE.LiP. (2014). Native-likeness in second language lexical categorization reflects individual language history and linguistic community norms. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, Article 1203. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01203
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
