认知与发展心理学研究室知识库

目前，非母语的言语加工过程及其机制逐步得到了研究者的关注，并围绕母语（语言使用者的第一语言，L1）与非母语（双语者的第二语言，L2）加工为何以及如何不同展开研究。研究发现，L1和L2加工既有相似之处，也有差异所在。一些研究结果与已有传统观点显著不同。例如，一般观点认为双语者的L2语法加工比词汇加工更难，但近期研究却发现，即使关键期之后获取第二语言的晚期双语者对某些语法的加工也能像母语者一样。但是，至今尚未有研究探讨双语者第二语言的加工特点及其加工机制，也不清楚L2与L1加工特点的异同。在本研究中，我们将考察字词识别中双语者第二语言的激活时间进程及其脑机制，试图在字词加工水平揭示双语者的L2加工是否像母语者一样？
考虑到我国少数民族众多，汉语是少数民族的第二语言，为了更好了解少数民族学生的汉语学习特点，以提高少数民族学生的汉语学习时效，本研究选取人口众多的藏族少数民族学生作为研究对象。首先，我们采用真假字词判断的研究方法初步考察藏-汉双语者的汉字词识别过程中汉字词的激活时间进程，通过比较汉语熟练与不熟练被试的汉字词加工特点探究第二语言熟练程度是否影响双语者第二语言的激活时间进程。在此基础上，采用形似音同材料考察字形信息在藏-汉双语者汉字词识别中的作用；采用音同规则字与音同不规则字考察亚字单元的语音信息是否在第二语言识别过程中得到激活。最后，采用ERP 技术进一步考察藏-汉双语者识别汉字词的大脑加工机制。
通过一系列研究，我们发现，无论L2熟练程度如何，藏-汉双语者的汉字词识别时间进程基本相似，都是义—音—形。字形信息在识别早期阶段会影响汉字词识别过程，而亚字单元的语音信息没有得到激活。ERP结果与行为实验结果基本相同。结合ERP的行为数据、脑电波以及溯源分析结果，可以看出，藏-汉双语者的汉字词识别时间进程及其激活脑区分别是：目标字呈现200ms时，语义信息得以激活，主要激活脑区是左侧BA5；此时，字形信息对语义信息的激活有一定影响，字形信息的主要激活脑区是右侧BA19；到400ms时，语音信息和语义信息都处于激活状态，激活脑区都在左侧BA7。由此可见，藏-汉双语者的汉字词识别特点及其脑机制与汉语母语者显著不同。
本研究结果将促使我们深入思考双语者第二语言的言语加工机制，以及双语者第二语言的加工机制与该语言母语者的异同。这对于双语教育教学都有非常重要的意义。

Since more and more people master two or three or even more than three languages, the amount of bilinguals has exceeded than that of molinguals, researchers has always focusedon the mechanism of bilinguals’ language processing. With the development and growth of cognitive psychology, researchers have carried out series of in-depth researches on bilingual linguistic representation, linguistic associationand processing of different languages, and have accumulated rich theoretical results.
Afterseveral decades of researches on native language (L1) processing, researchers attention are turning to non-native language processing and its mechanism. They mainly focus on the processing differences between native language (L1) processing and non-native language(L2) processing.The results show that there are both similarities and differences between the processing of L1 and L2, especially some results are significantly different from that of the existing traditional ones. For example, L2 processing can become native-like in some linguistic domains (including certain aspects of grammar) even if the foreign language was learned after the critical period, while which was generally considered to be a difficult task and generally less successful. However, up to now, there has no study to explore bilingual processing characteristics and mechanism, and don’t know the differences between L2 and L1 processing. The present study will try to reveal bilinguals’ second language processing and brain mechanism by examining the time course of second language activation in language recognition,and try to answer whether bilinguals’ L2 processing are similar to that of the native speakers.
Considering there are many ethnic minorities in China and Chinese character is the second language for ethnic students, in this study, we will select Tibetan-Mandarin students to explore the characteristics of the ethnic students' Chinese processing so as to improve their Chinese learning effect. Firstly, we intend to conductthe task of true-false word to investigatethe time course of the activation of bilinguals’ second language, and then investigate the role of graphic information and phonological information on the process of bilingual word recognition. Finally, we explore the brain mechanism of bilinguals’ second language processing by using ERP technique.
Based on the above studies, we find that, no matter how proficient their L2 language is, the time course of Chinese character recognition of Tibetan-Mandarin bilinguals basically follows the same order: semantic, phonological, and graphic. And graphic information has a role on the semantic activation meanwhile sub-level phonological information is not activated during the early stage of Chinese word recognition. The ERP results are basically the same as the experimental results. Combined with the behavior of the ERP data, brain waves and traceability analysis results, it can be seen that: when the target word has been presented for 200 ms, the semantic information is activated and the mainly activated brain region is left BA5; meanwhile the graphic information has a certain influence on semantic activation and the mainly activated brain region is right BA19; when it reaches to 400 ms, the phonological information and semantic information are both activated and the activated areas are both on left BA7. Obviously, these results revel that the time course and the brain mechanism of Tibetan-Mandarin bilinguals’ Chinese word recognition are significantly different from that of Chinese native speakers.
These results may help us to think deeply about the bilingual second language processing, as well as the differences of language processing between bilinguals’ second language and the same language of the native speakers. All of these have important pedagogical implication for bilingual teaching and teaching Chinese as second language.