The Impact of Lexical Co-activation through Cognates on L2 Rule Learning

The Impac o Lexical Co-ac i a ion
h ough Cogna es on L2 Rule Lea ning
Submi ed by
Noèlia Sanahuja Cobacho
In pa ial ul ilmen o he equi emen s o he Mas e in
Theo e ical and Expe imen al Linguis ics
Uni e sidad del País Vasco/Euskal He iko Unibe si a ea
Vi o ia-Gas eiz, June 3 d, 2019
Supe iso : P o . Kepa E dozia
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like o exp ess my since e g a i ude o my supe iso , Kepa E dozia. You
guidance and iendship h oughou his esea ch ha e u ned his expe ience in o an
un o ge able one. I would also like o hank A. Dieguez, I. San Ma ín and A. Isasi-
Isasmendi o kindly ag eeing o eco d he expe imen al i ems used in his esea ch.
Finally, I ha e o hank my amily o suppo ing me in my decision o en ol in his
p ojec . I owe you e e y hing.
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Index o igu es and ables ............................................................................................. ii
Abs ac ........................................................................................................................... 1
1. In oduc ion ................................................................................................................ 2
1.1. L1 and L2 acquisi ion o ocabula y and g amma ............................................... 2
1.1.1. E idence o mul iple lea ning mechanisms ................................................... 2
1.1.2. P oponen s o a single s a is ical lea ning mechanism .................................... 4
1.2. The in e ac ion be ween he acquisi ion o ocabula y and g amma ................... 5
1.2.1. F iede ici e al.’s (2002) s udy ........................................................................ 6
1.2.2. Walke e al.’s (2017) s udy ............................................................................ 7
1.3. Cogna es and lexical access ................................................................................... 9
1.3.1. The cogna e acili a ion e ec (Dijks a e al., 1999) ..................................... 9
1.3.2. The Inhibi o y Con ol model (G een 1998) and he Language-speci ic model
(Cos a e al., 1999) .................................................................................................. 10
1.4. The impac o cogna es on syn ax lea ning and p ocessing ................................. 12
1.4.1. Hopp’s (2017) s udy ...................................................................................... 13
1.4.2. Bas a ika & Da idson’s (2017) s udy .......................................................... 14
2. The p esen s udy ..................................................................................................... 15
2.1. Resea ch ques ion, hypo hesis and p edic ions .................................................... 15
2.2. Some ele an p ope ies o Basque g amma ..................................................... 16
2.3. Me hod ................................................................................................................. 16
2.3.1. Pa icipan s .................................................................................................... 17
2.3.2. Ma e ials ........................................................................................................ 17
2.3.3. P ocedu e ....................................................................................................... 20
2.3.4. Da a analysis ................................................................................................. 27
3. Resul s ........................................................................................................................ 28
3.1. Pe o mance on LexTALE and he digi span es ............................................... 28
ii
3.2. Pe o mance on p e- es ials .............................................................................. 28
3.3. Vocabula y lea ning ............................................................................................. 30
3.4. Pe o mance on es ials .................................................................................... 31
3.5. Pe o mance on pos - es ials ............................................................................ 32
3.6. Compa ison o pe o mance ac oss he p e- es , he es and he pos - es .......... 33
4. Discussion .................................................................................................................. 39
4.1. Rule lea ning h ough cogna es ........................................................................... 39
4.2. Explici ocabula y lea ning ................................................................................ 42
4.3. P ocessing canonical and non-canonical wo d o de s ......................................... 43
5. Open issues o u u e esea ch ............................................................................... 44
6. Conclusions ............................................................................................................... 47
Re e ences...................................................................................................................... 48
Appendices .................................................................................................................... 53
Appendix A ................................................................................................................. 53
Appendix B ................................................................................................................. 54
Appendix C ................................................................................................................. 55
Appendix D ................................................................................................................. 70
INDEX OF FIGURES AND TABLES
Figu e 1. Boa d game used o language acquisi ion (F iede ici e al., 2002) ................. 7
Figu e 2. Sc eensho o he scenes displayed du ing he lea ning ask
(Walke e al., 2017) ......................................................................................................... 8
Figu e 3. (A) Swi ching pe o mance o na i e speake s o Spanish low-p o icien
lea ne s o Ca alan. (B) Swi ching pe o mance o Spanish–Ca alan highly p o icien
bilinguals in hei wo dominan languages (Cos a & San es eban, 2004). .................... 10
Figu e 4. Pic u e o he sen ences Ak o eak medikua pin a u du (SOV) and Medikua
ak o eak pin a u du (OSV) ............................................................................................. 20
iii
Figu e 5. (A) Pic u e displayed o he noun ma gola i ‘pain e ’. (B) Pic u e displayed
o he e b auke a u ‘ o choose’. .................................................................................. 22
Figu e 6. Pic u e displayed in one o he p ac ice ials p eceding he es . ................... 24
Figu e 7. Example o a pic u e displayed in he es . ..................................................... 25
Figu e 8. Mean co ec esponses o he cogna e and he non-cogna e g oup ac oss he
h ee expe imen al blocks ............................................................................................... 34
Figu e 9. Mean eac ion imes (ms) o he cogna e and he non-cogna e g oup ac oss he
h ee expe imen al blocks ............................................................................................... 38
Table 1. Example expe imen al ma e ials. All ou sen ences mean ‘The ac o has pain ed
he doc o ’.. ..................................................................................................................... 19
Table 2. Desc ip i e s a is ics o he accu acy o he cogna e and he non-cogna e g oup
ac oss he expe imen al blocks.. ..................................................................................... 34
Table 3. Desc ip i e s a is ics o he eac ion imes o he cogna e and he non-cogna e
g oup ac oss he expe imen al blocks ............................................................................. 37
Table 4. Vocabula y used in he wo e sions o he a i icial language. Cogna es i s
ow, non-cogna es second ow ....................................................................................... 53
Table 5. Means, S anda d De ia ions (in b acke s) and - es s o leng h (numbe o
le e s), o hog aphic and audi o y o e lap (Le ensh ein’s Dis ance) and equency pe
million o he lexical i ems o he es ........................................................................... 54
Table 6. Means, S anda d De ia ions (in b acke s) and - es s o leng h (numbe o
le e s), o hog aphic and audi o y o e lap (Le ensh ein’s Dis ance) and equency pe
million o he lexical i ems o he pos - es ................................................................... 54

1
Abs ac
The cogna e acili a ion e ec (Dijks a e al., 1999) makes cogna es easie o p ocess
han non-cogna es, and his ad an age has been ound o ease lexical and syn ac ic
p ocessing (e.g. Cos a e al., 2000; Hopp, 2017). To my knowledge, he e is no cu en ly
any s udy which assesses whe he cogna es ease ule lea ning. I de eloped an a i icial
language which allowed me o es he hypo hesis ha c oss-linguis ic ac i a ion o he
lexicon h ough cogna es acili a es he lea ning o an L2 g amma ical ule.
I c ea ed wo e sions o he a i icial language, he di e ence be ween he wo being he
cogna e (Spanish-Basque) o non-cogna e s a us o hei lexical i ems (n= 30). In his
language, sen ences esponded o ei he SOV o OSV wo d o de s. The g amma ical ule
o be lea n desc ibed he subjec -objec assignmen pa e n: subjec s we e ma ked wi h
an -ak mo pheme and objec s wi h an -a. Fo y na i e speake s o Spanish (20 o each
e sion o he language) we e explici ly augh he cogna e/non-cogna e ocabula y and
he g amma ical ule. La e , lea ning was assessed by means o a sen ence-pic u e
ma ching pa adigm. In a pos - es , all pa icipan s lis ened o sen ences made up o
p e iously unhea d cogna es o es he hypo hesis ha he cogna e acili a ion e ec
would imp o e non-cogna e lea ne s’ pe o mance. Reac ion imes and accu acy a es
we e measu ed.
I ound ha ule lea ning was a ained when he ocabula y o he language was bo h
cogna e and non-cogna e wi h he L1, e en i he magni ude o he lea ning was g ea e
o he cogna e g oup o pa icipan s. This inding could be explained by claiming ha
e ie ing non-cogna es was e y cos ly, while he co-ac i a ion o he L1 h ough
cogna es made he e ie al o hese wo ds i ually cos - ee. As a esul , cogna e lea ne s
disposed o plen y o esou ces o lea n he g amma ical ule, bu non-cogna e lea ne s
did no . This esul was u he co obo a ed in he pos - es , when pa icipan s o he non-
cogna e e sion o he language signi ican ly imp o ed in hei lea ning o he ule.
Keywo ds: cogna es, ule lea ning, a i icial language, Basque
The impac o lexical co-ac i a ion h ough cogna es on L2 ule lea ning
2
1. In oduc ion
Language acquisi ion is a complex p ocess which equi es in an s o acqui e he
phonemes o he language, pa se he speech s eam in o wo ds, associa e lexical i ems
wi h meaning and ex ac and gene alize g amma ical ules (de Diego-Balague & Lopez-
Ba oso, 2010). Ye , babies a e known o acqui e hei na i e language in a na u al and
appa en ly e o less way. Lea ning a second language in adul hood, on he o he hand,
appea s o be way mo e complica ed. When lea ning a new language, adul s mus ace
simila challenges. They mus lea n new wo ds and how o use di e en syn ac ic
s uc u es. Jus as babies, speake s mus associa e a la ge se o lexical i ems wi h hei
app op ia e seman ic con en , and hey mus lea n o p onounce hem acco ding o he
phonemes o he second language (L2), which, on many occasions, di e om hose o
he i s language (L1). Addi ionally, lea ne s mus usually assimila e syn ac ic s uc u es
o he a ge language which a e no p esen in hei na i e language and which a e,
he e o e, mo e cos ly o lea n and p ocess (Webe -Fox & Ne ille, 1996).
In his s udy I examined how second language lea ning could be eased and, mo e
p ecisely, whe he he lea ning o a g amma ical ule could be acili a ed by he c oss-
linguis ic ac i a ion o he L1 lexicon h ough cogna es. To do his, wo e sions o an
a i icial language d awing on Basque we e designed. Each e sion coun ed on jus one
g amma ical ule and a se o hi y lexical i ems, ei he cogna es o non-cogna es wi h
Spanish. In he i s subsec ion o he in oduc ion, I will e iew some o he mos ele an
s udies ackling wo d and ule acquisi ion and I will ou line how hese ela e o he deba e
a ound single o mul iple lea ning mechanisms o ocabula y and g amma . Then, some
conside a ions will be done on he special s a us o cogna es and hei ela ion o lexical
access. Finally, he po en ial impac o cogna es on g amma lea ning will be add essed.
1.1. L1 and L2 acquisi ion o ocabula y and g amma
1.1.1. E idence o mul iple lea ning mechanisms
Since his s udy examines he ela ionship be ween he lea ning o ocabula y and
g amma , I ound pe inen o s a he li e a u e e iew by commen ing on some o he
se e al s udies which ha e ocused on wo d and ule acquisi ion in a second language.
Gi en he complexi y o na u al languages, many esea che s ha e op ed o s udy
language acquisi ion by means o a i icial languages which can be lea ned in he
The impac o lexical co-ac i a ion h ough cogna es on L2 ule lea ning
3
labo a o y. Bo h adul s and in an s ha e been shown o be capable o calcula ing he
ansi ional p obabili ies be ween phonemes, adjacen and nonadjacen syllables o he
acquisi ion o phono ac ics, wo d segmen a ion and mo phosyn ac ic ules, espec i ely
(de Diego-Balague & Lopez-Ba oso, 2010).
One o he key s udies suppo ing he claim ha in an s ex ac wo ds om luen speech
on he basis o ansi ional p obabili ies was he one ca ied ou by Sa an e al. in 1996.
In hei wo k, he au ho s es ed 24 eigh -mon h-old babies on hei abili y o segmen an
a i icial speech s eam in o wo ds. The a i icial language was made up o isyllabic
nonsense i ems epea ed in a andom o de (e.g. bidakupado igolabubidaku…), and he
only cues o wo d segmen a ion we e he ansi ional p obabili ies be ween syllables,
which we e 1.0. wi hin wo ds bu 0.33 be ween wo ds. The p ocedu e consis ed o a 2-
minu e amilia iza ion phase ollowed by he p esen a ion o wo di e en s imuli: 1)
wo ds con ained in he speech s eam and 2) nonwo ds ha we e simila o wo ds in he
a i icial language bu did no belong o i . While he s imuli we e p esen ed, babies’
isual ixa ions on a blinking ligh we e measu ed. The du a ion o hese ixa ions was
ound o be signi ican ly la ge o nonwo ds han o wo ds, e lec ing ha babies we e
able o disc imina e be ween amilia and no el sounds. In o he wo ds, eigh -mon h old
babies we e capable o segmen ing wo ds om luen speech based on he ansi ional
p obabili ies be ween speech sounds. A pos - es u he showed ha hey lea ned he
wo ds o a high deg ee o speci ici y, since hey a ended less o “wo ds” han o “pa -
wo ds”, i.e., i ems which consis ed o he inal syllable o a wo d plus he i s wo
syllables o ano he wo d.
Following hese indings, he ques ion a ose as o whe he his s a is ical compu a ion
could also be esponsible o g amma lea ning o i , by con as , wo ds and ules we e
lea ned h ough di e en mechanisms. Agains his deba e, he s udy by Peña e al. (2002)
was c ucial in ipping he balance in a ou o dis inc mechanisms o simul aneous wo d
and ule-lea ning. Peña and colleagues’ esea ch aimed o de e mine whe he adul
speake s could segmen a speech s eam and ex ac i s unde lying g amma ical ules by
compu ing nonadjacen ansi ion p obabili ies. To do his, ou een adul F ench speake s
we e es ed on a isyllabic a i icial language called AXC, since o e e y i em, A
p edic ed C (e.g. [puliki], [puRaki], [pu oki]). A e unde going a 10-minu e long
amilia iza ion phase, pa icipan s we e p esen ed wi h bo h wo ds (AiXCi) and “pa
The impac o lexical co-ac i a ion h ough cogna es on L2 ule lea ning
4
wo ds” (CAX o XCA) and we e asked o judge which i em esembled mo e a wo d
wi hin he sequence o sounds p e iously hea d. Pa icipan s chose subs an ially mo e he
wo ds han he pa wo ds, indica ing ha adul s we e also capable o segmen ing he
speech s eam in o wo ds by compu ing ansi ional p obabili ies. A second expe imen
was ca ied ou o de e mine whe he , apa om iden i ying he wo ds in he speech
s eam, pa icipan s we e also awa e o he s uc u al gene aliza ion unde lying his
language. In e es ingly, when asked o decide whe he a “pa wo d” o a “ ule wo d”
—an i em no p esen in he speech s eam bu cong uen wi h he gene alisa ion—
esembled mo e a wo d o he a i icial language, pa icipan s did no p e e ule wo ds
o pa wo ds. Ye , when in a hi d expe imen segmen a ion cues —subliminal gaps o
25ms— we e added a e each wo d, speake s we e able o cap u e he AXC
gene alisa ion. Tha is, hey judged “ ule wo ds” o be mo e simila o he i ems
p e iously hea d han “pa wo ds”. Acco ding o he au ho s, hese silences would
suppose he in oduc ion o a minimal p osody in o he speech s eam which, in u n,
would ease ule lea ning. Thus, e en i a con inuous speech s eam igge ed s a is ical
compu a ions, i was he inse ion o mino pauses ha allowed pa icipan s o ex ac
g amma ical gene aliza ions. This e idence in suppo o specialized mechanisms o
ex ac ing wo ds and g amma ical egula i ies was o malized by End ess and Bona i
(2007) as he Mo e han One Mechanisms (MOM) hypo hesis.
1.1.2. P oponen s o a single s a is ical lea ning mechanism
In spi e o he e idence o mul iple lea ning mechanisms, se e al al e na i es o he
MOM hypo hesis ha e been p oposed. Amongs hese, I will sho ly epo wo o he
mos in luen ial ones: 1) Pe uche e al.’s (2004) PARSER model and 2) Aslin &
Newpo ’s (2012) accoun based on saliency.
In 2004, Pe uche and colleagues p oposed a model which hey claimed could be e
accoun o Peña e al.’s esul s. In 1998, Pe uche had al eady a gued, wi h Vin e , ha
he chunking o a speech s eam in o wo ds was he esul o he in e ac ion o wo
p inciples o ganizing he cogni i e sys em. The i s p inciple s a es ha hose uni s
pe cei ed wi hin one a en ional ocus (i.e., he chunks) cons i u e a new uni , which can
ei he anish o be s eng hened depending on whe he he associa ion o he e y same
uni s u he eoccu s in he inpu . The second p inciple claims ha he pe cep ion o
chunks e ol es as he knowledge abou hem inc eases h ough expe ience. So, o sum
The impac o lexical co-ac i a ion h ough cogna es on L2 ule lea ning
11
This cos has been aken o e lec compe i ion be ween he i s and he second language.
Tha is, when communica ing in he L2, speake s a oid in e e ence om he L1 by pa ly
educing he ac i a ion o his language, and he opposi e happens when communica ing
in he L1. This inhibi ion mus be o e come when speake s wan o swi ch om one
language o he o he . C ucially, in low p o icien bilinguals, he inhibi ion applied o he
L1 is la ge han he one applied o he L2. The e o e, swi ching om he L2 o he L1 is
mo e cos ly han going om he L1 o he L2 (Cos a & San es eban, 2004).
Al e na i ely, he Language-speci ic model (Cos a e al., 1999) a gues ha he e is no
c oss-linguis ic compe i ion and ha bilingual speake s a e only sensi i e o he ac i a ion
o he lexical i ems o he o-be-p oduced language. As such, hey igno e he ac i a ion
o he wo ds o he non- a ge language wi hou needing o supp ess hei ac i a ion.
Cos a and colleagues ook as e idence o his claim he ac ha in a pic u e-naming ask
ca ied ou by English-Spanish bilinguals, speake s we e as e a naming he pic u e o a
dog in Spanish (“pe o”) when he dis ac o wo d was “dog” ha when i was “chai ”.
The c oss-language iden i y e ec ound was aken as e idence o he ac ha he e is
no compe i ion ac oss languages, since i his we e he case, he a ge ’s ansla ion
should slow down pic u e naming a he han acili a e i . Along hese lines, he cogna e
acili a ion e ec obse ed in bilingual pic u e naming (Cos a e al., 2000) u he
suppo s he claim ha he a ge and he non- a ge languages do no compe e o
Figu e 3. (A) Swi ching pe o mance o na i e speake s o
Spanish low-p o icien lea ne s o Ca alan. (B) Swi ching
pe o mance o Spanish–Ca alan highly p o icien bilinguals
in hei wo dominan languages (Cos a & San es eban, 2004).

The impac o lexical co-ac i a ion h ough cogna es on L2 ule lea ning
12
selec ion, since i compe i ion exis ed, cogna es should also hampe naming a he han
enhance i .
To da e, he ques ion a ound lexical compe i ion emains unanswe ed. Howe e ,
i espec i e o he selec ion mechanism assumed, i has been es ablished ha while lexical
e ie al is acili a ed by cogna es, accessing non-cogna e wo ds is mo e cos ly
(San es eban and Schwie e , in p ess). This inding is key o he p esen s udy, since i
p edic s ha pa icipan s lea ning cogna es will p ocess he ocabula y o he a i icial
language as e and wi h less e o han hose lea ning non-cogna es.
1.4. The impac o cogna es on syn ax lea ning and p ocessing
In he p e ious sec ion i has been men ioned ha he cogna e acili a ion e ec makes
cogna es easie o p ocess han non-cogna es. Despi e mos s udies ha e ocused on
examining cogna es in isola ion (e.g. Dijks a e al., 1999, 2010), he cogna e acili a ion
e ec has also been obse ed in sen ence con ex s. P e ious esea ch has analysed
whe he he acili a ion a es ed in single wo ds pe sis s when cogna es appea in ull
sen ences (e.g. an Hell & de G oo , 2008). Ne e heless, hese s udies ha e usually
ocused on lexical p ocessing and ha e neglec ed he impac cogna es can ha e on
syn ac ic p ocessing. When wo languages sha e a syn ac ic s uc u e, he p oduc ion o
such a s uc u e in one o he languages acili a es he u e ance o a sen ence wi h he
same s uc u e in he o he language. This phenomenon is known as bilingual syn ac ic
p iming (Loebell & Bock, 2003), and p o ides e idence ha he syn ax o a bilinguals’
wo languages ge s ac i a ed du ing sen ence p ocessing (Soa es e al., 2018).
In he sec ion abo e, i has also been men ioned ha bo h o bilinguals’ lexicons a e
ac i a ed du ing language p ocessing. Taking his in o accoun , Schoonbae e al. (2007)
a gued ha he use o cogna e wo ds in a s uc u e sha ed in wo languages could augmen
he magni ude o he bilingual syn ac ic p iming e ec . Tha is, since cogna es a e
ac i a ed as e and mo e s ongly han non-cogna es, he boos in lexical co-ac i a ion
ollowing he use o hese wo ds could u he acili a e bilinguals’ u e ance o a a ge
s uc u e. In he ollowing lines, I will e iew wo s udies which illus a e he impac o
cogna es on g amma ical ule lea ning and p ocessing.
The impac o lexical co-ac i a ion h ough cogna es on L2 ule lea ning
13
1.4.1. Hopp’s (2017) s udy
Hopp (2017) examined he di e ences in Ge man-English bilingual p ocessing o
sen ences con aining L1-L2 cogna e and non-cogna e e bs. The s uc u es es ed we e
English educed ela i e clauses (c . 1), whose wo d o de pa ially o e laps wi h Ge man
embedded clauses (SOV). As a esul , when eading he i s ype o s uc u es, L1
Ge man lea ne s o English empo a ily ac i a e he canonical wo d o de o Ge man
embedded clauses. By in oducing cogna e e bs in he sen ences, Hopp es ed be ween
wo possible in e ac ions o lexical and syn ac ic co-ac i a ion. Fi s , i could be ha he
inc eased lexical co-ac i a ion o he L1 h ough cogna es led o a s onge syn ac ic co-
ac i a ion o he L1. I his we e he case, p ocessing sen ences wi h cogna es could be
mo e cos ly han wi h non-cogna es, since he ac i a ion o he embedded clauses in he
L1 would in e e e wi h a a ge -like p ocessing o he educed ela i e clauses in he L2.
Second, since accessing cogna es equi es less esou ces han accessing non-cogna es,
p ocessing L2 sen ences wi h he i s ype o wo ds could lea e mo e esou ces a ailable
o inhibi he syn ax o he L1. As a esul , p ocessing should be easie , since he L1 syn ax
would no in e e e wi h he a ge L2 syn ac ic s uc u e.
In o de o es hese hypo heses, Hopp had 39 Ge man lea ne s o English ead 32
sen ences and 138 ille s in English. As pa icipan s did his, hei eye-mo emen s we e
eco ded. The educed ela i e clauses had he ollowing s uc u e (2017:105):
(1) When he doc o Sa ah igno ed ied o lea e he oom he nu se came in all o a
sudden.
The esul s o he s udy indica ed ha bilinguals’ eading o sen ences wi h cogna es was
as e han wi h con ol e bs, sugges ing ha syn ac ic p ocessing was eased by he i s
ype o wo ds. Tha is, p ocessing cogna e e bs was less cos ly han p ocessing non-
cogna es. Consequen ly, in he i s case mo e esou ces could be de o ed o inhibi ing
he L1 syn ax and his, in u n, eased a ge -like L2 p ocessing. By con as , when he
s uc u e con ained non-cogna es, he high cos associa ed wi h lexical p ocessing le
e y ew esou ces a ailable o inhibi he L1 syn ax, which in e e ed wi h a as
p ocessing o L2 educed ela i e clauses.
The impac o lexical co-ac i a ion h ough cogna es on L2 ule lea ning
14
1.4.2. Bas a ika & Da idson’s (2017) s udy
Tu ning o language lea ning, Bas a ika & Da idson (2017) explo ed Spanish adul s’
capaci y o lea n a g amma ical ule o numbe ma king in Basque. The au ho s also
assessed b ain esponses o mo phosyn ac ic iola ions using magne oencephalog aphy
(MEG), bu only beha iou al esul s a e epo ed he e since jus hese go in line wi h ou
in e es s. In o de o make su e ha he lea ning e ec s we e indica i e o g amma ical
ule lea ning, Bas a ika & Da idson c ea ed a minia u ized e sion o Basque (Mini-
Basque) whe e all ocabula y was cogna e wi h Spanish. As such, lea ning was mainly
educed o syn ax. Pa icipan s o he s udy we e se en een Spanish speake s wi h no
p e ious knowledge o Basque. The ule o be lea n could be o mula ed as:
G amma ical numbe is ma ked in bo h Spanish and Basque, bu while he o me
ma ks i in all he elemen s o he ph ase, he la e jus does so on he las elemen
o he s uc u e:
(2) a. El dado e de
he.Masc.Sg dice.Masc.Sg g een.Sg
a’. Dado be de-a
dice g een- he.Sg
‘The g een die’
b. Los dado-s e de-s
he.Masc.Pl dice.Masc-Pl g een-Pl
b’. Dado be de-a-k
dice g een- he-Pl
‘The g een dice’
The s udy consis ed o wo expe imen al sessions ca ied ou on wo consecu i e days. In
he i s session, pa icipan s we e explici ly augh he g amma ical ule and u he
ained on hei sen ence comp ehension and p oduc ion in Mini-Basque ia judgemen
asks and pic u e desc ip ion asks. Tha is, on he one hand, hey we e audi o y p esen ed
wi h g amma ical sen ences and wi h sen ences con aining a numbe ma king iola ion
and hey we e asked o judge which one was good o co ec . On he o he hand, hey
we e con on ed wi h a pic u e wi h ei he one o wo d awings p esen ed in one colou
(e.g. a single g een die o a pai o g een dice) and hey subsequen ly had o p oduce ei he
The impac o lexical co-ac i a ion h ough cogna es on L2 ule lea ning
15
a singula o a plu al noun ph ase ha desc ibed he pic u e (c . 2). Following his aining,
in he second session pa icipan s we e es ed on hei knowledge by epea ing he e y
same asks bu wi h di e en s imuli. The aim o his es was o make su e ha
pa icipan s could apply he ule o new wo ds, and ha hey did no jus memo ize he
co ec o inco ec noun ph ases. In addi ion, hey we e also es ed on hei
comp ehension and p oduc ion in Spanish in o de o ha e a baseline o u he
compa ison wi h Basque. The esul s o his s udy ound ha pa icipan s lea ned he
g amma ical ule o he poin ha hey achie ed a high p o iciency in comp ehension and
p oduc ion o Mini-Basque (≥ 95%).
All in all, Hopp’s (2017) s udy p o ides aluable e idence o he ac ha cogna es ha e
an impac on syn ac ic p ocessing. On ano he no e, Bas a ika & Da idson’s (2017)
s udy used an a i icial language made up o cogna e ocabula y o explo e ule lea ning,
bu he aim o hei wo k was no o es whe he hese lexical i ems eased his p ocess.
This is e lec ed by he ac ha he au ho s did no include non-cogna es as pa o hei
language’s ocabula y, which would ha e allowed o an analysis o he e ec ha he
di e en ypes o i ems ha e on syn ax acquisi ion. Hence, he ole o cogna es on ule
lea ning emains unexplo ed.
2. The p esen s udy
This s udy examined Spanish speake s’ lea ning o he g amma ical ule o an a i icial
language d awing on Basque h ough a cogna e and a non-cogna e ocabula y. The eason
why I decided o base he a i icial language on Basque is ha Spanish and Basque sha e
a ela i ely la ge pa o hei ocabula ies and phonological in en o ies, bu subs an ially
di e in hei g amma ical sys ems. I decided o exploi his cha ac e is ic o explo e ule
lea ning when di e en deg ees o ocabula y acquisi ion a e equi ed. In wha ollows,
I will p esen he hypo heses and he p edic ions made and I will de ail he me hod and
p ocedu e ha we e used o es hem.
2.1. Resea ch ques ion, hypo heses and p edic ions
The p esen s udy ackled he b oad ques ion o how second language lea ning can be
eased. Mo e p ecisely, i asked whe he he use o Spanish-Basque cogna es acili a es
he lea ning o an a i icial language’s g amma ical ule. The main hypo hesis s a ed ha
The impac o lexical co-ac i a ion h ough cogna es on L2 ule lea ning
16
cogna es do ease g amma ical lea ning. Thus, i p edic ed ha na i e speake s o Spanish
would lea n he g amma ical ule way as e and mo e accu a ely when he lexical i ems
o he a i icial language we e cogna es wi h hei L1 han when hey we e no . The
language con ained bo h SOV and OSV sen ences. This wo d o de al e na ion was
in oduced o be able o es o pa icipan s lea ning o he ule, which elied on subjec -
objec ma king (see sec ion 2.3.3. below). Tha is, i he language was only made up o
SOV sen ences, hen ha ing a ule ma king he subjec and he objec di e en ly would
make no sense, since he i s i em men ioned would always be he subjec . P e ious
s udies ha e ound ha subjec - i s sen ences a e p ocessed as e han OSV ones
(E docia e al., 2009, 2014). Fu he mo e, OSV sen ences ha e been epo ed o in ol e
a highe p ocessing cos due o hei syn ac ic complexi y (Ma zke e al., 2002). Hence, I
hypo hesized ha SOV sen ences would be p ocessed wi h g ea e ease han OSV ones.
This hypo hesis p edic ed ha pa icipan s would espond o SOV s imuli as e and mo e
accu a ely.
2.2. Some ele an p ope ies o Basque g amma
In his sec ion I make a b ie excu sus o cha ac e ize some ele an p ope ies o Basque
g amma (see A b ie G amma o Euska a by Laka (1996) o mo e in o ma ion). This
is impo an since he ule o he a i icial language was simila o an exis ing one in
Basque bu , c ucially, di e ed om ha o he na u al language in mo e han one aspec .
Basque is a ee wo d o de language; nea ly all cons i uen combina ions yield a
g amma ical sen ence. Ye , Basque g amma has been a gued o be SOV (de Rijk, 1969;
G eenbe g, 1963) because i has mos p ope ies o his ype: i has pos posi ions ins ead
o p eposi ions, de e mine s ollow he noun and in lec ed auxilia ies ollow he e b.
Basque is also an e ga i e language. Tha is, subjec s o in ansi i e clauses and objec s
o ansi i e clauses a e mo phologically iden ical and bea no o e case ending. By
con as , agen i e subjec s o ansi i e clauses ca y an e ga i e case ma ke (-k). In
sec ion 2.3.3. below, we will see how he a i icial language’s ule de ached om hese
cha ac e is ics.
2.3. Me hod
As s a ed abo e, he main objec i e o his s udy was o ind ou whe he na i e speake s
o Spanish lea ned a g amma ical ule as e when he ocabula y o he a i icial
language was cogna e wi h he one in he L1. Using a sen ence-pic u e ma ching

The impac o lexical co-ac i a ion h ough cogna es on L2 ule lea ning
17
pa adigm, eac ion imes and accu acy a es o cogna e and non-cogna e sen ences we e
s udied. Acco ding o he hypo hesis ha lea ning would be acili a ed by cogna es, longe
eac ion imes and lowe accu acy sco es we e expec ed o non-cogna e sen ences han
o cogna e ones.
2.3.1. Pa icipan s
Fo y Spanish speake s (36 women and 4 men; age: 18-30) ook pa in he expe imen .
All o hem epo ed ha ing no p e ious knowledge o Basque in a linguis ic backg ound
ques ionnai e illed in p io o he expe imen . Pa icipan s we e s uden s a he Uni e si y
o he Basque Coun y (UPV/EHU) bu came om o he egions o Spain. Thi y-nine o
hem we e na i e speake s o Spanish, and one was a na i e speake o Ca alan who had
s a ed lea ning Spanish a he age o 3
1
. All subjec s epo ed ha ing no mal o co ec ed
o no mal ision and hea ing, and hey we e paid o hei ime. Be o e he expe imen
began, hey all ead and signed an in o med consen .
2.3.2. Ma e ials
The a i icial language
Two e sions o he a i icial language we e c ea ed, each o hem coun ing on hi y
lexical i ems ( wen y anima e nouns and en e bs). In one o he e sions, he lexical
i ems we e ull cogna es wi h Spanish wo ds (e.g. Basque bonbe o s. Spanish bombe o
(‘ i e igh e ’)). On some occasions, he lexical i ems we e sligh ly modi ied so ha hey
ul illed his equi emen (e.g. salu a u (Basque) > saluda u (a i icial language) o
Spanish saluda ‘ o g ee ’). On he o he e sion, ocabula y was made up o non-
cogna es ( he Spanish wo d bombe o can also be e e ed o as suhil zaile in Basque). In
addi ion, hi y ex a cogna e wo ds, i.e. wen y anima e nouns and en e bs, con o med
he ansi i e sen ences o be lis ened o in a pos - es (see appendix A o he comple e
lis o ocabula y).
1
Ca alan is a Romance language which sha es a la ge numbe o ocabula y i ems and syn ac ic ea u es
wi h Spanish. The gi l was om he Balea Islands, a bilingual e i o y in which Ca alan and Spanish a e
in pe manen con ac . As such, he ac ha she was no a na i e speake o Spanish was no judged o be
an impedimen o he o pa icipa e in he s udy.
The impac o lexical co-ac i a ion h ough cogna es on L2 ule lea ning
18
Vocabula y i ems
The cogna e and non-cogna e nouns and e bs o be used in he es we e ma ched in
leng h, since sho wo ds a e p ocessed mo e easily han long wo ds (Soa es e al., 2018).
In addi ion, hei le el o o hog aphic and phonological o e lap wi h hei Spanish
ansla ions was measu ed using Le ensh ein dis ance
2
. This was done because du ing he
es pa icipan s bo h ead and lis ened o hese wo ds, so he g ea e he o e lap wi h
Spanish, he easie hei p ocessing would be (Soa es e al., 2018). Le ensh ein dis ance
was calcula ed on ba e nouns and e bs (e.g. bonbe o o bonbe oa ‘ i e igh e ’, salu a-
o salu a u ‘ o g ee ’). Lexical equency pe million was also calcula ed o he Spanish
nouns and e bs which cogna es o e lapped wi h, since I judged ha , when con on ed
wi h cogna es, pa icipan s would a ibu e o hese wo ds he equency he i ems ha e
in hei L1. The dic iona y used o ha pu pose was SUBTLEX-Esp (Cue os e al., 2011).
The mean wo d leng h o he nouns used in he p esen expe imen was 7.95 le e s. Fo
e bs, i was 8.4. No signi ican di e ences we e encoun e ed when compa ing wo d
leng h be ween cogna es and non-cogna es (p > .05). The Le ensh ein dis ance o he
o hog aphic o m o cogna e nouns and e bs in espec o hei Spanish coun e pa s
was 0.8 and 0.2 espec i ely. Fo he phonological o ms, i was 0.35 o nouns and 0.1
o e bs. Finally, he mean equency pe million o Spanish nouns and e bs was 16.3
and 19.5, espec i ely.
As o he i ems o be lis ened o in he pos - es , he mean wo d leng h was 8.2 o nouns
and 9 o e bs. Nouns’ o hog aphic and audi o y Le ensh ein dis ance wi h Spanish was
0.95 and 0.6 espec i ely. By con as , e b’s o hog aphic dis ance wi h Spanish was 0.7,
and audi o ily, he e exis ed no di e ences be ween hese Basque and Spanish wo ds.
Finally, he Spanish ansla ions o Basque nouns and e bs had a mean equency pe
million o 38.65 and 11.26 espec i ely (see appendix B o a mo e de ailed desc ip ion
o he lexical i ems).
Expe imen al sen ences
S imuli o each e sion o he language consis ed o 40 SOV sen ences plus a se o 40
OSV ones de i ed om he SOV i ems (Table 1). Fo each e sion o he language, wo
2
The minimum numbe o single-cha ac e edi s (i.e. inse ions, dele ions, o subs i u ions) equi ed o
change one wo d in o ano he .
The impac o lexical co-ac i a ion h ough cogna es on L2 ule lea ning
19
lis s we e gene a ed o p e en pa icipan s om lis ening o bo h e sions o he same
sen ence. In o he wo ds, a pa icipan lis ening o an SOV sen ence did no lis en o i s
OSV coun e pa . Hence, he ma e ials we e coun e balanced ac oss pa icipan s. Du ing
he es , e e y pa icipan lis ened o 20 SOV sen ences and 20 OSV ones which we e
p esen ed in a andomized o de . In addi ion, all pa icipan s lis ened o 20 sen ences (10
SOV and 10 OSV) in a pos - es ca ied ou immedia ely a e he es . As men ioned a
he beginning o his sec ion, pos - es sen ences we e made up o p e iously unhea d
lexical i ems, all o hem cogna e wi h Spanish.
Table 1. Example expe imen al ma e ials. All ou sen ences mean ‘The ac o has pain ed he
doc o ’.
Audio iles
The audio iles co esponding o he expe imen al i ems we e eco ded by h ee emale
na i e speake s o Basque aged 22-24. These speake s eco ded he sen ences o be
lis ened o in he p e- es , he es and he pos - es (see 2.3.3. below). In addi ion, he
ocabula y i ems o be used in he lea ning phase we e eco ded as well. Ve bs we e
eco ded in hei ci a ion o m (e.g. saluda u ‘ o g ee ’). As o nouns, hey we e eco ded
in hei monomo phemic o m, i.e. he de ini e a icle -a, a ached o he noun s em in
Basque, was emo ed (e.g. bonbe oa > bonbe o ‘ i e igh e ’). Reco dings ook place in
a soundp oo boo h a he Psycholinguis ics Labo a o y a Micaela Po illa Resea ch
Cen e, in Vi o ia-Gas eiz. Bo h a Tascam oice eco de (DR-100MKII model,
equency sampling o 44100Hz) and Audaci y ( e sion 2.3.0) we e used so as o
subsequen ly choose he iles ha ing he bes sound quali y. Speake s we e asked o ead
he i ems a a no mal pace and wi h na u al in ona ion.
Ve sion A (cogna e ocabula y)
Canonical SOV
1a. Ak o e-ak mediku-a pin a u du
ac o -S doc o -O pain ed has (V)
Non-canonical OSV
1b. Mediku-a ak o e-ak pin a u du
doc o -O ac o -S pain ed has (V)
Ve sion B (non-cogna e ocabula y)
Canonical SOV
2a. An zezle-ak sendagile-a ma go u du
ac o -S doc o -O pain ed has (V)
Non-canonical OSV
2b. Sendagile-a an zezle-ak ma go u du
doc o -O ac o -S pain ed has (V)
The impac o lexical co-ac i a ion h ough cogna es on L2 ule lea ning
20
Once he audios we e eco ded, hey we e ma ched in in ensi y (dB) using P aa
(Boe sma and Weenik, 1990, 5326 e sion). The leng h o he iles was also measu ed.
No signi ican di e ences we e ound 1) be ween he eco dings o cogna e and non-
cogna e nouns (p= 0.62) and e bs (p= 0.097), 2) be ween he es SOV and OSV
sen ences wi hin he cogna e (p= 0.08) and he non-cogna e (p= 0.21) e sions o he
language, no 3) be ween he SOV and OSV pos - es sen ences (p= 0.08). The di e ence
in leng h be ween he o al amoun o cogna e and non-cogna e expe imen al i ems was
also no s a is ically signi ican (p= 0.17).
Pic u es
120 pic u es we e c ea ed (see appendix C). Pic u es o anima e nouns we e ga he ed
h ough he Google sea ch engine and u he edi ed using Adobe Pho oshop CS5 so ha
hey depic ed he ansi i e ac ions needed. Each pic u e co esponded o a pai o SOV-
OSV sen ences, i.e. he same pic u e co esponded o he sen ences a) An zezleak
sendagilea ma go u du (SOV) and b) Sendagilea an zezleak ma go u du (OSV) ‘The
ac o has pain ed he doc o ’, as well as o hei cogna e coun e pa s c) Ak o eak medikua
pin a u du (SOV) and d) Medikua ak o eak pin a u du (OSV). The o de in which he
subjec and he objec appea ed in he pic u es was coun e balanced, so ha in hal o he
pic u es he subjec appea ed o he igh and in he o he hal , o he le (Figu e 4).
2.3.3. P ocedu e
The expe imen consis ed o ou pa s: 1) a p e- es , 2) a lea ning phase, 3) he es and
4) a pos - es . In all hese pa s bu he lea ning phase, pa icipan s had o ca y ou a
Figu e 4. Pic u e o he sen ences
Ak o eak medikua pin a u du (SOV)
and Medikua ak o eak pin a u du
(OSV). O de o cha ac e s in he
pic u e: Objec (L)-Subjec (R).
The impac o lexical co-ac i a ion h ough cogna es on L2 ule lea ning
27
adminis e ed he es in pen and pape o ma . Fi s , hey p o ided some in o ma ion abou
hei gende , he numbe o yea s hey had been lea ning Spanish a school and hei sel -
a ed p o iciency in he language ( om 1 ‘nea ly non-exis en ’ o 10 ‘pe ec ’). Then,
pa icipan s we e in o med ha hey had been gi en nine y sequences o le e s ha
looked like Spanish, bu ha only some o hem we e eal wo ds. They we e asked o
indica e which wo ds hey knew by icking a box nex o each wo d. To compu e he inal
sco e, he numbe o wo ds co ec ly iden i ied, as well as he numbe o alse posi i es
( he nonwo ds ha we e ecognized as exis ing wo ds) we e aken in o accoun . The
comple ion o he es ook om h ee o i e minu es.
2.3.4. Da a analysis
Da a iles o each pa icipan we e au oma ically c ea ed by E-P ime and sa ed as
E-Da aAid 2.0. iles. Fo each o hese iles, in o ma ion co esponding o he ocabula y
ype (cogna e o non-cogna e), he expe imen al block (p e- es , lea ning, es o pos - es )
and wo d o de condi ion (SOV o OSV) was collec ed, as well as he eac ion imes and
he accu acy sco es in he ou pa s o he expe imen . All hese da a we e ans e ed o
an Excel ile and o ganised o u he analysis. Fi s , each pa icipan ’s mean eac ion
imes (and hei S anda d De ia ions (SD)) in he p e- es , he lea ning phase, he es and
he pos - es we e calcula ed. Then, hose alues which we e 2.5 imes ei he la ge o
smalle han he SDs we e emo ed om he sample, since hey we e conside ed no o
be ep esen a i e o o e all pe o mance. The alues emo ed accoun ed o 2.97%,
3.48%, 3.25% and 2.88% o all ials in he p e- es , he lea ning phase, he es and he
pos - es , espec i ely.
Once hese ials had been emo ed, dynamic ables we e c ea ed so as o ease he
desc ip i e in e p e a ion o he da a. Tables o accu acy we e se so ha hey de ailed
he sum o co ec ials pe wo d o de condi ion. Impo an ly, no ials we e emo ed
om he analysis when i came o accu acy in he p e- es , he es and he pos - es . As
o he lea ning phase, he accu acy sco e o hose ials which had been emo ed on he
basis o eac ion imes (3.48%) was also disca ded. This was done because du ing he
ask some equipmen mal unc ion was epo ed. Hence, emo ing hese ials was he bes
way o make su e ha pa icipan s’ esponses e lec ed lea ning, and we e no based on
chance. Tables a anging eac ion imes had he same o ma as he accu acy ones.

The impac o lexical co-ac i a ion h ough cogna es on L2 ule lea ning
28
No wi hs anding, ins ead o he sum, hey displayed each pa icipan s’ mean eac ion
imes o he SOV and OSV sen ences.
3. Resul s
This sec ion analyses he pe o mance o bo h g oups o pa icipan s in he Spanish
ocabula y size and he WM es s, as well as in he ou expe imen al blocks. Each sec ion
s a s wi h a b ie analysis o he o e all pe o mance in e ms o accu acy and eac ion
imes. This allows us o e lec on whe he lea ning was a ained i espec i e o
di e ences in wo d o de p ocessing. Then, he e ec o he wo wo d o de condi ions
on hese esul s is discussed. In he las subsec ion, a compa ison is d awn be ween bo h
g oups’ pe o mance in he p e- es , he es and he pos - es . The s a is ical analysis o
he da a used pai ed - es s and ANOVAs o compa isons wi hin and be ween pa s o
he expe imen . The whole analysis was ca ied ou in SPSS.
3.1. Pe o mance on LexTALE and he digi span es
The esul s o he LexTALE es de e mined ha pa icipan s o bo h g oups we e high
p o icien use s o he Spanish language (mean co ec esponses: cogna e g oup 97,4%
and non-cogna e g oup 96,8%). The di e ence be ween bo h g oups was no s a is ically
signi ican ( (31)= 1.28, p= 0.21). In addi ion, subjec s’ sel - a ed linguis ic compe ence
in Spanish was 8.75 o bo h g oups o pa icipan s. As o he digi span es , i indica ed
ha pa icipan s had a simila wo king memo y capaci y ( (38)= -0.85, p= 0.40).
3.2. Pe o mance on p e- es ials
As men ioned in he p ocedu e (sec ion 2.3.3), he p e- es was he i s ask o be ca ied
ou . I s aim was o co obo a e ha , as epo ed, pa icipan s had no p e ious knowledge
o Basque. Fo his eason, esul s o all o y subjec s a e analysed i s as a single g oup.
Then, a di ision is made in o he cogna e and he non-cogna e g oup. Pa icipan s lis ened
o six een non-cogna e sen ences (eigh SOV and eigh OSV ones) and had o ma ch hem
o one o wo pic u es. In o de o be i o he expe imen , hei accu acy a e had o
e eal ha hey had esponded andomly.
The impac o lexical co-ac i a ion h ough cogna es on L2 ule lea ning
29
Accu acy
O e all, pa icipan s co ec ly ma ched he pic u e o he audi o y s imuli a mean o 9.1
imes (SD= 2.05). This accoun ed o 56.875% o he ials and sugges ed, as such, ha
hey had esponded by chance. In e ms o g oup di ision, a pai ed - es e ealed ha he
accu acy a e o hose subjec s who we e o lea n cogna es (M= 9, SD= 1.90; 56.25%)
compa ed o ha o hose who we e o wo k wi h non-cogna es (M= 9.2, SD= 2.30;
57.5%) was no s a is ically signi ican ( (38)= -1.52, p= 0.14).
In o de o de e mine he e ec o wo d o de on pa icipan s’ accu acy sco es, I
pe o med an analysis o a iance (ANOVA) wi h wo d o de (SOV and OSV) as wi hin-
subjec s ac o and g oup (cogna e o non-cogna e) as be ween-subjec s ac o . The
ANOVA e ealed ha he e was no a signi ican in e ac ion be ween wo d o de and
g oup, using he Huynh-Feld (HF) co ec ion, F(1,38)= 1.567, p= 0.218. This indica es
ha bo h g oups o pa icipan s p ocessed he dis inc ion be ween SOV and OSV
sen ences equally. Mo e p ecisely, he accu acy a e o hose subjec s who we e o lea n
cogna es was 56.25% o bo h SOV (M= 4.5, SD= 1.28) and OSV (M= 4.5, SD= 1.66)
sen ences. Simila ly, he accu acy a e o pa icipan s who we e o lea n non-cogna es did
no subs an ially a y om SOV (M= 5, SD= 0.89; 62.5%) o OSV (M= 4.2, SD= 1.69;
52.5%) i ems. I he e o e pooled he da a om he wo g oups o he emaining analysis.
In addi ion, he e was no main e ec o wo d o de (F(1,38)= 1.57, p= 0.22). This showed
ha he di e ence in he accu acy a e o SOV and OSV sen ences wi hin all pa icipan s
was no s a is ically signi ican .
Reac ion imes
Tu ning o eac ion imes, o e all pa icipan s spen an a e age o 4.3 seconds lis ening
o he sen ence and ma ching i o he co esponding pic u e. A pai ed - es was
pe o med o de e mine i he di e ence be ween he esponse imes o he cogna e g oup
(M= 4.37 sec, SD= 0.95) and he non-cogna e g oup (M= 4.25 sec, SD= 0.93) was
signi ican . Bo h g oups o pa icipan s pe o med he ask simila ly, (19)= 0.364,
p= 0.720.
To asce ain i he e was an e ec o wo d o de in he eac ion imes epo ed, an
ANOVA was conduc ed. The es e ealed ha , jus as o accu acy sco es, he e was no
a signi ican in e ac ion be ween wo d o de and g oup, F(1,38)= 1.180, p(HF)= 0.284.
The impac o lexical co-ac i a ion h ough cogna es on L2 ule lea ning
30
Hence, bo h g oups o pa icipan s eac ed o he dis inc ion be ween SOV and OSV i ems
equally. Addi ionally, no signi ican main e ec o wo d o de was ound, F(1,38)=
2.914, p(HF)= 0.096. This indica es ha , o e all, pa icipan s’ esponse imes o SOV
sen ences compa ed o OSV ones did no di e om chance.
3.3. Vocabula y lea ning
Pa icipan s o bo h e sions o he a i icial language we e augh hi y wo ds — wen y
nouns and en e bs— as pa o hei a i icial language lea ning (see sec ion 2.3.3.
abo e). Then, hey pe o med a pic u e-ma ching ask which es ed o hei knowledge.
Ou o he o y pa icipan s, jus ou had o ca y ou he ask wice, all o hem belonging
o he g oup lea ning non-cogna e ocabula y. In wha ollows, I epo pa icipan s’
accu acy a e and esponse imes in hei i s and second a emp s o he pic u e-ma ching
ask.
Fi s a emp
O e all, in he i s a emp bo h g oups o pa icipan s succeeded in lea ning he lexical
i ems o hei language a ie y. The accu acy sco e was 99.47% (M= 28.65, SD= 0.57)
o he cogna e g oup and 88.88% (M= 25.90, SD= 2.81) o he non-cogna e g oup, and
he di e ence be ween bo h g oups was no s a is ically signi ican ( (19)= 0.99, p= 0.34).
As o eac ion imes, he cogna e g oup pe o med he ask signi ican ly as e han he
non-cogna e g oup (M= 1.28 sec, SD= 0.218 s. M= 2.26 sec, SD= 0.429; (19)= -7.90,
p < 0.001).
Second a emp
As men ioned, ou pa icipan s o he non-cogna e g oup had o epea he pic u e-
ma ching ask because hei e o a e exceeded he limi pe mi ed (i.e., hey made mo e
han i e e o s). In hei second a emp o he ask, pa icipan s’ pe o mance imp o ed,
and he accu acy o he non-cogna e g oup ose o 90.95% (M= 26.55, SD= 1.75). I we
compa e he accu acy a e o he cogna e g oup in hei i s and only a emp o he ask
wi h ha o he non-cogna e g oup including pa icipan s’ second a emp , he di e ence
be ween bo h g oups becomes e en less s a is ically signi ican ( (19)= 5.103, p= 0.99).
By con as , non-cogna e pa icipan s’ eac ion imes did no a y om he i s a emp
(M= 2.26 sec, SD= 0.429) o he second one (M= 2.23 sec, SD= 0.45; (19)= -1.19,
The impac o lexical co-ac i a ion h ough cogna es on L2 ule lea ning
31
p=0.25). As such, he compa ison be ween he measu es o he cogna e and he non-
cogna e g oup emained signi ican ( (19)= -10.2, p < 0.001).
3.4. Pe o mance on es ials
Once pa icipan s had amilia ized hemsel es wi h he ocabula y i ems o hei e sion
o he a i icial language, hey ca ied ou he es . Du ing his pa o he expe imen , a
o al amoun o o y sen ences (20 SOV and 20 OSV) we e p esen ed. As expec ed,
pa icipan s who lis ened o sen ences made up o cogna es we e signi ican ly as e and
mo e accu a e a applying he g amma ical ule o he a i icial language han pa icipan s
who lis ened o non-cogna e i ems.
Accu acy
The a e age numbe o sen ences ha we e co ec ly ma ched o hei pic u e was 34.25
(SD= 3.75) o he cogna e g oup and 25.85 (SD= 4.14) o he non-cogna e g oup. These
accoun ed o 85.625% and 64.625% o he ials, espec i ely. By means o a pai ed
- es , i was de e mined ha he di e ence be ween bo h g oups o pa icipan s was
s a is ically signi ican ( (19)= 5.751, p < 0.001). In o de o de e mine he e ec o wo d
o de on he accu acy sco es o bo h g oups o pa icipan s, a epea ed measu es ANOVA
was pe o med. The es yielded a main e ec o wo d o de (F(1,38)= 4.946,
p(HF)= 0.032) bu no in e ac ion o wo d o de and g oup (F(1,38)=3.479; p(HF)= 0.07).
Ye , I conside ha , since he p alue is e y close o he signi icance h eshold (0.05),
he endency was o he wo g oups o pa icipan s o p ocess he dis inc ion be ween
SOV and OSV di e en ly. As such, I decided o main ain esul s o he cogna e and he
non-cogna e g oup sepa a e in subsequen analyses. A se ies o pai ed - es s we e
conduc ed o compa e he mean sco es o each wo d o de in he cogna e and he non-
cogna e g oups. Fo he cogna e g oup, he di e ence in accu acy be ween SOV
(M= 17.25, SD= 1.84) and OSV (M=17, SD= 1.84) sen ences was no s a is ically
signi ican ( (19)= -0.0526, p= 0.605). By con as , lea ne s o he non-cogna e e sion o
he a i icial language esponded signi ican ly mo e accu a ely o subjec - i s sen ences
(M= 14.35, SD= 2.5) han o objec - i s ones (M= 12.3, SD= 4.32; (19)= -2.175,
p= 0.042).
The impac o lexical co-ac i a ion h ough cogna es on L2 ule lea ning
32
Reac ion imes
An analysis o pa icipan s’ eac ion imes indica ed ha , o e all, subjec s e ie ing
cogna es we e as e a lis ening o and ma ching he audi o y sen ence o a pic u e han
subjec s accessing non-cogna es (M= 4.40 sec, SD= 8.83 s. M= 6.57 sec, SD= 2.34;
(25)= -4.14, p = 0.0003). When assessing he e ec o wo d o de on eac ion imes, a
epea ed measu es ANOVA e ealed ha he di e ence in bo h g oups’ p ocessing o he
al e na ion be ween SOV and OSV sen ences was no s a is ically signi ican (F(1,38)=
2.650, p(HF)= 0.112). In addi ion, no main e ec o wo d o de was ound (F(1,38)=
0.149, p(HF)= 0.701). This indica es ha pa icipan s’ eac ion imes we e no
signi ican ly as e o nei he he SOV no he OSV wo d o de condi ions
(SOV: M= 5.51 sec, SD= 2.07; OSV: M= 5.46 sec, SD= 2.15).
3.5. Pe o mance on pos - es ials
In he pos - es , all o y pa icipan s lis ened o wen y sen ences (10 SOV and 10 OSV)
which we e made up o p e iously unhea d cogna e ocabula y i ems. As o he es
ials, bo h pa icipan s’ accu acy a e and eac ion imes we e calcula ed, his ime aiming
o es ablish whe he he use o cogna e ocabula y signi ican ly imp o ed he non-
cogna e g oup’s pe o mance.
Accu acy
Those pa icipan s who had p e iously lis ened o cogna es deli e ed a e y good
pe o mance. They succeeded o ma ch he sen ences o hei co esponding pic u es in a
mean o 91.25% o he ials (M= 18.25, SD= 1.37). Pa icipan s o he non-cogna e
e sion o he a i icial language we e also qui e accu a e in hei esponses, and co ec ly
pe o med he ask on 78.75% o he occasions (M= 15.75, SD= 2.91). Ye , he di e ence
be ween bo h g oups was s a is ically signi ican , (19)= 3.387, p= 0.003.
Jus as epo ed o he es , a epea ed measu es ANOVA was conduc ed o de e mine
he e ec ha he wo wo d o de condi ions had on he accu acy a e o bo h g oups o
pa icipan s. The e was an in e ac ion be ween wo d o de and g oup (F(1,38)= 4.086,
p(HF)= 0.05), and his p o ided e idence ha he cogna e and non-cogna e g oups
p ocessed he dis inc ion be ween SOV and OSV sen ences di e en ly. Thus, he
accu acy sco es o bo h g oups o pa icipan s in each o he wo d o de condi ions we e
u he analysed sepa a ely. In addi ion, he s a is ical es also yielded a main e ec o

The impac o lexical co-ac i a ion h ough cogna es on L2 ule lea ning
33
wo d o de (F(1,28)= 20.3032, p(HF)= 0.001), indica ing ha pa icipan s esponded o
SOV and OSV sen ences di e en ly. Pa icipan s o he cogna e g oup esponded
co ec ly o 95.5% o SOV sen ences (M= 9.55, SD= 0.80) and o 87% o OSV ones
(M= 8.7, SD= 1.14). The accu acy a e o pa icipan s o he non-cogna e g oup was 90%
(M= 9, SD= 1.05) o SOV i ems and 67.5% (M= 6.75, SD= 2.59) o OSV ones. The
di e ence be ween he wo wo d o de sco es was signi ican o bo h he cogna e g oup
( (19)= -2.602, p= 0.018) and he non-cogna e g oup ( (19)=-3.684, p= 0.002).
Reac ion imes
Tu ning o eac ion imes, o e all pa icipan s o he cogna e g oup we e as e a
pe o ming he sen ence-pic u e ma ching ask han pa icipan s o he non-cogna e g oup
(M= 4.67 sec, SD= 1.017 s. M= 5.26 sec, SD= 1.56). Ye , he di e ence be ween bo h
g oups was no s a is ically signi ican ( (19)= -1.533, p= 0.142). When analysing he
impac o wo d o de on hese esul s, an ANOVA e ealed a endency owa ds an
in e ac ion be ween wo d o de and g oup, F(1,38)= 4.019, p(HF)= 0.052. By con as ,
he e was no a main e ec o wo d o de , F(1,38)= 3.00, p(HF)= 0.091. On he one hand,
i ook pa icipan s o he cogna e g oup equally long o eac o SOV i ems (M= 4.68 sec,
SD= 1.13) and o OSV sen ences (M= 4.65 sec, SD= 0.961), and he di e ence be ween
wo d o de s was no signi ican ( (19)=-0.282, p= 0.781). On he o he hand, pa icipan s
o he non-cogna e g oup eac ed sligh ly di e en ly o SOV and OSV i ems (M= 5.02
sec, SD= 1.5 s. M=5.5 sec, SD= 1.77). This ime, he di e ence in eac ion imes was
signi ican ( (19)= 2.133 p= 0.046).
3.6. Compa ison o pe o mance ac oss he p e- es , he es and he pos - es
O e all accu acy
Table 2 epo s he desc ip i e s a is ics associa ed wi h he accu acy a e o he cogna e
and non-cogna e g oups ac oss he h ee expe imen al blocks. Because he numbe o da a
poin s pe pa icipan a ied om one pa o he expe imen o he o he ( hese we e 16
o he p e- es , 40 o he es and 20 o he pos - es ), he accu acy sco es we e con e ed
o a 1-10 scale in o de o be able o compa e he pe o mance ac oss he di e en blocks.
The impac o lexical co-ac i a ion h ough cogna es on L2 ule lea ning
34
Table 2. Desc ip i e s a is ics o he accu acy o he cogna e and he non-cogna e g oup ac oss
he expe imen al blocks.
In Table 2, i can be seen ha he p e- es was associa ed wi h he nume ically smalles
mean o he cogna e and he non-cogna e g oups. The mean accu acy inc eased in he
es and inally peaked in he pos - es o bo h g oups. In o de o es he hypo hesis ha
he expe imen al blocks and he wo d o de condi ions had an e ec on pa icipan s’
accu acy, a epea ed measu es ANOVA was pe o med. The es yielded an in e ac ion
be ween expe imen al block and g oup (F(2,76)= 8.241, p(HF) < 0.001), indica i e o he
ac ha he pe o mance o bo h g oups o pa icipan s ac oss he p e- es , he es and
he pos - es was di e en . Simila ly, he es e ealed a main e ec o expe imen al
block, F(2,76)= 53.236, p(HF) < 0.001. This indica es ha , o e all, pa icipan s’ accu acy
sco es signi ican ly di e ed om he p e- es o he es and he pos - es (Figu e 8).
Figu e 8. Mean co ec esponses o he cogna e and he non-cogna e g oup
ac oss he h ee expe imen al blocks.
The impac o lexical co-ac i a ion h ough cogna es on L2 ule lea ning
35
In e ms o wo d o de , he e was no in e ac ion o nei he expe imen al block and wo d
o de no o expe imen al block, wo d o de and g oup. This indica es ha bo h g oups
esponded o he dis inc ion be ween he wo d o de s equally ac oss he h ee
expe imen al blocks. Howe e , an in e ac ion be ween wo d o de and g oup was ound,
F(1,38)=6.917, p(HF)= 0.012. This in e ac ion sugges s ha , i he expe imen al block
ac o is no aken in o accoun , he cogna e and he non-cogna e g oup p ocessed he
dis inc ion be ween SOV and OSV sen ences di e en ly. Simila ly, a main e ec o wo d
o de was also ound, F(1,38)= 16.128, p(HF) < 0.001. This shows ha , o e all, one o
he wo wo d o de s elici ed a mo e accu a e pe o mance han he o he one (see esul s
o he es (3.4.) and he pos - es (3.5.) abo e).
F om he p e- es o he es
In o de o assess how he accu acy a e o bo h g oups o pa icipan s a ied om he
p e- es o he es , a se ies o ANOVAs we e, again, conduc ed. A main e ec o
expe imen al block was ound, F(1,38)= 34.895, p(HF) < 0.001, indica ing ha , o e all,
he accu acy a e o bo h he cogna e and he non-cogna e g oup imp o ed om he p e-
es o he es . Addi ionally, he e was a signi ican in e ac ion be ween expe imen al
block and g oup, F(1,38)= 12.957, p(HF)= 0.001, and his e ealed ha he accu acy o
one o he wo g oups o pa icipan s inc eased signi ican ly mo e han ha o he o he
g oup. Mo e p ecisely, lea ne s o he cogna e and he non-cogna e e sion o he a i icial
language showed an imp o emen o 29.4% and 7.1% om he i s o he second
expe imen al block, espec i ely (see Table 2 and Figu e 8 o mean sco es). This
imp o emen was s a is ically signi ican o he o me , ( (19)= -7.484, p < 0.01) bu no
o he la e ( (19)= -1.493, p= 0.152).
Addi ionally, he e was no in e ac ion be ween expe imen al block and wo d o de no
be ween expe imen al block, wo d o de and g oup. This e eals ha bo h he cogna e
and he non-cogna e g oup o pa icipan s p ocessed he dis inc ion be ween he wo d
o de s equally ac oss he wo blocks. Ne e heless, he e was an in e ac ion be ween wo d
o de and g oup, F(1,38)= 5.009, p(HF)= 0.031. This means ha , wi hou conside ing he
expe imen al block ac o , he wo g oups o pa icipan s esponded o he dis inc ion
be ween SOV and OSV s imuli di e en ly. In addi ion, a main e ec o wo d o de was
ound, F(1,38)= 6.157, p(HF)= 0.018. This showed ha he accu acy a e o SOV
The impac o lexical co-ac i a ion h ough cogna es on L2 ule lea ning
36
sen ences was highe han ha o OSV ones in he wo expe imen al blocks (see sec ions
3.2. and 3.5. abo e).
F om es o pos - es
Tu ning o he a ia ion in accu acy a es om he es o he pos - es , he ANOVA
yielded a signi ican main e ec o expe imen al block, F(1,38)= 27.125, p(HF) < 0.001.
Jus as om he p e- es o he es , his e ec indica es ha , o e all, pa icipan s’
pe o mance imp o ed om he es o he pos - es . The in e ac ion be ween
expe imen al block and g oup (F(1,38)= 5.024, p(HF)= 0.031) u he es ablished ha he
accu acy sco e inc eased subs an ially mo e o one g oup o pa icipan s han o he
o he one. The cogna e g oup showed an imp o emen 5.625% in espec o he es , while
he accu acy o he non-cogna e g oup ose by 11.2% (see Table 2 and Figu e 8 o mean
sco es). The imp o emen om he second o he hi d pa o he expe imen was
signi ican o bo h g oups o pa icipan s, (19)= -2.332, p= 0.031 (cogna es); (19)=
-4.82, p< 0.001 (non-cogna es). Ye , his signi icance was much la ge o he non-
cogna e g oup.
On ano he no e, no in e ac ion was ound o expe imen al block, wo d o de and g oup.
As such, he cogna e and he non-cogna e g oup o pa icipan s we e ound o espond o
he dis inc ion be ween bo h wo d o de s equally ac oss he es and he pos - es . Ye , a
signi ican in e ac ion was ound o wo d o de and expe imen al block (F(1, 38)= 4.381,
p(HF)= 0.043). This is indica i e o he ac ha , i all o y pa icipan s a e aken
oge he , hen he dis inc ion be ween SOV and OSV sen ences was p ocessed di e en ly
om he es o he pos - es . Mo e p ecisely, he accu acy sco es o SOV s imuli
signi ican ly imp o ed om he second o he hi d expe imen al block ( (39)= -6.641,
p < 0.001), bu his was no he case o OSV i ems ( (39)= -1.867 p= 0.069). An
in e ac ion be ween wo d o de and g oup was also ound (F(1,38)= 5.273,
p(HF)= 0.027). Jus as desc ibed in he p e ious sec ion, his means ha wi hou aking
he expe imen al block ac o in o accoun , he cogna e and he non-cogna e g oup
esponded di e en ly o SOV and OSV i ems. A main e ec o wo d o de (F(1,38)=
15.639, p(HF) < 0.001) indica ed ha SOV i ems elici ed a signi ican ly be e
pe o mance han hei OSV coun e pa s in he wo expe imen al blocks (see sec ions
3.4. and 3.5. abo e).
The impac o lexical co-ac i a ion h ough cogna es on L2 ule lea ning
43
Tha is, as lea ne s ge in ol ed in deciphe ing he meaning o a wo d h ough he clues
in he con ex , hey make use o cogni i e p ocesses which help hem e ain he wo d o
a long pe iod o ime. By con as , he second mechanism possibly a ou s o e lea ning
— he sho -li ed memo iza ion o wo ds based on epe i ion (2012: 72). Ye , explici ly
lea ning ocabula y also has some bene i s, especially o low-p o icien L2 lea ne s.
Bo h he amoun o ocabula y and he a e a which wo ds a e lea ned a e much highe
ollowing his me hod han he inciden al lea ning mechanism, which seems o be mo e
e ec i e o in e media e and ad anced lea ne s who manage basic skills such as eading
and lis ening (Na ion, 2001; Read, 2004; Tode, 2008, ci ed in Alipou e al., 2015).
Pa icipan s o his s udy had ne e been exposed o Basque be o e. Combined wi h he
ac ha he wo ds o he language we e augh one a a ime and dep i ed o con ex (see
sec ion 2.3.3.), i is e y likely ha non-cogna e lea ne s ecu ed o memo iza ion
echniques and, as such, did no g asp a long-las ing knowledge o he lexical i ems.
Pa icipan s lea ning cogna es, by con as , did no ha e o memo ize he wo ds, since
hese o e lapped in o m and meaning wi h i ems in hei Spanish lexicon. I was no
amongs he goals o his s udy ha pa icipan s’ knowledge o he ocabula y i ems
ma ched ha o na i e speake s o Basque. Ins ead, he s udy sough ha hey lea n a se
o hi y wo ds in a sho pe iod o ime. The esul s o he pic u e-ma ching ask ha e
e ealed ha all o y pa icipan s we e capable o emembe ing he wo ds o hei e sion
o he a i icial language when p esen ed in isola ion. Ye , in ligh o he indings o he
s udy, i is possible ha non-cogna e lea ne s’ poo mas e y o he wo ds could ha e
di icul ed hei lexical e ie al, and his p obably challenged hei lea ning o he
g amma ical ule. A mo e obus knowledge o he wo ds could possibly ease lexical
access and imp o e hei ule lea ning. This issue could use ully be add essed in u u e
in es iga ions (see sec ion 5 below).
4.3. P ocessing canonical and non-canonical wo d o de s
In he p esen s udy I hypo hesized ha pa icipan s would p ocess SOV sen ences wi h
g ea e ease han OSV i ems. This hypo hesis was pos ula ed on he g ounds ha
1) speake s ha e been ound o p ocess subjec - i s sen ences as e han objec - i s ones
(E docia e al., 2009, 2014) and 2) OSV s uc u es equi e ha mo e i ems a e kep in
syn ac ic wo king memo y and ha e, as such, highe complexi y han SOV sen ences
(Ma zke e al., 2002). As expec ed, lea ne s o he non-cogna e e sion o he language

The impac o lexical co-ac i a ion h ough cogna es on L2 ule lea ning
44
showed a p e e ence o SOV s imuli in bo h he es and he pos - es . As o lea ne s o
he cogna e g oup, hey mo e accu a ely ma ched SOV sen ences o a pic u e in he pos -
es bu , con a y o expec a ions, showed no clea p e e ence o any o he wo d o de s
in he es .
Al hough his inding is qui e ha d o accoun o , a possible explana ion is p o ided by
he s udy by Tily e al. (2011). This wo k showed ha , e en i subjec - i s sen ences a e
mo e easily p ocessed han hei objec - i s coun e pa s in na u al languages, his
endency could no be ha solid when speake s lea n a i icial languages. The au ho s had
na i e speake s o Ame ican English lea n six di e en a i icial language ypes, each o
hem ha ing a di e en basic wo d o de (SOV, SVO, VSO, OSV, OVS, VOS). Each
language con ained ansi i e and in ansi i e sen ences. Pa icipan s we e i s exposed
o he lexical i ems (nouns and e bs) o hei language and hen hey we e es ed on hei
lea ning by means o a sen ence- ideo ma ching ask. In addi ion, hey we e also es ed
on hei abili y o “speak” he language. In e es ingly, he esul s o he s udy indica ed
ha al hough subjec s lea ning he SOV and SVO languages a ained a be e
comp ehension and p oduc ion han pa icipan s lea ning he OSV language
(comp ehension: > 90% s. 89%; p oduc ion: ≥ 50% s. 45%), he di e ence was no
s a is ically signi ican in nei he o he wo cases. This inding ma ches he one yielded
by ou s udy and sugges s ha he p e e ence o subjec - i s sen ences may some imes
weaken when subjec s lea n cons uc ed languages.
5. Open issues o u u e esea ch
The in e ac ion be ween lexical and syn ac ic lea ning could u he be explo ed in u u e
in es iga ions. In he ollowing lines, I ou line some o he ques ions ha emain
unanswe ed.
Is lea ning eased when he ule is simila be ween he L1 and he L2?
The p esen s udy could be conduc ed again wi h a sligh modi ica ion o he ule o be
lea n , so ha ins ead o making pa icipan s di e en ia e be ween SOV and OSV wo d
o de s, hey would need o dis inguish be ween SVO and OSV sen ences. Since Spanish
is an SVO language, his change would allow o es whe he ule lea ning is eased when
he L2 s uc u e ma ches he canonical one in he L1. Acco ding o MacWhinney (1992),
The impac o lexical co-ac i a ion h ough cogna es on L2 ule lea ning
45
simila s uc u es would help lea ning h ough ans e om he L1 o he L2.
Addi ionally, S einhaue (2014: 409) claimed ha “na i e-like p o iciency in L2 is
eached ea lie o hose s uc u es ha a e mo e simila be ween he L2 and one’s mo he
ongue”. In ligh o hese claims, i could be hypo hesized ha pa icipan s’ pe o mance
would imp o e in his second expe imen .
To wha ex en do esul s depend on ocabula y knowledge?
Secondly, he s udy could also be eplica ed inc easing pa icipan s’ mas e y o he
ocabula y i ems o he language. As men ioned in he p e ious sec ion, in he p esen
s udy ocabula y lea ning is likely o ha e elied solely on memo y, since success ully
comple ing he pic u e-ma ching ask in he lea ning phase did no equi e pa icipan s o
ha e a ained a p o ound knowledge o he wo ds. This shallow mas e y o he ocabula y
i ems could possibly be esponsible, in pa , o he ac ha pa icipan s o he non-
cogna e g oup had di icul y lea ning he g amma ical ule. Fu u e in es iga ions could
examine whe he by inc easing pa icipan s’ knowledge o non-cogna e wo ds, lea ning
is imp o ed. One way o do his would be, ollowing McCa hy (1984), by aining hem
o p oduce and use he lexical i ems in a wide ange o language con ex s.
Do esul s a y when lea ning is implici ?
In hi d place, his s udy could be eplica ed by making bo h ocabula y and ule lea ning
implici ins ead o explici . In he las decades, a g owing body o esea ch has shown ha
adul s can lea n he lexicon and/o syn ax o an a i icial language h ough inciden al
exposu e (e.g. Peña e al., 2002, G ey a al., 2014). Unde his app oach, lea ne s a e no
in o med ha hey a e being es ed no ha he e a e some speci ic ules o wo ds ha
hey need o lea n. By con as , lea ning akes place h ough meaning- ocused asks (e.g.
seman ic plausibili y judgemen asks) o o m- ocused asks (e.g. ocusing on he o de
o wo ds). By adap ing he p esen s udy o make lea ning implici , he ques ion could be
add essed as o in which way he deg ee o explici ness impac s lea ning ou comes.
Do esul s a y when ime p essu e is in oduced?
In ou h place, o s eng hen he alidi y o he eac ion imes aken in his s udy, u he
esea ch could in oduce ime p essu e as a way o elici ing he as es esponse possible
om pa icipan s. As men ioned in sec ion 2.3.3., in he p esen s udy subjec s could ake
as much ime as hey wan ed o ma ch each sen ence o one o he wo pic u es displayed.
The impac o lexical co-ac i a ion h ough cogna es on L2 ule lea ning
46
This caused some o hei esponse imes o be qui e long, and some ials e en had o be
emo ed om u he analysis because hey we e judged no o e lec pa icipan s’ ac ual
p ocessing ime (p e- es : 2.97%, es : 3.25%, pos - es : 2.88%). By in oducing ime
p essu e in o he expe imen ( o ins ance, ollowing Walke e al. (2017), by asking
pa icipan s o answe as quickly as possible), i is p obable ha he esponse imes o
bo h g oups dec ease. In addi ion, hese could a guably mo e accu a ely e lec p ocessing
di e ences be ween he cogna e and non-cogna e g oups. Ne e heless, his change
would come wi h a cos , since i is e y likely ha , once ime p essu e is in oduced,
pa icipan s’ accu acy a es wo sen.
Can na i e-like p ocessing be eached?
Finally, u u e esea ch could also assess di e ences in mo phosyn ax p ocessing by
means o e en - ela ed po en ials (ERPs). Since he a i icial language d aws on Basque,
bo h na i e speake s o Spanish and Basque could be asked o ca y ou he expe imen .
To do his, he ocabula y o he language would equi e some mino modi ica ions, since
no all he i ems used in he p esen s udy co esponded o ac ual wo ds o Basque (e.g.
salu a u ‘ o g ee ’, empuja u ‘ o push’). Hence, he ma e ials would need o be adap ed
so ha he es could be pe o med by a na i e speake o he language. In addi ion, while
he same p ocedu e o his s udy would be ollowed by he Spanish g oup o pa icipan s,
Basque na i es would skip he ocabula y and ule lea ning o di ec ly conduc he es .
The e is s ong e idence ha L1 ans e plays a ole in ea ly s ages o L2 acquisi ion,
and when lea ne s each a e y high p o iciency le el in he second language, he L1 has
been ound o s ill be pa ly co-ac i a ed (S einhaue e al. 2010). Whe he a his s age
he i s language in e e es wi h an app op ia e L2 p ocessing o no is a ma e o deba e.
On he one hand, S einhaue e al., (2009) claimed ha in high p o icien lea ne s o a
second language, co-ac i a ion o he L1 and he L2 does no necessa ily esul in
in e e ence and, as such, ha na i e-like L2 p ocessing can be achie ed. These au ho s
p oposed a desc ip ion o he s ages lea ne s go h ough in hei p ocessing o
g amma ical and ung amma ical sen ences, as e lec ed by ERP componen s, since hey
i s s a lea ning a language up o he poin hey each a high p o iciency. Acco ding o
hem, once he highes p o iciency le el is eached, no di e ences in b ain signa u es
should be a es ed be ween na i es and non-na i es. These s ages could be aken as
The impac o lexical co-ac i a ion h ough cogna es on L2 ule lea ning
47
e e ence o es ing whe he na i e-like p ocessing o mo phosyn ac ic iola ions in he
a i icial language can be a ained.
On he o he hand, E docia e al. (2014) ound ha high p o icien Spanish-Basque
bilinguals p ocessed he dis inc ion be ween SOV and OSV sen ences di e en ly han
na i e speake s o Basque. Mo e p ecisely, in non-na i es OSV i ems elici ed a P600 a
second DP posi ion ha did no show in na i es’ p ocessing. This sugges s ha , e en a
high p o iciency, lea ne s’ p ocessing di e s om na i e-like. Taking his in o accoun ,
u he esea ch could also explo e o wha ex en na i e-like p ocessing o SOV and OSV
sen ences in he a i icial language can be eached.
6. Conclusions
This s udy p o ides an insigh in o he adul capaci y o lea n a se o cogna e and non-
cogna e lexical i ems and a g amma ical ule om an a i icial language when explici
in o ma ion abou he lexicon and he syn ax is p o ided. The aim o he esea ch was o
assess, o he i s ime, i ule lea ning was eased by cogna es. The s udy also
in es iga ed whe he subjec s showed a p e e ence o SOV sen ences o e OSV ones
du ing lea ning.
The mos signi ica i e inding o eme ge om his s udy is ha ule lea ning is acili a ed
when he ocabula y i ems o he a i icial language a e cogna es wi h he L1. When he
ocabula y was non-cogna e, pa icipan s had mo e di icul y applying he g amma ical
ule. This was a ibu ed o he ac ha e ie ing non-cogna es was e y cos ly, and his
caused non-cogna e lea ne s o dispose o ew esou ces o apply he g amma ical ule.
By con as , pa icipan s o he cogna e g oup could easily e ie e he wo ds, since hese
ma ched he co esponding i ems in hei Spanish lexicon. Due o he cogna e acili a ion
e ec , pa icipan s’ lexical access was i ually cos - ee, and his allowed hem o easily
apply he g amma ical ule. One way o possibly ease non-cogna e lea ne s’ lexical
e ie al and, as such, o imp o e hei ule lea ning could be o inc ease he obus ness
o hei knowledge o he wo ds, which he explici lea ning mechanism used in his s udy
made qui e shallow.
The impac o lexical co-ac i a ion h ough cogna es on L2 ule lea ning
48
Addi ionally, an analysis o pa icipan s’ pe o mance in e ms o wo d o de e ealed
ha , as p edic ed, o e all SOV sen ences we e p ocessed mo e accu a ely han OSV ones.
Ye , he subjec - i s p e e ence was no me by pa icipan s o he cogna e g oup du ing
he es . Al hough his inding is ha d o explain, p e ious esea ch has ound ha he
p e e ence obse ed in na u al languages can weaken in a i icial language lea ning (Tily
e al., 2011). O e all, his s udy p o ides e idence ha he cogna e acili a ion e ec
a es ed in lexical and syn ac ic p ocessing also a ou s ule lea ning. Ye , he pionee
na u e o his wo k makes he in e ac ion be ween wo d and ule lea ning o emain an
in iguing one which could be use ully explo ed in u he esea ch.
Re e ences
Ahmad, Jameel. 2012. “In en ional s. inciden al ocabula y lea ning”. ELT Resea ch
Jou nal. 1(1): 71-79.
Alipou , Fa emeh M., Manije Youhanaee, Hossein Ba a i & A man Nasi ahmadi. 2015.
“In en ional s. inciden al ocabula y lea ning h ough games by young EFL
Pe sian speake s”. In e na ional Jou nal o Resea ch S udies in Educa ional
Technology. 4(1): 23-34.
Aslin, Richa d & Elissa Newpo . 2012. “S a is ical lea ning: F om acqui ing speci ic
i ems o o ming gene al ules”. Cu en Di ec ions in Psychological Science.
21:170–176.
Bas a ika, Ainhoa & Douglas J. Da idson. 2017. “An e en ela ed ield s udy o apid
g amma ical plas ici y in adul second-language lea ne s”. F on ie s in Human
Neu oscience. 11: 12.
Ba es, Elizabe h, & Judi h Goodman. 1997. “On he insepa abili y o g amma and he
lexicon: E idence om acquisi ion, aphasia, and eal- ime p ocessing”. Language
and Cogni i e P ocesses. 12: 507–584.
Boe sma, Paul & Da id Weenik. 1990. “P aa : doing phone ics by compu e ”. Ea Hea .
32, 266–268.
Bona i, Luca L., Ma cela Peña, Ma ina Nespo & Jacques Mehle . 2005. “Linguis ic
cons ain s on s a is ical compu a ions: he ole o consonan s and owels in
con inuous speech p ocessing”. Psychological Science, 16:451–459.

The impac o lexical co-ac i a ion h ough cogna es on L2 ule lea ning
49
Cos a, Albe , Michele Miozzo, & Al onso Cama azza. 1999. “Lexical selec ion in
bilinguals: Do wo ds in he bilinguals’ wo lexicons compe e o selec ion?”
Jou nal o Memo y and Language, 41: 365-397.
Cos a, Albe , Al onso Ca amazza & Nú ia Sebas ián-Gallés. 2000. “The cogna e
acili a ion e ec : Implica ions o models o lexical access”. Jou nal o
Expe imen al Psychology: Lea ning, Memo y and Cogni ion. 26: 1283-1296.
Cos a, Albe & Mikel San es eban. 2004. “Lexical access in bilingual speech p oduc ion:
E idence om language swi ching in highly p o icien bilinguals and L2
lea ne s”. Jou nal o Memo y and Language. 50(4): 491-511.
Cos a, Albe , Ma co Calab ia, Paula Ma ne, Mi eia He nández, Mon se a Juncadella,
Jo di Gascón-Baya i, Albe o Lleó, Jo di O iz-Gil, Lidia Ugas, Ra ael Blesa &
Ramon Reñé. 2012. “On he pa allel de e io a ion o lexico-seman ic p ocesses in
he bilinguals' wo languages: E idence om Alzheime 's disease”.
Neu opsychologia. 50: 740-753.
Cue os, Fe nando, Ma ia González-Nos i, Analía Ba bón & Ma c B ysbae . 2011.
“Spanish wo d equency based on ilm sub i les”. Psicológica. 32: 133-143.
de G oo , Anne e & Ge a d Nas. 1991. “Lexical ep esen a ion o cogna es and
noncogna es in compound bilinguals”. Jou nal o Memo y and Language. 30(1):
90-123.
de G oo , Anne e & Rineke Keijze . 2000. “Wha is ha d o lea n is easy o o ge : The
oles o wo d conc e eness, cogna e s a us, and wo d equency in o eign-
language ocabula y lea ning and o ge ing”. Language Lea ning. 50 (1): 1-56.
de Diego-Balague , Ru h & Diana Lopez-Ba oso. 2010. “Cogni i e and neu al
mechanisms sus aining ule lea ning om speech”. Language Lea ning. 60(2):
151-187.
de Rijk, Rudol . 1969. “Is Baque an S.O.V. language?”. Fon es Linguae Vasconum, 1–3:
319–351.
Dijks a, Ton, Jona han G ainge . & Wal e J. B. an Heu en. 1999. “Recogni ion o
cogna es and in e lingual homog aphs: The neglec ed ole o phonology”. Jou nal
o Memo y and Language, 41: 496-518.
Dijks a, Ton, Koji Miwa, Bianca B ummelhuis, Maya Sappelli & Ha ald Baayen. 2010.
“How c osslanguage simila i y and ask demands a ec cogna e ecogni ion”.
Jou nal o Memo y and Language. 62: 284-301.
The impac o lexical co-ac i a ion h ough cogna es on L2 ule lea ning
50
End ess Ansga & Luca L. Bona i. 2007. “Rapid lea ning o syllable classes om a
pe cep ually con inuous speech s eam”. Cogni ion. 105:247–299.
End ess, Ansga & Luca L. Bona i. 2016. “Wo ds, ules, and mechanisms o language
acquisi ion”. Cogni i e Science. 7: 19-35.
E docia, Kepa, I zia Laka, Anna Mes es-Missé & An oni Rod iguez-Fo nells. 2009.
“Syn ac ic complexi y and ambigui y esolu ion in a ee wo d o de language:
Beha io al and elec ophysiological e idences om Basque”. B ain & Language.
109: 1-17.
E docia, Kepa, Adam Zawiszewski & I zia Laka. 2014. “Wo d o de p ocessing in a
second language: om VO o OV”. Jou nal o Psycholinguis ic Resea ch. 42 (6):
475-494.
F iede ici, Angela, Ka s en S einhaue & E dmu P ei e . 2002. “B ain signa u es o
a i icial language p ocessing: E idence challenging he c i ical pe iod
hypo hesis”. PNAS. 99(1): 529-534.
Gollan, Tama & Lo i-ann Acenas. 2004. “Wha is a TOT? Cogna e and ansla ion
e ec s on ipo - he- ongue s a es in Spanish-English and Tagalog-English
bilinguals”. Jou nal o Expe imen al Psychology: Lea ning, Memo y, and
Cogni ion. 30: 246-269.
González-Nos i, Ma ía, Analía Ba bón, Ja ie Rod íguez-Fe ei o & Fe nando Cue os.
2015. “E ec s o he psycholinguis ic a iables in he lexical decision ask in
Spanish: A s udy wi h 2765 wo ds”. B ain Resea ch Me hods. 46(2): 517-525.
G een, Da id. 1998. “Men al con ol o he bilingual lexico-seman ic sys em”.
Bilingualism: Language and Cogni ion, 1: 67-81
G eenbe g, Joseph. H. 1963. “Some uni e sals o g amma wi h pa icula e e ence o
he o de o meaning ul elemen s”. In Joseph. H. G eenbe g (Ed.), Uni e sals o
language. Camb idge, MA: MIT P ess, 73–113.
G ey, Sa ah, John N. Williams & Pa ick Rebuscha . 2014. “Inciden al exposu e and L3
lea ning o mo phosyn ax”. S udies in Second Language Acquisi ion. 36: 611-645.
Hopp, Holge . 2017. “C oss-linguis ic lexical and syn ac ic co-ac i a ion in L2 sen ence
p ocessing”. Linguis ic App oaches o Bilingualism 7 (1): 96-130.
Izu a, C is ina, Fe nando Cue os & Ma c B ysbae . 2014. “Lex ale-Esp: A es o apidly
and e icien ly assess he Spanish ocabula y size”. Psicológica. 35: 49-66.
Laka, I zia . 1996. A B ie G amma o Euska a, he Basque Language. Uni e si y o he
Basque Coun y.
The impac o lexical co-ac i a ion h ough cogna es on L2 ule lea ning
51
Lemhö e , K is in & Mi jam B oe sma. 2012. “In oducing LexTALE: A quick and alid
lexical es o ad anced lea ne s o English”. Beha iou Resea ch Me hods.
44(2): 325-343.
Loebell, Helga & Ka h yn Bock. 2003. “S uc u al p iming ac oss languages”.
Linguis ics. 41: 791-824.
McCa hy, Michael. J. 1984. “A new look a ocabula y in EFL”. Applied Linguis ics. 5:
12-22.
MacWhinney, B ian. 1992. “T ans e and compe i ion in second language lea ning”.
Ad ances in Psychology. 83: 371-390.
Ma cus, Ga y. 1996. “Why do child en say b eaked?” Cu en Di ec ions in
Psychological Science. 5: 81–85.
Ma zke, Mike, Heinke Mai, Wido Nage , Jascha Rüssele & Thomas Mün e. 2002. “The
cos o eedom: An ERP-s udy o non-canonical sen ences”. Clinical
Neu ophysiology. 113: 844–852.
Meu e , Rena a & Alan Allpo . 1999. “Bilingual language swi ching in naming:
asymme ical cos s”. Jou nal o Memo y and Language. 40: 25-40.
Na ion, Paul. 2001. Lea ning ocabula y in ano he language. Camb idge: England;
Camb idge Uni e si y P ess.
Peña, Ma cela, Luca Bona i., Ma ina Nespo , & Jacques Mehle . 2002. “Signal-d i en
compu a ions in speech p ocessing”. Science, 298: 604–607.
Pe uche , Pie e & Annie Vin e . 1998. “PARSER: A model o wo d segmen a ion”.
Jou nal o Memo y and Language. 39(2): 246-263.
Pe uche , Pie e, Michael D. Tyle , Nadine Galland & Ronald Pee eman. 2004.
“Lea ning nonadjacen dependencies: no need o algeb aic-like compu a ions”.
Jou nal o Expe imen al Psychology: Gene al. 133(4): 573-583.
Read, John. 2004. Assessing ocabula y. Camb idge: Camb idge Uni e si y P ess.
Sa an, Jenny, Richa d Aslin, & Elissa Newpo . 1996. “S a is ical lea ning by 8-mon h-
old in an s”. Science, New Se ies. 274 (5294): 1926-1928.
San es eban, Mikel & John W. Schwie e . (in p ess). “Lexical selec ion and compe i ion
in bilinguals”. In Robe o R. He edia & Anna. B. Cieślicka (eds.). Bilingual
lexical ambigui y esolu ion. New Yo k, NY: Camb idge Uni e si y P ess.
Schoonbae , So ie, Robe J. Ha suike & Ma in J, Picke ing. 2007. “The ep esen a ion
o lexical and syn ac ic in o ma ion in bilinguals: E idence om syn ac ic
p iming”. Jou nal o Memo y and Language. 56: 153-171.
The impac o lexical co-ac i a ion h ough cogna es on L2 ule lea ning
52
Soa es, Ana. Helena Mendes, Mon se a Comesaña & Ana San os. 2018. “Lexico-
syn ac ic in e ac ions in he esolu ion o ela i e clause ambigui ies in a second
language (L2): The ole o cogna e s a us and L2 p o iciency”. Psicológica. 39:
164-197.
S einhaue , Ka s en, John E. D u y, Nicholas Bou guignon & K is ina Kaspa ian. 2010.
“ERP e idence o ans e e ec s: L1 g amma in luences L2 sen ence
p ocessing”. Linguis ic Socie y o Ame ica (LSA) Annual Mee ing. Bal imo e, ML.
S einhaue , Ka s en, E in J. Whi e & John E. D u y. 2009. “Tempo al dynamics o la e
second language acquisi ion: e idence om e en - ela ed b ain po en ials”.
Second Language Resea ch. 25(1): 13-41.
S einhaue , Ka s en. 2014. “E en - ela ed po en ials (ERPs) in second language esea ch:
A b ie in oduc ion o he echnique, a selec ed e iew, and an in i a ion o
econside c i ical pe iods in L2”. Applied Linguis ics. 35(4): 393-417.
Tily, Ha y J., Michael C. F ank & T. Flo ian Jaege . 2011. “The lea nabili y o
cons uc ed languages eflec s ypological pa e ns”. P oceedings o he Annual
Mee ing o he Cogni i e Science Socie y. 33: 1364-1369.
Tode, Tomoko. 2008. E ec s o equency in class oom second language lea ning. Be n,
Swi ze land: Pe e Lang.
To o, Juan M., Luca L. Bona i, Ma ina Nespo & Jacques Mehle . 2008. “Finding wo ds
and ules in a speech s eam: unc ional di e ences be ween owels and
consonan s”. Psychological Science. 19:137–144.
an Hell, Jane G. & Ane e M. B. de G oo . 2008. “Sen ence con ex modula es isual
wo d ecogni ion and ansla ion in bilinguals”. Ac a Psychologica. 128: 431-451.
Walke , Neil, Ch is ine Schoe ensack, Pad aic Monaghan & Pa ick Rebuscha . 2017.
“Simul aneous acquisi ion o ocabula y and g amma in an a i icial language
lea ning ask”. P oceedings o he 39 h Annual Con e ence o he Cogni i e
Science Socie y: 1307-1312.
Webe -Fox, Ch is ine M., & Helen J. Ne ille. 1996. “Ma u a ional cons ain s on
unc ional specializa ions o language p ocessing: ERP and beha iou al e idence
in bilingual speake s”. Jou nal o Cogni i e Neu oscience, 8(3): 231– 256.
The impac o lexical co-ac i a ion h ough cogna es on L2 ule lea ning
59

The impac o lexical co-ac i a ion h ough cogna es on L2 ule lea ning
60
The impac o lexical co-ac i a ion h ough cogna es on L2 ule lea ning
61
The impac o lexical co-ac i a ion h ough cogna es on L2 ule lea ning
62
The impac o lexical co-ac i a ion h ough cogna es on L2 ule lea ning
63
The impac o lexical co-ac i a ion h ough cogna es on L2 ule lea ning
64

The impac o lexical co-ac i a ion h ough cogna es on L2 ule lea ning
65
Pos - es pic u es:
The impac o lexical co-ac i a ion h ough cogna es on L2 ule lea ning
66
The impac o lexical co-ac i a ion h ough cogna es on L2 ule lea ning
67
The impac o lexical co-ac i a ion h ough cogna es on L2 ule lea ning
68