conscious (explicit knowledge): is knowledge that we know that we know.

Unconscious (implicit) knowledge is one that we don't know that we know (You're guessing but you are correct)

implicit learning: learning without intention and awareness of what you have learned

Explicit learning: 

Amnesiacs reveal learning  in the absence of conscious remembering (acquisition of implicit knowledge)

But learning is limited (conditioning, perceptual-motor skills, priming ) and hyperspecific (context-dependent)

Amnesiacs reveal the function of the hippocampus: relational coding (binding) and consolidation (relating new information to old)

Prior knowledge may facilitate direct neo-cortical learning without the support of the hippocampus.

Direct tests of knowledge :

 free recall (e.g., recall as many of the words from the list as you can)

recognition memory (e.g., which of these words do you remember as being on the list?)

Indirect tests of knowledge:

priming in lexical decision (is this a word in Chinese?) or perceptual identification (try to identify the word)

Reaction time effects (e.g., faster RTs for trained vs untrained sequences in SRT) 

conscious remembering strictly irrelevant to the task. but unconscious feelings of familiarity or perceived perceptual fluency may bias responses (e.g., Kinder & Shanks, 2003) 

Conclusion:  we can't assume that tests of implicit and explicit knowledge are necessarily process pure. 

Dissociations between direct and indirect tests do not necessarily prove that there are distinct underlying knowledge systems.

Amnesia is a dissociation between implicit and explicit knowledge.  

Retrograde amnesia: loss of memories for events prior to injury

Anterograde amnesia: inability to form new long-term memories

Amnesia is an impairment of the declarative memory system (medial temporal lobe/ hippocampus)

If the hippocampus is impaired, then either type of amnesia can occur.

Key questions:

 Are meaning representations share between languages? Yes, refer to RHM

How do L2 words access meaning? Directly or via translation? RHM

How does proficiency affect the way that meaning is accessed? more proficient, more direct RHM

What's the nature of meaning representation in the brain?

distributed over sensory-motor regions (e.g., telephone, See ppt )

Can non-native speakers access the same "depth" of meaning as native speakers?

possibly with extensive exposures (age of acquisition; exposure to language )

Theoretical accounts of category-specific impairments

At a minimum: Different distribution of concepts over different brain regions 

Caramazza & Mahon (2003). Neural specificity of representations of different categories (animals, fruit/ vegetables, and artefacts) Evolutionary arguement

Tyler & Moss (2001): shared versus distinctive features. Living things- more shared than distinctive; artefacts -  more distinctive than shared. Living things more vulnerable. Computational arguement.  

Factors that affect the acquisition of L2 form-meaning mappings

1 Semantic interference in translation recognition after one lesson but only if words learned with pictures, not translations (Comersana et al., 2009)

2 Semantic interference in translation only for immersion learners, and not for classroom learners matched for proficiency (Linck, Kroll & Sunderman, 2009)

3 Automatic L2-L1 semantic priming for early learners, who had learned their L2 through immersion (Silverberg & Samuel, 2004)

4 Semantic priming frim newly learned words only for associates that occurred in the learning context (Williams & Cheung, 2011). An episodic view of word learning. 

Semantic blocking effect 

Process of lexical selection (parallel access and competition)

conceptualisation is easier than lexicalisation

Problems with the RHM

concrete words translated more quickly than abstract words in both directions and at all levels of proficiency. (De Groot & Poot, 1997)

Semantic translation interference effects obtained even at low proficiency (Altarriba & Mathis, 1997; Sunderman & Kroll, 2006) 

Method of training L2.

The effects of covert translation are detectable even at high proficiency (Thierry & Wu, 2007).

The Shallow Structure Hypothesis

1. Non-native speakers never acquire a deep knowledge of grammatical principles in L2

2. They rely instead on meaning-driven (thematic) processing strategies.

ELAN: Early Left anterior negativity

 N400 & P600

Bilingual syntactic processing 

1. evidence for shared syntactic representations

2. processing studies show initial transfer of L1 processing strategies, and a shift towards L2 strategies, at least in some cases

3. Native-like brain responses to grammatical violations can be obtained in adult learners. (in some studies)

4. there is some evidence for an early lexically or semantically driven stage of processing.

5. Still a question mark over whether L2 syntactic knowledge can never be truly native-like. It seems to depend on similarity to L1 and proficiency (Foucard & French-mestre, 2011; van Hell, & Tokowicz, 2010)

How the brain adapts to learning a L2 (brain plasticity)

Prcosessing the meaning and syntacx at the same time, -- Garden path sentence

Branigan et al 2000; Sturt et al, 2010 : 双宾语动词启动，被试更容易产出介宾结构短语  

The competition model:

Linguistics information is represented as a broadly distributed network of probabilistic connections among linguistics forms and the meanings they typically express. Linguistics rules are treated as form-meaning and form-form mappings that can vary in strength, so that the same rule may be stronger in one language than it is in another, as a function of cross-linguistic differences in cue validity of equivalent linguistic forms. Different kinds of linguistic information (e.g., phonological, lexical, morphological, syntactic) are represented together in a common format, the process of mapping meaning onto the form (production), form onto meaning (in comprehension), and the process of evaluating the compatibility of two or more forms (e.g., in grammaticality judgment) all involve graded activation (excitation and inhibition). Decisions about what to say or how to interpret the input emerge through a quantitative process of competition and conflict resolution within this broadly distributed and richly interconnected knowledge base.

1、Bialystock(2009), Bialystock et al (2012), 对比不同年龄段的单语者和双语者，证明双语者认知控制优势。研究发现30-50岁之间双语者的 Simon effect (抑制效应)几乎为零；单语者效应维持稳定，在100左右。59岁以后，单语者抑制效应越发明显，双语者也开始出现此效应。

Guo et al, 2011, 语言切换需要涉及 supervisory attention system.

Calvo & Bialystock 2014 家庭背景、社会地位对双语者认知控制也有影响 

Elston-Guettler et al 2005 创造二语环境，减少一语干扰。

Co-hort model of spoken word recognition.

"Con" activates words sharing the phonem /ken/ "confidenc" concept etc

1. questions asked by second-language learners

2. the def. of "bilingual"

lemma competition

put another language in your brain

aspects

cognitively in some way

lexical形容词，词汇的，语法的

shark敲诈者。勒索者

meaning

language-Sound/Pronunciation-Phonology

orthography-Spelling