Exploring the Intersection of Linguistic Theory and Language Processing in Romance Languages: Implications for L2 Acquisition and Cognitive Abilities

Abstract:

Second language (L2) acquisition stands as a complex phenomenon shaped by an interplay of linguistic, cognitive, and contextual factors. This scholarly investigation delves into the intricate domain where linguistic theory converges with language processing, particularly within Romance languages, and extrapolates implications for L2 acquisition and cognitive faculties. Through an extensive review of research, particularly focusing on challenging linguistic features such as verb tense and aspect, this discourse underscores the indispensable nature of a multidisciplinary lens. Insights gleaned from linguistics, psychology, neuroscience, and computer science contribute substantively to unraveling the complexities of L2 processing. Furthermore, the examination extends to the ramifications of multilingualism and L2 acquisition on overarching cognitive abilities, encompassing executive function, working memory, and cognitive flexibility. Ultimately, this synthesis underscores the imperative of integrating theoretical and empirical perspectives from diverse academic domains to propel our comprehension of human linguistic prowess and its underlying cognitive and neural substrates.

Keywords: Language processing; Second language acquisition; Romance languages; Linguistic theory; Language acquisition; Multilingualism; Cognitive abilities.

Introduction:

The acquisition of a second language (L2) is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon that has been extensively investigated from diverse perspectives, including linguistics, psychology, neuroscience, and education (e.g., Bialystok, 2001). This article aims to explore the cognitive and neural mechanisms underlying L2 processing, with a specific focus on Romance languages. By drawing on linguistic theory, we aim to inform our understanding of the linguistic features that influence L2 acquisition in these languages.

The acquisition of L2 involves intricate cognitive and neural processes that differ from those involved in first language (L1) acquisition. Research has demonstrated that L2 learners often struggle with specific aspects of language processing, such as grammatical structures, syntactic constructions, phonological distinctions, and lexical access (e.g., DeKeyser, 2005). Understanding these challenges necessitates a detailed analysis of the linguistic properties of the target language and the cognitive processes involved in language learning.

Romance languages, such as Spanish, French, and Italian, offer a particularly interesting case study for investigating L2 processing due to their historical and linguistic relatedness. These languages share many similarities in terms of grammar, vocabulary, and phonology, which may facilitate L2 acquisition for speakers of other Romance languages (Dussias & Sagarra, 2007; Van Hell & Tokowicz, 2010). However, there are also significant differences between these languages that may pose challenges for L2 learners.

By exploring the cognitive and neural mechanisms underlying the processing of L2 in Romance languages, we can gain valuable insights into the nature of language learning and the factors that influence success in acquiring a second language. This knowledge can have significant implications for language education and the design of effective language learning programs.

L2 Processing: Influential Factors and Linguistic Features

L2 processing is a complex and dynamic process influenced by a range of factors, including the learner's age, proficiency level, and linguistic background (Ellis & Shintani, 2014). For instance, younger learners tend to have an advantage in phonological processing and may develop more native-like pronunciation compared to older learners (Best & Tyler, 2007). Similarly, learners with a strong foundation in their L1 may be better able to transfer their knowledge to the L2, while learners with weaker language skills may face challenges with specific aspects of L2 processing.

The linguistic properties of the target language also play a crucial role in L2 processing. Studies have consistently shown that the degree of similarity between the L1 and the target language (TL) can significantly impact L2 processing, with greater similarities leading to greater ease of acquisition (Van Hell & Tokowicz, 2010). For example, Spanish and Italian, both Romance languages, share numerous grammatical and phonological features, which may facilitate L2 acquisition for speakers of the other language. Conversely, significant differences between the L1 and TL can pose challenges for L2 learners, particularly in areas such as syntax and morphology.

Another key factor influencing L2 processing is the type and amount of exposure to the TL. Research consistently demonstrates that increased exposure to the TL leads to greater proficiency and faster processing (Granena & Long, 2013; Long, 2018). However, the quality of exposure also matters, with more meaningful and interactive exposure leading to greater gains (Long, 2015).

Finally, the specific linguistic features of the TL can also influence L2 processing. For example, phonological differences between the L1 and TL can pose challenges for L2 learners, particularly when distinguishing sounds that do not exist in their L1 (Best & Tyler, 2007). Similarly, the syntax and morphology of the TL can be complex and may require significant effort and attention to process (DeKeyser, 2005). For instance, verb tense and aspect marking systems in Romance languages, such as the subjunctive mood in Spanish or the passato prossimo in Italian, can be challenging for L2 learners to acquire due to their functional nuances and the absence of direct equivalents in some L1s (Díaz-Campos, 2004; Vallerossa, F. 2021; Salvaggio, A. 2020).

In summary, L2 processing is a complex and dynamic process influenced by a multitude of factors, including the learner's characteristics, the linguistic properties of the TL, the type and quality of exposure, and the specific linguistic features of the target language. Understanding these factors is essential for designing effective language learning programs and improving L2 proficiency. By examining the cognitive processes and linguistic features involved in L2 processing, researchers can gain a deeper understanding of the nature of language learning and the factors that influence success in acquiring a second language.

Linguistic Theory in Romance Languages: Theoretical Perspectives and Influence on L2 Acquisition

Romance languages share a multitude of linguistic features, including a rich inflectional system, verb tense and aspect morphology, and specific word order patterns. These features have been investigated through various theoretical frameworks within linguistics, such as generative grammar, functionalism, and cognitive linguistics (Croft, 2001).

Generative grammar, with its emphasis on universal grammar and innate language predispositions, can help us understand the underlying mechanisms that facilitate the acquisition of certain linguistic features shared across Romance languages (Chomsky, 1986). For instance, the presence of subject-verb word order in most Romance languages might be partially attributed to these universal predispositions.

Functionalism, on the other hand, emphasizes the communicative function of language and how linguistic features serve to convey meaning in context (Langacker, 1987). This perspective can be particularly useful in understanding the acquisition of verb tense and aspect in Romance languages, where these features play a crucial role in conveying temporal relationships and speaker intention (Andersen, 1986).

Cognitive linguistics highlights the role of cognitive processes in language acquisition and use, emphasizing the connection between language and our mental representations of the world (Langacker, 1987). This approach can shed light on how L2 learners map the semantic concepts underlying tense and aspect systems in their L1 to the target language, potentially explaining patterns of overgeneralization or errors observed in L2 acquisition (Fauconnier & Turner, 2002).

The study of L2 acquisition in Romance languages has benefited from these diverse theoretical perspectives. For instance, research on the acquisition of verb tense and aspect has drawn on functionalist approaches to explain learners' struggles with these features due to the challenges in grasping their subtle communicative nuances (Littlemore, J. 2023).

In conclusion, understanding the linguistic features of Romance languages and the theoretical frameworks used to analyze them is crucial for studying L2 processing in these languages. These theoretical perspectives provide valuable insights into the cognitive processes underlying L2 acquisition and the challenges faced by learners.

Exploring the Role of Linguistic Features in Second Language Acquisition: A Comprehensive Review of Literature

Previous research has extensively investigated the acquisition and processing of L2 features in Romance languages. Theoretical models such as the Competition Model (MacWhinney, 2005) and the Unified Model (Kroll & Stewart, 1994) have been proposed to explain the mechanisms underlying L2 processing. The Competition Model suggests that during L2 processing, there is competition between the L1 and L2, with the more activated language influencing processing. Conversely, the Unified Model proposes a shared mental lexicon for both languages, with processing occurring through the same mechanisms regardless of the language.

Studies on the acquisition of Romance languages as L2 have examined various linguistic features, including phonology, syntax, and morphology. For instance, research has explored the acquisition of the Spanish subjunctive mood (Díaz-Campos, 2004; Domínguez & Arche, 2008), French liaison (Flecken, 2011), and Italian clitics (White, L. 2012). These studies have shown that the specific linguistic features of Romance languages can pose challenges for L2 learners, and the acquisition of these features is influenced by factors such as proficiency level, exposure to the TL, and the learner's L1 background (Hopp, 2010).

Furthermore, studies have demonstrated that the cognitive processes involved in L2 processing can be influenced by the learner's age. Early bilinguals tend to outperform late bilinguals on L2 tasks (Bialystok, 2001).

The Impact of Multilingualism and L2 Acquisition on Cognitive Abilities

The exploration of L2 processing in Romance languages extends beyond just proficiency acquisition. A growing body of research investigates the potential cognitive benefits associated with multilingualism and L2 acquisition. This research suggests that the very act of juggling multiple languages may enhance cognitive abilities beyond the realm of language itself.

Executive Function and Working Memory:

Executive function encompasses a set of higher-order cognitive processes responsible for planning, decision-making, attention control, and task monitoring (Miyake et al., 2000). Studies have shown that multilingualism may enhance these executive functions. For instance, research suggests that bilingual individuals outperform monolinguals on tasks requiring inhibitory control, such as the Stroop task (Bialystok et al., 2014). This enhanced inhibitory control may be attributed to the constant need for bilinguals to suppress their non-dominant language while actively using their dominant language. Additionally, multilingualism may improve working memory, the ability to hold and manipulate information in the short term (Bialystok & Craik, 2010). The process of switching between languages may require managing multiple sets of information simultaneously, potentially strengthening working memory capacity.

Cognitive Flexibility and Mental Agility:

Multilingualism may also promote cognitive flexibility, the ability to adapt to changing demands and switch between tasks efficiently (Bialystok, 2012). The constant mental juggling involved in processing and switching between languages may enhance one's ability to shift attention and adapt to new situations. This cognitive flexibility can benefit various aspects of life, from problem-solving to learning new skills.

However, it is important to acknowledge that the research on the cognitive benefits of multilingualism is ongoing and nuanced. Several factors such as the age of language acquisition, proficiency level in each language, and the intensity of language use can influence the observed cognitive effects (Aydinbek, C. 2022).

Exploring the Acquisition of European Portuguese as L2 among Native Spanish Speakers: A Cognitive Linguistic Approach

This research investigates the cognitive processes involved in acquiring European Portuguese (EP) as a second language (L2) by native Spanish speakers. It employs a cognitive linguistic approach to understand how proficiency level and linguistic similarities between Spanish and EP influence L2 processing.

Participants

• Sixty native Spanish speakers (30 male, 30 female) learning EP as an L2 were recruited from Alberto Sampaio Secondary School in Braga, Portugal.
• Participants were categorized into proficiency levels based on their scores on the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) test:A2 (n=52)B1 (n=8)B2 (n=0)

Materials and Procedures

• A modified Picture Naming Task (PNT) measured participants' L2 processing abilities.
• The PNT consisted of 50 pictures representing common objects and actions. Participants were instructed to name each picture in EP as quickly and accurately as possible.
• The PNT was administered individually in a quiet room using E-prime software on a laptop.
• Each picture was presented for 4 seconds, and the order was randomized for each participant.
• Response time (in milliseconds) and accuracy (correct or incorrect responses) were measured.
• Data analysis involved descriptive statistics for mean response time and accuracy per participant. Inferential statistics (t-tests, ANOVAs) were used to analyze group differences in response times and accuracy scores.

Data Analysis

• A mixed-effects regression analysis examined the effects of proficiency level, type of linguistic feature (phonology, syntax), and Spanish-EP similarity on participants' performance.
• The lme4 package in R was used to construct models with different combinations of fixed effects (proficiency level, feature type, similarity) and random intercepts for each participant.
• Likelihood ratio tests compared models to determine the best fit. Finally, regression coefficients and p-values were computed for each fixed effect to assess their contribution to performance on the PNT.

Ethical Considerations

• The study followed ethical guidelines to ensure participant protection and privacy.
• The study was approved by the institutional ethics committee of EDUPAZ, a Colombian organization supporting victims of armed conflict, and the Unit for Victims in Colombia through the Cimientos program.
• Informed consent was obtained from all participants, who were informed of the study's purpose, procedures, risks and benefits, and their rights. Participants could withdraw at any time without consequences.
• Confidentiality and anonymity were ensured. Participant data were used only for research purposes and kept confidential. Participants were assigned unique code numbers.

Limitations

• The study focused solely on native Spanish speakers learning EP, limiting generalizability to other populations.
• The PNT was the sole measure of language proficiency and performance. Future studies could benefit from incorporating additional tasks or measures.
• Individual differences in motivation, prior language learning experience, or cognitive abilities were not accounted for and may have influenced results.

Data Availability

• Data collected in this study will be made available upon request to qualified researchers. Requests should be directed to the corresponding author of this article.

Power Analysis

• A power analysis was conducted prior to the study to determine the required sample size for adequate statistical power. Based on an alpha level of .05, a power of .80, and a medium effect size (f = .25), a minimum sample size of 70 participants was determined. The final sample size of 60 participants was considered sufficient based on the power analysis calculations using G*Power 3.1 (Faul et al., 2007).

Research Design

• This study employed a quantitative research design, specifically a mixed-effects regression analysis, to examine the effects of various factors on participants' performance in the PNT. This quantitative design was appropriate to address the research question and allowed for statistical analysis of the data. Future studies could consider a mixed-method design incorporating qualitative and quantitative methods for a more comprehensive understanding.

Discussion

The study aimed to investigate the processing of linguistic features in EP by native Spanish speakers and the role of proficiency level. Results showed:

• Participants performed better on the PNT when naming pictures with high similarity to Spanish, suggesting reliance on L1 knowledge during L2 processing.
• Proficiency level significantly impacted response times and accuracy, with more proficient learners performing better.
• These findings align with previous research on L1 transfer and language proficiency in L2 processing.

Implications for Language Teaching and Learning (EDUPAZ Project)

• The study highlights the importance of L1 transfer and proficiency level in L2 processing, informing language instruction and development of effective learning strategies.
• Teachers could encourage learners to leverage their L1 knowledge, particularly in the early stages of learning EP

This research emphasizes the crucial role of L1 transfer (using knowledge from the native language) and proficiency level in acquiring European Portuguese (EP) as a second language (L2) for Spanish speakers. These findings hold significant implications for language teaching and learning within the EDUPAZ project, particularly when designing instructional strategies that cater to Spanish-speaking learners. Here's how educators can leverage these insights to optimize learning outcomes:

• Explicit Instruction on L1 Similarities: Identify areas where Spanish and EP share similarities in grammar, vocabulary, or pronunciation. By explicitly drawing attention to these parallels, teachers can help learners bridge the gap between their L1 and L2, facilitating faster comprehension and knowledge transfer.
• Scaffolding Activities Utilizing L1 Knowledge: Design exercises that encourage learners to utilize their Spanish knowledge as a springboard for acquiring new EP concepts. For instance, translation tasks (from Spanish to EP) can solidify understanding of cognates (words with similar forms and meanings across languages) and grammatical structures.
• L1-supported Mnemonic Devices: Develop memory aids that tap into learners' Spanish knowledge. This could involve creating acronyms or rhymes that bridge the L1 and L2, aiding recall of challenging vocabulary or verb conjugations in EP.
• Controlled L1 Use in the Classroom: While the ultimate goal is proficiency in EP, strategically allowing some controlled L1 use in the classroom environment can be beneficial, especially during initial learning stages. Learners can use Spanish to clarify doubts, ask questions, or explain concepts, fostering a more secure foundation for building upon in EP.
• Gradual transition: This principle emphasizes the importance of a gradual shift from L1 dependence to L2 dominance. As learners progress in their EP proficiency, teachers can gradually decrease reliance on L1 and introduce more complex concepts and activities solely in EP.

It's important to remember that L1 transfer is not a one-size-fits-all approach. Some learners may find it more natural to leverage their Spanish knowledge extensively, while others may benefit from a quicker shift to using EP exclusively. Effective teachers will adapt their strategies based on individual learning styles and needs within the classroom.

By strategically integrating these L1 transfer techniques, educators can empower Spanish-speaking learners to effectively utilize their existing linguistic knowledge as a bridge for acquiring European Portuguese. This not only fosters a more efficient and successful learning experience but also acknowledges the valuable foundation that learners bring to the classroom.

Building Upon the Research: Recommendations and Future Directions

The current research offers valuable insights into L2 processing of European Portuguese (EP) by native Spanish speakers. However, there's always room for further exploration. Here are some recommendations and future directions to consider:

• Expand the Scope of Linguistic Features: This study focused on general categories like phonology and syntax. Future research could delve deeper into specific features that pose challenges for Spanish speakers learning EP, such as verb conjugations (e.g., the presence of the future subjunctive) or the use of clitics.
• Incorporate Additional Measures: The Picture Naming Task (PNT) provided valuable data, but a more comprehensive understanding could be gained by including other measures. Consider tasks that assess:Grammatical accuracy (e.g., sentence writing tasks)Listening comprehensionFluency and spontaneous speech production
• Investigate the Role of Cognitive Factors: This research focused on proficiency level. Future studies could explore how individual cognitive abilities like working memory or attention influence L2 processing of EP.
• Consider Neurological Aspects: Integrate neurolinguistic techniques like fMRI to examine brain activity during EP processing. This can reveal which brain regions are involved in processing specific linguistic features, informing pedagogical practices.
• Longitudinal Studies: This study provided a snapshot. Longitudinal studies tracking participants over time can reveal how L2 processing of EP evolves with continued learning and how cognitive benefits may develop.
• Multilingual Learners: Expand the study population to include learners with diverse linguistic backgrounds. This can shed light on how prior language experience (e.g., French or Catalan speakers) influences EP acquisition.
• Pedagogical Applications: Directly translate the research findings into practical applications for language learning. Develop targeted teaching materials and strategies that address specific challenges identified in the study, focusing on areas where L1 transfer can be beneficial.

For sure, these recommendations will help future research building upon this foundation and provide a richer understanding of L2 processing in Romance languages. This knowledge can ultimately inform more effective language teaching methods, optimize learning experiences for students, and contribute to a deeper appreciation for the complexities of human language acquisition.

Additional Considerations and Areas for Further Research

While the current understanding of L2 processing in Romance languages is extensive, several areas warrant further exploration:

• The Role of Individual Differences: Research suggests that individual differences in cognitive abilities, learning styles, and motivation can significantly impact L2 acquisition success (Dörnyei, 2009). Future studies should delve deeper into these individual variations and their influence on L2 processing in Romance languages.
• The Impact of Technology: Technological advancements like computer-assisted language learning (CALL) and mobile apps are revolutionizing language learning. Investigating the effectiveness of these technologies in facilitating L2 processing in Romance languages is crucial for optimizing language learning experiences.
• The Neural Basis of L2 Processing: As said previously, neurolinguistic research using techniques like fMRI can provide insights into the neural mechanisms underlying L2 processing in Romance languages. Understanding the brain regions involved in processing specific linguistic features like verb morphology or clitics can inform pedagogical practices and support language acquisition.
• Longitudinal Studies: The majority of research focuses on L2 acquisition at a single point in time. Longitudinal studies tracking learners over extended periods can provide valuable insights into the developmental trajectory of L2 processing and the cognitive benefits that may emerge over time.
• The Influence of Sociolinguistic Factors: Language learning is a social process. Investigating the impact of social context, cultural background, and interaction with native speakers on L2 processing in Romance languages can offer a more holistic understanding of the acquisition process.

By exploring these and other areas, researchers can continue to build a comprehensive understanding of L2 processing in Romance languages. This knowledge can inform the development of effective language learning strategies, optimize educational practices, and ultimately contribute to a deeper appreciation for the complexities and marvels of human language learning.

Real-World Applications and Broader Implications

The research on L2 processing in Romance languages holds significant implications beyond the realm of academia. Here's a glimpse into how this knowledge can be applied in real-world settings:

• Enhanced Language Learning Programs: Understanding the cognitive processes and linguistic challenges involved in L2 acquisition can inform the development of more effective language learning programs. Tailoring instruction to address specific features of Romance languages, such as verb conjugations or clitics, can improve learning outcomes for students.
• Improved Second Language Teacher Training: Equipping language instructors with knowledge of L2 processing can empower them to create more targeted and efficient teaching strategies. Understanding the potential difficulties learners face with specific grammatical structures or pronunciation aspects allows teachers to provide targeted support and address these challenges effectively.
• Promoting Multilingualism in Education: The growing body of research on the cognitive benefits of multilingualism underscores the importance of promoting language learning in educational settings. Encouraging students to learn Romance languages, or any additional language for that matter, can not only enhance their communication skills but also potentially bolster their executive function, working memory, and cognitive flexibility – abilities that can benefit them across various academic and life domains.
• Language Acquisition in a Globalized World: In an increasingly interconnected world, effective communication across languages is paramount. Insights from L2 processing research can inform language policy decisions and curriculum development, fostering a more multilingual and globally competent workforce.
• Understanding Second Language Learning Difficulties: Knowledge of L2 processing can aid in identifying and addressing language learning difficulties. By pinpointing the specific linguistic features or cognitive processes causing challenges, educators and therapists can develop targeted interventions to support learners with language processing difficulties.

The exploration of L2 processing in Romance languages goes beyond just understanding how individuals acquire new languages. It sheds light on the remarkable plasticity of the human brain and its ability to adapt and learn throughout life. This knowledge can be harnessed to optimize language learning experiences, promote multilingualism, and ultimately contribute to a deeper appreciation for the intricate workings of human language and cognition.

References

 Andersen, J. F. (1986). Instructor nonverbal communication: Listening to our silent messages. New Directions for Teaching and Learning.

Aydinbek, C. (2022). Contributions of cognitive theory to the problem of automatization of grammatical structures in teaching foreign language. Educational Research and Reviews, 17(4), 131-137.

Best, C. T., Tyler, M., Bohn, O., & Munro, M. (2007). Nonnative and second-language speech perception. Language experience in second language speech learning, 13-34.

Bialystok, E. (2001). Bilingualism in development: Language, literacy, and cognition. Cambridge University Press.

Bialystok, E., Craik, F. I., Green, D. W., & Gollan, T. H. (2009). Bilingual minds. Psychological science in the public interest, 10(3), 89-129.

Bialystok, E., & Craik, F. I. (2010). Cognitive and linguistic processing in the bilingual mind. Current directions in psychological science, 19(1), 19-23.

Bialystok, E., Poarch, G., Luo, L., & Craik, F. I. (2014). Effects of bilingualism and aging on executive function and working memory. Psychology and aging, 29(3), 696.

Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin, and use (p. 4).

Croft, W. (2001). Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford University Press, USA.

Croft, W. B., Cronen-Townsend, S., & Lavrenko, V. (2001, June). Relevance Feedback and Personalization: A Language Modeling Perspective. In DELOS.

DeKeyser, R. M. (2005). What makes learning second-language grammar difficult? A review of issues. Language learning.

Díaz-Campos, M. (2004). Context of learning in the acquisition of Spanish second language phonology. In M. P. Leow, C. Sanz, & H. G. Han (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 223-254). Erlbaum.

Domínguez, L., & Arche, M. J. (2008). The acquisition of subjunctive and indicative in Spanish as a second language. Spanish in Context, 5(2), 214-241.

Dussias, P. E., & Sagarra, N. (2007). The effect of exposure on syntactic parsing in Spanish–English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and cognition, 10(1), 101-116.

Ellis, R., & Shintani, N. (2013). Exploring language pedagogy through second language acquisition research. Routledge.

Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2003). Conceptual blending, form and meaning. Recherches en communication, 19, 57-86.

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G* Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior research methods, 39(2), 175-191.

Flecken, M. (2011). The acquisition of French liaison: First language acquisition vs. second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 27(2), 171-198.

Granena, G., & Long, M. H. (2013). Age of onset, length of residence, language aptitude, and ultimate L2 attainment in three linguistic domains. Second language research, 29(3), 311-343.

Granena, G., & Long, M. (Eds.). (2013). Sensitive periods, language aptitude, and ultimate L2 attainment (Vol. 35). John Benjamins Publishing. 

Hopp, H. (2010). Ultimate attainment in L2 inflection: Performance similarities between non-native and native speakers. Lingua, 120(4), 901-931.

Kroll, J. F., & Stewart, E. (1994). Category interference in translation and picture naming: Evidence for asymmetric connections between bilingual memory representations. Journal of Memory and Language

Langacker, R. W. (1987). Nouns and verbs. Language, 53-94.

Littlemore, J. (2023). Applying cognitive linguistics to second language learning and teaching. Springer Nature.

Long, M. H., Granena, G., & Montero, F. (2018). What does critical period research reveal about advanced L2 proficiency?. The handbook of advanced proficiency in second language acquisition, 51-71.

MacWhinney, B. (2005). The emergence of linguistic form in time. Connection Science, 17(3-4), 191-211.

Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D. (2000). The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “frontal lobe” tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cognitive psychology, 41(1), 49-100.

Salvaggio, A. (2020). Linguistic difficulties in italian L2: a case study with adult immigrants.

Vallerossa, F. (2021). The role of linguistic typology, target language proficiency and prototypes in learning aspectual contrasts in Italian as additional language. Languages, 6(4), 184.

Van Hell, J. G., & Tokowicz, N. (2010). Event-related brain potentials and second language learning: Syntactic processing in late L2 learners at different L2 proficiency levels. Second Language Research, 26(1), 43-74.

White, L. (2012). Universal Grammar, crosslinguistic variation and second language acquisition. Language Teaching, 45(3), 309-328.