Hostname: page-component-54dcc4c588-mz6gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-07T03:25:43.359Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Individual differences reveal stages of L2 grammatical acquisition: ERP evidence*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 August 2012

DARREN TANNER ,
JUDITH MCLAUGHLIN ,
JULIA HERSCHENSOHN  and
LEE OSTERHOUT
DARREN TANNER*
Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University, Department of Psychology
JUDITH MCLAUGHLIN
Affiliation:
University of Washington, Department of Psychology
JULIA HERSCHENSOHN
Affiliation:
University of Washington, Department of Linguistics
LEE OSTERHOUT
Affiliation:
University of Washington, Department of Psychology
*
Address for correspondence: Darren Tanner, Pennsylvania State University, Center for Language Science, 4F Thomas Building, University Park, PA 16802, USAdstanner@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Here we report findings from a cross-sectional study of morphosyntactic processing in native German speakers and native English speakers enrolled in college-level German courses. Event-related brain potentials were recorded while participants read sentences that were either well-formed or violated German subject–verb agreement. Results showed that grammatical violations elicited large P600 effects in the native Germans and learners enrolled in third-year courses. Grand mean waveforms for learners enrolled in first-year courses showed a biphasic N400–P600 response. However, subsequent correlation analyses revealed that most individuals showed either an N400 or a P600, but not both, and that brain response type was associated with behavioral measures of grammatical sensitivity. These results support models of second language acquisition which implicate qualitative changes in the neural substrates of second language grammar processing associated with learning. Importantly, we show that new insights into L2 learning result when the cross-subject variability is treated as a source of evidence rather than a source of noise.

Keywords

N400P600second language acquisitionindividual differencesmorphosyntaxERP

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 16 , Issue 2: Computational Modeling of Bilingualism , April 2013 , pp. 367 - 382
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

We would like to thank the participants, as well as members of the Cognitive Neuroscience of Language Lab at the University of Washington, including Missy Takahashi, Ilona Pitkänen, and Geoff Valentine for their help in collecting the data for this study. We would especially like to thank Kayo Inoue for valuable discussion and insights into individual variation. This research was supported by grant R01DC01947 from the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders to Lee Osterhout. Portions of this manuscript were prepared while Darren Tanner was supported by a Neurolinguistics Dissertation Fellowship from the William Orr Dingwall Foundation and by NSF OISE-0968369. We would also like to thank two anonymous reviewers who provided thoughtful comments on earlier versions of this article. Any remaining errors are, of course, our own.

References

Ainsworth-Darnell, K., Shulman, R., & Boland, J. (1998). Dissociating brain responses to syntactic and semantic anomalies: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Memory and Language, 38, 112–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, M., Badecker, W., & Osterhout, L. (2003). Morphological analysis in sentence processing: An ERP study. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18, 405–430.Google Scholar
Bentin, S. (1987). Event-related potentials, semantic processes, and expectancy factors in word recognition. Brain and Language, 31, 308–327.Google Scholar
Bentin, S., & Deutsch, A. (2001). Syntactic and semantic factors in processing gender agreement in Hebrew: Evidence from ERPs and eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 200–224.Google Scholar
Bond, K., Gabriele, A., Fiorentino, R., & Alemán Bañón, J. (2011). Individual differences and the role of the L1 in L2 processing: An ERP investigation. In Tanner, D. & Herschensohn, J. (eds.), Proceedings of the 11th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2011), pp. 17–29. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Chen, L., Shu, H. U. A., Liu, Y., Zhao, J., & Li, P. (2007). ERP signatures of subject–verb agreement in L2 learning. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10, 161–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christianson, K. (2008). Sensitivity to syntactic changes in garden path sentences. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 37, 391–403.Google Scholar
Christianson, K., Hollingworth, A., Halliwell, J. F., & Ferreira, F. (2001). Thematic roles assigned along the garden path linger. Cognitive Psychology, 42, 368–407.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006). Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 3–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, H., Felser, C., Neubauer, K., Sato, M., & Silva, R. (2010). Morphological structure in native and nonnative language processing. Language Learning, 60, 21–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dörnyei, Z., & Skehan, P. (2003). Individual differences in second language learning. In Doughty, C. J. & Long, M. H. (eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition, pp. 589–630. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Durrell, M. (2006). Hammer's German grammar and usage. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Ferreira, F., BaileyK., G. D. K., G. D., & Ferraro, V. (2002). Good-enough representations in language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 11–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foucart, A., & Frenck-Mestre, C. (2011). Grammatical gender processing in L2: Electrophysiological evidence of the effect of L1–L2 syntactic similarity. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 14, 379–399.Google Scholar
Frenck-Mestre, C., Osterhout, L., McLaughlin, J., & Foucart, A. (2008). The effect of phonological realization of inflectional morphology on verbal agreement in French: Evidence from ERPs. Acta Psychologica, 128, 528–536.Google Scholar
Friederici, A. D., Hahne, A., & Mecklinger, A. (1996). Temporal structure of syntactic processing: Early and late event-related potential effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 1219–1248.Google Scholar
Friederici, A. D., Steinhauer, K., & Pfeifer, E. (2002). Brain signatures of artificial language processing: Evidence challenging the critical period hypothesis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 99, 529–534.Google Scholar
Gillon Dowens, M., Guo, T., Guo, J., Barber, H., & Carreiras, M. (2011). Gender and number processing in Chinese learners of Spanish – Evidence from event related potentials. Neuropsychologia, 49, 1651–1659.Google Scholar
Guo, J., Guo, T., Yan, Y., Jiang, N., & Peng, D. (2009). ERP evidence for different strategies employed by native speakers and L2 learners in sentence processing. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 22, 123–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagoort, P. (2003). Interplay between syntax and semantics during sentence comprehension: ERP effects of combining syntactic and semantic violations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15, 883–899.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hagoort, P., & Brown, C. M. (1999). Gender electrified: ERP evidence on the syntactic nature of gender processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 28, 715–728.Google Scholar
Hagoort, P., Brown, C. M., & Groothusen, J. (1993). The syntactic positive shift as an ERP measure of syntactic processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 439–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hahne, A., & Friederici, A. D. (2001). Processing a second language: Late learners’ comprehension mechanisms as revealed by event-related brain potentials. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4, 123–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hahne, A., Mueller, J. L., & Clahsen, H. (2006). Morphological processing in a second language: Behavioral and event-related brain potential evidence for storage and decomposition. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 121–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Handy, T. C. (2005). Event-related potentials: A methods handbook. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Inoue, K., & Osterhout, L. (2012). Sentence processing as a neural seesaw. Ms., University of Washington, Seattle, WA.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (2007). A parallel architecture perspective on language processing. Brain Research, 1146, 2–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jasper, H. H. (1958). The ten–twenty system of the International Federation. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 10, 371–375.Google Scholar
Johnson, J., Shenkman, K., Newport, E., & Medin, D. (1996). Indeterminacy in the grammar of adult language learners. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 335–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaan, E. (2002). Investigating the effects of distance and number interference in processing subject–verb dependencies: An ERP study. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 31, 165–193.Google Scholar
Kaan, E., Harris, A., Gibson, E., & Holcomb, P. (2000). The P600 as an index of syntactic integration difficulty. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15, 159–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, A., & Osterhout, L. (2005). The independence of combinatory semantic processing: Evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 205–225.Google Scholar
King, J. W., & Kutas, M. (1995). Who did what and when? Using word- and clause-level ERPs to monitor working memory usage in reading. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 7, 376–395.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kolk, H. H. J., Chwilla, D. J., van Herten, M., & Oor, P. J. W. (2003). Structure and limited capacity in verbal working memory: A study with event-related potentials. Brain and Language, 85, 1–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuperberg, G. (2007). Neural mechanisms of language comprehension: Challenges to syntax. Brain Research, 1146, 23–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kutas, M., & Federmeier, K. D. (2000). Electrophysiology reveals semantic memory use in language comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 463–470.Google Scholar
Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1980). Reading senseless sentences: Brain potentials reflect semantic anomaly. Science, 207, 203–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luck, S. J. (2005). An introduction to the event-related potential technique. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2005). A unified model of language acquisition. In Kroll, J. F. & De Groot, A. M. B. (eds.), Hanbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches, pp. 49–67. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B., Bates, E., & Kliegl, R. (1984). Cue validity and sentence intepretation in English, German, and Italian. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 127–150.Google Scholar
McDonald, J. L. (2000). Grammaticality judgments in a second language: Influences of age of acquisition and native language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 21, 395–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, J. L. (2006). Beyond the critical period: Processing-based explanations for poor grammaticality judgment performance by late second language learners. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 381–401.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, J., Osterhout, L., & Kim, A. (2004). Neural correlates of second-language word learning: Minimal instruction produces rapid change. Nature Neuroscience, 7, 703–704.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McLaughlin, J., Tanner, D., Pitkänen, I., Frenck-Mestre, C., Inoue, K., Valentine, G., & Osterhout, L. (2010). Brain potentials reveal discrete stages of L2 grammatical learning. Language Learning, 60, 123–150.Google Scholar
Moreno, E. M., & Kutas, M. (2005). Processing semantic anomalies in two languages: An electrophysiological exploration in both languages of Spanish–English bilinguals. Cognitive Brain Research, 22, 205–220.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morgan-Short, K., Faretta, M., Brill, K., Wong, F., & Wong, P. (2012). Declarative and procedural memory as individual differences in second language acquisition. Ms., University of Illinois at Chicago.Google Scholar
Morgan-Short, K., Sanz, C., Steinhauer, K., & Ullman, M. T. (2010). Second language acquisition of gender agreement in explicit and implicit training conditions: An event-related potentials study. Language Learning, 60, 154–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan-Short, K., Steinhauer, K., Sanz, C., & Ullman, M. T. (2012). Explicit and implicit second language training differentially affect the achievement of native-like brain activation patterns. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 24, 933–947.Google Scholar
Naiman, N., Fröhlich, M., Stern, H. H., & Todesco, A. (1996). The good language learner. Philadelphia, PA: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Nakano, H., Saron, C., & Swaab, T. Y. (2010). Speech and span: Working memory capacity impacts the use of animacy but not of world knowledge during spoken sentence comprehension. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22, 2886–2898.Google Scholar
Neville, H. J., Nicol, J., Barss, A., Forster, K., & Garrett, M. (1991). Syntactically based sentence processing classes: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 3, 151–165.Google Scholar
Nevins, A., Dillon, B., Malhotra, S., & Phillips, C. (2007). The role of feature-number and feature-type in processing Hindi verb agreement violations. Brain Research, 1164, 81–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Newman, A. J., Tremblay, A., Nichols, E. S., Neville, H. J., & Ullman, M. T. (2012). The influence of language proficiency on lexical semantic processing in native and late learners of English. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 24, 1205–1223.Google Scholar
Nieuwland, M. S., & Van Berkum, J. J. A. (2005). Testing the limits of the semantic illusion phenomenon: ERPs reveal temporary semantic change deafness in discourse comprehension. Cognitive Brain Research, 24, 691–701.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nieuwland, M. S., & Van Berkum, J. J. A. (2008). The interplay between semantic and referential aspects of anaphor noun phrase resolution: Evidence from ERPs. Brain and Language, 106, 119–131.Google Scholar
Ojima, S., Matsuba-Kurita, H., Nakamura, N., Hoshino, T., & Hagiwara, H. (2011). Age and the amount of exposure to a foreign language during childhood: Behavioral and ERP data on the semantic comprehension of spoken English by Japanese children. Neuroscience Research, 70, 197–205.Google Scholar
Ojima, S., Nakata, H., & Kakigi, R. (2005). An ERP study of second language learning after childhood: Effects of Proficiency. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17, 1212–1228.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Osterhout, L. (1997). On the brain response to syntactic anomalies: Manipulations of word position and word class reveal individual differences. Brain and Language, 59, 494–522.Google Scholar
Osterhout, L., Frenck-Mestre, C., Inoue, K., McLaughlin, J., Tanner, D., & Herschensohn, J. (2012). Morphosyntactic learning and second language acquisition: Evidence from event-related potentials. Ms., University of Washington.Google Scholar
Osterhout, L., & Holcomb, P. J. (1992). Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 785–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osterhout, L., & Holcomb, P. J. (1995). Event-related brain potentials and language comprehension. In Rugg, M. D. & Coles, M. G. H. (eds.), Electrophysiology of mind: Event-related brain potentials and cognition, pp. 171–215. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Osterhout, L., McLaughlin, J., Kim, A., Greewald, R., & Inoue, K. (2004). Sentences in the brain: Event-related potentials as real-time reflections of sentence comprehension and language learning. In Carreiras, M. & Clifton, C. (eds.), The on-line study of sentence comprehension: Eyetracking-ERPs, and beyond, pp. 271–308. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Osterhout, L., McLaughlin, J., Pitkänen, I., Frenck-Mestre, C., & Molinaro, N. (2006). Novice learners, longitudinal designs, and event-related potentials: A means for exploring the neurocognition of second language processing. Language Learning, 56, 199–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osterhout, L., & Mobley, L. (1995). Event-related brain potentials elicited by failure to agree. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 739–773.Google Scholar
Osterhout, L., & Nicol, J. (1999). On the distinctiveness, independence, and time course of the brain responses to syntactic and semantic anomalies. Language and Cognitive Processes, 14, 282–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pakulak, E., & Neville, H. J. (2010). Proficiency differences in syntactic processing of monolingual native speakers indexed by event-related potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22, 2728–2744.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prat, C. S. (2011). The brain basis of individual differences in language comprehension abilities. Language and Linguistic Compass, 5, 635–649.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2002). Individual differences and instructed language learning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rossi, S., Gugler, M. F., Friederici, A. D., & Hahne, A. (2006). The impact of proficiency on syntactic second-language processing of German and Italian: Evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 2030–2048.Google Scholar
Sabourin, L., & Haverkort, M. (2003). Neural substrates of representation and processing of a second language. In van Hout, R., Hulk, A., Kuiken, F. & Towell, R. (eds.), The lexicon–syntax interface in second language acquisition, pp. 175–195. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sabourin, L., & Stowe, L. A. (2008). Second language processing: When are first and second languages processed similarly? Second Language Research, 24, 397–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabourin, L., Stowe, L. A., & de Haan, G. J. (2006). Transfer effects in learning a second language grammatical gender system. Second Language Research, 22, 1–29.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. D., & Sprouse, R. (1996). L2 cognitive states and the full transfer/full access model. Second Language Research, 12, 40–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Severens, E., Jansma, B. M., & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2008). Morphophonological influences on the comprehension of subject–verb agreement: An ERP study. Brain Research, 1228, 135–144.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Skehan, P. (1989). Individual differences in second-language learning. New York: Arnold.Google Scholar
Steinhauer, K., White, E. J., & Drury, J. E. (2009). Temporal dynamics of late second language acquisition: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Second Language Research, 25, 13–41.Google Scholar
Tanner, D. (2011). Agreement mechanisms in native and nonnative language processing: Electrophysiological correlates of complexity and interference. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington.Google Scholar
Tanner, D., Inoue, K., & Osterhout, L. (2012). Brain-based individual differences in on-line L2 sentence comprehension. Ms., Pennsylvania State University.Google Scholar
Tokowicz, N., & MacWhinney, B. (2005). Implicit and explicit measures of sensitivity to violations in second language grammar – An event-related potential investigation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 173–204.Google Scholar
Ullman, M. T. (2001). The neural basis of lexicon and grammar in first and second language: The declarative/procedural model. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4, 105–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ullman, M. T. (2004). Contributions of memory circuits to language: The declarative/procedural model. Cognition, 92, 231–270.Google Scholar
Ullman, M. T. (2005). A cognitive neuroscience perspective on second language acquisition: The declarative/procedural model. In Sanz, C. (ed.), Mind and context in adult second language acquisition, pp. 141–178. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
van de Meerendonk, N., Kolk, H. H. J., Vissers, C. T. W. M., & Chwilla, D. J. (2010). Monitoring in language perception: Mild and strong conflicts elicit different ERP patterns. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22, 67–82.Google Scholar
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, 43–74.Google Scholar
Vos, S. H., Gunter, T. C., Kolk, H. H. J., & Mulder, G. (2001). Working memory constraints on syntactic processing: An electrophysiological investigation. Psychophysiology, 38, 41–63.Google Scholar
Weber, K., & Lavric, A. (2008). Syntactic anomaly elicits a lexico-semantic (N400) ERP effect in the second language but not the first. Psychophysiology, 45, 920–925.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber-Fox, C. M., & Neville, H. J. (1996). Maturational constraints on functional specializations for language processing: ERP and behavioral evidence in bilingual speakers. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 8, 231–256.Google Scholar
Wickens, T. (2002). Elementary signal detection theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zayas, V., Greenwald, A., & Osterhout, L. (2010). Unitentional covert motor activations predict behavioral effects: Multilevel modeling of trial-level electrophysiological motor activations. Psychophysiology, 48, 208–217.Google Scholar