Second language processing: when are first and second languages processed similarly?

Abstract

In this article we investigate the effects of first language (L1) on second language (L2) neural processing for two grammatical constructions (verbal domain dependency and grammatical gender), focusing on the event-related potential P600 effect, which has been found in both L1 and L2 processing. Native Dutch speakers showed a P600 effect for both constructions tested. However, in L2 Dutch (with German or a Romance language as L1) a P600 effect only occurred if L1 and L2 were similar. German speakers show a P600 effect to both constructions. Romance speakers only show a P600 effect within the verbal domain. We interpret these findings as showing that with similar rule-governed processing routines in L1 and L2 (verbal domain processing for both German and Romance speakers), similar neural processing is possible in L1 and L2. However, lexically-driven constructions that are not the same in L1 and L2 (grammatical gender for Romance speakers) do not result in similar neural processing in L1 and L2 as measured by the P600 effect.

Keywords

L2 processing ERP P600 grammatical gender L1 transfer L1 interference

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ainsworth-Darnell, K. , Shulman, H. and Boland, J. 1998: Dissociating brain responses to syntactic and semantic anomalies: evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of Memory and Language 38, 112-30.

Ardila, A. 2003: Language representation and working memory with bilinguals . Journal of Communication Disorders 36, 233-40.

Burnage, G. 1990: A guide for users. Nijmegen: CELEX Centre for Lexical Information.

Coulson, S. , King, J. and Kutas, M. 1998: Expect the unexpected: event-related brain response to morphosyntactic violations. Language and Cognitive Processes 13, 21-59.

Friederici, A.D. , Hahne, A. and Mecklinger, A. 1996: Temporal structure of syntactic parsing: early and late event-related brain potential effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 22, 1219-48.

Friederici, A.D. , Steinhauer, K. and Pfeifer, E. 2002: Brain signatures of artificial language processing: evidence challenging the critical period hypothesis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99, 529-34.

Gunter, T.C. and Friederici, A.D. 1999: Concerning the automaticity of syntactic processing. Psychophysiology 36, 126-37.

Gunter, T.C. , Friederici, A.D. and Hahne, A. 1999: Brain responses during sentence reading: visual input affects central processes. Neuroreport 10, 3175-78.

Gunter, T.C. , Friederici, A.D. and Schriefers, H. 2000: Syntactic gender and semantic expectancy: ERPs reveal early autonomy and late interaction. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 12, 556-68.

10.

Hagoort, P. , Brown, C. and Groothusen, J. 1993: The syntactic positive shift (SPS) as an ERP measure of syntactic processing. Language and Cognitive Processes 8, 439-83.

11.

Hagoort, P. , Brown, C. and Osterhout, L. 1999: The neurocognition of syntactic processing. In Brown, C. and Hagoort, P., editors, The neurocognition of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 273-316.

12.

Hahne, A. 2001: What's different in second language processing? Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 30, 251-66.

13.

Hahne, A. and Friederici, A.D. 2001: Processing a second language: late learners' comprehension mechanisms as revealed by event-related brain potentials. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 4, 123-41.

14.

Hoeks, J.C.J. , Stowe, L.A. and Doedens, G. 2004: Seeing words in context: the interaction of lexical and sentence level information during reading. Cognitive Brain Research 19, 123-41.

15.

Honda, M. , Barrett, G. , Yoshimura, N. , Ikeda, A. , Nagamine, T. and Shibasaki, H. 1996: Event-related potentials during paired associate memory paradigm. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology 100, 419-39.

16.

Hopp, H. 2006: Subject-object ambiguities in L2 parsing. In Bamman, D., Magnitskaia, T. and Zaller, C., editors, Proceedings of the 30th annual Boston University conference on language development. Boston, MA: Cascadilla Press, 281-92.

17.

Kaan, E. , Harris, A. , Gibson, E. and Holcomb, P. 2000: The P600 as a measure of syntactic integration difficulty . Language and Cognitive Processes 15, 159-201.

18.

Kaan, E. and Swaab, T.Y. 2003: Repair, revision, and complexity in syntactic analysis: an electrophysiological differentiation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 15, 98-110.

19.

Kluender, R. and Kutas, M. 1993: Subjacency as a processing phenomenon. Language and Cognitive Processes 8, 573-633.

20.

Kutas, M. and Hilyard, S. 1980: Reading between the lines: event-related brain potentials during natural sentence processing. Brain and Language 11, 354-73.

21.

Münte, T. , Heinze, H. and Magnum, G. 1993: Dissociation of brain activity related to syntactic and semantic aspects of language. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 5, 335-44.

22.

Mueller, J.L. 2005: Electrophysiological correlates of second language processing . Second Language Research 21, 152-74.

23.

Neville, H.J. , Nicol, J. , Barss, A. , Forster, K. and Garrett, M.F. 1991: Syntactically based sentence processing classes: evidence from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 3, 151-65.

24.

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.

25.

Osterhout, L. and Holcomb, P. 1992: Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly . Journal of Memory and Language 31, 785-806.

26.

-- 1995: Event-related potentials and language comprehension. In Rugg, M.D. and Coles, M.G.H., editors, Electrophysiology of mind: event-related brain potentials and cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 171-215.

27.

Osterhout, L. , Holcomb, P. and Swinney, D. 1994: Brain potentials elicited by garden-path sentences: evidence of the application of verb information during parsing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 20, 786-803.

28.

Phillips, C. , Kazanina, N. and Abada, S.H. 2005: ERP effects of the processing of syntactic long-distance dependencies. Cognitive Brain Research 22, 407-28.

29.

Proverbio, A.M. , Čok, B. and Zani, A. 2002: Electrophysiological measures of language processing in bilinguals. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 14, 994-1017.

30.

Ruchkin, D.S. , Johnson, R. , Canoune, H. and Ritter, W. 1990: Short-term memory storage retention: an event-related brain potential study. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology 76, 419-39.

31.

Sabourin, L. 2003: Grammatical gender and second language processing. Groningen Dissertations in Linguistics, volume 42. Groningen: CLCG.

32.

Sabourin, L. and Stowe, L.A. 2004: Memory effects in syntactic ERP tasks. Brain and Cognition 55, 392-95.

33.

Sabourin, L. , Stowe, L.A. and de Haan, G.J. 2006: Transfer effects in learning an L2 grammatical gender system. Second Language Research, 27, 1-29.

34.

Stowe, L.A. and Sabourin, L. 2005: Imaging the processing of a second language: effects of maturation and proficiency on the neural processes involved. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 43, 329-53.

35.

Tokowicz, N. and 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.

36.

Weber-Fox, C.M. and Neville, H.J. 1996: Maturational constraints on functional specializations for language processing: ERP and behavioral evidence in bilingual speakers . Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 8, 231-56.