Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-tbj44 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-29T21:46:00.245Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Prediction and integration in native and second-language processing of elliptical structures*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 December 2014

EDITH KAAN ,
JOSEPH KIRKHAM  and
FRANK WIJNEN
EDITH KAAN*
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, University of Florida
JOSEPH KIRKHAM
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, University of Florida
FRANK WIJNEN
Affiliation:
Utrecht Institute of Linguistics OTS, Utrecht University
*
Address for correspondence: Edith Kaan Department of LinguisticsUniversity of FloridaBox 115454 Gainesville, FL 32611kaan@ufl.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

According to recent views of L2-sentence processing, L2-speakers do not predict upcoming information to the same extent as do native speakers. To investigate L2-speakers’ predictive use and integration of syntactic information across clauses, we recorded event-related potentials (ERPs) from advanced L2-learners and native speakers while they read sentences in which the syntactic context did or did not allow noun-ellipsis (Lau, E., Stroud, C., Plesch, S., & Phillips, C. (2006). The role of structural prediction in rapid syntactic analysis. Brain and Language, 98, 74–88.) Both native and L2-speakers were sensitive to the context when integrating words after the potential ellipsis-site. However, native, but not L2-speakers, anticipated the ellipsis, as suggested by an ERP difference between elliptical and non-elliptical contexts preceding the potential ellipsis-site. In addition, L2-learners displayed a late frontal negativity for ungrammaticalities, suggesting differences in repair strategies or resources compared with native speakers.

Keywords

second-language processingellipsispredictive processingLANlate negativity

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , January 2016 , pp. 1 - 18
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

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

*

The authors would like to thank Natalia Davidson, Chelsea Guerra, Kyriaki Neophytou and Marpessa Rietbergen for their help making materials and running participants, Ellen Lau for letting us use her stimuli, and Iris Mulders and Sjef Pieters for technical assistance at the Utrecht site. This research was funded in part by the National Science Foundation (NSF 0957178), and a visiting scholars grant from the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO 040.11.367) awarded to the first author.

References

Alemán Bañón, J., Fiorentino, R., & Gabriele, A. (2012). The processing of number and gender agreement in Spanish: An event-related potential investigation of the effects of structural distance. Brain Research, 1456, 49–63.Google Scholar
Chambers, C. G., & Cooke, H. (2009). Lexical competition during second-language listening: Sentence context, but not proficiency, constrains interference from the native lexicon. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 35, 1029–1040.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006). Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 3–42.Google Scholar
Corver, N., & van Koppen, M. (2010). Ellipsis in Dutch possessive noun phrases: a micro-comparative approach. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics, 13, 99–140.Google Scholar
Coulson, S., King, J. W., & Kutas, M. (1998). Expect the unexpected: Event-related brain response to morphosyntactic violations. Language & Cognitive Processes, 13, 21–58.Google Scholar
DeLong, K. A., Urbach, T. P., & Kutas, M. (2005). Probabilistic word pre-activation during language comprehension inferred from electrical brain activity. Nature Neuroscience, 8, 1117–1121.Google Scholar
Dikker, S., Rabagliati, H., Farmer, T. A., & Pylkkänen, L. (2010). Early occipital sensitivity to syntactic category is based on form typicality. Psychological Science, 21, 629–634.Google Scholar
Dikker, S., Rabagliati, H., & Pylkkänen, L. (2009). Sensitivity to syntax in visual cortex. Cognition, 110, 293–321.Google Scholar
Dimitrova, D. V. (2012). Neural correlates of prosody and information structure. Unpublished PhD, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, Groningen.Google Scholar
Dussias, P. E., Valdés Kroff, J. R., Guzzardo Tamargo, R. E., & Gerfen, C. (2013). When gender and looking go hand in hand. Grammatical gender processing in L2 Spanish. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 353–387.Google Scholar
Foucart, A., Martin, C. D., Moreno, E. M., & Costa, A. (2014). Can bilinguals see it coming? Word anticipation in L2 sentence reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40, 1461–1469.Google Scholar
Friederici, A. D., & Frisch, S. (2000). Verb argument structure processing: The role of verb-specific and argument-specific information. Journal of Memory and Language, 43, 476–507.Google Scholar
Friederici, A. D., Hahne, A., & Saddy, D. (2002). Distinct neurophysiological patterns reflecting aspects of syntactic complexity and syntactic repair. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 31, 45–63.Google Scholar
Frisch, S., Hahne, A., & Friederici, A. D. (2004). Word category and verb-argument structure information in the dynamics of parsing. Cognition, 91, 191–219.Google Scholar
Gillon Dowens, M., Vergara, M., Barber, H. A., & Carreiras, M. (2010). Morphosyntactic processing in late second-language learners. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22, 1870–1887.Google Scholar
Greenhouse, S. W., & Geisser, S. (1959). On methods in the analysis of profile data. Psychometrika, 24, 95–112.Google Scholar
Grüter, T., Lew-Williams, C., & Fernald, A. (2012). Grammatical gender in L2: A production or a real-time processing problem? Second Language Research, 28, 191–215.Google Scholar
Grüter, T., & Rohde, H. (2013). L2 processing is affected by RAGE: Evidence from reference resolution. Paper presented at the the 12th conference on Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition (GASLA)Google 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.Google Scholar
Hahne, A., & Friederici, A. D. (2002). Differential task effects on semantic and syntactic processes as revealed by ERPs. Cognitive Brain Research, 13, 339–356.Google Scholar
Hopp, H. (2009). The syntax-discourse interface in near-native L2 acquisition: Off-line and on-line performance. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12, 463–483.Google Scholar
Hopp, H. (2013). Grammatical gender in adult L2 acquisition: Relations between lexical and syntactic variability. Second Language Research, 29, 33–56.Google Scholar
Isel, F. (2007). Syntactic and referential processes in second-language learners: Event-related brain potential evidence. Neuroreport, 18, 1885–1889.Google Scholar
Kaan, E. (2014). Predictive sentence processing in L2 and L1: What is different? Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 4, 257–282.Google Scholar
Kaan, E., Dallas, A. C., & Wijnen, F. (2010). Syntactic predictions in second-language sentence processing. In Zwart, J.-W. & de Vries, M. (eds.), Structure preserved. Festschrift in the honor of Jan Koster (pp. 207–213). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.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.Google Scholar
Kaan, E., Overfelt, C., Tromp, D., & Wijnen, F. (2013). Processing gapped verbs. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 42, 307–338.Google Scholar
Kaan, E., & Swaab, T. Y. (2003). Electrophysiological evidence for serial sentence processing: a comparison between non-preferred and ungrammatical continuations. Brain Research. Cognitive Brain Research, 17, 621–635.Google Scholar
Keijzer, M. (2007). Last in, first out? An investigation of the regression hypothesis in Dutch emigrants in anglophone Canada. Unpublished Ph.D., Free University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1980). Reading senseless sentences: Brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science, 207, 203–206.Google Scholar
Lau, E., Stroud, C., Plesch, S., & Phillips, C. (2006). The role of structural prediction in rapid syntactic analysis. Brain and Language, 98, 74–88.Google Scholar
Lemhöfer, K., & Broersma, M. (2012). Introducing LexTALE: A quick and valid lexical test for advanced learners of English. Behavioral Research, 44, 325–343.Google Scholar
Lew-Williams, C., & Fernald, A. (2010). Real-time processing of gender-marked articles by native and non-native Spanish speakers. Journal of Memory and Language, 63, 447–464.Google Scholar
Marian, V., Blumenfield, H. K., & Kaushanskaya, M. (2007). The language experience and proficiency questionnaire (LEAP-Q): Assessing language profiles in bilinguals and multi-linguals. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 50, 940–967.Google Scholar
Martin, C., Thierry, G., Kuipers, J.-R., Boutonnet, B., Foucart, A., & Costa, A. (2013). Bilinguals reading in their second language do not predict upcoming words as native readers do. Journal of Memory and Language, 69, 574–588.Google 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
Oldfield, R. C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9, 97–113.Google Scholar
Osterhout, L., Holcomb, P. J., & Swinney, D. A. (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.Google Scholar
Phillips, C., & Parker, D. (2014). The psycholinguistics of ellipsis. Lingua, 151, 78–95.Google Scholar
Ruchkin, D. S., Grafman, J., Cameron, K., & Berndt, R. S. (2003). Working memory retention systems: A state of activated long-term memory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 26, 709–777.Google Scholar
Sabourin, L., & Stowe, L. (2004). Memory effects in syntactic ERP tasks. Brain and Cognition, 55, 392–395.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.Google Scholar
Slevc, L. R., & Novick, J. M. (2013). Memory and cognitive control in an integrated theory of language processing. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36, 373–374.Google Scholar
Sorace, A. (2011). Pinning down the concept of “interface” in bilingualism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1, 1–33.Google Scholar
Steinhauer, K., & Drury, J. E. (2012). On the early left-anterior negativity (ELAN) in syntax studies. Brain and Language, 120, 135–162.Google Scholar
Streb, J., Henninghausen, E., & Rösler, F. (2004). Different anaphoric expressions are investigated by event-related brain potentials. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 33, 175–201.Google Scholar
Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643–662.Google Scholar
Tanner, D., Inoue, K., & Osterhout, L. (2014). Brain-based individual differences in online L2 grammatical comprehension. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17, 277–293.Google Scholar
Tanner, D., & Van Hell, J. G. (2014). ERPs reveal individual differences in morphosyntactic processing. Neuropsychologia, 56, 289–301.Google Scholar
Van Berkum, J. J. A., Brown, C. M., Zwitserlood, P., Kooijman, V., & Hagoort, P. (2005). Anticipating upcoming words in discourse: Evidence from ERPs and reading times. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 443–467.Google Scholar
Van de Meerendonk, N., Indefrey, P., Chwilla, D. J., & Kolk, H. H. J. (2011). Monitoring in language perception: Electrophysiological and hemodynamic responses to spelling violations. NeuroImage, 54, 2350–2363.Google Scholar
Wechsler, D. (1987). Wechsler memory scale-revised (WMS-R) San Antonio: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Wicha, N. Y. Y., Moreno, E. M., & Kutas, M. (2003). Expecting gender: An event related brain potential study on the role of grammatical gender in comprehending a line drawing within a written sentence in Spanish. Cortex, 39, 483–508.Google Scholar
Wicha, N. Y. Y., Moreno, E. M., & Kutas, M. (2004). Anticipating words and their gender: An event-related brain potential study of semantic integration, gender expectancy, and gender agreement in spanish sentence reading. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16, 1272–1288.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Kaan Supplementary Material

Supplementary Material

Download Kaan Supplementary Material(PDF)
PDF 328.2 KB