ERP evidence for different strategies employed by native speakers and L2 learners in sentence processing

Abstract Considerable neurophysiological research has been conducted to explore the neural underpinning of semantic and syntactic processing, but few studies aim to reveal which kind of information (semantic or syntactic) is more important in sentence comprehension. The current study, by using the event related potentials (ERPs), investigated strategies employed by English native speakers and learners while they read sentences including verb sub-categorization violations. A P600 effect to verb sub-categorization violations was observed in native speakers, while an N400 effect to verb categorization violations was observed in L2 learners. These findings provide electrophysiological evidence for different strategies used by native speakers and L2 learners in sentence processing, and shallower syntactic ability of L2 learners may explain such neural difference.

[1]  Ping Li,et al.  ERP signatures of subject–verb agreement in L2 learning , 2007, Bilingualism: Language and Cognition.

[2]  E. Kaan,et al.  Repair, Revision, and Complexity in Syntactic Analysis: An Electrophysiological Differentiation , 2003, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[3]  Angela D. Friederici,et al.  The Impact of Proficiency on Syntactic Second-language Processing of German and Italian: Evidence from Event-related Potentials , 2006, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[4]  P. Hagoort,et al.  Integration of Word Meaning and World Knowledge in Language Comprehension , 2004, Science.

[5]  Claudia Felser,et al.  How native-like is non-native language processing? , 2006, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[6]  M. Kutas,et al.  Reading senseless sentences: brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. , 1980, Science.

[7]  Jutta L. Mueller,et al.  Morphological Processing in a Second Language: Behavioral and Event-related Brain Potential Evidence for Storage and Decomposition , 2006, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[8]  Nan Jiang.  Morphological insensitivity in second language processing , 2004 .

[9]  Lee Osterhout,et al.  ERPs reveal comparable syntactic sentence processing in native and non-native readers of English. , 2008, Acta psychologica.

[10]  A. Friederici,et al.  Temporal structure of syntactic parsing: early and late event-related brain potential effects. , 1996, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[11]  A. Friederici,et al.  Concerning the automaticity of syntactic processing. , 1999, Psychophysiology.

[12]  A. Anwander,et al.  The brain differentiates human and non-human grammars: Functional localization and structural connectivity , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[13]  Nan Jiang.  Selective Integration of Linguistic Knowledge in Adult Second Language Learning , 2007 .

[14]  W. Fitch,et al.  Computational Constraints on Syntactic Processing in a Nonhuman Primate , 2004, Science.

[15]  B. MacWhinney,et al.  IMPLICIT AND EXPLICIT MEASURES OF SENSITIVITY TO VIOLATIONS IN SECOND LANGUAGE GRAMMAR: An Event-Related Potential Investigation , 2005, Studies in Second Language Acquisition.

[16]  Peter Hagoort,et al.  Word-category violations in patients with Broca’s aphasia: An ERP study , 2005, Brain and Language.

[17]  S. Geisser,et al.  On methods in the analysis of profile data , 1959 .

[18]  Angela D. Friederici,et al.  Brain Signatures of Syntactic and Semantic Processes during Children's Language Development , 2004, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[19]  Hiroki Nakata,et al.  An ERP Study of Second Language Learning after Childhood: Effects of Proficiency , 2005, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[20]  Mark S. Seidenberg,et al.  Language Acquisition and Use: Learning and Applying Probabilistic Constraints , 1997, Science.

[21]  A. Friederici.  Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing , 2002, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[22]  Angela D. Friederici,et al.  Setting the Stage for Automatic Syntax Processing: The Mismatch Negativity as an Indicator of Syntactic Priming , 2007, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[23]  D. V. von Cramon,et al.  Syntactic language processing: ERP lesion data on the role of the basal ganglia , 2003, Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society.

[24]  Colin Humphries,et al.  Syntactic and Semantic Modulation of Neural Activity during Auditory Sentence Comprehension , 2006, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[25]  Ping Li,et al.  The emergence of competing modules in bilingualism , 2005, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[26]  L. Osterhout,et al.  The independence of combinatory semantic processing: Evidence from event-related potentials , 2005 .

[27]  Kara D. Federmeier,et al.  Electrophysiology reveals semantic memory use in language comprehension , 2000, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[28]  K. Jellinger.  Processes of Change in Brain and Cognitive Development Attention and Performance XXI , 2007 .

[29]  Ping Li,et al.  Age of acquisition: its neural and computational mechanisms. , 2007, Psychological bulletin.

[30]  Jutta L. Mueller.  Electrophysiological correlates of second language processing , 2005 .

[31]  A Hahne,et al.  What's Different in Second-Language Processing? Evidence from Event-Related Brain Potentials , 2001, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[32]  H. Neville,et al.  Maturational Constraints on Functional Specializations for Language Processing: ERP and Behavioral Evidence in Bilingual Speakers , 1996, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[33]  A D Friederici,et al.  The relative timing of syntactic and semantic processes in sentence comprehension , 2004, Neuroreport.

[34]  A. Friederici.  Processing local transitions versus long-distance syntactic hierarchies , 2004, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[35]  A. Friederici,et al.  Processing a second language: Late learners''comprehension mechanisms as revealed by event-related b , 2001 .

[36]  Colin M. Brown,et al.  Semantic Integration in Sentences and Discourse: Evidence from the N400 , 1999, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[37]  A. Friederici,et al.  Differentiation of syntactic processes in the left and right anterior temporal lobe: Event-related brain potential evidence from lesion patients , 2003, Brain and Language.

[38]  A. Friederici,et al.  Word category and verb–argument structure information in the dynamics of parsing , 2004, Cognition.

[39]  P. Holcomb,et al.  Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly , 1992 .

[40]  C. Felser,et al.  Grammatical processing in language learners , 2006, Applied Psycholinguistics.

[41]  Angela D Friederici,et al.  ERP evidence for different strategies in the processing of case markers in native speakers and non-native learners , 2007, BMC Neuroscience.

[42]  E. Gibson,et al.  The P600 as an index of syntactic integration difficulty , 2000 .

[43]  A. Friederici,et al.  The brain basis of syntactic processes: functional imaging and lesion studies , 2003, NeuroImage.