Native and non-native processing of different agreement relations:

an ERP investigation of processing and grammaticalization patterns

Nicoletta Biondo & Simona Mancini

(University of Siena, Italy) (BCBL,Spain)

nicoletta.biondo@unisi.it

February 19th, 2021

IGG46 workshop Multilingualism: Social and Cognitive Dimensions

Aim of the study

Investigate the grammaticalization of Subject-Verb agreement and Adverb-Verb Temporal concord in L2 Spanish speakers (English L1) and Controls.

SUBJECT-VERB (SV) NUMBER

Ayer las chicas/*la chica regresaron a casa tarde.

(Yesterday the girlsPL/*the girl camePL back home late)

ADVERB-VERB (TC) TENSE

Ayer/*Mañana las chicas regresaron a casa tarde.

(YesterdayPAST/*TomorrowFUT the girls camePAST back home late)

‘Primary’ relationSyntacticAcquired ‘early’ in childhoodRelatively preserved in aphasiaImmediate and strong behavioral mismatch effects in healthy adults

‘Non-primary’ relationDiscourse-relatedAcquired ‘later’ in childhoodSeverely impaired in aphasiaLater and smaller behavioral mismatch effects in healthy adults(e.g., Frazier & Clifton, 1996; Mancini et al., 2013; Weist, 2014; Belletti & Guasti, 2015; Friedmann & Grodzinsky, 1997; Clahsen & Ali, 2009; Biondo, 2017; Biondo et al., 2018)

2

Successful instantiation of the grammatical rules of the L2 into the online language processing system of the L2 learner.

• L2 grammaticalization goes through different stages; different stages correspond to different electrophysiological responses to a grammatical error in the L2 (e.g., Steinhauer et al., 2009; Osterhout et al., 2006; McLaughlin et al., 2010)

T1 T2 T3 T4

time

proficiency

Grammaticalization of a L2

L2 grammatical knowledge in the language system

e.g., The cat sleeps.*The cats sleeps.

(Osterhout et al., 2006:219)

3

Successful instantiation of the grammatical rules of the L2 into the online language processing system of the L2 learner.

• L2 grammaticalization goes through different stages; different stages correspond to different electrophysiological responses to a grammatical error in the L2 (e.g., Steinhauer et al., 2009; Osterhout et al., 2006; McLaughlin et al., 2010)

T1 T2 T3 T4

time

proficiency

Grammaticalization of a L2

L2 grammatical knowledge in the language system

4

Hypotheses• Different ERPs triggered by subject-verb and adverb-verb violations, in native sentence

processing

• Different ERPs in second language acquisition → delayed grammaticalization of the temporal concord compared to subject-verb agreement

(300-500ms)

(500-800ms)

Low Intermediate Advanced Native-like

ERPs:broad negativity early negativity early negativity

(N400) (AN) (LAN) + +

small/delayed P600 P600 P600

broad negativity early negativity(N400) (AN)

(no effect) +

small/delayed P600 P600

SV mismatch

TC mismatch

(300-500ms)

(500-800ms)

5

Method• 32 English learners of Spanish (14 low, 10 intermediate, 8 high proficient speakers) and

31 Spanish native speakers (matched in age, gender, education) – ongoing data collection

• Grammaticality judgement task on:Control: Ese novelista ayer temprano presentó su nuevo libro.

(This novelist yesterday early presented his new book)

SV mismatch: *Esos novelistas ayer temprano presentó su nuevo libro.

(These novelists yesterday early presented his new book)

TC mismatch: *Ese novelista mañana temprano presentó su nuevo libro.

(This novelist tomorrow early presented his new book)

• Analysis: ANOVAs on (1) native and non-native speakers’ and on (2) basic, intermediate, high proficient non-native speakers’ (32-ch) ERP data

• Individual differences: regression analyses on participants’ performance/ERP and factors such as L2 proficiency, age of acquisition, months of immersion

+Ese

novelista

500 ms

300 ms

300 ms

2000 ms…

Correct ?

6

Results: grammaticality judgment task

7

Results: analysis 1 (L1 vs L2 speakers)

L1 L2

L1

300 – 500 ms 500 – 750 ms 750 – 1000 ms

L1 broad P600 for SV P600 for SV (broad) > TC (posterior)

L2 sustained negativity for TC (trend to P600 for SV)

8

Results: analysis 2 (low, intermediate, high L2)

L2

L1

Low Intermediate High

500 – 750 ms 750 – 1000 ms

Low sustained negativity for TC

Intermediate sustained negativity for TC > SV

High P600 for SV (trend to P600 for SV > TC)

9

Results: regression analysesL2

L1

SV

TC

D-prime scores

LAN

am

plit

ud

e

L2 Proficiency scores

Months of immersion

L2 age of acquisition

10

Discussion

• L1 speakers process SV and TC mismatches differently • early and late P600, bigger for SV compared to TC mismatches → larger integration and repair costs for primary SV compared

to non-primary TC (in line with Biondo, 2017; Biondo et al., 2018)

• L2 speakers show a different pattern for SV and TC, but in an unexpected direction especially in early stages of grammaticalization• L2, low: sustained negativity only for TC mismatches

• L2, intermediate: larger sustained negativity for TC compared to SV mismatches

• L2, high: trend to a (native-like) P600 pattern, especially for SV mismatches

• Proficiency is a reliable predictor of morpho-syntactic processing at the behavioral level • regression analyses show that the higher the proficiency, the higher the d-prime scores (in line with e.g., Aleman Bañon et al.,

2018)

11

Discussion

• What is the nature of this sustained negativity in early stages of grammaticalization?

• L2 speakers may have difficulties with TC mismatches because they require the integration of syntactic and non -syntactic information (Interface Hypothesis - Sorace & Filiaci, 2006; Sorace, 2011)

→ this hypothesis may explain the ERP pattern in the L2 advanced speakers, but what about the ERP pattern in L2 low speakers?

• L2 speakers may prioritize semantic/pragmatic information over syntactic information (Shallow Structure Hypothesis - Clahsen& Felser 2006, 2018)

→ this hypothesis may explain the pattern in L2 low speakers, but what about the sustained negativity for SV mismatches in L2 intermediate speakers?

12

This research has been financially supported by:

www.fondazionedevincenzi.org

Acknowledgements

Order of appearance:

Frazier, L., & Clifton, C. (1996). Construal. Mit Press.

Mancini, S., Molinaro, N., & Carreiras, M. (2013). Anchoring agreement in comprehension. Language and linguistics compass, 7(1), 1-21.

Weist, R. M. (2014). Developing temporal systems. Psychology of Language and Communication, 18(2), 126-142.

Belletti, A., & Guasti, M. T. (2015). The Acquisition of Italian: Morphosyntax and its interfaces in different modes of acquisition (Vol. 57). John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Friedmann, N. A., & Grodzinsky, Y. (1997). Tense and agreement in agrammatic production: Pruning the syntactic tree. Brain and language, 56(3), 397-425.

Clahsen, H., & Ali, M. (2009). Formal features in aphasia: tense, agreement, and mood in English agrammatism. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 22(5), 436-450.

Biondo, N. (2017). The Syntactic Side of Time: Processing Adverb-Verb Temporal Agreement (Doctoral dissertation, University of Trento).

Biondo, N., Vespignani, F., Rizzi, L., & Mancini, S. (2018). Widening agreement processing: a matter of time, features and distance. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 33(7), 890-911.

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(1), 13-41.

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.

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.

Sorace, A., & Filiaci, F. (2006). Anaphora resolution in near-native speakers of Italian. Second language research, 22(3), 339-368.

Sorace, A. (2011). Pinning down the concept of “interface” in bilingualism. Linguistic approaches to bilingualism, 1(1), 1-33.

Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006). How native-like is non-native language processing?. Trends in cognitive sciences, 10(12), 564-570.

Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2018). Some notes on the shallow structure hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40(3), 693-706.

Alemán Bañón, J., Fiorentino, R., & Gabriele, A. (2018). Using event-related potentials to track morphosyntactic development in second language learners: The processing of number and gender agreement in Spanish. PloS one, 13(7), e0200791.

References