The present study examines both properties of the language and properties of the learner to better understand variability at the earliest stages of second language (L2) acquisition. We used event-related potentials, an oral production task, and a battery of individual differences measures to examine the processing of number and gender agreement in two groups of low-proficiency English-speaking learners of Spanish who were tested in multiple sessions. The results showed an advantage for number, the feature also instantiated in the native language, as both groups showed a native-like P600 response to subject-verb and noun-adjective number violations across sessions. The more advanced group showed larger effects for number and marginal sensitivity to gender violations. These results suggest that native-like processing of shared features is possible even for novice learners, contrary to proposals suggesting that all morphosyntactic dependencies are initially processed in a non-native manner. Working memory (WM) was a predictor of P600 effects for number and also for gender (where the effect was marginal), suggesting that similar abilities may capture variability in the processing of both shared and unique features despite differences in overall sensitivity. Furthermore, while WM predicted performance on online tasks (P600 effects/oral production), verbal aptitude predicted performance on tasks examining morphosyntactic accuracy (grammaticality judgment task/oral production). Our results show that the linguistic properties of the L2, the individual characteristics of the learner, and the nature of the task at hand all play an important role in capturing the variability often observed in the L2 processing of agreement.

We investigate sensitivity to island constraints in English native speakers and Najdi Arabic learners of English, examining (1) whether second language (L2) learners whose native language (L1) does not instantiate overt wh-movement are sensitive to island constraints and (2) the source of island effects. Under a grammatical account of islands, these effects arise due to violations of syntactic constraints. Under the resource-limitation account, island effects arise due to processing difficulty. The source of island effects is interesting to examine in L2 learners because it is possible that reduced processing abilities in the L2 may lead to the low acceptance of sentences with island violations simply due to the complexity of the sentences themselves as opposed to an adherence to grammatical constraints. To tease apart these accounts, we followed Sprouse et al. in focusing on individual differences in working memory (WM). We used an acceptability judgment task (AJT) to quantify island sensitivity and an automated operation span task to measure WM. Building on Sprouse et al., the AJT tested four island types, but we made several modifications to the task design to address concerns raised by Hofmeister et al.: the stimuli included a ‘context’ sentence to improve the naturalness of the complex wh-sentences. The stimuli also included complex wh-fillers (e.g. which worker) as opposed to bare fillers ( who), as semantically rich wh-phrases have been found to be easier to process. Our results showed that learners, like natives, exhibited island sensitivity, and there was no evidence that individual differences in WM modulated island sensitivity for either natives or learners. Our results are compatible with the grammatical view of island effects and suggest that wh-dependencies in both L1 and L2 grammars are similarly constrained by syntax.

This study investigates the processing of wh-dependencies in English by native speakers and advanced Mandarin Chinese-speaking learners. We examined processing at a filled gap site that was in a licit position (non-island) or located inside an island, a grammatically unlicensed position. Natives showed N400 in the non-island condition, which we take as evidence of gap prediction; no N400 emerged within the island. Learners yielded P600 in the non-island condition, suggesting learners did not predict a gap, but rather experienced syntactic integration difficulty. Like natives, learners showed no effects inside the island. Island sensitivity was also observed for both natives and learners in an offline acceptability judgment task. We also explored whether event-related potentials (ERP) responses were related to attentional control (AC), a cognitive ability that has been related to predictive processing in native speakers, in order to examine whether variability in processing in learners and native speakers is similarly explained. Results showed that increased AC was associated with larger N400s for natives and larger P600s for learners in the non-island condition, suggesting that increased AC may be related to prediction for natives and to integration effort for learners. Overall, learners demonstrated island sensitivity offline and online, suggesting that second language (L2) processing is indeed grammatically-guided. However, ERP results suggest that predictive processing in the resolution of wh-dependencies may be limited, at least for learners whose first language (L1) does not instantiate overt wh-movement.

It is well-attested that native speakers tend to give low acceptability ratings to sentences that involve movement from within islands, but the source of island effects remains controversial. The grammatical account posits that island effects result from syntactic constraints on whmovement, whereas the resource-limitation view posits that low ratings emerge due to processing-related constraints on the parser, such that islands themselves present processing bottlenecks. We address this debate by investigating the relationship between island sensitivity and individual differences in cognitive abilities, as it has been argued that the two views make distinct predictions regarding whether a relationship should hold. Building directly on Sprouse et al. (2012a), we tested 102 native English speakers on four island types (whether, complex NP, subject, and adjunct islands) using an acceptability judgment task to quantify island sensitivity and three cognitive tasks to capture individual differences in working memory (via reading and counting span tasks) and attentional control (via a number Stroop task). Our results reveal strong island sensitivity effects across all island types. However, we did not find evidence that individual differences in working memory and attentional control modulated island sensitivity, which runs counter to the resource-limitation view (Kluender & Kutas 1993). These results are in line with grammatical accounts of island effects rather than due to processing difficulties.

No abstract