Examining variability in the processing of agreement in novice learners: Evidence from event-related potentials.

Abstract

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.

Exploring New Insights Into Explicit and Implicit Second Language Processing: Event‐Related Potentials Analyzed by Source Attribution

“…In line with our findings, L2 learners in some of these previous studies have also shown anterior positivity effects, for example, for phrase structure in instructed contexts (Bowden et al., 2013; Faretta‐Stutenberg & Morgan‐Short, 2018; Morgan‐Short, Steinhauer et al., 2012). However, at this point it is not clear what variables may have led to more anterior distributions in our results as compared to other studies in which instructed L2 learners with similar levels of experience showed P600s with more typical central‐posterior distributions (e.g., Gabriele et al., 2021; Tanner et al., 2013). Appendix S9 in the online Supporting Information provides a more detailed discussion of these anterior P600 effects.…”

“…A similar overall picture has emerged for L2 processing of the two linguistic structures that were examined in our study—phrase structure and subject‐verb agreement. For subject‐verb agreement, P600 effects (a) have been evidenced in first‐, second‐, and third‐year L2 university learners (Gabriele et al., 2021; Tanner, McLaughlin, Herschensohn, & Osterhout, 2013), although the effects are smaller or vary more in first‐year L2 learners and (b) have been found to emerge after relatively short periods of training in learners at relatively low proficiency levels (Deng, Zhou, Bi, & Chen, 2015). P600 effects have also been found for syntactic phrase structure conditions in both low and high proficiency L2 learners (Bowden, Steinhauer, Sanz, & Ullman, 2013; Erdocia, Zawiszewski, & Laka, 2014; Faretta‐Stutenberg & Morgan‐Short, 2018; Fromont, Royle, & Steinhauer, 2020; Morgan‐Short, Steinhauer, Sanz, & Ullman, 2012; each of these studies used a balanced design—see Stimuli section below).…”

“…The aim of the courses was for students to obtain lowintermediate proficiency by the end of the fourth-semester course. 2 We chose this participant sample because (a) we expected that they would perform above chance overall on the judgment tasks but that they would not be so advanced in their L2 knowledge that they would consistently report that their judgments were based on either knowledge of a rule or pure intuition, and because (b) previous research has evidenced ERP effects, including N400s and P600s, in L2 learners enrolled in university basic language programs such as the program in our study (Gabriele et al, 2021;McLaughlin et al, 2010;Tanner et al, 2013;Tokowicz & MacWhinney, 2005). Thus, we expected to find evidence for the development of L2 knowledge and processing, but we expected that knowledge and processing might show interparticipant and intraparticipant variability that would be conducive to eliciting a spread in reported attributions sources.…”

Examining the Contribution of Markedness to the L2 Processing of Spanish Person Agreement

“…First, we point out that using plural subjects would not have worked because third‑person plural DPs in Spanish agree with first‑ and second‑person plural verbs, a process called unagreement (e.g., Las viudas lloramos/lloráis “[we/you‑ 2ND‑PL ] the widows cry‑ 1ST-PL /cry- 2ND-PL ”) (e.g., Höhn, 2016; Hurtado, 1985), and previous work by Mancini et al (2011, 2019) has shown that native speakers treat these sentences differently from outright person violations (i.e., they do not elicit a P600). Most importantly, while previous ERP studies manipulating L1‑L2 similarity have consistently shown an advantage for L2 features instantiated in the L1 (e.g., Alemán Bañón et al, 2014; Bond et al, 2011; Gabriele et al, in press; Gillon‑Dowens et al, 2010, 2011) they have consistently found no advantage for shared morphological instantiations of common features (e.g., Alemán Bañón et al, 2014; Bond et al, 2011; Gabriele et al, in press). For example, Bond et al (2011) and Gabriele et al (in press) examined L1‑English L2‑Spanish learners’ brain responses to subject‑verb number agreement with third‑person singular subjects (instantiated in English) and noun‑adjective number agreement (unique to Spanish), and found no facilitation for the former.…”

“…Most importantly, while previous ERP studies manipulating L1‑L2 similarity have consistently shown an advantage for L2 features instantiated in the L1 (e.g., Alemán Bañón et al, 2014; Bond et al, 2011; Gabriele et al, in press; Gillon‑Dowens et al, 2010, 2011) they have consistently found no advantage for shared morphological instantiations of common features (e.g., Alemán Bañón et al, 2014; Bond et al, 2011; Gabriele et al, in press). For example, Bond et al (2011) and Gabriele et al (in press) examined L1‑English L2‑Spanish learners’ brain responses to subject‑verb number agreement with third‑person singular subjects (instantiated in English) and noun‑adjective number agreement (unique to Spanish), and found no facilitation for the former. Other studies have even found a disadvantage for contexts where the L1 overtly marks agreement.…”