Individual differences and streams of processing

Abstract

In his keynote article, O'Grady provides the newest pieces in his research program, the overarching goal of which is to reinterpret what linguistic theory has traditionally called 'syntactic knowledge' as being a side-effect of constraints imposed by a domain-general processing system. Here O'Grady proposes that first language (L1) syntactic acquisition is explainable in terms of strengthening processing routines in response to linguistic input, whereas second language (L2) syntactic development involves transfer of the better-entrenched L1 routines, except when properties of the L2 favor a simpler processing strategy. O'Grady's work is part of a broader literature which eschews domain-specific rules and representations in favor of general processing strategies. An important and unique contribution of his research program is that it provides a coherent processing-based account of many complex linguistic phenomena that form the core evidence for many linguists' claims that recourse to abstract linguistic representations is conceptually necessary.At the heart of this theory is 'the processor, ' which takes over the duties of 'the grammar' from more traditional syntactic theories. O'Grady's theory, like those proposed by other emergentists, assumes that cross-linguistic universals and the seeming similarity of L1 speakers' knowledge and processing of language can be explained in terms of the processor's fundamental architecture. For O'Grady, this means a highly capacity-constrained working memory (WM) system. However, as with 'the grammar' in generative linguistic theories, the neurocognitive nature of 'the processor' in O'Grady's framework remains relatively unexplored. In my commentary, I would like to focus on an implicit assumption in this work, namely that the processor uses the same types of information in all individuals when processing linguistic dependencies. In doing so, I will point out some recent findings using neural measures of language processing, namely event-related brain potentials (ERPs), from both my own research and from others. These findings show that the language processor has multiple streams of information processing,

Brain-based individual difference measures of reading skill in deaf and hearing adults

“…These two sets of ERP effect magnitudes were used as the final predictors in two separate multiple regression models (each with the same background measure predictors) for each group of participants. The design of these models was motivated by prior ERP language research that has shown that the N400 and P600 index different neural language processing streams (Kim and Osterhout, 2005; Kuperberg, 2007; Tanner, 2013). These planned multiple regression models were used as the basis for power analysis used to determine the number of participants needed for this research study.…”

Neurolinguistic measures of typological effects in multilingual transfer: introducing an ERP methodology

“…Under this interpretation, the left anterior distribution of the N400 results from its topographical overlap with a central-posterior P600, which cancels out the negativity in central-posterior regions of the scalp (e.g., Guajardo and Wicha, 2014 ; Tanner and Van Hell, 2014 ). Under this view, the N400 is argued to reflect either the semantic integration difficulty caused by the presence of the agreement error (e.g., Guajardo and Wicha, 2014 ), or individual differences with respect to processing strategies, with some individuals relying on lexical information (N400) and others on combinatorial information (P600) ( Tanner, 2013 , 2015 ; Tanner and Van Hell, 2014 ). Importantly for the purposes of the present study, it is the P600 that consistently emerges for morphosyntactic errors in native speakers, even if sometimes it is preceded by a negativity.…”

Neurolinguistics and second language teaching: A view from the crossroads

“…Sabourin and Haverkort, 2003; Sabourin and Stowe, 2008). Finally, other studies show that both advanced learners and native speakers – when processing morphosyntactic violations – can be either N400- or P600-dominant, depending on factors such as gender, handedness, and kind of linguistic cues (Tanner, 2013; Tanner and van Hell, 2014; Tanner et al, 2013, 2014).…”

“…However, in many other studies, the expression ‘biphasic pattern’ is explicitly used to refer to the N400–P600 shift that occurs when learners’ proficiency increases (e.g. Erdocia et al, 2014: 818; McLaughlin et al, 2010: 128; Meulman et al, 2014: 1; Mueller et al, 2008: 78; Tanner, 2013: 353; Tanner et al, 2013: 368; Roberts et al, 2016 and this issue). This terminological coincidence – although unfortunate – is not confounding, provided authors always specify which one of the two (biphasic) patterns they refer to.…”