Testing Potential Transfer Effects in Heritage and Adult L2 Bilinguals Acquiring a Mini Grammar as an Additional Language: An ERP Approach

Abstract

Models on L3/Ln acquisition differ with respect to how they envisage degree (holistic vs. selective transfer of the L1, L2 or both) and/or timing (initial stages vs. development) of how the influence of source languages unfolds. This study uses EEG/ERPs to examine these models, bringing together two types of bilinguals: heritage speakers (HSs) (Italian-German, n = 15) compared to adult L2 learners (L1 German, L2 English, n = 28) learning L3/Ln Latin. Participants were trained on a selected Latin lexicon over two sessions and, afterward, on two grammatical properties: case (similar between German and Latin) and adjective–noun order (similar between Italian and Latin). Neurophysiological findings show an N200/N400 deflection for the HSs in case morphology and a P600 effect for the German L2 group in adjectival position. None of the current L3/Ln models predict the observed results, which questions the appropriateness of this methodology. Nevertheless, the results are illustrative of differences in how HSs and L2 learners approach the very initial stages of additional language learning, the implications of which are discussed.

Effects of environmental diversity on exploration and learning: The case of bilingualism.

“…In particular, MEG and fNIRS can be safely used with young infants and allow for better localization of neural responses. Although there is neural evidence of attentional variation (i.e., language-related differences in how attention is allocated to visual stimuli) in children in relation to language experience (Barac et al, 2016;Chung-Fat-Yim et al, 2020;Mondt et al, 2009), young adults (Calvo & Bialystok, 2021;Calvo et al, 2023;Grundy et al, 2017;Pereira Soares et al, 2022), older adults (Dash et al, 2020), and even clinical populations (Baralt & Mahoney, 2020;Dash et al, 2021;Voits et al;2020 for a review), research on infants is scarce (Arredondo et al, 2022). Studies using these methods indicate that bilingual infants may show reduced early native-language specialization in cortical regions responsible for language processing compared to their monolingual peers (e.g., Mercure et al, 2020;Petitto et al, 2012).…”

The Neurocognitive Underpinnings of Second Language Processing: Knowledge Gains From the Past and Future Outlook

“…Other approaches that have been adopted for studying the impact of L2 proficiency on EEG/ERP signatures associated with L2 syntactic processing, while keeping AoA constant, are longitudinal studies of L2 learners (e.g., Gabriele et al, 2021;McLaughlin et al, 2010;Osterhout et al, 2006;White et al, 2012) and studies using artificial languages or miniature natural languages to track proficiency-related changes within a short timeframe (e.g., Batterink & Neville, 2013;Citron et al, 2011;Friederici et al, 2002;Grey et al, 2018;Morgan-Short et al, 2010, 2012Pereira Soares et al, 2022; for review, see Morgan-Short, 2020). Combining the benefits of a longitudinal design and teaching an artificial (and manipulable) language, Morgan-Short et al (2010, 2012 taught adults Brocanto2, an artificial language whose syntactic rules conform to natural-language universals.…”