Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Language Learning
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Language Learning
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction
- Part I Theories
- Part II Methods
- 5 Qualitative Classroom Methods
- 6 Experimental Studies in L2 Classrooms
- 7 Action Research: Developments, Characteristics, and Future Directions
- 8 Classroom Observation Research
- 9 Psycholinguistic and Neurolinguistic Methods
- Part III Skill Development
- Part IV Individual Differences
- Part V Pedagogical Interventions and Approaches
- Part VI Context and Environment
- Part VII Moving Forward
- Index
- References
9 - Psycholinguistic and Neurolinguistic Methods
from Part II - Methods
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 June 2019
By
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Language Learning
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Language Learning
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction
- Part I Theories
- Part II Methods
- 5 Qualitative Classroom Methods
- 6 Experimental Studies in L2 Classrooms
- 7 Action Research: Developments, Characteristics, and Future Directions
- 8 Classroom Observation Research
- 9 Psycholinguistic and Neurolinguistic Methods
- Part III Skill Development
- Part IV Individual Differences
- Part V Pedagogical Interventions and Approaches
- Part VI Context and Environment
- Part VII Moving Forward
- Index
- References
Summary
Language learning involves more than acquiring knowledge of the target language; learners must also be able to put their knowledge to use during real-time processing, and in the past twenty years, sophisticated psycholinguistic and neurolinguistic methods have been employed to allow for a deep investigation into these processes. A number of techniques, such as self-paced reading and cross-modal priming rely on speed responses (for instance a button-push) to infer the underlying comprehension processes that are involved in the real-time processing of linguistic material. Specifically, in comparison to a control condition, a slower response indicates difficulty in, for instance, lexical access, or the processing of ambiguous, complex, or ungrammatical input, at certain points in a sentence. Eye-tracking during reading can also be used to examine lexical and sentence processing in a similar way, but this method can add detail to the study of the comprehension processes via the examination of specific eye-movement measures thought to tap early (first fixations) and later comprehension processes (go-past times and regressions).
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Language Learning , pp. 208 - 230Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019
References
Alemán Bañón, J., Fiorentino, R., & Gabriele, A. (2012). The processing of number and gender agreement in Spanish: An event-related potential investigation of the effects of structural distance. Brain Research, 1456, 49–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Altmann, G. (2011). Language can mediate eye movement control within 100 milliseconds, regardless of whether there is anything to move the eyes to. Acta Psychologica, 137, 190–200.Google Scholar
Barber, H., & Carreiras, M. (2005). Grammatical gender and number agreement in Spanish: An ERP comparison. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17, 137–153.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Caffarra, S., Molinaro, N., Davidson, D., & Carreiras, M. (2015). Second language syntactic processing revealed through event-related potentials: An empirical review. Neuroscience and Biobehavioural Reviews, 51, 31–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, L., Shu, H., Liu, Y., Zhao, J., & Li, P. (2007). ERP signatures of subject–verb agreement in L2 learning. Bilingualism, Language and Cognition, 10, 161–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006). How native-like is non-native language processing? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 564–570.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cunnings, I. (2017). Parsing and working memory in bilingual sentence processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 20, 659–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, D., & Indefrey, P. (2011). Error-related activity and correlates of grammatical plasticity. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 219.Google Scholar
Dussias, P. E., & Cramer Scaltz, T. R. (2008). Spanish-English L2 speakers’ use of subcategorization bias information in the resolution of temporary ambiguity during second language reading. Acta Psychologia, 128, 501–513.Google Scholar
Dussias, P. E., Valdés Kroff, J. R., Guzzardo Tamargo, R. E., & Gerfen, C. (2013). When gender and looking go hand in hand: Grammatical gender processing in L2 Spanish. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 353–387.Google Scholar
Duyck, W., Van Assche, E., Drighe, D., & Hartsuiker, R. (2007). Visual word recognition by bilinguals in a sentence context: Evidence for nonselective lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 663–679.Google Scholar
Ellert, M. (2011). Ambiguous Pronoun Resolution in L1 and L2 German and Dutch. Unpublished PhD thesis, Radboud University, Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2005). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language. A psychometric study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 141–172.Google Scholar
Felser, C., & Cunnings, I. (2011). Processing reflexives in English as a second language: The role of structural and discourse-level constraints. Applied Psycholinguistics, 33, 571–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felser, C., Sato, M., & Bertenshaw, N. (2009). The online application of binding Principle A in English as a second language. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12, 485–502.Google Scholar
Foucart, A., & Frenck-Mestre, C. (2012a). Can late L2 learners acquire grammatical features? Evidence from ERPs and eye-tracking. Journal of Memory and Language, 66, 226–248.Google Scholar
Foucart, A., & Frenck-Mestre, C. (2012b). Grammatical gender processing in L2: Electrophysiological evidence of the effect of L1-L2 syntactic similarity: Erratum. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15(1), 202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franceschina, F. (2001). Morphological or syntactic deficits in near-native speakers? An assessment of some current proposals. Second Language Research, 17, 213–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frenck-Mestre, C. (2005). Eye-movement recording as a tool for studying syntactic processing in a second language: A review of methodologies and experimental findings. Second Language Research, 21, 175–198.Google Scholar
Frenck-Mestre, C., & Pynte, J. (1997). Syntactic ambiguity resolution while reading in second and native languages. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, section A: Human Experimental Psychology, 50A, 119–148.Google Scholar
Friederici, A. D. (2011). The brain basis of language processing: From structure to function. Physiological Reviews, 91(4), 1357–1392.Google Scholar
Friederici, A. D., Hahne, A., & Mecklinger, A. (1996). Temporal structure of syntactic parsing: Early and late event-related brain potential effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 1219–1248.Google Scholar
Friederici, A., Steinhauer, K., & Pfeifer, E. (2002). Brain signatures of artificial language processing: Evidence challenging the critical period hypothesis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 99, 529–534.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibson, E., Pearlmutter, N., Canseco-Gonzalez, E., & Hickok, G. (1996). Recency preference in the human sentence processing mechanism. Cognition, 59, 21–39.Google Scholar
Goad, H., & White, L. (2006). Ultimate attainment in interlanguage grammars: A prosodic approach. Second Language Research, 22(3), 243–268.Google Scholar
Grüter, T., Lew-Williams, C., & Fernald, A. (2012). Grammatical gender in L2: A production or a real-time processing problem? Second Language Research, 28(2), 191–215.Google Scholar
Grüter, T., Rohde, H., & Schafer, A. J. (2014). The role of discourse-level expectations in nonnative speakers’ referential choices. In Orman, W. and Valleau, M. J. (eds.), Proceedings of the 38th annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, BUCLD 38 (pp. 179–191). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Hagoort, P., & Brown, C. M. (1999). Gender electrified: ERP evidence on the syntactic nature of gender processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Resesarch, 28, 715–728.Google Scholar
Hagoort, P., & Indefrey, P. (2014). The neurobiology of language beyond single words. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 37, 347–362.Google Scholar
Hahne, A., & Friederici, A. D. (2001). Processing a second language: Late learners’ comprehension mechanisms as revealed by event-related brain potentials. Bilingualism, Language and Cognition, 4(2), 123–141.Google Scholar
Hawkins, R., & Liszka, S. (2003). Locating the source of defective past tense marking in advanced L2 English speakers. In Hout, R., Hulk, A., Kuiken, F., & Towell, R. (eds.), The lexicon–syntax interface in second language acquisition (pp. 21–44). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hernandez, A. E., Hofmann, J., & Kotz, S. A. (2007). Age of acquisition modulates neural activity for both regular and irregular syntactic functions. NeuroImage, 36(3), 912–923.Google Scholar
Hopp, H. (2010). Ultimate attainment in L2 inflectional morphology: Performance similarities between non-native and native speakers. Lingua, 120, 901–931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopp, H. (2013). Semantics and morphosyntax in predictive L2 sentence processing. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 53, 277–306.Google Scholar
Jiang, N. (2004). Morphological insensitivity in second language processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25, 603–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Juffs, A., & Harrington, M. (1995). Parsing effects in second language sentence processing: Subject and object asymmetries in wh-extraction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 483–516.Google Scholar
Juffs, A., & Harrington, M. (1996). Garden path sentences and error data in second language processing research. Language Learning, 46, 286–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Juffs, A., & Rodriguez, G. A. (2014). Second language sentence processing. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Just, M. A., Carpenter, P. A., & Woolley, J. D. (1982). Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 111, 228–238.Google Scholar
Kaan, E. (2014). Predictive processing in L1 and L2. What’s different? Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 4, 257–282.Google Scholar
Keating, G. D. (2009). Sensitivity to violations in gender agreement in native and nonnative Spanish: An eye-movement investigation. Language Learning, 59(3), 503–535.Google Scholar
Kolk, H. H. J., Chwilla, D. J., Van Herten, M., & Oor, P. J. W. (2003). Structure and limited capacity in verbal working memory: A study with event-related potentials. Brain and Language, 85, 1–36.Google Scholar
Kotz, S. A., Holcomb, P., & Osterhout, L. (2008). ERPs reveal comparable syntactic sentence processing in early bilinguals and monolinguals. Acta Psychologica, 128, 514–527.Google Scholar
Lee, M. W. E. (2002). Implementing subject–verb number agreement in a non-native language. Poster presented at the 15th CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, New York.Google Scholar
Lew-Williams, C., & Fernald, A. (2010). Real-time processing of gender-marked articles by native and non-native Spanish speakers. Journal of Memory and Language, 63(4), 447–464.Google Scholar
Liversedge, S., Paterson, K., & Pickering, M. (1998). Eye movements and measures of reading time. In Underwood, G. (ed.), Eye guidance in reading and scene perception (pp. 55–75). Oxford: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marian, V., & Spivey, M. (2003). Competing activation in bilingual language processing: Within- and between-language competition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 6, 97–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, C., Thierry, G., Kuipers, J.-R., Boutonnet, B., Foucart, A., & Costa, A. (2013). Bilinguals reading in their second language do not predict upcoming words as native readers do. Journal of Memory and Language, 69(4), 574–588.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, J., Tanner, D., Pitkanen, I., Frenck-Mestre, C., Inoue, K., Valentine, G., & Osterhout, L. (2010). Brain potentials reveal discrete stages of L2 grammatical learning. Language Learning, 60(S2), 123–150.Google Scholar
Molinaro, N., Barber, H. A., Caffarra, S., & Carreiras, M. (2015). On the left anterior negativity (LAN): The case of morphosyntactic agreement: A reply to Tanner et al. Cortex, 66, 156–159.Google Scholar
Molinaro, N., Barber, H. A., & Carreiras, M. (2011). Grammatical agreement processing in reading: ERP findings and future directions. Cortex, 47, 908–930.Google Scholar
Morgan-Short, K., Sanz, C., Steinhauer, K., & Ullman, M. T. (2010). Second language acquisition of gender agreement in explicit and implicit training conditions: An event-related potential study. Language Learning, 60, 154–193.Google Scholar
Nevins, A., Dillon, B., Malhotra, S., & Phillips, C. (2007). The role of feature number and feature type in processing Hindi verb agreement violations. Brain Research, 1164, 81–94.Google Scholar
Ojima, S., Nakata, H., & Kakigi, R. (2005). An ERP study of second language learning after childhood: Effects of proficiency. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17(8), 1212–1228.Google Scholar
O’Rourke, P. L., & Van Petten, C. (2011). Morphological agreement at a distance: Dissociation between early and late components of the event related brain potential. Brain Research, 1392, 62–79.Google Scholar
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(1), 199–230.Google Scholar
Paterson, K., Liversedge, S., & Underwood, G. (1999). The influence of focus operators on syntactic processing of short relative clause sentences. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 52, 717–737.Google Scholar
Pickering, M. J., & Traxler, M. J. (1998). Plausibility and recovery from garden-paths: An eye-tracking study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 24, 940–961.Google Scholar
Prévost, P., & White, L. (2000). Missing surface inflection or impairment in second language acquisition? Evidence from tense and agreement. Second Language Research, 16, 103–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Proverbio, A. M., Cok, B., & Zani, A. (2002). Electrophysiological measures of language processing in bilinguals. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14(7), 994–1017.Google Scholar
Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 372–422.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rayner, K. (2009). The 35th Sir Frederick Bartlett Lecture: Eye movements and attention during reading, scene perception, and visual search. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 1457–1506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rayner, K., Carlson, M., & Frazier, L. (1983). The interaction of syntax and semantics during sentence processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 358–374.Google Scholar
Rayner, K., Sereno, S., Morris, R., Schmauder, A., & Clifton, C. (1989). Eye movements and online language comprehension processes. Language and Cognition Processes, 4, 21–49.Google Scholar
Roberts, L. (2013). Sentence processing in bilinguals. In van Gompel, R. (ed.), Sentence processing. Current issues in the psychology of language (pp. 221–246). Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, L., & Felser, C. (2011). Plausibility and recovery from garden-paths in second language sentence processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32, 299–331.Google Scholar
Roberts, L., González Alonso, J., Pliatsikas, C., & Rothman, J. (2018). Evidence from neurolinguistic methodologies: Can it actually inform linguistic/language acquisition theories and translate to evidence-based applications? Second Language Research, 34, 125–143.Google Scholar
Roberts, L., Gullberg, M., & Indefrey, P. (2008). Online pronoun resolution in L2 discourse: L1 influence and general learner effects. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 333–357.Google Scholar
Roberts, L., & Liszka, S. (2013). Processing tense/aspect-agreement violations online in the second language: A self-paced reading study with French and German L2 learners of English. Second Language Research, 29, 413–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roncaglia-Denissen, M. P., & Kotz, S. A. (2016). What does neuroimaging tell us about morphosyntactic processing in the brain of second language learners? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19, 665–973.Google Scholar
Rossi, S., Gugler, M., Friederici, A., & Hahne, A. (2002). The impact of proficiency on second language processing of German and Italian: Evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 2030–2048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rossi, S., Gugler, M. F., Friederici, A. D., & Hahne, A. (2006). The impact of proficiency on syntactic second-language processing of German and Italian: Evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(12), 2030–2048.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rüschemeyer, S.-A., Fiebach, C. J., Kempe, V., & Friederici, A. D. (2005). Processing lexical semantic and syntactic information in first and second language: fMRI evidence from German and Russian. Human Brain Mapping, 25(2), 266–286.Google Scholar
Rüschemeyer, S.-A., Zysset, S., & Friederici, A. D. (2006). Native and non-native reading of sentences: An fMRI experiment. NeuroImage, 31(1), 354–365.Google Scholar
Sabourin, L., & Stowe, L. A. (2008). Neurobiology of Language Learning. In Hult, F. M. & Spolsky, B. (eds.), The handbook of educational linguistics (pp. 27–37). Malden, MA/Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sabourin, L., Stowe, L. A., & de Haan, G. J. (2006). Transfer effects in learning a second language grammatical gender system. Second Language Research, 22, 1–29.Google Scholar
Sagarra, N., & Herschensohn, J. (2011). Proficiency and animacy effects on L2 gender agreement processes during comprehension. Language Learning, 61(1), 80–116.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B., & Sprouse, X. (1996). L2 cognitive states and the Full Transfer/Full Access model. Second Language Research, 12, 40–72.Google Scholar
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching (IRAL), 10(3), 209–231.Google Scholar
Slabakova, R. (guest ed.) (2009). The Fundamental Difference Hypothesis twenty years later [Special issue]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2.Google Scholar
Sorace, A. (2011). Pinning down the concept of “interface” in bilingualism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1(1), 1–33.Google Scholar
Sorace, A., & Serratrice, L. (2009). Internal and external interfaces in bilingual language development: Beyond structural overlap. International Journal of Bilingualism, 13, 195–210.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Suh, S., Yoon, H. W., Lee, S., Chung, J.-Y., Cho, Z.-H., & Park, H. (2007). Effects of syntactic complexity in L1 and L2; An fMRI study of Korean-English bilinguals. Brain Research, 1136(1), 178–189.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tanner, D., Inoue, K., Osterhout, L. (2014). Brain-based individual differences in online L2 grammatical comprehension. Bilingualism, Language and Cognition, 17(2), 277–293.Google Scholar
Tanner, D., McLaughlin, J., Hershensohn, J., & Osterhout, L. (2013). Individual differences reveal stages of L2 grammatical acquisition: ERP evidence. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16(2), 367–382.Google Scholar
Tanner, D., & van Hell, J. G. (2014). ERPs reveal individual differences in morphosyntactic processing. Neuropsychologia, 56, 289–301.Google Scholar
Tokowicz, N., & Macwhinney, B. (2005). Implicit and explicit measures of sensitivity to violations in second language grammar: An event-related potential investigation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 173–204.Google Scholar
Tsimpli, I.-M., & Dimitrakopoulou, M. (2007). The Interpretability Hypothesis: Evidence from wh- interrogatives in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 23, 215–242.Google Scholar
Tsimpli, I.-M., & Sorace, A. (2006). Differentiating interfaces: L2 performance in syntax-semantics and syntax-discourse phenomena. In Bamman, D., Magnitskaia, T., & Zaller, C. (eds.), Proceedings of the 30th annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, BUCLD 30 (pp. 653–664). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
van Gompel, R. (2013). Sentence processing. Current issues in the psychology of language. Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Weber, K., & Lavric, A. (2008). Syntactic anomaly elicits a lexico-semantic (N400) ERP effect in the second language but not the first. Psychophysiology, 45, 920–925.Google Scholar
Weber-Fox, C., & Neville, H. J. (1996). Maturational constraints on functional specializations for language processing: ERP and behavioral evidence in bilingual speakers. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 8(3), 231–256.Google Scholar
Wicha, N. Y., Moreno, E. M., & Kutas, M. (2004). Anticipating words and their gender: An event-related brain potential study of semantic integration, gender expectancy and gender agreement in Spanish sentence reading. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16, 1272–1288.Google Scholar
Wilson, F. (2009). Processing at the syntax–discourse interface in second language acquisition. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
White, L., Valenzuela, E., Kozlowska-Macgregor, M., & Leung, Y.-K. I. (2004). Gender and number agreement in nonnative Spanish. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25, 105–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zawiszewski, A., Gutiérrez, E., Fernández, B., & Laka, I. (2011). Language distance and non-native syntactic processing: Evidence from event-related potentials. Bilingualism, Language and Cognition, 14(3), 400–411.Google Scholar