Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-s22k5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-12T04:29:04.978Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Variability in native and nonnative language: An ERP study of semantic and grammar processing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 March 2022

Sarah Grey Open the ORCID record for Sarah Grey [Opens in a new window]
Sarah Grey*
Affiliation:
Fordham University, Bronx, NY, USA
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study examined individual-level variability in N400 and P600 ERP correlates of native and nonnative language sentence processing of semantic and grammar information. Twenty-six native English-speaking learners of Spanish as a second language were tested. Participants completed sentence reading tasks in English and Spanish during EEG recording. The group-level results for grammar showed P600s in the native and nonnative language. For semantics, there was an N400 only in the native language. Individual-level ERP patterns revealed that, for native language semantics, about two thirds of participants showed N400s, but approximately one-third showed P600s. For native language grammar, approximately one third of participants exhibited N400s instead of P600s. Individual-level ERPs showed similar variability in the nonnative language for semantics and grammar, and N400/P600 variability in Spanish related to Spanish verbal fluency and grammar knowledge. This contributes knowledge of how nonnative and native language neurocognition compare regarding the processing routes that individuals use during comprehension.

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 45 , Issue 1 , March 2023 , pp. 137 - 166
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abutalebi, J. (2008). Neural aspects of second language representation and language control. Acta Psychologica, 128, 466–478.10.1016/j.actpsy.2008.03.014CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Allen, M., Badecker, W., & Osterhout, L. (2003). Morphological analysis in sentence processing: An ERP study. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18, 405–430.10.1080/01690960244000054CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ardal, S., Donald, M. W., Meuter, R., Muldrew, S., & Luce, M. (1990). Brain responses to semantic incongruity in bilinguals. Brain and Language, 39, 187–205.10.1016/0093-934X(90)90011-5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Batterink, L., & Neville, H. (2013). Implicit and explicit second language training recruit common neural mechanisms for syntactic processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 25, 936–951.Google ScholarPubMed
Bice, K., & Kroll, J. F. (2021). Grammatical processing in two languages: How individual differences in language experience and cognitive abilities shape comprehension in heritage bilinguals. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 58, 100963.10.1016/j.jneuroling.2020.100963CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., & Schlesewsky, M. (2008). An alternative perspective on “semantic P600” effects in language comprehension. Brain Research Review, 59, 55–73.10.1016/j.brainresrev.2008.05.003CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bowden, H. W., Grey, S., Reichle, R., & Ullman, M.T. (In preparation). In-depth quantitative review of event-related potential research on L2 grammar processing. Presented in part at the 2018 meeting of the American Association for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Bowden, H. W., Steinhauer, K., Sanz, C., & Ullman, M. T. (2013). Native-like brain processing of syntax can be attained by university foreign language learners. Neuropsychologia, 51, 2492–2511.10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2013.09.004CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Caffarra, S., Mendoza, M., & Davidson, D. (2019). Is the LAN effect in morphosyntactic processing an ERP artifact? Brain and Language, 191, 9–16.10.1016/j.bandl.2019.01.003CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Caffarra, S., Molinaro, N., Davidson, D., & Carreiras, M. (2015). Second language syntactic processing revealed through event-related potentials: An empirical review. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 51, 31–47.10.1016/j.neubiorev.2015.01.010CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Choudhary, K. K., Schlesewsky, M., Roehm, D., & Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I. (2009). The N400 as a correlate of interpretatively relevant linguistic rules: Evidence from Hindi. Neuropsychologia, 47, 3012–3022.10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.05.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chow, W.-Y., & Phillips, C. (2013). No semantic illusions in the “Semantic P600” phenomenon: ERP evidence from Mandarin Chinese. Brain Research, 1506, 76–93.10.1016/j.brainres.2013.02.016CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006a). Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 3–42.10.1017/S0142716406060024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006b). How native-like is non-native language processing? Trends in Cognitive Science, 10, 564–570.10.1016/j.tics.2006.10.002CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2018). Some notes on the shallow structure hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40, 693–706.10.1017/S0272263117000250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coulson, S., King, J. W., & Kutas, M. (1998). Expect the unexpected: Event-related brain response to morphosyntactic violations. Language and Cognitive Processes, 13, 21–58.10.1080/016909698386582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Debruille, J. B. (2007). The N400 potential could index a semantic inhibition. Brain Research Review, 56, 472–477.10.1016/j.brainresrev.2007.10.001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Debruille, J. B., Ramirez, D., Wolf, Y., Schaefer, A., Nguyen, T.-V., Bacon, B., & Brodeur, M. (2008). Knowledge inhibition and N400: A within- and between-subjects study with distractor words. Brain Research, 1187, 167–183.10.1016/j.brainres.2007.10.021CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DeLong, K. A., Quante, L., & Kutas, M. (2014). Predictability, plausibility, and two late ERP positivities during written sentence comprehension. Neuropsychologia, 61, 150–162.10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.06.016CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Delorme, A., & Makeig, S. (2004) EEGLAB: an open-source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics, Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 134, 9–21.10.1016/j.jneumeth.2003.10.009CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Faretta-Stutenberg, M., & Morgan-Short, K. (2018a). The interplay of individual differences and context of learning in behavioral and neurocognitive second language development. Second Language Research, 34, 67–101.10.1177/0267658316684903CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faretta-Stutenberg, M., & Morgan-Short, K. (2018b). Contributions of initial proficiency and language use to second-language development during study abroad: Behavioral and event-related potential evidence. In The Routledge Handbook of Study Abroad Research and Practice (pp. 421–435). Routledge.10.4324/9781315639970-28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finestrat Martinez, I., Luque, A., Abugaber, D., & Morgan-Short, K. (2018). Native-language processing as an individual difference explaining variability in L2 processing: An event-related potential study. American Association for Applied Linguistics, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
Friederici, A. D. (2002). Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 78–84.10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01839-8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Friederici, A., Hahne, A., & Saddy, D. (2002). Distinct neurophysiological patterns reflecting aspects of syntactic complexity and syntactic repair. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 31, 45–63.10.1023/A:1014376204525CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fromont, L. A., Royle, P., & Steinhauer, K. (2020). Growing Random Forests reveals that exposure and proficiency best account for individual variability in L2 (and L1) brain potentials for syntax and semantics. Brain and Language, 204, 104770.10.1016/j.bandl.2020.104770CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fromont, L. A., Steinhauer, K., & Royle, P. (2020). Verbing nouns and nouning verbs: Using a balanced design provides ERP evidence against “syntax-first” approaches to sentence processing. PloS One, 15, e0229169.10.1371/journal.pone.0229169CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gabriele, A., Alemán Bañón, J., Hoffman, L., Covey, L., Rossomondo, A., & Fiorentino, R. (2021). Examining variability in the processing of agreement in novice learners: Evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. Advance online publication.Google Scholar
Gillon Dowens, M., Vergara, M., Barber, H., & Carreiras, M. (2010). Morphosyntactic processing in late second-language learners. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22, 1870–1887.10.1162/jocn.2009.21304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grey, S., Sanz, C., Morgan-Short, K., & Ullman, M. T. (2018). Bilingual and monolingual adults learning an additional language: ERPs reveal differences in syntactic processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 21, 970–994.10.1017/S1366728917000426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grey, S., Schubel, L. C., McQueen, J. M., & Van Hell, J. G. (2019). Processing foreign-accented speech in a second language: Evidence from ERPs during sentence comprehension in bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 22, 912–929.10.1017/S1366728918000937CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grey, S., & Tagarelli, K. M. (2018). Psycholinguistic methods. In Phakiti, A., de Costa, P., Plonsky, L., & Starfield, S. (Eds.), Palgrave Handbook of Applied Linguistics Research Methodology (pp. 287–312). Palgrave MacMillan.10.1057/978-1-137-59900-1_14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grey, S., Tanner, D., & Van Hell, J. G. (2017). How right is left? Handedness modulates neural responses during morphosyntactic processing. Brain Research, 1669, 27–43.10.1016/j.brainres.2017.05.024CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hahne, A. (2001). What’s different in second-language processing? Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 30, 251–266.10.1023/A:1010490917575CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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, 123–141.10.1017/S1366728901000232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hahne, A., & Friederici, A. D. (2002). Differential task effects on semantic and syntactic processes as revealed by ERPs. Cognitive Brain Research, 13, 339–356.10.1016/S0926-6410(01)00127-6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jasper, H. H. (1958). The ten-twenty system of the International Federation. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 10, 371–375.Google Scholar
Kaan, E. (2002). Investigating the effects of distance and number interference in processing subject-verb dependencies: An ERP study. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 31, 165–193.10.1023/A:1014978917769CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaan, Edith. (2007). Event-related potentials and language processing: A brief overview. Language and Linguistics Compass, 571–591.10.1111/j.1749-818X.2007.00037.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karimi, H., & Ferreira, F. (2016). Good-enough linguistic representations and online cognitive equilibrium in language processing. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69, 1013–1040.10.1080/17470218.2015.1053951CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kim, A. E., Oines, L., & Miyake, A. (2018). Individual differences in verbal working memory underlie a tradeoff between semantic and structural processing difficulty during language comprehension: An ERP investigation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 44, 406.Google ScholarPubMed
Kim, A., & Osterhout, L. (2005). The independence of combinatory semantic processing: Evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 205–225.10.1016/j.jml.2004.10.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolk, H., & Chwilla, D. (2007). Late positivities in unusual situations. Brain and Language, 100, 257–261.10.1016/j.bandl.2006.07.006CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kos, M., Van den Brink, D., & Hagoort, P. (2012). Individual variation in the late positive complex to semantic anomalies. Frontiers in Psychology, 3. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00318CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kotz, S. A. (2009). A critical review of ERP and fMRI evidence on L2 syntactic processing. Brain and Language, 109, 68–74.10.1016/j.bandl.2008.06.002CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuperberg, G. R. (2007). Neural mechanisms of language comprehension: Challenges to syntax. Brain Research, 1146, 23–49.10.1016/j.brainres.2006.12.063CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuperberg, G. R., Kreher, D. A., Sitnikova, T., Caplan, D. N., & Holcomb, P. J. (2007). The role of animacy and thematic relationships in processing active English sentences: Evidence from event-related potentials. Brain and Language, 100, 223–237.10.1016/j.bandl.2005.12.006CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kutas, M., & Federmeier, K. D. (2011). Thirty years and counting: Finding meaning in the N400 component of the event-related brain potential. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 621–647.10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.131123CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1980). Reading senseless sentences: Brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science, 207, 203–205.10.1126/science.7350657CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lau, E. F., Phillips, C., & Poeppel, D. (2008). A cortical network for semantics: (De)constructing the N400. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 9, 920–933.10.1038/nrn2532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lopez-Calderon, J., & Luck, S. J. (2014). ERPLAB: An open-source toolbox for the analysis of event-related potentials. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 213.10.3389/fnhum.2014.00213CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Luck, S. J., & Gaspelin, N. (2017). How to get statistically significant effects in any ERP experiment (and why you shouldn’t). Psychophysiology, 54, 146–157.10.1111/psyp.12639CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martin-Loeches, M., Nigbur, R., Casado, P., Hohlfeld, A., & Sommer, W. (2006). Semantics prevalence over syntax during sentence processing: A brain potential study of noun–adjective agreement in Spanish. Brain Research, 1093, 178–189.10.1016/j.brainres.2006.03.094CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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, 123–150.10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00604.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Molinaro, N., Barber, H. A., Caffarra, S., & Carreiras, M. (2015). On the left anterior negativity (LAN): The case of morphosyntactic agreement. Cortex, 66, 156–159.10.1016/j.cortex.2014.06.009CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Molinaro, N., Barber, H. A., & Carreiras, M. (2011). Grammatical agreement processing in reading: ERP findings and future directions. Cortex, 47, 908–930.10.1016/j.cortex.2011.02.019CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moreno, E. M., & Kutas, M. (2005). Processing semantic anomalies in two languages: An electrophysiological exploration in both languages of Spanish–English bilinguals. Cognitive Brain Research, 22, 205–220.10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2004.08.010CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morgan-Short, K. (2014). Electrophysiological approaches to understanding second language acquisition: A field reaching its potential. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 34, 15–36.10.1017/S026719051400004XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan-Short, K., Finger, I., Grey, S., & Ullman, M. T. (2012). Second language processing shows increased native-like neural responses after months of no Exposure. PLoS One, 7(3), e32974.10.1371/journal.pone.0032974CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morgan-Short, K., Steinhauer, K., Sanz, C., & Ullman, M. T. (2012). Explicit and implicit second language training differentially affect the achievement of native-like brain activation patterns. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 24, 933–947.10.1162/jocn_a_00119CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nakano, H., Saron, C., & Swaab, T. Y. (2010). Speech and span: Working memory capacity impacts the use of animacy but not of world knowledge during spoken sentence comprehension. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22, 2886–2898.10.1162/jocn.2009.21400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newman, Aaron. J., Tremblay, A., Nichols, E. S., Neville, H. J., & Ullman, M. T. (2012). The influence of language proficiency on lexical-semantic processing in native and late learners of English. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 24, 1205–1223.10.1162/jocn_a_00143CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nieuwland, M. S. (2014). “Who’s he?” Event-related brain potentials and unbound pronouns. Journal of Memory and Language, 76, 1–28.10.1016/j.jml.2014.06.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nieuwland, M. S., & Van Berkum, J. J. A. (2006a). Individual differences and contextual bias in pronoun resolution: Evidence from ERPs. Brain Research, 1118, 155–167.10.1016/j.brainres.2006.08.022CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nieuwland, M. S., & Van Berkum, J. J. A. (2006b). When peanuts fall in love: N400 evidence for the power of discourse. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 1098–1111.10.1162/jocn.2006.18.7.1098CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ojima, S., Nakata, H., & Kakigi, R. (2005). An ERP study on second language learning after childhood: Effects of proficiency. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17, 1212–1228.10.1162/0898929055002436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oldfield, R. C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9, 97–113.10.1016/0028-3932(71)90067-4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ortega, L. (2013a). SLA for the 21st century: Disciplinary progress, transdisciplinary relevance, and the bi/multilingual turn. Language Learning, 63, 1–24.10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00735.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ortega, L. (2013b). Ways forward for a bi/multilingual turn in SLA. In The multilingual turn (pp. 42–63). Routledge.Google Scholar
Osterhout, L. (1997). On the brain response to syntactic anomalies: Manipulations of word position and word class reveal individual differences. Brain and Language, 59, 494–522.10.1006/brln.1997.1793CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Osterhout, L., Kim, A., & Kuperberg, G. R. (2012). The neurobiology of sentence comprehension. In Spivey, M., Joannissee, M., & McCrae, K. (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Psycholinguistics (pp. 365–389). Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139029377.019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osterhout, L., & Mobley, L. A. (1995). Event-related brain potentials elicited by failure to agree. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 739–773.10.1006/jmla.1995.1033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osterhout, L., & Nicol, J. (1999). On the distinctiveness, independence, and time course of the brain responses to syntactic and semantic anomalies. Language and Cognitive Processes, 14, 283–317.10.1080/016909699386310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pakulak, E., & Neville, H. J. (2010). Proficiency differences in syntactic processing of monolingual native speakers indexed by event-related potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22, 2728–2744.10.1162/jocn.2009.21393CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Paradis, M. (2009). Declarative and procedural determinants of second languages (Vol. 40). John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Pélissier, M. (2020). Comparing ERPs between native speakers and second language learners: Dealing with individual variability. In Edmonds, A., Leclerq, P., & Gudmestead, A. (Eds.), Interpreting language-learning data (pp. 39–69). Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Portocarrero, J. S., Burright, R. G., & Donovick, P. J. (2007). Vocabulary and verbal fluency of bilingual and monolingual college students. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 22, 415–422.10.1016/j.acn.2007.01.015CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosselli, M., Ardila, A., Araujo, K., Weekes, V. A., Caracciolo, V., Padilla, M., & Ostrosky-Solí, F. (2000). Verbal fluency and repetition skills in healthy older Spanish-English bilinguals. Applied Neuropsychology, 7, 17–24.10.1207/S15324826AN0701_3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Santilli, M., Vilas, M. G., Mikulan, E., Caro, M. M., Muñoz, E., Sedeño, L., … & García, A. M. (2019). Bilingual memory, to the extreme: Lexical processing in simultaneous interpreters. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 22, 331–348.10.1017/S1366728918000378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schacht, A., Sommer, W., Shmuilovich, O., Martíenz, P. C., & Martín-Loeches, M. (2014). Differential task effects on N400 and P600 elicited by semantic and syntactic violations. PloS One, 9, e91226.10.1371/journal.pone.0091226CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Silva-Pereyra, J. F., & Carreiras, M. (2007). An ERP study of agreement features in Spanish. Brain Research, 1185, 201–211.10.1016/j.brainres.2007.09.029CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Steinhauer, K. (2014). Event-related potentials (ERPs) in second language research: A brief introduction to the technique, a selected review, and an invitation to reconsider critical periods in L2. Applied Linguistics, 35, 393–417.10.1093/applin/amu028CrossRefGoogle 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, 13–41.10.1177/0267658308098995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stowe, L. A., Kaan, E., Sabourin, L., & Taylor, R. C. (2018). The sentence wrap-up dogma. Cognition, 176, 232–247.10.1016/j.cognition.2018.03.011CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tanner, D. (2011). Agreement mechanisms in native and nonnative language processing: Electrophysiological correlates of complexity and interference. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington.Google Scholar
Tanner, D. (2015). On the left anterior negativity (LAN) in electrophysiological studies of morphosyntactic agreement. Cortex, 66, 149–155.10.1016/j.cortex.2014.04.007CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tanner, D. (2019). Robust individual differences in grammatical agreement processing: A latent variable approach. Cortex, 111, 210–237.10.1016/j.cortex.2018.10.011CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tanner, D., Grey, S., & van Hell, J. G. (2017). Dissociating retrieval interference and reanalysis in the P600 during sentence comprehension. Psychophysiology, 54, 248–259.10.1111/psyp.12788CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tanner, D., Inoue, K., & Osterhout, L. (2014). Brain-based individual differences in on-line L2 grammatical comprehension. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17, 277–293.10.1017/S1366728913000370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanner, D., McLaughlin, J., Herschensohn, J., & Osterhout, L. (2013). Individual differences reveal stages of L2 grammatical acquisition: ERP evidence. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16, 367–382.10.1017/S1366728912000302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanner, D., & Van Hell, J. G. (2014). ERPs reveal individual differences in morphosyntactic processing. Neuropsychologia, 56, 289–301.10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.02.002CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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, 27, 173–204.10.1017/S0272263105050102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ullman, M. T. (2020). The declarative/procedural model: A Neurobiologically-motivated theory of first and second language. In VanPatten, B., Keating, G. D., & Wulff, S. (Eds.), Theories in Second Language Acquisition (3rd ed., pp. 128–161). Routledge.10.4324/9780429503986-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ullman, M. T. (2016). The declarative/procedural model: A neurobiological model of language learning, knowledge, and use. In Hickok, G. & Small, S. A. (Eds.), The Neurobiology of Language (pp. 953–968). Elsevier.10.1016/B978-0-12-407794-2.00076-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ullman, M. T. (2004). Contributions of memory circuits to language: The declarative/procedural model. Cognition, 92, 231–270.10.1016/j.cognition.2003.10.008CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ullman, M. T. (2001). The neural basis of lexicon and grammar in first and second language: The declarative/procedural model. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4, 105–122.10.1017/S1366728901000220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Berkum, J. J. A., Brown, C. M., & Hagoort, P. (1999). Early referential context effects in sentence processing: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 147–182.10.1006/jmla.1999.2641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van de Meerendonk, N., Kolk, H. H. J., Vissers, C. T. W. M., & Chwilla, D. J. (2010). Monitoring in language perception: Mild and strong conflicts elicit different ERP patterns. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22, 67–82.10.1162/jocn.2008.21170CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Hell, J. G., & Tokowicz, N. (2010). Event-related brain potentials and second language learning: Syntactic processing in late L2 learners at different L2 proficiency levels. Second Language Research, 26, 43–74.10.1177/0267658309337637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wampler, E. K., McLaughlin, J., & Osterhout, L. (2014). How Gender, Handedness, and L1 Processing Strategy Influence L2 Grammatical Processing. Annual Meeting of the Society for the Neurobiology of Language.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Grey supplementary material

Grey supplementary material

Download Grey supplementary material(File)
File 42.9 KB