Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-g4j75 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-12T10:54:45.417Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

PROCESSING FOCUS STRUCTURE IN L1 AND L2 FRENCH

L2 Proficiency Effects on ERPs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2013

Robert V. Reichle  and
David Birdsong
Robert V. Reichle*
Affiliation:
Northern Illinois University
David Birdsong
Affiliation:
University of Texas at Austin
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Robert V. Reichle, Department of Foreign Languages and Literatures, 111 Watson Hall, Northern Illinois University, Dekalb, IL 60115. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study examined the event-related potentials (ERPs) elicited by focus processing among first language (L1) speakers and second language (L2) learners of French. Participants read wh-questions containing explicit focus marking, followed by responses instantiating contrastive and informational focus. We hypothesized that L2 proficiency would modulate nativelikeness in L2 processing. For the L1 and L2 groups, widespread word-long positive shifts reflected the processing of nouns receiving informational and contrastive focus. Nouns receiving contrastive focus showed an increased anterior negativity compared to informational focus for both groups. Second language proficiency modulated the amplitude of this negativity effect, and subgroup analyses of low- and high-proficiency L2 learners showed no significant effect of focus condition among low-proficiency learners. This modulatory relationship between L2 proficiency and nativelikeness of processing is consistent with the dynamic sequence of L2 ERPs observed for morphosyntactic processing and extends those findings to the syntax-pragmatics interface phenomenon of focus processing.

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 36 , Issue 3 , September 2014 , pp. 535 - 564
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

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

REFERENCES

Birdsong, D. (2006). Age and second language acquisition and processing: A selective overview. Language Learning, 56(s1), 9–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blood, E., & Mobarek, Y. (2004). Intrigue: langue, culture et mystère dans le monde francophone [Intrigue: Language, culture and mystery in the Francophone world]. Instructor’s resource manual. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Bornkessel, I., Schlesewsky, M., & Friederici, A. D. (2003). Contextual information modulates initial processes of syntactic integration: The role of inter- versus intrasentential predictions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 871–882.Google Scholar
Carter-Thomas, S. (2009). The French c’est-cleft: Functional and formal motivations. In Banks, D., Eason, S., & Ormrod, J. (Eds.), La linguistique systémique fonctionnelle et la langue française (pp. 127–156). Paris: Editions L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
Cowles, H. W. (2003). Processing information structure: Evidence from comprehension and production (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
Cowles, H. W., Kluender, R., Kutas, M., & Polinsky, M. (2007). Violations of information structure: An electrophysiological study of answers to wh-questions. Brain and Language, 102, 228–242.Google Scholar
de Nerval, G. (1853/2006). Sylvie (6th ed.). Paris: Librairie Générale Française.Google Scholar
Foucart, A., & Frenck-Mestre, C. (2011). Grammatical gender processing in L2: Electrophysiological evidence of the effect of L1–L2 syntactic similarity. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 14, 379–399.Google Scholar
Gillon Dowens, M., Vergara, M., Barber, H. A., & Carreiras, M. (2010). Morphosyntactic processing in late second-language learners. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22, 1870–1887.Google Scholar
Havik, E., Roberts, L., Van Hout, R., Schreuder, R., & Haverkort, M. (2009). Processing subject-object ambiguities in the L2: A self-paced reading study with German L2 learners of Dutch. Language Learning, 59, 73–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopp, H. (2010). Ultimate attainment in L2 inflection: Performance similarities between non-native and native speakers. Lingua, 120, 901–931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hruska, C., & Alter, K. (2004). Prosody in dialogues and single sentences: How prosody can influence speech perception. In Steube, A. (Ed.), Information structure: Theoretical and empirical aspects (pp. 211–226). New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Hruska, C., Steinhauer, K., Alter, K., & Steube, A. (2000, March). ERP effects of sentence accents and violations of the information structure. Paper presented at the 13th annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, San Diego.Google Scholar
Hupet, M., & Tilmant, B. (1986). What are clefts good for? Some consequences for comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 419–430.Google Scholar
Katz, S. (2000). Categories of c’est-cleft constructions. Les catégories des constructions clivées en c’est. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 45, 253–272.Google Scholar
Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1980). Reading senseless sentences: Brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science, 207, 203–205.Google Scholar
Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1984). Brain potentials during reading reflect word expectancy and semantic association. Nature, 307, 161–163.Google Scholar
Kutas, M., Van Petten, C., & Kluender, R. (2006). Psycholinguistics electrified II: 1994–2005. In Traxler, M. & Gernsbacher, M. A. (Eds.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (2nd ed., pp. 659–724). New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information structure and sentence form: A theory of topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K. (2001). Dislocation. In Haspelmath, M., König, E., Oesterreicher, W., & Raible, W. (Eds.), Language typology and language universals: An international handbook (Vol. 2, pp. 1050–1078). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K. (2010). Constraints on subject-focus mapping in French and English: A contrastive analysis. In Breul, C. & Göbbel, E. (Eds.), Comparative and contrastive studies of information structure (pp. 77–100). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Magne, C., Astésano, C., Lacheret-Dujour, A., Morel, M., Alter, K., & Besson, M. (2005). On-line processing of “pop-out” words in spoken French dialogues. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17, 740–756.Google Scholar
Marian, V., Blumenfeld, H. K., & Kaushanskaya, M. (2007). The Language Experience and Proficiency Questionnaire (LEAP-Q): Assessing language profiles in bilinguals and multilinguals. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50, 940–967.Google Scholar
McDonald, J. L. (2006). Beyond the critical period: Processing-based explanations for poor grammaticality judgment performance by late second language learners. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 381–401.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, J., Osterhout, L., & Kim, A. (2004). Neural correlates of second-language word learning: Minimal instruction produces rapid change. Nature Neuroscience, 7, 703–704.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, J., Tanner, D., Pitkänen, 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.Google Scholar
Mueller, J. L. (2005). Electrophysiological correlates of second language processing. Second Language Research, 21, 152–174.Google Scholar
Myers, L. L. (2007). Wh-interrogatives in spoken French: A corpus-based analysis of their form and function (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest/UMI. (AAT 3277581)Google Scholar
Neville, H., Nicol, J. L., Barss, A., Forster, K. I., & Garrett, M. F. (1991). Syntactically based sentence processing classes: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 3, 151–165.Google Scholar
Osterhout, L., & Holcomb, P. J. (1992). Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 785–806.Google Scholar
Osterhout, L., McLaughlin, J., & Bersick, M. (1997). Event-related brain potentials and human language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 1, 203–209.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(s1), 199–230.Google 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.Google Scholar
Osterhout, L., Poliakov, A., Inoue, K., McLaughlin, J., Valentine, G., Pitkanen, I.,... Hirschensohn, J. (2008). Second-language learning and changes in the brain. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 21, 509–521.Google 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.Google Scholar
Reichle, R. V. (2009). ERP correlates of syntactic focus structure processing: Evidence from L1 and L2 French. In Chandlee, J., Franchini, M., Lord, S., & Rheiner, G. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (Vol. 2, pp. 420–431). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Reichle, R. V. (2010a). Judgments of information structure in L2 French: Nativelike performance and the critical period hypothesis. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 48, 53–85.Google Scholar
Reichle, R. V. (2010b). Near-nativelike processing of contrastive focus in L2 French. In VanPatten, B. & Jegerski, J. (Eds.), Research on second language processing and parsing (pp. 321–344). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Reichle, R. V. (2012). Cleft type and focus structure processing in French. Language and Cognitive Processes. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/01690965.2012.746464.Google Scholar
Reichle, R. V., Tremblay, A., & Coughlin, C. (2013). Working memory capacity in L2 processing. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google 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, 2030–2048.Google Scholar
Sorace, A. (2000). Syntactic optionality in non-native grammars. Second Language Research, 16, 93–102.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., & Connolly, J. F. (2008). Event-related potentials in the study of language. In Stemmer, B. & Whitaker, H. A. (Eds.), Handbook of the neuroscience of language (pp. 91–104). New York: Elsevier.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, 13–41.Google Scholar
Steinhauer, K., White, E., King, E., Cornell, S., Genesee, F., & White, L. (2006). The neural dynamics of second language acquisition: Evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience (supplement), 99.Google Scholar
Stolterfoht, B., & Bader, M. (2004). Focus structure and the processing of word order variations in German. In Steube, A. (Ed.), Information structure: Theoretical and empirical aspects (pp. 259–275). Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Stolterfoht, B., Friederici, A. D., Alter, K., & Steube, A. (2007). Processing focus structure and implicit prosody during reading: Differential ERP effects. Cognition, 104, 565–590.Google Scholar
Sutton, S., Braren, M., Zubin, J., & John, E. R. (1965). Evoked-potential correlates of stimulus uncertainty. Science, 150, 1187–1188.Google Scholar
Tanner, D., Osterhout, L., & Herschensohn, J. (2009). Snapshots of grammaticalization: Differential electrophysiological responses to grammatical anomalies with increasing L2 exposure. In Chandlee, J., Franchini, M., Lord, S., & Rheiner, G.-M. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 528–539). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
van Berkum, J. J. A. (2009). The neuropragmatics of “simple” utterance comprehension: An ERP review. In Sauerland, U. & Yatsushiro, K. (Eds.), Semantics and pragmatics: From experiment to theory (pp. 276–316). London: Palgrave.Google 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.Google Scholar
Weber-Fox, C. M., & Neville, H. J. (1996). Maturational constraints on functional specializations for language processing: ERP and behavioral evidence in bilingual speakers. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 8, 231–256.Google Scholar
White, E. J., Genesee, F., & Steinhauer, K. (2012). Brain responses before and after intensive second language learning: Proficiency based changes and first language background effects in adult learners. PloS One, 7(12), e52318.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