Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T05:57:22.854Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Brain-based individual differences in online L2 grammatical comprehension*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 August 2013

DARREN TANNER ,
KAYO INOUE  and
LEE OSTERHOUT
DARREN TANNER*
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign
KAYO INOUE
Affiliation:
Integrated Brain Imaging Center, Department of Radiology, School of Medicine, University of Washington
LEE OSTERHOUT
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Washington
*
Address for correspondence: Darren Tanner, 707 S Matthews Ave., 4080 Foreign Languages Building, MC 168, Urbana, IL 61801, USAdstanner@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Using event-related potentials (ERPs), we investigated the impact of a range of individual difference measures related to L2 learning on proficient L1 Spanish – L2 English bilinguals’ brain responses during L2 morphosyntactic processing. Although grand mean ERP analyses revealed a biphasic N400–P600 response to English subject–verb agreement violations, subsequent analyses showed that participants’ brain responses varied along a continuum between N400- and P600-dominance. To investigate this pattern, we introduce two novel ERP measures that independently quantify relative brain response type and overall magnitude. Multivariate analyses revealed that larger overall brain responses were associated with higher L2 proficiency, while relative brain response type (N400 or P600) was predicted by a coalition of variables, most notably learners’ motivation and age of arrival in an L2 environment. Our findings show that aspects of a learner's background can differentially impact a learner's overall sensitivity to L2 morphosyntax and qualitative use of linguistic cues during processing.

Keywords

ERPN400P600individual differencesmorphosyntaxsecond language acquisition
Type
Research Article
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , April 2014 , pp. 277 - 293
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.)

Footnotes

*

This research was supported by NIDCD grant R01DC01947 to Lee Osterhout and NSF BCS-0951595 to Lee Osterhout and Darren Tanner. Darren Tanner also received support from the William Orr Dingwall Neurolinguistics Dissertation Fellowship and NSF OISE-0968369. We would like to thank Julia Herschensohn, Judith McLaughlin, Janet Nicol, Janet Van Hell and Eleonora Rossi for thoughtful comments and discussion. Our thanks also go to the participants, as well as Geoff Valentine, Kristie Fisher, Shota Moma, and Elliot Collins for their help in acquiring the data. We would also like to thank two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on a previous version of this manuscript. Any remaining errors are our own.

References

Allen, M., Badecker, W., & Osterhout, L. (2003). Morphological analysis in sentence processing: An ERP study. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18, 405–430.Google Scholar
Bates, E., Devescovi, A., & Wulfeck, B. (2001). Psycholinguistics: A cross-language perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 369–396.Google Scholar
Bentin, S. (1987). Event-related potentials, semantic processes, and expectancy factors in word recognition. Brain and Language, 31, 308–327.Google Scholar
Birdsong, D., & Molis, M. (2001). On the evidence for maturational constraints in second-language acquisition. Journal of Memory and Language, 44, 235–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bond, K., Gabriele, A., Fiorentino, R., & Alemán Bañón, J. (2011). Individual differences and the role of the L1 in L2 processing: An ERP investigation. In Herschensohn, J. & Tanner, D. (eds.), Proceedings of the 11th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2011), pp. 17–29. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. B. (1962). The prediction of success in intensive foreign language training. In Glaser, R. (ed.), Training research and education, pp. 87–36. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
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
Christianson, K., Hollingworth, A., Halliwell, J. F., & Ferreira, F. (2001). Thematic roles assigned along the garden path linger. Cognitive Psychology, 42, 368–407.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Deutsch, A., & Bentin, S. (2001). Syntactic and semantic factors in processing gender agreement in Hebrew: Evidence from ERPs and eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 200–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ditman, T., Holcomb, P. J., & Kuperberg, G. R. (2007). An investigation of concurrent ERP and self-paced reading methodologies. Psychophysiology, 44, 927–935.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Dörnyei, Z., & Skehan, P. (2003). Individual differences in second language learning. In Doughty, C. J. & Long, M. H. (eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ferreira, F. (2003). The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 47, 164–203.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E., Yeni-Komshian, G. H., & Liu, S. (1999). Age constraints on second-language acquisition. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 78–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foucart, A., & Frenck-Mestre, C. (2012). Can late L2 learners acquire new grammatical features? Evidence from ERPs and eye-tracking. Journal of Memory and Language, 66, 226–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frenck-Mestre, C., Foucart, A., Carrasco, H., & Herschensohn, J. (2009). Processing of grammatical gender in French as a first and second language. In Roberts, L., Véronique, D., Nilsson, A. & Tellier, M. (eds.), Eurosla Yearbook 9, pp. 76–106. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Frenck-Mestre, C., Osterhout, L., McLaughlin, J., & Foucart, A. (2008). The effect of phonological realization of inflectional morphology on verbal agreement in French: Evidence from ERPs. Acta Psychologica, 128, 528–536.Google Scholar
Friederici, A. D., Hahne, A., & Mecklinger, A. (1996). Temporal structure of syntactic processing: Early and late event-related potential effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 1219–1248.Google Scholar
Gardner, R. C., Tremblay, P. F., & Masgoret, A.-M. (1997). Towards a full model of second language learning: An empirical investigation. The Modern Language Journal, 81, 344–362.Google Scholar
Gernsbacher, M. A. (1993). Less skilled readers have less efficient suppression mechanisms. Psychological Science, 4, 294–298.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gillon Dowens, M., Guo, T., Guo, J., Barber, H., & Carreiras, M. (2011). Gender and number processing in Chinese learners of Spanish – evidence from Event Related Potentials. Neuropsychologia, 49, 1651–1659.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.Google Scholar
Hagoort, P., & Brown, C. M. (2000). ERP effects of listening to speech compared to reading: The P600/SPS to syntactic violations in spoken sentences and rapid serial visual presentation. Neuropsychologia, 38, 1531–1549.Google Scholar
Hagoort, P., Brown, C. M., & Groothusen, J. (1993). The syntactic positive shift as an ERP measure of syntactic processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 439–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagoort, P., Hald, L., Bastiaansen, M., & Petersson, K. M. (2004). Integration of word meaning and world knowledge in language comprehension. Science, 304, 438–441.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hahne, A. (2001). What's different in second-language processing? Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 30, 251–266.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hahne, A., & Friederici, A. D. (1999). Eletrophysiological evidence for two steps in syntactic analysis: Early automatic and late controlled processes. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 11, 194–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hahne, A., Mueller, J. L., & Clahsen, H. (2006). Morphological processing in a second language: Behavioral and event-related brain potential evidence for storage and decomposition. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 121–134.Google Scholar
Handy, T. C. (2005). Event-related potentials: A methods handbook. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hopp, H. (2006). Syntactic features and reanalysis in near-native processing. Second Language Research, 22, 369–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopp, H. (2010). Ultimate attainment in L2 inflection: Performance similarities between non-native and native speakers. Lingua, 120, 901–931.Google Scholar
Inoue, K., & Osterhout, L. (2013). Sentence comprehension as a neural seesaw. Ms., University of Washington.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (2007). A Parallel Architecture perspective on language processing. Brain Research, 1146, 2–22.Google Scholar
Jackson, C. N., & Van Hell, J. G. (2011). The effects of L2 proficiency level on the processing of wh-questions among Dutch second language speakers of English. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 49, 195–219.Google Scholar
Jasper, H. H. (1958). The ten–twenty system of the International Federation. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 10, 371–375.Google Scholar
Johnson, J., & Newport, E. (1989). Critical period effects in second language learning: The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 60–99.Google Scholar
Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99, 122–149.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.Google Scholar
Kaan, E., Harris, A., Gibson, E., & Holcomb, P. J. (2000). The P600 as an index of syntactic integration difficulty. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15, 159–201.Google Scholar
Kaan, E., & Swaab, T. Y. (2003). Repair, revision and complexity in syntactic analysis: An electrophysiological differentiation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15, 98–110.Google Scholar
Kim, A., & Osterhout, L. (2005). The independence of combinatory semantic processing: Evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 205–225.Google Scholar
King, J. W., & Kutas, M. (1995). Who did what and when? Using word- and clause-level ERPs to monitor working memory usage in reading. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 7, 376–395.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kos, M., van den Brink, D., & Hagoort, P. (2012). Individual variation in the late positive complex to semantic anomalies. Frontiers in Psychology, 3:318. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00318.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuperberg, G. R. (2007). Neural mechanisms of language comprehension: Challenges to syntax. Brain Research, 1146, 23–49.Google Scholar
Kuperberg, G. R., Caplan, D., Sitnikova, T., Eddy, M., & Holcomb, P. J. (2006). Neural correlates of processing syntactic, semantic, and thematic relationships in sentences. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21, 489–530.Google Scholar
Kuperberg, G. R., Holcomb, P. J., Sitnikova, T, Greve, D., Dale, A. M., & Caplan, D. (2003). Distinct patterns of neural modulation during the processing of conceptual and syntactic anomalies. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15, 272–293.Google Scholar
Kuperberg, G. R., Kreher, D. A., Sitnikova, T., Caplan, D., & 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.Google Scholar
Kutas, M., & Federmeier, K. D. (2000). Electrophysiology reveals semantic memory use in language comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 463–470.Google Scholar
Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1980). Reading senseless sentences: Brain potentials reflect semantic anomaly. Science, 207, 203–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1984). Brain potentials during reading reflect word expectancy and semantic association. Nature, 307, 161–163.Google Scholar
Lau, E. F., Phillips, C., & Poeppel, D. (2008). A cortical network for semantics: (De)constructing the N400. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 9, 920–933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luck, S. J. (2005). An introduction to the event-related potential technique. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
MacCallum, R. C., Zhang, S., Preacher, K. J., & Rucker, D. D. (2002). On the practice of dichotomization of quantitative variables. Psychological Methods, 7, 19–40.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B., Bates, E., & Kliegl, R. (1984). Cue validity and sentence interpretation in English, German, and Italian. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 127–150.Google Scholar
Mancini, S., Molinaro, N., Rizzi, L., & Carreiras, M. (2011a). A person is not a number: Discourse involvement in subject–verb agreement computation. Brain Research, 1410, 64–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mancini, S., Molinaro, N., Rizzi, L., & Carreiras, M. (2011b). When persons disagree: An ERP study of Unagreement in Spanish. Psychophysiology, 48, 1361–1371.Google Scholar
Mason, R. A., & Just, M. A. (2007). Lexical ambiguity in sentence comprehension. Brain Research, 1146, 115–27.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 (Suppl. 2), 123–150.Google Scholar
Molinaro, N., Barber, H., & Carreiras, M. (2011). Grammatical agreement processing in reading: ERP findings and future directions. Cortex, 47, 908–930.Google Scholar
Molinaro, N., Kim, A., Vespignani, F., & Job, R. (2008). Anaphoric agreement violation: An ERP analysis of its interpretation. Cognition, 106, 963–974.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Morgan-Short, K., Faretta-Stutenberg, M., Brill, K., Carpenter, H., & Wong, P. C. M. Declarative and procedural memory as individual differences in second language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, doi:10.1017/S1366728912000715. Published online by Cambridge University Press, March 1, 2013.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 potentials study. Language Learning, 60, 154–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Naiman, N., Fröhlich, M., Stern, H. H., & Todesco, A. (1996). The good language learner. Philadelphia, PA: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Newman, A. 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.Google Scholar
Nieuwland, M. S., & Van Berkum, J. J. A. (2008). The interplay between semantic and referential aspects of anaphoric noun phrase resolution: Evidence from ERPs. Brain and Language, 106, 119–1131.Google Scholar
Oines, L., Miyake, A., & Kim, A. (2012). Individual differences in verbal working memory predict reanalysis vs. integration in syntax–semantics conflict scenarios. Poster presented at the Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing Conference, Riva del Garda, Italy.Google Scholar
Ojima, S., Matsuba-Kurita, H., Nakamura, N., Hoshino, T., & Hagiwara, H. (2011). Age and amount of exposure to a foreign language during childhood: Behavioral and ERP data on the semantic comprehension of spoken English by Japanese children. Neuroscience Research, 70, 197–205.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, 1212–1228.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.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., Kim, A., & Kuperberg, G. R. (2012). The neurobiology of sentence comprehension. In Spivey, M., Joannisse, M. & McCrae, K. (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of psycholinguistics, pp. 365–389. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Osterhout, L., McLaughlin, J., Kim, A., Greewald, R., & Inoue, K. (2004). Sentences in the brain: Event-related potentials as real-time reflections of sentence comprehension and language learning. In Carreiras, M. & Clifton, C. (eds.), The on-line study of sentence comprehension: Eyetracking-ERPs, and beyond, pp. 271–308. New York: Psychology Press.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 (Suppl. 1), 199–230.Google Scholar
Osterhout, L., & Mobley, L. (1995). Event-related brain potentials elicited by failure to agree. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 739–773.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paczynski, M., & Kuperberg, G. R. (2011). Electrophysiological evidence for use of the animacy hierarchy, but not thematic role assignment, during verb–argument processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26, 1402–1456.CrossRefGoogle 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
Prat, C. S. (2011). The brain basis of individual differences in language comprehension abilities. Language & Linguistics Compass, 5, 635–649.Google Scholar
Prat, C. S., Keller, T. A., & Just, M. A. (2007). Individual differences in sentence comprehension: A functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging investigation of syntactic and lexical processing demands. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19, 1950–1963.Google Scholar
Prat, C. S., Long, D. L., & Baynes, K. (2007). The representation of discourse in the two hemispheres: An individual differences investigation. Brain and Language, 100, 283–294.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pulvermüller, F., & Schumann, J. H. (1994). Neurobiological mechanisms of language acquisition. Language Learning, 44, 681–734.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
Rossi, S., Gugler, M. F., Hahne, A., & Friederici, A. D. (2005). When word category information encounters morphosyntax: An ERP study. Neuroscience Letters, 384, 228–233.Google Scholar
Sabourin, L., & Haverkort, M. (2003). Neural substrates of representation and processing of a second language. In van Hout, R., Hulk, A., Kuiken, F. & Towell, R. (eds.), The lexicon–syntax interface in second language acquisition, pp. 175–195. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sabourin, L., & Stowe, L. A. (2008). Second language processing: When are first and second languages processed similarly? Second Language Research, 24, 397–430.Google Scholar
Severens, E., Jansma, B. M., & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2008). Morphophonological influences on the comprehension of subject–verb agreement: An ERP study. Brain Research, 1228, 135–144.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (1989). Individual differences in second-language learning. New York: Arnold.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
Tanner, D. (2011). Agreement mechanisms in native and nonnative language processing: Electrophysiological correlates of complexity and interference. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington.Google Scholar
Tanner, D., & Van Hell, J. G. (2012). ERPs reveal individual differences in syntactic processing strategies. Poster presented at the 2012 Psychonomics Society Meeting, Minneapolis, MN.Google 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanner, D., Nicol, J., Herschensohn, J., & Osterhout, L. (2012). Electrophysiological markers of interference and structural facilitation in native and nonnative agreement processing. In Biller, A. K., Chung, E. Y. & Kimball, A. E. (eds.), Proceedings of the 36th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, pp. 594–606. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.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, 27, 173–204.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Ullman, M. T. (2004). Contributions of memory circuits to language: The declarative/procedural model. Cognition, 92, 231–270.Google Scholar
Ullman, M. T. (2005). A cognitive neuroscience perspective on second language acquisition: The declarative/procedural model. In Sanz, C. (ed.), Mind and context in adult second language acquisition, pp. 141–178. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Van Berkum, J. J. A., Hagoort, P., & Brown, C. M. (1999). Semantic integration in sentences and discourse: Evidence from the N400. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 11, 657–671.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.Google Scholar
Van Hell, J. G., & Tanner, D. (2012). Second language proficiency and cross-language lexical activation. Language Learning, 62 (Suppl. 2), 148–171.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Van Herten, M., Chwilla, D. J., & Kolk, H. H. J. (2006). When heuristics clash with parsing routines: ERP evidence for conflict monitoring in sentence perception. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 1181–1197.Google Scholar
Van Petten, C. K., Weckerly, J., McIsaac, H. K., & Kutas, M. (1997). Working memory capacity dissociates lexical and sentential context effects. Psychological Science, 8, 238–242.Google Scholar
Vos, S. H., Gunter, T. C., Kolk, H. H. J., & Mulder, G. (2001). Working memory constraints on syntactic processing: An electrophysiological investigation. Psychophysiology, 38, 41–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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
Weber-Fox, C. M., & Neville, H. J. (1999). Functional neural subsystems are differentially affected by delays in second language immersion: ERP and behavioral evidence in bilinguals. Birdsong, In D. (ed.), Second language acquisition and the critical period hypothesis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Weckerly, J., & Kutas, M. (1999). An electrophysiological analysis of animacy effects in the processing of object relative sentences. Psychophysiology, 36, 559–570.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhang, Y., Li, P., Piao, Q., Liu, Y., Huang, Y., & Shu, H. (2013). Syntax does not necessarily precede semantics in sentence processing: ERP evidence from Chinese. Brain and Language, 126, 8–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar