Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T12:17:00.173Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Electrophysiological Approaches to Understanding Second Language Acquisition: A Field Reaching its Potential

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 December 2014

Kara Morgan-Short
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The present article provides a review of results from electrophysiological studies of the neurocognition of second language. After a brief introduction to event-related potentials (ERPs), the article explores four sets of findings from recent second language (L2) ERP research. First, longitudinal L2 ERP research has demonstrated that L2 neurocognitive processing changes qualitatively with time. Second, research has shown that L2 learners can evidence nativelike ERP effects for L2 grammatical features that are present in their first language (L1) as well as for features that are unique to their L2 but may have more difficulty processing features that are present in their L1 but that are instantiated differently in their L2. Third, emerging research has revealed that individual differences in ERPs can be accounted for by linguistic and nonlinguistic factors. Finally, recent empirical studies have shown that explicit and implicit training contexts can lead to nativelike ERP effects at high levels of proficiency, but that implicit contexts may lead to the development of a fuller nativelike processing signature, at least for syntactic processing. With continued interdisciplinary approaches and sophisticated research designs, L2 ERP research is only beginning to reach its potential and promises to uniquely inform central questions of second language acquisition.

Type
Research Article
Information
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , Volume 34 , March 2014 , pp. 15 - 36
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

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

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

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.

This article provides a comprehensive report of gender and number agreement processing in L2 as compared to native speakers. The findings demonstrate the complexity of L2 processing in that learners evidence a fully nativelike response to both number and gender agreement between determiners and nouns but only evidence a partially nativelike response to number and gender agreement between nouns and adjectives. The pattern of findings suggests that research must consider multiple factors (e.g., L1-L2 similarity as well as linguistic structure), in order to obtain a nuanced understanding of L2 neurocognitive processing.

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.

This report of a series of L2 ERP studies is significant because it provides evidence that the group-averaged ERP signal is not necessarily representative of individual processing and that subgroups of learners who show qualitatively different processing signatures can be identified. In addition, the data reported in this article shows that the same linguistic stimuli can elicit different ERP effects within learners over time. This article is significant in that it serves as an impetus for carrying out longitudinal research and for exploring individual differences within groups of L2 learners.

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.

This review of L2 ERP research proposes a model of neurocognitive L2 development based on proficiency, with a series of qualitative and quantitative changes in learners’ ERP response to (morpho)syntactic processing. The proposal serves as an impetus for longitudinal L2 ERP research and has important implications for neurocognitive theories of L2 acquisition.

REFERENCES

Allen, M., Badecker, W., & Osterhout, L. (2003). Morphological analysis in sentence processing: An ERP study. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18, 405–430.CrossRefGoogle 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. doi: 10.1016/0093–934X(90)90011-5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Batterink, L., & Neville, H. J. (2013). Implicit and explicit second language training recruit common neural mechanisms for syntactic processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 25, 936–951.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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
Bornkessel, I. D., & Schlesewsky, M. (2008). An alternative perspective on “semantic P600” effects in language comprehension. Brain Research Reviews, 59, 55–73.CrossRefGoogle 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. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2013.09.004CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carroll, J. B., & Sapon, S. M. (1959). Modern language aptitude test: Form A. New York, NY: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Citron, F. M. M., Oberecker, R., Friederici, A. D., & Mueller, J. L. (2011). Mass counts: ERP correlates of non-adjacent dependency learning under different exposure conditions. Neuroscience Letters, 487, 282–286. doi:10.1016/j.neulet.2010.10.038CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Collentine, J., & Freed, B. F. (2004). Learning context and its effects of second language acquisition: Introduction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 153–171. doi:10.1017/S0272263104262015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, D. J., & Indefrey, P. (2009). An event-related potential study on changes of violation and error responses during morphosyntactic learning. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21, 433–446. doi:10.1162/jocn.2008.21031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dornyei, Z., & Skehan, P. (2003). Individual differences in second language learning. In Doughty, C. J. & Long, M. H. (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 589–630). Malden, MA: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehrman, M. E., Leaver, B. L., & Oxford, R. L. (2003). A brief overview of individual differences in second language learning. System, 31, 313–330. doi:10.1016/S0346-251X(03)00045-9CrossRefGoogle 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. doi:10.1017/S136672891000012XCrossRefGoogle 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
Freed, B. F., Segalowitz, N., & Dewey, D. P. (2004). Context of learning and second language fluency in French—comparing regular classroom, study abroad, and intensive domestic immersion programs. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 257–301. doi:10.1017/S0272263104062060CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frenck-Mestre, C., Foucart, A., Carrasco, H., & Herschensohn, J. (2009). Processing of grammatical gender in French as a first and second language: Evidence from ERPs. EUROSLA Yearbook, 9, 76–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friederici, A. D., Steinhauer, K., & Pfeifer, E. (2002). Brain signatures of artificial language processing: Evidence challenging the critical period hypothesis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 99, 529–534. doi:10.1073/pnas.012611199CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gabriele, A., Fiorentino, R., & Alemán Bañón, J. (2013). Examining second language development using event-related potentials. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 3, 213–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillon Dowens, M., Guo, T., Guo, J., Barber, H. A., & Carreiras, M. (2011). Gender and number processing in Chinese learners of Spanish—evidence from event related potentials. Neuropsychologia, 49, 1651–1659. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2011.02.034CrossRefGoogle 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. doi:10.1162/jocn.2009.21304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guo, J., Guo, T., Yan, Y., Jiang, N., & Peng, D. (2009). ERP evidence for different strategies employed by native speakers and L2 learners in sentence processing. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 22, 123–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hahne, A. (2001). What's different in second-language processing? Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 30, 251–266. doi: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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Handy, T. C. (2005). Event-related potentials: A methods handbook. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
Kaan, E. (2007). Event-related potentials and language processing: A brief overview. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1, 571–591. doi:10.1111/j.1749-818X.2007.00037.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kotz, S. A. (2009). A critical review of ERP and fMRI evidence on L2 syntactic processing. Brain and Language, 109, 68–74. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2008.06.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuperberg, G. R. (2007). Neural mechanisms of language comprehension: Challenges to syntax. Brain Research, 1146, 23–49. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2006.12.063CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kutas, M., & Federmeier, K. D. (2011). Thirty years and counting: Finding meaning in the N400 component of the event-related brain potential (ERP). Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 621–647. doi: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. doi:10.1126/science.7350657CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Luck, S. J. (2005). An introduction to the event-related potential technique. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Luck, S. J. (2012). Event-related potentials. In Cooper, H., Camic, P. M., Long, D. L., Panter, A. T., Rindskopf, D., & Sher, K. J. (Eds.), APA handbook of research methods in psychology: Vol. 1. Foundations, planning, measures, and psychometrics (pp. 523–546). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle 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. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00604.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreno, E. M., Rodríguez-Fornells, A., & Laine, M. (2008). Event-related potentials (ERPs) in the study of bilingual language processing. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 21, 477–508. doi:10.1016/j.jneuroling.2008.01.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan-Short, K., Faretta-Stutenberg, M., & Bartlett-Hsu, L. (in press). Contributions of event-related potential research to issues in explicit and implicit second language acquisition. In Rebuschat, P. (Ed.), Explicit and implicit learning of languages. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google 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, e32974. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0032974CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morgan-Short, K., & Tanner, D. (2014). Event-related potentials (ERPs). In Jegerski, J. & VanPatten, B. (Eds.), Research methods in second language psycholinguistics (pp. 127–152). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mueller, J. L. (2005). Electrophysiological correlates of second language processing. Second Language Research, 21, 152–174. doi:10.1191/0267658305sr256oaCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mueller, J. L., Oberecker, R., & Friederici, A. D. (2009). Syntactic learning by mere exposure an ERP study in adult learners. BMC Neuroscience, 10, 89–97 doi:10.1186/1471-2202-10-89CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417–528. doi:10.1111/0023-8333.00136CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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, 199–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osterhout, L., & Mobley, L. A. (1995). Event-related brain potentials elicited by failure to agree. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 739–773.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. doi:10.1162/jocn.2009.21393CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pakulak, E., & Neville, H. J. (2011). Maturational constraints on the recruitment of early processes for syntactic processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23, 2752–2765. doi:10.1162/jocn.2010.21586CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raven, J. C. (1965). Advanced progressive matrices, sets I and II. London, UK: H. K. Lewis.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. J. (Eds.), The lexicon-syntax interface in second language acquisition (pp. 175–195). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabourin, L., & Stowe, L. A. (2008). Second language processing: When are first and second languages processed similarly? Second Language Research, 24, 397–430. doi:10.1177/0267658308090186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanz, C., & Morgan-Short, K. (2004). Positive evidence versus explicit rule presentation and explicit negative feedback: A computer-assisted study. Language Learning, 54, 35–78. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2004.00248.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanz, C., & Morgan-Short, K. (2005). Explicitness in pedagogical interventions: Input, practice, and feedback. In Sanz, C. (Ed.), Mind and context in adult second language acquisition: Methods, theory, and practice (pp. 234–263). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Segalowitz, N., & Freed, B. F. (2004). Context, contact, and cognition in oral fluency acquisition: Learning Spanish in at home and study abroad contexts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 173–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spada, N., & Tomita, Y. (2010). Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 263–308. doi:10.1111/j.1467–9922.2010.00562.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steinhauer, K., & Connolly, J. F. (2008). Event-related potentials in the study of language. In Stemmer, B., & Whitaker, H. (Eds.), Handbook of the cognitive neuroscience of language (pp. 91–104). New York, NY: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle 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. doi:10.1177/0267658308098995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swaab, T. Y., Ledoux, K., Camblin, C. C., & Boudewyn, M. A. (2012). Language-related ERP components. In Luck, S. J. & Kappenman, E. S. (Eds.), Oxford handbook of event-related potential components. (pp. 397–440). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1993). The output hypothesis—just speaking and writing aren't enough. Canadian Modern Language Review/Revue Canadienne des Langues Vivantes, 50, 158–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate—a step towards 2nd language-learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanner, D. (2014). On the left anterior negativity (LAN) in electrophysiological studies of morphosyntactic agreement. Cortex. doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2014.04.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanner, D., & van Hell, J. G. (2014). ERPs reveal individual differences in morphosyntactic processing. Neuropsychologia, 56, 289–301.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tanner, D., Inoue, K., & Osterhout, L. (2014). Brain-based individual differences in online L2 grammatical comprehension. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17, 277–293. doi: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. doi:10.1017/S1366728912000302CrossRefGoogle 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. doi:10.1017/S0272263105050102CrossRefGoogle 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. doi:10.1177/0267658309337637CrossRefGoogle 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. doi:10.1162/jocn.1996.8.3.231CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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, e52318.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed