Cover not available
Article published In:
Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism
Vol. 13:6 (2023) ► pp.767–800

L2 processing of filled gaps

Non-native brain activity not modulated by proficiency and working memory

| University of Delaware
| University of Delaware
| University of Delaware
| University of Delaware
This paper investigates how late L2 learners resolve filler-gap dependencies (FGD) in real-time and how proficiency and working memory (WM) modulate their brain responses in an event-related potential (ERP) experiment. A group of intermediate to highly proficient Mandarin Chinese learners of English listened to sentences such as “The zebra that the hippo kissed *the camel on the nose ran far away,” in which the extra noun phrase “the camel” created a ‘filled-gap’ effect. The results show that although L2 behavioral responses are comparable to native speakers and are positively correlated with proficiency and WM span, the brain responses to the filled gap are qualitatively different. Importantly, L2 processing patterns did not become more nativelike with higher proficiency levels or greater WM capacity. Specifically, while the native speakers exhibited a P600 typically observed for syntactic violations and repair, the L2 group produced a prefrontal-central positivity. Similar ERPs have previously been reported to reflect domain-general attentional and non-structural-based processes, suggesting that the L2 group has a reduced sensitivity to structural requirements for gap positing in the online resolution of FGDs. Our findings are discussed in light of various proposals accounting for L1-L2 processing differences, including the Shallow Structure Hypothesis.
Keywords: L2 sentence processing, filler-gap dependencies, ERP, individual factors, the Shallow Structure Hypothesis
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1L2 processing of FGD: Is structural information underused in gap positing?
    • 1.2ERP studies on the filled-gap effect and the present study
  • 2.Method
    • 2.1Participants
    • 2.2Paper-and-pencil grammaticality judgment test
    • 2.3ERP experimental materials
    • 2.4Procedures
      • 2.4.1EEG acquisition
      • 2.4.2PCA-constrained derivation of time windows and electrode regions
  • 3.Results
    • 3.1Paper-and-pencil grammaticality judgment test results
    • 3.2Comprehension questions results
    • 3.3ERP results
      • 3.3.1Comparison of L1 and L2 speakers’ brain responses
      • 3.3.2L1 participants’ brain responses to filled gaps: P600
      • 3.3.3L2 participants’ brain responses to filled gaps: Prefrontal-central positivity
  • 4.Discussion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 2 March 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.20058.don
References (75)
References
Andersson, A., Sayehli, S., & Gullberg, M. (2019). Language background affects online word order processing in a second language but not offline. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 22 (4), 802–825. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bates, D., Maechler, M., & Bolker, B. (2012). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 0.999999-0.Google Scholar
Bernstein, J. & De Jong, J. H. A. L. (2001). An experiment in predicting proficiency within the Common Europe Framework Level Descriptors. In Y. N. Leung et al. (Eds.), Selected Papers from the Tenth International Symposium on English Teaching (pp. 8–14). Crane Publishing.Google Scholar
Bernstein, J. & Cheng, J. (2007). Logic and validation of fully automatic spoken English test. In M. Holland & F. P. Fisher. (Eds.), The path of speech technologies in computer assisted language learning: From research toward practice (pp. 174–194). Routledge.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 (13), 2492–2511. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Caffarra, S., Mendoza, M., & Davidson, D. (2019). Is the LAN effect in morphosyntactic processing an ERP artifact? Brain and Language, 191 1, 9–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language: Its nature, origins, and use. Greenwood Publishing Group.Google Scholar
Christensen, R. H. B. (2019). Regression Models for Ordinal Data [R package ordinal version 2019.12-10].Google Scholar
Cunnings, I. (2012). An overview of mixed-effects statistical models for second language researchers. Second Language Research, 28 (3), 369–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). Interference in Native and Non-Native Sentence Processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 20 (04), 712–721. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006). Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27 (1), 3–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018). Some notes on the shallow structure hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40 (3), 693–706. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clifton, C., & Frazier, L. (1989). Comprehending sentences with long distance dependencies. In G. M. Carlson & M. K. Tanenhaus. (Eds.), Linguistic structure in language processing (pp. 273–317). Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dallas, A., DeDe, G., & Nicol, J. (2013). An Event-Related Potential (ERP) Investigation of Filler-Gap Processing in Native and Second Language Speakers. Language Learning, 63 (4), 766–799. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Daneman, M. & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 19 (4), 450–466. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeLong, K. A., & Kutas, M. (2020). Comprehending surprising sentences: sensitivity of post-N400 positivities to contextual congruity and semantic relatedness. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 1–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Delorme, A., & Makeig, S. (2004). EEGLAB: an open-source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics, Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 1341, 9–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dien, J. (2010). The ERP PCA Toolkit: An open source program for advanced statistical analysis of event-related potential data. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 187 (1), 138–145. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). Applying principal components analysis to event-related potentials: a tutorial. Developmental Neuropsychology, 37 (6), 497–517. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dong, Z., Rhodes, R., & Hestvik, A. (2021). Active Gap Filling and Island Constraint in Processing the Mandarin ‘Gap-Type’ Topic Structure. Frontiers in Communication 6 1: 650659. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dowens, M. G., 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 (7), 1651–1659. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dussias, P. E., & Piñar, P. (2010). Effects of reading span and plausibility in the reanalysis of wh-gaps by Chinese-English second language speakers. Second Language Research, 26 (4), 443–472. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Felser, C. (2019). Structure-sensitive constraints in non-native sentence processing. Journal of the European Second Language Association, 3 (1), 12–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Felser, C., & Roberts, L. (2007). Processing wh-dependencies in a second language: A cross-modal priming study. Second Language Research, 23 (1), 9–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foucart, A., Martin, C. D., Moreno, E. M., & Costa, A. (2014). Can bilinguals see it coming? Word anticipation in L2 sentence reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 40 (5), 1461–1469.Google Scholar
Friederici, A. D. (2002). Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6 (2), 78–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Friederici, A. D., Hahne, A., & Saddy, D. (2002). Distinct neurophysiological patterns reflecting aspects of syntactic complexity and syntactic repair. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 31 1, 45–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frisch, S., Hahne, A., & Friederici, A. D. (2004). Word category and verb–argument structure information in the dynamics of parsing. Cognition, 91 (3), 191–219. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gouvea, A. C., Phillips, C., Kazanina, N., & Poeppel, D. (2010). The linguistic processes underlying the P600. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25 (2), 149–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gregg, K. (2003). SLA theory construction and assessment. In C. Doughty & M. Long. (Eds.). Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 831–865). Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle 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 (4), 439–483. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hahne, A., & Friederici, A. D. (1999). Electrophysiological evidence for two steps in syntactic analysis: Early automatic and late controlled processes. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 11 (2), 194–205. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harrington, M., & Sawyer, M. (1992). L2 working memory capacity and L2 reading skill. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14 (1), 25–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, R., & Chan, C. Y. (1997). The partial availability of universal grammar in second language acquisition: The “Failed functional features hypothesis.” Second Language Research, 13 (3), 187–226. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hestvik, A., Maxfield, N., Schwartz, R. G., & Shafer, V. L. (2007). Brain responses to filled gaps. Brain and Language, 100 (3), 301–316. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hestvik, A., Bradley, E., & Bradley, C. (2012). Working Memory Effects of Gap-Predictions in Normal Adults: An Event-Related Potentials Study. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 41 (6), 425–438. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopp, H. (2017). Individual differences in L2 parsing and lexical representations. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 20 (4), 689–690. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30 (2), 179–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hsu, C. -C. N. (2008). Revisit relative clause islands in Chinese, Language and Linguistics, 9 (1), 23–48.Google Scholar
Huang, J., Li, Y. A., & Li, Y. (2009). The Syntax of Chinese. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jessen, A., Festman, J., Boxell, O., & Felser, C. (2017). Native and non-native speakers’ brain responses to filled indirect object gaps. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 46 (5), 1319–1338. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, A., Fiorentino, R., & Gabriele, A. (2016). Syntactic constraints and individual differences in native and non-native processing of wh-movement. Frontiers in psychology, 7 1, 549. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Juffs, A. (2006). Grammar and parsing and a transition theory. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27 (1), 69–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaan, E. (2014). Predictive sentence processing in L2 and L1: What is different?. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 4 (2), 257–282. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaan, E., & Swaab, T. Y. (2003). Repair, revision, and complexity in syntactic analysis: An electrophysiological differentiation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15 (1), 98–110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, A., & Osterhout, L. (2005). The independence of combinatory semantic processing: Evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of Memory and Language, 52 (2), 205–225. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kizach, J. (2014). Analyzing Likert-scale data with mixed-effects linear models: a simulation study. Poster Presented at Linguistic Evidence. Tübingen, Germany.Google Scholar
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 (3), 223–237. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 1, 621–647. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liang, L., & Chen, B. (2014). Processing morphologically complex words in second-language learners: The effect of proficiency. Acta Psychologica, 150 1, 69–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lin, Y., & Garnsey, S. M. (2010). Animacy and the resolution of temporary ambiguity in relative clause comprehension in Mandarin. In Processing and producing head-final structures (pp. 241–275). Springer, Dordrecht. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Luck, S. J., & Gaspelin, N. (2017). How to get statistically significant effects in any ERP experiment (and why you shouldn’t). Psychophysiology, 54 (1), 146–157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marinis, T., Roberts, L., Felser, C., & Clahsen, H. (2005). Gaps in second language sentence processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27 (1), 53–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, K. I., & Ellis, N. C. (2012). The roles of phonological short-term memory and working memory in L2 grammar and vocabulary learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34 (3), 379–413. DOI logoGoogle 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 (3), 381–401. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, A. K. (2015). Intermediate Traces and Intermediate Learners: Evidence for the Use of Intermediate Structure during Sentence Processing in Second Language French. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37 (3), 487–516. DOI logoGoogle 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 (4), 933–947. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nakano, Y., Felser, C., & Clahsen, H. (2002). Antecedent priming at trace positions in Japanese long-distance scrambling. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 31 (5), 531–571. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nicenboim, B., Vasishth, S., Gattei, C., Sigman, M., & Kliegl, R. (2015). Working memory differences in long-distance dependency resolution. Frontiers in Psychology, 6 1, Article 312. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Omaki, A., & Schulz, B. (2011). Filler-gap dependencies and island constraints in second language sentence processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33 (4), 563–588. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pakulak, E., & Neville, H. J. (2011). Maturational constraints on the recruitment of early processes for syntactic processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23 (10), 2752–2765. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Phillips, C., & Lewis, S. (2013). Derivational order in syntax: Evidence and architectural consequences. Studies in Linguistics, 6 1, 11–47.Google Scholar
R Core Team (2019). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
Sabourin, L., & Stowe, L. A. (2008). Second language processing: When are first and second languages processed similarly? Second Language Research, 24 (3), 397–430. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-Prime Reference Guide. Pittsburgh: Psychology Software Tools, Inc.Google Scholar
Shyu, S. I. (1995). The syntax of focus and topic in Mandarian Chinese. (Doctoral dissertation). University of Southern California.
Sprouse, J., & Almeida, D. (2012). Assessing the reliability of textbook data in syntax: Adger’s Core Syntax. Journal of Linguistics, 48 (3), 609–652. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steinhauer, K., & Drury, J. E. (2012). On the early left-anterior negativity (ELAN) in syntax studies. Brain and Language, 120 (2), 135–162. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stowe, L. A. (1986). Parsing WH-constructions: Evidence for on-line gap location. Language and Cognitive Processes, 1 (3), 227–245. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thornhill, D. E., & Van Petten, C. (2012). Lexical versus conceptual anticipation during sentence processing: frontal positivity and N400 ERP components. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 83 (3), 382–392. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tolentino, L. C., & Tokowicz, N. (2011). Across Language, space and time. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33 (1), 91–125. DOI logoGoogle 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 (1), 43–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weber, A., & Cutler, A. (2004). Lexical competition in non-native spoken-word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 50 (1), 1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Williams, J., Möbius, P., & Kim, C. (2001). Native and non-native processing of English wh-questions: Parsing strategies and plausibility constraints. Applied Psycholinguistics, 22 (4), 509–540. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

van Hell, Janet G.
2023. The Neurocognitive Underpinnings of Second Language Processing: Knowledge Gains From the Past and Future Outlook. Language Learning 73:S2 ► pp. 95 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 21 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.