Article published in:
Second Language Acquisition of Turkish
Edited by Ayşe Gürel
[Language Acquisition and Language Disorders 59] 2016
► pp. 281–311

Non-native syntactic processing of Case and Agreement

Evidence from event-related potentials

| Ankara University
| Istanbul University
| Istanbul University
The present study investigates the neural basis of syntactic processing in native and non-native speakers of Turkish, focusing on factors such as second language (L2) proficiency and language distance. Participants’ event-related potentials (ERPs) were recorded during a grammaticality judgment task consisting of subject case and subject-verb agreement violation sentences. The results indicate that while case violations (the divergent condition) reveal different ERP components in native and non-native speakers, agreement violations in finite clauses (the convergent condition) do not. Nevertheless, during the processing of agreement violations in non-finite clauses (the partial divergent condition) only high-intermediate L2 learners show native-like brain processing mechanisms. Findings suggest that L2 syntactic processing is affected by language distance as well as L2 proficiency.
Keywords: case morphology, event-related brain potentials, L2 acquisition, subject-verb agreement, Turkish
Published online: 25 May 2016
https://doi.org/10.1075/lald.59.11ayd
References

References

Adamović, L.M.
1985 Konjugationsgeschichte der Türkischen Sprache. Leiden: E.J. Brill.Google Scholar
Aydın, Ö.
2007 Türkçede üçüncü kişi buyrum yapıları (The third person imperative in Turkish). Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi Dergisi 47(1): 151–163 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Aygen, N.G.
2002 Finiteness, Case and Clausal Architecture. PhD dissertation, Harvard University. Printed in MITWPL Occasional Papers in Linguistics , Vol. 13, Cambridge MA 2004.
2006 Finiteness and the relation between agreement and nominative case. In Agreement Systems [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 92], C.Boeckx (ed.), 63–98. 
Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007 Genitive case in complement clauses and reduced relatives in Turkic, California Linguistic Notes XXXII (2), http://​english​.fullerton​.edu​/publications​/cln​/clnarchives​/spring2007archives​.aspGoogle Scholar
2011 Reduced relatives and the location of agreement, California Linguistic Notes XXXVI (1). http://​english​.fullerton​.edu​/publications​/cln​/clnarchives​/winter2011archives​.aspGoogle Scholar
Aygüneş, M.
2013 Türkçede Uyum Özelliklerinin Olaya İlişkin Beyin Potansiyelleri Çerçevesinde İncelenmesi (An ERP Investigation on Agreement Features in Turkish). PhD dissertation, Ankara University.
Aygüneş, M., Kaşıkçı, I., Aydın, Ö., Demiralp, T.
2012 Türkçede uyum özelliklerinin işlemlenmesi: Olaya-ilişkin beyin potansiyelleri incelemesi (The processing of agreement features in Turkish: An ERP study), 16th International Conference on Turkish Linguistics , 18–20 September 2012, METU, Ankara.
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(2): 161–174. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Frisch, S. & Schlesewsky, M.
2001 The N400 indicates problems of thematic hierarchizing. Neuroreport 12(15): 3391–3394. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
George, L. & Kornfilt, J.
1981 Finiteness and boundedness in Turkish. In Binding and Filtering, A.Heny (ed.), 105–127. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Good, J., & Yu, A.C.
2005 Morphosyntax of two Turkish subject pronominal paradigms. In Clitic and Affix Combinations: Theoretical Perspectives [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 74], L.Heggie & F.Ordóñez (eds.), 315–341. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Greenhouse, S. & Geisser, S.
1959 On methods in the analysis of profile data. Psychonomics 24(2): 95–112.Google Scholar
Hahne, A.
2001 What’s different in second-language processing: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 30(3): 251–266. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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(2): 123–141. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kluender, R. & Kutas, M.
1993 Bridging the gap: Evidence from ERPs on the processing of unbounded dependencies. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 5(2): 196–214. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Knecht, L.
1979 The role of genitive suffix in relative clause in Turkish: A reply to Dede. In Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, C.Chiarello, J.Kingston, E.E.Sweetser, J.Collins, H.Kawasaki, J.Manley-Buser, D.W.Marschek, C. O’Connor, D.Shaul, M.Tobey H Thompson & K.Turner (eds.), 180–197. Berkeley CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Kornfilt, J.
1984 Case Marking, Agreement and Empty Categories in Turkish. PhD dissertation, Harvard University.
Kotz, S., Holcomb, P. & Osterhout, L.
2008 ERPs reveal comparable syntactic sentence processing in native and non-native reader of English. Acta Psychologica 128(3): 514–527. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kutas, M. & Hillyard, S.A.
1980 Reading senseless sentences: Brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science 207(4427): 203–205. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lees, R.B.
1962 A compact analysis for the Turkish personal morphemes. In American Studies in Altaic Linguistics, N.Poppe (ed.), 141–176. Bloomington IN: India University.Google Scholar
Mancini, S., Molinaro, N., Rizzi, L. & Carreiras, M.
2011 A person is not a number: Discourse involvement in subject–verb agreement computation. Brain Research 1410: 64–76. CrossrefGoogle 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(4): 940–967. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mueller, J., Hirotani, M. & Friederici, A.D.
2007 ERP evidence for different strategies in the processing of case markers in native speakers and non-native learners. BMC Neuroscience 8(18): 1–16. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mueller, J.J., Hahne, A, Fujii, Y. & Friederici, A.D.
2005 Native and non-native speakers’ processing of a miniature version of Japanese as revealed by ERPs. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 17(8): 1229–1244. 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 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Osterhout, L. & Holcomb, P.J.
1992 Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. Journal of Memory and Language 31(6): 785–806. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Osterhout, L., McLaughlin, J., Pitkanen, 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rossi, S., Gugler, M.F., Friederici, A.D. & Hahne, A.
2006 The impact of proficiency on second-language processing of German and Italian: Evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 18(12): 2030–2048. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sezer, E.
2001 Finite inflection in Turkish. In The Verb in Turkish [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 44], E.ErguvanlıTaylan (ed.), 1–46. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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(4): 393–417. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Steinhauer, K., Friederici, A.D. & Alter, K.
1999 Brain potentials indicate immediate use of prosodic cues in natural speech processing. Nature Neuroscience 2(2): 191–196. 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(1): 13–41. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tanner, D. & Van Hell, J.G.
2014 ERPs reveal individual differences in morphosyntactic processing. Neuropsychologia 56: 289–301. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Von Gabain, A.
1988 Eski Türkçenin Grameri (Old Turkish Grammar). Ankara: TDK Yayınları.Google Scholar
Weber-Fox, Ch. 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(3): 231–256. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zawiszewski, A., Gutiérrez, E., Fernández, B. & Laka, I.
2011 Language distance and non-native syntactic processing: Evidence from event-related potentials, Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 14(3): 400–411. CrossrefGoogle Scholar