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
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.Erguvanlı Taylan (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