Part of
Second Language Acquisition of TurkishEdited by Ayşe Gürel
[Language Acquisition and Language Disorders 59] 2016
► pp. 281–311
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
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.
References (38)
Adamović, L.M. 1985. Konjugationsgeschichte der Türkischen Sprache. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
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 
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.
. 2007. Genitive case in complement clauses and reduced relatives in Turkic, California Linguistic Notes XXXII (2), <[URL]>
. 2011. Reduced relatives and the location of agreement, California Linguistic Notes XXXVI (1). <[URL]>
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.
Frisch, S. & Schlesewsky, M. 2001. The N400 indicates problems of thematic hierarchizing. Neuroreport 12(15): 3391–3394.
George, L. & Kornfilt, J. 1981. Finiteness and boundedness in Turkish. In Binding and Filtering, A. Heny (ed.), 105–127. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
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.
Greenhouse, S. & Geisser, S. 1959. On methods in the analysis of profile data. Psychonomics 24(2): 95–112.
Hahne, A. 2001. What’s different in second-language processing: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 30(3): 251–266.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Kutas, M. & Hillyard, S.A. 1980. Reading senseless sentences: Brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science 207(4427): 203–205.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Osterhout, L. & Holcomb, P.J. 1992. Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. Journal of Memory and Language 31(6): 785–806.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Tanner, D. & Van Hell, J.G. 2014. ERPs reveal individual differences in morphosyntactic processing. Neuropsychologia 56: 289–301.
Von Gabain, A. 1988. Eski Türkçenin Grameri (Old Turkish Grammar). Ankara: TDK Yayınları.
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.
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.