Kasparian, K. 1, 2 , Bourguignon, N. 3, 1 , Drury, J. E. 1, 2 & Steinhauer, K. 1, 2
1 School of Communication Sciences and Disorders, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
2 Center for Research on Language, Mind and Brain, Montreal, Canada
3 Département de linguistique et de traduction, Université de Montreal, Canada
We examined two possible influences on the neural underpinnings of morpho-syntactic processing in second language (L2) learners of English: (i) L1-background (i.e., transfer), and (ii) L2-proficiency, focusing on Nominal Morphology (NM, i.e., articles and their interaction with plural/singular markers). Some languages (e.g., English/French) make use of this information, whereas languages devoid of NM (e.g., Mandarin) raise the controversial issue of whether the absence of such features in the L1 favors native-like L2 processing. Further, though some ERP evidence has revealed distinct processing mechanisms in L1 vs. late-L2, reliance on native-like mechanisms may increase with L2 proficiency.
ERP and behavioral (sentence judgment) data from French-L1 (N=20) and Mandarin-L1 (N=18) late-learners of English were compared to native controls (N=17). Target sentences contained noun phrases with article-noun number mismatches (e.g. “They paved a road/a *roads in the summer”) which was expected to elicit a LAN/P600 in native speakers. Of interest was whether this mismatch would yield different patterns in the L2-groups, and whether variations in ERP-responses related to L1-background, age of acquisition (AoA) and L2-proficiency would be observed.
As predicted for the native-speakers, the mismatching nouns (“a *roads”) elicited a left anterior negativity (LAN, 350-450 ms), followed by a P600. In contrast, French and Mandarin participants showed an N400/P600 pattern and a subsequent anterior negativity. Interestingly, irrespective of L1 background, the P600 amplitude in L2 learners was correlated with proficiency, and more so for structure-specific measures (error rates) than for general L2 proficiency (cloze-test).
Regarding (i), our results do not clearly support L1-background/transfer effects. Regarding (ii), our P600 findings are consistent with a proficiency-dependent continuum, rather than a categorical L1 vs. L2 distinction, and furthermore suggest that future research should more carefully examine structure-specific (rather than general) proficiency measures.