Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T04:25:48.780Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

QUANTIFICATIONAL CUES MODULATE THE PROCESSING OF ENGLISH SUBJECT-VERB AGREEMENT BY NATIVE CHINESE SPEAKERS

AN ERP STUDY

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 March 2018

Andrew Armstrong ,
Nyssa Bulkes  and
Darren Tanner
Andrew Armstrong*
Affiliation:
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Nyssa Bulkes
Affiliation:
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Darren Tanner
Affiliation:
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Andrew Armstrong, Department of Linguistics, 4080 Foreign Language Building, 707 S Mathews Avenue, MC-168, Urbana, IL 61801. E-mail: andrew.g.armstrong@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Numerous studies have demonstrated that native Mandarin speakers have pervasive difficulties processing L2 English agreement morphology. However, less is known about the lexical and morphological cues that may modulate Mandarin speakers’ sensitivity to English number agreement. To investigate this, we examined subject-verb agreement processing in English by L1 Mandarin participants using event-related brain potentials (ERPs) and focused on the use of quantificational cues to noun number and their interaction with agreement morphology on the verb. Previous work in English monolinguals has shown that agreement violations elicited larger P600s when preceded by a plurally quantified subject noun phrase (NP) compared to an unquantified NP. In the present study, Mandarin speakers were tested on the same quantified and unquantified sentences (e.g., Most/The cookies taste/*tastes…) as in the prior work. Like the L1 English speakers, ERPs time-locked to the verb showed a reliable P600 in response to agreement violations. However, the P600 in Mandarin speakers was larger for ungrammatical verbs with unquantified subjects, a contrast with English monolinguals. First, these results demonstrate that L2 agreement violations can elicit qualitatively similar neural responses in L1 Mandarin speakers as in English monolinguals (P600 effects), a finding that is to our knowledge novel. Second, quantification modulated the P600 in the L2 speakers in a qualitatively different way than in natives. Overall, these findings suggest stronger reliance on lexical versus morphological cues to number in Mandarin speakers, and that this impacts anticipation of subsequent grammatical features.

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 40 , Issue 4 , December 2018 , pp. 731 - 754
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

The experiment in this article earned an Open Materials badge for transparent practices. The materials are available at http://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/KJPT5.

This work was funded by NSF BCS-1431324 to DT. DT also received support from NSF BCS-1349110. We would like to thank Agnes Gao for assistance with data collection, Silvina Montrul for helpful comments, and two anonymous SSLA reviewers. Any remaining errors are our own.

References

REFERENCES

Alemán Bañón, J., Fiorentino, R., & Gabriele, A. (2014). Morphosyntactic processing in advanced second language (L2) learners: An event-related potential investigation of the effects of L1–L2 similarity and structural distance. Second Language Research, 30, 275–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Altmann, G. T. M., & Kamide, Y. (1999). Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition, 73, 247–264.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2014). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 1–48.Google Scholar
Brouwer, H., Fitz, H., & Hoeks, J. (2012). Getting real about semantic illusions: Rethinking the functional role of the P600 in language comprehension. Brain Research, 1446, 127–143.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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, 161–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chow, W. Y., & Phillips, C. (2013). No semantic illusions in the Semantic P600 phenomenon: ERP evidence from Mandarin Chinese. Brain Research, 1506, 76–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Corbett, G. (2006). Agreement. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Coughlin, C. E., & Tremblay, A. (2013). Proficiency and working memory based explanations for nonnative speakers’ sensitivity to agreement in sentence processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 34, 615–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coulson, S., King, J. W., & Kutas, M. (1998). Expect the unexpected: Event-related brain response to morphosyntactic violations. Language and Cognitive Processes, 13, 21–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeLong, K. A., Quante, L., & Kutas, M. (2014). Predictability, plausibility, and two late ERP positivities during written sentence comprehension. Neuropsychologia, 61, 150–162.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DeLong, K. A., Troyer, M., & Kutas, M. (2014). Pre-processing in sentence comprehension: Sensitivity to likely upcoming meaning and structure. Linguistics and Language Compass, 8, 631–645.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DeLong, K. A., Urbach, T. P., & Kutas, M. (2005). Probabilistic word pre-activation during language comprehension inferred from electrical brain activity. Nature Neuroscience, 8, 1117–1121.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Delorme, A., & Makeig, S. (2004). EEGLAB: An open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics including independent component analysis. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 134, 9–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dillon, B., Mishler, A., Sloggett, S., & Phillips, C. (2013). Contrasting intrusion profiles for agreement and anaphora: Experimental and modeling evidence. Journal of Memory and Language, 69, 85–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, D. M. (2007). Test, PPVT-4: Peabody picture vocabulary (4th ed.). Minneapolis, MN: Pearson Assessments.Google Scholar
Dussias, P. E., Kroff, J. R. V., Tamargo, R. E. G., & Gerfen, C. (2013). When gender and looking go hand in hand: Grammatical gender processing in L2 Spanish. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 353–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & Sagarra, N. (2010). Learned attention effects in L2 temporal reference: The first hour and the next eight semesters. Language Learning, 60 (Suppl. 2), 85–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & Sagarra, N. (2011). Learned attention in adult language acquisition: A replication and generalization study and meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33, 589–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Federmeier, K. D., & Kutas, M. (1999). A rose by any other name: Long-term memory structure and sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 469–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Federmeier, K. D., Wlotko, E. W., De Ochoa-Dewald, E., & Kutas, M. (2007). Multiple effects of sentential constraint on word processing. Brain Research, 1146, 75–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Foster, J. L., Shipstead, Z., Harrison, T. L., Hicks, K. L., Redick, T. S., & Engle, R. W. (2015). Shortened complex span tasks can reliably measure working memory capacity. Memory & Cognition, 43, 226–236.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Foucart, A., & Frenck-Mestre, C. (2012). Can late L2 learners acquire new grammatical features? Evidence from ERPs and eye-tracking. Journal of Memory and Language, 66, 226–248.CrossRefGoogle 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, 1461–1469.Google ScholarPubMed
Friederici, A. D., Steinhauer, K., & Pfeifer, E. (2002). Brain signatures of artificial language processing: Evidence challenging the critical period hypothesis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 99, 529–534.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibson, E., & Pearlmutter, N. J. (1998). Constraints on sentence comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2, 262–268.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gillon Dowens, M., Vergara, M., Barber, H., & Carreiras, M. (2010). Morphosyntactic processing in late second-language learners. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22, 1870–1887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillon Dowens, M., 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, 1651–1659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodglass, H., Kaplan, E., & Weintraub, S. (1983). Boston naming test. Philadelphia, PA: Lea & Febiger.Google Scholar
Grey, S., Tanner, D., & Hell, Van, , J. G. (2017). How right is left? Handedness modulates neural responses during morphosyntactic processing. Brain Research, 1669, 27–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grüter, T., Lew-Williams, C., & Fernald, A. (2012). Grammatical gender in L2: A production or a real-time processing problem? Second Language Research, 28, 191–215.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grüter, T., Rohde, H., & Schafer, A. (2017). Coreference and discourse coherence in L2: The roles of grammatical aspect and referential form. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 7, 199–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guo, J., Guo, T., Yan, Y., Jiang, N., & Peng, D. (2009). ERP evidence for different strategies employed by native speakers and L2 learners in sentence processing. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 22, 123–134.CrossRefGoogle 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, 439–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hernandez, A. E., Bates, E., & Avila, L. X. (1994). Online sentence interpretation in Spanish–English bilinguals—What does it mean to be in between. Applied Psycholinguistics, 15, 417–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopp, H. (2013). Grammatical gender in adult L2 acquisition: Relations between lexical and syntactic variability. Second Language Research, 29, 33–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huettig, F., & Mani, N. (2016). Is prediction necessary to understand language? Probably not. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31, 19–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ito, A., Corley, M., Pickering, M. J., Martin, A. E., & Nieuwland, M. S. (2016). Predicting form and meaning: Evidence from brain potentials. Journal of Memory and Language, 86, 157–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ito, A., Martin, A. E., & Nieuwland, M. S. (2017a). How robust are prediction effects in language comprehension? Failure to replicate article-elicited N400 effects. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 32, 954–965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ito, A., Martin, A. E., & Nieuwland, M. S. (2017b). On predicting form and meaning in a second language. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 43, 635–652.Google Scholar
Jasper, H. H. (1958). Report of the committee on methods of clinical examination in electroencephalography. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology Supplement, 10, 370–375.Google Scholar
Jia, G. (2003). The acquisition of the English plural morpheme by native Mandarin Chinese-speaking children. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 46, 1297–1311.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jiang, N. (2004). Morphological insensitivity in second language processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25, 603–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jiang, N. (2007). Selective integration of linguistic knowledge in adult second language learning. Language Learning, 57, 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, A., & Osterhout, L. (2005). The independence of combinatory semantic processing: Evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 205–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolk, H. H. J., & Chwilla, D. J. (2007). Late positivities in unusual situations. Brain and Language, 100, 257–261.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kolk, H. H. J., Chwilla, D. J., van Herten, M., & Oor, P. J. W. (2003). Structure and limited capacity in verbal working memory: A study with event-related potentials. Brain and Language, 85, 1–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kreiner, H., Garrod, S., & Sturt, P. (2013). Number agreement in sentence comprehension: The relationship between grammatical and conceptual factors. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28, 829–874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuperberg, G. R., & Jaeger, T. F. (2016). What do we mean by prediction in language comprehension? Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31, 32–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuperberg, G. R., Kreher, D. A., Sitnikova, T., Caplan, D., & 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, 223–237.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lardiere, D. (1998a). Case and tense in the “fossilized” steady state. Second Language Research, 14, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lardiere, D. (1998b). Dissociating syntax from morphology in a divergent L2 end-state grammar. Second Language Research, 14, 359–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lardiere, D. (2007). Ultimate attainment in second language acquisition: A case study. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Lardiere, D. (2008). Feature-assembly in second language acquisition. In Liceras, J., Zobl, H., & Goodluck, H. (Eds.), The role of formal features in second language acquisition (pp. 106–140). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Lardiere, D. (2009). Some thoughts on the contrastive analysis of features in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 25, 173–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lardiere, D. (2012). Linguistic approaches to second language morphosyntax. In Gass, S. M. & Mackey, A. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 106–126). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lew-Williams, C., & Fernald, A. (2010). Real-time processing of gender-marked articles by native and non-native Spanish speakers. Journal of Memory and Language, 63, 447–464.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Li, C. N., & Thompson, S. A. (1981). Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Li, Y. A. (1999). Plurality in a classifier language. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 8, 75–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linck, J. A., Osthus, P., Koeth, J. T., & Bunting, M. F. (2014). Working memory and second language comprehension and production: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21, 861–883.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liu, H., Bates, E., & Li, P. (1992). Sentence interpretation in bilingual speakers of English and Chinese. Applied Psycholinguistics, 12, 451–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lopez-Calderon, J., & Luck, S. J. (2014). ERPLAB: An open-source toolbox for the analysis of event-related potentials. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 213.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Luke, S. G., & Christianson, K. (2016). Limits on lexical prediction during reading. Cognitive Psychology, 88, 22–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lukyanenko, C., & Fisher, C. (2016). Where are the cookies? Three-year-olds use number-marked verbs to anticipate upcoming nouns. Cognition, 146, 349–370.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacWhinney, B., Bates, E., & Kliegl, R. (1984). Cue validity and sentence interpretation in English, German, and Italian. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 127–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, C. D., Thierry, G., Kuipers, J. R., Boutonnet, B., Foucart, A., & Costa, A. (2013). Bilinguals reading in their second language do not predict upcoming words as native readers do. Journal of Memory and Language, 69, 574–588.CrossRefGoogle 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, 381–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLaughlin, J., Osterhout, L., & Kim, A. (2004). Neural correlates of second-language word learning: Minimal instruction produces rapid change. Nature Neuroscience, 7, 703–704.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McLaughlin, J., Tanner, D., Pitkänen, I., Frenck-Mestre, C., Inoue, K., Valentine, G., & Osterhout, L. (2010). Brain potentials reveal discrete stages of L2 grammatical learning. Language Learning, 60 (Suppl. 2), 123–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Metzner, P., von der Malsburg, T., Vasishth, S., & Rösler, F. (2017). The importance of reading naturally: Evidence from combined recordings of eye movements and electric brain potentials. Cognitive Science, 41, 1232–1263.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miyake, A., & Friedman, N. F. P. (1998). Individual differences in second language proficiency: Working memory as language aptitude. In Healy, A. F. & Bourne, L. E. (Eds.), Foreign language learning: Psycholinguistic studies on training and retention (pp. 339–364). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Molinaro, N., Barber, H., & Carreiras, M. (2011). Grammatical agreement processing in reading: ERP findings and future directions. Cortex, 47, 908–930.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Molinaro, N., Barber, H. A., Caffarra, S., & Carreiras, M. (2015). On the left anterior negativity (LAN): The case of morphosyntactic agreement: A reply to Tanner et al. Cortex, 66, 156–159.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Molinaro, N., Vespignani, F., Zamparelli, R., & Job, R. (2011). Why brother and sister are not just siblings: Repair processes in agreement computation. Journal of Memory and Language, 64, 211–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan-Short, K. (2014). Electrophysiological approaches to understanding second language acquisition: A field reaching its potential. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 34, 15–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan-Short, K., Sanz, C., Steinhauer, K., & Ullman, M. T. (2010). Second language acquisition of gender agreement in explicit and implicit training conditions: An event-related potentials study. Language Learning, 60, 154–193.CrossRefGoogle 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, 933–947.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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 ScholarPubMed
Oldfield, R. C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9, 97–113.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Osterhout, L., & Mobley, L. (1995). Event-related brain potentials elicited by failure to agree. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 739–773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osterhout, L., Mckinnon, R., Bersick, M., & Corey, V. (1996). On the language-specificity of the brain response to syntactic anomalies: Is the syntactic positive shift a member of the P300 family? Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 8, 507–526.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Osterhout, L., McLaughlin, J., Kim, A., Greewald, R., & Inoue, K. (2004). Sentences in the brain: Event-related potentials as real-time reflections of sentence comprehension and language learning. In Carreiras, M. & Clifton, C. (Eds.), The on-line study of sentence comprehension: Eyetracking-ERPs, and beyond (pp. 271–308). New York, NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Osterhout, L., McLaughlin, J., Pitkänen, 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 (Suppl. 1), 199–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paczynski, M., & Kuperberg, G. R. (2012). Multiple influences of semantic memory on sentence processing: Distinct effects of semantic relatedness on violations of real-world event/state knowledge and animacy selection restrictions. Journal of Memory and Language, 67, 426–448.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pakulak, E., & Neville, H. J. (2010). Proficiency differences in syntactic processing of monolingual native speakers indexed by event-related potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22, 2728–2744.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pearlmutter, N. J., Garnsey, S. M., & Bock, K. (1999). Agreement processes in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 427–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pliatsikas, C., & Marinis, T. (2012). Processing empty categories in a second language: When naturalistic exposure fills the (intermediate) gap. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16, 167–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reichle, R. V., Tremblay, A., & Coughlin, C. (2016). Working memory capacity in L2 processing. Probus, 28, 29–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabourin, L. (2009). Neuroimaging and research into second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 25, 5–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabourin, L., & Haverkort, M. (2003). Neural substrates of representation and processing of a second language. In van Hout, R., Hulk, A., Kuiken, F., & Towell, R. (Eds.), The lexicon-syntax interface in second language acquisition (pp. 175–195). Amsterdam, The Netherlands, and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabourin, L., & Stowe, L. A. (2008). Second language processing: When are first and second languages processed similarly? Second Language Research, 24, 397–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sagarra, N., & Ellis, N. C. (2013). From seeing adverbs to seeing verbal morphology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 261–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shelton, J. T., Elliott, E. M., Hill, B. D., Calamia, M. R., & Gouvier, W. D. (2009). A comparison of laboratory and clinical working memory tests and their prediction of fluid intelligence. Intelligence, 37, 283–293.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Slabakova, R. (2010). Scalar implicatures in second language acquisition. Lingua, 120, 2444–2462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Staub, A. (2015). The effect of lexical predictability on eye movements in reading: Critical review and theoretical interpretation. Language and Linguistics Compass, 9, 311–327.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, 393–417.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, 13–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanner, D. (2015). On the left anterior negativity (LAN) in electrophysiological studies of morphosyntactic agreement: A commentary on “Grammatical agreement processing in reading: ERP findings and future directions” by Molinaro et al., 2014. Cortex, 66, 149–155.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tanner, D., & Bulkes, N. Z. (2015). Cues, quantification, and agreement in language comprehension. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22, 1753–1763.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tanner, D., & Hell, Van, , J. G. (2014). ERPs reveal individual differences in morphosyntactic processing. Neuropsychologia, 56, 289–301.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tanner, D., Grey, S., & van Hell, J. G. (2017). Dissociating retrieval interference and reanalysis in the P600 during sentence comprehension. Psychophysiology, 54, 248–259.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tanner, D., Inoue, K., & Osterhout, L. (2014). Brain-based individual differences in online L2 grammatical comprehension. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17, 277–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanner, D., Morgan-Short, K., & Luck, S. J. (2015). How inappropriate high-pass filters can produce artifactual effects and incorrect conclusions in ERP studies of language and cognition. Psychophysiology, 52, 997–1009.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tanner, D., Nicol, J., & Brehm, L. (2014). The time-course of feature interference in agreement comprehension: Multiple mechanisms and asymmetrical attraction. Journal of Memory and Language, 76, 195–215.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tanner, D., McLaughlin, J., Herschensohn, J., & Osterhout, L. (2013). Individual differences reveal stages of L2 grammatical acquisition: ERP evidence. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16, 367–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tokowicz, N., & MacWhinney, B. (2005). Implicit and explicit measures of sensitivity to violations in second language grammar: An event-related potential investigation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 173–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traxler, M. J. (2014). Trends in syntactic parsing: Anticipation, Bayesian estimation, and good-enough parsing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18, 605–611.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Bergen, G., & Flecken, M. (2017). Putting things in new places: Linguistic experience modulates the predictive power of placement verb semantics. Journal of Memory and Language, 92, 26–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Berkum, J. J. A., Brown, C. M., Zwitserlood, P., Kooijman, V., & Hagoort, P. (2005). Anticipating upcoming words in discourse: Evidence from ERPs and reading times. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 443–467.Google ScholarPubMed
van de Meerendonk, N., Indefrey, P., Chwilla, D. J., & Kolk, H. H. J. (2011). Monitoring in language perception: Electrophysiological and hemodynamic responses to spelling violations. NeuroImage, 54, 2350–2363.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van de Meerendonk, N., Kolk, H. H. J., Vissers, C. T. W. M., & Chwilla, D. J. (2010). Monitoring in language perception: Mild and strong conflicts elicit different ERP patterns. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22, 67–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van, Dyke J. A., & Johns, C. L. (2012). Memory interference as a determinant of language comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass, 6, 193–211.Google Scholar
Van, Hell J. G., & Tanner, D. (2012). Second language proficiency and cross-language lexical activation. Language Learning, 62 (Suppl. 2), 148–171.Google Scholar
van Herten, M., Chwilla, D. J., & Kolk, H. H. J. (2006). When heuristics clash with parsing routines: ERP evidence for conflict monitoring in sentence perception. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 1181–1197.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
VanPatten, B. (2004). Input processing in second language acquisition. In VanPatten, B., , B. (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 5–31). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B. (2015). Input processing in adult SLA. In VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (2nd ed., pp. 113–135). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B., & Cadierno, T. (1993). Explicit instruction and input processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 225–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagers, M. W., Lau, E. F., & Phillips, C. (2009). Agreement attraction in comprehension: Representations and processes. Journal of Memory and Language, 61, 206–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber-Fox, C. 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, 231–256.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weissman, B., & Tanner, D. (2017a). A strong wink between verbal and emoji-based irony: How the brain processes ironic emojis during language comprehension. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
Weissman, B., & Tanner, D. (2017b). Brain potentials elicited by ironic emojis in sentence context. Poster presented at the 2017 CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
White, E. J., Genesee, F., & Steinhauer, K. (2012). Brain responses before and after intensive second language learning: Proficiency based changes and first language background effects in adult learners. PLoS ONE, 7, e52318.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wicha, N. Y. Y., Moreno, E. M., & Kutas, M. (2004). Anticipating words and their gender: An event-related brain potential study of semantic integration, gender expectancy, and gender agreement in Spanish sentence reading. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16, 1272–1288.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhang, J., & Mueller, S. (2005). A note on ROC analysis and non-parametric estimate of sensitivity. Psychometrika, 70, 145–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar