Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
×
Home

IMPLICIT AND EXPLICIT MEASURES OF SENSITIVITY TO VIOLATIONS IN SECOND LANGUAGE GRAMMAR: An Event-Related Potential Investigation

  • Natasha Tokowicz (a1) and Brian MacWhinney (a2)

Abstract

We used event-related brain potentials (ERPs) to investigate the contributions of explicit and implicit processes during second language (L2) sentence comprehension. We used a L2 grammaticality judgment task (GJT) to test 20 native English speakers enrolled in the first four semesters of Spanish while recording both accuracy and ERP data. Because end-of-sentence grammaticality judgments are open to conscious inspection, we reasoned that they can be influenced by strategic processes that reflect on formal rules and therefore reflect primarily offline explicit processing. On the other hand, because ERPs are a direct reflection of online processing, they reflect automatic, nonreflective, implicit responses to stimuli (Osterhout, Bersick, & McLaughlin, 1997; Rugg et al., 1998; Tachibana et al., 1999).

We used a version of the GJT adapted for the ERP environment. The experimental sentences varied the form of three different syntactic constructions: (a) tense-marking, which is formed similarly in the first language (L1) and the L2; (b) determiner number agreement, which is formed differently in the L1 and the L2; and (c) determiner gender agreement, which is unique to the L2. We examined ERP responses during a time period between 500 and 900 ms following the onset of the critical (violation or matched control) word in the sentence because extensive past research has shown that grammatical violations elicit a positive-going deflection in the ERP waveform during this period (e.g., the “P600”; Osterhout & Holcomb, 1992).

We found that learners were sensitive (i.e., showed different brain responses to grammatical and ungrammatical sentences) to violations in L2 for constructions that are formed similarly in the L1 and the L2, but were not sensitive to violations for constructions that differ in the L1 and the L2. Critically, a robust grammaticality effect was found in the ERP data for the construction that was unique to the L2, suggesting that the learners were implicitly sensitive to these violations. Judgment accuracy was near chance for all constructions. These findings suggest that learners are able to implicitly process some aspects of L2 syntax even in early stages of learning but that this knowledge depends on the similarity between the L1 and the L2. Furthermore, there is a divergence between explicit and implicit measures of L2 learning, which might be due to the behavioral task demands (e.g., McLaughlin, Osterhout, & Kim, 2004). We conclude that comparing ERP and behavioral data could provide a sensitive method for measuring implicit processing.This research was supported by a National Institutes of Health Individual National Research Service Award (NIH HD42948-01) awarded to Natasha Tokowicz and a National Institutes of Health Institutional National Research Service Award (T32 MH19102) awarded to Brian MacWhinney. We thank Beatrice DeAngelis, Dayne Grove, Kwan Hansongkitpong, Katie Keil, Lee Osterhout, Chuck Perfetti, Kelley Sacco, Alex Waid, and Eddie Wlotko for their assistance with this project. We gratefully acknowledge the comments of Rod Ellis, Jan Hulstijn, Albert Valdman, and the two anonymous SSLA reviewers on earlier versions of this manuscript. A portion of these results was presented at the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society (2002, November).

Copyright

Corresponding author

Address correspondence to Natasha Tokowicz, Department of Psychology and Learning Research and Development Center, 3939 O'Hara St., University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15260; e-mail: tokowicz@pitt.edu
Or address correspondence to Brian MacWhinney, Department of Psychology, Carnegie Mellon University, 5000 Forbes Ave., Pittsburgh, PA 15213; e-mail: macw@mac.com

References

Hide All

REFERENCES

DeKeyser, R. M. (2000). The robustness of critical period effects in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 499533.
Electrical Geodesics, Inc. (2003). NetStation [computer software]. Eugene, OR: Electrical Geodesics, Inc.
Ellis, N. C. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 143188.
Fabiani, M., Gratton, G., & Coles, M. G. H. (2000). Event-related brain potentials: Methods, theory, and applications. In J. T. Cacioppo, L. G. Tassinary, & G. G. Berntson (Eds.), Handbook of psychophysiology (pp. 5384). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ferree, T. C., Luu, P., Russell, G. S., & Tucker, D. M. (2001). Scalp electrode impedance, infection risk, and EEG data quality. Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology, 112, 536544.
Frenck-Mestre, C. (in press). Ambiguities and anomalies: What can eye-movements and event-related potentials reveal about second language sentence processing? In J. F. Kroll & A. M. B. de Groot (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hoffman, J. E., Simons, R. F., & Houck, M. R. (1983). Event-related potentials during controlled and automatic target detection. Psychophysiology, 20, 625632.
Hulstijn, J. H. (2002). Towards a unified account of the representation, processing, and acquisition of second language knowledge. Second Language Research, 18, 193223.
Jasper, H. H. (1958). The ten-twenty electrode system of the International Federation. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 48, 113126.
Kaan, E., & Swaab, T. Y. (2003). Repair, revision, and complexity in syntactic analysis: An electrophysiological differentiation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15, 98110.
Koelsch, S., Gunter, T., Schröger, E., & Friederici, A. D. (2003). Processing tonal modulations: An ERP study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15, 11491159.
Krashen, S. (1994). The input hypothesis and its rivals. In N. C. Ellis (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Kroll, J. F., & Tokowicz, N. (in press). Models of bilingual representation and processing: Looking back and to the future. In J. F. Kroll & A. M. B. de Groot (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lehmann, D., & Skrandies, W. (1980). Reference-free identification of components of checkerboard-evoked multi-channels potential fields. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 48, 609621.
Luce, D. (1959). Individual choice behavior. New York: Wiley.
MacWhinney, B. (1987). The competition model. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition (pp. 249308). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
MacWhinney, B. (in press). A unified model of language acquisition. In J. F. Kroll & A. M. B. de Groot (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McDonald, J. L. (1987). Sentence interpretation in bilingual speakers of English and Dutch. Applied Psycholinguistics, 8, 379414.
McLaughlin, J., Osterhout, L., & Kim, A. (2004). Neural correlates of second-language word learning: Minimal instruction produces rapid change. Nature Neuroscience, 7, 703704.
Morris, J. P., Squires, N. K., Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2003). Activation of political attitudes: A psychophysiological examination of the hot cognition hypothesis. Political Psychology, 24, 727745.
Osterhout, L., Bersick, M., & McLaughlin, J. (1997). Brain potentials reflect violations of gender stereotypes. Memory & Cognition, 25, 273285.
Osterhout, L., & Holcomb, P. J. (1992). Event-related potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 785806.
Osterhout, L., McLaughlin, J., Inoue, K., & Loveless, J. (2000, November). Brain responses in L2 learning. Paper presented at the meeting Bilingualism: From basic research to educational practice, Rovereto, Italy.
Osterhout, L., & Mobley, L. A. (1995). Event-related brain potentials elicited by failure to agree. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 739773.
Osterhout, L., & Nicol, J. (1999). On the distinctiveness, independence, and time course of the brain response to syntactic and semantic anomalies. Language and Cognitive Processes, 14, 283317.
Psychological Software Tools, Inc. (2000). E-Prime [Computer software]. Pittsburgh, PA: Psychological Software Tools, Inc.
Rugg, M. D., Mark, R. E., Walla, P., Schloerscheidt, A. M., Birch, C. S., & Allan, K. (1998). Dissociations of the neural correlates of implicit and explicit memory. Nature, 392, 595598.
Tachibana, H., Miyata, Y., Takeda, M., Minamoto, H., Sugita, M., & Okita, T. (1999). Memory in patients with subcortical infarction: An auditory event-related potential study. Cognitive Brain Research, 8, 8794.
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, 231256.
Zhang, S. Q. (1995). Semantic differentiation in the acquisition of English as a second language. Language Learning, 45, 225249.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Studies in Second Language Acquisition
  • ISSN: 0272-2631
  • EISSN: 1470-1545
  • URL: /core/journals/studies-in-second-language-acquisition
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed