Poster B49, Tuesday, August 20, 2019, 3:15 – 5:00 pm, Restaurant Hall
The grammaticalization of different relations during adult second language (L2) acquisition
Nicoletta Biondo1,2,3, Simona Mancini1;1Basque Center on Cognition, Brain and Language (BCBL), 2Marica De Vincenzi Foundation, 3University of Trento
L2 grammaticalization represents the process of instantiating the L2 rules into the language system of the speaker. A rule error (compared to its correct counterpart) can elicit different event-related potentials (ERPs) at different stages of grammaticalization (Steinhauer et al.,2009; McLaughlin et al.,2010): a subject-verb violation may elicit a (delayed) N400 (rather than LAN-P600) at low L2 proficiency, and a smaller/delayed P600 at intermediate/high L2 proficiency. If this grammaticalization pattern is expected for different linguistic rules is unknown. Interestingly, studies show that different relations such as subject-verb and adverb-verb agreement are differently processed in native language processing (Biondo,2017; Biondo et al.,2018), are differently impaired in agrammatic aphasia (Wenzlaff & Clahsen,2004; Clahsen & Ali,2009), and are differently acquired in child language acquisition (Belletti & Guasti,2015; Weist,2014). In this cross-sectional ERP study, we extend the investigation of subject-verb (number) and adverb-verb (tense) agreement to adult L2 acquisition. Although both relations entail the concord between the verb morphology and another constituent, the constituents and features involved differ in many aspects. The adverb is optional while the subject is a primary/core constituent. Tense needs a reference to the discourse (i.e. the speech time) to be interpreted while Number does not. Based on these differences, we expect the adverb-verb relation to be grammaticalized later compared to the subject-verb relation. We asked Spanish native speakers (L1), low (L2L) and intermediate/high (L2H) proficient English speakers of Spanish to judge sentences as in (1-3), presented word by word while (32-channel) EEG was recorded. Here only the past singular conditions are displayed but future/plural were counterbalanced across conditions, i.e. 40 past (20sg/20pl) and 40 future (20sg/20pl) items were created for each condition. The relative position of the subject and the adverb with respect to the verb was also counterbalanced, as well as the number of correct and incorrect items (80 correct filler items were added). Each participant read 160 correct and 160 incorrect sentences. (1) Control “Ese novelista ayer temprano presentó su nuevo libro” (This novelist yesterday early presented his new book), (2) Number m. “*Esos novelistas ayer temprano presentó su nuevo libro” (These novelists yesterday early presented his new book) (3) Tense m. “*Ese novelista mañana temprano presentó su nuevo libro” (This novelist tomorrow early presented his new book). The visual inspection of the ERPs (time-locked to the verb onset) from the sample tested so far (L1, N=14; L2L, N=8; L2H, N=8) seem to support our hypothesis. As in previous studies, L2L show a delayed N400 response for both violations. Crucially, L2H seem to show a delayed N400-like for tense violations and a small P600 for number violations. L1 show a P600 with smaller amplitude for tense compared to number violations. These data, albeit preliminary, suggest that the two violations are not treated the same way by the parser, both in native processing (P600 modulation) and in L2 processing (N400-like response at high proficiency). The data will be discussed with reference to the current models of L2 acquisition, and to more general accounts of adult sentence processing.
Themes: Multilingualism, Syntax
Method: Electrophysiology (MEG/EEG/ECOG)