Second Language Acquisition of Gender Agreement in Explicit and Implicit Training Conditions: An Event‐Related Potential Study

Abstract

This study employed an artificial language learning paradigm together with a combined behavioral/event-related potential (ERP) approach to examine the neurocognition of the processing of gender agreement, an aspect of inflectional morphology that is problematic in adult second language (L2) learning. Subjects learned to speak and comprehend an artificial language under either explicit (classroomlike) or implicit (immersionlike) training conditions. In each group, both noun-article and noun-adjective gender agreement processing were examined behaviorally and with ERPs at both low and higher levels of proficiency. Results showed that the two groups learned the language to similar levels of proficiency but showed somewhat different ERP patterns. At low proficiency, both types of agreement violations (adjective, article) yielded N400s, but only for the group with implicit training. Additionally, noun-adjective agreement elicited a late N400 in the explicit group at low proficiency. At higher levels of proficiency, nounadjective agreement violations elicited N400s for both the explicit and implicit groups, whereas noun-article agreement violations elicited P600s for both groups. The results suggest that interactions among linguistic structure, proficiency level, and type of training need to be considered when examining the development of aspects of inflectional morphology in L2 acquisition. Keywordssecond language acquisition; event-related potentials; language processing; explicit; implicit; agreement Aspects of inflectional morphology, including grammatical gender agreement in noun phrases (NPs), seem to be particularly difficult for late second language (L2) learners to acquire (Montrul, 2004; Montrul, Foote, Perpiñán, Thornhill, & Vidal, 2008;White, 2003).Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Kara Morgan-Short, Departments of Spanish, French, Italian and Portuguese and Psychology, 1706 UH MC 315, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL 60607. Internet: karams@uic.edu; Michael T. Ullman, Department of Neuroscience, Georgetown University, Washington, DC 20057. Internet: michael@georgetown.edu. NIH Public Access Author ManuscriptLang Learn. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 February 24.Published in final edited form as:Lang Learn. 2010 March ; 60(1): 154-193. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00554.x. NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptEven for learners at advanced levels of proficiency, errors in gender agreement appear to persist (Dewaele & Veronique, 2001;Franceschina, 2005). Although this issue has been addressed from multiple perspectives (Arteaga, Herschensohn, & Gess, 2003;Bartning, 2000;Benati, 2005;De Jong, 2005;Dewaele & Veronique, 2001;Franceschina, 2005;Gass & Alvarez Torres, 2005;Hawkins & Chan, 1997;Keating, 2009;Montrul, 2004;Montrul et al., 2008;White, Valenzuela, Kozlowska-Macgregor, & Leung, 2004), neurocognitive research has only begun to consider the development, representation, and processing of L2 grammatical gender ...

A behavioral study to investigate the processing routes of grammatical gender in Brazilian Portuguese

“…These findings suggest that speakers of English activate a computational mechanism to process regular forms (by concatenating a base to a suffix: walk + ed in language production or decomposing the items into their morphological constituents in language comprehension), but rely on memory to process irregular forms. Research on languages other than English has shown a similar pattern (BOWDEN, 2007;MORGAN-SHORT et al, 2010;EISENBEISS;SONNENSTUHL, 1997). Other findings, however, contradict such claims.…”

The Role of Procedural Memory in Adult Second Language Acquisition

“…In contrast to many artificial grammar learning paradigms, the artificial language Brocanto2, modeled after the artificial language Brocanto (Friederici, Steinhauer, & Pfeifer, 2002), is based on universal requirements of a natural language and is fully productive and meaningful. Previous research with these artificial languages has shown that learners evidence processing patterns that are similar to those found in natural language processing (Friederici et al, 2002;Morgan-Short, Finger, et al, 2012;Morgan-Short et al, 2010;Morgan-Short, Steinhauer, et al, 2012), suggesting the use of Brocanto2 in the current study has ecological validity in regard to L2 acquisition. At the same time, the use of the artificial language allows learners to reach high proficiency in a shortened amount of time and allows for control over confounding variables as compared to natural languages.…”

“…The artificial language learned by participants was Brocanto2 (Morgan-Short, Faretta-Stutenberg, et al, 2014;Morgan-Short, Finger, et al, 2012;Morgan-Short et al, 2010). In contrast to many artificial grammar learning paradigms, the artificial language Brocanto2, modeled after the artificial language Brocanto (Friederici, Steinhauer, & Pfeifer, 2002), is based on universal requirements of a natural language and is fully productive and meaningful.…”

“…Many learners acquire their L2 in classroom contexts where there is frequent, explicit instruction of grammatical rules. Evidence suggests that different learning contexts may have an effect on both L2 learning outcomes (Norris & Ortega, 2000) and on the neurocognitive bases for such outcomes (MorganShort, Finger, Grey, & Ullman, 2012;Morgan-Short, Sanz, Steinhauer, & Ullman, 2010;Morgan-Short, Steinhauer, Sanz, & Ullman, 2012). Thus it is important to consider, the role that procedural memory may play in different types of L2 contexts or training conditions.…”

Tracking the early stages of child and adult comprehension of L2 morphosyntax: A pilot study

“…The literature on L2 learning of morphosyntax has consistently shown that adults can acquire nonnative word orders (including form-meaning mappings) through relative brief exposure to an AL, although mixed results have been found for inflectional morphology (Boyd, Gottschalk & Goldberg, 2009;DeGraaf, 1997;DeKeyser, 1995;Friederici, Steinhauer & Pfeifer, 2002;Grey, Williams & Rebuschat, 2014;Morgan-Short, 2007;Morgan-Short, Sanz, Steinhauer & Ullman, 2010;Rebuschat & Williams, 2012;Rogers, Révész & Rebuschat, 2015;Williams & Kuribara, 2008). Williams and Kuribara (2008) used Japlish, a semi-artificial language with English lexis and Japanese morphosyntax (word order and case) in a single-session design.…”