Word Order Processing in a Second Language: From VO to OV

Abstract

Event-related potential studies on second language processing reveal that L1/L2 differences are due either to proficiency, age of acquisition or grammatical differences between L1 and L2 (Kotz in Brain Lang 109(2-3):68-74, 2009). However, the relative impact of these and other factors in second language processing is still not well understood. Here we present evidence from behavioral and ERP experiments on Basque sentence word order processing by L1Spanish-L2Basque early bilinguals (Age of Aquisition [Formula: see text] 3 years) with very high proficiency in their L2. Results reveal that these L2 speakers have a preference towards canonical Subject-Object-Verb word order, which they processed faster and with greater ease than non-canonical Object-Subject-Verb. This result converges with the processing preferences shown by natives and reported in Erdocia et al. (Brain Lang 109(1):1-17, 2009). However, electrophysiological measures associated to canonical (SOV) and non-canonical (OSV) sentences revealed a different pattern in the non-natives, as compared to that reported previously for natives. The non-native group elicited a P600 component that native group did not show when comparing S and O at sentence's second position. This pattern of results suggests that, despite high proficiency, non-native language processing recruits neural resources that are different from those employed in native languages.

Electrophysiological Correlates of Second-Language Syntactic Processes Are Related to Native and Second Language Distance Regardless of Age of Acquisition

“…For the unique head parameter (subject-object-verb (SOV) and SVO word order) condition, both groups displayed similar P600 effects, but natives showed a left parietal negativity between 300 and 500 ms, while non-natives showed a frontally distributed negativity in the same time window followed by a broad negativity between 500 and 600 ms. For the unique ergative condition, all participants showed a broadly distributed negativity, but only the natives displayed a P600. Erdocia et al ( 2014 ) also reported non-native processing of syntactic traits unique to L2 with the same type of population studied by Zawiszewski et al ( 2011 ), i.e., highly proficient, early Spanish (L1)—Basque (L2) bilinguals. With a written sentence comprehension task, they studied the processing of sentences following the canonical word order of the L2 (SOV) or a non-canonical order (OSV), both of which differed from the canonical L1 word order (SVO).…”

“…Conversely, other studies have shown non-native ERP patterns during L2 processing despite high proficiency (Ojima et al, 2005 ; Chen et al, 2007 ; Dowens et al, 2011 ; Pakulak and Neville, 2011 ; Zawiszewski et al, 2011 ; Erdocia et al, 2014 ). For instance, Pakulak and Neville ( 2011 ) compared the ERP responses to English phrase structure violations of English listeners and late German learners of English (AoA > 10 years old) during an auditory grammatical judgment task.…”

“…The comparison of the O and S elements in the second position of the sentence elicited a P600 in early bilinguals but a left temporal–posterior negativity between 400 and 550 ms in natives. Thus, Zawiszewski et al ( 2011 ) and Erdocia et al ( 2014 ) showed that, despite early acquisition and high proficiency, the processing of divergent L1–L2 traits involved non-native processing mechanisms.…”

Tracking Syntactic Conflict between Languages over the Course of L2 Acquisition: A Cross-sectional Event-related Potential Study

“…The few studies that examined how L2 learners deal with such conflicts have shown that word order differences in L1 and L2 remain difficult even at high proficiency levels and when the L2 was learned early on in life (Erdocia & Laka, 2018;Erdocia, Zawiszewski, & Laka, 2014). In both of these studies, learners' online processing signatures showed clear evidence of L1 Spanish influence on parsing L2 Basque sentences.…”

Türkçe İsmi̇n Halleri̇ni̇n Türkçe’yi̇ İki̇nci̇ Di̇l Olarak Öğrenen Yeti̇şki̇nler Tarafindan Kullanimi

“…They, on the other hand, did not commit a systematic error in constructing sentences in Turkish (SOV language) even though their L1 follows a quite different word order (VSO). Erdocia et al (2014) underline that typological differences (e.g. VO/OV) can be a relevant influence behind L1/L2 differential features that are distinctly processed by L2 speakers due to processing strategies from native language to non-native or difficulty to acquire some divergent grammatical structures.…”