the influence of l1 syntax on l2 processing alice foucart esrc centre for research on bilingualism,...

The influence of L1 syntax on L2 processing

Alice FoucartESRC Centre for Research on Bilingualism, Bangor University – 7 th March 2011

L1 L2

Outline:

Part 1

Gender processing in L2: review

Experiments gender processing in L2 (ERPs and eye-tracking)

Part 2

Agreement processing in L2 production: conceptual gender in possessive structures

Conclusions

Grammatical gender

English: the car

French: lafem voiturefem

Spanish: elmasc cochemasc

German: dasneu Autoneu

Research questions:

Is gender represented and processed in a similar manner in native and non-native speakers?

Is gender processing in L2 affected by the L1?

Gender processing in L1

Example: Lafem / *lemasc cleffem était dans la serrure

The key was in the keyhole

P600 effect (syntactic integration)(Barber & Carreiras, 2005; Foucart & Frenck-Mestre, 2004; Gunter et al., 2000; Hagoort & Brown, 1999)

Sometimes preceded by a LAN (morpho-syntactic violations)(Barber & Carreiras, 2005; Gunter et al., 2000)

= Gender is syntactically processed

Comprehension in L2: ERPs studiesDifficulties in lexical-semantic integration

Word category violations

Morpho-syntactic violations

Syntactic integration

Similar but with reduced amplitude and later peak latency (Ardal et al. 1990; Hahne & Friederici, 2001; Weber-Fox & Neville, 1996)

Sometimes found, and often with different topography (Hahne, Müller & Clahsen, 2006; Rossi et al., 2006; Weber-Fox & Neville, 1996)

Found in some studies, but not in other (Foucart & Frenck-Mestre, 2004; Hahne, 2001, but Hahne & Friederici, 2001;

Weber-Fox & Neville, 1996).

Semantic processing: similar ≠ Syntactic processing: Proficiency and AoA

L2 learning (Osterhout et al., 2006)

Syntactic processing in L2

- Different L1 and L2 processing

Shallow structure hypothesis (Clahsen & Felser, 2006)

The syntactic analysis processed by late L2 speakers during language comprehension is not as ‘full’ as that processed by native speakers.

- Similar L1 and L2 processing

Three-phases model (Friederici, 2002; Rossi, Gugler, Friederici, Hahne, 2006 )

With enough exposure, highly proficient L2 learners can reach native-like processing levels even if they learned their L2 late in life.

Sabourin & Stowe’s (2008) study Participants:

Dutch native speakers, German-Dutch and Romance-Dutch learners

Materials:

Determiner-noun gender agreement violation

e.g. Hetneu/*Decom kleine kindcom probeerde voor het eerst te lopen. The small child tried to walk for the first time

Results:

Dutch native speakers and German-Dutch learners → P600 effect

Romance-Dutch learners → No effect

Conclusions:

Automatic gender processing in L2 not only depends on the presence of a grammatical gender system in the L1 but also requires overlapping of lexical gender.

Sabourin, L., & Stowe, L A. (2008) Second language processing: When are L1 and L2 processed similarly. Second Language Research, 24 (3), 397-430.

Foucart & Frenck-Mestre’s (2011) study Participants:

French native speakers and German-French advanced learners

Materials:

Determiner-noun gender agreement violation

e.g., Hier lafem/*lemasc chaisefem était dans le salon; Yesterday the chair was in the living room

Results:

French native speakers and German-French advanced learners

→ P600 effect

Conclusions:

With enough exposure, proficient later learners can process gender in a native-like manner.

Foucart, A. & Frenck-Mestre, C. (2011). Grammatical gender processing in L2: Electrophysiological evidence of the effect of L1 - L2 syntactic similarity. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, DOI:10.1017/S136672891000012X

Tokowicz & MacWhinney’s (2005) study Participants: English-Spanish learners

Materials:

(a) tense-marking (similar in English and Spanish)e.g., Su abuela *cocinando/cocina muy bienHis grandmother *cooking/cooks very well.

(b) nominal number agreement (different in English and Spanish)e.g., *El/Los niños están jugandoThe boys are playing.

(c) nominal gender agreement (unique to Spanish)e.g., Ellos fueron a *unmasc/unafem fiestafem

They went to a party.

Conclusions:

- Online sensitivity to gender agreement in L2 learners despite the absence of grammatical gender in their L1.

- Features that are not present in L1 should be acquired faster than those that are in conflict with L2 features.

→ P600 effect

→ No effect

→ P600 effect

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, 2, 173–204.

Gillon Dowens, Vergara, Barber, Carreiras’ (2009) study Participants: Spanish native speakers, English-Spanish late learners (+ 12 yrs exposure)

Materials: Determiner-noun gender agreement violation

e.g., Elmasc /*lafem /*losplur suelomasc-sing está plano y bien acabado, The floor is flat and well-finished

Noun-predicative adjective gender agreement violatione.g., El suelo masc-sing está planomasc/*planafem/*planosplur y bien acabado

Results: Determiner-noun gender agreement violationSimilar pattern for native and non-native speakers → LAN + P600 effects

Noun-predicative adjective gender agreement violationNative speakers → LAN + P600 effects; L2 speakers → P600 effect

Conclusions:

- With enough exposure, late L2 learners can reach native-like processing even when agreement involves features that do not exist in the learner’s L1.

- Processing non-local agreement may be more demanding in L2 (working memory).

Gillon-Dowens, M., Vergara, M., Barber, H. A., Carreiras, M. (2010). Morpho-syntactic processing in late L2 learners. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22 (8), 1870–1887

Keating’s (2009) study Participants:

Spanish native speakers, English-Spanish beginner, intermediate and advanced learners.

Materials:

(a) in the determiner phrase

Una casafem pequeñafem/* pequeñomasc [cuesta mucho en San Francisco.], A small house costs a lot in San Francisco.

(b) in the verbal phrase

La casafem [es bastante pequeñafem /*pequeñomasc y necesita muchas reparaciones.]

The house is quite small and needs a lot of repairs.

(c) in a subordinate clause

Una casafem [VP cuesta menos [CP si [VP es pequeñafem/*pequeñomasc y necesita reparaciones]].

A house costs less if it is small and needs repairs.

Keating, G. D. (2009). Sensitivity to violations of gender agreement in native and nonnative Spanish: An eye-movement investigation. Language Learning, 59, 503-535.

Results:(a) in the determiner phrase Beginner and Intermediate learners: → no effect.Native speakers and advanced learners → longer fixation times for violations

(b) in the verbal phrase L2 learners: → no effect.Native speakers → longer fixation times for violations

(c) in a subordinate clause L2 learners: → no effect.Native speakers → longer fixation times for violations

Conclusions:

- High proficient late L2 learners can acquire new abstract grammatical features such as gender in their L2.

- Processing non-local agreement may be more demanding in L2 because of the working memory cost.

Keating’s (2009) study

Keating, G. D. (2009). Sensitivity to violations of gender agreement in native and nonnative Spanish: An eye-movement investigation. Language Learning, 59, 503-535.

L2 gender processing: Evidence from ERPs and eye-tracking studies

- With enough exposure, late L2 learners can reach native-like processing even when agreement involves features that do not exist in the learner’s L1.

(Foucart & Frenck-Mestre, 2011; Gillon Dowens et al., 2009; Keating, 2009; Tokowicz & MacWhinney, 2005)

- Gender processing in L2 can only reach native-like level if the syntactic structures are similar in L1 and L2. (Sabourin & Haverkort, 2003; Sabourin & Stowe, 2008)

- Features that are not present in L1 (e.g., gender for native English speakers) should be acquired faster than those that are in conflict with L2 features.(Gillon Dowens et al. 2010; Tokowicz & MacWhinney, 2005)

- L2 learners may not be able to process gender as ‘fully’ as native speakers in non-local contexts (e.g., predicative adjectives)(Gillon Dowens et al., 2010; Keating, 2009)

Experiment 1: Method Foucart, A. & Frenck-Mestre, C. (under revision), JML.

Participants (N=14):

French native speakers

English-French advanced learners

German-French advanced learners

Materials:

96 nouns, inanimate Same/different gender (French, la cleffem; German, der Schlüsselmasc; the key)

Electrodes (21 scalp sites):

- Central, Fz, Cz, Pz

- Frontal, central and posterior areas of the left hemisphere,

Fp1, F3, F7, Fc5, C3, Cp5, T5, P3, O1

- of the right hemisphere, Fp2, F4, F8, Fc6, C4, Cp6, T6, P4, O2

Conditions:Correct En ce moment les pommesfem vertesfem sont de saison.

Incorrect En ce moment les pommesfem vertsmasc * sont de saison.

At the moment green apples are in season

Experiment 1: Conditions

Predictions:

+ ?

For French native speakers and the two L2 groups

Experiment 1: Results French native speakers English-French bilinguals

German-French bilinguals

French native speakers: P600 effect

Gender syntactically processed

English-French bilinguals: P600 effect

German-French bilinguals: No effect


? New syntactic structure? Plural agreement rule in L1

Experiment 2: Method and Predictions

Predictions:

For French native speakers and English-French bilinguals

? German-bilinguals


Same as Experiment 1

Materials and procedure:

Same as Experiment 1

ConditionsCorrect Souvent les / petitesfem/ pommesfem/ sont/ bien/ sucrées.

Incorrect Souvent les / petitsmasc*/ pommesfem/ sont/ bien/ sucrées.

Usually small apples are very sweet





English-French bilinguals: N400 effect


Still acquiring gender agreement with pre-posed adjective

X New syntactic structure Plural agreement in L1

Experiments 3: Method and Predictions

Predictions:

For French native speakers and English-French bilinguals

BUT no effect for German-bilinguals


Same as Experiments 1 and 2


Same as Experiments 1 and 2

ConditionsCorrect En automne les /pommesfem/ sont/ vertesfem/ sur cet/ arbre.Incorrect En automne les /pommesfem/ sont/ vertsmasc*/ sur cet/ arbre.

In autumn apples are green on this tree.





English-French bilinguals: No effect


? Gender agreement more complex when not in a local context

Experiments 4: Method and Predictions

Predictions:

Longer fixation times for French native speakers

? English-French bilinguals

BUT no effect for German-bilinguals


Same as Experiments 3


Same as Experiments 3

ConditionsR1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6

Correct En automne les /pommesfem/ sont/ vertesfem/ sur cet/ arbre.Incorrect En automne les /pommesfem/ sont/ vertsmasc*/ sur cet/ arbre.


Experiment 4: Results

R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6

En automne les /pommesfem/ sont/ vertesfem-vertsmasc*/ sur cet/ arbre.


French native speakers: Longer reading times for incorrect agreement

English-French bilinguals: Same pattern as the native speakers


Experiments 1-4: Conclusions

Is gender represented and processed in a similar manner in native and non-native speakers?

Late bilinguals can attain native-like processing (P600, reduced amplitude)

HOWEVER:

Proficiency (N400, complex syntactic structure)

Non local processing seems to be more difficult (working memory).

Influence of the native language (gender vs. absence of gender)

Is gender processing in L2 affected by the L1?

Further research… in production

Is processing of conceptual gender agreement as difficult as processing of grammatical gender agreement in L2 ?

Does L1 syntax affects the processing of L2-English gender agreement?

Possessives adjectives/pronouns processing in L2 English

Possessives adjective agreement rules

Possessive adjective agreement

Agree with the possessor (waitress):

English: The waitress chases herFem / *hisMasc son

Greek: I servitora kiniga ton gio tisFem / *touMasc

Agree with the possessee (son)

Spanish: La camarera persigue a suMasc / *suFem hijo

French: La serveuse poursuit sonMasc / *saFem fils

Experiment 5: Method (Santesteban, Foucart, Pickering, Branigan, 2010)

Participants:12 English native speakers 24 Spanish-English bilinguals (AoA: 7.4; proficiency: 5.6 (self-rate: 1-low, 7-high)) 24 French-English bilinguals (AoA: 10.6; proficiency: 5.5) 24 Greek-English bilinguals (AoA: 9.1; proficiency: 5.9)

Conditions: 2 (Possessor: masc vs. fem) x 2 (Possessee : masc vs. fem)

Gender matchThe boxer chases his son (masc-masc)The waitress chases her daughter (fem-fem)

Gender mismatchThe boxer chases his daughter (masc-fem)The waitress chases her son (fem-masc)

Materials: 32 experimental pictures (8 per condition) + 72 fillersPossessor characters: Masculine (e.g., boxer) vs. Feminine (e.g., waitress) Possessee characters: Masculine (e.g., son) vs. Feminine (e.g., daughter)

Agreement errors

Similarly to number (Bock & Miller, 1991), the gender of a local noun can interfere with agreement process and result in gender agreement errors called ‘attraction errors’ (e.g., noun-adjective, Vigliocco & Franck, 1999; Franck et al., 2008; or antecedent-pronoun, Meyer & Bock, 1999)

Number:

e.g., The picture of the postcards *are/is nice.

Gender:

e.g., El relojMasc de la ciudadFem es *viejaFem,/ viejomasc The clock of the town is old

Do L1 gender agreement rules affect conceptual gender agreement production of L2 possessive pronouns?

If L2 processing is affected by the ‘weaker’ L2 syntactic representations of bilinguals, we expect no differences between bilingual groups.

Hypotheses

If L1 agreement rules affect L2 processing, we expect larger gender attraction effects for Spanish- and French-English bilinguals than for Greek-English bilinguals.

Experiment 5: Results (Santesteban, Foucart, Pickering, Branigan, 2010)

0

5

10

15

% o

f agre

em

en

t err

ors

Spanish-English

French-English

Greek-English

Englishnatives

Match

Mismatch

0

5

10

15

Spanish-English

French-English

Greek-English

English

% o

f m

ism

atc

h e

ffect

s

(mis

matc

h m

inu

s m

atc

h)

Summary of attraction effectsErrors

English monolinguals made no errors.

Only bilinguals showed gender attraction effects

Interestingly, similar attraction effects produced by all groups of bilinguals (no significant mismatch x group interaction)

L2 gender agreement errors during production of possessive adjective seems to be due to ‘weaker’ syntactic representations, not effects of L1 syntax

Experiment 5: Conclusions (Santesteban, Foucart, Pickering, Branigan, 2010)

HOWEVER, there was no linear intervention of the possessee attractor.

Possessives pronoun agreement rules

Possessive pronoun agreement

Agree with the possessor (waitress):

English: The waitress says that the son is hersFem / *hisMasc

Greek: I servitora lei oti o gios ine dikos tisFem / *touMasc

Agree with the possessee (son)

Spanish: La camarera dice que el hijo es suyoMasc / *suyaFem

French: La serveuse dit que le fils est le sienMasc / *sienneFem


Participants: 21 English native speakers 21 Spanish-English bilinguals (AoA: 9.8; English proficiency: 5.5)21 French-English bilinguals (AoA: 11.5; English proficiency: 5.3) 21 Greek-English bilinguals (AoA: 7.6; English proficiency: 5.8)

Materials, Conditions and Procedure: Similar as Experiment 1

Gender matchThe boxer says the son is his (masc-masc)The waitress says the daughter is hers (fem-fem)

Gender mismatchThe boxer says the daughter is his (masc-fem)The waitress says the son is hers (fem-masc)

Experiment 6: Results and Conclusions (Santesteban, Foucart, Pickering, Branigan, 2010)

Errors

All groups showed gender attraction effects when the possessee attractor linearly intervened between the antecedent and the pronoun.

Importantly, Spanish/French-English bilinguals produced more errors, and showed larger gender attraction effects than Greek-English bilinguals and English monolinguals.

Similar attraction effects for Greek-English bilinguals and English monolinguals.

0

5

10

15

% o

f agre

em

en

t err

ors

Spanish-English

French-English

Greek-English

Englishnatives

Match

Mismatch

0

5

10

15

Spanish-English

French-English

Greek-English

English

% o

f m

ism

atc

h e

ffect

s

(mis

matc

h m

inu

s m

atc

h) Summary of attraction effects

Production of L2 possessive pronouns is affected by L1 syntax.

Processing of possessive structures is affected by the gender of the possessee

- Native speakers: Gender attraction errors only occur with linear intervention of the

possessee (however, this might only be a sentence complexity effect)

- Bilingual speakers:Gender attraction errors occur independently of the position of the

possessee in the sentence.

Experiments 5 & 6: Conclusions (Santesteban, Foucart, Pickering, Branigan, 2010)

At least part of bilinguals’ gender agreement error production is due to ‘weaker’ syntactic representations.

However, L1 agreement rules that differ from L2 rules do also affect gender agreement processing in L2.

General conclusions

Is L2 processing influenced by L1 syntax?

YES!(Foucart & Frenck-Mestre, 2011; Sabourin, 2003; Santesteban et al., 2010)

HOWEVER:

- Proficiency (Foucart, 2008; Osterhout et al., 2006; Santesteban et al., 2010)

- Complexity of the structure (Gillon Dowens et al., 2010; Hahne, 2001; Keating, 2009)

THANK YOU!

English: the end

French: lafem finfem

Spanish: elmasc finmasc

German: dasneu Endeneu

the influence of l1 syntax on l2 processing alice foucart esrc centre for research on bilingualism,...

Documents

l1 l2 slide

grammatical gender processing

automatic gender processing

agreement processing

lexical gender

conceptual gender

l2 different l1

late l2 speakers