Morphosyntactic processing in late second-language learners.

Abstract

The goal of the present study was to investigate the electrophysiological correlates of second-language (L2) morphosyntactic processing in highly proficient late learners of an L2 with long exposure to the L2 environment. ERPs were collected from 22 English-Spanish late learners while they read sentences in which morphosyntactic features of the L2 present or not present in the first language (number and gender agreement, respectively) were manipulated at two different sentence positions-within and across phrases. The results for a control group of age-matched native-speaker Spanish participants included an ERP pattern of LAN-type early negativity followed by P600 effect in response to both agreement violations and for both sentence positions. The late L2 learner results included a similar pattern, consisting of early negativity followed by P600, in the first sentence position (within-phrase agreement violations) but only P600 effects in the second sentence position (across-phrase agreement violation), as well as significant amplitude and onset latency differences between the gender and the number violation effects in both sentence positions. These results reveal that highly proficient learners can show electrophysiological correlates during L2 processing that are qualitatively similar to those of native speakers, but the results also indicate the contribution of factors such as age of acquisition and transfer processes from first language to L2.

Full text

Page 1

Morphosyntactic Processing in Late
Second-Language Learners
Margaret Gillon Dowens1,2, Marta Vergara3, Horacio A. Barber1,
and Manuel Carreiras4,5
Abstract
■ The goal of the present study was to investigate the electro-
physiological correlates of second-language (L2) morphosyn-
tactic processing in highly proficient late learners of an L2
with long exposure to the L2 environment. ERPs were col-
lected from 22 English–Spanish late learners while they read
sentences in which morphosyntactic features of the L2 present
or not present in the first language (number and gender agree-
ment, respectively) were manipulated at two different sentence
positions—within and across phrases. The results for a control
group of age-matched native-speaker Spanish participants in-
cluded an ERP pattern of LAN-type early negativity followed
by P600 effect in response to both agreement violations and
for both sentence positions. The late L2 learner results included
a similar pattern, consisting of early negativity followed by P600,
in the first sentence position (within-phrase agreement viola-
tions) but only P600 effects in the second sentence position
(across-phrase agreement violation), as well as significant am-
plitude and onset latency differences between the gender and
the number violation effects in both sentence positions. These
results reveal that highly proficient learners can show electro-
physiological correlates during L2 processing that are qualita-
tively similar to those of native speakers, but the results also
indicate the contribution of factors such as age of acquisition
and transfer processes from first language to L2.■
INTRODUCTION
In a world increasingly more pluralistic, multicultural, and
multilingual, the study of second-language (L2) acquisi-
tion in adulthood is a research area that has become in-
creasingly important not only in its own right but also
due to the significant social and educational implications
of the findings from these studies. However, despite the
recent increase in research in this area, little is still known
about how an L2 acquired after childhood is represented,
how it is processed, and whether this is indeed qualita-
tively different to what happens in childhood L2 acquisi-
tion. There is a common assumption that L2 attainment
is primarily or even exclusively a function of age and that
native-like performance is not attainable unless the L2 is
acquired during early childhood (Eubank & Gregg, 1999;
Johnson & Newport, 1991). This idea of a maturationally
constrained critical or sensitive period for L2 acquisition
underlies, for example, the failed functional features hy-
pothesis (Hawkins & Chan, 1997) and the shallow struc-
ture hypothesis (Clahsen & Felser, 2006b) among other
models of L2 acquisition. However, recent experimental
data do not unequivocally bear out this observation (Rossi,
Gugler, Friederici, & Hahne, 2006; for an overview, also
see Birdsong, 2006), and there is now a growing aware-
ness that there is not one but a number of different factors
that can influence the learning of an L2 after childhood
and the levels of competence and performance attained
in this language. These factors may include language pro-
ficiency (Ojima, Nakata, & Kakigi, 2005), similarity of
the syntactic structures of the first language (L1) and L2
(Jeong et al., 2007), and limitations of general cognitive
resources such as working memory (McDonald, 2006).
There is, thus, a need for more detailed information and
more empirical evidence about the nature of these dif-
ferent factors affecting adult L2 acquisition, how they inter-
act, and how they apply to different language components.
To answer these questions with precision, there is a par-
ticular need for on-line and neuroimaging studies of late
L2 processing to complement the behavioral research car-
ried out so far. This is the aim of the present ERP study.
SinceLenneberg(1967)andPenfieldandRoberts(1959)
first hypothesized the existence of a biologically cir-
cumscribed period for L2 acquisition, there have been
many reformulations of this critical period hypothesis
(CPH; for overviews, see Birdsong, 2006; DeKeyser &
Larsen-Hall, 2005; Hyltenstam & Abrahamsson, 2003), but
in most of them, the basic tenet is still that the ability
to acquire and to produce the L2 in a native-like manner
is maturationally constrained begins to decline sometime
in childhood and has disappeared by puberty. However,
there is intense and continuous debate about the nature,
the specifics, and indeed the validity of this concept
1UniversityofLaLaguna,Spain,2UniversityofNottinghamNingbo,
China,3University of California, Davis,4Basque Research Centre
for Cognition, Brain and Language, Spain,5UVP/EHU
© 2009 Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyJournal of Cognitive Neuroscience 22:8, pp. 1870–1887

Page 2

(Singleton,2005;Birdsong,1999).Atpresent,therearetwo
main arguments against the CPH. First, it is open to ques-
tion whether there is indeed a critical “period” or devel-
opmental window as such for L2 acquisition and not
just a general decline across the age span in the ability to
learn some aspects of language, mirroring the age-related
decline in other cognitive resources such as working
memory, some which are involved in language processing
(Bialystok & Hakuta, 1999). Second, there is growing evi-
dence of late L2 learners with native-like performance in
on-line as well as off-line tasks, which casts doubt on the
basic premise of the “impossibility” of L2 acquisition be-
yond the offset of any proposed critical period (van Boxtel,
2005; Marinova-Todd, 2003). Thus, the idea of a general
critical or sensitive period for L2 learning is now often re-
placedbyargumentsthat thereare someparticularareas of
language processing, such as phonology and syntax, which
can never become native-like if they are acquired after
childhood or adolescence. L2 attainment in the area of
syntax, particularly, is considered to be constrained by
age of acquisition (AoA) more than other areas such as
lexical processing, and so it is argued that in this area, only
early (childhood) bilinguals will achieve native-like levels
of proficiency and show on-line processing patterns simi-
lar to natives (Clahsen & Felser, 2006a, 2006b; Weber-Fox
& Neville, 1996). The data, however, are far from consis-
tent, with other, more recent studies painting quite a dif-
ferent picture (Rossi et al., 2006; Mueller, Hahne, Fujii, &
Friederici, 2005; Ojima et al., 2005). That there is conflict-
ing evidence is hardly surprising, given the nonhomogen-
ous nature of the population under study, the different
tasks, and the experimental techniques used in L2 acquisi-
tion research and indeed the lack of general agreement
about the characteristics of bilingualism and the evalua-
tion of bilingual language processing (Grosjean, 1989).
Also, compared with the equivalent L1 research, there
have been relatively few on-line studies of late L2 morpho-
syntax processing to date, so more information is needed
to clarify this question of the relative importance of AoA.
What is increasingly clear, however, is that age is not the
only factortobetaken into consideration.One other major
factor that has received much attention recently is the
question of L2 proficiency. Many earlier on-line studies
reporting non-native-like processing patterns either did
not control for proficiency (Weber-Fox & Neville, 1996)
or studied late learners with relatively low exposure/low
proficiency in the L2 (Hahne, 2001). When proficiency is
controlled for, the results can be quite different (Rossi
et al., 2006; Abutalebi, Cappa, & Perani, 2001). Another
factor that has received attention recently is the question
of L1–L2 language similarity and feature overlap, as dif-
ferent results have recently been obtained from studies
using different L1–L2 language pairings (Sabourin, Stowe,
& de Haan, 2006). Also to be taken into consideration is
the role of other more general cognitive components
and resources such as memory resources in L2 language
processing (McDonald, 2006).
So far, the relative importance and influence of these
different factors is largely unresolved. Our intention is to
cast some light on the influence of AoA, L2 proficiency,
and language feature overlap by looking at late learnersʼ
morphosyntactic processing of L2 sentences, specifically
processing of gender and number agreement features.
We registered the on-line brain responses to violations
of these agreement features of a group of highly profi-
cient late (postpuberty) learners of Spanish whose L1 is
English and who have acquired the L2 by immersion in
the L2 environment while living in Spain for over 20 years,
on average. The off-line tests and self-rating questionnaires
of these late learners indicate high L2 competence, but
on-line, do they process the L2 like natives?
We registered the participantsʼ responses to these gram-
matical violations using the ERP technique. The excellent
temporal resolution of this technique makes it particularly
suitable for the study of how and when agreement rela-
tionships are computed during reading. Of particular inter-
est are two ERP components that are commonly found
in studies of morphosyntactic processing. The first of
these is a LAN, a negative deflection in the brain wave oc-
curring between 300 and 500 msec after stimulus onset,
usually with a more anterior scalp distribution and a left
hemisphere bias (Friederici, Hahne, & Mecklinger, 1996;
Kluender & Kutas, 1993), although other distributions
have been commonly reported (Silva-Pereyra & Carreiras,
2007; Hagoort, Wassenaar, & Brown, 2003; Kluender &
Münte, 1998; Münte, Matzke, & Johannes, 1997). LAN-type
effects have been reported for different syntactic viola-
tions, including number and gender mismatches (Barber
& Carreiras, 2005). It has been argued that the LAN effect
could be an index of the detection of a mismatch between
morphosyntactic features (Rodriguez-Fornells, Clahsen,
Lleó, Zaake, & Münte, 2001; Gross,Say,Kleingers,Clahsen,
&Münte,1998),ofthedifficultyofintegratingthesecharac-
teristics in a syntactic structure (Hagoort, 2003; Friederici,
Steinhauer, & Frisch, 1999), or of increases in the working
memorydemandsimpliedintheseprocesses(Vos,Gunter,
Kolk, & Mulder, 2001; King & Kutas, 1995; Kluender &
Kutas, 1993).
The second component of interest is the P600, or
syntactic positive shift, a widely distributed positive de-
flection with posterior maximum, an onset at around
500 msec after stimulus presentation and a long duration,
often around 400 msec. The P600 has been widely re-
ported in different languages for a range of syntactic viola-
tions, including number and gender mismatches (Hagoort,
2003; Barber & Carreiras, 2005). As to the significance
of this effect or family of effects, as some researchers have
suggested might be the case, the P600 was originally con-
sidered to be related to syntactic processing, reflecting
different stages of the detection, reanalysis, and repair
of syntactic anomalies (Friederici, Hahne, & Saddy, 2002;
Hagoort & Brown, 2000) or processing of syntactic com-
plexity.However,therehasalsobeenrecentevidenceasso-
ciating this component with semantic/thematic processes
Dowens et al.1871

Page 3

(van Herten, Kolk, & Chwilla, 2005) and so some research-
ers now believe that this component may reflect less
domain-specific processes associated to anomaly detec-
tion or general monitoring processes (Coulson, King, &
Kutas, 1998). One explanation of the LAN–P600 ERP pat-
tern in response to syntactic violation is that proposed
by Friederici et al. (2002). In this proposal, an early LAN
component between 150 and 200 msec indexes an initial,
automatic stage of phrase-structure building based on in-
formation about word category, a later LAN between 300
and 500 msec indexes a stage of morphosyntactic inte-
gration, whereas the P600 indicates a later, more strate-
gic stage of reanalysis and repair of the structure (on the
timing of these syntax-related ERP effects, see, however,
Hasting & Kotz, 2008; Hasting, Kotz, & Friederici, 2007).
The LAN–P600 pattern is, then, a well-documented ERP
experimental result for native speakers processing mor-
phosyntactic agreement errors, but what about late L2
learners, our group of interest? LANs have rarely been
observed in studies of late L2 learners, which has often
been taken as evidence for the absence of native-like
processing and as support for critical period constraints.
However, LAN effects have been observed in some artifi-
cial L2 grammar studies (Mueller et al., 2005; Friederici,
Steinhauer, & Pfeifer, 2002), which would suggest that
some native-like syntactic L2 processes can be acquired
by adults after intense training, and at least one previous
study has reported a LAN effect for highly proficient late
learners in a natural language (Rossi et al., 2006). The
results of the few on-line studies of L2 gender and num-
ber agreement processing to date have been somewhat
contradictory, possibly due to the abovementioned rea-
sons. Sabourin et al. (2006), in an ERP study on gen-
der agreement in L2 Dutch, compared L1 English, L1
German, and L1 Romance adult learners. Only the L1 Ger-
man group evinced a native-like P600 effect; the L1 Ro-
mance group showed a late frontal negativity and the L1
English group showed no robust effects at all. However,
in another recent ERP experiment on gender agreement
in L2 French (Frenck-Mestre, Osterhout, McLaughlin, &
Foucart, 2008), the authors found that L1 English speakers
ofFrenchdoevidenceERPsignatures ofgenderagreement
violations,althoughthese ERP responsesto agreement vio-
lations are not fully native-like.
To study the question of L1 influence, feature overlap,
and transfer, we will look at two types of morphosyntactic
agreement features of the Spanish language—number
and grammatical gender—as the former exists in the L1
(English) and the latter does not. Although number is
computed less in English than in richly inflected lan-
guages such as Spanish, there is number agreement in
English, for example, between determiners and nouns
(“that dog/those dogs”). However, there is no equivalent
in English to the grammatical gender assignment of Span-
ish, where each noun is either masculine or feminine and
requires the agreement of all modifiers. As far as we are
aware, there have been very few on-line experimental
studies of L1 transfer effects (for an overview, see Kotz,
2008). Tokowicz and MacWhinney (2005), in a study of
low-proficiency late L2 learners, found P600 effects for
an L1 L2 similar syntactic construction and for an L2
unique construction but no effects where the syntactic
feature was present in both L1 and L2, but the construc-
tion was differently formed. They reported this as evi-
dence for L1–L2-positive and -negative transfer effects at
least at early stages of L2 acquisition. Similarly, Sabourin
and Stowe (2008) also reported that rule-governed con-
structions that are similar in L1 result in “native-like”
P600 effects but not constructions that are grammatically
different in L1 and L2. Again, this would indicate positive
transfer effects for shared features and negative transfer
effects for features that are not the same in the L1 and
L2. Thus, if we obtain differential effects for the gender
and the number feature manipulations, this could shed
more light on this issue of L1–L2 feature similarity and
transfer. Our manipulations should also provide evidence
for or against one of two contrasting theories of L2 acqui-
sition. The first of these, the failed functional features
hypothesis (Hawkins & Chan, 1997), in concurrence with
the CPH for L2 acquisition, posits that in late L2 acquisi-
tion only those features previously present in the L1 will
be transferred or mapped onto the L2. Grammatical fea-
tures not originally present in the L1, however, will not
be acquired by L2 learners. In contrast, the full transfer/full
access hypothesis (Schwartz & Sprouse, 1996) argues that
although the L1 grammar is the basis for L2 acquisition,
with the continual exposure to L2 and the achievement
of high levels of proficiency, even grammatical features
and processing routines not originally present in the L1
can become functional in the L2. We will be able to test
these contrasting theories by examining the ERP response
to violations of the L2 grammatical agreement feature al-
ready present in the L1 (number) and contrasting this with
violations of the L2 grammatical agreement feature not
present in the L1 (grammatical gender).
Some researchers believe that more general cognitive
factors such as demands on working memory could be an
important factor underlying non-native-like performance
in late learners. In a previous study of gender and num-
ber agreement carried out with Spanish native speakers
(Barber & Carreiras, 2005), the authors manipulated
agreement violations in two sentence positions, with a
within-phrase violation between article and noun at the
beginning of the sentence and with a between-phrase
violation between a noun and its postmodifying, post-
verbal adjective in the middle of the sentence. They found
no differences between these sentence position violations
for native Spanish readers. We maintained these two sen-
tence position manipulations to see whether the added
demands on working memory in the later sentence po-
sition would be more problematic for the late learners
than for the native speakers. For example, in the sentence
“El suelo está plano y bien acabado” (The floor is flat and
well finished), the agreement relationship is manipulated
1872Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience Volume 22, Number 8

Page 4

between the article and the noun “El-suelo” (first position/
within-phrase manipulation) or between the noun and
the adjective “suelo-plano” (second position/across phrase
manipulation). Presumably, the latter manipulation could
be more costly as it requires maintaining the agreement
features in memory for longer and across the phrase
boundary. This has not proved to be problematic for na-
tive speakers, but the higher cost of processing in the L2
in terms of working memory is a well-documented phe-
nomenon (McDonald, 2006).
Based on these previous results from studies of gender
and number processing in L1 Spanish (Barber & Carreiras,
2005) and predictions from L2 acquisition models, we
could expect some of the following results from our ex-
periment: First, if AoA is the most relevant factor, as indi-
cated by models based on the CPH, then we should not
expect a native-like ERP pattern from these postpuberty
L2 learners. There should be no LAN-type effects indicat-
ing native-like processing of the grammatical features (for
a discussion of the timing of LAN effects, see Hasting &
Kotz, 2008) and there may or may not be later P600 ef-
fects. If, on the other hand, proficiency is the key factor,
then a more native-like pattern of LAN followed by P600
effects could be expected from these high-proficiency late
learners. Second, if, as indicated by the failed functional
features hypothesis, only the grammatical features are al-
ready present in the L1 map over onto the L2, then as
number is computed in English but grammatical gender
is not, any significant effects should only be for the num-
ber agreement violations. However, if, as argued by the full
transfer/full access hypothesis, the features of the L1 are
the starting point but not the limit of L2 acquisition, then
after such prolonged exposure to the L2 and the high lev-
els of proficiency obtained, there may be effects of both
gender and number violations. There could also be differ-
ential effects for the gender and the number violation con-
ditionsduetothepossibilityofpositivetransferfromtheL1
in the case of number agreement processing and the ab-
sence ofthisL1–L2transferpossibility in thecaseof gender
agreement processing. A final point important to bear in
mind is that our participants are older than those of most
previous studies, where undergraduate students have fre-
quently been the population tested. Age-related changes in
the distribution and indeed the timing of ERP components
have been well documented (Kutas & Iragui, 1998). There-
fore, to control for this factor, we also include in our study
a control group of age-matched Spanish native speakers.
METHODS
Participants
Late Bilingual Group
Twenty-three highly proficient late learners of Spanish
(14 women) participated in the experiment in exchange
for a small sum. One participant was excluded from the
statistical analyses due to too many eye blinks and muscu-
lar artifacts in the EEG. All participants were L1 speakers of
English, with no history of neurological or psychiatric im-
pairment and with normal or corrected-to-normal vi-
sion. All of them started to learn Spanish after the age
of 20 and have had at least 12 years of immersion in a
Spanish environment (mean = 22.1 years, range = 12–
33 years). Their ages ranged from 35 to 60 years (mean =
48.6 years). All participants were right-handed, as assessed
by an abridged version of the Edinburgh Handedness
Inventory (Oldfield, 1971). The participants were inter-
viewed by telephone and then in person by a trained na-
tive speaker of English and a trained native speaker of
Spanish to evaluate their comprehension and fluency in
both languages. All were judged to be native speakers of
English and highly proficient in speaking and understand-
ing Spanish. All participants filled in a self-rating question-
naire about their language background, their daily use of
Spanish and English, and their proficiency in both lan-
guages. The results of this indicated that the participants
use Spanish on a daily basis, are equally comfortable in
most situations in both English and Spanish, and rate their
competence in Spanish as being good to perfect (on a
scale of 1 to 5, the average for speaking was 4, listening 4,
reading 5, and writing 3). After the experiment, they also
filled in a short grammar test, with a section on adjective
agreement that included the experimental items. The re-
sults from this confirmed that off-line, the participants
scored over 98% in the grammar test and were able to
choose the correct form of the adjective in terms of gender
and number agreement, at 98% accuracy.
Spanish Native-speaker Group
Twenty-three participants (10 women) participated in
the experiment in exchange for a small sum. All of them
were native speakers of Spanish, with no history of neu-
rological or psychiatric impairment, and with normal or
corrected-to-normal vision. Their ages ranged from 34 to
60 (mean = 48 years). All participants were right-handed,
as assessed by an abridged version of the Edinburgh
Handedness Inventory (Oldfield, 1971). After the experi-
ment, they also filled in the short grammar test, with the
section on adjective agreement that included the experi-
mental items. The results from this confirmed that off-
line, the participants scored 99% in the grammar test
and were able to choose the correct form of the adjective
in terms of gender and number agreement, at 99% ac-
curacy. There was no statistically significant difference
between the off-line results of the two groups. The partic-
ipants in both groups were matched in terms of educa-
tional background and socioeconomic status.
Materials
The materials were the same as those used by Barber
and Carreiras (2005). The details of these materials are
Dowens et al. 1873

Page 5

as follows: Two lists of 120 experimental sentences each
were generated to manipulate agreement at the begin-
ning and in the middle of the sentence. The first list ma-
nipulated the article–noun agreement at the beginning of
the sentence, whereas the second list manipulated the
agreement relationship between the noun and its post-
modifying adjective that appeared after the verb in the
middle of the sentence (see examples below). The agree-
ment condition is effectively the same in both sentence
positions, but as this is the baseline for the ERP effects
and is likely to differ in terms of amplitude from the first
to the second sentence position, we consider these as six
conditions for analysis purposes (a–f).
Manipulation at the beginning of the sentence:
(a) Agreement: El suelo está plano y bien acabado.
(Themasc.-sing.floormasc.-singis flat and well finished.)
(b) Gender Disagreement: La suelo está plano y bien
acabado. (Thefem-singfloormasc.-singis flat and well
finished.)
(c) Number Disagreement: Los suelo está plano y bien
acabado. (Themasc.-pluralfloormasc.-sing.is flat and well
finished.)
Manipulation at the middle of the sentence:
(d) Agreement: El suelo está plano y bien acabado. (The
masc.-sing.floormasc.-singis flat and well finished.)
(e) Gender Disagreement: El suelo está plana y bien aca-
bado. (Themasc.-singfloormasc.-singis flatfem.-singand
well finished.)
(f) Number Disagreement: El suelo está planos y bien
acabado. (Themasc.-singfloormasc.-singis flatmasc.-plural
and well finished.)
Between two- and four-filler words were included after
the target adjective to avoid wrap-up effects on the target
words. Assignment of sentences to conditions in each list
was counterbalanced across participants. Thus, each sen-
tence occurred three times across subjects, once in each
condition, so that each subject only saw one form of each
sentence. In addition, a list of 80 well-formed filler sen-
tences was included. Fillers included nouns with opaque
or irregular gender and adjectives with neuter gender to
avoid strategies based on purely orthographic features.
All the target items were medium to high-frequency words
and contained between three and seven letters. The mean
length and frequency of the words in each experimental
condition were equivalent in each counterbalanced group.
Word frequencies were obtained from the LEXESP data-
base (Sebastián-Gallés, Martí, Carreiras, & Cuetos, 2000).
Procedure
Participants were seated comfortably in a darkened
sound-attenuated chamber. All stimuli were presented
on a high-resolution monitor that was positioned at eye
level 80–90 cm in front of the participant. The words
were displayed in light-gray lowercase Arial 36 against a
black background. Participants performed a grammatical
decision task—they were instructed to press one of two
keys (L and S) on a keyboard to indicate whether the sen-
tence was grammatically correct or not. For half of the par-
ticipants, the right key (L) was used to signal the “yes”
response and the left key (S) was assigned the “no” re-
sponse. For the remaining participants, the order was re-
versed. The sequence of events in each trial is described
as follows: First, a fixation point (*) appeared in the cen-
ter of the screen and remained there for 700 msec. This
fixation point was followed by a blank screen interval of
300 msec, then the sentence was displayed word by
word. Each word appeared for 300 msec and was fol-
lowed by a 300-msec blank interval. At the end of the sen-
tence, a question mark cue to respond was presented
and remained there up to a maximum of 2000 msec or
until the participantʼs response. The intertrial interval
varied randomly between 1000 and 1500 msec. Partici-
pants were asked to avoid eye movements and blinks if
possible during the interval starting from the fixation
point until response was given and were instructed to
favor accuracy over speed in their responses. A practice
session of five trials was given. The sentences were pre-
sented in three blocks of approximately 14 minutes each,
with two short rest breaks. The whole experiment lasted
approximately 90 minutes, including set-up time.
EEG Recording and Analyses
Scalpvoltageswerecollectedfrom58Ag/AgClelectrodesthat
were mounted in an elastic cap (10-10 system; ElectroCap
International, Eaton, OH). Figure 1 shows the schematic
distribution of the recording sites. Linked earlobes were
used as reference. Eye movements and blinks were mon-
itoredwithsixfurtherelectrodesprovidingbipolarrecord-
ings of the horizontal and vertical EOG. Interelectrode
impedanceswerekeptbelow10KΩ.EEGwasfilteredwith
an analogue band-pass filter of 0.01–100 Hz, and a digital
20-Hz low-pass filter was applied before analysis. The sig-
nals were sampled continuously throughout the experi-
ment with a sampling rate of 250 Hz.
Epochs of the EEG corresponding to 1500 msec after
word onset presentation were averaged and analyzed.
Baseline correction was performed using the average
EEG activity in the 200-msec preceding the onset of the
target stimuli as a reference signal value. Following base-
line correction, epochs with artifacts were rejected, and
trials that were not responded to correctly were not
included in the analysis. This resulted in the exclusion
of approximately 17% of the trials. Separate ERPs were
formed for each of the experimental conditions, each
of the subjects, and each of the electrode sites. Nine ROIs
were computed out of the 58 electrodes, each containing
the mean of a group of electrodes. These regions were as
1874 Journal of Cognitive NeuroscienceVolume 22, Number 8

Page 6

follows (see electrode numbers in Figure 1): left anterior
(F1, F3, F5, C1A, C3A, C5A), left medial (C1, C3, C5, C1P,
C3P, TCP1), left posterior (P1, P3, P5, P1P, P3P, CB1),
right anterior (F2, F4, F6, C2A, C2A, C2A), right medial
(C2, C4, C6, C2P, C4P, TCP2), right posterior (P2, P4,
P6, P2P, P4P, CB2), midline anterior (Fz, CZA), midline-
medial (CZ,PZA), and midline posterior (PZ, PZP).
Mean amplitudes were obtained for different time win-
dows. For each window, repeated measure ANOVAs were
performed for the lateral electrode groups and for the
midline electrode groups. The former included grammat-
ical agreement (agreement, gender violation, and num-
ber violation), hemisphere (left/right), electrode region
(anterior, medial, and posterior), and sentence position
(beginning/middle) as the within-subject factors and group
(native speakers/late learners) as the between-subject
factor. The ANOVA for the midline groups included gram-
matical agreement (agreement, gender violation, andnum-
ber violation), electrode region (anterior, medial, and
posterior), and sentence position (beginning/middle) as
the within-subject factors and group (native speakers/late
learners)asthebetween-subjectfactor.Whereappropriate,
criticalvalueswereadjustedusingtheGreenhouse–Geisser
(1959) correction for violation of the assumption of sphe-
ricity.Inaddition,posthocSidakcontrasts wereperformed
after interactions or main effects of grammatical agree-
ment to control for type 1 error in multiple comparisons.
Effects for the hemisphere factor, for the electrode re-
gion factor, and for the sentence position factor are
only reported when they interact with the experimental
manipulations.
RESULTS
Behavioral Results
RTs were not analyzed, as the response in the grammati-
cal judgment task was delayed and participants were in-
structed to favor accuracy over speed. In terms of error
rates, the mean percentage of correct answers in each
condition for each group can be seen in Table 1. The over-
all mean percentage of correct answers in the native-
speaker group was 95.7%. The overall mean percentage
of correct answers for the late learner group was 88.7%.
ANOVA on the error rates including grammatical agree-
ment (agreement, gender violation, and number violation)
andsentenceposition(beginning/middle)aswithin-subject
factorsandgroup(nativespeakers/latelearners)asbetween-
subject factor revealed a reliable interaction of grammatical
agreement, sentence position, and group, F(2, 86) = 9.76,
p < .001, ε = .775.
For the group of native speakers, pairwise comparisons
revealed significant differences in the second sentence po-
sition: They made more errors in the number violation
condition than in both the agreement, F(1, 22) = 6.83,
p < .05, and the gender violation condition, F(1, 22) =
Figure 1. Schematic
distribution of recording
sites, indicating lateral and
midline electrode groups.
Dowens et al.1875

Page 7

8.31, p < .05. For the group of late learners, pairwise
comparisons revealed that in the first sentence position,
they made more errors in the gender violation condition
than in both the number violation condition, F(1, 21) =
30.45, p < .001, and the agreement condition, F(1, 21) =
37.30, p < .001. This was the same for the second posi-
tion: They made more errors in the gender violation con-
dition than in both the number violation condition, F(1,
21) = 23.89, p < .001, and the agreement condition, F(1,
21) = 8.07, p < .05.
ERP Results
ERP grand averages time locked to the onset of the tar-
get words are represented in Figures 2, 3, 4, and 5 over
representative recording sites, showing the three condi-
tions: agreement, gender violation, and number violation.
Figure 2 refers to the native-speaker group—first sentence
position, Figure 3 to the native-speaker group—second
sentence position, Figure 4 to the late learners group—
first sentence position, and Figure 5 to the late learner
group—second sentence position.
Native Speakers
Visual inspection of both figures reveals clear differences
in the responses to the gender and number disagreement
conditions with respect to the agreement conditions. Be-
tween 300- and 450-msec disagreement waves for gender
and number violations display larger negative amplitudes
than the agreement condition, particularly on the left
side of the scalp, fitting with the aforementioned LAN
effect. There are no apparent differences between the
gender and the number conditions or between the first
and the second sentence positions. Between 500 and
Table 1. Mean Percentage Values of Correct Responses to
the Grammatical Task for Each Group in the Experimental
Conditions
Native SpeakersLate Learners
Position 1Position 2Position 1 Position 2
Agreement 95.76 (0.88) 97.38 (1.19) 94.40 (.90)90.36 (1.22)
Gender96.84 (2.83) 97.50 (1.40) 75.62 (2.90) 86.04 (1.43)
Number93.04 (1.64) 93.47 (2.10) 92.32 (2.15) 93.77 (1.66)
Values are presented as mean (SE).
Figure 2. Grand average ERPs corresponding to the grammatical agreement manipulation (first sentence position) in native speakers.
1876Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience Volume 22, Number 8

Page 8

900 msec, in both sentence positions, there is then a typ-
ically widely distributed P600 effect consisting in larger
positive amplitudes for both disagreement conditions
compared with the agreement condition. Again, there
are no apparent differences between the gender and the
number conditions or between sentence positions. Finally,
in both figures, a sustained negativity can be observed be-
tween around 1000 and 1300 msec, with more negative
amplitudes for the disagreement conditions, again with
no apparent differences between the violation conditions
and the sentence position conditions.
Late Learner Group
Visual inspection of these figures again reveals clear dif-
ferences in the responses to the gender and the number
disagreement conditions with respect to the agreement
conditions. However, in contrast to the native-speaker
group, there are differences between the violation condi-
tions and between the first and the second sentence po-
sitions. First, between 300 and 450 msec, in the first
sentence position, disagreement waves for both gender
and number violations display larger negative amplitudes
than the agreement condition, particularly on the left
side of the scalp, although this negativity effect appears
to be more widely distributed than in the native-speaker
group, particularly in the case of number disagreement.
In the second sentence position, this effect is absent. Be-
tween 500 and 900 msec, in both sentence positions,
there is a widely distributed P600 effect consisting in
larger positive amplitudes for both disagreement con-
ditions compared with the agreement condition, but in
contrast to the native-speaker group, the number vio-
lation condition appears to be more positive than the gen-
der violation condition. Finally, in both figures, a sustained
negativity can again be observed between around 1000
and 1300 msec, with more negative amplitudes for the dis-
agreement conditions. Again, this effect appears to be
greater for the number than for the gender agreement
violation.
Following visual inspection of the grand averaged wave-
forms, omnibus ANOVAs were carried out separately for
lateral and midline electrode groups in three different
temporal windows on the basis of calculations of mean
amplitudes: between 300 and 450 msec for the LAN effect,
Figure 3. Grand average ERPs corresponding to the grammatical agreement manipulation (second sentence position) in native speakers.
Dowens et al.1877

Page 9

between 500 and 900 msec for the P600 effect, and be-
tween 1000 and 1300 msec for the late negativity effect.
300–450 msec: early negativity.
LATERAL ELECTRODE GROUPS.
cancefour-wayinteractionincludingagreement,hemisphere,
electrode, and group, F(4, 172) = 2.25, p = .08, ε = 0.765.
ANOVA revealed a near to signifi-
MIDLINE ELECTRODE GROUPS..
in this time window in the midline electrode groups.
Although the four-way interaction (lateral electrode
groups) was only near significance, visual inspection
clearly shows that effects for native and L2 learners are
similar in the first sentence position whereas they are
quite different in the second sentence position. There-
fore, to better characterize the data, we opted to carry
out separate analyses for natives and L2 learners.
There were no reliable effects
Native-speaker group.
LATERAL ELECTRODE GROUPS.
an interaction of grammatical agreement, hemisphere, and
ANOVA in this window yielded
electrode region, F(4, 88) = 2.91, p < .05, ε = 0.727. Both
the gender and the number violation conditions were more
negative than the agreement condition but there were no
significant differences between the violation conditions.
Pairwise comparisons are shown in Table 2.
MIDLINE ELECTRODE GROUPS..
obtained.
No significant differences were
Late learner group.
LATERAL ELECTRODE GROUPS.
a four-way interaction of the factors grammatical agree-
ment, hemisphere, electrode region, and sentence posi-
tion, F(4, 84) = 2.95, p < .05, ε = 0.811. Significant
effects of grammatical agreement were only in the first sen-
tence position, with the gender and the number violation
conditions more negative than the agreement condition
and no significant differences between the violation condi-
tions. Pairwise comparisons are shown in Table 3.
ANOVA in this window yielded
MIDLINE ELECTRODE GROUPS..
obtained.
No significant differences were
Figure 4. Grand average ERPs corresponding to the grammatical agreement manipulation (first sentence position) in late learners.
1878 Journal of Cognitive NeuroscienceVolume 22, Number 8

Page 10

500–900 msec: P600.
LATERAL ELECTRODE GROUPS.
action of grammatical agreement and group, F(2, 86) =
4.15, p < .05, ε = .989. Paired contrasts (see Table 2) re-
vealed that, in the case of native speakers, both violation
conditions were more positive than the agreement con-
dition but there were no differences between the gender
and the number violations. In contrast, in the case of the
late learners (see Table 3), although both violation condi-
tions were more positive than the agreement condition,
there were also significant differences between gender
and number violation, with number showing larger positiv-
ity than gender.
ANOVA yielded a reliable inter-
MIDLINE ELECTRODE GROUPS..
action of grammatical agreement and group, F(2, 86) =
4.63, p < .05, ε = 0.971. Paired contrasts revealed that in
the case of the native-speaker group (see Table 2), the
violation conditions were more positive than the agree-
ment condition, but there were no differences between
gender and number violation. In contrast, in the case of
the late learners (see Table 3), although both violation
conditions were more positive than the agreement condi-
ANOVA yielded a reliable inter-
tion, there were also significant differences between gen-
der and number violation with number showing larger
positivity than gender.
1000–1300 msec: late negativity.
LATERAL ELECTRODE GROUPS.
action of grammatical agreement, hemisphere, and elec-
trode region, F(4, 172) = 4.43, p < .005, ε = .828, but
yielded no significant effects of group.
ANOVA yielded a reliable inter-
MIDLINE ELECTRODE GROUPS..
of grammatical agreement, F(2, 86) = 29.35, p < .001,
ε = 0.867, but no interaction with the factor group.
Although there are no reliable effects of group in this
time window, visual inspection of the figures shows a
clearly different pattern of results for the natives and
the late learners in terms of effects in the first and the
second sentence positions. Therefore, we again opted
to carry out separate analyses for the two groups.
ANOVA yielded a main effect
Native-speaker group.
LATERAL ELECTRODE GROUPS.
tion of grammatical agreement, hemisphere, and electrode
ANOVAyieldedareliableinterac-
Figure 5. Grand average ERPs corresponding to the grammatical agreement manipulation (second sentence position) in late learners.
Dowens et al.1879

Page 11

region, F(4, 88) = 3.55, p < .05, ε = .738. Paired contrasts
(seeTable2)revealedthatthegenderandthenumbervio-
lation conditions were more negative than the agreement
condition, but there were no differences between the vio-
lation conditions.
MIDLINE ELECTRODE GROUPS..
effect of grammatical agreement, F(2, 44) = 17.54, p <
.001, ε = 0.910. Paired contrasts (Table 2) indicated that
the gender violation condition was more negative than the
agreement condition and the number violation condition
was also more negative than the agreement condition.
ANOVA yielded a reliable main
Late learner group.
LATERAL ELECTRODE GROUPS.
teraction of grammatical agreement, hemisphere, and
sentence position, F(2, 42) = 3.08, p < .06, ε = .961.
Paired contrasts (see Table 3) revealed that the number
violation condition was more negative than the gender vio-
lation condition and the agreement condition.
ANOVA yielded a marginal in-
MIDLINE ELECTRODE GROUPS..
action of grammatical agreement and sentence position,
ANOVA yielded a reliable inter-
F(2, 42) = 3.45, p < .05, ε = 0.927. Paired contrasts (see
Table 3) indicated that in the first sentence position, the
number violation condition was more negative than the
agreement condition and the number violation condition
was also more negative than the gender violation condi-
tion. There were no significant effects in the second sen-
tence position.
Summary of results
For both groups, the violations of grammatical agree-
ment in the sentences presented resulted in three ef-
fects, two of which have been previously reported as
related to syntactic processing. There were differences
between the two groups, however, in the amplitude
and distribution of these effects in the different condi-
tions. For the native-speaker group, the pattern was the
same in both sentence positions and consisted in, first, a
left-biased negativity around 300–500 msec that corre-
sponds to previous reports of LAN effects, second, a gen-
erally distributed positive deflection between 500 and
900 msec corresponding to the P600, and third, a late neg-
ativity between 1000 and 1300 msec that has been pre-
viously reported as possibly relating to working memory/
task demands (Sabourin & Stowe, 2008). There were no
Table 2. Statistics for the Main Contrasts (Agreement vs. Gender Violation, Agreement vs. Number Violation) of the Significant
Interactions Obtained for the Group of Native Speakers Across the Windows of Analysis (df = 1, 22)
Native Speakers
GenderNumber
FpFpFpFp
300–450 msec
Lateral analysis
Agreement × Hemisphere ×
Electrode Region
LA 24.06 <.001RA 5.69.07LA 8.97<0.5RA 3.69 .18
LM17.48<.01 RM6.58 .05LM 9.89<0.5 RM4.12.15
LP 2.38 .35RP <1 LP 3.40.21 RP<1
500–900 msec
Lateral analysis
Agreement38.01 <.001 31.82<.001
Midline analysis
Agreement 47.80<.00132.56<.001
1000–1300 msec
Lateral analysis
Agreement × Hemisphere ×
Electrode Region
LA 14.21<.01 RA34.59 <.01 LA18.82 <.01RA37.23 <.01
LM13.74<.01 RM 27.45<.01 LM12.20 <.01 RM19.30 <.01
LP 12.04<.01RP 16.83<.01LP 14.06 <.01RP16.41<.01
Midline analysis
Agreement 27.41<.00122.61 <.001
1880Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience Volume 22, Number 8

Page 12

significant differences between the gender and the num-
ber violation conditions in any of these effects.
For the late learner group, in contrast, there were im-
portant differences between the two sentence position
manipulations and between the gender and the number
violations. The early negativity was only present in the
first sentence position violations, and although there
are no statistically significant differences between the vio-
lation conditions in this time window, the effect is more
widely distributed for the number violation condition,
reaching significance in left posterior and right posterior
scalp areas as well as in the left central area, which is the
only area significant for the gender violation. We will ana-
lyze this time window in more detail below to try to iden-
tify these effect differences with more precision. Between
500 and 900 msec in both sentence positions, there was
then a broadly distributed positive deflection that cor-
responds well to descriptions of the P600. Here again,
however, there were differences between the violation
conditions, with number violation resulting in significantly
greater positivity than gender violation, in contrast to the
results from the native-speaker group. In addition, the late
learner groups also showed a late negativity, again with dif-
ferences between the violation conditions, with the num-
ber violation condition more negative than the other
conditions.
Table 3. Statistics for the Main Contrasts (Agreement vs. Gender Violation, Agreement vs. Number Violation, and Gender
Violation vs. Number Violation) of the Significant Interactions Obtained for the Group of Late Learners Across the Windows of
Analysis (df = 1, 21)
Late Learners
Gender Number Gender <> Number
FpFpFpFpFp
300–450 msec
Lateral analysis
Agreement × Hemisphere × Electrode Region × Position
Position 1LA2.72 .30RA<1LA 3.06.25 RA<1
LM 6.92<.05 RM1.77 .48 LM 12.20<.01 RM 4.05 .16
LP3.87 .17RP 1.58 .52LP 13.52.005RP10.75 .01
Position 2LA<1RA<1 LA<1RA 1.96.44
LM<1 RM<1 LM1.10 .66 RM2.10 .41
LP<1RP <1 LP<1 RP<1
500–900 msec
Lateral analysis
Agreement14.88<.01 53.94<.001 16.70 <.01
Midline analysis
Agreement 21.82<.001 59.31<.001 16.36 <.01
1000–1300 msec
Lateral analysis
Agreement × Hemisphere × Position
Position 1 LH 10.28 <.05 LH29.2 <.001 LH16.53<.01
RH 5.38.40 RH 29.13<.001RH 19.25<.001
Position 2LH 2.70.30LH 4.46.13 LH<1
RH3.54.20 RH7.89 <.05RH 2.87 .28
Midline analysis
Agreement × Position
Position 15.78 .07 30.09<.00120.18<.01
Position 2 2.07.415.67 .07 2.35.36
Dowens et al.1881

Page 13

Early negativity—a LAN-type effect? .
tribution of the early negativity in the control group of
native speakers fits fairly closely with most reported
LAN effects, the distribution of this effect in the late learn-
ers (in the first sentence position only) is different from
the native speakers—particularly in the case of number
violation. Visual inspection of the grand averages of both
groups also reveals differences between the two groups
in the onset and duration of the early negativity. Al-
though the analysis window (300–450 msec) was consis-
tent for purposes of comparison between the groups, it is
clear that the effects develop across a slightly longer win-
dow in the case of the late learners. These differences can
be more clearly appreciated in Figure 6 in which there is
a comparison between groups of the difference waves for
each violation condition compared with the agreement
condition as well as topographical maps showing the de-
velopment of the effects in each group.
To examine these differences more closely, it was de-
cided to carry out amplitude analyses on 20-msec time
windows from 300 msec onward to locate and to com-
pare the onset of this early negativity evoked by the gen-
der and number violations. Repeated measures ANOVAs
were again performed, one for the lateral electrode groups
and one for the midline electrode groups. The results are
as follows:
Although the dis-
340–360 MSEC..
first window in which there are statistically significant ef-
fects for either group. For the native-speaker group, the
ANOVA in this window indicated a three-way interaction
between grammatical agreement, hemisphere, and elec-
trode region, F(4, 88) = 5.43, p < .005, ε = 0.606. For the
late learner group, the analyses yielded a four-way inter-
action between grammatical agreement, hemisphere,
sentence position, and electrode region, F(4, 84) = 2.91,
p < .05, ε = 0.853. Significant contrasts for this and
the other short time windows can be seen in Table 4. In
this time window, at the first sentence position, both late
learners and native speakers have a significant LAN-type
effect for number, but only the native speakers have a
LAN effect for gender. At the second sentence position,
the contrast is sharper, as the late learners show no signif-
icant effects but the native speakers have LAN-type effects
for both gender and number.
As can be seen in Table 4, this is the
400–420 MSEC..
window in which the LAN-type effect for gender violation
reaches significance. For this group, ANOVA in this win-
dow yielded a significant four-way interaction between
grammatical agreement, hemisphere, sentence position,
and electrode region, F(4, 84) = 2.71, p = .05, ε = 0.745.
Thus, it can be seen that for the native-speaker group,
both the gender and the number violation conditions
elicit a LAN that becomes statistically significant at around
340–360 msec with no effects of sentence position. How-
ever, for the late learner group, in the same time window,
For the late learner group, this is the first
this effect is restricted to the first sentence position and
to the number violation condition. For this group in a
later time window, however, from 400 to 420 msec, there
is a statistically significant left-biased negativity effect of
the gender violation condition as well as the effect of
number violation that has extended beyond the left me-
dial area to posterior and right hemisphere areas.
Summary of results
In general terms, the ERP pattern of response of both
groups to the morphosyntactic violations is fairly similar.
The biphasic ERP response of early negativity followed by
P600, which has been frequently observed in previous
studies, is repeated here. However, there are interesting
differences between the two groups in terms of the onset
and amplitude of the response to gender and number
violations. First, the early negativity is only detectable
for the late learners in the first sentence position, which
is not the case for the native speakers. Second, although
this left-biased negativity response to number agreement
violation is at the onset quite similar in the two groups, in
the case of the late learner group it has a longer duration
than for the native speakers and appears to “spread” to
posterior and right hemisphere scalp areas. Also, the re-
sponse to gender agreement violation is delayed in the
case of the late learners with respect to the native speak-
ers as this left-biased negativity has an onset that is
around 60 msec later in the case of the late learners. In
the later time windows, although both groups have clear
P600 effects, again the native speakers show no effects of
sentence position and no differences between the gen-
der and the number violation disagreement conditions,
whereas for the late learner group, the number violation
condition is significantly more negative than the gender
violation condition. Finally, although the late negativity is
observed in both groups, again there are differences for
the late learner group with the number disagreement
condition eliciting stronger effects than the gender viola-
tion condition.
DISCUSSION
According to the CPH, there are maturational constraints
on the learning of L2 or other languages. This premise
is incorporated in the failed functional features hypoth-
esis (Hawkins & Chan, 1997), which posits that, for late
learners of an L2, only language features that are already
instantiated in the L1 will be available and transferred
from the L1 to the L2. However, recent evidence indi-
cates that although age is certainly an important factor
in L2 acquisition, it is not the only factor of relevance.
In studies of the representation and processing of late-
learned L2, it is also important to take into consideration
other factors such as the level of proficiency attained. In
contrast to the failed functional features hypothesis, the
full transfer/full access view (Schwartz & Sprouse, 1996)
1882Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience Volume 22, Number 8

Page 14

Figure 6. Early negativity—
difference waves and maps for
each violation condition
compared with the agreement
condition.
Dowens et al.1883

Page 15

argues that although the starting point or initial state of
the L2 is indeed the L1 grammar, with continued expo-
sure to the L2 and high degrees of proficiency not only
will these language features or processing routines be
available for processing in the L2, but those of the L2
not present in the L1 can be acquired. Our study tested
these different assumptions by recording the electrical
brain activity of a group of English L1 participants who
began to learn Spanish after the age of 20 years, who
have lived in the L2 environment for an average of
22 years, and who have attained high levels of proficiency
in Spanish. When processing Spanish sentences contain-
ing violations of grammatical gender agreement (a fea-
ture not present in their L1) and number agreement (a
feature that is computed in the L1), the ERP patterns of
these late learners are generally similar to those of an
age-matched native-speaker group, although not identi-
cal. In the first sentence position, the late learners show
the classic pattern of left-biased negativity followed by
P600 for both gender and number violation. Thus, at
least for this determiner–noun construction, both gender
and number agreement would seem to be processed in
a native-like manner, as argued by the full transfer/full
access position. There are, however, some differences
between the effects for the gender and those for the
number violation manipulations, which is not the case
for the native-speaker group. These first position differ-
ences consist in an earlier onset of the negativity effect
for number as opposed to gender violation as well as a
wider distribution of the negativity response to number
violation across the time window and greater amplitude
of the P600 effects for the number violation condition
compared with the gender violation condition. However,
quantitative differences between gender and number
processing are in fact predictable by the full transfer/full
access model, according to which these differences could
be due to the fact that, as number is a grammatical fea-
ture in the L1 (English), it is likely to be acquired earlier
and processed in more “depth” than grammatical gender,
which does not exist in the L1. The differences in the on-
set of the early negativity and in the amplitude of the
P600 for gender and number processing, therefore, pos-
sibly reflect some differences in the speed and depth of
processing of these features even at high levels of profi-
ciency, with number violations processed faster and in
more depth than gender violations. In the same way, late
learners are showing more errors in judging the accept-
ability of sentences where gender is violated (compared
with number violation), indicating that they have more
problems with this feature than with number violation.
In the second sentence position manipulation, the dif-
ferences between the groups are somewhat greater,
whereas the native speakers show a similar negativity +
P600 pattern to the first position manipulation, with no
differences in amplitude between the experimental con-
ditions. For the late learners, there are no significant ef-
fects in the early time window, although there is again a
clear P600 effect with greater amplitudes for the number
violation condition than for the grammatical gender con-
dition and a late negativity effect with, again, greater
amplitudes for number than for gender agreement ma-
nipulations. There are a number of possible explanations
for this difference between the first and the second sen-
tence positions. One explanation may lie in capacity lim-
itation accounts of L2 acquisition and processing, which
attribute the lack of native-like processing patterns often
observed in these studies to the increased cognitive load
involved in processing the L2, particularly in terms of
working memory costs (McDonald, 2006). Processing of
the first position grammatical agreement violations pre-
sumably involves a much lower cost, firstly because the
determiner and the noun are adjacent and second be-
cause they are within the same phrase. A different case,
however, is that of the second sentence position. Here
the grammatical feature-checking involves a greater dis-
tance with an intervening element—the verb—and it is
also an across-phrase violation. Even for native speakers,
the higher cost of processing agreement with intervening
elements has been well documented (Deutsch & Bentin,
2001). It is also possible that as determiner–noun agree-
ment (the first position manipulation) is sometimes com-
puted in the L1 English but adjective–noun agreement
(the second position manipulation) is not, then the pro-
cessing routines required for the first position violation
are already available in some form to late learners whereas
the processing mechanisms necessary for the second po-
sition violations are not. This would be more in line with
Table 4. Significant Contrasts for Lateral Electrodes across
20-msec Time Windows from 300 to 440 msec
Native SpeakersLate Learners
P1P2P1 P2
GNGNGNGN
300–320nsns ns nsns nsns ns
320–340 ns nsns ns nsnsns ns
340–360 LA** LA** LA** LA**nsLM* ns ns
LM** LM** LM** LM**
360–380 LA** LA** LA** LA**ns LM* ns ns
LM** LM** LM** LM**LP*
380–400 LA** LA** LA** LA**ns LM**ns ns
LM** LM** LM** LM**LP*
400–420 LM*nsLA**nsLA* LM** RM*ns ns
LM* LM* LP** RP**
420–440 LA*nsLA*ns LM* LM** RM*ns ns
LM* LM*LP* RP*
*p < .05.
**p < .01.
1884 Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience Volume 22, Number 8