Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Does better explicit knowledge of a
morphosyntactic structure guarantee more
native-like electrophysiological processing? An
ERP study with French learners of English
Maud Pélissier1, Jennifer Krzonowski2, and Emmanuel Ferragne1
1 Laboratoire CLILLAC-ARP, EA 3967, Université Paris Diderot, France
2 Laboratoire DDL, UMR 5596, CNRS et Université Lyon 2, France
Abstract. The possible transformation of the explicit knowledge developed
during classroom learning of a second language into implicit knowledge of
that language remains an open issue. In this study, we investigated the
relationship between the explicit and implicit processing of morphosyntactic
violations of English as an L2. ERP responses were obtained from 24 French
learners (12 Intermediate and 12 Advanced) and 12 Native controls (NS)
while participants evaluated the grammaticality of orally presented
sentences containing subject-verb agreement violations. Results show that
NS and Advanced speakers outperformed the Intermediate ones on the
behavioural task. A P600 effect was obtained for all groups. Additionally,
NS and Advanced learners exhibited an early negativity after violations
while there was no significant effect in Intermediate speakers. The presence
and amplitude of this early negativity was correlated with the structure-
specific proficiency of Intermediate speakers and with the time of instruction
of all learners. Results suggest that the superior native-likeness of the early
responses obtained in Advanced learners is due more to their better
proficiency and superior degree of explicit instruction than to the direct
opportunity for implicit knowledge that their stay abroad represented.
Résumé. La connaissance explicite d’une structure morphosyntaxique
garantit-elle un traitement électrophysiologique plus natif ? Une étude
en potentiels évoqués auprès d’apprenants francophones de l’anglais.
La possibilité de transformer les connaissances explicites développées en
classe durant l’apprentissage d’une langue seconde en connaissances
implicites reste une question ouverte. Dans cette étude, nous nous sommes
intéressés au lien entre le traitement explicite et implicite de violations
morphosyntaxiques en anglais L2. Les réponses en potentiels évoqués à des
violations de l’accord sujet-verbe ont été recueillies chez 24 apprenants
francophones (12 intermédiaires et 12 avancés) et 12 sujets contrôle (LN)
complétant un jugement de grammaticalité. Les résultats montrent que les
LN et les apprenants avancés ont de meilleures performances que les
apprenants intermédiaires dans la tâche comportementale. Un effet P600 est
attesté dans tous les groupes. De plus, les LN et les apprenants avancés
© The Authors, published by EDP Sciences. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution License 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
SHS Web of Conferences 38, 00002 (2017) DOI: 10.1051/shsconf/20173800002
COULS 2016
présentent une négativité précoce après les violations d’accord, alors qu’il
n’y a pas d’effet significatif pour les apprenants intermédiaires. La présence
et l’amplitude de cette négativité est corrélée aux connaissances structurales
pour les locuteurs intermédiaires et à la durée d’enseignement pour tous les
locuteurs. Les résultats suggèrent que le caractère quasi-natif des réponses
des apprenants avancés est davantage lié à de meilleures connaissances et un
degré supérieur d’enseignement explicite qu’à des connaissances implicites
résultant de leur séjour à l’étranger.
1 Introduction
1.1 Implicit and Explicit Knowledge
Processing a language in real time relies on different types of knowledge that are often
referred to as implicit and explicit knowledge (Andringa & Rebuschat, 2015; Rebuschat &
Williams, 2013; Ullman, 2001). Implicit knowledge is usually characterised as knowledge
we are unaware of and associated with automatic processing and procedural memory. It
involves being able to complete a task without necessarily being aware of it and without
having the capacity to explicitly describe how we do it. This is typically the case for walking
or riding a bike, or, in terms of language abilities, for processing and producing the grammar
of our first language. Explicit knowledge on the other hand is knowledge that we know we
have, associated with certain types of conscious processes to retrieve specific memories. It is
often linked with declarative memory and, when it comes to language, it is frequently
associated with metalinguistic knowledge and the ability to describe the rules of a language.
However, knowing the rules of a language does not mean one is fluent in it, and one can
sometimes say more about the language they are learning than in it.
For most people, learning a second language in their home country implies learning it at
school and therefore mostly through explicit instruction, usually with some focus on the rules
of grammar. However, no consensus has been reached as to the degree to which the explicit
and metalinguistic knowledge acquired in the classroom can be transformed into implicit
knowledge and be integrated, automatized and proceduralised to be used without consciously
recalling the explicit rules. Some researchers argue that no implicit knowledge can be
transformed into explicit knowledge (no interface, e.g. Krashen, 1982), others claim that only
some of it can and at the right developmental stage or that both types of knowledge can
cooperate for learning (weak interface, e.g. R. Ellis, 1994 or N. Ellis, 2008), and others argue
that all explicit knowledge can be transformed into implicit knowledge with time and practice
(strong interface position, e.g. DeKeyser, 2007).
In this study, we were interested in the relationship between the explicit and the implicit
processing of morphosyntactic violations in English as an L2 by French learners, and in the
influence the proficiency of the participant can have on these two types of processing. To this
purpose, we used two main measures: a grammaticality judgment task which requires some
degree of conscious processing and is therefore associated with more explicit although not
necessarily verbalised knowledge of syntactic rules, and event-related potentials (ERPs)
which are automatic responses of the brain and thus commonly linked to unconscious
knowledge and processing.
We focused on a structure that works in a similar way in French and English and is thus
likely to benefit from positive transfer: subject-verb agreement. Subject-verb agreement in
French is realized orally through different inflectional suffixes (from 3 to 5 different endings
depending on the type of verb); in English, its only instance is in the 3rd person singular in
the indicative present tense. This subject-agreement rule is taught very early and repeatedly
2
SHS Web of Conferences 38, 00002 (2017) DOI: 10.1051/shsconf/20173800002
COULS 2016
présentent une négativité précoce après les violations d’accord, alors qu’il
n’y a pas d’effet significatif pour les apprenants intermédiaires. La présence
et l’amplitude de cette négativité est corrélée aux connaissances structurales
pour les locuteurs intermédiaires et à la durée d’enseignement pour tous les
locuteurs. Les résultats suggèrent que le caractère quasi-natif des réponses
des apprenants avancés est davantage lié à de meilleures connaissances et un
degré supérieur d’enseignement explicite qu’à des connaissances implicites
résultant de leur séjour à l’étranger.
1 Introduction
1.1 Implicit and Explicit Knowledge
Processing a language in real time relies on different types of knowledge that are often
referred to as implicit and explicit knowledge (Andringa & Rebuschat, 2015; Rebuschat &
Williams, 2013; Ullman, 2001). Implicit knowledge is usually characterised as knowledge
we are unaware of and associated with automatic processing and procedural memory. It
involves being able to complete a task without necessarily being aware of it and without
having the capacity to explicitly describe how we do it. This is typically the case for walking
or riding a bike, or, in terms of language abilities, for processing and producing the grammar
of our first language. Explicit knowledge on the other hand is knowledge that we know we
have, associated with certain types of conscious processes to retrieve specific memories. It is
often linked with declarative memory and, when it comes to language, it is frequently
associated with metalinguistic knowledge and the ability to describe the rules of a language.
However, knowing the rules of a language does not mean one is fluent in it, and one can
sometimes say more about the language they are learning than in it.
For most people, learning a second language in their home country implies learning it at
school and therefore mostly through explicit instruction, usually with some focus on the rules
of grammar. However, no consensus has been reached as to the degree to which the explicit
and metalinguistic knowledge acquired in the classroom can be transformed into implicit
knowledge and be integrated, automatized and proceduralised to be used without consciously
recalling the explicit rules. Some researchers argue that no implicit knowledge can be
transformed into explicit knowledge (no interface, e.g. Krashen, 1982), others claim that only
some of it can and at the right developmental stage or that both types of knowledge can
cooperate for learning (weak interface, e.g. R. Ellis, 1994 or N. Ellis, 2008), and others argue
that all explicit knowledge can be transformed into implicit knowledge with time and practice
(strong interface position, e.g. DeKeyser, 2007).
In this study, we were interested in the relationship between the explicit and the implicit
processing of morphosyntactic violations in English as an L2 by French learners, and in the
influence the proficiency of the participant can have on these two types of processing. To this
purpose, we used two main measures: a grammaticality judgment task which requires some
degree of conscious processing and is therefore associated with more explicit although not
necessarily verbalised knowledge of syntactic rules, and event-related potentials (ERPs)
which are automatic responses of the brain and thus commonly linked to unconscious
knowledge and processing.
We focused on a structure that works in a similar way in French and English and is thus
likely to benefit from positive transfer: subject-verb agreement. Subject-verb agreement in
French is realized orally through different inflectional suffixes (from 3 to 5 different endings
depending on the type of verb); in English, its only instance is in the 3rd person singular in
the indicative present tense. This subject-agreement rule is taught very early and repeatedly
throughout the years of English instruction French students complete. Yet omitting the 3rd
person –s is one of the most common mistakes learners make and one of the most persistent
ones, which suggests that this grammatical rule is resistant to instruction and that having good
explicit knowledge of this rule does not directly influence the way it is processed. Despite
the positive transfer and the apparent simplicity of the rule, proceduralisation of this rule
seems to be problematic and suggest a need for more implicit knowledge.
1.2 ERPs
ERPs represent changes in brain electric activity triggered by particular events (Fabiani,
Gratton, & Federmeier, 2007; van Hell & Tokowicz, 2010). Two main ERP components have
been identified for the study of syntactic processing (Hahne & Friederici, 1999, 2001) and
are of interest for this study. The first one is the Left Anterior Negativity (LAN), a negative
shift occurring between 300 and 500 ms after morphosyntactic violations (Chen, Shu, Liu,
Zhao, & Li, 2007). It is said to evidence automatic processing of morphosyntax (Friederici,
2002). It is also sometimes preceded by an Early Left Anterior Negativity (ELAN)
(Friederici, 2002; Hahne & Friederici, 1999). The P600, a positive shift maximal at centro-
parietal locations (van Hell & Tokowicz, 2010) between 500 and 900 ms, has been
consistently observed in response to a large variety of syntactic violations (Bond, Gabriele,
Fiorentino & Alemán Bañon, 2011; Hahne & Friederici, 2001; Meulman, Stowe, Sprenger,
Bresser, & Schmid, 2014; Tanner, Mclaughlin, Herschensohn, & Osterhout, 2013). It is
thought to reflect control and reanalysis processes (Kaan, Harris, Gibson, & Holcomb, 2000).
ERPs observed in native and non-native speakers often differ, either in a qualitative
(different component, Tanner, Mclaughlin, et al., 2013) or a quantitative way (delays and
amplitude reductions, Sabourin & Stowe, 2008). Several factors have been identified to
explain why some learners exhibit similar ERPs as native speakers and others do not, among
which proficiency – which has been shown to positively correlate with the magnitude of the
observed ERP (Ojima, Nakata, & Kakigi, 2005; Rossi, Gugler, Friederici, & Hahne, 2006;
Tanner, Inoue, & Osterhout, 2013). Proficiency was found to induce quantitative (delayed
P600s with reduced amplitude in intermediate compared to advanced learners in Tanner,
Inoue, et al., 2013; Tanner, Mclaughlin, et al., 2013) and qualitative differences (a LAN in
advanced speakers only in Rossi et al., 2006). Since our French participants have different
proficiency levels, we expect to find these differences between our groups and/or with the
native speakers.
ERP components also differ in terms of their relation with implicitness. Although early
negativities like the ELAN and the LAN are deemed automatic and thus require a certain
degree of implicit processing, later components like the P600 reflect controlled processes and
are not found in the absence of attention (Pulvermüller, Shtyrov, Hasting, & Carlyon, 2008),
which suggests that they require explicit processing.
1.3 Research hypotheses
French learners who participated in this study were divided into 2 groups based on their year
of University instruction. Due to the omnipresence of the subject-verb agreement rule in
English instruction, it is expected that learners in both groups had similar explicit knowledge
of this particular structure. No major differences in later ERP components (P600) were
expected between the groups. However, participants who were more advanced were expected
to have better explicit knowledge of the language in general. Since processing of the auditory
stimuli involved paying attention to more than just the subject-verb agreement rule,
differences in the behavioural performance (measured by the sensitivity index or d’) could
still be observed.
3
SHS Web of Conferences 38, 00002 (2017) DOI: 10.1051/shsconf/20173800002
COULS 2016
Participants in the Advanced group had spent an academic year abroad. This should be
associated with the development of more implicit knowledge, especially for a structure that
is so common. However the impact of study abroad experiences on the development of
sensitivity to grammatical violations is usually very limited or null (Segalowitz, 2004). If a
1-year study abroad experience is enough for the development of implicit knowledge, we
should see differences in early ERPs (ELAN or LAN) between the Advanced and
Intermediate learners.
For Native Speakers, we expect to find ERP results similar to those obtained in previous
studies: a possible LAN followed by a P600. Their behavioural performance should be
superior to that of Intermediate learners, but could be statistically indistinguishable from that
of Advanced learners.
2 Methods
2.1 Participants
24 French learners of English as well as 12 Native Speakers took part in the experiment. All
were right-handed (as assessed by the Edinburgh Handedness Inventory (Oldfield, 1971))
with normal or corrected sight and normal hearing (as confirmed by a hearing test). All
participants were paid for their participation. Native Speakers of English had grown up in
England or the United States of America and were exchange students in a French University.
French participants were English Majors at one of the Universities in Lyon. They were
divided into two groups based on their degree and a proficiency test completed prior to the
experiment targeting oral comprehension and production. 12 of them were first-year students
who had an intermediate level of English and had never spent more than 2 weeks in an
English-speaking country. The remaining 12 were graduates who had spent one academic
year in an English-speaking country and had an advanced level of proficiency. They were
Master’s students and many of them were preparing for teaching certifications (CAPES).
Mean ages for each group are reported in Table 1.
Table 1. Number and Mean Age of Participants per Group.
Group
Number of participants
(male participants)
Mean age
Standard
Deviation
Native Speakers
12 (1)
21y10m
1y10m
Advanced Learners
12 (3)
23y10m
1y2m
Intermediate Learners
12 (5)
20y
1y2m
The two groups of learners differed on a number of points, the first one being their
proficiency, evaluated according to the CEFR (Common European Framework of Reference
for Languages): participants in the Intermediate group had a B1 to B2 level (“independent
user”) whereas participants in the Advanced group had a C1 to C2 level (“proficient user”).
Their degree of exposure to the language (2 weeks at most vs. 1 year) and their time of
University instruction (1 semester vs. 5 to 7 semesters) differed as well. There was a
significant difference between their total time of instruction (t(21.99)=3.77, p<.01;
MeanAdvanced = 13y8m ± 22m; MeanIntermediate = 10y9m ± 23m). Finally, the two groups
differed significantly in their self-assessment of their overall English proficiency
(t(16.25)=2.22, p<.05; MeanAdvanced = 16.75/20 ± 2.09; MeanIntermediate = 15.25/20 ± 1.06).
More precisely, the differences concerned their assessment of their own abilities in oral
4
SHS Web of Conferences 38, 00002 (2017) DOI: 10.1051/shsconf/20173800002
COULS 2016
Participants in the Advanced group had spent an academic year abroad. This should be
associated with the development of more implicit knowledge, especially for a structure that
is so common. However the impact of study abroad experiences on the development of
sensitivity to grammatical violations is usually very limited or null (Segalowitz, 2004). If a
1-year study abroad experience is enough for the development of implicit knowledge, we
should see differences in early ERPs (ELAN or LAN) between the Advanced and
Intermediate learners.
For Native Speakers, we expect to find ERP results similar to those obtained in previous
studies: a possible LAN followed by a P600. Their behavioural performance should be
superior to that of Intermediate learners, but could be statistically indistinguishable from that
of Advanced learners.
2 Methods
2.1 Participants
24 French learners of English as well as 12 Native Speakers took part in the experiment. All
were right-handed (as assessed by the Edinburgh Handedness Inventory (Oldfield, 1971))
with normal or corrected sight and normal hearing (as confirmed by a hearing test). All
participants were paid for their participation. Native Speakers of English had grown up in
England or the United States of America and were exchange students in a French University.
French participants were English Majors at one of the Universities in Lyon. They were
divided into two groups based on their degree and a proficiency test completed prior to the
experiment targeting oral comprehension and production. 12 of them were first-year students
who had an intermediate level of English and had never spent more than 2 weeks in an
English-speaking country. The remaining 12 were graduates who had spent one academic
year in an English-speaking country and had an advanced level of proficiency. They were
Master’s students and many of them were preparing for teaching certifications (CAPES).
Mean ages for each group are reported in Table 1.
Table 1. Number and Mean Age of Participants per Group.
Group
Number of participants
(male participants)
Mean age
Standard
Deviation
Native Speakers
12 (1)
21y10m
1y10m
Advanced Learners
12 (3)
23y10m
1y2m
Intermediate Learners
12 (5)
20y
1y2m
The two groups of learners differed on a number of points, the first one being their
proficiency, evaluated according to the CEFR (Common European Framework of Reference
for Languages): participants in the Intermediate group had a B1 to B2 level (“independent
user”) whereas participants in the Advanced group had a C1 to C2 level (“proficient user”).
Their degree of exposure to the language (2 weeks at most vs. 1 year) and their time of
University instruction (1 semester vs. 5 to 7 semesters) differed as well. There was a
significant difference between their total time of instruction (t(21.99)=3.77, p<.01;
MeanAdvanced = 13y8m ± 22m; MeanIntermediate = 10y9m ± 23m). Finally, the two groups
differed significantly in their self-assessment of their overall English proficiency
(t(16.25)=2.22, p<.05; MeanAdvanced = 16.75/20 ± 2.09; MeanIntermediate = 15.25/20 ± 1.06).
More precisely, the differences concerned their assessment of their own abilities in oral
comprehension (MeanAdvanced = 4.25/5 ± 0.45; MeanIntermediate = 3.75/5 ± 1.06; t(20.10)=2.25,
p<.05), which was a key parameter for this experiment since stimuli were presented orally.
2.2 Material
The critical material consisted of 160 short active sentences composed of a 3rd person
pronoun (He or They), a verb in the present tense and a short complement (adjective and noun
or frequent adverbial phrase). All the lexical words used in these sentences were among the
1000 most frequent words of their grammatical category in the COCA ( Corpus of
Contemporary American English, the largest corpus of contemporary English that is freely
available and the only balanced corpus of American English, see Davies, 2008), so as to
reduce possible difficulties in understanding the sentences for the participants in the
Intermediate group. Words specific to American English were avoided so as not to unsettle
the participants who were native speakers of British English.
Half of the sentences contained a violation of Subject-Verb agreement – the presence or
absence of the –s at the end of the main verb determined the grammatical acceptability of the
sentence. Half of the sentences were constructed with the pronoun He and half with the
pronoun They, which enabled us to balance the presence of the –s in correct and incorrect
sentences (see examples (1) and (2)).
(1) a. They reject the proposition.
PRO.3PL rejeter.PST la proposition
‘Ils rejettent la proposition.’
b. * They rejects the proposition.
PRO.3PL rejeter.PST.3SG la proposition
‘Ils rejettent la proposition.’
(2) a. He meets people every day.
PRO.3SG rencontrer.PST.3SG gens tous jours.
‘Il rencontre des gens tous les jours.’
b. * He meet people every day.
PRO.3SG rencontrer.PST gens tous jours.
‘Il rencontre des gens tous les jours.’
All the stimuli were recorded by a native speaker of English (from Portland, Oregon,
USA) at a natural pace with an Audio Technica AT2020 USB microphone in a sound-
attenuated booth with ROCme! software (Ferragne, Flavier, & Fressard, 2012). Stimuli were
digitized as PCM mono, 44.1 kHz, 16 bit. Irregularities in the frequency response of the
microphone and headphones (BeyerDynamics DT770 Pro – 250 Ohms) were corrected with
the equalization function in Audacity (Team Audacity, 2013). RMS intensity was made equal
across stimuli with the Praat program (Boersma & Weenink, 2007). The critical point – the
instant from which event-related potentials were recorded – was the beginning of the word
following the violation, meaning the moment at which the sentence becomes correct or
incorrect.
5
SHS Web of Conferences 38, 00002 (2017) DOI: 10.1051/shsconf/20173800002
COULS 2016
2.3 Procedure
2.3.1 Preliminary tasks
Participants first completed a language background questionnaire collecting data on the
different languages they spoke and their motivation to learn foreign languages. The
questionnaire for French participants, inspired from standard questionnaires used in second
language acquisition (Gullberg & Indefrey, 2003; Marian, Blumenfeld, & Kaushanskaya,
2007; Ping Li, 2006), also contained questions about their age of acquisition of English, the
time they had spent in an English-speaking country and a self-assessment of their proficiency.
Participants’ hearing was tested with an Electronica Technologies 600M USB
audiometer. The Hughson-Westlake method (Carhart & Jerger, 1959) was used to determine
their hearing threshold, which was confirmed to be normal.
French participants also completed a proficiency test including a listening and a speaking
task. The oral comprehension task was based on the test these participants had completed for
their Baccalauréat. It enabled us to make sure that the participants were proficient enough to
understand the audio stimuli in the main experiment. Participants listened to an audio
document (a 1-minute extract from a BBC podcast) twice and gave an account of it in French.
The speaking test was inspired by TOEFL tasks. Participants had 15 seconds to prepare for
their production and then were asked to speak for 45 to 60 seconds about a given topic. They
completed this task twice: first to tell an amusing anecdote from their personal life and then
to express and justify an opinion on a specific topic.
2.3.2 Main experiment
For the main part of the experiment, participants listened to the recorded stimuli in a sound-
attenuated room with dim lighting. Stimuli were presented with Presentation software
(Neurobehavioral Systems, 2012) at a mean intensity of 70 dBA (calibrated with a GRAS 43
AG artificial ear) with the following procedure (see Figure 1). A fixation cross appeared first
for 1000 ms and remained on the screen during the auditory presentation of the stimulus
(around 1500 to 2000 ms) to reduce ocular movements and for 1000 ms after the end of the
stimulus. A screen prompted the participant to evaluate the grammaticality of the sentence
and remained for at most 2000 ms. Participants answered by pressing a coloured button on a
response box.
Figure 1. Experimental Procedure
6
SHS Web of Conferences 38, 00002 (2017) DOI: 10.1051/shsconf/20173800002
COULS 2016
2.3 Procedure
2.3.1 Preliminary tasks
Participants first completed a language background questionnaire collecting data on the
different languages they spoke and their motivation to learn foreign languages. The
questionnaire for French participants, inspired from standard questionnaires used in second
language acquisition (Gullberg & Indefrey, 2003; Marian, Blumenfeld, & Kaushanskaya,
2007; Ping Li, 2006), also contained questions about their age of acquisition of English, the
time they had spent in an English-speaking country and a self-assessment of their proficiency.
Participants’ hearing was tested with an Electronica Technologies 600M USB
audiometer. The Hughson-Westlake method (Carhart & Jerger, 1959) was used to determine
their hearing threshold, which was confirmed to be normal.
French participants also completed a proficiency test including a listening and a speaking
task. The oral comprehension task was based on the test these participants had completed for
their Baccalauréat. It enabled us to make sure that the participants were proficient enough to
understand the audio stimuli in the main experiment. Participants listened to an audio
document (a 1-minute extract from a BBC podcast) twice and gave an account of it in French.
The speaking test was inspired by TOEFL tasks. Participants had 15 seconds to prepare for
their production and then were asked to speak for 45 to 60 seconds about a given topic. They
completed this task twice: first to tell an amusing anecdote from their personal life and then
to express and justify an opinion on a specific topic.
2.3.2 Main experiment
For the main part of the experiment, participants listened to the recorded stimuli in a sound-
attenuated room with dim lighting. Stimuli were presented with Presentation software
(Neurobehavioral Systems, 2012) at a mean intensity of 70 dBA (calibrated with a GRAS 43
AG artificial ear) with the following procedure (see Figure 1). A fixation cross appeared first
for 1000 ms and remained on the screen during the auditory presentation of the stimulus
(around 1500 to 2000 ms) to reduce ocular movements and for 1000 ms after the end of the
stimulus. A screen prompted the participant to evaluate the grammaticality of the sentence
and remained for at most 2000 ms. Participants answered by pressing a coloured button on a
response box.
Figure 1. Experimental Procedure
2.3.3 EEG data acquisition
EEGs were recorded with a Biosemi ActiveTwo system with 32 active electrods at the
following sites: Fp1, Fp2, F3, Fz, F4, F8, FC5, FC1, FC2, FC6, T7, C3, Cz, C4, T8, CP5,
CP1, CP2, CP6, P7, P3, Pz, P4, P8, PO3, PO4, O1, Oz and O2. Vertical and horizontal
electro-oculograms were recorded with a bipolar montage using electrodes placed above,
underneath and to the left of the left eye. EEGs were referenced on-line to the average of all
electrodes and re-referenced off-line to the average of the two mastoids. Data were filtered
on-line between 0.1 and 100 Hz. Electrode offset was maintained below 20 mV and the signal
was sampled at a rate of 512 Hz.
2.3.4 Data analysis
Hit rates (correct acceptation of grammatical sentences) and false alarms (incorrect
acceptation of ungrammatical sentences) were computed for each subject according to signal
detection theory (J. Tanner, Wilson, & Swets, 1954). The response variable used in analyses
of behavioural data was the sensitivity index (d’) of the participants. A linear mixed-effect
model with d’ as a dependent variable and Group (Native/Intermediate/Advanced) and
Pronoun (He/They) as categorical predictors was conducted with the R program (R Core
Team, 2014).
Since the stimuli were followed by a 1000 ms interval, response times were not precise
enough to reveal processing difficulties and were therefore not analysed. All trials were
included in the ERPs analysis, independently of the accuracy of the behavioural response1.
EEG data were analysed with MATLAB (The Mathworks, 2008) and the EEGLAB (Delorme
& Makeig, 2004) and ERPLAB (Lopez-Calderón & Luck, 2014) toolboxes. Epochs from -
200 ms to 900 ms around the critical point were extracted from continuous data. After
baseline correction (-200-0 ms), high-pass filtering at 0.1 Hz and low-pass filtering at 30 Hz,
trials for which peak-to-peak amplitude exceeded 70 µV on the EOG channel or 150 µV on
the other channels were automatically rejected. Visual inspection completed the artefact
rejection process. ERPs were averaged for each subject and each group. Electrodes selected
for the analyses were divided into central line electrodes (Fz, Cz, Pz) and lateral electrodes,
themselves divided into anterior/central/posterior region and left/right hemisphere (anterior
left: F3, F7, FP1, AF3; anterior right: F4, F8, FP2, AF4; central left: FC1, FC5, C3, CP1,
CP5; central right: FC2, FC6, C4, CP2, CP6; posterior left: P3, P7, PO3, O1; posterior right:
P4, P8, PO4, O2).
According to the literature and after visual inspection of ERP waveforms, several
temporal windows of interest were selected: a P600 window (500-900 ms) and two windows
for early negativities: 100-300 ms and 300-500 ms. The mean amplitude in each window was
computed for each subject and each condition and for the difference between Incorrect and
Correct conditions.
Results were analysed using linear mixed-effect models in R version 3.1.0, packages lme4
version 1.1.10 (Bates et al., 2015), LMERConvenienceFunctions version 2.10 (Tremblay &
Ransijn, 2015), lmerTest version 2.0-33 (Kuznetsova, Brockhoff, & Christensen, 2015), and
lsmeans version 2.25 (Lenth, 2016). Each component was analysed in five steps:
1 This is a recurring approach in second language acquisition (Chen et al., 2007; Mueller, 2005; Ojima
et al., 2005; Weber-Fox & Neville, 1996) ; besides, some studies have found ERP effects without
behavioural effects (Tokowicz & MacWhinney, 2005).
7
SHS Web of Conferences 38, 00002 (2017) DOI: 10.1051/shsconf/20173800002
COULS 2016
1. An initial model was built with the maximal fixed-effect structure and only a
random intercept. The dependent variable was the mean amplitude in the selected
time-window.
2. The best random-effect structure was determined by forward-fitting the random
effect structure through log-likelihood ratio comparisons.
(LMERConvenienceFunctions::ffRanefLMER.fnc)
3. The resulting model was reduced by removing non-significant higher order fixed
effects through log-likelihood comparisons
(LMERConvenienceFunctions::bgFixefLMER_F.fnc)
4. The resulting model was submitted to a type III Anova with a Satterthwaite
approximation of the degrees of freedom (lmerTest::anova)
5. Higher order interactions were followed-up with pairwise post-hoc tests adjusted
for multiple comparisons with Tukey’s honest significant difference
(lsmeans::lsmeans)
Since the factor Region was always included in the highest order interaction, we
followed-up these interactions by building different models for each level of Region:
Anterior, Central and Posterior. This enabled us to directly compare the effects of Pronoun
and Group in the same model. For brevity, only these models and only significant results are
reported here.
The initial model thus included as initial fixed effects: Condition (Cond):
Correct/Incorrect, Pronoun (Pro): He/They, Hemisphere (Hem): Left/Right, and Group
(Group): Advanced/Intermediate/Native Speakers, and their interactions. The random effects
evaluated for inclusion in the model were: Condition, Pronoun, Region and Hemisphere.
3 Results
3.1 Behavioural data
Overall, participants detected violations successfully (see Table 2 for the mean d’ and
accuracy per group). Linear mixed-effect model analyses revealed a main effect of Group
(F(2,33) = 6.07, p < .01), see also Figure 2. Pairwise comparisons (adjusted with Tukey’s
Honest Significant Difference) showed that accuracy was significantly higher for the Native
Speakers (NS) than for the Intermediate Learners (IL) (t(33)=3.39, p<.01) and marginally
higher for the Advanced Learners (AL) than the Intermediate ones (t(33)=2.40, p=.06). There
was however no significant difference between NS and AL. There was also a main effect of
Pronoun (F(1,33)=5.47, p<.05) due to the fact that participants all performed slightly better
for violations with the pronoun He (t(33)=2.34, p<.05): their d’ was on average 0.32 points
better with He than with They.
Table 2. Mean d' and accuracy per Group on the grammaticality judgment task
d’
Accuracy
Native Speakers
4.13
97%
Advanced Learners
3.78
94%
Intermediate Learners
2.92
88%
8
SHS Web of Conferences 38, 00002 (2017) DOI: 10.1051/shsconf/20173800002
COULS 2016
1. An initial model was built with the maximal fixed-effect structure and only a
random intercept. The dependent variable was the mean amplitude in the selected
time-window.
2. The best random-effect structure was determined by forward-fitting the random
effect structure through log-likelihood ratio comparisons.
(LMERConvenienceFunctions::ffRanefLMER.fnc)
3. The resulting model was reduced by removing non-significant higher order fixed
effects through log-likelihood comparisons
(LMERConvenienceFunctions::bgFixefLMER_F.fnc)
4. The resulting model was submitted to a type III Anova with a Satterthwaite
approximation of the degrees of freedom (lmerTest::anova)
5. Higher order interactions were followed-up with pairwise post-hoc tests adjusted
for multiple comparisons with Tukey’s honest significant difference
(lsmeans::lsmeans)
Since the factor Region was always included in the highest order interaction, we
followed-up these interactions by building different models for each level of Region:
Anterior, Central and Posterior. This enabled us to directly compare the effects of Pronoun
and Group in the same model. For brevity, only these models and only significant results are
reported here.
The initial model thus included as initial fixed effects: Condition (Cond):
Correct/Incorrect, Pronoun (Pro): He/They, Hemisphere (Hem): Left/Right, and Group
(Group): Advanced/Intermediate/Native Speakers, and their interactions. The random effects
evaluated for inclusion in the model were: Condition, Pronoun, Region and Hemisphere.
3 Results
3.1 Behavioural data
Overall, participants detected violations successfully (see Table 2 for the mean d’ and
accuracy per group). Linear mixed-effect model analyses revealed a main effect of Group
(F(2,33) = 6.07, p < .01), see also Figure 2. Pairwise comparisons (adjusted with Tukey’s
Honest Significant Difference) showed that accuracy was significantly higher for the Native
Speakers (NS) than for the Intermediate Learners (IL) (t(33)=3.39, p<.01) and marginally
higher for the Advanced Learners (AL) than the Intermediate ones (t(33)=2.40, p=.06). There
was however no significant difference between NS and AL. There was also a main effect of
Pronoun (F(1,33)=5.47, p<.05) due to the fact that participants all performed slightly better
for violations with the pronoun He (t(33)=2.34, p<.05): their d’ was on average 0.32 points
better with He than with They.
Table 2. Mean d' and accuracy per Group on the grammaticality judgment task
d’
Accuracy
Native Speakers
4.13
97%
Advanced Learners
3.78
94%
Intermediate Learners
2.92
88%
3.2 EEG data
Waveforms for the Incorrect and Correct condition per Group and Pronoun can be seen in
Figure 3.
Figure 3. ERPs per Group and Pronoun
Figure 2. Sensitivity index (d') per Group and Pronoun (Mean and Standard Deviation).
9
SHS Web of Conferences 38, 00002 (2017) DOI: 10.1051/shsconf/20173800002
COULS 2016
3.2.1 P600 Effect (500-900 ms)
Anterior. The Cond × Pro interaction only was significant (F(1,1147)=17.69, p=.000). Post-
hoc comparisons show that there was no effect of condition with the pronoun He, but a
positivity with the pronoun They (Mean(TheyI-TheyC)=1.57 µV, t(45.78)=4.1, p<.001).
Central. Only the Cond × Pro interaction was significant (F(1,1295)=67.77, p=.000). A
positivity was found for both pronouns (Mean(HeI-HeC)=1.08 µV, t(45.21)=2.9, p<.01;
Mean(TheyI-TheyC)=3.19 µV, t(45.21)=8.6, p<.001) but was larger with the pronoun They
(Mean((TheyI-TheyC)-(HeI-HeC))=2.06 µV, t(35)=3.6, p=.001).
Posterior. The Cond × Pro interaction only was significant (F(1,1148)=30.87, p=.000). The
amplitude in the Incorrect condition was larger than in the Correct condition for both
pronouns (Mean(HeI-HeC)=1.16, t(47.35)=3.0 µV, p<.01; Mean(TheyI-TheyC)=2.76 µV,
t(47.35)=7.2, p<.0001). The difference between the two conditions was once again larger
with with They (Mean((TheyI-TheyC)-(HeI-HeC))=1.60 µV, t(35)=3.4, p<.01) although less so than in
the Central region.
In the 500-900 ms time window, violations elicited a broadly-distributed positivity with
They and a Centro-Posterior one with He (thus resembling more a typical P600-effect) for all
groups (see Figure 4).
10
SHS Web of Conferences 38, 00002 (2017) DOI: 10.1051/shsconf/20173800002
COULS 2016
3.2.1 P600 Effect (500-900 ms)
Anterior. The Cond × Pro interaction only was significant (F(1,1147)=17.69, p=.000). Post-
hoc comparisons show that there was no effect of condition with the pronoun He, but a
positivity with the pronoun They (Mean(TheyI-TheyC)=1.57 µV, t(45.78)=4.1, p<.001).
Central. Only the Cond × Pro interaction was significant (F(1,1295)=67.77, p=.000). A
positivity was found for both pronouns (Mean(HeI-HeC)=1.08 µV, t(45.21)=2.9, p<.01;
Mean(TheyI-TheyC)=3.19 µV, t(45.21)=8.6, p<.001) but was larger with the pronoun They
(Mean((TheyI-TheyC)-(HeI-HeC))=2.06 µV, t(35)=3.6, p=.001).
Posterior. The Cond × Pro interaction only was significant (F(1,1148)=30.87, p=.000). The
amplitude in the Incorrect condition was larger than in the Correct condition for both
pronouns (Mean(HeI-HeC)=1.16, t(47.35)=3.0 µV, p<.01; Mean(TheyI-TheyC)=2.76 µV,
t(47.35)=7.2, p<.0001). The difference between the two conditions was once again larger
with with They (Mean((TheyI-TheyC)-(HeI-HeC))=1.60 µV, t(35)=3.4, p<.01) although less so than in
the Central region.
In the 500-900 ms time window, violations elicited a broadly-distributed positivity with
They and a Centro-Posterior one with He (thus resembling more a typical P600-effect) for all
groups (see Figure 4).
Figure 4. Amplitude in the 500-900 ms window per Condition, Pronoun and Region (Mean and
Standard Deviation)
11
SHS Web of Conferences 38, 00002 (2017) DOI: 10.1051/shsconf/20173800002
COULS 2016
3.2.2 Early negativity (100-300 ms)
Anterior. The Cond × Pro × Group interaction almost reached significance (F(2,1073)=2.99,
p=.050). Due to the level of the p value, this interaction was followed up by post-hoc
comparisons. A negativity was found with the pronoun He for participants in the Advanced
Group (Mean(HeI-HeC)=-1.38 µV, t(1073)=5.2, p<.0001) and the Native Speakers Group
(Mean(HeI-HeC)=-0.97, t(1073)=3.7, p<.01) but not the Intermediate Group (Mean(HeI-HeC)=-
0.24 µV, t(1073)=0.9, p=.94). Violations with the pronoun They elicited a positivity for
participants in the Advanced (Mean(TheyI-TheyC)=1.27 µV, t(1073)=4.8, p<.0001) and
Intermediate (Mean(TheyI-TheyC)=1.44 µV, t(1073)=5.5, p<.0001) Groups but not for Native
Speakers (Mean(TheyI-TheyC)=0.45 µV, t(1073)=1.7, p=.52). Post-hoc comparisons for the two
next significant higher order interactions Cond × Pro (F(1,1073)=79.14, p=.0000) and Cond
× Group (F(2,1073)=5.80, p=.003) revealed an overall negativity with the pronoun He
(Mean(HeI-HeC)=-0.86 µV, t(1073)=5.67, p<.0001) and a positivity with the pronoun They
(Mean(TheyI-TheyC)=1.05 µV, t(1073)=6.91, p<.0001); as well as a general positivity for
participants in the Intermediate Group (Mean(I-C)= 0.60, t(1073)=3.21, p<.01) but nothing for
the two other groups. This is not surprising since these results are averaged over pronouns
and we know that for participants in the Advanced and Native Speakers groups, the polarity
of the difference between Incorrect and Correct conditions was opposed between the two
pronouns.
Central. Post-hoc comparisons for the significant Cond × Pro × Group interaction
(F(2,1427)=8.51, p=.0002) revealed a negativity with He for participants in the Advanced
Group only (Mean(HeI-HeC)=-1.86 µV, t(42.86)=-4.2, p<.01). There was a positivity with They
for both learner groups (Mean(ALTheyI-ALTheyC)=2.18, t(42.86)=4.9, p<.001; Mean(ILTheyI-
ILTheyC)=2.46, t(42.86)=5.55, p<.0001).
Posterior. There was a significant Cond × Pro interaction (F(1,1148)=166.46, p=.0000).
Violations with He triggered a negativity (Mean(He I-HeC)=-0.94, t(44.83)=-3.4, p=<.01) and
violations with They elicited a positivity (Mean(TheyI-TheyC)=1.51, t(44.83)=5.4, p<.0001).
Violations with the pronoun They thus triggered an early broadly-distributed positivity for
both learner groups and a posterior one for Native Speakers. Violations with He were
followed by an early anterior negativity for Native Speakers, a posterior negativity for
Intermediate learners and a largely distributed one for Advanced Speakers (see Figure 5).
12
SHS Web of Conferences 38, 00002 (2017) DOI: 10.1051/shsconf/20173800002
COULS 2016
3.2.2 Early negativity (100-300 ms)
Anterior. The Cond × Pro × Group interaction almost reached significance (F(2,1073)=2.99,
p=.050). Due to the level of the p value, this interaction was followed up by post-hoc
comparisons. A negativity was found with the pronoun He for participants in the Advanced
Group (Mean(HeI-HeC)=-1.38 µV, t(1073)=5.2, p<.0001) and the Native Speakers Group
(Mean(HeI-HeC)=-0.97, t(1073)=3.7, p<.01) but not the Intermediate Group (Mean(HeI-HeC)=-
0.24 µV, t(1073)=0.9, p=.94). Violations with the pronoun They elicited a positivity for
participants in the Advanced (Mean(TheyI-TheyC)=1.27 µV, t(1073)=4.8, p<.0001) and
Intermediate (Mean(TheyI-TheyC)=1.44 µV, t(1073)=5.5, p<.0001) Groups but not for Native
Speakers (Mean(TheyI-TheyC)=0.45 µV, t(1073)=1.7, p=.52). Post-hoc comparisons for the two
next significant higher order interactions Cond × Pro (F(1,1073)=79.14, p=.0000) and Cond
× Group (F(2,1073)=5.80, p=.003) revealed an overall negativity with the pronoun He
(Mean(HeI-HeC)=-0.86 µV, t(1073)=5.67, p<.0001) and a positivity with the pronoun They
(Mean(TheyI-TheyC)=1.05 µV, t(1073)=6.91, p<.0001); as well as a general positivity for
participants in the Intermediate Group (Mean(I-C)= 0.60, t(1073)=3.21, p<.01) but nothing for
the two other groups. This is not surprising since these results are averaged over pronouns
and we know that for participants in the Advanced and Native Speakers groups, the polarity
of the difference between Incorrect and Correct conditions was opposed between the two
pronouns.
Central. Post-hoc comparisons for the significant Cond × Pro × Group interaction
(F(2,1427)=8.51, p=.0002) revealed a negativity with He for participants in the Advanced
Group only (Mean(HeI-HeC)=-1.86 µV, t(42.86)=-4.2, p<.01). There was a positivity with They
for both learner groups (Mean(ALTheyI-ALTheyC)=2.18, t(42.86)=4.9, p<.001; Mean(ILTheyI-
ILTheyC)=2.46, t(42.86)=5.55, p<.0001).
Posterior. There was a significant Cond × Pro interaction (F(1,1148)=166.46, p=.0000).
Violations with He triggered a negativity (Mean(He I-HeC)=-0.94, t(44.83)=-3.4, p=<.01) and
violations with They elicited a positivity (Mean(TheyI-TheyC)=1.51, t(44.83)=5.4, p<.0001).
Violations with the pronoun They thus triggered an early broadly-distributed positivity for
both learner groups and a posterior one for Native Speakers. Violations with He were
followed by an early anterior negativity for Native Speakers, a posterior negativity for
Intermediate learners and a largely distributed one for Advanced Speakers (see Figure 5).
Figure 5. Amplitude in the 100-300 ms window per Condition, Group, Pronoun and Region (Mean
and Standard Deviation)
13
SHS Web of Conferences 38, 00002 (2017) DOI: 10.1051/shsconf/20173800002
COULS 2016
3.2.3 Intermediate negativity / N400 (300-500 ms)
Anterior. The Cond × Pro × Gp was significant (F(2,1139)=3.39, p=.03). No effect was found
with He; but with They the amplitude in the Incorrect condition was larger than in the Correct
conditions for all groups of participants (Mean(ALTheyI-ALTheyC)=1.70 µV, t(44.45)=3.0, p=.048;
Mean(ILTheyI-ILTheyC)=2.17 µV, t(44.45)=3.8, p=.005; Mean(NSTheyI-NSTheyC)=2.02 µV,
t(44.45)=3.56, p=.011).
Central. The Cond × Pro interaction was significant (F(2,1295)=216.16, p=.0000). There
was no effect with He, but a positive one with They (Mean(TheyI-TheyC)=3.61, t(52.01)=11.3,
p<.0001).
Posterior. The Cond × Pron interaction was also significant (F(2,1148)=170.27, p=.0000).
Post-hoc comparisons showed the same effects as in the central region: no effect with He and
a general positivity with They (Mean(TheyI-TheyC)=3.02, t(47.89)=9.0, p<.0001).
In this window, violations with They triggered a broadly-distributed positivity for participants
in all groups, while no effect followed violations with He.
3.3 Relationship between measures of explicit and implicit processing
3.3.1 Time of instruction and time spent abroad
Given the difference observed between the two pronouns, data was examined separately for
each; and separate models were built for each region. The link between each component and
the Time of instruction (which was not exactly identical to the Group separation); and
between each component and the Time spent in an English-speaking country (which varied
only for the Advanced Group) were examined.
There was a link between the mean amplitude between 100 and 300 ms and the Time
of instruction in the anterior (F(1,20)=4.58, p=.044) and central regions (F(1,20)=4.39,
p=.049) but not in the posterior one: the longer the participants had been learning English,
the more negative-going the effect was.
There was no significant link between the amplitude of any component and the Time
spent in an English-speaking country.
3.3.2 Proficiency
Models were built for each effect (Incorrect – Correct difference in each time window of
interest) and each region with the d’ as a continuous predictor and the Group as a categorical
one. A random intercept was added in the model as well as a random slope for each of the
repeated measures. Only significant results are reported here.
P600 effect. The d’ × Group interaction was significant in the central region
(F(2,49.92)=3.48, p=.039). This interaction was followed-up by separate group models. This
revealed that the effect of d’ was only significant for Advanced learners (F(1,13.54)=12.45,
p=.004): the larger the d’, the larger the amplitude of the P600 effect.
Early negativities. Because of the opposite effects the two pronouns had for several groups
of learners, data was examined both generally and separately for each pronoun.
14
SHS Web of Conferences 38, 00002 (2017) DOI: 10.1051/shsconf/20173800002
COULS 2016
3.2.3 Intermediate negativity / N400 (300-500 ms)
Anterior. The Cond × Pro × Gp was significant (F(2,1139)=3.39, p=.03). No effect was found
with He; but with They the amplitude in the Incorrect condition was larger than in the Correct
conditions for all groups of participants (Mean(ALTheyI-ALTheyC)=1.70 µV, t(44.45)=3.0, p=.048;
Mean(ILTheyI-ILTheyC)=2.17 µV, t(44.45)=3.8, p=.005; Mean(NSTheyI-NSTheyC)=2.02 µV,
t(44.45)=3.56, p=.011).
Central. The Cond × Pro interaction was significant (F(2,1295)=216.16, p=.0000). There
was no effect with He, but a positive one with They (Mean(TheyI-TheyC)=3.61, t(52.01)=11.3,
p<.0001).
Posterior. The Cond × Pron interaction was also significant (F(2,1148)=170.27, p=.0000).
Post-hoc comparisons showed the same effects as in the central region: no effect with He and
a general positivity with They (Mean(TheyI-TheyC)=3.02, t(47.89)=9.0, p<.0001).
In this window, violations with They triggered a broadly-distributed positivity for participants
in all groups, while no effect followed violations with He.
3.3 Relationship between measures of explicit and implicit processing
3.3.1 Time of instruction and time spent abroad
Given the difference observed between the two pronouns, data was examined separately for
each; and separate models were built for each region. The link between each component and
the Time of instruction (which was not exactly identical to the Group separation); and
between each component and the Time spent in an English-speaking country (which varied
only for the Advanced Group) were examined.
There was a link between the mean amplitude between 100 and 300 ms and the Time
of instruction in the anterior (F(1,20)=4.58, p=.044) and central regions (F(1,20)=4.39,
p=.049) but not in the posterior one: the longer the participants had been learning English,
the more negative-going the effect was.
There was no significant link between the amplitude of any component and the Time
spent in an English-speaking country.
3.3.2 Proficiency
Models were built for each effect (Incorrect – Correct difference in each time window of
interest) and each region with the d’ as a continuous predictor and the Group as a categorical
one. A random intercept was added in the model as well as a random slope for each of the
repeated measures. Only significant results are reported here.
P600 effect. The d’ × Group interaction was significant in the central region
(F(2,49.92)=3.48, p=.039). This interaction was followed-up by separate group models. This
revealed that the effect of d’ was only significant for Advanced learners (F(1,13.54)=12.45,
p=.004): the larger the d’, the larger the amplitude of the P600 effect.
Early negativities. Because of the opposite effects the two pronouns had for several groups
of learners, data was examined both generally and separately for each pronoun.
In the anterior region, the d’ × Group interaction was marginally significant
(F(2,31.34)=2.50, p=.098. This interaction was however significant for the pronoun He
(F(2,32.61)=5.28, p=.01). The effect of d’ was only significant for the Intermediate Group
(F(2,28.09)=9.62, p=.0007): the larger the d’, the more negative-going the effect.
The d’ × Group interaction was also marginally significant in the central region
(F(2,32.37)=3.18, p=.055) and significant with the pronoun He (F(2,29.54)=3.61, p=.04).
Follow-ups with He were not significant. Follow-ups of the general model found a significant
effect of d’ for Intermediate learners (F(1,11.70)=6.02, p=.031) and Native Speakers
(F(1,23.15)=4.50, p=.045). These results have to be taken with caution but show that for
these participants, there was a trend for the amplitude of the effect to decrease from a
positivity towards a null difference as the d’ increased.
300-500 ms window. The d’ × Group interaction was marginally significant in the anterior
region only (F(2,47.21)=2.47, p=.095). Intermediate learners tended to have a reduced
positivity in this region when their d’ increased (F(1,10.54)=7.77, p=.02).
These results show that the positivity that was found in earlier time windows tended to
decrease with better proficiency or even to transform into the native-like negativity in the
very early window.
4 Discussion
In this study, ERP responses to subject-verb agreement violations were obtained from two
groups of French learners of English with different proficiency levels and a Native Speakers
control group while participants evaluated the grammaticality of orally presented stimuli.
Results show that Natives and Advanced learners outperformed the Intermediate learners on
the behavioural task. Violations elicited a P600 for participants in all groups, but this P600
was more narrowly localized to the centro-posterior region (and thus more typical) with the
pronoun He. The size of the effect depended on the structure-specific proficiency for
Advanced learners, which is consistent with what has been found in other studies (e.g. Rossi
et al., 2006). It is surprising however that this link was not also found for learners in the
lower-proficiency group.
Both Native Speakers and Advanced learners exhibited an early anterior negativity
suggesting actual automatic and implicit morphosyntactic processing of the violations with
He; but violations with They triggered a broadly distributed positivity in both learner groups
and a posterior positivity in Native speakers resembling a P3, an attention-related component.
Advanced learners’ most automatic responses were thus more native-like that those of
Intermediate speakers. The positivity observed with the pronoun They could be due to the
fact that these violations are phonologically more salient than the violations with He since
they involves adding the –s morpheme instead of removing it. They are also much less
common. Indeed, the omission of the 3rd person singular –s in the present tense is a mistake
frequently made by learners and foreigners, and it is also standard in several dialects of
English, for instance in the East of England (Trudgill, 2001). This violation was thus much
more surprising than its counterpart with He, which might explain the presence of the P3-like
components even in Native Speakers. The presence of the early negativity in Advanced but
not Intermediate speakers suggests that the process of proceduralisation of the explicit
grammatical knowledge of subject-verb agreement in English was more advanced for the
first group of learners. However, it should be noted that for Intermediate learners, a better
explicit detection of errors in the grammaticality judgment task, as evidenced by a larger d’,
meant a more negative-going effect in the early negativities window – and therefore a more
native-like response. The negativity of this effect was also correlated with the Time of
15
SHS Web of Conferences 38, 00002 (2017) DOI: 10.1051/shsconf/20173800002
COULS 2016
Instruction in general, which suggests that this early response might not reflect implicit
processing as much as was expected and that the critical factor in the native-likeness of the
response in this window is not the stay-abroad experience but rather the degree of explicit
instruction. The processes underlying the exhibition of this early negativity may thus not be
fully unconscious as is often stated, at least in the two learner groups, and the level of
instruction might be the prime factor here in the native-likeness of ERP responses.
5 Conclusion
The results of this study shed an interesting light on the early processing of a structure that
should be very easy for French learners to master. Qualitative differences between groups
were found only for the more “natural” violation, i.e. the one that occurs most commonly and
that learners typically produce (with the pronoun He). The more artificial violation in the
sense that it is rarely if at all produced by learners, triggered attention-dependent responses
in all groups. Although both learner groups had a good declarative knowledge of the rules of
subject-verb agreement, only Advanced learners exhibited a native-like early anterior
negativity. This native-likeness however does not seem to be the result of their study-abroad
experience and of the implicit knowledge they could have acquired directly in these
conditions, but rather the result of better proceduralisation of their conscious knowledge
acquired with years of explicit instruction.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by an IUF grant awarded to Dr. Emmanuel Ferragne.
References
R Core Team. (2014). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna,
Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
Team Audacity. (2013). Audacity version 2.0.3.
Andringa, S., & Rebuschat, P. (2015). New directions in the study of implicit and explicit
learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37 (Special Issue 02), 185–196.
http://doi.org/10.1017/S027226311500008X
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., Walker, S., Christensen, R. H. B., Singmann, H., Green,
P. (2015). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using ‘Eigen’ and S4: Version 1.1-9.
Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2007). Praat: doing phonetics by computer (Version 5.1.05).
Bond, K., Gabriele, A., Fiorentino, R., & Alemán Bañon, J. (2011). Individual Differences
and the Role of the L1 in L2 Processing: An ERP Investigation. In D. Tanner & J.
Herschensohn (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th Generative Approaches to Second Language
Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2011), (pp. 17–29). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla
Proceedings Project.
Carhart, R., & Jerger, J. (1959). Preferred method for clinical determination of pure-tone
thresholds. Journal of Speech & Hearing Disorders, 24(November), 330–345.
http://doi.org/10.1044/jshd.2404.330
Chen, L., Shu, H., Liu, Y., Zhao, J., & Li, P. (2007). ERP signatures of subject–verb
16
SHS Web of Conferences 38, 00002 (2017) DOI: 10.1051/shsconf/20173800002
COULS 2016
Instruction in general, which suggests that this early response might not reflect implicit
processing as much as was expected and that the critical factor in the native-likeness of the
response in this window is not the stay-abroad experience but rather the degree of explicit
instruction. The processes underlying the exhibition of this early negativity may thus not be
fully unconscious as is often stated, at least in the two learner groups, and the level of
instruction might be the prime factor here in the native-likeness of ERP responses.
5 Conclusion
The results of this study shed an interesting light on the early processing of a structure that
should be very easy for French learners to master. Qualitative differences between groups
were found only for the more “natural” violation, i.e. the one that occurs most commonly and
that learners typically produce (with the pronoun He). The more artificial violation in the
sense that it is rarely if at all produced by learners, triggered attention-dependent responses
in all groups. Although both learner groups had a good declarative knowledge of the rules of
subject-verb agreement, only Advanced learners exhibited a native-like early anterior
negativity. This native-likeness however does not seem to be the result of their study-abroad
experience and of the implicit knowledge they could have acquired directly in these
conditions, but rather the result of better proceduralisation of their conscious knowledge
acquired with years of explicit instruction.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by an IUF grant awarded to Dr. Emmanuel Ferragne.
References
R Core Team. (2014). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna,
Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
Team Audacity. (2013). Audacity version 2.0.3.
Andringa, S., & Rebuschat, P. (2015). New directions in the study of implicit and explicit
learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37 (Special Issue 02), 185–196.
http://doi.org/10.1017/S027226311500008X
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., Walker, S., Christensen, R. H. B., Singmann, H., Green,
P. (2015). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using ‘Eigen’ and S4: Version 1.1-9.
Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2007). Praat: doing phonetics by computer (Version 5.1.05).
Bond, K., Gabriele, A., Fiorentino, R., & Alemán Bañon, J. (2011). Individual Differences
and the Role of the L1 in L2 Processing: An ERP Investigation. In D. Tanner & J.
Herschensohn (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th Generative Approaches to Second Language
Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2011), (pp. 17–29). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla
Proceedings Project.
Carhart, R., & Jerger, J. (1959). Preferred method for clinical determination of pure-tone
thresholds. Journal of Speech & Hearing Disorders, 24(November), 330–345.
http://doi.org/10.1044/jshd.2404.330
Chen, L., Shu, H., Liu, Y., Zhao, J., & Li, P. (2007). ERP signatures of subject–verb
agreement in L2 learning. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10(2), 161–174.
http://doi.org/10.1017/S136672890700291X
Davies, M. (2008). The Corpus of Contemporary American English: 450 million words,
1990-present.
DeKeyser, R. (2007). Skill acquisition theory. In B. VanPatten & J. N. Williams (Eds.),
Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 97–113). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Delorme, A., & Makeig, S. (2004). EEGLAB: an open source toolbox for analysis of single-
trial EEG dynamics. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 134, 9–21.
http://doi.org/http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2003.10.009
Ellis, N. C. (2005). The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. In C. J. Doughty & M.
H. Long (Eds.), The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 63–103). Oxford, UK:
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. http://doi.org/10.1111/b.9781405132817.2005.00005.
Ellis, R. (1994). A theory of instructed second language acquisition. In N. C. Ellis (Ed.),
Implicit and Explicit Learning of Languages (pp. 79–114). London: Academic Press.
Fabiani, M., Gratton, G., & Federmeier, K. D. (2007). Event-Related Brain Potentials:
Methods, Theory, and Applications. In Handbook of Psychophysiology (pp. 85–119).
http://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511546396.004
Ferragne, E., Flavier, S., & Fressard, C. (2012). ROCme! Recording of Oral Corpora Made
Easy, version 2.1.04. Available at http://www.ddl.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr/Download/
Index.asp?Langue=FR&Page=ROCme
Friederici, A. D. (2002). Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing. Trends in
Cognitive Sciences, 6(2), 78–84. http://doi.org/S1364661300018398
Gullberg, M., & Indefrey, P. (2003). Language Background Questionnaire. Developed in The
Dynamics of Multilingual Processing. Nijmegen, Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.
Hahne, A., & Friederici, A. D. (1999). Electrophysiological Evidence for Two Steps in
Syntactic Analysis: Early Automatic and Late Controlled Processes. Journal of Cognitive
Neuroscience, 11(2), 194–205. http://doi.org/10.1162/089892999563328
Hahne, A., & Friederici, A. D. (2001). Processing a second language: late learners’
comprehension mechanisms as revealed by event-related brain potentials. Bilingualism:
Language and Cognition, 4(2), 123–141. http://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728901000232
Kaan, E., Harris, A., Gibson, E., & Holcomb, P. (2000). The P600 as an index of syntactic
integration difficulty. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15(2), 159–201.
http://doi.org/10.1080/016909600386084
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Pergamon.
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2015). lmerTest: Tests in Linear
Mixed Effects Models: Version 2.0-33.
Lenth, R. (2016). lsmeans: Least-Squares Means: Version 2.25. Comprehensive R Archive
Network (CRAN).
17
SHS Web of Conferences 38, 00002 (2017) DOI: 10.1051/shsconf/20173800002
COULS 2016
Lopez-Calderón, J., & Luck, S. J. (2014). ERPLAB: an opensource toolbox for the analysis
of event-related potentials. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 213.
http://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00213
Marian, V., Blumenfeld, H. K., & Kaushanskaya, M. (2007). The Language Experience and
Proficiency Questionnaire (LEAP-Q): Assessing Language Profiles in Bilinguals and
Multilinguals. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50(4), 940–967.
http://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2007/067)
Meulman, N., Stowe, L. A., Sprenger, S. A., Bresser, M., & Schmid, M. S. (2014). An ERP
study on L2 syntax processing: When do learners fail? Frontiers in Psychology, 5(SEP).
http://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01072
Mueller, J. L. (2005). Electrophysiological correlates of second language processing. Second
Language Research, 21(2), 152–174. http://doi.org/10.1191/0267658305sr256oa
Neurobehavioral Systems. (2012). Presentation.
Ojima, S., Nakata, H., & Kakigi, R. (2005). An ERP study of second language learning after
childhood: effects of proficiency. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17(8), 1212–1228.
http://doi.org/10.1162/0898929055002436
Oldfield, R. C. (1971). The Assessment and Analysis of Handedness: The Edinburgh
Inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9(1), 97–113. http://doi.org/doi:10.1016/0028-
3932(71)90067-4
Ping Li, S. S. (2006). Language history questionnaire: A web-based interface for bilingual
research. Behavior Research Methods, 38(2), 202–10. http://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192770
Pulvermüller, F., Shtyrov, Y., Hasting, A. S., & Carlyon, R. P. (2008). Syntax as a reflex:
Neurophysiological evidence for early automaticity of grammatical processing. Brain and
Language, 104(3), 244–253. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2007.05.002
Rebuschat, P., & Williams, J. N. (2013). Implicit learning in second language acquisition. In
C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
http://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431
Rossi, S., Gugler, M. F., Friederici, A. D., & Hahne, A. (2006). The Impact of Proficiency
on Syntactic Second-language Processing of German and Italian: Evidence from Event-
related Potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(12), 2030–2048.
http://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2006.18.12.2030
Sabourin, L., & Stowe, L. A. (2008). Second language processing: when are first and second
languages processed similarly? Second Language Research, 24(3), 397–430.
http://doi.org/10.1177/0267658308090186
Segalowitz, N. B. J. B. N.-C. M. (2004). A Comparison of Spanish Second Language
Acquisition in Two Different Learning Contexts: Study Abroad and the Domestic Classroom.
Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 10, 1–18.
Tanner, D., Inoue, K., & Osterhout, L. (2013). Brain-based individual differences in online
L2 grammatical comprehension. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, FirstView, 1–17.
http://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728913000370
Tanner, D., Mclaughlin, J., Herschensohn, J., & Osterhout, L. (2013). Individual differences
18
SHS Web of Conferences 38, 00002 (2017) DOI: 10.1051/shsconf/20173800002
COULS 2016
Lopez-Calderón, J., & Luck, S. J. (2014). ERPLAB: an opensource toolbox for the analysis
of event-related potentials. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 213.
http://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00213
Marian, V., Blumenfeld, H. K., & Kaushanskaya, M. (2007). The Language Experience and
Proficiency Questionnaire (LEAP-Q): Assessing Language Profiles in Bilinguals and
Multilinguals. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50(4), 940–967.
http://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2007/067)
Meulman, N., Stowe, L. A., Sprenger, S. A., Bresser, M., & Schmid, M. S. (2014). An ERP
study on L2 syntax processing: When do learners fail? Frontiers in Psychology, 5(SEP).
http://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01072
Mueller, J. L. (2005). Electrophysiological correlates of second language processing. Second
Language Research, 21(2), 152–174. http://doi.org/10.1191/0267658305sr256oa
Neurobehavioral Systems. (2012). Presentation.
Ojima, S., Nakata, H., & Kakigi, R. (2005). An ERP study of second language learning after
childhood: effects of proficiency. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17(8), 1212–1228.
http://doi.org/10.1162/0898929055002436
Oldfield, R. C. (1971). The Assessment and Analysis of Handedness: The Edinburgh
Inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9(1), 97–113. http://doi.org/doi:10.1016/0028-
3932(71)90067-4
Ping Li, S. S. (2006). Language history questionnaire: A web-based interface for bilingual
research. Behavior Research Methods, 38(2), 202–10. http://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192770
Pulvermüller, F., Shtyrov, Y., Hasting, A. S., & Carlyon, R. P. (2008). Syntax as a reflex:
Neurophysiological evidence for early automaticity of grammatical processing. Brain and
Language, 104(3), 244–253. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2007.05.002
Rebuschat, P., & Williams, J. N. (2013). Implicit learning in second language acquisition. In
C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
http://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431
Rossi, S., Gugler, M. F., Friederici, A. D., & Hahne, A. (2006). The Impact of Proficiency
on Syntactic Second-language Processing of German and Italian: Evidence from Event-
related Potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(12), 2030–2048.
http://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2006.18.12.2030
Sabourin, L., & Stowe, L. A. (2008). Second language processing: when are first and second
languages processed similarly? Second Language Research, 24(3), 397–430.
http://doi.org/10.1177/0267658308090186
Segalowitz, N. B. J. B. N.-C. M. (2004). A Comparison of Spanish Second Language
Acquisition in Two Different Learning Contexts: Study Abroad and the Domestic Classroom.
Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 10, 1–18.
Tanner, D., Inoue, K., & Osterhout, L. (2013). Brain-based individual differences in online
L2 grammatical comprehension. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, FirstView, 1–17.
http://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728913000370
Tanner, D., Mclaughlin, J., Herschensohn, J., & Osterhout, L. (2013). Individual differences
reveal stages of L2 grammatical acquisition: ERP evidence. Bilingualism: Language and
Cognition, 16 (Special Issue 02), 367–382. http://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728912000302
Tanner, J., Wilson, P., & Swets, J. A. (1954). A decision-making theory of visual detection.
Psychological Review, 61(6), 401–409.
The Mathworks. (2008). MATLAB and statistics toolbox. Massachusetts, USA: INC. Natick.
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, 27(2), 173–204.
http://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263105050102
Tremblay, A., & Ransijn, J. (2015). LMERConvenienceFunctions: Model Selection and
Post-hoc Analysis for (G)LMER Models.
Trudgill, P. (2001). Modern East Anglia as a dialect area. In J. Fisiak & P. Trudgill (Eds.),
East Anglian English (pp. 1–12). Cambridge: D.S. Brewer.
Ullman, M. T. (2001). A neurocognitive perspective on language: The declarative/procedural
model. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2(10), 717–726.
van Hell, J. G., & Tokowicz, N. (2010). Event-related brain potentials and second language
learning: syntactic processing in late L2 learners at different L2 proficiency levels. Second
Language Research, 26(1), 43–74. http://doi.org/10.1177/0267658309337637
Weber-Fox, C., & Neville, H. (1996). Maturational constraints on functional specializations
for language processing: ERP and behavioral evidence in bilingual speakers. Journal of
Cognitive Neuroscience, 8, 231–256.
19
SHS Web of Conferences 38, 00002 (2017) DOI: 10.1051/shsconf/20173800002
COULS 2016
