Working Memory and Nativelikeness in the Processing of Focus Structure

1. Working Memory and Nativelikeness in the Processing of Focus Structure • Robert Reichle1 • Annie Tremblay2 • Caitlin Coughlin2 • 1Department of Foreign Languages • Center for the Interdisciplinary Study of Language and Literacy • Northern Illinois University • 2Department of Linguistics • University of Kansas

2. Second Language Processing • For late L2 learners, L2 processing is difficult • Corresponding features/structures in the native language do not ensure success in the L2 • Variability is typical • Native-like attainment is not typical • Why? • (e.g., Babcock et al., 2008; Chen et al., 2007; Clahsen et al., 2010; Coughlin & Tremblay, to appear; Hopp, 2006, 2010; Jiang, 2004, 2007; Keating, 2009; Lew-Williams & Fernald, 2007; Neubauer & White, 2009; Sagarra & Herschensohn, 2010; Sato & Felser, 2008; Silva & Clahsen, 2008)

3. Proposed Explanations • Cognitive Processing Hypothesis (CPH) (McDonald, 2006; see also Hopp, 2010) • Relative to native speakers, L2 learners have • Lower L2 working memory (WM) capacity • Poorer L2 decoding abilities • Slower L2 processing speed All correlated with L2 proficiency What about general L2 proficiency and general WM capacity?

4. Proposed Explanations • Cognitive accounts:Quantitative (computational) difference • Shallow Structure Hypothesis:Qualitative (representational) difference • Declarative/Procedural Model:Qualitative-to-quantitative difference

5. Event-Related Potentials (ERPs) • Can shed light on the qualitative vs. quantitative difference • (e.g., graphs from Osterhout et al., 2006, p. 204; Friederici, Steinhauer, & Frisch, 1999; Friederici, 2002; Hahne & Friederici, 1999, 2001; Hagoort & Brown, 1999; Kaan et al., 2000; Kutas & Hillyard, 1980; Osterhout, Bersick, & McLaughlin, 1997; Osterhout & Holcomb, 1992; Osterhout & Mobley, 1995; Steinhauer, Halter, & Friederici, 1999) Lexical/semantic processing Morphosyntactic/grammatical processing 5

6. Event-Related Potentials (ERPs) • Left anterior negativity(LAN) • phrase structure and morphosyntax violations are often associated with a left anterior negativity effect • index increased working memory load stemming from the storage of syntactic dependencies in working memory (e.g. Cowles, 2003; Kluender & Kutas, 1993; Münte, Schiltz, & Kutas, 1998) (e.g., figures from Neville et al., 1991; Friederici, Pfeifer, & Hahne, 1993; Kluender & Kutas, 1993; Münte, Heinze, Matzke, Wieringa, & Johannes, 1998; Osterhout & Holcomb, 1992)

7. Event-Related Potentials (ERPs) • Proficiency effects on sensitivity to agreement violations (inflectional morphology) • Artificial language learning: with language training, N400 P600 • (e.g., Morgan-Short et al., 2010) • Real language learning: with increasing proficiency, N400 P600 • (e.g., Bowden et al., 2007; Hahne et al., 2006; Osterhout et al., 2006; Rossi et al., 2006; Steinhauer et al., 2006; Gillon Dowens, Vergara, Barber, & Carreiras, 2010; McLaughlin, Osterhout, & Kim, 2004; McLaughlin, Tanner, Pitkänen, Frenck-Mestre, Inoue, Valentine, & Osterhout, 2010; Tanner, Osterhout, & Herschensohn, 2009; Ojima, Nakata, & Kakigi, 2005)

8. Focus Marking • Focus indicates something new or relevant about the topic • Focus is marked in different ways across languages (Lambrecht 1994, 2001) • English: syntactically word accent • French: syntactically word accent

9. Focus Marking

10. Focus Marking • LANs and focus structure • LANs for contrastive focus compared to informational focus • Interpreted as an index of increased WM load as the set of referents is kept active in WM (Cowles, 2003) • Instead of fully left lateralized, broadly distributed • This (L)(A)N is found in L1 French; L2 proficiency found to modulate effect in L2 French (Reichle, 2010; Reichle & Birdsong, under revision) • Since focal status must be kept active in WM, we predicted a similar LAN for licensed informational focus compared to no focus

11. Focus Marking • Syntax-discourse interface • Sorace has proposed that phenomena at the syntax-discourse interface can pose problems for near-native L2 learners (e.g. Sorace, 2000; Sorace, 2003; Sorace & Serratrice, 2009) • Thus, this type of focus marking in L2 French may be difficult for learners

12. Present Study • Proficiency may not be the only factor in determining whether L2 learners show sensitivity to focus structure • Aims of this study • Determine whether Cognitive Processing Hypothesis can account for L2 learners’ ERP signatures • Can WM capacity explain individual variability?

13. Present Study • Hypotheses: • In discourse contexts where focus is licensed, an LAN would index the increased WM load required to track the focal referent across discourse, compared to sentences with no preceding focus marking. • These LANs would be modulated by WM capacity and L2 proficiency.

14. Participants • 10 English L2 learners of French (mean age: 22) • 7 L1 French controls (mean age: 26) • English cloze test: Brown (1980) • French cloze test: Tremblay (2011); Tremblay & Garrison (2010)

15. Materials • 4 conditions (36 sentences/condition) • 25% of sentences followed by a true-or-false comprehension question

16. WM Tasks • Adapted from Waters & Caplan (1996) • Similar sentences, but different lexical items and different words to recall • Control for frequency and length of the lexical items to be recalled • (for details, see Coughlin & Tremblay, 2012) • Dependent variables: word recall in French and English • Correlate between the two languages • Do not correlate with proficiency

17. Procedures • Session 1 • ERP session in the L2 • WM task in the L2 • Cloze test in the L2 • Language background questionnaire • Session 2 • ERP session in the L1 • WM task in the L1

18. Data Analysis • Time window for negativity: 300-500 ms. • ANOVAs: 2 (Condition) x 3 (Laterality) x 3 (Anteriority) • Linear regressions between individual variables and effect of negativity/positivity

19. Results L1 English Licensed: Who is it exactly who makes the soup? Extraneous: Who makes the soup? Target sentence: It is the chef who makes the soup.

20. Results Condition * Hemisphere: p < .01 Condition * Anteriority: p = .07 L1 English Licensed: Who is it exactly who makes the soup? Extraneous: Who makes the soup? Target sentence: It is the chef who makes the soup.

21. Results Condition * Hemisphere * EngWordSpan: p = .06 L1 English Licensed: Who is it exactly who makes the soup? Extraneous: Who makes the soup? Target sentence: It is the chef who makes the soup.

22. Results L2 French Licensed: Qui c’est qui fait la soupe? Extraneous: Qui fait la soupe? Target sentence: C’est le cuisinier qui fait la soupe.

23. Results Condition: p = .1 L2 French Licensed: Qui c’est qui fait la soupe? Extraneous: Qui fait la soupe? Target sentence: C’est le cuisinier qui fait la soupe.

24. Results F3, Fz: Condition*Language*Site, p = .088 L2 French Licensed: Qui c’est qui fait la soupe? Extraneous: Qui fait la soupe? Target sentence: C’est le cuisinier qui fait la soupe.

25. Discussion • English L2 learners of French • Quantitively different in the L1 as a function of WM capacity • Qualitativelythe same ERP effect (LAN) in L1 and L2, but with different distribution • In L2, trended towards a significant negativity effect but did not display a significant effect at the group level • This marginal negativity was widespread rather than anterior or lateralized, as it was in the L1

26. Discussion • English L2 learners of French • Consistent with findings that L2 LANs are not fully localized (laterality/anteriority) until higher levels of proficiency(e.g. Steinhauer et al., 2009) • Consistent with notion that processing factors such as WM capacity quantitatively modulate brain signatures in the L1, but no direct evidence for the L2 processing account put forth by McDonald (2006) • Reinforce the notion that phenomena at the syntax-pragmatics interface are likely to pose processing difficulties in the L2

27. Discussion • English L2 learners of French • In L1 English, WM capacity positively correlated with LAN effect size. Suggests that higher-WM participants better able to keep the focal status of referent in WM across sentences. • Lack of similar correlation in L2 French suggests all learners encountered processing difficulty • Marginal Language*Condition interaction at anterior sites suggests quantitative difference in effect size between L1 and L2

28. Further Research • Higher-proficiency English L2 learners of French • Native speakers of English in a French-speaking environment • To test other aspects of Cognitive Processing Hypothesis, look at other individual variables that might correlate with quantitative ERP differences • Test other areas of morphosyntactic processing, such as SV agreement (Reichle, Tremblay, & Coughlin, to appear; Reichle, Tremblay, Frenck-Mestre, & Coughlin, in progress)

29. Merci!

30. Acknowledgments • All the research participants at NIU • NIU Center for the Study of Family Violence and Sexual Assault • NIU Center for the Interdisciplinary Study of Language and Literacy • University of Illinois Humanities/Arts Scholarship Support