Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,001

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

An ERP study on L2 syntax processing: When do learners fail?

Open access
Meulman, Nienke, Stowe, Laurie A., Sprenger, Simone A., Bresser, Moniek, Schmid, Monika S.·2014·Frontiers in Psychology
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01072
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Event-related brain potentials (ERPs) can reveal online processing differences between native speakers and second language (L2) learners during language comprehension. Using the P600 as a measure of native-likeness, we investigated processing of grammatical gender agreement in highly proficient immersed Romance L2 learners of Dutch. We demonstrate that these late learners consistently fail to show native-like sensitivity to gender violations. This appears to be due to a combination of differences from the gender marking in their L1 and the relatively opaque Dutch gender system. We find that L2 use predicts the effect magnitude of non-finite verb violations, a relatively regular and transparent construction, but not that of gender agreement violations. There were no effects of age of acquisition, length of residence, proficiency or offline gender knowledge. Additionally, a within-subject comparison of stimulus modalities (written vs. auditory) shows that immersed learners may show some of the effects only in the auditory modality; in non-finite verb violations, an early native-like N400 was only present for auditory stimuli. However, modality failed to influence the response to gender. Taken together, the results confirm the persistent problems of Romance learners of Dutch with online gender processing and show that they cannot be overcome by reducing task demands related to the modality of stimulus presentation.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01072

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 9 references

Research works printed but not linked: 52

  1. Baayen, 1995, The CELEX Lexical Database [CD-ROM]
  2. Balconi, 2005, Comprehending semantic and grammatical violations in Italian. N400 and P600 comparison with visual and auditory stimuli, J. Psycholinguist. Res, 34, 71, 10.1007/s10936-005-3633-6 · DOI
  3. Bates, 1987, Competition, variation, and language learning, 157
  4. Bernard, 2001, Examining automatic text presentation for small screens, Proc. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. Annu. Meet, 45, 637, 10.1177/154193120104500613 · DOI
  5. Blom, 2008, Articles, adjectives and age of onset: the acquisition of Dutch grammatical gender, Second Lang. Res, 24, 297, 10.1177/0267658308090183 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, 2008, An alternative perspective on “semantic P600” effects in language comprehension, Brain Res. Rev, 59, 55, 10.1016/j.brainresrev.2008.05.003 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Bruhn de Garavito, 2000, Second language acquisition of Spanish DPs: the status of grammatical features, 164
  8. Burkhardt, 2007, The P600 reflects cost of new information in discourse memory, Neuroreport, 18, 1851, 10.1097/WNR.0b013e3282f1a999 · DOI
  9. Camblin, 2007, Processing new and repeated names: effects of coreference on repetition priming with speech and fast RSVP, Brain Res, 1146, 172, 10.1016/j.brainres.2006.07.033 · DOI
  10. Clahsen, 2006, Grammatical processing in language learners, Appl. Psycholinguist, 27, 3, 10.1017/S0142716406060024 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Coulson, 1998, Expect the unexpected: event-related brain response to morphosyntactic violations, Lang. Cogn. Process, 13, 21, 10.1080/016909698386582 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Davidson, 2009, An event-related potential study on changes of violation and error responses during morphosyntactic learning, J. Cogn. Neurosci, 21, 433, 10.1162/jocn.2008.21031 · DOI
  13. Dimitrova, 2012, Less is not more: neural responses to missing and superfluous accents in context, J. Cogn. Neurosci, 24, 2400, 10.1162/jocn_a_00302 · DOI
  14. Dörnyei, 2005, The Psychology of the Language Learner: Individual Differences in Second Language Acquisition
  15. Dussias, 2010, Uses of eye-tracking data in second language sentence processing research, Annu. Rev. Appl. Linguist, 30, 149, 10.1017/S026719051000005X · DOI
  16. Flege, 1999, Age constraints on second-language acquisition, J. Mem. Lang, 41, 78, 10.1006/jmla.1999.2638 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Foucart, 2011, Grammatical gender processing in L2: electrophysiological evidence of the effect of L1–L2 syntactic similarity, Bilingual. Lang. Cogn, 14, 379, 10.1017/S136672891000012X · DOI · Paper page
  18. Foucart, 2012, Can late L2 learners acquire new grammatical features? Evidence from ERPs and eye-tracking, J. Mem. Lang, 66, 226, 10.1016/j.jml.2011.07.007 · DOI · Paper page
  19. Franceschina, 2005, Fossilized Second Language Grammars: The Acquisition of Grammatical Gender, 10.1075/lald.38 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Frenck-Mestre, 2009, Processing of grammatical gender in French as a first and second language evidence from ERPs, Eurosla Yearb, 9, 76, 10.1075/eurosla.9.06fre · DOI
  21. Friederici, 2000, Localization of early syntactic processes in frontal and temporal cortical areas: a magnetoencephalographic study, Hum. Brain Mapp, 11, 1, 10.1002/1097-0193(200009)11:1%3C1::AID-HBM10%3E3.0.CO;2-B · DOI · Paper page
  22. Frost, 1998, Toward a strong phonological theory of visual word recognition: true issues and false trails, Psychol. Bull, 123, 71, 10.1037/0033-2909.123.1.71 · DOI · Paper page
  23. Gardner, 1997, Towards a full model of second language learning: an empirical investigation, Mod. Lang. J, 81, 344, 10.1111/j.1540-4781.1997.tb05495.x · DOI · Paper page
  24. Gillon Dowens, 2011, Gender and number processing in Chinese learners of Spanish—evidence from event related potentials, Neuropsychologia, 49, 1651, 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2011.02.034 · DOI
  25. Gillon Dowens, 2010, Morphosyntactic processing in late second-language learners, J. Cogn. Neurosci, 22, 1870, 10.1162/jocn.2009.21304 · DOI · Paper page
  26. Gratton, 1989, Generalization and evaluation of eye-movement correction procedures, J. Psychophysiol, 3, 14
  27. Grüter, 2012, Grammatical gender in L2: a production or a real-time processing problem?, Second Lang. Res, 28, 191, 10.1177/0267658312437990 · DOI · Paper page
  28. Gunter, 1997, When syntax meets semantics, Psychophysiology, 34, 660, 10.1111/j.1469-8986.1997.tb02142.x · DOI · Paper page
  29. Hagoort, 1993, The syntactic positive shift (SPS) as an ERP measure of syntactic processing, Lang. Cogn. Process, 8, 439, 10.1080/01690969308407585 · DOI · Paper page
  30. Hagoort, 2000, ERP effects of listening to speech compared to reading: the P600/SPS to syntactic violations in spoken sentences and rapid serial visual presentation, Neuropsychologia, 38, 1531, 10.1016/S0028-3932(00)00053-1 · DOI · Paper page
  31. Hahne, 2001, What's different in second-language processing? Evidence from event-related brain potentials, J. Psycholinguist. Res, 30, 251, 10.1023/A:1010490917575 · DOI · Paper page
  32. Hahne, 1999, Electrophysiological evidence for two steps in syntactic analysis: early automatic and late controlled processes, J. Cogn. Neurosci, 11, 194, 10.1162/089892999563328 · DOI · Paper page
  33. Hawkins, 2001, The theoretical significance of Universal Grammar in second language acquisition, Second Lang. Res, 17, 345, 10.1191/026765801681495868 · doi:10.1191/026765801681495868
  34. Homae, 2002, From perception to sentence comprehension: the convergence of auditory and visual information of language in the left inferior frontal cortex, Neuroimage, 16, 883, 10.1006/nimg.2002.1138 · DOI
  35. Hopp, 2010, Ultimate attainment in L2 inflection: performance similarities between non-native and native speakers, Lingua, 120, 901, 10.1016/j.lingua.2009.06.004 · DOI · Paper page
  36. Hopp, 2013, Grammatical gender in adult L2 acquisition: relations between lexical and syntactic variability, Second Lang. Res, 29, 33, 10.1177/0267658312461803 · DOI · Paper page
  37. Keijzer, 2007, Last in First Out? An Investigation of the Regression Hypothesis in Dutch Emigrants in Anglophone Canada
  38. Kluender, 1993, Bridging the gap: evidence from ERPs on the processing of unbounded dependencies, J. Cogn. Neurosci, 5, 196, 10.1162/jocn.1993.5.2.196 · DOI · Paper page
  39. Koda, 1996, L2 word recognition research: a critical review, Mod. Lang. J, 80, 450, 10.1111/j.1540-4781.1996.tb05465.x · DOI · Paper page
  40. Koda, 1999, Development of L2 intraword orthographic sensitivity and decoding skills, Mod. Lang. J, 83, 51, 10.1111/0026-7902.00005 · DOI
  41. Kotz, 2008, ERPs reveal comparable syntactic sentence processing in native and non-native readers of English, Acta psychol, 128, 514, 10.1016/j.actpsy.2007.10.003 · DOI
  42. Kutas, 1983, Event–related brain potentials to grammatical errors and semantic anomalies, Mem. Cognit, 11, 539, 10.3758/BF03196991 · DOI · Paper page
  43. Loerts, 2012, Uncommon Gender: Eyes and Brains, Native and Second Language Learners, and Grammatical Gender
  44. McLaughlin, 2010, Brain potentials reveal discrete stages of L2 grammatical learning, Lang. Learn, 60, 123, 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00604.x · DOI · Paper page
  45. Molinaro, 2011, Grammatical agreement processing in reading: ERP findings and future directions, Cortex, 47, 908, 10.1016/j.cortex.2011.02.019 · DOI · Paper page
  46. Müller, 1997, Event-related potentials elicited by spoken relative clauses, Cogn. Brain Res, 5, 193, 10.1016/S0926-6410(96)00070-5 · DOI · Paper page
  47. Münte, 1993, Dissociation of brain activity related to syntactic and semantic aspects of language, J. Cogn. Neurosci, 5, 335, 10.1162/jocn.1993.5.3.335 · DOI · Paper page
  48. Nieuwland, 2008, The interplay between semantic and referential aspects of anaphoric noun phrase resolution: evidence from ERPs, Brain Lang, 106, 119, 10.1016/j.bandl.2008.05.001 · doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2008.05.001
  49. Osterhout, 1997, On the brain response to syntactic anomalies: manipulations of word position and word class reveal individual differences, Brain Lang, 59, 494, 10.1006/brln.1997.1793 · DOI · Paper page
  50. Osterhout, 1999, A superficial resemblance does not necessarily mean you are part of the family: counterarguments to Coulson, King and Kutas (1998) in the P600/SPS-P300 debate, Lang. Cogn. Process, 14, 1, 10.1080/016909699386356 · DOI · Paper page
  51. Osterhout, 1992, Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly, J. Mem. Lang, 31, 785, 10.1016/0749-596X(92)90039-Z · DOI · Paper page
  52. Perfetti, 1992, Reading in English and Chinese: evidence for a “universal” phonological principle, Adv. Psychol, 94, 227, 10.1016/S.0166-4115(08)62798-3 · doi:10.1016/s.0166-4115(08)62798-3

Cited by

See all 1,001

Metadata

Authors
Meulman, N., Stowe, L. A., Sprenger, S. A., Bresser, M., & Schmid, M. S.
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2014-09-25
Volume
5
Pages
1072-1072
ISSN
1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01072
OpenAlex
W2154029491
Cited by
1,001
References
9
FWCI
71.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: An ERP study on L2 syntax processing: When do learners fail? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01072
The paper
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. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01072

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.