An ERP Investigation of Domain-Specificity: Clause-Edge

Recursion in Native and Nonnative French

Laurent Dekydtspotter, Kate Miller, Charlene Gilbert, Mike Iverson,

Kyle Swanson, Tania Leal, and Isaiah Innis

1. Introduction

Non-native sentence processing has been argued to involve the computation

of domain-specific representations, if only under reduced processing capacity

(Dekydtspotter, Schwartz, & Sprouse, 2006; Dekydtspotter & Miller, 2013; Hopp,

2017, 2016; Miller, 2015). Proponents of the Shallow Structure Hypothesis (SSH)

argue in contrast that the real-time structuring of target-language input in non-

native sentence processing is less detailed (Clahsen & Felser, 2006a, b) as a reflex

of epistemologically distinct non-native representations (Bley-Vroman, 1989,

2009; Clahsen & Muysken, 1986). Crucially, the SSH precludes the real-time

computation of movement dependencies and syntactically mediated referential

chains (Felser & Cunnings, 2012; Patterson, Trompelt, & Felser, 2014). However,

non-native sentence processing research might be coalescing on the finding that

non-native speakers (NNSs) just require more time than native speakers (NSs) to

compute the representations in incremental interpretation (Boxell & Felser, 2017).

We present ERP evidence linked to crucial processing moments consonant with

this computational distinction, showing that, beyond the timing issue,

characteristics of neuronal activity even in advanced NNSs and NSs may differ

(cf. Bowden, Steinhauer, Sanz, & Ullman, 2013; Sneed, Herschensohn, & Frenck-

Mestre, 2015; Ullman, 2001).

Crucially, language allows expressions to be interpreted in places other than

their surface position in a phenomenon known as reconstruction (Barss, 2002). In

A picture of himself, John said Sue tore (not a picture of her), the reflexive

pronoun himself is construed with John despite the linear order. In its fronted

position, himself is not licensed because John does not asymmetrically c-

command it. In canonical object position, himself cannot be construed with John because Sue asymmetrically c-commands it, as revealed by the ungrammaticality

of *John said Sue tore a picture of himself. However, the displaced sentence-

initial constituent a picture of himself stands in a syntactic chain relation with the

object position of the verb tore. Because of locality constraints on movement

operations, displaced constituents in multi-clause dependencies must move

recursively in steps from clause to clause (Chomsky, 2005, 2008). In recursive

* Corresponding author: Laurent Dekydtspotter, Indiana University, ldekydts@indiana.edu.

© 2018 Laurent Dekydtspotter, Kate Miller, Charlene Gilbert, Mike Iverson, Kyle Swanson, Tania Leal, and Isaiah Innis. Proceedings of the 42nd annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, ed. Anne B. Bertolini and Maxwell J. Kaplan, 214-227. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.

movement, a moved expression is re-represented along the chain. An

intermediate clause-edge position as in John said a picture of himself Sue toreallows form-meaning connections that do not follow from linear word order.

ERP research on movement shows effects of structural complexity and

integration costs (Fiebach, Schlesewsky, & Friederici, 2002; Kaan, Harris,

Gibson, & Holcomb, 2000; King & Kutas, 1995; Phillips, Kazanina, & Abada,

2005). ERPs linked to reconstruction might reveal information about the neural

bases of basic computational characteristics, which might be present across native

and non-native learning conditions. ERPs of anaphora under reconstruction are

examined for evidence about the neural bases of grammatical constraints. Indeed,

distinct processes of reference generate distinct ERP profiles (van Berkum,

Brown, Hagoort, & Zwitserlood, 2003; Burkhardt, 2005; Leitão, Branco, Piñango,

& Pires, 2009; inter alia). Processes of reconstruction central to recursion at the

syntax-semantics interface might involve a range of patterns of neuronal activity

across and within populations as a reflex of a neural network.

Here, we consider the interaction of noun (N) complements and noun phrase

(NP) modifiers with wh-movement in the computation of wh-dependencies. The

study section details stimulus, participants, and procedures for capturing scalp

ERPs. We examine four regions of interest (ROIs) along the laterality (left vs.

right) and extension (anterior vs. posterior) dimensions. We discuss ERPs linked

to the N-complement vs. NP-modifier distinction in anaphora in NSs vs. NNSs.

2. Background

Interpreting the strings in (1) and (2), the masculine pronouns lui ‘him’ in (1)

and le ‘him’ in (2) are understood as referring to the individual introduced by the

noun phrase Paul. (2) is typically synonymous with (1); however, the syntactic

contexts for the pronouns differ. The phrase à propos de is introduced by the

preposition à. This preposition indicates an N-complement, because the

preposition à is selected by the noun—much as the English noun decision requires

the preposition about. In contrast, concernant is a verb form that signals a

participial clause that modifies the noun phrase.

(1) Quelle décision à propos de lui est-ce que Paul a dit que Lydie which decision at words of him is-it that Paul has said that Lydie

avait rejetée sans hésitation?had rejected without hesitation

‘Which decision about him did Paul say that Lydie had rejected without

hesitation?’

(2) Quelle décision le concernant est-ce que Paul a dit que Lydie avait which decision him regarding is-it that Paul has said that Lydie had

rejetée sans hésitation?rejected without hesitation ‘Which decision regarding him did Paul say that Lydie had rejected without

hesitation?’

215

Chomsky (1995) follows Lebeaux (1988) in arguing that complements and

modifiers engage the computational system differently. As shown in (3), the N-

complement—lexically marked with à in French—qualifies the head noun

décision at every step of computations involving the noun. In contrast, the NP-

modifier le concernant qualifies the noun phrase only after all cycles of

computations satisfying lexical requirements have applied to it, as in (4).

(3) [<quelle décision à propos de lui> [est-ce que [Pauli a dit [< quelle décision

à propos de lui > [que Lydie avait rejetée < quelle décision à propos de luii >

sans hésitation]]]]]

(4) [<quelle décision> le concernant [est-ce que [Paul a dit [< quelle décision>

[que Lydie avait rejetée < quelle décision > sans hésitation]]]]]

In the derivation in (3), a pronoun inside an N-complement is part of the syntactic

chain. Paul constitutes a matching c-commanding expression as the relevant

domain for binding lui ‘him’ is computed as per binding condition B (Chomsky,

1986). This binding at the syntax-semantics interface is marked with an index.

The embedded clause is the minimal domain containing the pronoun and a subject,

and pronouns are free in this domain (Chomsky, 1988). The pronoun lui can,

therefore, be bound only by Paul as it is re-represented through the intermediate

site of the chain, in thematic position inside the clause Paul a dit ‘Paul said’. The

pronoun is interpreted as a bound variable as soon as it is possible to do so, and is

linked to the position held by Paul at the semantic interface. In contrast, no

binding is possible with NP-modifiers, as the pronoun is not in a c-commanded

position at any point in the derivation in (4). Thus, le and Paul do not enter into a

syntactic dependency, but rather into discourse co-reference, each expression

referring independently to the same individual.

3. The study

3.1. ERP Predictions

Anaphora-linked ERPs are predicted to reflect the N-complement vs. NP-

modifier distinction in anaphora contexts where a matching antecedent is found.

ERP differences should arise at the point of recursion in wh-movement; that is to

say, at the bridge between clauses announced by the verb dit ‘said’ and confirmed

by the subordinator que ‘that’. In the absence of re-representation of moved

constituents (Marinis, Roberts, Felser & Clahsen, 2005) or syntactic mediation in

anaphora (Felser & Cunnings, 2012; Patterson et al., 2014) neuronal activity in

NNSs is not expected to reflect two distinct structure-dependent anaphora

processes in recursion unlike in NSs.

3.2. Stimuli and methods

Stimuli were 200 items including 25 quadruples on a 2 x 2 design (structure:

N-complement/NP-modifier * antecedent: main clause match/mismatch) as in

(5a-d).

216

(5) a. Quelle décision à propos de lui est-ce que Paul a dit que Lydie avait rejetée

sans hésitation?

b. Quelle décision le concernant est-ce que Paul a dit que Lydie avait rejetée

sans hésitation?

c. Quelle décision à propos de lui est-ce que Lydie a dit que Paul avait rejetée

sans hésitation?

d. Quelle décision le concernant est-ce que Lydie a dit que Paul avait rejetée

sans hésitation?

‘Which decision about/regarding him did Paul/ Lydie say that Lydie/Paul

had rejected without hesitation?’

As part of preparatory work, 16 advanced L1-English NNSs and 16 NSs of French

provided interpretive judgments for the two structures. They accepted the

construal of the gendered pronouns lui and le with the matrix-clause subject at

similarly high rates in à propos de lui and le concernant (NNSs: 96%/96%; NSs:

91%/89%). This confirmed our intuitions about the availability of an anaphoric

construal. The 100 distractor items involved complex interrogative structures and

permutations similar to target items.

Stimuli were presented visually in four blocks via E-prime (PST, Inc); stimuli

were randomized within each block and blocks were presented in random order.

The interrogative sentences appeared word by word, each word appearing for

300ms followed by a 250ms blank slide. This pace was based on reading speed

measured for NNS and NS participants on a self-paced reading task with related

stimuli, and was also piloted to confirm that it was appropriate for both participant

groups. Respondents were trained to read interrogatives and then accept or reject

follow-up comprehension statements. In the training items, all interrogatives were

followed by a comprehension statement; in the task, only two thirds were. This

ratio maintained participant attention without being too taxing. Naturally, a set of

interrogatives seems plausible in only a limited set of situations. Thus,

respondents were introduced to a context involving two characters who are

devoted followers of a TV series. One of the characters, however, had missed out

on some episodes and asked the other character questions to fill in the missing

information.

3.3. EEG procedures

EEG was recorded continuously at 1000 samples per second via a 64-

electrode EGI system (EEG, Inc. Eugene, OR) referenced to Cz (vertex) during

recording. The EEG signal was collected using a Net Amps 300 amplifier with a

gain of 5000 and acquisition software version 4.5.4. Impedances were verified to

�������������� � ���� �� ��������������������������������������� ����������

procedures were performed using the EEGLAB toolbox (Delorme & Makeig,

2004). Data were filtered offline with a .05-100.5-Hertz band-pass filter (0.1Hz

transition bandwidth, -6 dB attenuation at cutoff frequency, Hamming windowed,

order 33000). Line noise was removed using the CleanLine plugin for EEGLAB

(Mullen, 2012). The continuous data were then divided into 5-second epochs

217

starting with est-ce que (the question marker) immediately following the N-

complement à propos de lui ‘about him’ or the NP modifier le concernant‘regarding him,’ and running to the end of the interrogative sentence. Following

segmentation, bad channels were removed after visual inspection and statistical

abnormality tests with the TrimOutlier plugin (Lee & Miyakoshi, SCCN, INC,

UCSD). Epochs containing large artifacts were removed by the experimenter,

with an average of 87% of trials retained across subjects. Ten subjects with greater

than 10% bad channels or 30% bad epochs were excluded from analysis, leaving

24 NSs and 22 NNSs. Blinks, ocular movements, and EMG were removed from

the recording using two Independent Component Analyses. All remaining trials

were included in the analysis. This is because the brain processing as the

respondents encounter the sentence is independent of the respondents’ behavior

on comprehension checks following the sentence. Participants’ accuracy on

unambiguous checks, 61% for NSs and 63% for NNSs, shows the task to be

challenging. However, in critical stimuli NSs and NNSs alike interpreted the

pronoun and gender-matched noun phrase as co-referential 70% of the time,

which confirms an anaphoric bias. Analysis was performed on ERPs re-referenced

offline to average mastoids.

3.4. Participants

24 NSs of French, 20 right-handed and 4 left-handed individuals, as well as

22 NNSs of French, including 21 right-handed individuals and 1 left-handed

person, provided analyzable data. There were therefore no exclusion criteria

beyond unreasonably noisy EEG recordings or neurological disorders.

Participants first reviewed experimental procedures and reaffirmed consent. After

providing biographical information, participants completed a C-test consisting of

50 partially missing words (25 content words and 25 function words). This test

was divided into two paragraph-length texts with a time limit of 5 minutes per

paragraph (Renaud, 2010). Finally, participants completed the EEG experiment,

with each of the four blocks lasting 13 minutes; including breaks, the total task

time was around one hour. This ensured subjects were not fatigued and stayed

engaged.

The 24 NSs of French (average age = 26.6) were tested in the US. They were

graduate students, participating in exchange programs, or else were visitors to

campus. They, on average, had lived abroad 2.4 years at the time of testing. Their

average C-test score was 48.7/50, with a range from 45-50. The 22 NNSs of

French (average age = 29.1) began acquiring French during secondary schooling

or later. These participants were graduate students and advanced undergraduate

students in the US at the time of testing but had spent some time abroad, with an

average total length of stay of 1.1 years. Their C-test scores (average 45.5/50;

range 33-50) clearly indicate that they were well above intermediate-level

learners: Average scores range from around 25 points for low intermediates

(second semester) to 30 points for high intermediate learners (fourth semester).

We decided not to exclude respondents because of handedness. Because cyclic

movement constitutes a reflex of the basic property of recursion in grammar, ERP

218

effects of reconstruction could be expected across groups and the range of

individual variation within groups.

3.5. Data extraction and analysis

Following the examination of movement dependencies in Phillips, Kazanina,

and Abada (2005), we used 50ms baselines into the onset of each word. ERP plots

show cumulative voltages with a matrix-subject baseline. As per Fiebach,

Schlesewsky and Friederici (2002), mean voltages were computed for each

structure over left anterior; right anterior; left posterior; right posterior ROIs

consisting of five electrodes each as depicted in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Location of ROIs

We ask as a central empirical question whether there will be ERP effects of

N-complement vs. NP-modifier structure in anaphora when a pronoun can be

construed with a matrix-clause antecedent [(5a) vs. (5b)]. This is because only in

these conditions can we establish the timing of a syntax-dependent anaphora

process crucially involving the bridge between clauses. ERP distinctions are

precisely predicted as expressions are re-represented at the syntactic bridge that

is introduced by the verb dit ‘said’ and confirmed by the subordinator que ‘that’.

NSs and NNSs might exhibit different patterns, even as they make the same

structural distinctions. Hence, non-cumulative analyses were conducted using

mixed linear effect models in R version 3.3.0 (R Core Team, 2016) and packages

lmer4 version 1.1.12 (Bates et al., 2015) and lmerTest version 2.0.32 (Kuznetsova

et al., 2015). These non-cumulative analyses show the contribution of each word.

Analyses included structure (complement vs. modifier), laterality (left vs. right

ROIs), and extension (anterior vs. posterior ROIs) as factors, with random

intercepts for subjects. Given that the deployment of knowledge is expected to

differ temporally in NSs and NNSs, analyses were run on NS and NNS data

separately. Mean voltages over a 250-550ms time period after the presentation of

each word were entered into the NS and NNS analyses. When an effect was found,

its timing was further investigated by considering two time periods: 250-350ms

219

and 450-550ms. Any effect of laterality or extension, was further investigated

with a model for each individual ROI. The time course of processing was

examined by analyzing specific segments: the matrix-clause auxiliary a ‘has’, the

bridge verb dit ‘said’, the subordinator que ‘that’ and the embedded clause

auxiliary avait ‘had’. The hypothesis of anaphora processes through a syntactic

bridge is supported only if statistically significant effects arise at the bridge to the

exclusion of earlier or later segments.

4. Results

For NSs, the model in the 250-550ms time period produced a significant

interaction of extension:structure on the verb segment, F(1, 253) = 6.2625, p =

.01296. The model further revealed that the N-complement vs. NP-modifier

structures differed posteriorly, PosteriorMod-Comp = ����� t(253) = 2.29, p = .02.

Follow-up ROI analyses returned statistical significance for the N-complement

vs. NP-modifier distinction in the left posterior ROI, F(1, 23) = 4.6292, p =

.04217. Pairwise comparisons also confirmed the N-complement vs. NP-modifier

contrast, MeanMod-Comp = ����, t(23) = 2.15, p = .04 (see Figure 2).

Figure 2. Grand mean ERP waveforms for NSs at left posterior ROI: N-

complement, early match (5a, dashed dark line); NP-modifier, early match (5b,

solid dark line). Time = 0 is onset of matrix subject including the 50ms baseline.

Turning to the issue of timing, an effect of structure was detected at 250-

350ms after the onset of verb presentation, F(1, 253) = 7.9965, p = .005062. The

qualification by extension was marginal, F(1, 253) = 2.7851, p = .096379.

Pairwise comparisons confirmed the effect of N-complement vs. NP-modifier

structure over the whole scalp, MeanMod-Comp = ����� t(253) = 2.83, p = .005.

This contrast seems driven posteriorly, PosteriorMod-Comp = ����� t(253) = 3.18,

220

p = .002. In individual ROI models, a statistical effect of structure arose in the left

posterior ROI, F(1, 23) = 8.9642, p = .006481. A pairwise t-test confirmed the

contrast, MeanMod-Comp = �!��� t(23) = 2.99, p = .006. At 450-550ms, NSs

produced an extension:structure interaction, F(1, 253) = 4.5637, p = .03362. A

pair-wise comparison revealed a contrast between NP-modifiers and N-

complements anteriorly, AnteriorMod-Comp = �"��� t(253) = 2.38, p = .02. No

effects reached statistical significance in individual ROIs. Anterior ROI

waveforms are provided in the Appendix. In NSs, no additional non-cumulative

effects of structure obtained past the verb.

For NNSs, the model in the 250-550ms time period produced no significant

simple effects of structure or interaction of extension:structure on the verb

segment. Figure 3 provides the ERPs on the left posterior ROI for NNSs.

Figure 3. Grand mean ERP waveforms for NNSs at left posterior ROI: N-

complement, early match (5a, dashed dark line); NP-modifier, early match (5b,

solid dark line). Time = 0 is onset of matrix subject including the 50ms baseline.

At the subordinator, however, an effect of structure (N-complement vs. NP-

modifier) emerged 250-550ms after the onset of word presentation, F(1, 242) =

4.9602, p = .02686. Follow-up t-tests confirmed the relevant contrast, MeanMod-

Comp = -����� t(242) = -2.23, p = .027. The effect of structure was compounded

over the entire period and the whole head, with no qualification by extension or

laterality.

221

Figure 4. Grand mean ERP waveforms for NNSs at left anterior ROI: N-

complement, early match (5a, dashed dark line); NP-modifier, early match (5b,

solid dark line). Time = 0 is onset of matrix subject including the 50ms baseline.

Figure 5. Grand mean ERP waveforms for NNSs at right posterior ROI: N-

complement, early match (5a, dashed dark line); NP-modifier, early match (5b,

solid dark line). Time = 0 is onset of matrix subject including the 50ms baseline.

In sum, effects of the N-complement vs. NP-modifier structure in anaphora

were detected 250-550ms into the presentation of the verb dit ‘said’ and

subordinator que ‘that’. In NSs, an effect of structure in anaphora processing was

detected posteriorly during the processing of the matrix clause dit ‘said’. This

222

effect is more robust on the left posterior ROI. A process was detected 250-350ms

posteriorly and a second process was detected 450-550ms anteriorly. In NNSs, a

broad effect of structure was detected during the processing of subordinator que‘that’.

Figure 6. Grand mean ERP waveforms for NNSs at right anterior ROI: N-

complement, early match (5a, dashed dark line); NP-modifier, early match (5b,

solid dark line). Time = 0 is onset of matrix subject including the 50ms baseline.

5. Discussion and conclusion

NSs and NNSs exhibited differences in the timing of ERP effects in anaphora

conditions [(5a) vs. (5b)] due to deep structural distinctions between N-

complements and NP-modifiers. In NSs, anaphora-linked ERP effects arose as

soon as a bridge verb dit ‘said’ was encountered. In NNSs, anaphora-linked ERP

effects arose as soon as an embedded clause was confirmed by subordinator que‘that’. Effects are consistent with claims that computations involved in the

interpretation of N-complements vs. NP-modifiers differ as claimed by Lebeaux

(1988) and Chomsky (1995). The location of ERP effects supports the role of

recursive movement in anaphora under reconstruction. Recursive operations

constitute a presumed architectural solution to a general computational problem

(Chomsky, 2005; Rizzi, 2013). The results are thus consistent with the view that

a highly specific type of recursive operation computationally underlies both native

and non-native grammatical behavior. The results also confirm that the timing of

neuronal processes sustaining domain-specific computations can vary in NSs and

NNSs.

Beyond the issue of the timing of computations in NSs vs. NNSs, the nature

of the ERP effects shows that highly specific representations can be sustained by

distinct neuronal activity, which seems more focused in NSs and more broadly

223

distributed in NNSs (Ullman, 2001). We showed this even in advanced NNSs.

Hence, while advanced NNSs can show nativelike ERP effects in error detection

(Bowden et al., 2013; Sneed et al., 2015; inter alia), investigations of

computations in complex but fully grammatical processing show NS vs. NNS

differences that are consistent with non-native processing that is characterized by

computational delay and perhaps broader, less organized, neuronal activity.

Appendix

For all figures, N-complement, early match (5a, dashed dark line) and NP-

modifier, early match (5b, solid dark line). Time = 0 is onset of matrix subject

including the 50ms baseline.

Figure A1. Grand mean ERP waveforms for NSs at left anterior ROI.

224

Figure A2. Grand mean ERP waveforms for NSs at right posterior ROI.

Figure A3. Grand mean ERP waveforms for NSs at right anterior ROI.

References

Barss, Andrew. (2002). Syntactic reconstruction effects. In Baltin, M., & Collins, C. (Eds.),

The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory (pp. 670-696). Malden, MA:

Blackwell.

Bates, Douglas, Mächler, Martin, Bolker, Ben, & Walker, Steve. (2015) Fitting linear

mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 1-48.

Bley-Vroman, Robert. (1989). What is the logical problem of foreign language learning?

Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition, 4, 1-68.

225

Bley-Vroman, Robert. (2009). The evolving context of the fundamental difference

hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 175-198.

Bowden, Harriet W., Steinhauer, Karsten., Sanz, Cristina., & Ullman, Michael. T. (2013).

Native-like brain processing of syntax can be attained by university foreign language

learners. Neuropsychologia, 51, 2492-2511.

Boxell, Oliver, & Felser, Claudia (2017) Sensitivity to parasitic gaps inside subject islands

in native and non-native sentence processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition,20, 494–511.

Burkhardt, Petra. (2005). The syntax-discourse interface: Representing and interpreting dependency. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Chomsky, Noam. (1986). Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Chomsky, Noam. (1988). Current issues in linguistic theory. Walter de Gruyter.

Chomsky, Noam. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Chomsky, Noam. (2005). Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry, 36, 1-22.

Chomsky, Noam. (2008). On phases. In Freidin, Robert, Otero, Carlos P, & Zubizarreta,

Maria Luisa (Eds), Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of

Jean-Roger Vergnaud. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Clahsen, Harald, & Felser, Claudia. (2006a). Continuity and shallow structures in language

processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 107-126.

Clahsen, Harald, & Felser, Claudia. (2006b). Grammatical processing in language learning.

Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 3-42.

Clahsen, Harald, & Muysken, Pieter. (1986). The availability of universal grammar to adult

and child learners-a study of the acquisition of German word order. Second Language Research, 2, 93-119.

Dekydtspotter, Laurent, & Miller, A. Kate. (2013). Inhibitive and facilitative priming

induced by traces in the processing of wh-dependencies in a second language. Second Language Research, 29, 345-372.

Dekydtspotter, Laurent, Schwartz, Bonnie D., & Sprouse, Rex A. (2006) The comparative

fallacy in L2 processing research. In M.V. O’Brien, C. Shea, & J. Archibald (Eds.)

Proceedings of the 8th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA) (pp. 33-40). Cascadilla Press.

Delorme, Arnaud, & Makeig, Scott. (2004). EEGLAB: an open source toolbox for analysis

of single-trial EEG dynamics including independent component analysis. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 134, 9-21.

Felser, Claudia, & Cunnings, Ian. (2012). Processing reflexives in a second language: The

timing of structural and discourse-level constraints. Applied Psycholinguistics, 33,571-603.

Fiebach, Christian J., Schlesewsky, Matthias & Friederici, Angela D. (2002). Separating

syntactic memory costs and syntactic integration costs during parsing: The processing

of German WH-questions. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 250-272.

Hopp, Holger. (2017). Cross-linguistic lexical and syntactic co-activation in L2 sentence

processing. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 7, 96-130.

Hopp, Holger. (2016). The timing of lexical and syntactic processes in second language

sentence comprehension. Applied Psycholinguistics, 37, 1253-1280.

Kaan, Edith, Harris, Anthony, Gibson, Edward, & Holcomb, Phillip. (2000). The P600 as

an index of syntactic integration difficulty. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15,

159-201.

King, Jonathan W. & Kutas, Marta. (1995). Who did what and when? Using word- and

clause-level ERPs to monitor working memory usage in reading. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 7, 376-395.

226

Kuznetsova, Alexandra, Brockhoff, Per Bruun, & Christensen, Rune Haubo Bojesen.

(2015) lmerTest: Tests in linear mixed effects models: Version 2.0–29. Available at:

https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/lmerTest/index.html (accessed July 2017).

Lebeaux, David. (1988) Language acquisition and the form of grammar. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Leitão, José A., Branco, António, Piñago, Maria M., & Pires, Luís. (2009). Resolving

pronouns to antecedents in commanding and non commanding positions: First results

from ERP research. Letras de Hoje, 44, 7-11.

Marinis, Roberts, Felser & Clahsen (2005). Gaps in second language sentence processing.

Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 53-78.

Miller, A. Kate. (2015). Intermediate traces and intermediate learners: Evidence for the use

of intermediate structure during sentence processing in second language French.

Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37, 487-516.

Mullen Tim. (2012). CleanLine EEGLAB plugin. San Diego, CA: Neuroimaging

Informatics Tools and Resources Clearinghouse (NITRC).

Patterson, Clare, Trompelt, Helena, & Felser, Claudia. (2014). The online application of

binding condition B in native and non-native pronoun resolution. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 147.

Phillips, Colin, Kazanina, Nina & Abada, Shani H. (2005). ERP effects of the processing

of syntactic long-distance dependencies. Cognitive Brain Research, 22, 407-428.

R Core Team. (2016) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R

Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available at: https://www.R-project.org

(accessed July 2017).

Renaud, Claire. (2010). On the nature of agreement in English-French acquisition: A

processing investigation in the verbal and nominal domains. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington.

Rizzi, Luigi. (2013). Notes on cartography and further explanation. Probus, 25, 197-226.

Sneed, Elisa, Herschensohn, Julia, & Frenck-Mestre, Cheryl. (2015). Pronoun processing

in anglophone late L2 learners of French: Behavioral and ERP evidence. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 34, 15-40.

Ullman, Michael T. (2001). The neural basis of lexicon and grammar in first and second

language: The declarative/procedural model. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4, 105-122.

Van Berkum, Jos J. A., Brown, Colin, Hagoort, Peter, & Zwitserlood, Pienie. (2003).

Event-related brain potentials reflect discourse-referential ambiguity in spoken

language comprehension. Psychophysiology, 40, 235-248.

227

Proceedings of the 42nd annualBoston University Conference on Language Development

edited by Anne B. Bertolini and Maxwell J. Kaplan

Cascadilla Press Somerville, MA 2018

Copyright information

Proceedings of the 42nd annual Boston University Conference on Language Development© 2018 Cascadilla Press. All rights reserved

Copyright notices are located at the bottom of the first page of each paper.Reprints for course packs can be authorized by Cascadilla Press.

ISSN 1080-692XISBN 978-1-57473-086-9 (2 volume set, paperback)ISBN 978-1-57473-186-6 (2 volume set, library binding)

Ordering information

To order a copy of the proceedings or to place a standing order, contact:

Cascadilla Press, P.O. Box 440355, Somerville, MA 02144, USAphone: 1-617-776-2370, sales@cascadilla.com, www.cascadilla.com