1. ‘Potential’ contributions of event-related potentials to the elicitation of different types of knowledge of L2 morphosyntax Kara Morgan-Short University of Illinois at Chicago 1

2. Morgan-Short, K., Faretta-Stutenberg, M., & Bartlett, L. (forthcoming). Contributions of event-related potential research to issues in explicit and implicit second language acquisition. In P. Rebuschat (Ed.), Implicit and Explicit Learning of Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Based on... 2

3. Aim of talk 1.What kind of knowledge is elicited by event-related potentials (ERPs)? – Caveat: ERP reflect online processing, not knowledge itself 2.Can event-related potentials (ERPs) be used as an assessment of explicit/implicit processing? 3.What other ways can ERP research contribute to explicit/implicit issues in SLA? 3

4. Overview of ERPs ERPs measure cognitive processes in real time Voltage changes in the electroencephalogram (EEG) across the scalp and time-locked to a particular stimulus – Word – Grammatical construction 4

5. Overview of ERPs ERPs provide rich, descriptive information – Latency – Amplitude – Polarity – Distribution This information does NOT directly reveal the underlying process 5 Qualitative differences Quantitative differences

6. Overview of ERPs We can associate an ERP with an underlying process when: – Latency, polarity and distribution characteristics pattern together – Repeatedly elicited by a particular experimental condition 6

7. ERP components: N400 Lexical/semantic processing in L1 & L2 and (morpho)syntactic processing in L2 7 Stimuli (Bowden et al., submitted) : I have many miles to run this week. *I have many miles to run this actress.

8. ERP components: N400 What process does the N400 represent? – Prelexical or postlexical? – Controlled or automatic? – Kutas & Fedemeier (2011) May represent long-term memory activity that occurs as semantic meaning is built from word to concept “…not fully automatic…” but does not require “the kind of awareness important for controlled processing”, Can the N400 be interpreted as explicit or implicit? 8 NO

9. ERP components: Anterior negativity (AN) (Morpho)syntactic processing in L1 (& L2) 9 Stimuli (Coulson et al., 1998) : Every morning he mows the lawn. *Every morning he mow the lawn.

10. ERP components: AN What process does the AN represent? – Automatic, rule-governed grammatical processing? – Working memory processes? – Procedural memory processes? – Converging evidence suggests that it can reasonably be interpreted as automatic processing (Batterink & Neville, 2013) Caveat: Not a consistent marker of morphosyntactic processing and shows variability in its characteristics Can the AN be interpreted as explicit or implicit? 10 Possibly as implicit processing

11. ERP components: P600 (Morpho)syntactic processing in L1 (& L2) 11 Stimuli (Coulson et al., 1998) : Every morning he mows the lawn. *Every morning he mow the lawn.

12. ERP components: P600 What process does the P600 represent? – Reanalysis and repair? – Integration difficulty? – Structure-building operations? – Often described as reflecting some kind of controlled process “the fact that a violation is consciously detected does not imply that the linguistic process involved is consciously applied” (Morgan-Short et al., forthcoming) “should not be viewed as a monolithic component” (Steinhauer & Connolly, 2008 ) Can the P600 be interpreted as explicit or implicit? 12 NO

13. Revisiting the aim of the talk 1.What kind of knowledge is elicited by event-related potentials (ERPs)? – ERPs provide a rich manner of describing the characteristics of the processing but does not really allow us to classify the type of processing because the functional significance of ERP components is not resolved 2.Can event-related potentials (ERPs) be used as an assessment of explicit/implicit processing? – The literature does not consider ‘explicitness’ and ‘implicitness’ of ERPs – Only ANs can reasonably be classified a implicit processing 13

14. Revisiting the aim of the talk 3.What other ways can ERP research contribute to explicit/implicit issues in SLA? – How do explicit/implicit training conditions or contexts affect processing? 14

15. L2 ERP literature Studies of artificial/miniature language of L2 (morpho)syntax 15 # studies N400P600AN Explicit3++ Implicit8+++

16. L2 ERP literature Studies of natural L2 (morpho)syntax 16 # studies N400P600AN Classroom21++ Immersion19+++

17. Revisiting the aim of the talk 3.What other ways can ERP research contribute to explicit/implicit issues in SLA? – Exposure to more explicit/implicit learning contexts seems to affect neurocognitive processing – Learners only come evidence an AN, which is suggestive of implicit processing, if they have received implicit training or immersion exposure Although such exposure does not necessarily elicit an AN and even native-speakers do not consistently evidence LAN effects 17

18. Conclusions ERP L2 research provides us with rich, descriptive data about linguistic processing ERP components, however, cannot be viewed as monolithic processes that reflect either explicit or implicit processing Although for the AN, converging views suggest that it may reflect implicit processing – AN can be elicited in L2 learners who have achieved high levels of proficiency and who have had either implicit training or immersion experience 18

19. Future directions Our ability to interpret ERPs in regard to explicit/implicit processing should increase as researchers come to better understand the underlying mechanism(s) reflected by ERPs Gain insight by developing research designs that combine ERPs with behavioral measures, e.g., subjective measures L2 researchers should look to... – Non-linguistic ERPs reflect other cognitive processing, e.g., attention – Research designs that are thought to experimentally manipulate awareness, e.g., as attentional blink 19

20. Conclusions The potential for ERP research to provide unique insights in explicit/implicit issues in L2 development will be ever increasing – as L2 researchers become more knowledgeable about the interpretation of ERP data, and – as cognitive scientists become aware of the potential of study L2 acquisition as an insight into human brain plasticity Let’s keep this dialogue going! 20

21. Thank you!! Questions? Collaborators – Cognition of Second Language Acquisition Laboratory members Dr. Laura Bartlett (alumni) Mandy Faretta-Stutenberg (ABD) – Darren Tanner (UIUC) – Michael Ullman (Georgetown University) – Cristina Sanz (Georgetown University) – Karsten Steinhauer (McGill University) References available upon request–karams@uic.edu 21

22. References Available upon request – karams@uic.edu ` 22

23. Abstract Event-related potentials (ERPs) are scalp-recorded, electrical potentials that provide fine- grained temporal information about the neural process(es) that underlies a cognitive event, such as processing a word or an aspect of grammar. Different ERP components have been elicited in response to processing morphosyntactic stimuli in both first and second languages (L1 and L2). This talk considers whether these neural signatures may be informative in regard to our understanding of different types of knowledge or processing that underlie L2 morphosyntax. In order to accomplish this goal, I first provide a general introduction to ERPs, with a specific consideration of the types of inferences about processing that we can draw from such data. Second, I review ERP components typically elicited by L1 morphosyntactic processing, e.g., the N400, the LAN and the P600, and describe their identifying temporal, polar and scalpal characteristics. I also consider what underlying mechanisms each component is understood to reflect, and whether these mechanisms can be interpreted in terms of explicit or implicit processing and knowledge. Finally, I provide a brief synthesis of the ERPs typically elicited in response to L2 morphosyntactic processing and draw conclusions regarding what implications these results may have for understanding what types of processing or knowledge underlie L2 morphosyntax. In general, I argue that ERP research can provide us with unique insights into L2 processing and knowledge, even though clear associations between ERP components and specific underlying mechanisms remain elusive. 23