Journal of Psycholinguistic Research

, Volume 43, Issue 6, pp 815–837 | Cite as

Word Order Processing in a Second Language: From VO to OV

  • Kepa Erdocia
  • Adam Zawiszewski
  • Itziar Laka


Event-related potential studies on second language processing reveal that L1/L2 differences are due either to proficiency, age of acquisition or grammatical differences between L1 and L2 (Kotz in Brain Lang 109(2–3):68–74, 2009). However, the relative impact of these and other factors in second language processing is still not well understood. Here we present evidence from behavioral and ERP experiments on Basque sentence word order processing by L1Spanish–L2Basque early bilinguals (Age of Aquisition \(=\) 3 years) with very high proficiency in their L2. Results reveal that these L2 speakers have a preference towards canonical Subject–Object–Verb word order, which they processed faster and with greater ease than non-canonical Object–Subject–Verb. This result converges with the processing preferences shown by natives and reported in Erdocia et al. (Brain Lang 109(1):1–17, 2009). However, electrophysiological measures associated to canonical (SOV) and non-canonical (OSV) sentences revealed a different pattern in the non-natives, as compared to that reported previously for natives. The non-native group elicited a P600 component that native group did not show when comparing S and O at sentence’s second position. This pattern of results suggests that, despite high proficiency, non-native language processing recruits neural resources that are different from those employed in native languages.


Word order processing Bilingualism VO–OV languages  Morphological processing ERPs 



This work was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Education and Science (BRAINGLOT CSD2007-00012/CONSOLIDER-INGENIO 2010); the Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (FFI2010-20472, FFI2012-31360); the Basque Government, Department of Education, Universities and Research (IT665-13); the University of the Basque Country (EHUA13/39); a Juan de la Cierva Fellowship (JCI-2010-07692) to Zawiszewski; and a Ramón y Cajal Fellowship (RYC-2010-06520) to Erdocia.


  1. Bornkessel, I., Schlesewsky, M., & Friederici, A. D. (2002). Beyond syntax: Language-related positivities reflect the revision of hierarchies. NeuroReport, 13, 361–364.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., & Schlesewsky, M. (2009). The role of prominence information in the real-time comprehension of transitive constructions: A cross-linguistic approach. Language and Linguistic Compass, 3(1), 19–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carreiras, M., Duñabeitia, J. A., Vergara, M., de la Cruz-Pavía, I., & Laka, I. (2010). Subject relative clauses are not universally easier to process: Evidence from Basque. Cognition, 115, 79–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Díaz, B., Sebastián-Gallés, N., Erdocia, K., Mueller, J., & Laka, I. (2011). On the cross-linguistic validity of electrophysiological correlates of morphosyntactic processing: A study of case and agreement violations in Basque. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 24, 357–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dixon, R. (1994). Ergativity. Cambridge studies in linguistics (69). UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Dryer, M. S. (2011). Order of subject, object and verb. In: M. S. Dryer, M. Haspelmath (Eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library.
  8. Erdocia, K., Laka, I., Mestres-Missé, A., & Rodriguez-Fornells, A. (2009). Syntactic complexity and ambiguity resolution in a free word order language: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidences from Basque. Brain and Language, 109(1), 1–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Felser, C., Clahsen, H., & Münte, T. (2003). Storage and integration in processing of filler-gap dependencies: An ERP study of topicalization and wh-movement in German. Brain and Language, 87, 345–445.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Foucart, A., & Frenck-Mestre, C. (2012). Can late L2 learners acquire new grammatical features? Evidence from ERPs and eye-tracking. Journal of Memory and Language, 66, 226–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fiebach, C. J., Schlesewsky, M., & Friederici, A. D. (2002). Separating syntactic integration cost during parsing: The processing of German WH-questions. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 250–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Friederici, A. D., Hahne, A., & Saddy, D. (2002). Distinct neurophysiological patterns reflecting aspects of syntactic complexity and syntactic repair. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 31(1), 45–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Frisch, S., & Schlesewsky, M. (2001). The N400 reflects problems of thematic hierarchizing. Basic and Clinical Neurophysiology, 12, 3391–3394.Google Scholar
  14. Frisch, S., Schelewsky, M., Saddy, D., & Alpermann, A. (2002). The P600 as an indicator of syntactic ambiguity. Cognition, 85, B83–B92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Garnsey, S. M., Pearlmutter, N. J., Myers, E., & Lotocky, M. A. (1997). The contributions of verb bias and plausibility to the comprehension of temporarily ambiguous sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 58–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gibson, E., & Hickok, G. (1993). Sentence processing with empty categories. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 147–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gibson, E., Piantadosi, S. E., Brink, K., Bergen, L., Lim, E., & Saxe, R. (2013). A noisy-channel account of crosslinguistic word-order variation. Psychological Science, 24, 1079–1088.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gillon Dowens, M., Vergara, M., Barber, H., & Carreiras, M. (2009). Morphosyntactic processing in late second-language learners. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22(8), 1870–1887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gillon Dowens, M., Guo, T., Guo, J., Barber, H., & Carreiras, M. (2011). Gender and number processing in Chinese learners of Spanish—Evidence from event-related potentials. Neuropsychologia, 49, 1651–1659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Greenberg, J. H. (1963). Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In: J. H. Greenberg JH (Ed.) Universals of language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Second printing, first paperback edition. 1966 (pp. 73–113).Google Scholar
  21. Hagiwara, H., Soshi, T., Ishihara, M., & Imanaka, K. (2007). A topographical study on the event-related potential correlates of scrambled word order in Japanese complex sentences. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19(2), 175–193.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hagoort, P., & Brown, C. (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, 1531–1549.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hagoort, P., Brown, C., & Osterghout, L. (1999). The neurocognition of syntactic processing. In C. Brown & P. Hagoort (Eds.), Neurocognition of language (pp. 273–316). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Hagoort, P., Hald, L., Bastiaansen, M., & Petersson, K. (2004). Integration of word meaning and word knowledge in language comprehension. Science, 304, 438–441.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hawkins, J. A. (1995). A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hawkins, J. A. (1999). Processing complexity and filler-gap dependencies across grammars. Language, 75(2), 244–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hawkins, J. A. (2004). Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hawkins, J. A., Dryer, M. S., Haspelmath, M., Newmeyer, F. J., Polinsky, M., & Primus, B. (2002). Symmetries and asymmetries: Their grammar, typology and parsing. Theoretical Linguistics, 28, 95–149.Google Scholar
  29. Just, M., Carpenter, P., & Wooley, J. (1982). Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, I, 11, 228–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Johns, A., Massam, D., & Ndayiragije, J. (Eds.). (2006). Ergativity: Emerging issues. Studies in natural language and linguistic theory (Vol. 65). Dordrecht, Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  31. Kaan, E., & Swaab, T. (2003). Electrophysiological evidence for serial sentence processing: A comparison between non-preferred and ungrammatical continuations. Cognitive Brain Research, 17, 621–635.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kaan, E., Harris, A., Gibson, E., & Holcomb, P. (2000). The P600 as and index of syntactic integration difficulty. Langauge and Cogntive Processes, 15, 159–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kim, A., & Osterhout, L. (2005). The independence of combinatory semantic processing: Evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of Memory and Language, 52(2), 205–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kluender, R., & Kutas, M. (1993). Bridging the gap: Evidence from ERPs on the processing of unbounded dependencies. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 5(2), 196–214.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kotz, S. (2009). A critical review of ERP and fMRI evidence on L2 syntactic processing. Brain and Language, 109(2–3), 68–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kuperberg, G., Holcomb, P., Sitnikova, T., Greve, D., Dale, A., & Caplan, D. (2003). Distinct patterns of neural modulation during the processing of conceptual and syntactic anomalies. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15(2), 272–293.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. (1980). Reading senseless sentences: Brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science, 207, 203–205.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Landa, J., Sarasola, I., & Salaburu, P. (2011). Euskal Hiztegiaren Maiztasun Egitura (EHME), Euskara Institutua/Basque Language Institute. Bilbao: University of the Basque Country. ISBN 978-84-693-9890-6.Google Scholar
  39. Matzke, M., Mai, H., Nager, W., Rüsseler, J., & Münte, T. (2002). The cost of freedom: An ERP-study of non-canonical sentences. Clinical Neurophysiology, 113, 844–852.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. McLaughlin, J., Tanner, D., Pitkänen, I., Frenck-Mestre, C., Inoue, K., Valentine, G., et al. (2010). Brain potentials reveal discrete stages of L2 grammatical learning. Language Learning, 60(2), 123–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Münte, T., Heinze, H. J., & Mangun, G. (1993). Dissociation of brain activity related to syntactic and semantic aspects of language. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 5(3), 335–344.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Oldfield, R. C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9, 97–113.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Osterhout, L., & Holcomb, P. (1992). Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 167–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pallier, C., Dupoux, E., & Jeannin, X. (1997). EXPE: An expandable programming language for on line psychological experiments. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers, 29(3), 322–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pastor, L., & Laka, I. (2013). Processing facilitation strategies in OV and VO languages: A corpus study. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 3(3), 252–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Phillips, C., Kazanina, N., & Abada, S. H. (2005). ERP effects of the processing of syntactic long-distance dependencies. Cognitive Brain Research, 22, 407–428.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pickering, M. (1993). Direct association and sentence processing: A reply to Gorrell and to Gibson and Hickok. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 163–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pickering, M., & Barry, G. (1991). Sentence processing without empty categories. Language and Cognitive Processes, 6, 229–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rossi, S., Gugler, M., Friederici, A. D., & Hahne, A. (2006). The impact of proficiency on second language processing of German and Italian: Evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(2), 2030–2048.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rösler, F., Pechmann, T., Streb, J., Röder, B., & Hennighausen, E. (1998). Parsing of sentences in a language with varying word order: Word-by-word variations of processing demands are revealed by even-related potentials. Journal of Memory and Language, 38, 150–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sabourin, L., & Stowe, L. (2008). Second language processing: When are first and second languages processed similarly? Second Language Research, 24(3), 397–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 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, 173–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Trueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Kello, C. (1993). Verb-specific constraints in sentence processing: Separating effects of lexical preference form garden-paths. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 19(3), 528–553.Google Scholar
  55. Ueno, M., & Polinsky, M. (2009). Does headedness affect processing? A new look at the VO-OV contrast. Journal of Linguistics, 45, 675–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. van Hell, J., & 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Weber, K., & Lavric, A. (2008). Syntactic anomaly elicits a lexico-semantic (N400) ERP effect in the second language but not the first. Psychophysiology, 45, 920–925.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Yamashita, H., & Chang, F. (2001). “Long before short” preference in the production of a head-final language. Cognition, 81, B45–B55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Yetano, I., Duñabeitia, J. A., & Laka, I. (2011). Agent-initial processing preference in Basque: A visual-world eye-movement experiment. Poster presented at the 7th international morphological processing conference, BCBL, Donostia-San Sebastian.Google Scholar
  60. Zawiszewski, A., & Friederici, A. D. (2009). Processing object-verb agreement in canonical and non-canonical word orders in Basque: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Brain Research, 1284, 161–179.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Zawiszewski, A., Gutiérrez, E., Fernández, B., & Laka, I. (2011). Age effects in non-native language processing. Evidence from event-related potentials. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 14(3), 400–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Linguistics and Basque StudiesUniversity of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU)Vitoria-GasteizSpain

Personalised recommendations