Kara Morgan Short The Routledge Handbook of Second

The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition and Neurolinguistics is a useful resource
for novices and experts alike. It provides a comprehensive compilation of expert reviews of up-
to-date academic research on theoretical and methodological aspects of SLA at the intersection of
neurocognition and neurolinguistics.
Professor Viorica Marian, Northwestern University, USA
This volume is an invaluable, one-of-a-kind, one-stop resource for anyone interested in the neuro-
biological and neurocognitive bases of the acquisition of additional languages. The editors have
made a titanic effort to include a wide range of methods, levels of linguistic analysis, languages, and
populations, as motivated by cross-disciplinary perspectives.
Professor Cristina Sanz, Georgetown University, USA
This impressive handbook provides an authoritative in-depth overview of how cognitive neurosci-
ence has expanded our understanding of how the brain supports the acquisition and processing of a
second or third language. It is a highly recommended resource for students and scholars—and for
anyone interested in how a bilingual brain works.
Professor Karsten Steinhauer, McGill University, Canada
THE ROUTLEDGE HANDBOOK OF
SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
AND NEUROLINGUISTICS
The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition and Neurolinguistics provides a compre-
hensive discussion of a wide range of neurocognitive and neurobiological scientific research about
learning second or additional languages. It is a one-of-a-kind centralized resource that brings together
research that is typically found in disperse publication venues.
Eminent global scholars from various disciplines synthesize and cross-fertilize current and past
neural research about second language through systematic, in-depth, and timely chapters that discuss
core issues for understanding the neurocognition of second language learning, representation, and
processing. Handbook sections provide overviews of extant and emerging neuroscience methods,
syntheses of neurocognitive research on second language syntax, morphosyntax, lexicon, phonology,
and pragmatics, and up-to-date descriptions of theoretical approaches of the neural basis of second
language learning. The volume provides additional sections that synthesize research on a variety of
topics including factors that affect the neurocognition of second language, the neural mechanisms
underlying second language learning, individual differences in the neurocognition of second lan-
guage, as well as research on understudied languages and populations, such as sign language, child
second language learners, and individuals with aphasia.
This handbook will be an indispensable resource to scholars and students across a wide range
of disciplines, including those interested in second language acquisition, applied linguistics, cogni-
tive science, psychology, neuroscience, and research methodology. It should facilitate transformative
connections between ideas and disciplines and lead to informative and productive paths for future
research.
Kara Morgan-Short is Professor of Hispanic Linguistics and Psychology at the University of Illinois
Chicago, USA. She directs the Cognition of Second Language Acquisition laboratory, has served
as Associate Editor of the journal Language Learning, and has won undergraduate and graduate
teaching and mentoring awards.
Janet G. van Hell is Distinguished Professor of Psychology and Linguistics and Director of the
Center for Language Science at the Pennsylvania State University, USA. She has served as Editor of
the Journal of Cognitive Psychology, and has received excellence in graduate student and postdoc
mentoring awards.
ROUTLEDGE HANDBOOKS IN SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
Susan M. Gass and Alison Mackey, Series Editors
Kimberly L. Geeslin, Associate Editor
The Routledge Handbooks in Second Language Acquisition are a comprehensive, must-have survey
of this core sub-discipline of applied linguistics. With a truly global reach and featuring diverse con-
tributing voices, each handbook provides an overview of both the fundamentals and new directions
for each topic.
THE ROUTLEDGE HANDBOOK OF SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

AND WRITING
Edited by Rosa M. Manchón and Charlene Polio

AND SPEAKING
Edited by Tracey M. Derwing, Murray J. Munro and Ron I. Thomson

AND SOCIOLINGUISTICS
Edited by Kimberly Geeslin

AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES
Edited by Shaofeng Li, Phil Hiver and Mostafa Papi

AND PSYCHOLINGUISTICS
Edited by Aline Godfroid and Holger Hopp

Edited by Kara Morgan-Short and Janet G. van Hell
For more information about this series, please visit: www.routledge.com/The-Routledge-Handbooks-

in-Second-Language-Acquisition/book-series/RHSLA
THE ROUTLEDGE
HANDBOOK OF SECOND
LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
Edited by Kara Morgan-Short and Janet G. van Hell

Designed cover image: © Getty Images | synthetick
First published 2023
by Routledge
605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158
and by Routledge
4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2023 selection and editorial matter, Kara Morgan-Short and Janet G. van Hell;
individual chapters, the contributors
The right of Kara Morgan-Short and Janet G. van Hell to be identified as the authors of the
editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in
accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised
in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or
hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information
storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks,
and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
ISBN: 978-1-032-04202-2 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-1-032-04205-3 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-003-19091-2 (ebk)
DOI: 10.4324/9781003190912
Typeset in Times New Roman
by Newgen Publishing UK
CONTENTS
List of Contributors xi
Overview 1
1 Second Language Acquisition and Neurolinguistics: A Synthesis of Perspectives 3

Janet G. van Hell and Kara Morgan-Short
PART I
Methodological Approaches for Neurolinguistic Examination of
Second Language 15
2 Using Time-Based Electroencephalography to Investigate Second Language 17

Danielle S. Dickson and Eric Pelzl
3 Using Quantitative Electroencephalography (qEEG) to Investigate

Second Language Learning 31
Malayka Mottarella and Chantel S. Prat
4 Using Functional Neuroimaging to Investigate Second Language Organization 46

Shanna Kousaie and Denise Klein
5 Using Structural Neuroimaging to Investigate Second Language 59

Eleonora Rossi, Toms Voits, and Vincent DeLuca
6 Using Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation to Investigate Second Language 72

Nick B. Pandža
vii
Contents
PART II
The Neurolinguistics of Second Language Learning, Representation, and
Processing 85
7 The Neurolinguistics of Second Language Phonology: A View of Phonemic

Contrast Learning 87
Emily Myers and Pamela Fuhrmeister
8 The Neurolinguistics of the Second Language Lexico-Semantic System 101

Natasha Tokowicz and Victoria Tkacikova
9 The Neurolinguistics of the Second Language Morphological System: The

Role of Grammar-Related and Speaker-Related Factors 115
Nicoletta Biondo, Nicola Molinaro, and Simona Mancini
10 The Neurolinguistics of the Second Language Syntactic System 133

José Alemán Bañón, Robert Fiorentino, and Alison Gabriele
11 The Neurolinguistics of the Second Language Pragmatic System 148

Francesca M. M. Citron
PART III
Neurolinguistic Theories and Models of Second Language 163
12 How the Declarative and Procedural Memory Brain Circuits Support

Second Language: Electrophysiological, Neuroimaging, and Neurological
Evidence 165
Michael T. Ullman and Kara Morgan-Short
13 Neurolinguistic Methods and Generative Approaches to Second Language

Acquisition 177
David Miller, Vincent DeLuca, Kyle Swanson, and Jason Rothman
14 Second Language Acquisition and Neuroplasticity: Insights from the

Dynamic Restructuring Model 191
Michal Korenar and Christos Pliatsikas
15 Linguistic Relativity and Second Language: How Learning a Second

Language May Reshape Cognition 204
Aina Casaponsa and Guillaume Thierry
16 Neurocognition of Social Learning of Second Language: How Can Second

Language be Learned as First Language? 217
Hyeonjeong Jeong and Ping Li
viii
Contents
PART IV
Underlying Factors and Individual Differences in the Neurocognition of
Second Language 231
17 Genetic Factors in Second Language Neurocognition 233

Kelly A. Vaughn, Anushka Oak, and Arturo E. Hernandez
18 Age and Proficiency in Second Language Neurocognition 247

Lauren A. Fromont
19 De-generacy as an Organizing Principle of Bilingual Language

Processing: Evidence from Brain and Behavior 260
Anne L. Beatty-Martínez and Debra A. Titone
20 Factors Accounting for Individual Differences in Second Language

Neurocognition 274
Alicia Luque and Lauren Covey
PART V
Second Language in Relation to the Neurocognition of First Language and
Additional Languages 287
21 Cross-Linguistic Transfer in Second Language Neurocognition 289

Laura Sabourin and Gabrielle Manning
22 Second Language Neurocognition and First Language Attrition 302

Merel Keijzer and Bregtje Seton
23 First Language/Second Language Crosslinguistic Influence on Third

Language Acquisition via Neurocognitive Memory Systems 314
Emily Shimeng Xu and Patrick Chun Man Wong
PART VI
The Neurocognition of Second Language Learning: Mechanisms and Contexts 327
24 The Neurocognition of Prediction in Second Language Processing and Learning 329

Edith Kaan
25 Feedback in Second Language Neurocognition 341

Sybrine Bultena
26 Memory Consolidation in Second Language Neurocognition 353

Clara Ekerdt, Atsuko Takashima, and James M. McQueen
ix
Contents
27 Context of Learning in Second Language Neurocognition 368

Harriet Wood Bowden and Mandy Faretta-Stutenberg
28 Embodied Second Language Processing and Learning from a

Neurocognitive Perspective 381
Ana Zappa and Cheryl Frenck-Mestre
PART VII
Selective Topics in the Neurocognition of Second Language 395
29 The Neurocognition of Foreign Accent Perception 397

Sendy Caffarra, Leah Gosselin, Trisha Thomas, and Clara D. Martin
30 Decision Making and Second Language Neurocognition 412

Alice Foucart
31 Cognitive Control in Second Language Neurocognition 424

Taomei Guo and Fengyang Ma
32 The Neurocognition of Child Second Language Development 436

Valeria Ortiz-Villalobos, Ioulia Kovelman, and Teresa Satterfield
33 The Neurocognition of Learning a Second Language in the Visual-Manual

Modality 448
Gabriela Meade
34 Aphasia, Rehabilitation, and Second Language Neurocognition 461

Michael Scimeca, Erin Carpenter, and Swathi Kiran
Index 475
x
CONTRIBUTORS
José Alemán Bañón is Associate Professor at the Centre for Research on Bilingualism, which is part
of the Department for Swedish Language and Multilingualism at Stockholm University (Sweden).
He has a PhD in linguistics from the University of Kansas. Alemán Bañón’s research, which has been
funded by Riksbankens Jubileumsfond (The Bank of Sweden Tercentenary Foundation), examines
the linguistic and cognitive factors that impact morphosyntactic processing in both native speakers
and adult second language learners, in addition to the mechanisms that guide processing in both
populations.
Anne L. Beatty-Martínez is Assistant Professor in the Department of Cognitive Science at the

University of California, San Diego (USA), where she directs the Bilingualism in Context Lab. Her
research has two intertwined strands: one that examines how cognition supports language use and
another that asks how language use impacts cognition itself. In her work, she capitalizes on the diver-
sity and variability in people’s experiences to better understand how the mind and brain adapt to the
demands of more than one language.
Nicoletta Biondo obtained a PhD in psychological sciences and education at the University of
Trento (Italy) and then worked as a postdoctoral fellow at the Basque Center on Cognition, Brain and
Language (BCBL, Spain) and at the University of Siena (Italy). She is currently a Marie Skłodowska-
Curie fellow at University of California, Berkeley (USA), and at the BCBL. Her research combines
theoretical linguistics and cognitive neuroscience to investigate the mechanisms involved during real-
time language comprehension. Her specialty is the study of time in language. She has investigated
monolingual and bilingual adult sentence comprehension with eye- tracking and event-related
potentials. Currently, she is investigating comprehension in aphasia with structural neuroimaging
(lesion-symptom mapping).
Harriet Wood Bowden (PhD, Georgetown University) is Associate Professor of Spanish Linguistics
in the Deparment of Spanish and Linguistics at the University of Tennessee-Knoxville (USA). Her
research examines first, second, and heritage language acquisition and neurocognition. She is par-
ticularly interested in understanding the interaction of multiple learner-internal and external factors
influencing language learning and neurocognition, including cognitive, pedagogical, and contextual
(including study abroad vs. foreign language learning contexts).
xi
List of Contributors
Sybrine Bultena obtained her PhD from Radboud University (Nijmegen, The Netherlands), where
she currently works as Assistant Professor in the Department of Modern Language and Cultures and
Centre for Language Studies. She is also affiliated with the Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and
Behaviour (The Netherlands). Using behavioral techniques and EEG, she has published on lexical
processing in bilinguals, as well as error monitoring, and feedback processing in L2 learners.
Sendy Caffarra is Assistant Professor in the Department of Biomedical, Metabolic and Neural
Sciences at the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia (Italy) and a visiting scholar in the Graduate
School of Education at Stanford University (USA). Her work is focused on how functional and struc-
tural properties of our brain change as a result of linguistic experience. Her research is placed at the
intersection between neuroscience, psycholinguistics, and education.
Erin Carpenter is completing her PhD in speech-language pathology in the Center for Brain
Recovery in the Department of Speech, Language & Hearing Sciences at Boston University, Sargent
College of Health and Rehabilitation (USA). Following her undergraduate studies at Pennsylvania
State University she was admitted into the combined MS/PhD program at Boston University, where
she completed clinical training in speech-language pathology. Her research focuses on investigating
the behavioral and neural correlates of language and cognition in bilingual aphasia to develop theoret-
ically motivated and clinically robust rehabilitation outcomes for bilingual individuals with aphasia.
Aina Casaponsa is Lecturer in the Department of Linguistics and English Language at Lancaster
University (UK). She studies multilingual language comprehension and production with specific
focus on cross-language interactions using behavioral and electrophysiological measures. She has
investigated language-selective modulators of lexical access in same-and cross-script bilinguals
across the lifespan and the cognitive factors underpinning successful second language learning.
Funded by the British Academy, she is also investigating the impact of language(s) in visual percep-
tion and other non-linguistic cognitive processes.
Francesca M. M. Citron is Senior Lecturer in the Department of Psychology, Lancaster University

(UK). She is a a psycholinguist and cognitive neuroscientist. Her main research interests include
the effects of emotive content on language processing and its neural correlates; figurative language
comprehension; multilingualism, i.e., how different languages are processed by multilinguals, but
also a new focus on the effects of culture and cultural identity. More recently, she has developed
an interest in literary reception an appreciation, i.e., affective, cognitive, and aesthetic responses
to literary texts. She uses a range of methods, from ratings and behavioral measures, to pupil dila-
tion, electrophysiology, and neuroimaging. She is currently developing new research projects on
intercultural pragmatics.
Lauren Covey is Assistant Professor in the Department of Linguistics at Montclair State University
(USA). Her research interests center on sentence processing in second language learners and bilingual
speakers, using psycholinguistic and neurolinguistic approaches. Her work additionally investigates
how individual differences in a variety of linguistic and cognitive abilities, such as vocabulary know-
ledge, proficiency, working memory, and attentional resources, impact language processing.
Vincent DeLuca is Associate Professor of the Neurocognition of Bilingualism in the Department of

Language and Culture at UiT The Arctic University of Norway. His research focuses primarily on
how different aspects of bilingual experience affect brain structure, function, and several cognitive
processes. His work focuses on how these neural and cognitive adaptations dynamically shift over
xii
time and with changes to patterns of language use. He uses a combination of neuroimaging (e.g.,
EEG, MRI) and behavioral methods to examine this.
Danielle S. Dickson received her PhD in psychology from the University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign where she utilized EEG/ERPs to study a variety of cognitive processes, including arith-
metic comprehension and language processing. She continued this work in her postdoctoral studies
at The University of Texas at San Antonio and expanded her research to incorporate creative thinking
and bilingualism at The Pennsylvania State University. She is currently Senior Researcher at Sandia
National Laboratories (USA).
Clara Ekerdt studied psychology at American University as well as Maastricht University

and received her PhD from Leipzig University, having completed her doctoral training at the
Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences. She is currently a postdoctoral
researcher at the Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition, and Behaviour at Radboud University
(The Netherlands) investigating the neural mechanisms that underlie age-related differences in
L2 word learning.
Mandy Faretta-Stutenberg (PhD, University of Illinois at Chicago) is Associate Professor of

Spanish Linguistics in the Department of World Languages and Cultures at Northern Illinois
University (USA). Her research explores the role of individual differences in learner characteristics
in explaining variability in linguistic development (behavioral and neurocognitive) for learners in
various learning contexts, such as study abroad, domestic immersion, classroom instruction, and
various laboratory settings.
Robert Fiorentino is Professor in the Department of Linguistics and Director of the Neurolinguistics
& Language Processing Laboratory at the University of Kansas (USA). He has a PhD in linguistics
from the University of Maryland. Fiorentino’s research, which has been supported by the National
Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health, utilizes psycholinguistic and neurolinguistic
approaches to examine the nature of linguistic representations, the mechanisms subserving language
processing, and the acquisition of language in adult second language learners, with a primary focus
on the domains of morphology, syntax, and semantics/pragmatics.
Alice Foucart is a full-time researcher at the Research Centre in Cognition at Nebrija University,
Madrid (Spain). She obtained her PhD in psycholinguistics from the University of Edinburgh
(UK) and Université de Provence (France). She worked as a post-doctorate in the UK (Heriot-Watt
University, the University of Edinburgh, and the University of Bangor), Spain (Universitat Pompeu
Fabra), and Belgium (Ghent University). Her research focuses on language processing in first and
second language. She also investigates how language influences other cognitive aspects such as
decision-making, emotion processing, and social cognition. Her research involves behavioral and
(electro-)physiological methodologies.
Cheryl Frenck-Mestre is Senior Researcher at the French National Center for Scientific Research
(CNRS) and is currently at the University of Aix-Marseille (France). From a psycholinguistic per-
spective, her research centers around bilingualism and first- and second language processing, with
specific areas of interest ranging from phonetics to semantics, to syntax. She investigates the neural
correlates of both L2 learning and processing, including cross-language influence, using electroen-
cephalography (event-related potentials and time-frequency analysis), eye movements, and, more
recently, virtual reality.
xiii
Lauren A. Fromont obtained her PhD in biomedical sciences in 2019. She worked at University
of Montreal and McGill on characterizing the neurocognitive processes underlying sentence pro-
cessing in native and second language speakers. She now is the Scientific Programme Manager of the
European Genome-Phenome Archive in the Centre for Genomic Regulation at the Barcelona Institute
of Science and Technology (Spain). She focuses on data management in the mental health domain,
as well as making data discoverable while preserving the participants privacy. She is also leading her
own project to support institutions in adopting a gender perspective in health research.
Pamela Fuhrmeister is currently a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Potsdam (Germany).

She completed her PhD in 2020 at the University of Connecticut in the USA and was supervised by
Emily Myers. Her research focuses on the cognitive and neural processes that help us perceive and
produce speech, as well as learn new speech sounds. She is also interested in individual differences
in speech perception and production.
Alison Gabriele is Professor in the Department of Linguistics and Director of the Second Language
Acquisition Laboratory in the Department of Linguistics at the University of Kansas (USA). She
has a PhD in linguistics from the Graduate Center of the City University of New York. Gabriele’s
research, which has been supported by the National Science Foundation, focuses on the acquisition
and processing of syntax and semantics in adult second language learners, focusing on the cognitive
and linguistic factors that impact development.
Leah Gosselin is a PhD candidate in the Department of Linguistics at the University of Ottawa
(Canada). She specializes in psycholinguistics, neurolinguistics, and bilingualism, and is currently
investigating the link between code-switching and cognition. Leah was a visiting student at the Basque
Center on Cognition, Brain and Language (Spain), where she completed research on accented-speech
processing.
Taomei Guo is currently Professor in the State Key Laboratory for Cognitive Neuroscience
and Learning at Beijing Normal University (P. R. China). Her research mainly focuses on the
cognitive and neural mechanisms of bilingual language processing. She received her PhD from
Beijing Normal University in 2004 and has been working there since then. She also worked at
the Pennsylvania State University during 2007–2008, at the University of California (Riverside)
during 2016–2017, and at the University of California (Los Angeles) during 2019–2020 as a
visiting scholar.
Arturo E. Hernandez is currently Professor in the Department of Psychology at the University of

Houston (USA). His main research interest is in the neural bases of bilingualism with a particular
emphasis on a developmental perspective. His research has been funded by the National Institutes
of Health and the National Science Foundation. Recent work has looked at the role of genetics and
bilingualism on the ability to flexibly adapt to different cognitive tasks. His work is also informed by
his own language experience. He is a simultaneous Spanish–English bilingual who became proficient
in Portuguese and German as an adult.
Hyeonjeong Jeong is Professor in the Graduate School of International Cultural Studies &
Department of Human Brain Science, IDAC, at Tohoku University (Japan). Her research focuses
on the brain mechanisms involved in language acquisition and communication in both native (L1)
and second (L2) language contexts. Jeong is currently Associate Editor of the Journal of
Neurolinguistics.
xiv
Edith Kaan received her PhD in linguistics from the University of Groningen (The Netherlands). She
is currently Professor at the Linguistics Department at the University of Florida, where she co-directs
the Bilingualism, Language and Brain Lab. Edith Kaan pioneered the use of event-related brain
potentials to study syntactic aspects of sentence processing. Her current research interests include
predictive processing and adaptation in sentence-level processing. She uses various techniques (self-
paced reading, priming, eye-tracking, EEG) in various populations (late second language learners,
early bilinguals, functional monolinguals) to answer her research questions. Her research has been
supported by the National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health, and the Dutch Research
Council.
Merel Keijzer is Professor of English Linguistics & English as a Second Language at the University
of Groningen (The Netherlands). She is the PI of the Bilingualism and Aging Lab (BALAB) and
works on the interfaces of multilingualism (including attrition), and cognition as well as wellbeing
across the lifespan.
Swathi Kiran, PhD, CCC-SLP, is the James and Cecilia Tse Ying Professor of Neurorehabilitation in
the Department of Speech, Language & Hearing Sciences at Boston University (USA). Her previous
research has utilized behavioral, psycholinguistic, and neuroimaging methods to answer clinically
relevant questions in aphasia rehabilitation. Additionally, she has published extensively on topics
in bilingual aphasia including measuring poststroke language impairment and predicting language
treatment outcomes.
Denise Klein is Scientist and Neuropsychologist in the Cognitive Neuroscience Unit at the Montreal
Neurological Institute (MNI), and Professor in the Department of Neurology and Neurosurgery at
McGill University (Canada). She is the Director of the Centre for Research on Brain, Language, and
Music (CRBLM). She obtained her PhD at the University of Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, South
Africa. Klein came to the MNI in 1992 as a postdoctoral fellow to work with Brenda Milner. Klein’s
current research program aims to understand how language experience influences and shapes brain
organization.
Michal Korenar is Assistant Professor at the Department of Dutch Studies within the Amsterdam
Center for Language and Communication at the University of Amsterdam, and he works at the
Amsterdam University Medical Centers (The Netherlands). He seeks to understand how and whether
the transformative experience of multilingualism can serve our societies in, for example, delaying
neural and cognitive decline or boosting creative potential. Being awarded several personal and col-
laborative grants, Michal Korenar investigated the neuroscience of creativity and multilingualism in
research labs worldwide.
Shanna Kousaie is Assistant Professor in the School of Psychology at the University of Ottawa,
where she is the Director of the Cognitive Neuroscience of Bilingualism Laboratory. She obtained her
PhD from Concordia University and pursued postdoctoral training at the Bruyère Research Institute
and the MNI. Kousaie’s research aims to understand the interaction between language experience
and cognition using a multi-method approach that includes behavioral, electrophysiological, and
neuroimaging measures.
Ioulia Kovelman is Professor of Psychology at the University of Michigan. As a developmental

cognitive neuroscientist, Kovelman uses behavioral and neuroimaging methods, especially optical
fNIRS neuroimaging, to understand the effects of bilingualism on children’s language, literacy, and
xv
brain development. Her research focuses on bilinguals learning typologically distinct languages,
Spanish, English, and Chinese. Through this work, Kovelman addresses questions about the uni-
versal, language-specific, and bilingual influences on child language and reading development in
neurotypical and at-risk learners.
Ping Li is Sin Wai Kin Professor in Humanities and Technology, Chair Professor of Neurolinguistics
and Bilingual Studies, and Dean of the Faculty of Humanities at the Hong Kong Polytechnic
University. His research uses cognitive neuroscience and computational methods to study language
acquisition, bilingualism, and reading comprehension in both children and adults. Li is currently
Editor-in-Chief of Brain and Language and Senior Editor of Cognitive Science. He is a fellow of the
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).
Alicia Luque is Associate Professor of Applied Linguistics in the Department of Applied Language
Studies at Nebrija University as well as a full-time researcher at Nebrija’s Research Center in Cognition
(CINC) in Madrid (Spain). She obtained her PhD in Hispanic linguistics at the University of Illinois
at Chicago (USA). Before joining Nebrija University, she worked as a postdoctoral research fellow in
psycho/neurolinguistics of bi/multilingualism at UiT The Arctic University of Norway (Norway). Her
research interests center on examining the various individual factors that contribute to proficient adult
language learning and gaining a deeper understanding of how diverse bi/multilingual experiences
impact linguistic, socio-affective, and neurocognitive function. Luque’s work primarily investigates
adult second/third language acquisition and heritage speaker bilingualism, utilizing psycholinguistic
and neurolinguistic theories and methods to explore the underlying mechanisms supporting bilin-
gual language processing, as well as the universality and diversity behind adult language learning
outcomes across the continuum of bi/multilingualism.
Fengyang Ma is Associate Professor–Educator in the School of Education at the University of

Cincinnati. Her research interests center on the investigation of bilingualism from psycholinguistic
and neurolinguistic perspectives. She received her PhD from Tsinghua University. Then, she worked
at the Pennsylvania State University as a postdoctoral visiting scholar and research assistant in the
Center for Language Science and the Social, Life, and Engineering Sciences Imaging Center. From
2015 till now, she has been working in the Center for English as a Second Language at the University
of Cincinnati.
Simona Mancini obtained her PhD in cognitive science from the University of Siena (Italy). She is
a Ramón y Cajal fellow and leads the Neurolinguistics and Aphasia Group at the Basque Center on
Cognition, Brain and Language. Her work lies at the intersection between theoretical linguistics and
cognitive neuroscience, with the goal of unveiling language architectural principles and its neurobio-
logical foundations using a wide range of experimental techniques (eye tracking, EEG, and fMRI)
and populations (adult monolingual but also second-language and language-impaired speakers).
Gabrielle Manning is a PhD candidate in the Department of Linguistics at the University of Ottawa.
She specializes in psycholinguistic research on bilingualism and second language acquisition.
Specifically, she focuses on grammatical gender processing in second language French speakers.
Emphasis is placed on the way speakers learn their second language and the age at which they are
immersed in it.
Clara D. Martin is Ikerbasque Research Professor and the Leader of the ‘Speech and Bilingualism’
research group at the Basque Center on Cognition, Brain and Language (Spain). Her research group’s
main objective is to explore the relationship between speech perception and production as well as
xvi
study language interactions in the bilingual mind. The research group investigates factors that impact
multilingual speech processing, and how to influence and optimize second language sound and
word learning. The group also explores bilingual language control, assessing language interference
in multilinguals on the sound, word and sentence level in speech perception and production. The
research group also focuses on the impact of orthographic systems on speech sounds and words on
perception and production across modalities, languages, and populations.
James M. McQueen studied experimental psychology at the University of Oxford and obtained his
PhD from the University of Cambridge. He has held appointments at the MRC Applied Psychology
Unit, Cambridge, and the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen. He is currently
Professor of Speech and Learning at Radboud University and Principal Investigator at the Donders
Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour (The Netherlands). He is a member of the Academia
Europaea. His research is focused on how the building blocks of spoken language—its sounds and
words—are used in communication, primarily in speech recognition, and on how they are learned,
in L1 and L2.
Gabriela Meade is Assistant Professor in Speech Pathology and Research Associate in the
Department of Neurology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota (USA). She has a strong
interest in the neural representation of languages, as revealed by studying second language learning,
signed languages, and neurodegenerative speech and language disorders.
David Miller is Assistant Professor of Spanish in the Department of Hispanic and Italian Studies at
the University of Illinois at Chicago (USA). His research interests include language acquisition and
processing, psycholinguistics, the psychology of multilingualism, and the effects of bi-and multi-
lingualism on behavior. His recent work has been published in Journal of Neurolinguistics, Applied
Psycholinguistics, and Bilingualism: Language and Cognition.
Nicola Molinaro completed his PhD in cognitive science in 2007 at the University of Padova (Italy),
and then moved to the University of La Laguna (Tenerife, Spain) and later to Basque Center on
Cognition, Brain and Language (Spain) as a postdoc. In 2014, he was granted with a five-years
Ikerbasque Fellowship being promoted to Ikerbasque Research Professor in 2023. He is now group
leader of the Brain Rhythms and Cognition research group. The group explores how the brain encodes
visual, auditory, and linguistic rhythms by focusing on neural oscillatory activity. Based on this
approach we investigate predictive processing in language comprehension, music processing, and
visual and attentional processes. These research lines merge into the more general goal of detecting
oscillatory neural components that lead to the development of language disorders across the lifespan.
Kara Morgan-Short is Professor in the Department of Hispanic and Italian Studies and the Department
of Psychology at the University of Illinois Chicago (USA) where she directs the Cognition of Second
Language Acquisition Laboratory. Informed by the fields of linguistics, cognitive psychology, and
neuroscience, her research aims to elucidate the neurocognitive processes underlying adult-learned
language acquisition and use. Her work is published in a range of journals from Language Learning
to Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. She has served as Associate Editor for Language Learning,
currently serves on various editorial boards, and is the recipient of awards for teaching and mentoring
undergraduate and graduate students.
Malayka Mottarella is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Cognitive Psychology at the

University of Washington (USA). She received her BA in psychology from Willamette University
xvii
and her MS in psychology from the University of Washington. Her research uses neuroscience
techniques, including EEG and MRI, to understand the factors driving individual differences in com-
plex skill performance and acquisition among healthy adults.
Emily Myers is Professor in the Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Science and the
Department of Psychological Sciences at the University of Connecticut (USA). Her work focuses on a
fundamental question in human behavior: How do listeners perceive the speech signal in order to map
it to meaning? Using neuroimaging methods (fMRI, ERP) together with standard psycholinguistic
measures, work in her lab aims to understand the neural and behavioral mechanisms that underlie
this process.
Anushka Oak completed her undergraduate career at the University of Houston with a BS in biology
and a BA in Spanish. She is currently a fulbright scholar doing predoctoral cognitive neuroscience
research in Spain and upon return will begin her doctorate at Georgetown University’s Interdisciplinary
Program in Neuroscience (USA).
Valeria Ortiz-Villalobos is a PhD student in the Combined Program in Education and Psychology at
the University of Michigan (USA). As an educational psychologist, she studies language and literacy
development in young bilinguals, with a special emphasis on Spanish-speaking children, including
heritage Spanish speakers in the USA. She is also interested in the role of the home language and
literacy environment in shaping children’s school readiness. She collaborates with Kovelman and
Satterfield in research related to the understanding of language representations in the bilingual brain
in early childhood.
Nick B. Pandža is Assistant Research Scientist at the University of Maryland Applied Research
Laboratory for Intelligence and Security (USA) and affiliated with the Program in Second Language
Acquisition and the Language Science Center. He has also served as Lecturer in Brain and
Language at the George Washington University and MRI Technician at the University of Maryland
Neuroimaging Center. His work has primarily focused on the impact of individual differences on
language processing and learning outcomes using advanced statistical methods with behavioral, psy-
chophysiological, and neurocognitive data.
Eric Pelzl earned his PhD at the University of Maryland and completed a postdoctoral fellowship
in the Center for Language Science at The Pennsylvania State University. He recently started a pos-
ition as Assistant Professor in the Department of Chinese and Bilingual Studies at the Hong Kong
Polytechnic University. His research utilizes psycholinguistic and neurolinguistic (ERP) methods to
investigate first and second language speech perception and comprehension.
Christos Pliatsikas is Associate Professor in Psycholinguistics in Bi-/Multilinguals at the School of

Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences, University of Reading (United Kingdom), and the Chair
of the International Symposium on Bilingualism (ISB). He is on the Editorial Board of Bilingualism,
Language and Cognition, and of Frontiers in Language Sciences, section Bilingualism. His work
focuses on experience-based neuroplasticity, with a primary interest on the effects of bi-/multilin-
gualism on brain structure and function, including in brain development and ageing.
Chantel S. Prat is Professor at the University of Washington (USA) with appointments in the
Departments of Psychology, Neuroscience, and Linguistics, and at the Institute for Learning and
Brain Sciences, the Center for Neurotechnology, and the Institute for Neuroengineering. She earned
xviii
her PhD at U.C. Davis and completed her postdoctoral work at Carnegie Mellon. Her interdisciplinary
research investigates the biological basis of individual differences in cognition, with an emphasis
on understanding the shared neural mechanisms underpinning language and higher-level executive
functions.
Eleonora Rossi is Assistant Professor in the Departments of Linguistics and Psychology at the
University of Florida (USA). The overarching goal of her work is to understand the earliest neuro-
cognitive markers of second language acquisition and the long-lasting neuroplasticity induced by
bilingualism. Her work encompasses behavioral, cognitive, and neuroimaging techniques such as
EEG (TFRs, ERPs, RS-EEG) and magnetic resonance imaging methodologies.
Jason Rothman is Professor of Linguistics in the Department of Language and Culture and UiT
The Arctic University of Norway, and Adjunct Professor at Universidad Nebrija (Spain). His
research deals with language acquisition and processing across the life span, especially in various
types of bilingualism and multilingualism. He researches the mutually beneficial, bi-directional rela-
tionship between formal linguistic theory and experimental methods/evidence from psycho-and
neurolinguistics. His recent work has been published in International Journal of Bilingualism, Brain
Sciences, and Frontiers in Psychology.
Laura Sabourin is Associate Professor in Linguistics at the University of Ottawa (Canada) and
the Director of the ERP Linguistics (ERPLing) Lab. She received her PhD from the University of
Groningen. She specializes in the psycholinguistics of second language acquisition with a focus
on grammatical gender, executive functioning skills, lexical access, and language transfer. In her
research she investigates the roles that age of immersion and manner of acquisition play in second
language use and processing.
Teresa Satterfield is Professor of Romance Linguistics, Linguistics and Combined Program of

Education and Psychology at the University of Michigan (USA). She is a psycholinguist and part of
the En Nuestra Lengua research group. Her areas of investigation include morphosyntactic devel-
opment in bilingual children, language representations in the bilingual brain, and (socio)linguistic
questions concerning heritage (Spanish) language development. Extensions of her research program
include heritage language literacy and advocacy for heritage language speakers. She is Founder and
Director of the heritage Spanish academic program “En Nuestra Lengua Literacy and Culture Project
(ENL)” for Spanish-speaking students in Southeastern Michigan.
Michael Scimeca is a PhD candidate in the Department of Speech, Language & Hearing Sciences at
Boston University (USA). While completing his clinical training in speech-language pathology, he
developed an interest in aphasia rehabilitation after providing clinical care to bilingual adults with
language impairment. His research incorporates both behavioral and psycholinguistic perspectives to
improve rehabilitation outcomes for bilinguals with aphasia.
Bregtje Seton is a PhD student in the Department of English Language and Culture at the University
of Groningen and Psychometric Researcher at Cito in The Netherlands. She has done research on
bilingualism, attrition, psycholinguistics, and neurolinguistics, and has taught courses on these topics
as well as on statistics. She is co-author of the course book Essential Statistics for Applied Linguistics.
Kyle Swanson (PhD) Department of Second Language Studies, Indiana University Bloomington)
is Continuing Lecturer in the Oral English Proficiency Program at Purdue University (USA). His
xix
research leverages generative approaches to language alongside psycholinguistic and neurolinguistic

methods to characterize how adult L2 learners apply their grammatical knowledge to understand
sentences in real time. His recent work has been published in the proceedings of BUCLD 46, Journal
of Neurolinguistics, and PLOS ONE.
Atsuko Takashima studied medicine at Tsukuba University and worked as Psychiatrist at Tokyo
Metropolitan Hiroo General Hospital. At the same time, she followed a clinical research program
at Tokyo Medical and Dental University and obtained her PhD in medical sciences. She is currently
a postdoctoral researcher at the Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour at Radboud
University (The Netherlands) investigating memory consolidation using neuroimaging techniques
with a focus on word acquisition.
Guillaume Thierry is Professor of Cognitive Neuroscience in the School of Human and

Behavioural Sciences, Bangor University (UK), and Faculty of English, Adam Mickiewicz
University (Poland). He studies auditory and visual language comprehension and production. Funded
by the BBSRC, the ESRC, the AHRC, the ERC, and the British Academy, he has investigated
meaning integration in infants and adults at lexical, syntactic, and conceptual levels, using behavioral
measurements, ERPs, eye-tracking, and fMRI, in different sensory modalities, different languages,
and different coding systems (verbal /nonverbal). Thierry’s core research question is how the human
brain crystallizes knowledge and builds up a meaningful representation of the world around it.
He now focuses on linguistic relativity and language–emotion interactions in communication and
decision-making.
Trisha Thomas is a PhD student at the Basque Center on Cognition, Brain and Language and the
University of the Basque Country (Spain), approaching PhD in cognitive neuroscience. Her research
focuses on how interlocutor identity affects information processing and memory.
Debra A. Titone is Professor of Psychology and Canada Research Chair in Language &
Multilingualism at McGill University (Canada). She is an active member of the Centre for Research
in Brain, Language and Music, and the current leader of the Montréal Bilingualism Initiative. Her
work investigates a variety of questions pertaining to language use: How people comprehend and
produce the languages that they know and how they read, learn novel linguistic forms, or use for-
mulaic or metaphoric language. She examines these questions across different domains and uses
varied methods, most notably eye-tracking studies of reading but also neuroscience and computa-
tional methods.
Victoria Tkacikova received a BA in psychology and English from Binghamton University. She
earned an MS in cognitive psychology from the University of Pittsburgh. She is currently pursuing
her PhD in cognitive psychology in the Department of Psychology and the Learning Research
and Development Center at the University of Pittsburgh (USA). Her research examines individual
differences in adult second language learning and the effectiveness of second language instructional
methods.
Natasha Tokowicz received a BA in psychology with a minor in Spanish from the University of
Massachusetts at Amherst. She earned an MS and PhD in cognitive psychology from The Pennsylvania
State University. She completed postdoctoral fellowships at Carnegie Mellon University and the
University of Pittsburgh prior to beginning a faculty appointment at the University of Pittsburgh in
2004. She is currently Associate Dean for Equity, Faculty Development, and Community Engagement
xx
in the Dietrich School of Arts and Sciences, and Professor of Psychology and Linguistics and Senior
Scientist at the Learning Research and Development Center at the University of Pittsburgh (USA),
with an appointment in the Center for the Neural Basis of Cognition. Her research combines behav-
ioral and cognitive neuroscientific methodologies to address questions about adult second language
learning and bilingualism. Her book Lexical Processing and Second Language Acquisition was
published by Routledge.
Michael T. Ullman is Professor in the Department of Neuroscience at Georgetown University (USA),

with secondary appointments in the Departments of Neurology and Psychology. He is the Director
of the Brain and Language Laboratory and the Director of Medical Neuroscience at Georgetown
University Medical School. He teaches undergraduate, masters, PhD, and medical students. His
research examines the neurocognition of first and second language, math, reading, and memory;
how these domains are affected in various disorders (e.g., autism, dyslexia, developmental lan-
guage disorder, aphasia, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and Huntington’s diseases); and how they may be
modulated by factors such as genetic variability, sex, handedness, and aging.
Janet G. van Hell is Distinguished Professor of Psychology and Linguistics at the Pennsylvania
State University (USA) and also serves as the Director of the Center for Language Science. Funded
(mainly) by the National Science Foundation, her research focuses on the neural and cognitive
processes related to diversity and variability in language use and experience in L2 learners and
monolingual, bilingual, and bidialectal speakers. She combines neuropsychological and behavioral
techniques to study patterns of L2 learning, cross-language interaction, codeswitching, creative lan-
guage use, and accented-speech processing.
Kelly A. Vaughn is Assistant Professor in the Department of Pediatrics at the Children’s Learning
Institute, part of the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (USA). She received her
graduate training in the neural bases of bilingualism under the mentorship of Arturo Hernandez. Now,
her research uses neuroimaging to understand and support early language and cognitive develop-
ment, particularly for bilingual children. Her current research, focused on bilingual development in
toddlers who were born preterm, is funded by the National Institutes of Health Office of the Director’s
Tackling Acquisition of Language in Kids (TALK) initiative (2023–2025).
Toms Voits is a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Gothenburg (Sweden) and UiT The Arctic
University of Norway. His research interests lie at the intersection of linguistics, language sciences,
and cognitive neuroscience. He is most interested in understanding the neurocognitive effects of bi-/
multilingualism (among other types of learning and lifestyle experiences), especially in the later years
of life and on clinical neurodegeneration. His research employs a combination of behavioral and
neuroimaging (EEG/MRI) methods.
Patrick Chun Man Wong is Professor of Cognitive Neuroscience and Linguistics and Founding
Director of Brain and Mind Institute at The Chinese University of Hong Kong. He received his
degrees in linguistics and cognitive psychology from the University of Texas at Austin and completed
postdoctoral training in neuroscience at the University of Chicago. Wong conducts interdisciplinary
research on cultural and biological factors that influence language and cognition, utilizing methods
ranging from brain imaging to field research. A Guggenheim fellow, Wong, has published over 100
research papers with media reports in outlets such as The New York Times and Scientific American.
xxi
newgenprepdf
Emily Shimeng Xu is a postdoctoral associate of the Division of Pediatric Otolaryngology at Ann

& Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago (USA). Xu received her Master of Science degree
in education with a focus on educational linguistics from the University of Pennsylvania and
her Master of Arts degree in linguistics from The Chinese University of Hong Kong, where she
completed her doctoral study on neurolinguistics and received her PhD degree in 2022. Xu’s research
is focused on investigating the neurocognitive mechanisms of language acquisition and processing
using complementary behavioral methods and neuroimaging techniques such as EEG and fNIRS.
Ana Zappa is a Marie Sklodowska-Curie fellow at the Department of Cognition, Development and
Educational Psychology at the University of Barcelona (Spain). Her research focuses on the role of
embodied semantics and social interaction in second language learning. She is particularly interested
in examining the neural correlates of such using EEG, combined with virtual reality, as a means of
providing learners with more ecologically valid environments.
xxii
Overview
1
SECOND LANGUAGE
ACQUISITION AND
NEUROLINGUISTICS
A Synthesis of Perspectives
Introduction
Learning a second or additional language (L2) is arguably one of the most complex learning tasks
for the human mind. Research that examines how human brains and minds learn, process, and use
languages brings us closer to a comprehensive understanding not only of language learning, but also
of how our minds and brains learn complex information more generally. The Routledge Handbook
on Second Language Acquisition and Neurolinguistics presents a current, comprehensive account of
state-of-the-art knowledge on neural approaches to L2 learning, processing, and use. This handbook
provides thorough overviews of theoretical and methodological L2 neurolinguistic approaches and
in-depth considerations of a range of linguistic and cognitive topics related to the neurocognition
of L2 learning. The brain- based focus on L2 learning and processing uniquely positions this
handbook among preceding works published in the series of Routledge Handbooks in Second
Language Acquisition, including the Routledge Handbook on Second Language Acquisition and
Psycholinguistics, the Routledge Handbook on Second Language Acquisition and Sociolinguistics,
and the Routledge Handbook on Second Language Acquisition and Individual Differences.
Since the mid to late 1990s, brain-based research addressing the question of how individuals
learn, process, and use L2 has grown exponentially. An interesting aspect of brain-based research
on L2 learning, processing, and use is that it is pursued by researchers working in a wide range
of scientific disciplines, including neuroscience, psychology, applied linguistics, linguistics, and
modern languages. These researchers often attend and present their research at different profes-
sional conferences and publish their research across a wide range of outlets that range from journals
in (applied) linguistics to neuroscience journals. However, there are not centralized resources and
venues that aggregate brain-based research on L2. We believe that the Handbook of Second Language
Acquisition and Neurolinguistics will serve as a resource that brings together state-of-the-art know-
ledge about the brain and L2 from across a range of disciplines and research topics. By bringing
together outstanding scholars working at the forefront of brain-based research on L2, we aim to
offer readers a centralized, comprehensive resource about L2 neurolinguistic research that serves
the purpose of (a) revealing the range of L2 neurolinguistic research; (b) providing state-of-the-art
overviews of extant L2 neurolinguistic topics; (c) establishing future directions for neurolinguistic
research on these topics; and (d) facilitating transformative connections between ideas and between
researchers.
DOI: 10.4324/9781003190912-2 3
Acknowledging disciplinary differences in terminology, and embracing an inclusive approach, in

our role as editors we respected authors’ preferred terminology and did not impose a uniform vocabu-
lary in the handbook. Consequently, terms like acquisition, learning, and development may be used
interchangeably or differently across the chapters, as is true for neurolinguistics, neurocognition,
cognitive neuroscience, neuropsychology, and neurobiology. Additionally, we allowed the internal
organization of the chapters to vary to some extent so that our expert authors could most effectively
structure the information that they wanted to convey for their topic. Thus, although core methodo-
logical, theoretical, and empirical research is always provided, there is some variability among the
chapters within each section, for example, whether historical information or applied implications are
presented. At the same time, we made a concerted effort to consistently optimize accessibility to the
specific topics discussed in each chapter, with the underlying goal being to maximize the scope of
the handbook’s readership. Inevitably, background knowledge may be needed to fully comprehend a
given chapter, and readers are encouraged to consult resources provided as references in the text or in
the further readings section at the end of each chapter.
Research Themes and Perspectives Within Neurolinguistic

Research on L2 Learning, Processing, and Use
Historically, our initial insights into the neural basis of using two languages were provided by
experiments of nature: individuals whose language use was affected by a stroke or other acquired-
brain injury, known as aphasia. In their pioneering work on language loss in bilingual aphasia,
Ribot and Pitres argued that language loss does not manifest itself in the same degree of severity in
both languages, but rather occurs asymmetrically, with one language more affected than the other.
According to Ribot’s (1887) law, the earlier acquired language (native language, L1) is preserved
better after acquired brain injury. In contrast, Pitres’s (1895) law states that the individual’s dominant
language before the injury is less affected by brain injury, whether or not this is the individual’s L1.
Such asymmetry also emerges in recovery patterns following brain injury, which led Paradis (1977)
to identify six different recovery patterns. (For more details on historical and current clinical and the-
oretical perspectives on bilingual aphasia, see Scimeca, Carpenter, & Kiran, this volume.)
Over time, the development of neurocognitive techniques to study the intact brain, such as func-
tional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and electroencephalography (EEG), led to significant
advances in brain-based research on language processing. Here we highlight several main research
themes that have guided empirical studies that used neurocognitive methods to examine L2 learning,
processing, and use, published since the mid to late 1990s: (a) the neural basis for critical periods
in L2 learning and variability in other learner-related individual difference variables; (b) the neural
organization of the bilingual brain; (c) patterns of crosslinguistic interaction and transfer in the
bilingual mind and brain; (d) how language learning experience and learning context impact the
neurocognitive basis of L2 processing; (e) whether and how L2 learning induces changes in cognitive
processing and neural structures; (f) whether and how the neural underpinnings and mechanisms of
L2 processing differ from those of L1 processing.
Whether there is a critical period for language learning is a longstanding and fundamental question
in human development and learning in general (Penfield & Roberts, 1959) and for L2 learning in
particular (e.g., Lenneberg, 1967). In fact, Science identified the question “Why are there critical
periods for language learning?” as one of the 125 critical questions for the next 25 years (Kennedy
& Norman, 2005). In the context of the critical period hypothesis for L2 learning, neurocognitive
studies sought to identify the existence of a biologically constrained critical period for L2 learning,
after which learners are unable to acquire and process their L2 in a way that is qualitatively similar to
L1 native speakers. Questions that guided this research included whether patterns of L2 learning and
processing are driven by age of L2 acquisition or L2 proficiency, using the native-speaker benchmark
4
Second Language Acquisition and Neurolinguistics
to interpret L2 learners’ neural organization (for a review, see Van Hell, 2023). These questions con-
tinue to inspire current research (see, for example, the handbook chapters by Fromont, this volume;
Myers & Fuhrmeister, this volume; as well as Alemán Bañón, Fiorentino, & Gabriele, this volume;
Biondo, Molinaro, & Mancini, this volume; Miller, DeLuca, Swanson, & Rothman, this volume), but
have also evolved in more nuanced approaches the past decades. For example, researchers acknow-
ledge that patterns of L2 learning and processing are affected by many other factors beyond age of
acquisition and L2 proficiency, such as L2 learning experience (e.g., see Beatty-Martínez & Titone,
this volume; Bowden & Faretta-Stutenberg, this volume; Korenar & Pliatsikas, this volume) and indi-
vidual variability in genetic factors (Vaughn, Oak, & Hernandez, this volume) as well as cognitive
functions, language learning aptitude, and motivation (see Grey, Fox, Serafini & Sanz, 2015; Ekerdt,
Takashima, & McQueen, this volume; Luque & Covey, this volume; Mottarella & Prat, this volume).
These insights have also inspired researchers to acknowledge that L2 learning trajectories are multi-
faceted, and that their complexity should be embraced rather than narrowed down to an idealized
native speaker benchmark (cf. Van Hell, in press, and associated commentaries).
A second major field of inquiry inspired by early studies on the neural basis of L2 learning and
processing pertains to the neural organization of languages in the bilingual brain (Kousaie & Klein,
this volume). Decades of research have been summarized in recently published meta-analyses on
the neural areas that are associated with bilinguals’ processing of phonology, lexico-semantics, and
grammar in L1 and L2 (Sulpizio et al., 2020), the impact of AoA and L2 proficiency on language
representation in the bilingual brain (Cargnelutti et al., 2019), and the neural correlates of lexical
and grammatical learning in experimentally controlled language training studies (Tagarelli et al.,
2019). For example, Sulpizio et al.’s (2020) meta-analysis concluded that bilinguals’ lexico-semantic
processing in L1, as compared to L2, is associated with a widespread activation pattern of cortico-
subcortical regions (largely overlapping with the semantic network identified for monolingual lan-
guage processing), whereas lexico-semantic processing in L2, as compared to L1, is more constrained
and involves activation of regions associated with cognitive control-related functions (see also
Tokowicz & Tkacikova, this volume). In contrast, the neural regions involved in bilinguals’ grammar
processing overlapped to some extent in the L1 and L2 comparisons and mainly engaged frontal/
basal ganglia networks that have been associated with procedural-related circuits (see also Ullman &
Morgan-Short, this volume). Neural structures involved in bilinguals’ phonological processing in L1
and L2 also overlapped to some extent, and involved frontal regions (more widespread for L2) that
are key components of the dorsal pathway in dual-stream models of speech processing (e.g., Hickok
& Poeppel, 2007; Saur et al., 2008). Tagarelli et al.’s meta-analysis synthesized the neuroimaging lit-
erature on lexical and grammar learning in experimentally controlled language training studies. They
found that lexical and grammar learning yielded overlapping activation in frontal and posterior par-
ietal regions. They further found that only lexical learning showed ventral occipitotemporal activa-
tion (ventral pathway in dual-stream models of speech processing), whereas only grammar learning
showed basal ganglia activation (associated with procedural learning functions; see also Ullman &
Morgan-Short, this volume).
Another central question in neurocognitive and psycholinguistic research on L2 learning, pro-
cessing, and use is the impact of the native language, or L1. Such crosslinguistic influences and
transfer are pervasive at all levels of language processing, including phonology, lexico-semantics,
morphology, syntax, and pragmatics. Dissimilarities and similarities between L1 and L2 systems
are at the root of negative and positive transfer effects (for reviews, see Caffarra et al., 2015; Kroll
et al., 2015; McManus, 2021). Furthermore, crosslinguistic influences surface across a wide range
of L2 learners and bilinguals, including dual language learners (see Ortiz-Villalobos, Kovelman,
& Satterfield, this volume), heritage speakers, early and late L2 learners at different levels of L2
proficiency, as well as individuals who experience attrition (Keijzer & Seton, this volume; see also
5
Bergmann et al., 2015; Steinhauer & Kasparian, 2020). Crosslinguistic influences also surface across
languages in different modalities (e.g., Lee et al., 2019; Meade, this volume), from L1/L2 to third
language (L3) and subsequent languages (Cabrelli et al., 2023; Xu & Wong, this volume), and from
the weaker to the stronger language and vice versa (Sabourin & Manning, this volume). This hand-
book highlights brain-based research that seeks to understand the neural basis of, and mechanism
associated with, crosslinguistic interaction and transfer in L2 learning, processing, and use; this theme
emerges in the aforementioned chapters and in many others, including chapters discussing foreign-
accented speech comprehension (Caffarra, Gosselin, Thomas, & Martin, this volume), phonological
(Myers & Fuhrmeister, this volume; Marian et al., 2017), lexico-semantic (Tokowicz & Tkacikova,
this volume), morphological (Biondo, Molinaro, & Mancini, this volume), syntactic (Alemán Bañón,
Fiorentino, & Gabriele, this volume), and pragmatic (Citron, this volume) processing, as well as in
child L2 learning (Ortiz-Villalobos, Kovelman, & Satterfield, this volume).
An additional critical question in L2 learning and bilingualism behavioral research that is now
being addressed by brain-based approaches is how the varied contexts in which additional languages
are learned and used (e.g., classroom, study abroad, immersion, and contexts with different patterns
of bilingual and multilingual use) shape how they may be represented and processed on a neural
level. In regard to learning additional languages, an instructed context that provides metalinguistic
information about the L2 may lead to learning that is supported by different neural substrates and
processes as compared to uninstructed contexts such as immersion (see Jeong & Li, this volume).
The growing empirical literature on this topic will certainly have implications for theoretical
perspectives of the neural basis of L2, as not all theories have fully accounted for context (see
more in Bowden & Faretta-Stutenberg, this volume). Even more specifically, within any particular
learning context, learners are likely to receive different types of L2 feedback, which is minimally
understood from a neurolinguistic perspective. Leveraging the vast body of EEG literature on the
neural mechanisms of feedback in domains other than language, along with the substantial body
of behavioral research about L2 feedback, promises to reveal new insights into the specific neural
mechanisms that contribute to feedback-driven L2 learning (Bultena, this volume). More broadly
speaking, adapting a framework, such as de-generacy (Beatty-Martínez & Titone, this volume),
to understand the complex experiences of learning and using additional languages should provide
a greater understanding of variability in language use and language control among individuals in
different contexts.
A fifth question that has gained considerable research interest in the past decades is whether and
how L2 learning induces changes in cognitive processing and neural structures. Moving beyond
the heated “bilingual advantage” debate—the contested notion that bilingualism improves perform-
ance in other cognitive domains, in particular executive functioning (e.g., Antoniou, 2019; De Bruin
et al., 2021; Kroll & Bialystok, 2013; Paap et al., 2015, and commentaries), brain-based research
has sought to unravel how L2 learning experience and the frequent use of two or more languages
impact the neural underpinnings and mechanisms of language control and domain-general cognitive
tasks (Bialystok & Craik, 2022; Guo & Ma, this volume; Tao et al., 2021; Zirnstein et al., 2018),
induce structural changes in the brain (Korenar & Pliatsikas, this volume), or reshape the L2 learner’s
conceptualization of the world (Casaponsa & Thierry, this volume; Zappa & Frenck-Mestre, this
volume).
A final question highlighted here pertains to the ways in which the neural underpinnings and
mechanisms of language processing are different for L2 processing as compared to L1 processing.
More specifically, there is an emergent literature, as reviewed by Kaan (this volume) that observed
that predictive processing in L2 sentence processing is different from that in L1 sentence processing
(see also Alemán Bañón, Fiorentino, & Gabriele, this volume; Beatty-Martínez & Titone, this volume;
Sabourin & Manning, this volume). Relatedly, anticipatory affective processing, that is, how the brain
prepares for an upcoming emotional event, also seems contingent upon the language of operation
6
in bilinguals (Jonczyk et al., 2019). In addition, neurocognitive studies exploring embodied lan-
guage processing and learning have found that sensorimotor networks are less involved in L2 than
in L1 processing (Zappa & Frenck-Mestre, this volume), possibly because L2 learning is often more
decontextualized than L1 acquisition (see also Jeong & Li, this volume). The emergent literature on
the so-called foreign-language effect in decision making observed that using the L2 rather than the L1
can modulate bilinguals’ economic decisions and moral judgements (Foucart, this volume).
Finally, technological advancements in research methods and analyses that characterize the field
of neuroscience in general have also found their way in neurolinguistic research on L2 learning,
processing, and use (see, for example, Pandža, this volume; Rossi, Voits, & DeLuca, this volume).
These technological advancements have generated more reliable research outcomes, but have also
paved the way for future studies to address new avenues of inquiry (see, for example, Dickson &
Pelzl, this volume). Throughout the handbook, when considering the various research themes and
perspectives, most chapters include a section describing the history of their specific field of research,
how the research has changed over time, and how our understanding of the neurocognition of L2 has
accumulated over the past decades.
Topics and Themes of the Handbook

To cover the multifaceted field of neurocognitive and neurobiological scientific research about
learning second or additional languages, we structured the handbook in seven sections:
Part I Methodological Approaches for Neurolinguistic Examination of Second Language

Part II The Neurolinguistics of Second Language Learning, Representation, and Processing
Part III Neurolinguistic Theories and Models of Second Language
Part IV Underlying Factors and Individual Differences in the Neurocognition of Second Language
Part V Second Language in Relation to the Neurocognition of First Language and Additional
Languages
Part VI The Neurocognition of Second Language Learning: Mechanisms and Contexts
Part VII Selective Topics in the Neurocognition of Second Language
To make the handbook accessible to a wide audience, including readers with little prior know-
ledge on a (particular) neurolinguistic method, Part I provides readers with an introduction to the
neurolinguistic methodological approaches that have been used to examine L2 learning, representa-
tion, and processing. This includes both well-established neurolinguistic methods that are continu-
ously evolving, such as EEG and fMRI, as well as emerging methods that have been more recently
introduced to L2 research, such as transcranial magnetic stimulation. The scope of these methods is
broad in that they provide time-based (e.g., event related-potentials, ERP), frequency-based (e.g.,
EEG oscillations), space-based (e.g., fMRI), and matter-based (e.g., diffusion tensor imaging) data
regarding the neurocognition of language processing. The chapters in Part I thus establish a founda-
tion for a full understanding of subsequent chapters on topics that are informed by these methodo-
logical approaches. These chapters will also provide a basis for graduate students and researchers
who endeavor to adopt these methods into their own research. The first two chapters in Part 1 focus on
EEG approaches. Chapter 2 familiarizes readers with the fundamental principles of the EEG method,
in particular the ERP technique, and its application in L2 research (Dickson & Pelzl, this volume).
Chapter 3 discusses frequency-based, or quantitative electroencephalography (qEEG), an approach
in which EEG signals are decomposed into different oscillatory frequencies, and how this approach
has been used to study individual differences in neural processing associated with L2 learning and
use. This chapter specifically focuses on how intrinsic (task-free) and dynamic (task-based) qEEG
measures predict L2 learning success and how these measures are modulated by past L2 experiences
7
(Mottarella & Prat, this volume). Chapters 4 and 5 focus on neuroimaging methods. Chapter 4 discusses
the use of functional neuroimaging to investigate L2 brain organization, and reviews research that
has used positron emission tomography (PET) and fMRI to study language processing in L2 users
and bilinguals. This chapter also discusses more recent methods that have been developed in the
field, reflecting the gradual shift of focus from identifying the function of specific brain regions to
characterizing the spatial and temporal dynamics of functional networks that connect different brain
regions (Kousaie & Klein, this volume). Chapter 5 reviews how structural neuroimaging methods
are used in L2 research to examine structural neural changes that occur in response to L2 acquisition
and bilingualism. This chapter discusses techniques (including voxel-based morphometry, cortical
thickness, vertex-based analysis, and diffusion tensor imaging) to study the brain’s gray and white
matter structure adaptations to L2 learning and bilingual engagement, and exemplifies each technique
by discussing key research articles (Rossi, Voits, & DeLuca, this volume). Chapter 6, the final chapter
in Part I, discusses how methods of non-invasive brain stimulation—methods that modulate neural
activity (including transcranial magnetic stimulation, transcranial electrical stimulation, and transcu-
taneous peripheral nerve stimulation)—have and can be used to investigate and enhance L2 learning
and processing (Pandža, this volume).
Part II provides an overview of the extant knowledge regarding how L2s are learned, represented,
and processed in the brain. Part II is structured by different linguistic domains: phonology, lexico-
semantics, morphology, syntax, and pragmatics. Each chapter provides an empirical review and
synthesis of our understanding of L2 learning, representation, and processing within the specific lin-
guistic domain, as informed by the relevant methods described in Part 1. In Chapter 7, the first chapter
of Part II, Myers and Fuhrmeister discuss one of the most difficult challenges for the (late) L2 learner,
the learning of speech sounds. After describing the neurobiology of novel speech sound learning, the
chapter reviews empirical evidence for multiple neural systems that support speech sound learning
and describes individual differences in brain structure and function that predict individual variability
in learning success (Myers & Fuhrmeister, this volume). Chapter 8 focuses on the lexico-semantic
system, and reviews studies that have used various neurolinguistic methods to examine key questions
in this field of inquiry: patterns of cross-language interaction during bilingual word recognition and
word production, how the L2 lexico-semantic system relies on inhibitory and cognitive control of
the L1 and L2, and how the structure and function of the L2 lexico-semantic system changes with
increasing proficiency (Tokowicz & Tkacikova, this volume). In Chapter 9, Biondo, Molinaro, and
Mancini focus on the L2 morphological system, and provide a comprehensive review of research
on the neural correlates related to L2 morphological processing, highlighting the role that grammar-
related factors (e.g., L1–L2 similarity) and speaker-related factors (e.g., L2 immersion, age of acqui-
sition) have in shaping the L2 morphological system and its neurocognitive underpinnings (Biondo,
Molinaro, & Mancini, this volume). In Chapter 10, Alemán Bañón, Fiorentino, and Gabriele also
highlight the roles of grammar-related and speaker-related factors, here as they describe the neural
basis of L2 syntactic processing, in particular basic phrase structure, word order, and wh-dependencies
(Alemán Bañón, Fiorentino, & Gabriele, this volume). Part II concludes with Chapter 11 on the L2
pragmatic system, the study of language as used in context and going beyond linguistic knowledge
per se to incorporate social context, speaker intention, and listener background. As pragmatics is
an understudied topic in the field of L2 neurocognition, Citron builds on the emergent literature on
L2 pragmatic routines (figurative expressions) and discourse comprehension, and provides valuable
suggestions for promising future avenues of neurolinguistic research on L2 pragmatics (Citron, this
volume).
Part III focuses on domain-general and domain-specific theoretical neurolinguistic accounts
of L2 in order to present explanatory accounts of the neurocognition of L2 learning, processing,
and use. In Chapter 12, Ullman and Morgan-Short discuss how the declarative/procedural (DP)
model accounts for L2 neurocognition. After describing the declarative and procedural learning and
8
memory brain circuits and ensuing predictions for language, the authors outline how this model
aligns with evidence from electrophysiological, neuroimaging, and neurological (lesion) studies on
L2 learning and processing (Ullman & Morgan-Short, this volume). In Chapter 13, L2 neurocognition
is discussed from a generative approach to L2 acquisition. In this chapter, Miller, DeLuca, Swanson,
and Rothman discuss how, from a generative second language acquisition (GenSLA) perspec-
tive, neurocognitive methods can address key GenSLA questions including L2 learners’ ultimate
attainment and the tenability of a critical period for L2 acquisition (Miller, DeLuca, Swanson, &
Rothman, this volume). A different theoretical perspective is taken in Chapter 14 by Korenar and
Pliatsikas who, through the lens of experience-dependent neuroplasticity in various groups of L2
learners, discuss how the framework of the dynamic restructuring model aligns with the available
evidence on the structural brain changes induced by L2 learning and use (Korenar & Pliatsikas, this
volume). In Chapter 15, Casaponsa and Thierry synthesize perspectives from linguistic relativity,
embodiment, and functional plasticity of the human brain, and present an account of how learning
words and grammatical constructs in L2 can affect non-verbal cognition and may shift and reshape
the L2 learner’s perception and conceptualization of the world (Casaponsa & Thierry, this volume).
Part III concludes with Chapter 16 discussing a social L2 learning (SL2) perspective, postulated by
Jeong and Li, stating that L2 learning, especially beyond the sensitive period, benefits from social
interaction and enriched exposure in real life, as in L1 learning. Their chapter highlights the social
and affective dimensions of SL2, along with the underlying cognitive and neural correlates, and
reviews neural evidence that supports the SL2 perspective in showing that different brain networks
may be implicated in SL2-based learning than in traditional classroom-based L2 learning (Jeong &
Li, this volume).
Parts IV–VII are topic oriented and provide overviews of neurolinguistic work on factors and
mechanisms that affect L2 learning, processing, and use. The topics cover a broad range of factors
in order to provide a comprehensive view of the state-of-art work on the neurocognition of L2. Part
IV entails four chapters that each highlight specific topics within the overarching theme of under-
lying factors and individual differences in the neurocognition of L2. This part opens with Chapter 17
by Vaughn, Oak, and Hernandez on genetic factors in L2 neurocognition that provides an overview
of theoretical perspectives and empirical work on the interplay between genetics and environment,
that is, nature and nurture, related to L2 learning and processing. An as of yet understudied topic in
the L2 literature, Vaughn and colleagues exploit the extant literature to postulate a foundation for
large-scale, genome-wide research on genetic differences in L2 acquisition, and future directions for
research on genetics and L2 acquisition (Vaughn, Oak, & Hernandez, this volume). In Chapter 18,
Fromont reviews theoretical perspectives and neurocognitive evidence on how L2 age of acquisi-
tion and L2 proficiency shape the L2 learner’s mind and brain, and outlines novel approaches to
examine inter-individual variability in these prominent factors (Fromont, this volume). In Chapter 19,
Beatty-Martínez and Titone introduce de-generacy, a term adopted from systems biology, that is taken
to reflect how different elements (e.g., linguistic forms, cognitive processes, or brain regions) are
functionally interchangeable under certain conditions but can perform different functions under other
conditions. They describe how de-generacy can serve as a valuable explanatory tool to better under-
stand behavioral and neurocognitive variability in language learning and processing in monolingual
and bilingual speakers (Beatty-Martínez & Titone, this volume). Part IV concludes with Chapter 20
by Luque and Covey who review neurocognitive evidence on individual variability in L2 learning to
better understand the underlying factors that account for individual differences in L2 neurocognition,
including learners’ background characteristics, linguistic and cognitive abilities, as well as contextual
and instructional factors (Luque & Covey, this volume).
L2 in relation to the neurocognition of L1 and additional languages is the focus of Part V, which
covers the key question of cross-language interaction and transfer in L2 processing in the bilingual
mind and brain. Part V opens with Chapter 21 that reviews theoretical perspectives and empirical
9
evidence on the neural basis of crosslinguistic transfer at three linguistic levels: phonological, lexical,
and syntactic (Sabourin & Manning, this volume). Next, in Chapter 22, Keijzer and Seton explore L1
attrition (language loss) from a neurocognitive perspective, and discuss how the dynamic interplay
between the first and second or additional languages (related to radical changes in language use or
more subtle changes as a function of learning new languages while still residing in an L1 environ-
ment) may induce changes to L1 processing (Keijzer & Seton, this volume). Part V concludes with
Chapter 23 focusing on L1–L2 crosslinguistic influences on L3 acquisition, and reviews empirical
work that has examined the neurocognitive mechanisms of facilitative or inhibitory crosslinguistic
influences of known languages (e.g., L1/L2) on the acquisition of a to-be-known language (e.g., L3/
Ln), with a specific focus on the (morpho)syntactic system (Xu & Wong, this volume).
Part VI presents five chapters that focus on processing mechanisms and learning contexts associated
with the neurocognition of L2 learning and processing. Chapter 24, the first chapter in Part VI, reviews
theoretical approaches and empirical research on predictive processing in L2 sentence processing and
learning, focusing on research using ERPs (Kaan, this volume). Chapter 25 focuses on the role of
feedback in L2 learning, and integrates insights from studies using behavioral measures with the
scarce neurocognitive literature investigating feedback learning, in order to highlight the relevance
of understanding the neural basis of feedback in L2 learning (in particular the value of time sensitive
techniques such as EEG/ERP) and to identify promising avenues for future research (Bultena, this
volume). In Chapter 26, Ekerdt, Takashima, and McQueen discuss theoretical foundations and empir-
ical studies on the neural mechanisms associated with the consolidation and integration of newly
learned L2 vocabulary into the language network, with a specific focus on the complementary learning
systems model (Ekerdt, Takashima, & McQueen, this volume). In Chapter 27, Bowden and Faretta-
Stutenberg take the predictions of each of the theoretical perspectives presented in Part III regarding
the role of learning context in L2 learning as a starting point, and review how these predictions align
with the relevant evidence from neurolinguistic studies, including research involving L2 learners in
laboratory-based settings (e.g., implicit/explicit, instructed/uninstructed learning conditions), study
abroad, long-term immersion, and classroom settings (Bowden & Faretta-Stutenberg, this volume).
Part VI concludes with Chapter 28 by Zappa and Frenck-Mestre who discuss embodied learning and
processing as it relates to embodied semantics, the notion that cognition is grounded in multimodal
representations originating in human experience and that motor processes play a critical role in lan-
guage processing. Focusing on neurocognitive processes underlying embodied learning, they review
behavioral and neurocognitive evidence on embodied language learning and processing in L1 and L2
(Zappa & Frenck-Mestre, this volume).
The final part, Part VII, encompasses a selection of timely research topics in the neurocognition of
L2 learning, processing, and use. In Chapter 29, the first chapter in this section, Caffarra, Gosselin,
Thomas, and Martin review theoretical perspectives and empirical evidence on the neural and cog-
nitive mechanisms involved in foreign-accent perception, with a specific focus on semantic and syn-
tactic processing, and how these mechanisms differ from native-accented speech processing (Caffarra,
Gosselin, Thomas, & Martin, this volume). In Chapter 30, Foucart discusses the foreign language
effect in decision making, the phenomenon that using a foreign language can modulate our economic
decisions and moral judgments, among others. A relatively new research topic in L2 neurocognition,
Foucart reviews behavioral and neurophysiological studies that have examined the factors underlying
the foreign language effect in decision making and outlines future directions for research (Foucart,
this volume). Next, Chapter 31 by Guo and Ma discusses cognitive control mechanisms that are
recruited to resolve cross-language interference, with a specific focus on the relationship between
domain-general cognitive control and bilingual language control as informed by behavioral and
neurocognitive empirical evidence (Guo & Ma, this volume). Changing gears in Chapter 32 to child
L2 learning and processing, Ortiz-Villalobos, Kovelman, and Satterfield review neurodevelopmental
10
processes that support dual language acquisition, with a particular focus on what child L2 learning
experiences tell us about the plasticity of the human mind and brain. Reviewing available evidence
and identifying gaps in our current knowledge on neural mechanisms underlying child L2 devel-
opment and processing, the authors posit that a cohesive framework of childhood bilingualism and
L2 development is needed to better understand the developing mind and brain (Ortiz-Villalobos,
Kovelman, & Satterfield, this volume). In Chapter 33, Meade reviews the developing literature on
the acquisition of a visual-manual phonological system and spatial syntax in adult learners of signed
languages who have a native spoken language. To enhance our understanding of neural changes that
support the acquisition of signed languages, Meade also outlines specific avenues for future research
(Meade, this volume). The final chapter of this handbook, Chapter 34 by Scimeca, Carpenter, and
Kiran, focuses on bilingual aphasia, a field of inquiry that—as discussed above—provided the very
first insights into the neural basis of using two languages. Scimeca, Carpenter, and Kiran review clin-
ical and theoretical perspectives on bilingual aphasia, discuss the importance of pre-morbid language
proficiency especially in the L2, and highlight rehabilitation by reviewing treatment approaches for
bilingual language impairment (Scimeca, Carpenter, & Kiran, this volume).
Notes for Readers and Instructors

This handbook is primarily intended as a resource for researchers, graduate students, and upper-
level undergraduate students to serve as a centralized resource that synthesizes a wide-range of
neurocognitive scientific research about learning second or additional languages. For established
researchers, the chapters should serve as concise reviews of a wide range of topics on the
neurolinguistics of L2 that ideally inspire future research directions and/or serve as an entryway into
a specific topic that the researcher may want to integrate into their current research. For students,
we anticipate that the handbook could be used as a course textbook within any graduate program
that teaches the neuroscience of L2 and bilingual processing. Alternatively, instructors may opt to
select specific chapters as core readings or as overview readings in their courses on, for example,
neurocognitive methods, language processing and the brain, L2 acquisition, L2 pedagogy, or theoret-
ical models of L2 learning and bilingualism.
Therefore, to maximize the scope of the handbook’s readership, we tried to optimize accessibility
to the topics discussed in each chapter. As the goal of Part I is to provide readers with an intro-
duction to the neurolinguistic methodological approaches, the chapters provide a description of the
method along some example studies that have utilized the method. For readers who are new to the
methods, the historical development of the method is often described and all chapters carefully con-
sider the benefits and challenges in using the method. For researchers experienced with the methods,
suggestions for future, advanced methodological directions are provided. The chapters in Parts II–VII
are also structured both for accessibility and for moving the field in new directions. Although the
sections in these chapter vary to some extent based on the topic of the chapter, among the chapters
readers will find sections that outline the history of a specific field of research and how research
themes and approaches have changed over time, provide a state-of-the-art review of theories and
empirical knowledge of a particular topic, discuss pedagogical, societal, or clinical implications, and
identify gaps in our current knowledge in order to outline avenues for future research. Each chapter
also includes a further readings section that lists key publications and accessible readings in a par-
ticular domain. We have also added cross-references in each chapter to help readers navigate through
the handbook and to provide sources for further explanation or elaboration.
We hope the handbook will be a valuable source to scholars and students across a wide range
of disciplines, including readers interested in L2 acquisition, applied linguistics, cognitive science,
psychology, neuroscience, and research methodology. We also hope that the handbook will facilitate
11
transformative connections between ideas and disciplines and lead to exciting new avenues of
research in this fascinating field of inquiry.
Acknowledgments
We genuinely and deeply enjoyed working on this handbook! We felt privileged to be working with
expert scholars who thrive at the forefront of brain-based L2 research, and whose brilliance and vision
is reflected in thorough and timely reviews of theoretical foundations, methodological approaches,
and empirical research on the neurocognition of L2 learning, processing, and use. We are deeply
grateful for their excellent contributions and their commitment to establishing what we hope will be
valuable resource to all interested in neurolinguistic approaches to L2 learning, processing, and use.
We are also grateful to the series editors Susan Gass, Alison Mackey, and Kimberly Geeslin who
entrusted us with editing this ambitious project, to Holger Hopp, Aline Godfroid, and Paula Winke for
their indispensable advice and kind sharing of online editing resources, and to the editorial assistants
at Routledge, Ze’ev Sudry and Bex Hume, for their skillful guidance. A special thank you goes to the
internal and external reviewers for their excellent and thoughtful reviews and suggestions, as well as
to Viorica Marian, Cristina Sanz, and Karsten Steinhauer for their generous endorsements that grace
the back cover of this handbook.
This final paragraph is dedicated to our wonderful mentors and colleagues who inspired and
fostered our thinking at numerous points throughout our careers, our postdocs and students whose
brilliance continues to inspire us and for whom we hope this handbook will be valuable in further
shaping their passion, and to our beloved families who share many of our other passions in life.
References
Antoniou, M. (2019). The advantages of bilingualism debate. Annual Review of Linguistics, 5, 395–415.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011718-011820
Bergmann, C., Meulman, N., Stowe, L.A., Sprenger, S.A., & Schmid, M.S. (2015). Prolonged L2 immersion
engenders little change in morphosyntactic processing of bilingual natives. NeuroReport, 26, 1065–1070.
https://doi.org/10.1097/wnr.0000000000000469
Bialystok, E., & Craik, F.I.M. (2022). How does bilingualism modify cognitive function? Attention to the mech-
anism. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 29, 1246–1269. https://doi: 10.3758/s13423-022-02057-5
Cabrelli, J., Chaouch-Orozco, A., Alonso, J.G., Soares, S.M.P., Puig-Mayenco, E., & Rothman, J. (Eds.). (2023).
Cambridge handbook of third language acquisition. Cambridge University Press.
Caffarra, S., Molinaro, N., Davidson, D., & Carreiras, M. (2015). Second language syntactic processing revealed
through event-related potentials: An empirical review. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 51, 31–47.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2015.01.010
Cargnelutti, E., Tomasino, B., & Fabbro, F. (2019). Language brain representation in bilinguals with different
age of appropriation and proficiency of the second language: A meta-analysis of functional imaging studies.
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 13, 154. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2019.00154
De Bruin, A., Dick, A.S., & Carreiras, M. (2021). Clear theories are needed to interpret differences: Perspectives
on the bilingual advantage debate. Neurobiology of Language, 2(4), 433–451. https://doi.org/10.1162/
nol_a_00038
Grey, S., Fox, J.G., Serafini, E.J., & Sanz, C. (2015). The role of individual differences in the study abroad con-
text: Cognitive capacity and language development during short-term intensive language exposure. Modern
Language Journal, 99(1), 137–157. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12190
Hickok, G., & Poeppel, D. (2007). The cortical organization of speech processing. Nature Reviews Neuroscience,
8, 393–402. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2113
Jonczyk, R., Korolczuk, I., Balatsou, E., & Thierry, G. (2019). Keep calm and carry on: Electrophysiological
evaluation of emotional anticipation in the second language. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience,
14(8), 885–898. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsz066
Kennedy, D., & Norman, C. (2005). What don’t we know. Science, 309(5731). https://doi.org/10.1126/scie
nce.309.5731.75
12
Kroll, J.F., & Bialystok, E. (2013). Understanding the consequences of bilingualism for language processing and
cognition. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25(5), 497–514. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2013.799170
Kroll, J.F., Dussias, P.E., Bice, K., & Perrotti, L. (2015). Bilingualism, mind, and brain. Annual Review of
Linguistics, 1, 377–394. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguist-030514-124937
Lee, B., Meade, G., Midgley, K.J., Holcomb, P.J., & Emmorey, K. (2019). ERP evidence for co-activation of
English words during recognition of American Sign Language signs. Brain Sciences, 9(148), 1–17. https://
doi.org/10.3390/brainsci9060148
Lenneberg, E. (1967). Biological foundations of language. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548331.
1967.11707799
Marian, V., Bartolotti, J., Rochanavibhata, S., Bradley, K., & Hernandez, A. (2017). Bilingual cortical control of
between-and within-language competition. Nature Scientific Reports, 7(1), 11763. https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41598-017-12116-w
McManus, K. (2021). Crosslinguistic influence and second language learning. Routledge. https://doi.org/
10.4324/9780429341663
Paap, K.R., Johnson, H.A., & Sawi, O. (2015). Bilingual advantages in executive functioning either do not
exist or are restricted to very specific and undetermined circumstances. Cortex, 69, 265–278. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cortex.2015.04.014
Paradis, M. (1977). Bilingualism and aphasia. In H. Whitaker & H.A. Whitaker (Eds), Studies in neurolinguistics
(pp. 65–121). Academic Press.
Penfield, W., & Roberts, L. (1959). Speech and Brain-Mechanisms. Princeton University Press.
Pitres, A. (1895). Aphasia in polyglots. In M. Paradis (Ed.), Readings on aphasia in bilinguals and polyglots
(pp. 26–49). Marcel Didier.
Ribot, T. (1887). Diseases of memory: An essay in the positive psychology. Appleton.
Saur, D., Kreher, B.W., Schnell, S., & Weiller, C. (2008). Ventral and dorsal pathways for language. PNAS, 105,
18035–18040. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0805234105
Steinhauer, K., & Kasparian, K. (2020). Brain plasticity in adulthood–ERP evidence for L1-attrition in lexicon
and morphosyntax after predominant L2 use. Language Learning, 70(S2), 171–193. https://doi.org/10.1111/
lang.12391
Sulpizio, S., Del Maschio, N., Fedeli, D., & Abutalebi, J. (2020). Bilingual language processing: A meta-analysis
of functional neuroimaging studies. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 108, 834–853. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.12.014
Tagarelli, K.M., Shattuck, K.F., Turkeltaub, P.E., & Ullman, M.T. (2019). Language learning in the adult brain: A
neuroanatomical meta-analysis of lexical and grammatical learning. NeuroImage, 193, 178–200. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.02.061
Tao, L., Wang, G., Zhu, M., & Cai, Q. (2021). Bilingualism and domain-general cognitive functions from a
neural perspective: A systematic review. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 125, 264–295. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.02.029
Van Hell, J.G. (2023). The neurocognitive underpinnings of second language processing: Knowledge gains from
the past and future outlook. Language Learning. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12601
Zirnstein, M., Van Hell, J.G., & Kroll, J.F. (2018). Cognitive control ability mediates prediction costs in
monolinguals and bilinguals. Cognition, 176, 87–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.03.001
13
PART I
Methodological Approaches
for Neurolinguistic Examination
of Second Language
2
USING TIME-B ASED
ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAPHY
TO INVESTIGATE SECOND
LANGUAGE
Introduction and Critical Definitions: What Is EEG?

Electroencephalography (EEG) is the measurement of ongoing electrical activity in the brain (Cohen,
2017, Kirschstein & Köhling, 2009). This signal can be recorded directly in the brain, but in typical
laboratory studies involving healthy participants, the EEG signal is measured with sensors placed at
the scalp (Luck, 2014). In this chapter, we will be focusing on the time-domain signal of the EEG,
meaning the positive and negative-going waveform that unfolds over time (for more on the frequency
domain of the same signal, see Mottarella and Prat, this volume).
EEG Data Collection Procedures and Practical Considerations

The procedure for acquiring EEG data entails placing an elastic cap with electrodes embedded in
fixed locations on a participant’s head. This approach is considered non-invasive as no chemicals or
exterior electromagnetic currents need to be applied. Electrical potentials that are naturally produced
by the brain are passively recorded as the person performs tasks and takes in stimuli (Luck &
Kappenman, 2012). In order for the signal to be high quality, the impedance between the surface of
the scalp and the surface of the electrode sensors must be kept low, typically achieved via application
of saline gel-based solutions and gently moving hair out of the way to create a bridge between the
scalp and the recording electrodes (Luck, 2014).
Data recorded at the scalp ideally would only include brain activity and no other signal, but that is
typically not the case. Instead, external electrical activity from monitors and other electrical equipment
can also be unintentionally included in the recorded signal in addition to biological activity unrelated
to the neural activity of interest. These irrelevant data signals are considered noise, which researchers
mitigate through different strategies (for more on technical recording procedures, see Luck, 2014).
Biological noise includes muscle activity from clenching the jaw, furrowing the brow, or tensing
scalp/facial muscles, as well as eye movements and blinks. For this reason, after the electrode cap
is on a participant’s head, but before the experiment begins, investigators usually allow participants
to look at their brainwaves and then demonstrate the effects of muscle activity (e.g., jaw clenching)
on the data. This real-time feedback enables participants to understand how to reduce those signals
during recording by staying still, fixating centrally during critical recording periods, and blinking
according to instructions. EEG experiments often designate periods of time in the experiment when
blinks/movement are permitted.
DOI: 10.4324/9781003190912-4 17
Neurobiological Basis of the EEG Signal

Although it is not necessary to be an expert in neurobiology in order to use EEG methods, a basic
understanding of where the EEG signal comes from can be helpful. What the EEG signal captures is
a direct reflection of neural activity, typically thought to be dominated not by any individual neuron
firing (action potentials), but rather for the most part by the summations of synchronous inhibitory
and excitatory activity (postsynaptic potentials) across large populations of neurons close to the scalp
(primarily from cortical pyramidal cells) due to their particular arrangement and physical orientation
(Kirschstein & Köhling, 2009; Nunez et al., 2016). EEG measures electrical potential, which is a rela-
tive comparison of electrically charged activity across locations (e.g., extracellular negativities vs.
positivities). Thus, EEG always requires at least two sensors, one of which serves as a comparative
reference (and ground for the amplifier) and the other(s) as active/recording electrode(s) whose data
is reported (Nunez et al., 2016).
The recorded signal is very small and usually measured in microvolts (μV, one millionth of a
volt). For this reason, the signal must be amplified during the recording process, prior to digitiza-
tion on a computer. The absolute voltage reported at a given sensor at any time point is not typic-
ally of interest because it is dependent on what reference electrode is selected. For example, if the
reference is right next to the electrode of interest, the voltage measured at that site will likely be
small, as the voltage of the reference electrode is essentially subtracted from the voltage of the elec-
trode of interest—but this does not tell us anything about the amount of brain activity there. When
interpreting brainwaves, which are dynamic plots of EEG signal across time (see Figure 2.1, right),
the shape, or morphology, of the waves themselves and their relative positioning compared to one
another is what matters.
Event-Related Potentials
Even when a participant is sitting still and not doing anything in particular, the continuous EEG signal
can carry valuable information (see Mottarella & Prat, this volume). However, many researchers
examining language processing are interested in the brain response to their experimental stimuli.
These stimuli are the “events” of the event-related potential (ERP) method. Figure 2.1 displays how
a typical study moves from continuous EEG to analysis of ERPs. Continuous EEG is measured at the
scalp across an array of electrodes (left panel). Within this continuous signal, time windows around
events of interest are marked (middle panel). The time-locked brain response to these events is then
extracted and plotted, averaging across all the instances of particular events of interest. The outcome
Figure 2.1 Steps in EEG Data Acquisition and Processing.
18
Time-Based Electroencephalography to Investigate Second Language
of this process is the ERP, which is often displayed as a waveform (right panel). With sufficient trials,
noise and brain activity unrelated to the experimental event should largely average out, leaving the
ERP to reflect the neural processing associated with the experimental stimuli (Luck, 2014).
ERPs provide information about the timing, magnitude, and distribution of neural activity that
is tied to specific experimental events. For instance, when a participant sees a word, their neural
response to that word will be captured as it unfolds over time, moving in either a positive or
negative direction relative to the baseline where it began. ERP waveforms illustrate change in
amplitude (measured in microvolts) across time (measured in milliseconds). ERPs also allow
us to assess the distribution of that activity across the electrodes positioned on a person’s scalp.
For instance, we might see that differences in ERP amplitudes at 400 milliseconds are larger at
electrodes on the front of the head compared to electrodes at the back of the head. When responses
are elicited under similar conditions and share a similar distribution, it might suggest that they
share similar neural generators (though localization of those sources is not a strength of EEG, see
the section Pros and Cons/Limitations of the ERP Method below). In this way, across locations on
the scalp, we can compare when and how ERPs differ among participant groups and/or stimulus
conditions. Across experiments, common patterns are recognized and identified as particular ERP
components.
ERP Paradigms and Components

In this section, we summarize experimental paradigms and the related ERP components that are
most commonly used in second language (L2) research. In some cases, we also identify additional
ERP components that have been used infrequently, but hold promise for further investigation in L2
research. For more technical and in-depth discussions of these components, we refer readers to Luck
and Kappenman (2012).
Note that components names have come about in a variety of ways, leading to sometimes con-
fusing taxonomies. In general, ERP components are labeled according to their polarity as either N
(negative) or P (positive) and then assigned an additional label that indicates either its place in the
order of components (e.g., the N1 is the first negative-doing component, the N2 is the second), the
timing of its peak (e.g., the N400 peaks at approximately 400ms after stimulus onset), or some-
times a general description (e.g., the mismatch negativity, or the late positive component). Confusion
can arise because the same component is sometimes associated with multiple names (e.g., the N1
and N170), or what was originally thought of as a single component may come to be seen as a
family of components (e.g., the P3a and P3b). There is no simple solution for understanding naming
conventions besides becoming familiar with the relevant literature for each component.
Paradigms and Components for Investigating Linguistic Processes
Investigating L2 Speech Perception with the Mismatch Negativity

For ERP research of L2 speech perception, the mismatch negativity (MMN) has proven to be an
extremely useful component. The MMN is a measure of auditory change detection (Näätänen et al.,
2019). It occurs as a negative-going deflection approximately 100–200ms after the onset of a detect-
able difference between auditory stimuli and is typically largest at frontocentral electrodes. As the
name implies, the MMN is elicited by a mismatch; its measurement entails comparison between
responses to frequent standard and infrequent deviant stimuli. For instance, the MMN might
be elicited by comparing responses to frequently occurring high tones and infrequent low tones. The
size of the MMN reflects the perceived distance between standard and deviant stimuli. Because the
19
MMN reflects perceived differences, it can be used both as a measure of the perception of acoustic
differences and also to target perception of more abstract differences, such as phonetic categories. The
targeted differences can be determined entirely by experimental context or can draw on assumptions
about participants’ experience outside the lab, for example, as speakers of specific languages. It is this
latter possibility that allows for investigation of participants sensitivity to spoken features of an L2.
The MMN has been used to investigate listeners’ sensitivity to a wide array of phonological
features, including, but not limited to, voice-onset time (Brandmeyer et al., 2012), vowel quality
(Peltola et al., 2003), and tone (Chandrasekaran et al., 2007). The MMN can be elicited in tasks that
require an active response from participants or, in contrast, while participants’ attention is focused
elsewhere (e.g., while watching a silent movie or reading).
When designing MMN studies, it is important to keep in mind that the onset of the MMN will be
determined by the point when the difference between standard and deviant stimuli becomes detect-
able. For instance, if the contrast is between sounds that occur at the onset of the stimulus (e.g., /ba/
vs. /pa/), the MMN will occur immediately when that difference is detectable. If instead the contrast
was between vowel length (e.g., /ba/vs. /baa/), the MMN would occur at the point where the dur-
ational difference becomes apparent.
Investigating Sentence and Word Processing

Language researchers are often interested in how individuals process sentences and words. Figure 2.1
shows how ERPs time-locked to the onset individual words of interest can be generated. Several
experimental paradigms can be used to probe research questions related to the cognitive processing of
individual words (e.g., measuring vocabulary or orthographic sensitivity), such as go/no-go, lexical
decision, or semantic/visual priming tasks, which are easily adaptable for ERP studies (for example
L2 studies, see Pu et al., 2016; Wu & Thierry, 2010).
The typical method for examining how readers process sentences involves presenting a sentence
word-by-word, a technique called Rapid Serial Visual Presentation (RSVP, with a typical stimulus
onset asynchrony of 500ms). Although most fluent readers can process individual words faster,
significantly speeding the rate of presentation can lead to different cognitive outcomes (Wlotko &
Federmeier, 2015) as well as slower temporal onsets of critical components (Kutas, 1987). A key
feature of this design is that presenting words individually allows researchers to tap into cognitive
processing at each word. This enables the examination of stages of processing as they occur, instead
of relying on end-stage behavioral measures as a window into prior sentential processing.
In auditory paradigms, speech is typically presented with a more natural flow rather than word-
by-word. This means that ERPs for individual words reflect brain responses that are continuously
changing based on the ongoing speech signal, in contrast to the more discrete responses that result
from the time-controlled pacing typical of ERP studies of written language processing. This natural
variation in the way spoken words and sentences unfold over time, in addition to the recruitment of
auditory rather than visual processing mechanisms, may result in observable differences in the qual-
ities of ERPs to spoken language relative to visual word stimuli (for a comparison across modalities,
see Holcomb & Neville, 1990).
In order to more tightly control the temporal alignment of spoken stimuli, efforts have occasion-
ally been made to empirically pre-identify each critical word’s isolation point, that is, the precise
time within a spoken syllable when the word becomes recognizable (e.g., Van Petten et al., 1999).
Hypothetically, each critical word’s isolation point would be the most appropriate event for ERP
time-locking, but in practice the benefits of time-locking to isolation points has not been found to
offset the costs for the amount of work involved. Instead, researchers will usually mark a particular
event’s onset at the beginning of the critical word or syllable.
20
Semantic Processing as Measured by the N400

The specific ERP component most famously utilized in sentence processing studies is the N400, due
to its power for revealing lexical/semantic processing. It manifests in response to any potentially
meaningful stimulus regardless of modality. That is, N400s have been reported in response not just to
words, but also to pictures, gestures, environmental smells—any stimuli that might convey meaning
(e.g., Federmeier & Kutas, 2001; for review, see Federmeier, 2022; Kutas & Federmeier, 2011).
When looking at an ERP waveform, the N400 appears as a negative deflection around 400ms after
the stimulus occurred (see Figure 2.2). By comparing the size of the N400 in response to different
conditions (e.g., a target word after high or low constraint context), we can compute the N400 effect.
In the context of sentence processing experiments, it is important to recognize that the N400
manifests as part of the standard response to a word. Given no contextual support, the default amp-
litude of the N400 is large. Critically, the amplitude of the N400 reduces when provided with sup-
portive context (e.g., Kutas & Hillyard, 1980; Szewczyk & Federmeier, 2022). For example, if a
reader is provided the sentential context of, The children went outside to fly a…, the context builds
an expectation for the word kite, and the N400 is reduced in amplitude for that contextually con-
gruent word relative to a word that had not been supported by the preceding context, like sock (see
Figure 2.2). N400 responses are also studied in other types of word processing paradigms (e.g., in
priming, with a reduction in amplitude for a semantically primed or repeated word).
In L2 research, the N400 has been used to investigate a wide array of linguistic processes. It has
been harnessed to examine questions related to vocabulary acquisition and development (e.g., Pu
et al., 2016), the influence of proficiency on semantic processing (e.g., Moreno & Kutas, 2005), the
effects of L2 learning on first language (e.g., Bice & Kroll, 2015), sensitivity to L2 phonology (e.g.,
Sebastian-Gallés et al., 2006), predictive processing (see Kaan, this volume), and many other topics.
Figure 2.2 The N400 Effect.

Note: Idealized waveforms illustrate the N400 effect for the critical word (kite/sock) in a hypothetical pair of sentence
stimuli. Y-axis indicates amplitude in microvolts with negative plotted up; x-axis indicates time in milliseconds.
21
The P600
The N400 and its connection to semantic processing of information is often contrasted with
another ERP component identified in language processing studies, the P600. This component
is positive-going and is typically reported around 600ms. It is utilized by language researchers
due to its sensitivity to syntactic properties of sentence/phrase processing. Namely, when a word
is encountered that poses challenges to syntactic processing, a P600 often results (Osterhout &
Holcomb, 1992). The challenge might be a syntactic violation (e.g., The cat was/were purring), or
it might be brought about by other syntactic difficulties, such as a so-called garden path sentence
(Osterhout et al., 1994).
The functional significance of the P600 is an active area of research (see Sassenhagen &
Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, 2015; Sassenhagen et al., 2014). Although originally identified as an index
specifically of syntactic processing, there is substantial evidence that it has a more general functional
significance and falls under an umbrella of effects, including the late positive component (LPC) and/
or the P3 (see below), which is related to updating of context in memory and is particularly sensitive
to probability (for review, see Leckey & Federmeier, 2020).
The P600 has been used frequently in L2 work to test the syntactic knowledge and sensitivity of
multilinguals in their languages (for reviews, see Alemán Bañon et al., this volume; Biondo et al., this
volume). A core question of interest in L2 research is how learners process syntax in their L2, and the
P600 has proven very informative at testing hypotheses in this domain. Some influential work in this
space has used ERPs and the P600 to demonstrate that there are substantial individual differences in
L2 grammatical processing across individuals (Tanner et al., 2012; Tanner & Van Hell, 2014). In add-
ition to the P600, a component called the left anterior negativity (LAN), has been more specifically
associated with morphosyntactic processing (e.g., verb agreement) and is sometimes also reported
(e.g., Dowens et al., 2010) but is not considered further here.
Paradigms and Components for Investigating General Cognitive Processes

In addition to the language-related components reviewed above, there are also ERP components
that can be leveraged to explore other aspects of L2 learning and bilingual processing. The list of
components that might be mentioned here is long. Thus, we focus on just three components that have
been used effectively in L2 research: the N2, the P300, and the error-related negativity (ERN).
The N2
The N2 is so-named because it is the second negative peak in the ERP waveform, occurring after an
earlier N1. It is sometimes called the N200, as its peak is typically observed anywhere between 200
and 350ms after stimulus onset. The N2 can be categorized into various subtypes according to its
distribution and the conditions under which it is elicited (for a thorough review, see Folstein & Van
Petten, 2007). In bilingual and L2 research, it is typically the anterior N2 (or N2b) that is of primacy
interest. In this case, the N2 effect is a negative-going deflection that is larger when participants
withhold a response compared to when they provide a response during go/no-go tasks.
The N2’s utility in go/no-go tasks is a natural fit for many techniques used to investigate execu-
tive function and language switching in bilingual research (e.g., oddball, flanker, or Stroop tasks;
see Moreno et al., 2014, for an example study). By comparing N2 effects between conditions or
groups, researchers can make inferences about the effects of bilingualism on executive function
during language selection or other cognitively demanding tasks (for more on cognitive control in L2
neurocognition, see Guo & Ma, this volume).
22
The P300
The N2 is often followed by a P300 (P3b).1 The P300 is a positive-going deflection that is largest over
parietal electrodes and is elicited during active stimulus evaluation and categorization processes. The
nature of a task and its stimuli play a large role in determining the latency of the P300 (see discussion
in Luck, 2014, chapter 3). So, despite the P300 label, it is not necessarily the case that its peak will be
centered at 300ms. One of its most important properties for consideration in experimental design is
that the P300 is sensitive to the probability of task-relevant features of a stimulus such that it will be
larger for rare (less probable) stimuli than for frequent (more probable) stimuli (Polich, 2007). Thus,
critical stimuli are often carefully controlled to occur with equal frequency rather than risk contamin-
ation from P300-related brain responses to differences in probability of occurrence.
Although the P300 is among the most studied of ERP components, its specific functional signifi-
cance remains a matter of debate (for reviews, see Polich, 2007, 2012). However, the wealth of P300
studies has provided a detailed understanding of the circumstances under which the P300 will be
elicited and the manipulations that typically modulate its latency (e.g., slower when categorization is
challenging and amplitude (e.g., larger when evaluation is easier and full attention is captured). Thus,
for L2 questions related to categorization or evaluation speed and/or difficulty, the P300 is a strong
candidate measure as its sensitivities are well-documented across domains. In L2 research, the P300
has not been used to its full potential in this regard, and its utilization has been mostly limited to the
context of go/no-go tasks in conjunction with the N2 (e.g., Moreno et al., 2014).
The Error-Related Negativity (ERN)

The ERN is a negative-going deflection that peaks approximately 50ms after the onset of a response
and is larger for incorrect than correct responses (Falkenstein et al., 1991; Gehring et al., 1993). The
ERN is maximal at frontocentral electrodes. An important difference between the ERN and other
components reviewed so far is that the ERN is tied to the onset of a participant’s response, rather than
to stimulus onset. This introduces some additional considerations during processing and analysis.
While the ERN has not been used often in L2 research, it has potential to shed light on many
processes that are otherwise difficult to assess. For example, Sebastian-Gallés et al. (2006) examined
the ERN in native Spanish-speaking learners of L2 Catalan who performed with low accuracy on a
lexical decision task that required them to detect Catalan-specific vowels (in order to correctly reject
pseudowords). Examination of the ERN indicated that participants were not just inaccurate on these
decisions but also were insensitive to their own inaccuracy. That is, there was no ERN despite their
errors. This suggested participants did not reliably detect the critical Catalan vowel changes at all.
Other L2 studies have used the ERN to measure aspects of bilingual cognitive control (Morales et al.,
2015) or learners’ certainty about grammatical gender in their L2 (Bultena et al., 2020; Bultena, this
volume).
Example Studies
Using the MMN to Examine Individual Differences in L2

Diaz et al. (2008) illustrates how the MMN might be utilized in L2 research. The authors asked
whether differences in how well people perceived novel L2 sounds was related to either their basic
psychoacoustic perceptual abilities or to their speech-specific perceptual abilities. Participants were
first-language Spanish speakers who had previously been classified as “good” or “poor” L2 perceivers.
This designation was based on their performance on a set of three behavioral tasks targeting Catalan
vowel contrasts that were difficult for Spanish speakers to perceive. To test this, EEG was recorded
23
from participants in both groups as they completed a passive oddball listening task, and, at the same
time, watched a silent movie. In three acoustic blocks, participants heard simple pure tones with
deviants that varied in either pitch, duration, or the order of tones in a two-tone sequence. In the
phonetic blocks, they heard vowels that contrasted with a familiar Spanish vowel (/o/). In the first
language block, deviant stimuli were another Spanish vowel (/e/); in the L2 block, deviants were a
Finnish vowel (/ö/). Results suggested that for all acoustic contrasts—even the difficult ones—both
good and poor perceivers had comparable MMN responses. However, for the phonetic contrasts,
good perceivers had stronger MMNs for both Spanish and Finnish contrasts. The authors interpreted
these results as evidence that individual differences in phonetic (rather than acoustic) perception abil-
ities were likely responsible for different outcomes when learning difficult L2 contrasts.
Using the N400 to Detect Early Stages of Lexical Learning

McLaughlin et al. (2004) illustrates how the N400 can be used to measure developing L2 sensitivity
for new words. Students in a beginning L2 French class, and a control group of participants who were
not learning French, completed a lexical decision task with priming. Targets were either real words
or pronounceable nonwords; for real word targets, primes were either semantically related (chien
dog–chat cat) or unrelated (maison home–soif thirst). Typically, larger N400 responses would be
expected when people read nonwords compared to real words, or when a target is unrelated rather
than related to a semantic prime. All participants completed the task at three separate times during
the French course, with EEG recorded during each session. Across testing times, control participants’
neural and behavioral data never showed any effect of lexicality nor of target relatedness. In con-
trast, in their initial testing session after only 14 hours of French classes, L2 French learners began
to display N400 effects to pseudowords even though their behavioral judgements were essentially at
chance. In later testing sessions, French learners’ N400 effects for lexicality and target relatedness
grew, suggesting a development of semantic sensitivity to the words in French as they learned it. This
study demonstrates the potential for ERPs to capture L2 sensitivity that behavioral methods might
miss and also their potential utility for tracking lexical development longitudinally.
Pros and Cons/Limitations of the ERP Method
Advantages of the ERP Method

While both ERPs and typical reaction time measures can provide millisecond-level information,
ERPs provide several major benefits to the researcher over and above reaction times. Because they
pair high temporal resolution with information about changes in amplitude, ERPs allow us to evaluate
participant responses at multiple points in time. For instance, changes in amplitude during the first
few hundred milliseconds may give us insight into early perceptual processes, while later portions of
the response might reflect more controlled decisions. Furthermore, by leveraging accumulated know-
ledge about the functional significance of specific ERP components, we can make interpretations that
link responses to specific cognitive processes. Finally, another major benefit of ERPs is that they can
often capture responses that would be impossible to observe behaviorally. Many components (e.g.,
the MMN, the N400—see above) can be elicited with tasks that require no overt response.
Constraints on the Use of the ERP Method

Although ERPs have much to offer L2 researchers, they do come with their own set of constraints
and challenges. One practical constraint is that clean measurement of EEG requires participants to
24
remain relatively motionless. The constraints on physical movement naturally make research on lan-
guage production more difficult, though studies have examined pre-or post-utterance processes (e.g.,
in a delayed reading aloud paradigm, Fischer-Baum et al., 2014), or even unverbalized responses.
Similarly, paradigms that require large amounts of eye-movement (e.g., visual world) will be more
difficult to analyze (though some methods are now incorporating simultaneous use of EEG and eye-
tracking, which allows for the recovery of the neural signal, e.g., Plöchl et al., 2012).
As alluded to earlier, ERPs are not the typical method of choice for those who want to under-
stand the neural localization of cognitive processes. Because of the interference of physical matter
in the brain and skull, pinpointing the origins of electrical activity in the brain is not straightforward
(Kirschstein & Köhling, 2009). This is known as the inverse problem (Cohen, 2017). For instance,
just because electrophysiological activity is detected on the left side of the scalp does not mean that
the neural generators of that activity were necessarily on the left side of the brain. With effort and the
right equipment (high-density electrode systems), it is possible to improve upon the source localiza-
tion capabilities of typical EEG systems. In general, researchers who want to identify the sources of
brain activity use other methods, such as MEG or MRI (see Kousaie & Klein, this volume, and Rossi
et al., this volume), which provide much better spatial precision.
While the rich multi-dimensional data generated by ERP experiments is one of its strengths, it
also poses challenges. The various stages of data processing and statistical analysis require many
decisions on the part of the researcher (e.g., What events should be used for time-locking? What
electrodes should be included/excluded? And many more). The choices researchers make are not neu-
tral and can lead to unintentional biases in results (Luck & Gaspelin, 2017). This makes standards for
processing and reporting EEG studies particularly important (Keil et al., 2014).
Finally, despite our enthusiasm for ERPs in L2 research, we also want to offer a word of caution.
In an ideal world, ERPs would form a direct link between participant responses and the linguistic or
cognitive processes that L2 researchers want to measure. It would be great if we could use specific
components to measure phonology, semantics, syntax, and pragmatics, or to cleanly differentiate
between implicit and explicit knowledge. But although it is attractive to think about components
in this way, it is not accurate. For instance, although the N400 has great utility for investigating
many linguistic phenomena, it is not a language response per se (Kutas & Federmeier, 2011). By
constructing experiments with care, we can make compelling inferences about linguistic knowledge
based on ERPs, but we cannot (as of yet) directly measure that knowledge. The “ERPology” of deter-
mining what components are linked to which cognitive processes is a field of research on its own,
and debates about the nature of most components of interest to L2 researchers are far from settled.
Innovations and Future Directions

ERP methods are always evolving, especially as availability of equipment and increases in computing
power make the technique more accessible and available. Here we briefly note some of the recent
innovations that could be applied in L2 research.
Statistical Advances
As noted earlier, a major challenge in ERP research is controlling all the small decisions researchers
can make which ultimately can lead to different outcomes and increase the likelihood of finding
spurious statistically significant effects. For ERP data analysis, mass univariate tests may provide
a solution that takes some of the decisions out of researcher hands and also allows for discovery of
effects outside pre-defined windows of interest (Fields & Kuperberg, 2020; Groppe et al., 2011a,
2011b; for pitfalls to avoid, see Sassenhagen & Draschkow, 2019). For mixed-effects regression
25
modeling of ERPs, new tools and tutorials are regularly being developed for a variety of platforms
(e.g., R: Tremblay & Newman, 2015; MATLAB: Ehinger & Dimigen, 2019; Python: Urbach &
Portnoy, 2021).
EEG for Naturalistic Speech

ERP methods have typically used isolated sentences or words to investigate language processing.
The application of modern statistical and computational techniques to continuous EEG (and MEG)
signals has opened the possibility of using narrative stories (e.g., audio books) and other forms of nat-
urally occurring speech (Alday, 2019; Hamilton & Huth, 2020). The ability to use more ecologically
valid stimuli could open up new avenues for research of L2 speech comprehension.
Visual Half-field Approach to Hemispheric Processing

Although researchers interested in localizing brain function during cognitive activities most fre-
quently use fMRI, there is a technique of potential interest for L2 research with ERPs that does
permit for inferences about localized functions to be made. When items are presented to only one
visual field, and the eyes are kept centered, then the visual information is first passed to the contra-
lateral hemisphere. The receptive hemisphere is afforded not just earlier access to the information
but also better-quality representation of the stimulus than can be gained through the brain’s delayed
and incomplete interhemispheric communication mechanisms. This lateralized presentation design
enables researchers to examine left-hemisphere and right-hemisphere biased processing of informa-
tion (e.g., Wlotko & Federmeier, 2013). For example, instead of presenting critical words of interest
to the center of the screen when recording E RPs, researchers can present them a few centimeters to
the right or left, and then they can learn if the right hemisphere processes these L2 words differently
than the left hemisphere (for a behavioral example, see Cieślicka & Heredia, 2011).
Note
1 Here, we use P300 to refer to the P3b, not the frontally distributed P3a component that is elicited under
different conditions and has its own response properties (Polich, 2007).
Further Readings
In addition to the relevant chapters in the present volume, this article provides a general review of ERPs in L2
research.
Steinhauer, K. (2014). Event-related potentials (ERPs) in second language research: A brief introduction to the
technique, a selected review, and an invitation to reconsider critical periods in L2. Applied Linguistics, 35(4),
393–417. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu028
Steve Luck’s book is an authoritative but also very approachable guide to understanding and conducting ERP
research.
Luck, S.J. (2014). An Introduction to the Event-Related Potential Technique (2nd ed.). MIT Press.
The ERP CORE (Compendium of Open Resources and Experiments) provides free access to data and code for
use in training and honing ERP methods.
Kappenman, E.S., Farrens, J.L., Zhang, W., Stewart, A.X., & Luck, S.J. (2021). ERP CORE: An open resource
for human event-related potential research. NeuroImage, 225, 117465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroim
age.2020.117465
These authors provide authoritative guidelines for reporting of ERPs in publications.
Keil, A., Debener, S., Gratton, G., Junghöfer, M., Kappenman, E.S., Luck, S.J., Luu, P., Miller, G.A., &
Yee, C.M. (2014). Committee report: Publication guidelines and recommendations for studies using
26
electroencephalography and magnetoencephalography: Guidelines for EEG and MEG. Psychophysiology,

51(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.12147
Acknowledgments
Eric Pelzl’s contribution to this chapter was made possible in part by the National Science Foundation under NSF
SBE fellowship 2004279. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this
material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
References
Alday, P.M. (2019). M/EEG analysis of naturalistic stories: A review from speech to language processing.
Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 34(4), 457–473. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2018.1546882
Alemán Bañon, J., Fiorentino, R., & Gabriele, A. (this volume). The neurolinguistics of the second language
syntactic system. In K. Morgan-Short and J.G. van Hell (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language
acquisition and neurolinguistics. Routledge.
Bice, K., & Kroll, J.F. (2015). Native language change during early stages of second language learning.
NeuroReport, 26(16), 966. https://doi.org/10.1097/WNR.0000000000000453
Biondo, N., Molinaro, N., & Mancini, S. (this volume). The neurolinguistics of the second language morpho-
logical system: The role of grammar-related and speaker-related factors. In K. Morgan-Short and J.G. van
Hell (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and neurolinguistics. Routledge.
Brandmeyer, A., Desain, P.W.M., & McQueen, J.M. (2012). Effects of native language on perceptual sensitivity
to phonetic cues. NeuroReport, 23(11), 653–657. https://doi.org/10.1097/WNR.0b013e32835542cd
Bultena, S. (this volume). Feedback in second language neurocognition. In K. Morgan-Short and J.G. van Hell
(Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and neurolinguistics. Routledge.
Bultena, S., Danielmeier, C., Bekkering, H., & Lemhöfer, K. (2020). The Role of conflicting representations and
uncertainty in internal error detection during L2 learning. Language Learning, 70(S2), 75–103. https://doi.
org/10.1111/lang.12401
Cieślicka, A.B., & Heredia, R.R. (2011). Hemispheric asymmetries in processing L1 and L2 idioms: Effects
of salience and context. Brain and Language, 116(3), 136–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2010.09.007
Chandrasekaran, B., Krishnan, A., & Gandour, J.T. (2007). Mismatch negativity to pitch contours is influence by
language experience. Brain Research, 1128, 148–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2006.10.064
Cohen, M.X. (2017). Where does EEG come from and what does it mean? Trends in Neurosciences, 40(4), 208–
218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tins.2017.02.004
Diaz, B., Baus, C., Escera, C., Costa, A., & Sebastian-Gallés, N. (2008). Brain potentials to native phoneme
discrimination reveal the origin of individual differences in learning the sounds of a second language.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(42), 16083–16088. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.080
5022105
Dowens, M.G., Vergara, M., Barber, H.A., & Carreiras, M. (2010). Morphosyntactic processing in late
second-language learners. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22(8), 1870–1887. https://doi.org/10.1162/
jocn.2009.21304
Ehinger, B.V., & Dimigen, O. (2019). Unfold: An integrated toolbox for overlap correction, non-linear modeling,
and regression-based EEG analysis. PeerJ, 7, e7838. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.7838
Falkenstein, M., Hohnsbein, J., Hoormann, J., & Blanke, L. (1991). Effects of crossmodal divided attention on
late ERP components. II. Error processing in choice reaction tasks. Electroencephalography and Clinical
Neurophysiology, 78(6), 447–455. https://doi.org/10.1016/0013-4694(91)90062-9
Federmeier, K.D. (2022). Connecting and considering: Electrophysiology provides insights into comprehension.
Psychophysiology, 59(1). https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.13940
Federmeier, K.D., & Kutas, M. (2001). Meaning and modality: Influences of context, semantic memory organ-
ization, and perceptual predictability on picture processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
Memory, and Cognition, 27(1), 202–224. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.27.1.202
Fields, E.C., & Kuperberg, G.R. (2020). Having your cake and eating it too: Flexibility and power with mass
univariate statistics for ERP data. Psychophysiology, 57(2). https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.13468
Fischer-Baum, S., Dickson, D.S., & Federmeier, K.D. (2014). Frequency and regularity effects in reading are
task dependent: evidence from ERPs. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29(10), 1342–1355. https://
doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2014.927067
27
Folstein, J.R., & Van Petten, C. (2007). Influence of cognitive control and mismatch on the N2 component of the
ERP: A review. Psychophysiology, 45(1), 152–170. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2007.00602.x
Gehring, W.J., Goss, B., Coles, M.G.H., Meyer, D.E., & Donchin, E. (1993). A neural system for error detec-
tion and compensation. Psychological Science, 4(6), 385–390. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1993.
tb00586.x
Groppe, D.M., Urbach, T.P., & Kutas, M. (2011a). Mass univariate analysis of event-related brain potentials/
fields I: A critical tutorial review. Psychophysiology, 48(12), 1711–1725. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1469-8986.2011.01273.x
Groppe, D.M., Urbach, T.P., & Kutas, M. (2011b). Mass univariate analysis of event-related brain potentials/
fields II: Simulation studies. Psychophysiology, 48(12), 1726–1737. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2011.
01272.x
Guo, M., & Ma, F. (this volume). Cognitive control in second language neurocognition. In K. Morgan-Short
and J.G. van Hell (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and neurolinguistics.
Routledge.
Hamilton, L.S., & Huth, A.G. (2020). The revolution will not be controlled: Natural stimuli in speech neuroscience.
Holcomb, P.J., & Neville, H.J. (1990). Auditory and visual semantic priming in lexical decision: A comparison
using event-related brain potentials. Language and Cognitive Processes, 5(4), 281–312. https://doi.org/
10.1080/01690969008407065
Kaan, E. (this volume). The neurocognition of prediction in second language processing and learning. In K.
Morgan-Short and J.G. van Hell (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and
neurolinguistics. Routledge.
Kappenman, E.S., Farrens, J.L., Zhang, W., Stewart, A.X., & Luck, S.J. (2021). ERP CORE: An open resource
for human event-related potential research. NeuroImage, 225, 117465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroim
age.2020.117465
Keil, A., Debener, S., Gratton, G., Junghöfer, M., Kappenman, E.S., Luck, S.J., Luu, P., Miller, G.A., & Yee,
C.M. (2014). Committee report: Publication guidelines and recommendations for studies using electroen-
cephalography and magnetoencephalography. Psychophysiology, 51(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.
12147
Kirschstein, T., & Köhling, R. (2009). What is the source of the EEG? Clinical EEG and Neuroscience, 40(3),
146–149. https://doi.org/10.1177/155005940904000305
Kousaie, S., & Klein, D. (this volume). Using functional neuroimaging to investigate second language organiza-
tion. In K. Morgan-Short and J.G. van Hell (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition
and neurolinguistics. Routledge.
Kutas, M. (1987). Event-related brain potentials (ERPs) elicited during rapid serial visual presentation of con-
gruous and incongruous sentences. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 40(Supplement),
406–411.
Kutas, M., & Federmeier, K.D. (2011). Thirty years and counting: Finding meaning in the N400 component of
the event-related brain potential (ERP). Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 621–647. https://doi.org/10.1146/
annurev.psych.093008.131123
Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S.A. (1980). Reading senseless sentences: Brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity.
Science, 207, 203–205. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7350657
Leckey, M., & Federmeier, K.D. (2020). The P3b and P600(s): Positive contributions to language comprehen-
sion. Psychophysiology, 57, e13351. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.13351
Luck, S.J. (2014). An Introduction to the Event-Related Potential Technique (2nd ed.). MIT Press.
Luck, S.J., & Gaspelin, N. (2017). How to get statistically significant effects in any ERP experiment (and why
you shouldn’t): How to get significant effects. Psychophysiology, 54(1), 146–157. https://doi.org/10.1111/
psyp.12639
Luck, S.J., & Kappenman, E.S. (Eds.). (2012). The Oxford handbook of event-related potential components.
Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195374148.001.000
McLaughlin, J., Osterhout, L., & Kim, A. (2004). Neural correlates of second-language word learning: Minimal
instruction produces rapid change. Nature Neuroscience, 7(7), 703–704. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1264
Morales, J., Yudes, C., Gómez-Ariza, C. J., & Bajo, M.T. (2015). Bilingualism modulates dual mechanisms of
cognitive control: Evidence from ERPs. Neuropsychologia, 66, 157–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsyc
hologia.2014.11.014
Moreno, E.M., & Kutas, M. (2005). Processing semantic anomalies in two languages: An electrophysiological
exploration in both languages of Spanish–English bilinguals. Cognitive Brain Research, 22(2), 205–220.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2004.08.010
28
Moreno, S., Wodniecka, Z., Tays, W., Alain, C., & Bialystok, E. (2014). Inhibitory control in bilinguals and
musicians: Event related potential (ERP) evidence for experience-specific effects. PloS One, 9(4), e94169.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0094169
Mottarella, M. & Prat, C.S. (this volume). Using quantitative electroencephalography (qEEG) to investigate
second language learning. In K. Morgan-Short and J.G. van Hell (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second
language acquisition and neurolinguistics. Routledge.
Näätänen, R., Kujala, T., & Light, G. (2019). The mismatch negativity (MMN): An introduction. In R. Näätänen,
T. Kujala, & G. Light (Eds.), The mismatch negativity (pp. 1–40). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/
10.1093/oso/9780198705079.003.0001
Nunez, M.D., Nunez, P.L., & Srinivasan, R. (2016). Electroencephalography (EEG): neurophysics, experi-
mental methods, and signal processing. In H. Ombao, M. Linquist, W. Thompson, & J. Aston (Eds.),
Handbook of neuroimaging data analysis (pp. 175–197), Chapman & Hall/CRC. https://doi.org/10.13140/
rg.2.2.12706.63687
Osterhout, L., & Holcomb, P.J. (1992). Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. Journal of
Memory and Language, 31, 785–806. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(92)90039-Z
Osterhout, L., Holcomb, P.J., & Swinney, D.A. (1994). Brain potentials elicited by garden-path sentences: Evidence
of the application of verb information during parsing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
Memory, and Cognition, 20(4), 786. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.20.4.786
Peltola, M. (2003). Native and foreign vowel discrimination as indexed by the mismatch negativity (MMN)
response. Neuroscience Letters, 352(1), 25–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3940(03)00997-2
Plöchl, M., Ossandón, J.P., & König, P. (2012). Combining EEG and eye tracking: Identification, character-
ization, and correction of eye movement artifacts in electroencephalographic data. Frontiers in Human
Neuroscience, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00278
Polich, J. (2007). Updating P300: An integrative theory of P3a and P3b. Clinical Neurophysiology, 118(10),
2128–2148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2007.04.019
Polich, J. (2012). Neuropsychology of P300. In S.J. Luck & E.S. Kappenman (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of
event-related potential components (pp. 159–188). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfor
dhb/9780195374148.001.000
Pu, H., Holcomb, P.J., & Midgley, K.J. (2016). Neural changes underlying early stages of L2 vocabulary acqui-
sition. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 40, 55–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2016.05.002
Rossi, E., Voits, T., & DeLuca, V. (this volume). Using structural neuroimaging to investigate second language.
In K. Morgan-Short and J.G. van Hell (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and
Sassenhagen, J., & Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I. (2015). The P600 as a correlate of ventral attention network
reorientation. Cortex, 66, A3–A20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2014.12.019
Sassenhagen, J., & Draschkow, D. (2019). Cluster-based permutation tests of MEG/EEG data do not estab-
lish significance of effect latency or location. Psychophysiology, 56(6), e13335. https://doi.org/10.1111/
psyp.13335
Sassenhagen, J., Schlesewsky, M., & Bornkessel- Schlesewsky, I. (2014). The P600- as-
P3 hypothesis
revisited: Single-trial analyses reveal that the late EEG positivity following linguistically deviant material is
reaction time aligned. Brain and Language, 137, 29–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2014.07.010
Sebastian-Gallés, N., Rodríguez-Fornells, A., de Diego-Balaguer, R., & Díaz, B. (2006). First- and second-
language phonological representations in the mental lexicon. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(8),
1277–1291. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2006.18.8.1277
Szewczyk, J.M., & Federmeier, K.D. (2022). Context-based facilitation of semantic access follows both loga-
rithmic and linear functions of stimulus probability. Journal of Memory and Language, 123, 104311. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2021.104311
Tanner, D., Mclaughlin, J., Herschensohn, J., & Osterhout, L. (2012). Individual differences reveal stages of L2
grammatical acquisition: ERP evidence. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16(02), 367–382. https://
doi.org/10.1017/S1366728912000302
Tanner, D., & Van Hell, J.G. (2014). ERPs reveal individual differences in morphosyntactic processing.
Neuropsychologia, 56, 289–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.02.002
Tremblay, A., & Newman, A.J. (2015). Modeling nonlinear relationships in ERP data using mixed-effects regres-
sion with R examples: Modeling using mixed-effects regression. Psychophysiology, 52(1), 124–139. https://
doi.org/10.1111/psyp.12299
29
Urbach, T., & Portnoy, A. (2021). fitgrid: A Python package for multi-channel event-related time series regres-
sion modeling. Journal of Open Source Software, 6(63), 3293. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03293
Van Petten, C., Coulson, S., Rubin, S., Plante, E., & Parks, M. (1999). Time course of word identification and
semantic integration in spoken language. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and
Cognition, 25(2), 394–417. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.25.2.394
Wlotko, E.W., & Federmeier, K.D. (2013). Two sides of meaning: The scalp-recorded N400 reflects distinct
contributions from the cerebral hemispheres. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 181. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fpsyg.2013.00181
Wlotko, E.W., & Federmeier, K.D. (2015). Time for prediction? The effect of presentation rate on predictive
sentence comprehension during word-by-word reading. Cortex, 68, 20–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor
tex.2015.03.014
Wu, Y. J., & Thierry, G. (2010). Chinese– English bilinguals reading English hear Chinese. Journal of
Neuroscience, 30(22), 7646–7651. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1602-10.2010
30
3
USING QUANTITATIVE
ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAPHY
(qEEG) TO INVESTIGATE
SECOND L ANGUAGE LEARNING
Introduction
Successful performance in school and the workforce is often tied to the ability to speak a second
language (L2). Thankfully, an increasing amount of research has been devoted to understanding
why, and for whom, learning an L2 is difficult. One major challenge to answering these questions
is that language is incredibly complex—requiring the deployment and coordination of multiple
subcomponent processes (e.g., phonology, semantics, syntax) largely in parallel. One consequence
of this complexity is that two learners may arrive at similar L2 proficiency levels through distinct
learning pathways (Prat, 2011). This also highlights a second challenge—the fact that multilingual
language use is dynamic (e.g., Stocco et al., 2014). To comprehend or produce utterances in an L2,
individuals must use top-down, contextual information along with bottom-up linguistic features to
manage interference between co-activated linguistic representations. Moreover, the timescales over
which the neural mechanisms that support these processes change can vary from milliseconds (e.g.,
as the linguistic input being processed changes) to months (e.g., as L2 proficiency increases).
Each of the neuroscience methods discussed in this book provides an opportunity to “peek under
the hood” and examine the mechanisms of the mind that give rise to L2 learning and use; quantitative
electroencephalography (qEEG), a method for examining the electrical activity of the brain, is par-
ticularly well-suited for addressing the identified challenges. With respect to complexity, the qEEG
methods described in this chapter allow researchers to separate overlapping neural signals into dis-
tinct processing streams based on their frequency. These frequencies can be used to make inferences
about the nature of information processing happening in dynamic, task-based contexts (e.g., when
qEEG is time locked to a particular task) or on a longer, more stable timescale (e.g., when task-free
qEEG is used as a measure of the intrinsic information processing tendencies of an individual’s
brain). For example, task-based recordings time-locked to online language processing can be used
to disentangle the simultaneous influences of bottom-up sensory and top-down goal information,
which occur over faster and slower frequencies respectively (e.g., Lewis et al., 2016). Whereas task-
free recordings provide insights about an individual’s characteristic information processing style
(e.g., Klimesch, 2007), and how this may influence (e.g., Prat et al., 2016; Prat et al., 2019) and be
influenced by (e.g., Bice et al., 2020; Pereira Soares et al., 2021) L2 learning. Critically, because both
methods assess neural communication across frequencies that begin around two signals per second (2
Hz) and can extend upwards of one hundred signals per second (100 Hz), they allow researchers to
make inferences about information processing that align with the temporal dynamics of language. In
DOI: 10.4324/9781003190912-5 31
the sections that follow, we briefly describe how these fluctuations are measured and what we know
about their underlying generators.
What Is Quantitative EEG (qEEG) and What Can We Learn From It?
The input to qEEG analysis is the electroencephalogram (EEG), recordings of changes in electrical
polarity measured non-invasively by electrodes placed on the scalp. This is the same signal that is
analyzed using different methods to create event-related potentials (i.e., ERPs; for more on ERPs see
Dickson & Pelzl, this volume). This electrical activity reflects the combined outputs of populations
of neurons firing rhythmically, or oscillating, at different frequencies, and allows for coordinated
activity over ensembles of neurons across the brain. qEEG analyses rely on methods like Fast Fourier
Transform (FFT) to decompose EEG recordings (see Figure 3.1A) into different frequencies (see
Figure 3.1B).
The result of these analyses is typically a spectrogram, or a graph depicting the power (i.e., the
proportion of the signal accounted for by one or more frequency bands) or coherence (i.e., the func-
tional coupling of two or more signals), at one or more scalp locations (see Figure 3.1C where the
y-axis denotes power, and the x-axis denotes frequency).
Notably, coherence can be computed based on changes in power in a particular frequency band
(i.e., spectral coherence) or based on oscillation phase (i.e., phase coherence). Both coherence
measures broadly index functional cooperation across neural networks, though they are typically
computed at different time scales (see Figure 3.2 for a depiction of wave properties). Although other
Figure 3.1 Schematic of qEEG Method.

Note: This schematic of the qEEG method depicts the following: a) the raw EEG signal; b) canonical frequency band
decomposition; c) a power spectrogram from channel O1 of a participant with a fast individualized alpha frequency (IAF;
gray diamond).
32
Using qEEG to Investigate Second Language Learning
Figure 3.2 Schematic Depicting Signal Properties of a Wave.

Notes: This schematic depicts signal properties of a wave where amplitude (power) is depicted on the y-axis and time is
depicted on the x-axis. The distance from peak-to-peak is known as the wavelength (frequency) and indexes the speed of the
wave. The degree of offset between two waves (i.e., solid and dashed lines) depicts the phase, the more similar the waves
are at a given time point the greater phase coherence between the waves. Spectral coherence can be conceptualized as the
degree of similarity in amplitude between two waves.
signal properties can also be extracted from qEEG analyses (see Lui et al., 2021 for an example), we
focus here on power and coherence as these measures are most frequently employed in L2 research.
Before discussing how qEEG has advanced our understanding of L2 learning, it’s important to
consider the limitations of conclusions that can be drawn from this method. In doing so, we differ-
entiate between functions (i.e., the common associations observed between frequency bands and
cognitive demands), and computations (i.e., the theorized mechanisms by which networks of neurons
communicating over different frequencies contribute to these functions). This distinction serves as a
preface to the sections that follow, which provide overviews of results associating cognitive functions
with different frequencies of neuronal communication. The main point we hope to communicate here
is that oscillatory mechanisms do not neatly map in a one-on-one manner to cognitive functions,
though some frequencies have been more frequently implicated in L2 learning than others.
Toward the ambitious goal of identifying the mechanisms underlying the observed relations
between frequencies and cognitive functions, we offer two interrelated thoughts. First, there is con-
siderable evidence that short-range communication among focal networks occurs over faster frequen-
cies, while, slower frequencies support longer-range communication across distributed networks (e.g.,
von Stein & Sarnthein, 2000). Second, and relatedly, faster frequencies tend to carry “bottom-up”
sensory information, whereas, slower frequencies represent internally driven “top-down” goal infor-
mation (e.g., Lewis et al., 2016). Although untangling the mechanisms underlying EEG oscillations
remains outside the scope of this chapter, we hope these theories provide broad insights to anchor
the correlational work discussed subsequently (for a more detailed discussion see Buzsáki, 2006;
Cohen, 2017).
33
Relating qEEG to Language and General Cognitive Processes

Since its advent in the early twentieth century, qEEG has been used to study mental processes by
associating signal properties (e.g., power, coherence) in one or more frequency bands with cogni-
tive functions. These frequency bands are approximately defined as: delta (1.5–3.5 Hz), theta (4–7.5
Hz), alpha (8–12.5 Hz), beta (13–29.5 Hz), and low gamma (30–40 Hz).1 In this section, we provide
a non-exhaustive review of some of the cognitive functions relevant for L2 learning that have been
associated with each frequency band.2
Alpha oscillations are the predominant frequency in which the human brain communicates when
awake, but not engaged in any externally driven task. Though originally considered to be an “idling”
state, alpha communication increases when participants engage in tasks that require inhibition of
external information. For example, first language (L1) readers show increases in alpha power when
reading under conditions that require inhibiting irrelevant information (e.g., Prystauka & Lewis,
2019). Of particular relevance to the study of L2 aptitude, task-free characterizations of alpha cor-
relate with individual differences in general cognitive abilities such as working memory (e.g., Clark
et al., 2004) and intelligence (e.g., Doppelmayr et al., 2002). These findings suggest that certain
task-free qEEG measures reflect intrinsic information processing capabilities of an individual that are
predictive of cognitive performance. Two indices of alpha have been frequently related to cognitive
capacities. The first is a measure of power, computed either as an average across the alpha range, or
as the maximum, or peak power within that range (indicated by the diamond in Figure 3.1 C). Greater
task-free alpha power has been associated with better cognitive performance whereas this pattern can
reverse in task-based paradigms (e.g., Klimesch, 1999). The second is a measure of the frequency at
which an individual’s peak alpha power occurs. This individualized alpha frequency (IAF) changes
over the course of a lifespan and is correlated with working memory capacity (e.g., Clark et al., 2004).
The beta frequency band, which has most frequently been associated with L2 learning, has been
implicated in cognitive functions ranging from motor control to working memory. Put simply, many
researchers theorize that beta rhythms maintain information about one’s current cognitive, or goal
state (e.g., Engel & Fries, 2010). With respect to language specifically, beta has been proposed to
reflect top-down predictions and the errors associated with violations of these predictions (e.g., Lewis
et al., 2016; Weiss & Mueller, 2012).
The gamma frequency band is also implicated in language processing and has been shown to be
sensitive to both syntactic and semantic complexity of sentences (e.g., Prystauka & Lewis, 2019).
Broadly, gamma oscillations provide a mechanism to take in sensory information from the environ-
ment and are known to interact dynamically with slower frequencies signaling top-down information
(e.g., Miller et al., 2018).
Oscillations in the theta frequency band are commonly observed during memory-related tasks.
For example, theta power increases with working memory load (e.g., Jensen & Tesche, 2002). With
respect to language, theta oscillations have been shown to increase as the working memory demands
of sentence reading increase (e.g., Prystauka & Lewis, 2019). Considering the importance of working
memory in predicting successful L2 learning, it follows that theta rhythms also underpin L2 learning
to some degree.
Methodological Considerations
Frequency Band Determination

The qEEG approach is rooted in decomposing the raw composite EEG signal into component
frequency bands (see Figure 3.1 B), but determining where to draw the bounds of each band can
prove challenging. The most common approach is to use fixed or canonical ranges to define each
34
band. However, the exact boundaries used vary and are largely based on literature conventions, not
underlying computational differences. Additionally, if a participant has a very slow or fast IAF,
alpha activity can “spill-over” to neighboring bands and artificially inflate power (see Figure 3.1
C for an example). Thus, it is common practice to either visually inspect each participant’s data
and make sure their IAF falls within the alpha band used (e.g., Kepinska et al., 2017), or to titrate
frequency bands around each participant’s IAF (e.g., Bice et al., 2020). However, even when fre-
quency bands are individually titrated around IAF, deciding how wide each band should be is still
somewhat arbitrary. It also becomes unclear what to do with participants who do not show an
alpha peak or who show multiple alpha peaks. In such cases, it is common to revert to canonically
defined bands.
Data Collection Paradigms

Task-free qEEG can be collected with either the eyes closed or the eyes open. If one’s goal is to
measure intrinsic information processing, eyes-closed approaches may be best. Doing so reduces eye
artifacts and increases the robustness with which alpha activity is detected. Alternatively, if the goal
is to use task-free qEEG as a baseline to compare task-based qEEG against, eyes-open protocols pro-
vide more comparable measures.
Task-based qEEG can be collected during a wide range of tasks and analyzed in several ways.
One common way is to use time-frequency analysis to examine event-related changes in neural syn-
chronization (e.g., Kielar et al., 2018). This method is event-related such that multiple samples of
oscillatory responses are time-locked to a certain type of event and averaged together. The resulting
output is typically displayed as a graph showing how a signal property (e.g., power) changes across
frequencies in response to a particular event (for more details and an example plot see Rossi et al.,
2023). An alternate approach is to examine how signal properties change over the course of a task to
probe learning-related changes (e.g., Kepinska et al., 2017).
Benefits and Limitations of the qEEG Method

The main benefit of using qEEG is that it allows for the detection of neural communication on a
millisecond-level timescale. Additionally, qEEG offers practical advantages over other neurosci-
ence methods, by being both more cost-effective and portable than other neuroimaging methods.
A major limitation of qEEG, however, is that it is difficult to understand where the signals measured
over the scalp originate from. Although source localization techniques attempt to interpolate signal
sources (e.g., Michel & He, 2019), understanding the origin of signals at a specific frequency remains
challenging.
Studying L2 Learning with qEEG

Despite its potential for uncovering the neural mechanisms that support successful L2 learning and
use, relatively few studies to date have employed qEEG to directly investigate L2 processes. In
the text below and in the provided tables, we briefly summarize some of the overarching findings
pertaining to L2 learning gleaned from the qEEG method (see Table 3.1 for studies using task-free
methods and Table 3.2 for studies using task-based methods).
What Can Task-Free qEEG Tell Us About L2 Aptitude?

In 2016, our lab published the first paper suggesting that power indices obtained from task-free qEEG
could predict individual differences in L2 learning in adulthood. That original study contained two
35
Table 3.1 Summary of Studies Relating Task-free qEEG to L2 Learning
Study Population (N) L1 /L2 Frequency band L2 Outcome Direction

(location)
(A) Power results

Prat et al. Monolingual YA English / Beta & gamma Learning rate Positive
(2016) (16) French (right
frontotemporal)
Theta (left posterior) Learning rate Negative
Küssner et al. Monolingual Dutch / Beta (whole-head) Vocabulary Positive
(2016) YA (E1: 33; Artificial
E2: 38)
Prat et al. Monolingual YA English / Beta (bilateral Voluntary Negative
(2019) (41) French frontotemporal); speech
Gamma (right attempts
hemisphere)
Beta (right Learning rate Positive+
hemisphere)
Kliesch et al. Monolingual OA German / Beta (whole-head) Proficiency Positive
(2021) (10) English composite
Ogunniyi et al. Intermediate L2 English / n.s. Proficiency & n.s.
(2021) learners YA Spanish grammaticality
(49)
Bice et al. Bilingual (106) Mixed / Alpha, beta, Language Bilinguals >
(2020) & Monolingual Mixed & gamma+ (right classification Monolinguals
(91) YA posterior)
Theta (left Language Monolinguals >
frontotemporal) classification Bilinguals
Alpha (medial L2 usage Positive
frontal & bilateral
posterior)
Alpha (medial frontal L2 age of Negative
& right posterior) acquisition
Pereira Soares Bilingual YA German & High-beta & gamma L2 age of Negative
et al. (2021) (103) Norwegian / (whole-head) acquisition
Italian &
English
(B) Coherence Results
Prat et al. Monolingual YA English / All frequencies Learning rate & Positive
(2019) (41) French (right hemisphere) vocabulary
Ogunniyi et al. Intermediate L2 English / Theta (right Proficiency Negative
(2021) learners YA Spanish hemisphere)
(49)
Bice et al. Bilingual (106) Mixed / Alpha & beta (right Language Bilinguals >
(2020) & Monolingual Mixed posterior) classification Monolinguals
(91) YA
Pereira Soares Bilingual YA German & Beta (whole-head) L2 age of Negative
et al. (2021) (103) Norwegian & gamma (right acquisition
/Italian & posterior)
English
Note: + denotes marginal significance. YA =younger adults. OA =older adults.
36
Table 3.2 Summary of Studies Relating Task-based qEEG to L2 Learning
Study—Task Population L1 /L2 Frequency band L2 Outcome Direction

(N) (location)
(A) Power results

de Diego-Balaguer YA (E1: 24; Not provided Gamma (bilateral AG rule learning Poor learners
et al. (2011)—AG E2:32) /Artificial frontotemporal) classification > good
learners
Kepinska et al. Monolingual Dutch / Alpha (posterior) Language High aptitude
(2017)—AG YA (45) Artificial aptitude > average
cla8ssification aptitude
at end of
learning
Reiterer Bilingual YA German / Gamma (right L2 proficiency Negative
et al. (2009)— (44) English temporal) (during L2
L1 & L2 auditory processing)
processing
Gamma (bilateral L2 proficiency Positive
frontal) (during L1
processing)
(B) Coherence Results
de Diego-Balaguer YA (E1: 24; Not provided Theta (between AG rule learning Poor learners
et al. (2011)—AG E2:32) /Artificial temporal/parietal & classification > good
frontal/parietal) learners
Beta & gamma (widely AG rule learning Good learners
distributed) classification > poor
learners
Kepinska et al. Monolingual Dutch / Theta & Alpha AG rule Decrease from
(2017)—AG YA (45) Artificial learning early-to-late
learning
Beta & Gamma AG rule Increase from
learning early-to-late
learning
Beta (whole-head) AG rule Positive
learning
Reiterer et al. Bilingual YA German / Alpha & beta (broadly L2 proficiency Negative
(2005a/2005b)— (46) English distributed) (during
L1 & L2 auditory L1/L2
processing processing)
Reiterer Bilingual YA German / Gamma (right L2 proficiency Negative
et al. (2009)— (44) English hemisphere) (during L2
processing
Reiterer Bilingual YA Austrian / Gamma (broadly L2 proficiency Negative
et al. (2011)— (44) English distributed) (during L2
processing
Note: YA =younger adults.
37
novel findings: (1) that beta power was strongly correlated with individual differences in early L2
learning; and (2) that qEEG recordings over the right and left hemispheres were differentially pre-
dictive of L2 learning outcomes. This work builds upon behavioral research by identifying intrinsic
information processing characteristics that promote successful L2 learning (for more on L2 aptitude,
see Luque & Covey, this volume). Subsequent studies have extended this work to show that greater
task-free beta power also predicts higher ultimate L2 proficiency (Kliesch et al., 2021; Küssner et al.,
2016). Notably, studies demonstrating this pattern have varied in both the nature of the learning
paradigms (e.g., natural versus artificial language learning) and the participants included (younger
versus older adults; see Table 3.1).
However, there are a few exceptions to this pattern. For example, Ogunniyi and colleagues
(2021) found that among intermediate language learners enrolled in a university-level course,
there was no relation between task-free qEEG power in any of the frequency bands and L2
learning outcomes. A possible explanation for this seemingly inconsistent result is that the pre-
dictive utility of task-free beta power may depend on the stage of L2 learning one is engaged in.
In Ogunniyi and colleagues’ experiment, participants already had 3–4 semesters of L2 instruction;
whereas participants in the other studies above had no previous experience with the language
being tested.
Another exception comes from our most recent L2 aptitude paper (Prat et al., 2019), which found
that lower task-free beta power recorded over bilateral frontal networks correlated with a higher
number of voluntary speech attempts during learning. Unfortunately, because our training employed
a virtual language and cultural immersion software, it is difficult to understand how well the “number
of speech attempts” variable maps onto concepts like “willingness to communicate” that have been
measured in live speaking environments (e.g., MacIntyre & Legatto, 2011). If one assumes that the
learners that engaged more frequently with the software were more willing to communicate in their
L2, it raises the possibility that distinct (and potentially opposing) intrinsic information processing
characteristics underpin different L2 learning outcomes.
The topographies of the correlations between task-free beta power and L2 learning outcomes also
vary across studies. In both of our experiments on young adults, the relation between beta power
and rate of L2 learning was largest over the right hemisphere (Prat et al., 2016; Prat et al., 2019).
Although the relation between the scalp topography where an effect emerges and the underlying
brain regions that drive these effects is complex and very plausibly nonlinear, the relation between
right hemisphere functioning and early L2 learning in young adults is consistent with other well-
documented findings. For instance, early stages of language learning have been shown to recruit more
distributed bilateral neural resources, which become more focal and lateralized to the left hemisphere
with experience (e.g., Reiterer et al., 2009). However, another study examining this effect in older
adults found it to be widely distributed across the scalp (Kliesch et al., 2021). This difference in top-
ography may reflect differences in the way the two hemispheres contribute to language processes as a
function of aging (e.g., Reuter-Lorenz & Cappell, 2008). Ultimately, source localization studies may
help us to better understand the extent to which the different topographies of these effects relate to
different underlying neural generators.
Consistent with the idea of differences in the size of network configurations driving differences
in L2 learning results, a subset of the previously mentioned task-free studies investigated the rela-
tion between L2 learning outcomes and spectral coherence. In accordance with the idea that early
L2 learning in younger adults may rely heavily on large-scale networks in the right hemisphere,
work from our lab has found that greater right hemisphere coherence across frequency bands was
predictive of both faster and more accurate L2 learning in novices (Prat et al., 2019). In contrast,
Ogunniyi and colleagues’ (2021) study of intermediate L2 learners found that lower task-free theta
coherence across right hemisphere channels was predictive of better L2 learning.
38
These seemingly contradictory results may be explained by the idea that the distribution of neur-
onal communication underlying successful L2 learning changes with increasing L2 experience.
Specifically, greater coherence in the right hemisphere may be advantageous during initial learning,
when learners are first starting to map out the general scaffolding of a new language, but disad-
vantageous in later stages of learning, when processing is expected to become more focal and left
lateralized. Taken together, the body of work relating task-free qEEG to subsequent L2 learning shows
considerable promise in advancing our understanding of L2 aptitude by uncovering the intrinsic
information processing mechanisms that support different aspects of facile L2 learning.
What Can Task-Free qEEG Tell Us About How L2 Experience Shapes Cognition?
The fact that the brain is shaped by language experience (e.g., structural connectivity and grey matter
indices) has been well documented (for a review see Luk et al., 2020; see also Korenar & Pliatsikas,
this volume); however, task-free qEEG has only recently been leveraged to explore how language
experience shapes the oscillatory dynamics of the bilingual brain (see Rossi et al., 2023 for a recent
review). This nascent body of research suggests that experience with multiple languages is associated
with changes in task-free qEEG power and coherence (see Table 3.1).
With respect to power, L2 experience has been associated with increased power in the alpha, beta,
and gamma frequency bands. For example, in a study of individuals with varying language experi-
ence, Bice and colleagues (2020) found that bilinguals, compared to monolinguals, had significantly
greater task-free power in the alpha and beta frequency bands, and marginally greater power in the
gamma band, over right posterior regions. Notably, the location of these effects over right hemisphere
channels is consistent with the topography of task-free beta power metrics associated with higher L2
aptitude in monolinguals (Prat et al., 2016; Prat et al., 2019).
Individual differences analyses among the bilingual participants further revealed that the increase
in task-free alpha power was correlated with a range of language experience factors that may drive
competition between languages including earlier age of L2 acquisition and more frequent L2 use
(Bice et al., 2020). Pereira Soares and colleagues (2021) also found that bilinguals with earlier L2
acquisition showed greater task-free beta and gamma, but not alpha, power. It is, as of yet, unclear
why the power findings across these two studies did not converge in the alpha frequency band.
Spectral coherence measures have also been shown to vary with L2 experience. Bice and colleagues
(2020) observed that bilinguals, compared to monolinguals, had greater and more broadly distributed
task-free alpha and beta coherence. Periera Soares and colleagues’ (2021) also found that L2 experi-
ence was associated with increased coherence, such that bilinguals with earlier ages of L2 acquisition
showed greater coherence in the beta and gamma frequency bands (Periera Soares et al., 2021).
Together the findings of these studies suggest that L2 experience is associated with greater task-
free power and coherence in faster frequency bands (Bice et al., 2020; Periera Soares et al., 2021).
Specifically, task-free power and spectral coherence in the beta—and less consistently in the alpha
and gamma—frequency bands, relates to both group-level differences between monolinguals and
bilinguals and bilingual language experience factors such as age of L2 acquisition.
What Can Task-Based qEEG Tell Us About L2 Aptitude?

Studies using task-based qEEG methods to assess L2 aptitude have primarily used artificial grammar
(AG) learning as a proxy for L2 learning. This body of research has linked task-based measures of
both power and phase coherence with individual differences in rule-learning success (see Table 3.2).
The relation between task-based spectral power and AG learning has been investigated in several
studies. For example, Kepinska and colleagues (2017) found that individuals with high, compared to
average, language aptitude showed better learning of fixed-order AG rules accompanied by greater
39
alpha power over posterior regions in later learning blocks. The finding that this alpha power diffe-
rence emerged only at the end of learning might suggest that the high-aptitude individuals learned
the AG rules earlier and therefore exerted less mental effort towards the end of the task. Work exam-
ining faster frequencies has shown the opposite pattern, such that greater gamma power over bilat-
eral frontotemporal areas is associated with worse AG learning (de Diego-Balaguer et al., 2011).
Taken together, these results suggest that stronger reliance on internally guided goal information is
associated with better AG rule learning; whereas higher reliance on stimulus-driven information pro-
cessing is associated with poorer learning.
Investigations of phase coherence, which allow researchers to make inferences about the dynamic
formation of neural networks communicating over different frequencies, extend these results. For
example, Kepinska and colleagues’ (2017) investigation of fixed-order rules found that while success
on earlier AG learning blocks was characterized by greater coherence in slower frequencies (i.e.,
theta and alpha), success in later learning blocks was associated with greater coherence in faster
frequencies (i.e., beta and gamma). In de Diego-Balaguer and colleagues’ study (2011) examining
flexible-order rules, greater theta coherence throughout learning was associated with poorer learning.
In contrast, better learning was characterized by greater coherence in a frequency range that included
faster beta (20–29 Hz) and slower gamma (30–40 Hz) rhythms (de Diego-Balaguer et al., 2011).
Similarly, in Kepinska and colleagues’ study (2017) successful learning was characterized by greater
whole-head beta band (13–29 Hz) coherence, with this relation being particularly robust for high,
compared to average, language aptitude individuals. Thus, the results of these studies do not perfectly
converge. Greater coherence in faster frequencies is predictive of better AG rule-learning across both
studies. However, the directionality of the theta coherence results is somewhat contradictory.
One interpretation of these results is that the relation between theta coherence and rule learning
differs based on both the type of rule learned and the stage of learning. Considering that theta
oscillations have been shown to increase with working memory load (e.g., Jensen & Tesche, 2002),
greater theta coherence during an AG task could be indicative of participants using a declarative
learning strategy focused on remembering surface-level features. For fixed-order rules (Kepinska
et al., 2017), early stages of learning require declarative memory to compare non-words and extract
the underlying grammatical rule, whereas successful long-term performance should be characterized
by a shift to a proceduralized strategy. Theta oscillations that persist throughout learning could indi-
cate a failure to make such a shift. For flexible-order rules (de Diego-Balaguer et al., 2011), successful
learning should be characterized by a procedural strategy throughout learning and thus any fixation
on surface-level features, signaled by theta oscillations, would be disadvantageous to rule learning.
What Can Task-Based qEEG Tell Us About L2 Proficiency?

Another series of studies, conducted primarily by Reiterer and colleagues (2005a, 2005b, 2009, 2011)
used qEEG to examine the demands of using an L2 by exploring proficiency-based differences (see
Table 3.2; for more on L2 proficiency, see Fromont, this volume). These studies employed similar
designs in which task-based EEG metrics were recorded while low-and high-proficiency bilinguals,
assessed via an oral fluency-test and self-report measures, processed language stimuli in their L1 or
L2. In contrast to studies assessing L2 aptitude in monolinguals, where greater task-based coherence
is generally predictive of better L2 learning, in bilinguals, greater coherence during language pro-
cessing has been associated with lower L2 proficiency. This general pattern of results is consistent
with the idea that with higher levels of proficiency language processing centers become more focal
(e.g., Goldberg & Costa, 1981).
The extent to which differences in coherence relate to language processing in general or specific-
ally to L2 processing depends on the frequency band under investigation. For example, relative to a
40
task-free baseline, lower-proficiency bilinguals show broadly distributed increases in alpha and beta
spectral coherence compared to higher-proficiency bilinguals who show more focal increases when
processing language in both their L1 and L2 (Reiterer et al., 2005a; Reiterer et al., 2005b). These
results suggest that differences in information processing abilities underpinning bilingual language
control at different L2 proficiency levels are reflected in network configuration dynamics over alpha
and beta frequencies. Considering that these frequencies are often linked to inhibitory control (e.g.,
Doppelmayr et al., 2002; Klimesch et al., 2007), one interpretation of these findings is that greater L2
proficiency hones neurocomputations supporting cognitive control, which then propagate to general
(i.e., L1 and L2) language processing abilities.
A different pattern emerges when L2 proficiency is related to network configuration over faster,
gamma frequencies. For example, Reiterer and colleagues (2011) found that lower-proficiency
bilinguals had greater gamma phase coherence than higher-proficiency bilinguals during L2, but not
L1, processing. This result is consistent with the idea that higher language proficiency is supported
by more focal information processing centers in the brain. Converging with our earlier discussion of
L2 aptitude, lower, compared to higher, L2-proficiency bilinguals showed greater gamma coherence
over the right hemisphere (Reiterer et al., 2009). Taken together, this body of work demonstrates that
task-based qEEG metrics obtained during language processing are sensitive to differences in infor-
mation processing that underlie variability in L2 proficiency.

In recent years, qEEG methods have been harnessed to answer questions pertaining to L2 learning.
However, this area of work is still in its infancy, and many important questions have yet to be
answered. Here we identify several areas that we see as being important avenues for future research.
First, while qEEG has been used to study both task-free and task-based dynamics, little work has
systematically examined how these measures relate within an individual. Past work on the alpha
and theta frequencies has suggested a trade-off such that, during task-free paradigms, greater alpha
power and lower theta power is predictive of better behavioral performance, whereas this pattern
reverses during task-based paradigms (e.g., Klimesch, 1999). To the best of our knowledge, similar
comparisons for the beta frequency band, which has been repeatedly associated with L2 learning,
have not been made. Based on the studies reviewed herein, it seems that greater beta power and
coherence is predictive of better early-stage L2 learning across task-free and task-based measures.
Thus, the observed trade-off seen at slower frequency ranges may not hold true for beta. A systematic
investigation of how beta oscillations change across task-free and task-based paradigms within an
individual is necessary to gain traction on this question.
Second, future work should investigate how task-free qEEG differentially relates to aptitude at
different L2 proficiency levels. Prior work has either focused on monolinguals with no prior L2
experience or on bilinguals who are already proficient in two languages. Comparisons of studies
examining these populations suggest that qEEG markers of L2 success look different depending
on L2 proficiency level. These findings raise the question of when in L2 learning these shifts occur,
and, what change they reflect in underlying information processing. Notably, the results of the only
study reviewed herein which looked at intermediate-level L2 learners diverged with respect to both
power and spectral coherence compared to studies examining novices (Ogunniyi et al., 2021). These
findings suggest qEEG indices of L2 aptitude may begin to shift with relatively little L2 exposure.
Future longitudinal work should investigate this question by examining how qEEG metrics associated
with greater L2 skill change as a function of L2 learning.
Third, further investigation is needed to understand how much L2 experience is needed to modu-
late task-free qEEG metrics, and how robust these learning-related changes are to time. In their
41
study of older adults, Kliesch and colleagues (2021) found that task-free beta power decreased from
pre-to-post L2 learning. Preliminary work from our research group has also shown evidence of
learning-related task-free changes in the beta frequency band (Mottarella & Prat, 2022). Together this
emerging line of work suggests that even acute L2 training can modulate task-free qEEG. Although
further investigation on this topic is needed, the possibility that brief L2 training can change task-free
EEG raises the related open question of how robust these learning-related changes are to time.
Finally, although most work to date has focused solely on the periodic (or oscillatory) proper-
ties of the EEG signal, recent work suggests that the aperiodic component of the signal (or the 1/f
slope of the spectrogram) may also be important to examine. Historically thought of as noise, recent
investigations have demonstrated that properties of the aperiodic signal can both independently pre-
dict individual differences in behavior and modulate how the periodic properties of the signal relate
to behavior (see Cross et al., 2022 for a recent example).
Although many open questions remain, the results reviewed herein converge to demonstrate
qEEG’s utility in studying L2 learning. With respect to L2 aptitude, individual differences in both
beta power and coherence during both task-free and task-based paradigms predict L2 learning
success in novices. Considering that beta oscillations have been linked both to top-down, goal-
directed processes and to working memory maintenance (e.g., Lewis et al., 2016; Miller et al.,
2018), one interpretation of this pattern is that beta oscillations reflect domain general cognitive
control processes that facilitate successful L2 learning. An alternate explanation is that beta-
frequency bands reflect several different processes that occur in medium-to long-distance neural
networks (e.g., those connecting Wernicke’s area in the temporo-parietal junction to Broca’s area
at the back of the frontal lobe). Many of the places where language processes interface with
semantics and memory more broadly rely on such networks and may be underpinned by beta
oscillations (e.g., Mueller & Weiss, 2012).
Another key theme that emerges from the results discussed herein is that the spatial topography
of qEEG predictors shifts with L2 experience. For example, in monolinguals, greater power and
coherence over the right hemisphere is indicative of higher L2 aptitude, whereas in bilinguals, greater
right hemisphere recruitment is associated with lower L2 proficiency. This pattern of results is con-
sistent with theories suggesting that early stages of language acquisition rely more heavily on the
large-world networks in the right hemisphere, whereas more proficient language processing becomes
increasingly more focal and left-lateralized (e.g., Goldberg & Costa, 1981). Though there are many
dots that have yet to be connected, the research reviewed herein shows that qEEG is a promising
method for understanding the dynamic, network-level information processing characteristics that
underlie L2 learning.
Notes
1 Some studies further subdivide these frequency ranges. Most commonly this is done in the beta and alpha
frequency ranges.
2 Discussion of the delta band is omitted due to low measurement reliability and less implications in L2
research.
Further Readings
These resources provide more information about EEG measures at the mechanistic level.
Buzsáki, G. (2006). Rhythms of the brain. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
These resources provide more detailed information on EEG cleaning, artifact removal, and processing tools.
42
Delorme, A., & Makeig, S. (2004). EEGLAB: An open-source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics
including independent component analysis. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 134(1), 9–21. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jneumeth.2003.10.009
Jiang, X., Bian, G.-B., & Tian, Z. (2019). Removal of artifacts from EEG signals: A review. Sensors, 19(5),
987.https://doi.org/10.3390/s19050987
For more extensive reviews on how the qEEG method has been used to study language.
Prystauka, Y., & Lewis, A.G. (2019). The power of neural oscillations to inform sentence comprehension: A lin-
guistic perspective. Language and Linguistics Compass, 13(9), e12347. https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12347
Rossi, E., Pereira Soares, S.M., Prystauka, Y., Nakamura, M., & Rothman, J. (2023). Riding the (brain) waves!
Using neural oscillations to inform bilingualism research. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 26(1),
202–215. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728922000451
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by a grant from the Office of Naval Research (N00014-20-1-2393) awarded to Chantel
Prat. We gratefully acknowledge Brianna Yamasaki and Chu-Hsuan Kuo for their feedback on the content of
this chapter.
References
Bice, K., Yamasaki, B.L., & Prat, C.S. (2020). Bilingual language experience shapes resting-state brain rhythms.
Neurobiology of Language, 1(3), 288–318. https://doi.org/10.1162/nol_a_00014
Buzsáki, G. (2006). Rhythms of the brain. Oxford University Press.
Clark, C.R., Veltmeyer, M.D., Hamilton, R.J., Simms, E., Paul, R., Hermens, D., & Gordon, E. (2004).
Spontaneous alpha peak frequency predicts working memory performance across the age span. International
Journal of Psychophysiology, 53(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2003.12.011
Cross, Z.R., Corcoran, A.W., Schlesewsky, M., Kohler, M.J., & Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I. (2022). Oscillatory
and aperiodic neural activity jointly predict language learning. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 34(9),
1630–1649. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_01878
de Diego-Balaguer, R., Fuentemilla, L., & Rodriguez-Fornells, A. (2011). Brain dynamics sustaining rapid rule
extraction from speech. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(10), 3105–3120. https://doi.org/10.1162/
jocn.2011.21636
Delorme, A., & Makeig, S. (2004). EEGLAB: An open-source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics
including independent component analysis. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 134(1), 9–21. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jneumeth.2003.10.009
Dickson, D., & Pelzl, E. (this volume). Using time-based electroencephalography to investigate second lan-
guage. In K. Morgan-Short & J. G. van Hell (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition
Doppelmayr, M., Klimesch, W., Stadler, W., Pöllhuber, D., & Heine, C. (2002). EEG alpha power and intelli-
gence. Intelligence, 30(3), 289–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-2896(01)00101-5
Engel, A.K., & Fries, P. (2010). Beta-band oscillations–signaling the status quo? Current Opinion in Neurobiology,
20(2), 156–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2010.02.015
Fromont, L. (this volume). Age and proficiency in second language neurocognition. In K. Morgan-Short & J. G.
van Hell (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and neurolinguistics. Routledge.
Goldberg, E., & Costa, L.D. (1981). Hemisphere differences in the acquisition and use of descriptive systems.
Brain and Language, 14(1), 144–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/0093-934X(81)90072-9
Jensen, O. & Tesche, C.D. (2002). Frontal theta activity in humans increases with memory load in a
working memory task. European Journal of Neuroscience, 15(8), 1395–1399. https://doi.org/10.1046/
j.1460-9568.2002.01975.x
Jiang, X., Bian, G.-B., & Tian, Z. (2019). Removal of artifacts from EEG signals: A review. Sensors, 19(5),
987.https://doi.org/10.3390/s19050987
Kepinska, O., Pereda, E., Caspers, J., & Schiller, N.O. (2017). Neural oscillatory mechanisms during novel
grammar learning underlying language analytical abilities. Brain and Language, 175, 99–110. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.bandl.2017.10.003
43
Kielar, A. Deschamps, T., Jokel, R., & Meltzer, J.A. (2018). Abnormal language-related oscillatory responses in
primary progressive aphasia. NeuroImage: Clinical, 18, 560–574. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nicl.2018.02.028
Kliesch, M., Giroud, N., & Meyer, M. (2021). EEG resting-state and event-related potentials as markers of
learning success in older adults following second language training: A pilot study. Brain Plasticity, 7(2),
143–162. https://doi.org/10.3233/BPL-200117
Klimesch, W. (1999). EEG alpha and theta oscillations reflect cognitive and memory performance: A review and
analysis. Brain Research Reviews, 29(2), 169–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0165-0173(98)00056-3
Klimesch, W., Sauseng, P., & Hanslmayr, S. (2007). EEG alpha oscillations: The inhibition–timing hypothesis.
Brain Research Reviews, 53(1), 63–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainresrev.2006.06.003
Korenar, M., & Pliatsikas, C. (this volume). Second language acquisition and neuroplasticity: Insights from the
Dynamic Restructuring Model. In K. Morgan-Short & J. G. van Hell (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of
second language acquisition and neurolinguistics. Routledge.
Küssner, M.B., De Groot, A.M.B., Hofman, W.F., & Hillen, M.A. (2016). EEG beta power but not background
music predicts the recall scores in a foreign-vocabulary learning task. PLOS ONE, 11(8), e0161387. https://
doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0161387
Lewis, A.G., Schoffelen, J., Schriefers, H., & Bastiaansen, M. (2016). A predictive coding perspective on beta
oscillations during sentence-level language comprehension. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 10, 85.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00085
Lui, K.F.H., Lo, J.C.M., Ho, C.S.-H., McBride, C., & Maurer, U. (2021). Resting state EEG network modularity
predicts literacy skills in L1 Chinese but not in L2 English. Brain and Language, 220, 104984. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.bandl.2021.104984
Luk, G., Pliatsikas, C., & Rossi, E. (2020). Brain changes associated with language development and learning: A
primer on methodology and applications. System, 89, 102209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102209
Luque, A., & Covey, L. (this volume). Factors accounting for individual differences in second language
neurocognition. In K. Morgan-Short & J. G. van Hell (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language
MacIntyre, P.D., & Legatto, J.J. (2011). A dynamic system approach to willingness to communicate: Developing
an idiographic method to capture rapidly changing affect. Applied Linguistics, 32(2), 149–171. https://doi.
org/10.1093/APPLIN/AMQ037
Michel, C.M., & He, B. (2019). EEG source localization. In K.H. Levin & P. Chauvel (Eds.) Handbook of clin-
ical neurology (Vol. 160, pp. 85–101). Elsevier.
Miller, E.K., Lundqvist, M., & Bastos, A.M. (2018). Working memory 2.0. Neuron, 100(2), 463–475. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.neuron.2018.09.023
Mottarella, M., & Prat, C.S. (2022, March). Examining training-related changes in resting-state EEG following
second-language learning in adults [Poster presentation]. Cognitive Neuroscience Society, San Francisco, CA
Ogunniyi, V., Abugaber, D., Finestrat, I., Luque, A., & Morgan-Short, K. (2021). Predicting second language
proficiency with resting-state brain rhythms. Columbia Undergraduate Science Journal, 15, 39–54. https://
doi.org/10.7916/z6v3-2n20
Pereira Soares, S.M., Kubota, M., Rossi, E., & Rothman, J. (2021). Determinants of bilingualism predict
dynamic changes in resting state EEG oscillations. Brain and Language, 223, 105030. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.bandl.2021.105030
Prat, C.S. (2011). The brain basis of individual differences in language comprehension abilities. Language and
Linguistics Compass, 5(9), 635–649. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2011.00303.x
Prat, C.S., Yamasaki, B.L., Kluender, R.A., & Stocco, A. (2016). Resting-state qEEG predicts rate of second lan-
guage learning in adults. Brain and Language, 157–158, 44–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2016.04.007
Prat, C.S., Yamasaki, B.L., & Peterson, E.R. (2019). Individual differences in resting-state brain rhythms
uniquely predict second language learning rate and willingness to communicate in adults. Journal of Cognitive
Neuroscience, 31(1), 78–94. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_01337
Prystauka, Y., & Lewis, A.G. (2019). The power of neural oscillations to inform sentence comprehension: A lin-
guistic perspective. Language and Linguistics Compass, 13(9), e12347. https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12347
Reiterer, S., Berger, M.L., Hemmelmann, C., & Rappelsberger, P. (2005a). Decreased EEG coherence between
prefrontal electrodes: A correlate of high language proficiency? Experimental Brain Research, 163(1), 109–
113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-005-2215-z
Reiterer, S., Hemmelmann, C., Rappelsberger, P., & Berger, M.L. (2005b). Characteristic functional networks in
high–versus low-proficiency second language speakers detected also during native language processing: An
44
explorative EEG coherence study in 6 frequency bands. Cognitive Brain Research, 25(2), 566–578. https://
doi.org/10.1016/J.COGBRAINRES.2005.08.010
Reiterer, S., Pereda, E., & Bhattacharya, J. (2009). Measuring second language proficiency with EEG synchron-
ization: How functional cortical networks and hemispheric involvement differ as a function of proficiency
level in second language speakers. Second Language Research, 25(1), 77–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/02676
58308098997
Reiterer, S., Pereda, E., & Bhattacharya, J. (2011). On a possible relationship between linguistic expertise and eeg
gamma band phase synchrony. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 334. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00334
Reuter-Lorenz, P.A., & Cappell, K.A. (2008). Neurocognitive aging and the compensation hypothesis. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 17(3), 177–182. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00570.x
Rossi, E., Pereira Soares, S.M., Prystauka, Y., Nakamura, M., & Rothman, J. (2023). Riding the (brain) waves!
Using neural oscillations to inform bilingualism research. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 26(1),
202–215. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728922000451
Stocco, A., Yamasaki, B., Natalenko, R., & Prat, C.S. (2014). Bilingual brain training: A neurobiological frame-
work of how bilingual experience improves executive function. International Journal of Bilingualism, 18(1),
67–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/13670069124566
von Stein, A., & Sarnthein, J. (2000). Different frequencies for different scales of cortical integration: From
local gamma to long range alpha/theta synchronization. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 38(3),
301–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0167-8760(00)00172-0
Weiss, S., & Mueller, H.M. (2012). “Too many betas do not spoil the broth”: The role of beta brain oscillations in
language processing. Frontiers in Psychology, 3(201), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00201
45
4
USING FUNCTIONAL
NEUROIMAGING TO
INVESTIGATE SECOND
LANGUAGE ORGANIZATION
Introduction and Critical Definitions

In the early 1990s it became possible to look inside the human brain while healthy participants
performed language tasks using non-invasive brain imaging. The advent of methods such as posi-
tron emission tomography (PET) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) led to a
blossoming of the field of the cognitive neuroscience of language (see Rossi et al., this volume,
for detailed information on structural MRI, sMRI; and Pandža, this volume, for detailed informa-
tion on neurostimulation techniques). PET activation studies involve injecting a substance with a
fast-decaying radioactive label into the bloodstream (water-bolus oxygen 15 molecule) to reveal the
brain areas in which there is increased blood flow or metabolism, reflecting increased brain activity.
Specifically, the labelled substance becomes concentrated in active brain regions and the positrons
that are emitted during decay are detected by the PET scanner (Berger, 2003). fMRI also measures
brain activity, but without the use of radioactive tracers. The Blood-Oxygenation Level Dependant
(BOLD) signal measured in fMRI arises from the different effects of oxygenated and de-oxygenated
hemoglobin on the magnetic field in an MRI scanner, and increases in blood flow to active parts of
the brain are measured (Glover, 2011). While these two brain imaging techniques are sensitive to
different signals, they both allow insights into in vivo brain activity related to brain organization for
language in first and subsequently learned languages. Figure 4.1 provides sample images from each
technique, showing the visualization of active brain regions during task performance in different
types of language learners.
For the most part, the studies to date have largely examined the impact of early experience
on the already developed adult system by looking back at language learning experiences that
occurred earlier in development. The studies combine behavioral methods with neuroimaging to
investigate in what way brain organization may be influenced by the age of acquisition of a lan-
guage, attained language proficiency, the distinctive characteristics of languages, and the specific
language learning and usage environments. Over time, the dynamic nature of the human brain has
been emphasized, with neuroimaging studies of language showing the brain’s ability to be shaped
and re-shaped by experience over the course of the life span. This chapter explores some of the
early seminal studies in this field, then introduces more recent work, and ends with some thoughts
about the future of functional neuroimaging for investigating the neurocognition of language and
bilingualism.
46 DOI: 10.4324/9781003190912-6
Using Functional Neuroimaging to Investigate Second Language Organization
Figure 4.1 Sample Images from PET and fMRI.

Notes: Panel A: Image adapted from Klein et al. (1995) showing similar regions of activation in the left inferior frontal
gyrus during semantic search in the L1 and the L2 of bilinguals using PET. Panel B: Image adapted from Pierce et al. (2015)
showing regions of activation during a phonological working memory task in monolinguals and bilinguals using fMRI.
Historical Perspectives
People who speak more than one language can differentiate, process, and produce the different
languages that they speak, and they can control or inhibit production of a non-selected language,
often without conscious effort. This leads to the question as to whether the two languages of the
bilingual are represented in distinct or overlapping areas of the brain. Pitres (1895) originally
posed this question in 1895, after observing differential recovery patterns of the languages of bilin-
gual aphasic patients. Since then, the organization of multiple languages in the brain has been
investigated by electrical stimulation of the cerebral cortex in conscious patients undergoing brain
surgery (see Giussani et al., 2007), by examining bilingual aphasic patients (e.g., Paradis, 1977;
Paradis et al., 1982), and with experimental studies in normal bilingual participants (e.g., Albert
& Obler, 1978). Still, it has proven difficult to determine conclusively whether different languages
share the same neural substrate. Penfield denied that separate neuronal mechanisms existed for each
language in bilinguals (Penfield, 1953), while others proposed that partially distinct cerebral areas
may be involved, especially when the second language is learned after the normal period of lan-
guage acquisition (Ojemann & Whitaker, 1978; Paradis, 1997). Over the decades, there has also been
much debate about whether bilinguals might have greater right hemisphere involvement for lan-
guage processing than monolinguals (e.g., Hull & Vaid, 2007). The use of functional neuroimaging
methods has proven invaluable in these investigations because, unlike lesion studies that depend on
experiments of nature, neuroimaging methods make it possible to conduct controlled experiments in
healthy individuals.
Early neuroimaging studies examined task-related brain activity to identify the effect of different
language experiences on the bilingual brain. In these studies, participants performed cognitive tasks
in the PET or MRI scanner and brain activity was identified either by the detection of an increase
in concentration of the radioactive tracer in active brain regions in the case of PET or by measuring
increased oxygen-rich blood flow to active brain regions in the case of fMRI. Of paramount import-
ance in these studies was experimental task design to permit the identification of the brain regions
implicated in specific cognitive processes. Given that multiple cognitive processes are involved in
language processing (e.g., attention, perception of sensory stimuli, access to semantic/conceptual
information), an appropriate comparison condition is required to differentiate and isolate the brain
regions implicated in the specific cognitive process of interest (see Soares et al., 2016).
47
The early neuroimaging work in the 1990s looked at first (L1) and second language (L2) organ-
ization using PET scanning. Klein et al. (1995) used semantic search tasks within and across L1
and L2 to investigate whether language processing in L2 involves the same neural substrates as
that of L1 in healthy bilingual adults who learned their L2 after age five years. English–French
bilingual participants performed semantic search tasks (synonym generation) in both their L1 (e.g.,
weep–cry) and in their L2 (e.g., breuvage–boisson) and translation tasks from their L1 into their L2
(e.g., house–maison) and vice-versa (e.g., arbre–tree). Baseline control tasks required word repeti-
tion in each language. Sensory-input and motor-output demands were thus similar in all conditions,
given that they involved listening to and producing a single spoken response. Klein et al. observed
increased activity in the left inferior frontal cortex in each generation task compared to the repetition
baseline, irrespective of whether the search took place in the L1 or L2 or whether the search was
within or across language(s). There was no evidence that the L2 was represented differently than the
L1, keeping with the view that components of language that are represented in the left hemisphere in
monolinguals are no less lateralized in bilingual speakers (e.g., Paradis, 1992). What was striking and
unpredicted was the increased activation in the left basal ganglia whenever native English speakers
produced a response in their L2, French (Klein et al., 1995); this was evident when participants
performed a translation into their L2, but not when they were translating from their L2 into L1.
Activity in the left putamen was also observed when participants repeated words in their L2, but not
in their L1. This finding was interpreted as reflecting the role of the left basal ganglia in the complex
motor timing involved in speaking a language that has been acquired later in life. Another set of early
work emphasized the role of the left caudate nucleus in monitoring and controlling the language in
use (Crinion et al., 2006). Crinion and colleagues used PET and fMRI in groups of highly proficient
German–English and Japanese–English bilinguals and found evidence for increased neuronal firing
in the left caudate nucleus when there was change in language, suggesting a possible role for the left
caudate nucleus as a regulator of language output control. Results from neuropsychological studies
of bilingual patients also pointed to the left caudate nucleus as being involved in language control
(Abutalebi et al., 2000). It has been argued that anatomically the left caudate nucleus plays a critical
role in controlling and selecting automatic motor sequences, such as those necessary for articulation
(Crinion et al., 2006; Jueptner & Weiller, 1998).
Despite the advantage that neuroimaging studies confer for more controlled studying of bilin-
gual brain organization, the results remain equivocal. Some studies have argued that different neural
substrates are involved in a bilingual’s two languages (e.g., Dehaene et al., 1997; Kim et al., 1997; Xu
et al., 2017), whereas others support the claim for a similar representation across languages in bilin-
gual individuals (e.g., Chee et al., 1999; Perani et al., 2003). It is now becoming increasingly clear
that the degree to which brain regions are involved in bilingual language processing is modulated
by many factors, such as age of L2 acquisition and language proficiency (e.g., Chee et al., 2004; Oh
et al., 2019; Perani et al., 1998), as well as by the type of language processing skills engaged or by
the particular language under investigation (e.g., Frenck-Mestre et al., 2005; Tan et al., 2003; Van de
Putte et al., 2017; Van de Putte et al., 2018; Wartenburger et al., 2003). Recent meta-analyses have
focused on the influences of age of L2 acquisition and L2 proficiency on language representation in
the bilingual brain (Cargnelutti et al., 2019), as well as the different brain regions that underlie lan-
guage processing in L1 and L2 (Sulpizio et al., 2020), and the neural substrates of language learning
in the adult brain (Tagarelli et al., 2019).
Early studies were important in demonstrating how advances in functional neuroimaging could
provide a window into the brain, whereby researchers could make inferences about the neural
underpinnings of L1 and L2 processing in healthy participants (Section 7 suggests further reading for
additional details about the methods and analysis in functional neuroimaging). More recent advances
in methods and analysis techniques have now led to research that is beginning to address some of the
inconsistencies highlighted in the earlier research.
48
Newer Methods and Paradigms

Recently there has been a gradual shift of focus from describing the function of specific brain regions
to characterizing the spatial and temporal dynamics of functional networks that connect different
brain regions. Researchers have identified reliable resting-state brain networks that show correlated
spontaneous low frequency (<0.1 Hz) fluctuations in the BOLD signal over time while the brain is not
engaged in an external task (i.e., at rest; e.g., Biswal et al., 1995; Cordes et al., 2001; Hampson et al.,
2002; Smith et al., 2009). Resting-state connectivity has been correlated with individual differences
in behavior (e.g., Baldassarre et al., 2012; Fox & Raichle, 2007) and is thought to reflect intrinsic
functional organization of the brain (e.g., Fox & Raichle, 2007).
Examining resting-state functional connectivity (RSFC) has been seen as a powerful method to char-
acterize neural networks (Fox & Raichle, 2007; Smith et al., 2013). Networks of activity are often iden-
tified using a seed-to-voxel approach. This approach first identifies a brain region that is part of the
network of interest (e.g., a seed in the language network) and correlations between the mean time-series
of the BOLD signal in this seed and all other voxels of the brain are identified. Brain regions showing
correlated activity form networks, with stronger correlations between brain regions indicating stronger
intrinsic functional connectivity. A number of networks showing specific patterns of synchronous activity
have been consistently identified in healthy individuals (Lee et al., 2013), with one in particular that is
spatially congruent with the language network that is typically evoked during linguistic tasks. Two other
relevant resting-state networks have been found to oppose each other, or are anti-correlated with each
other, and include the default mode, or task-negative network, which is maximally active when individ-
uals are not engaged in an external task, and the task-positive network, which is maximally active when
individuals are engaged in a cognitive task (Fox et al., 2005). In the case of the default mode network and
the task-positive network, the observed anti-correlation (i.e., negative correlation) of these two networks
demonstrates that as activity in one network increases the activity in the other decreases. Figure 4.2
depicts the spatial pattern of selected resting-state networks.
The identification of resting-state networks has led to resting-state functional magnetic resonance
imaging (rs-fMRI) investigations to identify the effects of language experience on intrinsic functional
brain connectivity. For example, Berken et al. (2016) compared simultaneous and sequential bilinguals
using a rs-fMRI approach. Stronger functional connectivity between the inferior frontal gyrus (IFG) in
the left and right hemispheres, as well as between the IFG and brain areas involved in language control,
including the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, inferior parietal lobule, and cerebellum, was observed in
simultaneous compared to sequential bilinguals. Functional connectivity between the left and right IFG
and right inferior parietal lobule was also significantly correlated with age of acquisition in sequential
bilinguals—the earlier the second language was acquired, the stronger the functional connectivity. In
addition, greater functional connectivity between homologous regions of the IFG was associated with
reduced neural activation in the left IFG during speech production. The increased connectivity at rest and
reduced neural activation during task performance suggests enhanced neural efficiency in this important
brain area that is involved in both speech production and domain-general cognitive processing. This
study demonstrates both the utility of using a rs-fMRI approach in studies of bilingual brain function and
the combination of rs-fMRI with traditional task-based fMRI to support interpretation of the findings.
RSFC paradigms can also reveal patterns of change longitudinally in relation to language learning
or identify brain connectivity patterns that predict better learning outcomes. Such studies have found
positive associations between RSFC in the language network and the learning of non-native phonetic
contrasts (Ventura-Campos et al., 2013) and novel word learning (Veroude et al., 2010) by measuring
RSFC pre-training and relating it to learning outcomes over a short timescale (e.g., six sessions
lasting one hour over a two-week period). More recently, studies have considered whether RSFC
can predict individual differences in L2 learning outcomes following longer and more naturalistic
training situations. For example, Chai et al. (2016) examined pretraining RSFC in a group of English
49
Figure 4.2 Spatial Pattern of Selected Resting-State Networks.

Notes: Panel A: Language network identified in rs-fMRI data from 51 bilingual participants using the left IFG as a seed in
a seed-to-voxel analysis approach. Regions in which the time course of the BOLD signal is positively correlated with the
seed are depicted p(FWE)<.001; k>1000). Panels B & C: The default mode/task-negative network and anti-correlated task-
positive network identified in rs-fMRI data from 51 bilingual participants using the medial prefrontal cortex (a core region
in the default mode network) as a seed in a seed-to-voxel analysis approach. Regions in Panel B are those in which the time
course of the BOLD signal is positively correlated with the signal in the seed and represent the default mode/task-negative
network; regions in Panel C are those in which the time course of the BOLD signal is negatively correlated with the seed
and represent the task-positive network (p(FWE)<.001; k>1000). p(FWE) =familywise error corrected; k =cluster extent
threshold (i.e., minimum number of contiguous voxels showing significant activation).
monolinguals who completed a twelve-week, six hours per day intensive French training course
using a seed-to-voxel approach with two a priori seeds, the left anterior insula/frontal operculum (AI/
FO; previously implicated in lexical retrieval (Price, 2012)) and the visual word form area (VWFA;
previously implicated in reading (Price, 2012)). They found that stronger pretraining RSFC of the
left AI/FO with the left posterior superior temporal gyrus (pSTG) and with the dorsal anterior cingu-
late cortex (dACC) was associated with greater improvements in L2 lexical retrieval. Additionally,
stronger RSFC between the VWFA and the left mid-STG was associated with greater improvements
in L2 reading ability. By associating RSFC measures with behavioral outcomes, these findings pro-
vide persuasive evidence for the utility of measures of RSFC strength within the language network as
a predictor of individual differences in L2 learning ability and may be an important neural signature
for predicting L2 attainment.
50
Another approach to analyzing RSFC data takes advantage of data-driven graph-theoretical

analyses that do not rely on a priori seeds/ROIs. Graph theoretical analysis uses the mathematical
foundations of graph theory to study the functional networks of the brain and makes it possible to
study the networks of the brain at different levels of organization. For example, it is possible to iden-
tify hubs (i.e., a brain region that has a central role in a network), communities (i.e., the organization
of brain regions in networks), or global efficiency (i.e., ability for quick and efficient communica-
tion across the network as a whole) (see Medaglia, 2017 for a detailed introduction). Using graph-
theoretical analysis, a recent study investigating individual differences in L2 word-to-sound learning
in adults found that the degree and local efficiency (i.e., connectedness with local neighbors in the
network) of the left STG were positively correlated with learning outcomes (Deng et al., 2016). These
results suggest that RSFC can account for individual differences in L2 learning success in the absence
of a priori hypotheses guiding the analysis. Data-driven approaches to analyzing RSFC provide an
objective method for examining individual differences in L2 learning ability and outcomes.
Examining the relation between different resting-state networks outside of the language net-
work has also provided insight into the effects of bilingual language experience on intrinsic func-
tional connectivity. Previous research has shown that the strength of the anti-correlation between the
default mode network, which is related to self-referential thinking, and the task-positive network,
which is related to external cognitively demanding tasks, is positively related with cognitive con-
trol (Hampson et al., 2010; Keller et al., 2015; Kelly et al., 2008). This suggests that an increase in
externally directed processes and a corresponding decrease in internally directed processes supports
tasks that are cognitively demanding. Using rs-fMRI in combination with behavioral measures of
cognitive control, Kousaie et al. (2017) examined the effect of the timing of L2 learning on cognitive
control. High proficiency bilinguals who differed in the timing of L2 learning were compared on a
behavioral cognitive control task and rs-fMRI was recorded. Kousaie et al. showed that simultan-
eous bilinguals, who learned their two languages at the same time from birth, performed better than
sequential bilinguals, who learned their L2 following mastery of their L1, in terms if suppressing
interfering information, and showed significantly stronger anti-correlation between specific ROIs
in the two, opposing resting-state networks. Furthermore, there was a positive relation between per-
formance and the strength of the anti-correlation (i.e., stronger anti-correlation was associated with
better performance) in the sequential bilinguals. These findings demonstrate the value of RSFC for
investigating the implications of bilingualism on non-linguistic cognitive processes.
It is also possible to examine effective connectivity, the influence that one neural system exerts
over another during task performance, and, importantly, to identify changes in connectivity across
task conditions. This type of analysis differs from seed-to-voxel RSFC analysis in that it identi-
fies correlations in the BOLD time-series between a seed and all other voxels in the brain across
different task conditions and can therefore identify changes in patterns of functional connectivity
during task performance. This method of identifying psychophysiological interaction (PPI) provides
information about the effect of psychophysiological variables on the functional connectivity of the
brain (Friston, 2011). One study (Pierce et al., 2015) used a PPI approach to identify all the brain
regions that were co-activated with a seed in the left insula during phonological working memory
performance. This study showed that monolingual speakers relied on a network of more “language-
specific” brain regions when processing phonological units in their single language compared to
sequential bilinguals performing the task in their L2. More recently, differences in the connectivity
patterns associated with forward (i.e., L1 to L2) and backward (i.e., L2 to L1) translation have been
identified. Greater coupling between left hemisphere brain regions involved in semantic and atten-
tional processes was identified for forward compared to backward translation, suggesting asymmet-
ries in the interaction between linguistic and attentional systems (Zheng et al., 2020). The findings
from these studies demonstrate the utility of PPI methods for examining the interaction between
51
brain regions during task performance to identify the involvement of networks of regions, instead of
focusing on distinct and individual brain regions.
Given the great variability in the language experience of bilinguals, one of the challenges in studies
of bilingualism is quantifying this variability, with differences in how bilingualism is measured
potentially contributing to inconsistencies across studies. Similarly, there is individual variability
in brain anatomy, which has been argued to underlie inconsistencies in the literature in terms of the
functional specificity of brain regions found to be associated with different aspects of linguistic pro-
cessing (Fedorenko et al., 2010). In recent years, a method to functionally characterize (i.e., localize)
language regions in the brain on an individual level has been developed and validated (Blank et al.,
2016; Fedorenko, 2014; Fedorenko et al., 2010; Mahowald & Fedorenko, 2016; Scott et al., 2017),
and has recently been used to identify the language network on an individual basis in multilinguals
(Jouravlev et al., 2021). The concept of localizer tasks is similar to other task-based fMRI approaches
in that different conditions are contrasted to identify the neural substrates underlying the function
of interest. For language localizers, generally two conditions (sentences and lists of pronounceable
nonwords) have been used (see Fedorenko et al., 2010 for details). For the localizer analysis, brain
regions that support high-level language comprehension are isolated by subtracting the nonword list
condition from the sentence condition. In general, the localizer task requires less than 20 minutes
in the MRI scanner to identify functional language regions in individual participants. The language
localizer has been found to reliably identify brain regions associated with language processing within
and across individuals (Fedorenko et al., 2010) and it has since been used in studies investigating
syntactic processing (Blank et al., 2016), predictive coding in language processing (i.e., the predic-
tion of upcoming words during sentence processing; Shain et al., 2020), and in an examination of the
language network in polyglots (Jouravlev et al., 2021).
Another example of recent innovations in fMRI methods for studying language is the use of
data-driven analyses of fMRI in naturalistic comprehension paradigms, which renders experimental
results more ecologically valid. Although previous work has used naturalistic language comprehen-
sion paradigms, newer methods use a data-driven approach to examine specific aspects of language
comprehension, for example, predictive coding (Shain et al., 2020). One of the difficulties with using
naturalistic stimuli in neuroimaging is that the stimuli are not controlled in terms of space and time
in relation to data acquisition by the MRI scanner, thus modelling the hemodynamic response is chal-
lenging. To overcome this, Shain et al. used continuous-time deconvolutional regression (CDR) to
model the hemodynamic response. The CDR method is data-driven and can accurately infer impulse
response functions in continuous time from the arbitrary time series of the BOLD signal, which
makes it suitable for analyzing neural responses to naturalistic stimuli. One of the questions in the
language processing literature is whether linguistic prediction (e.g., prediction of upcoming words or
structures during language comprehension) is supported by the language network or by the domain
general multiple demand network, which is associated with executive functions across both linguistic
and non-linguistic domains (e.g., Fedorenko, 2014; Fedorenko et al., 2013; Stiers et al., 2010). In
a recent study, Shain et al. (2020) used naturalistic stimuli (i.e., listening to stories) in addition to
participant-specific language network localization to address this question. Using CDR, Shain et al.
concluded that linguistic prediction is supported by the functional fronto-temporal language network,
including left lateral frontal, temporal, and parietal cortices. Although CDR has not been applied to
the bilingual context, it holds promise as a data-driven approach for the study of naturalistic language
processing in L1 and L2 and may help to determine if the same or different functional networks
support language processing and predictive coding across a bilingual’s two languages.
These newer innovative methods hold promise for studies examining language processing, net-
work organization, and language localization in bilingualism. The application of these methods to
studies of bilingualism provide exciting avenues for future research.
52
Pros and Cons/Limitations of Functional Neuroimaging

This chapter has illustrated some of the complexities of studying bilingualism using functional
neuroimaging. However, additional advantages, disadvantages, and methodological advances that
can potentially overcome the difficulties associated with using functional neuroimaging in studies of
bilingualism deserve consideration.
Obvious shortcomings include the resources required to conduct a neuroimaging study, potential
participant contraindications, acoustic noise in the MRI scanner, the invasive nature of radioactive
tracers in PET, and poor temporal resolution of functional neuroimaging methods.
The processing and analysis of MRI data is time consuming and requires specific expertise, soft-
ware, and data storage and backup systems. Combined with the high cost of user fees associated with
MRI data collection, functional neuroimaging is resource intensive.
Another disadvantage is the participant contraindications that can make participant recruitment
challenging. A common challenge to recruitment is that participants cannot be exposed to the strong
magnetic fields of the MRI scanner if they have a pacemaker, cochlear implant, or any other type of
non-removeable ferrous metal in or on their body. The presence of non-ferrous metal (e.g., ortho-
dontic devices) can also cause substantial artifact and distortion in the signal.
Other common factors that may limit participant recruitment include pregnancy (pregnant women
are generally excluded from MRI studies) and claustrophobia. In studies of bilingualism, where
researchers are often trying to recruit a very specific group of individuals, these constraints can prove
challenging and result in studies with relatively small sample sizes.
Unlike PET, MRI is non-invasive; however, the gradient magnetic field in the MRI scanner causes
a substantial amount of acoustic noise, which can be particularly problematic when studying lan-
guage/bilingualism and speech, and motion artefacts need to be taken into account when trying to
record vocal responses. Fortunately, sparse sampling techniques can mitigate this by introducing a
delay between image acquisitions, during which the scanner environment is quiet and acoustic stimuli
can be presented or vocal responses recorded (e.g., Gracco et al., 2005). PET is relatively quiet
compared to MRI, but the use of a radioactive tracer exposes participants to radiation and is therefore
more invasive, and the rapid decay of the radioactive isotope limits the tasks that can be used.
One disadvantage that is common to both PET and MRI is their poor temporal resolution. Although
these methods can identify the brain regions implicated in underlying cognitive processes, they are
not able to delineate the precise time course of the neural response given that they measure the rela-
tively slow (i.e., a few seconds) hemodynamic changes induced by regional changes in cerebral
blood flow. Electroencephalography (EEG), on the other hand, has excellent temporal resolution, on
the order of milliseconds, but poor spatial resolution (see Dickson and Pelzl, this volume, for more
details on Event-Related Potentials (ERPs) and Mottarella and Prat, this volume, for more details on
Quantitative Electroencephalography (qEEG). In some cases, these methods have been used together
in different studies to capitalize on their respective strengths. More recent technological advances
make it possible to simultaneously record MRI and EEG, allowing researchers to design experiments
that capitalize on the strengths of each method in single studies. In addition, magnetoencephalography
(MEG), which records the magnetic fields produced by the electrical activity in the brain, is a func-
tional neuroimaging technique that offers both high spatial and temporal resolution. Although an
in-depth discussion of MEG is beyond the scope of this chapter, it is noteworthy that this method has
been used to investigate language production and comprehension in bilinguals (e.g., Blanco-Elorrieta
et al., 2018; Blanco-Elorrieta & Pylkkänen, 2016).
Despite the limitations of functional neuroimaging outlined above, the advantages often outweigh
the obstacles. With a well-designed study, functional neuroimaging techniques offer researchers and
clinicians an unprecedented view of brain activity as it is happening, and the ability to identify the
53
neural underpinnings of cognitive and language processes that, at one time, could only be examined
in patients with brain damage.

Using functional neuroimaging techniques, our work and that of others indicate that the brain changes
as a result of language learning and that this learning and plasticity can occur across the lifespan.
However, the evidence suggests that learning occurs differently in early life and that the consequent
brain changes are both qualitatively and quantitatively different from later learning. Important future
directions include bridging the developmental and adult literature, enabling researchers to tease
apart how different language experiences impact the ongoing development of the brain. Functional
neuroimaging techniques and recent innovations in analysis techniques provide the means to examine
the healthy bilingual brain at different stages of development to investigate these questions in
greater depth.
Our own experience using functional neuroimaging in studies of bilingualism also support the
need for better descriptors and quantification of bilingualism, as well as better control of variables
such as proficiency, experience, environment, etc., across groups. As we move forward it is important
to standardize the characterization of language background and proficiency, as well as promote open
access to analysis techniques so that greater strides can be made in advancing our understanding of
language organization and representation in the bilingual brain.
Further Readings
For a review of resting-state fMRI methods and analysis techniques:
Lee, M.H., Smyser, C.D., & Shimony, J.S. (2013). Resting-state fMRI: a review of methods and clinical
applications. American Journal of Neuroradiology, 34(10), 1866–1872. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A3263
For a review of the theoretical basis of graph theoretical analysis of resting-state fMRI:
Medaglia, J.D. (2017). Graph theoretic analysis of resting state functional MR imaging. Neuroimaging clinics of
North America, 27(4), 593–607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nic.2017.06.008
For a comprehensive guide to fMRI data analysis:
Poldrack, R.A., Mumford, J.A., & Nichols, T.E. (2011). Handbook of Functional MRI Data Analysis. Cambridge
University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511895029
For a brief guide to the fMRI technique accessible to beginners:
Soares, J.M., Magalhães, R., Moreira, P.S., Sousa, A., Ganz, E., Sampaio, A., Alves, V., Marques, P., & Sousa,
N. (2016). A hitchhiker’s guide to functional magnetic resonance imaging. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 10,
515–515. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2016.00515
Acknowledments
Supported by grants from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) (RGPIN-
201405371) and the Blema and Arnold Steinberg Family Foundation.
References
Abutalebi, J., Miozzo, A., & Cappa, S.F. (2000). Do subcortical structures control “language selection” in
polyglots? evidence from pathological language mixing. Neurocase, 6(1), 51–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13554790008402757
Albert, M.L., & Obler, L.K. (1978). The bilingual brain: Neuropsychological and neurolinguistic aspects of
bilingualism. Academic Press.
54
Baldassarre, A., Lewis, C.M., Committeri, G., Snyder, A.Z., Romani, G.L., & Corbetta, M. (2012). Individual
variability in functional connectivity predicts performance of a perceptual task. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, 109(9), 3516–3521. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1113148109
Berger, A. (2003). How does it work? Positron emission tomography. BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 326(7404),
1449–1449. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.326.7404.1449
Berken, J.A., Chai, X., Chen, J.K., Gracco, V.L., & Klein, D. (2016). Effects of early and late bilingualism
on resting-state functional connectivity. The Journal of Neuroscience, 36(4), 1165–1172. https://doi.org/
10.1523/jneurosci.1960-15.2016
Biswal, B., Zerrin Yetkin, F., Haughton, V.M., & Hyde, J.S. (1995). Functional connectivity in the motor cortex
of resting human brain using echo-planar mri. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, 34(4), 537–541. https://doi.
org/10.1002/mrm.1910340409
Blanco-Elorrieta, E., Emmorey, K., & Pylkkänen, L. (2018). Language switching decomposed through MEG and
evidence from bimodal bilinguals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(39), 9708–9713.
https://doi.org/doi:10.1073/pnas.1809779115
Blanco-Elorrieta, E., & Pylkkänen, L. (2016). Bilingual language control in perception versus action: MEG
reveals comprehension control mechanisms in anterior cingulate cortex and domain-general control of pro-
duction in dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. The Journal of Neuroscience, 36(2), 290–301. https://doi.org/
10.1523/jneurosci.2597-15.2016
Blank, I., Balewski, Z., Mahowald, K., & Fedorenko, E. (2016). Syntactic processing is distributed across the lan-
guage system. NeuroImage, 127, 307–323. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.11.069
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 13, 154–154. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2019.00154
Chai, X.J., Berken, J.A., Barbeau, E.B., Soles, J., Callahan, M., Chen, J. K., & Klein, D. (2016). Intrinsic func-
tional connectivity in the adult brain and success in second-language learning. The Journal of Neuroscience,
36(3), 755–761. https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.2234-15.2016
Chee, M.W., Soon, C.S., Lee, H.L., & Pallier, C. (2004). Left insula activation: a marker for language attainment
in bilinguals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 101(42),
Chee, M.W., Tan, E.W., & Thiel, T. (1999). Mandarin and English single word processing studied with func-
tional magnetic resonance imaging. Journal of Neuroscience, 19(8), 3050–3056. https://doi.org/10.1523/
jneurosci.19-08-03050.1999
Cordes, D., Haughton, V.M., Arfanakis, K., Carew, J.D., Turski, P.A., Moritz, C.H., Quigley, M.A., & Meyerand,
M.E. (2001). Frequencies contributing to functional connectivity in the cerebral cortex in “resting-state” data.
American Journal of Neuroradiology, 22(7), 1326–1333. www.ajnr.org/content/22/7/1326.abstract
Crinion, J., Turner, R., Grogan, A., Hanakawa, T., Noppeney, U., Devlin, J.T., Aso, T., Urayama, S., Fukuyama,
H., Stockton, K., Usui, K., Green, D.W., & Price, C.J. (2006). Language control in the bilingual brain.
Science, 312(5779), 1537–1540. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1127761
Dehaene, S., Dupoux, E., Mehler, J., Cohen, L., Paulesu, E., Perani, D., van de Moortele, P.F., Lehéricy, S.,
& Le Bihan, D. (1997). Anatomical variability in the cortical representation of first and second language.
NeuroReport, 8(17), 3809–3815. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001756-199712010-00030
Deng, Z., Chandrasekaran, B., Wang, S., & Wong, P.C.M. (2016). Resting-state low-frequency fluctuations
reflect individual differences in spoken language learning. Cortex, 76, 63–78. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cortex.2015.11.020
guage. In K. Morgan-Short and J.G. van Hell (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition
Fedorenko, E. (2014). The role of domain-general cognitive control in language comprehension [Hypothesis &
Theory]. Frontiers in Psychology, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00335
Fedorenko, E., Duncan, J., & Kanwisher, N. (2013). Broad domain generality in focal regions of frontal and
parietal cortex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(41), 16616–16621. https://doi.org/
10.1073/pnas.1315235110
Fedorenko, E., Hsieh, P.-J., Nieto-Castañón, A., Whitfield-Gabrieli, S., & Kanwisher, N. (2010). New method
for fMRI investigations of language: Defining ROIs functionally in individual subjects. Journal of
Neurophysiology, 104(2), 1177–1194. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00032.2010
Fox, M.D., & Raichle, M.E. (2007). Spontaneous fluctuations in brain activity observed with functional magnetic
resonance imaging. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 8(9), 700–711. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2201
55
Fox, M.D., Snyder, A.Z., Vincent, J.L., Corbetta, M., Van Essen, D.C., & Raichle, M.E. (2005). The human
brain is intrinsically organized into dynamic, anticorrelated functional networks. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, 102(27), 9673–9678. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0504136102
Frenck-Mestre, C., Anton, J.L., Roth, M., Vaid, J., & Viallet, F. (2005). Articulation in early and late bilinguals’
two languages: evidence from functional magnetic resonance imaging. NeuroReport, 16(7), 761–765. https://
doi.org/10.1097/00001756-200505120-00021
Friston, K. J. (2011). Functional and effective connectivity: a review. Brain Connect, 1(1), 13–36. https://doi.org/
10.1089/brain.2011.0008
Giussani, C., Roux, F.E., Lubrano, V., Gaini, S.M., & Bello, L. (2007). Review of language organisation in
bilingual patients: what can we learn from direct brain mapping? Acta Neurochirurgica, 149(11), 1109–1116.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-007-1266-2
Glover, G.H. (2011). Overview of functional magnetic resonance imaging. Neurosurgery clinics of North
America, 22(2), 133–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nec.2010.11.001
Gracco, V.L., Tremblay, P., & Pike, B. (2005). Imaging speech production using fMRI. NeuroImage, 26(1), 294–
301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.01.033
Hampson, M., Driesen, N., Roth, J.K., Gore, J.C., & Constable, R.T. (2010). Functional connectivity between
task-positive and task-negative brain areas and its relation to working memory performance. Magnetic
Resonance Imaging, 28(8), 1051–1057. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mri.2010.03.021
Hampson, M., Peterson, B.S., Skudlarski, P., Gatenby, J.C., & Gore, J.C. (2002). Detection of functional con-
nectivity using temporal correlations in MR images. Human Brain Mapping, 15(4), 247–262. https://doi.org/
10.1002/hbm.10022
Hull, R., & Vaid, J. (2007). Bilingual language lateralization: A meta- analytic tale of two hemispheres.
Neuropsychologia, 45(9), 1987–2008. https://doi.org//10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.03.002
Jouravlev, O., Mineroff, Z., Blank, I.A., & Fedorenko, E. (2021). The small and efficient language network of
polyglots and hyper-polyglots. Cerebral Cortex, 31(1), 62–76. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhaa205
Jueptner, M., & Weiller, C. (1998). A review of differences between basal ganglia and cerebellar control of
movements as revealed by functional imaging studies. Brain, 121 (Pt 8), 1437–1449. https://doi.org/10.1093/
brain/121.8.1437
Keller, J.B., Hedden, T., Thompson, T.W., Anteraper, S.A., Gabrieli, J.D., & Whitfield-Gabrieli, S. (2015).
Resting-state anticorrelations between medial and lateral prefrontal cortex: association with working memory,
aging, and individual differences. Cortex, 64, 271–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2014.12.001
Kelly, A.M.C., Uddin, L.Q., Biswal, B.B., Castellanos, F.X., & Milham, M.P. (2008). Competition between
functional brain networks mediates behavioral variability. NeuroImage, 39(1), 527–537. https://doi.org/http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.08.008
Kim, K.H., Relkin, N.R., Lee, K.M., & Hirsch, J. (1997). Distinct cortical areas associated with native and
second languages. Nature, 388(6638), 171–174. https://doi.org/10.1038/40623
Klein, D., Milner, B., Zatorre, R.J., Meyer, E., & Evans, A.C. (1995). The neural substrates underlying word gen-
eration: a bilingual functional-imaging study. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United
States of America, 92(7), 2899–2903. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.92.7.2899
Kousaie, S., Chai, X.J., Sander, K.M., & Klein, D. (2017). Simultaneous learning of two languages from birth
positively impacts intrinsic functional connectivity and cognitive control. Brain and Cognition, 117, 49–56.
https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2017.06.003
Lee, M.H., Smyser, C.D., & Shimony, J.S. (2013). Resting-state fMRI: a review of methods and clinical
applications. American Journal of Neuroradiology, 34(10), 1866–1872. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.
A3263
Mahowald, K., & Fedorenko, E. (2016). Reliable individual-level neural markers of high-level language pro-
cessing: A necessary precursor for relating neural variability to behavioral and genetic variability. NeuroImage,
139, 74–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.05.073
Medaglia, J.D. (2017). Graph theoretic analysis of resting state functional MR imaging. Neuroimaging Clinics of
North America, 27(4), 593–607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nic.2017.06.008
Mottarella, M., & Prat, C.S. (this volume). Using quantitative electroencephalography (qEEG) to investigate
Oh, T.M., Graham, S., Ng, P., Yeh, I.B., Chan, B.P.L., & Edwards, A.M. (2019). Age and proficiency in the bilin-
gual brain revisited: Activation patterns across different L2-learner types. Frontiers in Communication, 4(39).
https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2019.00039
Ojemann, G.A., & Whitaker, H.A. (1978). The bilingual brain. Archives of Neurology, 35(7), 409–412. https://
doi.org/10.1001/archneur.1978.00500310011002
56
Pandža, N. B. (this volume). Using non-invasive brain stimulation to investigate second language. In K. Morgan-
Short and J.G. van Hell (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and neurolinguistics.
Routledge.
Paradis, M. (1977). Bilingualism and Aphasia. In H. Whitaker & H.A. Whitaker (Eds.), Studies in neurolinguistics
(pp. 65–121). Academic Press. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-746303-2.50008-7
Paradis, M. (1992). The Loch Ness Monster approach to bilingual language lateralization: A response to
Berquier and Ashton. Brain and Language, 43(3), 534–537. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/
0093-934X(92)90118-X
Paradis, M. (1997). The cognitive neuropsychology of bilingualism. In A.M.B. de Groot & J.F. Kroll (Eds.),
Tutorials in bilingualism: Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 331–354). Psychology Press.
Paradis, M., Goldblum, M.C., & Abidi, R. (1982). Alternate antagonism with paradoxical translation
behavior in two bilingual aphasic patients. Brain and Language, 15(1), 55–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/
0093-934x(82)90046-3
Penfield, W. (1953). A consideration of the neurophysiological mechanisms of speech and some educational
consequences. Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 82, 199–214.
Perani, D., Abutalebi, J., Paulesu, E., Brambati, S., Scifo, P., Cappa, S.F., & Fazio, F. (2003). The role of age
of acquisition and language usage in early, high-proficient bilinguals: an fMRI study during verbal fluency.
Human Brain Mapping, 19(3), 170–182. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.10110
Perani, D., Paulesu, E., Galles, N.S., Dupoux, E., Dehaene, S., Bettinardi, V., Cappa, S.F., Fazio, F., & Mehler,
J. (1998). The bilingual brain. Proficiency and age of acquisition of the second language. Brain, 121, 1841–
1852. htpps://doi.org/10.1093/brain/121.10.1841
Pierce, L.J., Chen, J.K., Delcenserie, A., Genesee, F., & Klein, D. (2015). Past experience shapes ongoing neural
patterns for language. Nature Communications, 6, 10073. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms10073
Pitres, A. (1895). Etude sur l’aphasie chez les polyglottes. Revue de Médecine, 15, 873–899.
Price, C.J. (2012). A review and synthesis of the first 20 years of PET and fMRI studies of heard speech, spoken
language and reading. NeuroImage, 62(2), 816–847. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.04.062
Rossi, E., Voits, T., & DeLuca, V. (this volume). Using structural imaging to investigate second language. In
K. Morgan-Short and J.G. van Hell (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and
Scott, T.L., Gallée, J., & Fedorenko, E. (2017). A new fun and robust version of an fMRI localizer for the
frontotemporal language system. Cognitive Neuroscience, 8(3), 167–176. https://doi.org/10.1080/17588
928.2016.1201466
Shain, C., Blank, I.A., van Schijndel, M., Schuler, W., & Fedorenko, E. (2020). fMRI reveals language-specific
predictive coding during naturalistic sentence comprehension. Neuropsychologia, 138, 107307. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2019.107307
Smith, S.M., Fox, P.T., Miller, K.L., Glahn, D.C., Fox, P.M., Mackay, C.E., Filippini, N., Watkins, K.E., Toro,
R., Laird, A.R., & Beckmann, C.F. (2009). Correspondence of the brain’s functional architecture during acti-
vation and rest. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(31), 13040–13045. https://doi.org/
10.1073/pnas.0905267106
Smith, S.M., Vidaurre, D., Beckmann, C.F., Glasser, M.F., Jenkinson, M., Miller, K.L., Nichols, T.E., Robinson,
E.C., Salimi-Khorshidi, G., Woolrich, M.W., Barch, D.M., Uğurbil, K., & Van Essen, D.C. (2013). Functional
connectomics from resting-state fMRI. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(12), 666–682. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.tics.2013.09.016
Soares, J.M., Magalhães, R., Moreira, P.S., Sousa, A., Ganz, E., Sampaio, A., Alves, V., Marques, P., & Sousa,
N. (2016). A hitchhiker’s guide to functional magnetic resonance imaging. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 10,
515–515. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2016.00515
Stiers, P., Mennes, M., & Sunaert, S. (2010). Distributed task coding throughout the multiple demand net-
work of the human frontal-insular cortex. NeuroImage, 52(1), 252–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroim
age.2010.03.078
of functional neuroimaging studies. Neurosci Biobehav Rev, 108, 834–853. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubio
rev.2019.12.014
org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.02.061
Tan, L.H., Spinks, J.A., Feng, C.M., Siok, W.T., Perfetti, C.A., Xiong, J., Fox, P.T., & Gao, J.H. (2003). Neural
systems of second language reading are shaped by native language. Human Brain Mapping, 18(3), 158–166.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.10089
57
Van de Putte, E., De Baene, W., Brass, M., & Duyck, W. (2017). Neural overlap of L1 and L2 semantic
representations in speech: A decoding approach. NeuroImage, 162, 106–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neu
roimage.2017.08.082
Van de Putte, E., De Baene, W., Price, C.J., & Duyck, W. (2018). Neural overlap of L1 and L2 semantic
representations across visual and auditory modalities: a decoding approach. Neuropsychologia, 113, 68–77.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2018.03.037
Ventura-Campos, N., Sanjuán, A., González, J., Palomar-García, M.-Á., Rodríguez-Pujadas, A., Sebastián-
Gallés, N., Deco, G., & Ávila, C. (2013). Spontaneous brain activity predicts learning ability of foreign
sounds. The Journal of Neuroscience, 33(22), 9295–9305. https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.4655-12.2013
Veroude, K., Norris, D.G., Shumskaya, E., Gullberg, M., & Indefrey, P. (2010). Functional connectivity between
brain regions involved in learning words of a new language. Brain and Language, 113(1), 21–27. https://doi.
org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2009.12.005
Wartenburger, I., Heekeren, H.R., Abutalebi, J., Cappa, S.F., Villringer, A., & Perani, D. (2003). Early
setting of grammatical processing in the bilingual brain. Neuron, 37(1), 159–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/
s0896-6273(02)01150-9
Xu, M., Baldauf, D., Chang, C.Q., Desimone, R., & Tan, L.H. (2017). Distinct distributed patterns of neural
activity are associated with two languages in the bilingual brain. Science Advances, 3(7), e1603309. https://
doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1603309
Zheng, B., Báez, S., Su, L., Xiang, X., Weis, S., Ibáñez, A., & García, A.M. (2020). Semantic and attentional
networks in bilingual processing: fMRI connectivity signatures of translation directionality. Brain and
Cognition, 143, 105584. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2020.105584
58
5
USING STRUCTURAL
NEUROIMAGING TO
INVESTIGATE SECOND
LANGUAGE
Introduction
Despite the past belief that the brain is static, and that it reaches its peak performance in young
adulthood and then steadily declines as age progresses, early seminal research on neuroplasticity in
animal models (Rosenzweig et al., 1962) demonstrated that the brain is quickly pliable, as a conse-
quence of enriched environmental conditions, different task demands, and different life experiences.
Those key animal models’ findings were based on invasive histological methodologies, involving
slicing and analyzing rats’ brains. Despite the high informativity of those results, this invasive type
of experiments would clearly not be ethical in healthy human subjects. However, with the relatively
recent advent and development of neuroimaging methods such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI),
scientists in the field have been able to study the neuroplasticity of the human brain non-invasively,
at a relatively large scale, and with increasing replicability across laboratories.
The emergence of neuroimaging methods has enabled collecting neural data non-invasively, and
in-real time, and has revealed that the same neuroplasticity observed in early animal models applies
to the human brain. In the last two decades, research has shown that the human brain changes rapidly
and adapts greatly depending on one’s environment and life experiences. For example, neuroplastic
changes in the brain’s grey matter (primarily composed by neurons’ cell bodies composing the most
superficial part of the brain’s cortex) and white matter (primarily composed by the neurons’ axons)
have been demonstrated to occur as a result of long-term engagement in cognitively demanding tasks,
including motor learning (Bengtsson et al., 2005), visual memory (Maguire et al., 2000), and even
higher-level meditation practices (Hernández et al., 2016). Learning any new cognitively demanding
skill places demands on the cognitive/neural systems that are implicated by it. In response, the brain
is thought to both form new dendritic spines, the formation of which facilitates new neural pathways,
and prune existing ones to handle the cognitive demands associated with the new skill more optimally
and efficiently (Fuchs & Flügge, 2014; see Korenar & Pliatsikas, this volume for a theoretical per-
spective of brain plasticity and second language).
Bilingualism and second language (L2) learning are key examples of such a cognitively demanding
and enriching skill. The data on the effects of L2 learning and bilingualism has been shown to have
consequences for (both) language(s) at the linguistic level (e.g., Leivada et al., 2021), but critically
also for brain structure, brain connectivity, and recruitment patterns (Abutalebi et al., 2012; Li et al.,
2015; Pliatsikas, 2019; Rossi, et al., 2017). Substantial evidence in the field supports the hypothesis
that the observed linguistic and structural effects stem from the underlying language competition
DOI: 10.4324/9781003190912-7 59
and the cognitive demands to manage two (or more) languages (see Kroll et al., 2013; Rothman
et al., 2019). The study of the structure of the human brain, and especially the investigation of neural
adaptations that may occur in response to L2 learning, and/or bilingualism more generally, has been
increasingly studied in the last two decades (e.g., DeLuca et al., 2020; Li et al., 2014), especially due
to the availability of MRI and other neuroimaging methods that have catalyzed the study of the struc-
ture and function of the human brain. The description of these methodologies and their applications
to the bilingual brain will be the focus of this chapter.
Bilingualism is still too often assumed to be a constant or a perfectly dichotomous variable at
best. However, recent research in the field is increasingly highlighting how bilingualism exists on
a rather vast continuum of contextual factors that come together to form different individual bilin-
gual profiles. For example, variables such as (a) age-of-acquisition; (b) duration of bilingualism;
(c) patterns of using both languages (separately and/or how they are interspersed in the same dis-
course) across an array of domains; (d) size and nature of the speech communities; (e) density of an
individual’s linguistic social networks; (f) expected/normative choice and prestige of the languages in
the society, and many more factors influence the degree of domain general neurocognitive adaptation.
Even though first steps have been taken to unveil how this multi-level variability modulates struc-
tural and functional brain changes (e.g., Gullifer et al., 2018), this question(s) is still very much open
and will most likely represent the next scientific challenge for the bilingualism scientific community.
The goal of this chapter is to describe (a) the major neuroimaging methods that have been utilized
to date to track structural brain changes that occur in response to L2 learning and bilingualism. We
will then exemplify how data from these methodologies have revealed (b) that the brain changes and
adapts to handle the control and processing demands associated with L2 learning and bilingualism,
and (c) that these adaptations continue to facilitate the handling of these demands in the most efficient
way possible. We will then also highlight the strengths and weaknesses of these methodologies, and
discuss future directions for the research in the field.
Structural Neuroimaging: Critical Concepts and Definitions

The human brain is a highly complex organ. It is beyond the scope of this chapter to thoroughly
describe the human neural central system, but we will provide general concepts that will be important
to understand the basic functioning of the neuroimaging methods that we will describe. For an in-
depth description of the neuroanatomy of the human brain we refer the reader to classic neuroanatomy
textbooks (i.e., Kandel et al., 2000).
The brain is composed of individual nerve cells or neurons. A neuron is considered to be the
basic building block of the brain and characteristically consists of the cell nucleus, multiple smaller
processes called dendrites and a (typically) single longer, more prominent process called the axon.
The dendrites link to other nerve cells via synapses and transmit the information to the cell nucleus.
The cell nucleus fires small impulses called action potentials transmitting them to the effector via
the axon. Unlike dendrites and cell bodies, axons are typically covered in myelin—a fatty tissue that
wraps around the axon forming a sheath, which has the function of facilitating electrical conduction in
axons. Clusters of cell nuclei, which are not covered in a myelin sheath, form what is known as grey
matter, due to its pinkish-grey appearance. Grey matter forms the folded outermost layer of the brain
(the cortex), as well as some subcortical structures deep inside the brain, and consists of cell bodies
and dendrites. Myelinated axon fibers, on the other hand, form what is known as white matter, due to
the whitish appearance of myelin. The white matter consists of bundles of axons that, in turn, form
tracts and is primarily responsible for communication of neural signals between different areas of the
brain. Critically, as we will detail below, grey matter and white matter have different physiological
and structural properties that can be capitalized on by MRI to disentangle different brain structures.
60
Using Structural Neuroimaging to Investigate Second Language
MRI started to be used in the early 1980s to capture three-dimensional structural images of the
brain, and has since become the primary neuroimaging technique to study the structure and the
function of the human brain. MRI is a non-invasive imaging technique that provides measures of
brain structure (e.g., anatomy, measures of white matter integrity), and brain function (i.e., func-
tional MRI or fMRI) with an excellent spatial resolution (~1-2mm). Even though the vast majority
of the MRI neuroimaging literature on language processing has capitalized on the functional aspects
of MRI (see Kousaie & Klein, this volume, for more details on using fMRI to investigate L2), in this
chapter we will focus on understanding how MRI has been used as a technique in and of itself to
study the relative structural neuroplastic changes in brain structure associated with bilingualism and
L2 learning.
MRI relies on the natural magnetic properties of hydrogen atoms in different types of biological
tissues captured by an induced strong external magnetic field (the MRI scanner, which is essen-
tially a very large magnet), to produce high resolution images of the brain. There is an abundance
of water molecules in the brain, of which hydrogen is the most common chemical. Under normal
circumstances, hydrogen protons spin on their axis in a random fashion. However, in the presence
of a constant strong external magnetic field, such as the MRI scanner, the spin axes line up. The
MRI scanner consists of a main magnet and set of transmitting and receiving coils. With spins of the
hydrogen protons lined up to the external magnetic field, a radio frequency (RF) pulse can be emitted
that causes the spin vectors to deflect and absorb energy. During MR image acquisition, the RF pulses
are switched on and off. In the absence of RF pulse, protons realign with the external magnetic field
and, by doing so, release the RF energy that can be picked up by receiver coils in the MRI scanner.
Critically, as different types of tissues (i.e., bone, cartilage, grey matter, white matter, water, etc.)
have different relaxation times, they can then be identified separately within the MRI to form a three-
dimensional image of the brain. Moreover, different scanning sequences capitalize on two types of
relaxation. T1 (or longitudinal) relaxation captures the return of the excited protons to realignment
with the external magnetic field; T2 (or transverse) relaxation captures the decay of transverse mag-
netization (i.e., when the direction of tissue magnetization is at a 90 degrees angle with respect to
the direction of the magnetic field, and is thus in the transverse plane). Contrast and brightness of
different types of tissue in the acquired MRI image will be determined by T1 and T2 relaxation prop-
erties. The images that are acquired with MRI can then be processed to gather measures of structural
integrity, shape, volume, and density of brain areas and the related structures.
Standard anatomical images (e.g., T1-and/or T2-weighted images) can provide volumetric
measures of grey matter, white matter, subcortical structures, and fluids, such as cerebrospinal fluid
(Kandel et al., 2000). These measures are then analyzed via sophisticated analyses that enable add-
itional structural assessments such as measures of grey matter density or cortical thickness and
gyrification, which we will describe more in depth below. These relatively new types of methods
are used to quantify changes in brain structures, for example neural adaptations after language
immersion and/or new language learning. MRI also permits the acquisition of sequences that enable
the tracking of the structure of white matter. As we will describe, diffusion tensor imaging examines
white matter integrity by capitalizing on the anisotropy of water flow (i.e., the ability of a substance
to have differential values when measured in different directions) as an indicator of white matter
integrity.
In sum, MRI is the primary method that allows the examination of the structure of the human
brain in a non-invasive manner. It has great spatial resolution and can be easily coupled with other
neuroimaging methods and with behavioral data obtained outside the scanner, which explains the
wide adoption of this method to study the structural effects of bilingualism and L2 learning in
neuroscientific research. In what follows, we first provide a historical excursus of the methods that
inform the structure and changes that occur in the human brain. Then, we present several current
61
neurocognitive methods used in bilingualism/L2 research, and a description of their advantages and
disadvantages. Finally, we present key studies to exemplify each method, and conclude the chapter
by identifying perspectives for future research in the field.
The investigation of the neural structure of the brain, its changes, and its connection with language is
certainly not as recent as one might assume. It dates back millennia, far preceding the development
of modern neuroimaging techniques. Findings of skulls on which surgeries have been performed on,
date back to over 5,000 years ago (Finger, 2001). Similarly, an Egyptian papyrus dating from 1700
BC (Breasted, 1930) contains the description of 48 medical cases written by an Egyptian surgeon
including the earliest known description of a case of aphasia. This description of an aphasic patient,
pre-dates the famous work on aphasia by Paul Broca (1861) by thousands of years!
More recently, starting from the nineteenth century, the neuroanatomy of the human brain has been
investigated mainly through the study of clinical lesions. Abundant anatomo-clinical reports have
provided fundamental data for the structural localization of various cognitive functions, including a
“map” of areas dedicated to language processing (for a review, see Luzzatti & Whitaker, 1996). The
anatomo-clinical method yielded information on what areas of the brain subserve specific linguistic
functions, including a rich literature on early cases of bilingual aphasia that permitted the mapping
and theorizing of how multiple languages are represented in the brain (for detailed information on this
topic, see Scimeca et al., this volume). The early anatomo-pathological models that emerged from
this work, have been primarily based on post-mortem brain analyses, and have since been enriched
by years of psycholinguistic research that has investigated the bases of language processing, leading
to the formulation of foundational psycholinguistic models (e.g., Levelt, 1989). Although behav-
ioral psycholinguistic research thrived, the research on the structure of the brain and its linguistic
underpinnings was at a halt, mainly due to the lack of technology that enabled researching the struc-
ture (and changes thereof) of the human brain in vivo, beyond the analysis of post-mortem brains.
Even though the idea that blood flow was somehow associated with human brain structure
and function was already proposed in 1878 by an Italian physiologist (Mosso, 1881), and fur-
ther formalized by Roy and Sherrington (1890), it was only in the 1970s with the invention and
introduction of x-ray computed tomography and positron emission tomography (PET) that it was
possible to capture an image of the brain in vivo. In 1982, PET was also used to track changes in
blood flow during a behavioral task with a relatively good temporal resolution. However, it was
with the introduction of MRI in 1982, with its ability to track the various structures of the brain
non-invasively, and later create clear images of the human brain “at work” with fMRI (in the 1990s)
that the doors to what we know today as modern cognitive neuroscience were opened. Since the
advent of (f)MRI, and its applications to human neurocognition, the literature in the field of the
neurocognition of language (including bilingualism) and its structural underpinning have exploded.
For a detailed account of the various technological advances of human brain mapping, we refer to
Raichle’s review (2009).
Methods and Paradigms

In this section, we describe the current MRI methodologies that are used to study structural changes
in the human brain. We start from measures to study grey matter adaptation to language learning
experience, and we then continue to methodologies used to capture structural white matter changes.
For each method, we also provide a short section describing benefits and disadvantages. A visual
summary of the described methods is provided in Figure 5.1.
62
Figure 5.1 Summary of the key methods that are used to study brain structural changes in L2 acquisition and
bilingualism.
Structural Neuroimaging: Methods for Studying Grey Matter Adaptation

A variety of techniques currently exist that have been used to study patterns of grey matter struc-
ture adaptations to L2 learning and bilingual engagement (Luk et al., 2020). Herein, we focus on
describing the bases of three more commonly used techniques in the field.
Voxel-based morphometry (VBM) is one of the primary techniques used to assess neural grey
matter volume and density. In general terms, VBM compares grey matter concentrations per voxel
across the brain, either between groups, or across subjects (Ashburner & Friston, 2000). In VBM ana-
lysis, subjects’ brains are first segmented into distinct tissue types, then registered to a study-specific
template, and then to standard space. The images are then spatially smoothed to increase across-
subject comparability. Regional signal intensities are then used to calculate grey matter density within
voxels.
Benefits and disadvantages: A primary benefit of VBM is the ability to provide robust measurements
of grey matter volume and/or density across the whole brain, including the cerebellum and (in prin-
ciple) subcortical structures. This method, however, also carries some limitations. First, the requisite
registration to a standard space means warping of some brain regions. Furthermore, given that some
degree of spatial smoothing is required, this technique may be unable to capture some smaller,
more granular adaptations, for example, shape changes seen within the subcortical structures (e.g.,
Burgaleta et al., 2016; Pliatsikas et al., 2017).
Cortical thickness (CT) is another technique developed for examining regional morphological
patterns of grey matter (Ad-Dab’bagh et al., 2005; Fischl & Dale, 2000). Differently than VBM,
which is specific to measure volume density, CT establishes the extent of grey matter as defined
between the white matter and pial surface (i.e., the surface representing the boundary between grey
matter and cerebrospinal fluid) within the cortex and uses these boundaries to establish the thickness
of the cortex at any given point. Akin to VBM, subject brains are also registered to standard space.
White matter intensity measures are then used to determine the extent of white matter across the
volume, with values being assigned to (a) white matter or (b) other tissue type. A surface is then
63
generated based on this segmentation and refined based on intensity gradients per tissue type. Refined
white matter and pial surfaces are then laid over the T1 image and distance between these is calculated
to give thickness values across the cortex.
Benefits and disadvantages: A primary benefit of CT is that it allows for a granular view of specific
regional fluctuations across the cortex, as it is more sensitive to regional folding patterns within sulci
and gyri. This said, it also carries some limitations. First, like VBM, whole-brain CT analyses typic-
ally require registration to standard space for individual-or group-level comparisons, which entails
some degree of warping. Furthermore, as the name implies, the subcortical structures and cerebellum
cannot be included in this analysis, limiting the scope of examination.
Finally, vertex-based analysis (VBA) was developed specifically for regional shape adaptations
within several of the subcortical regions including the thalamus, caudate nucleus, putamen, hippo-
campus, amygdala, and others (Patenaude et al., 2011). Via a Bayesian framework of shape, subcor-
tical structures are extracted and registered to standard space. Coordinate maps for each subject are
then projected onto the standard template for each structure. The resulting spatial maps from this
projection signify positive and negative displacement values, which are used as a measure of shape
deviation.
Benefits and disadvantages: The primary advantage of VBA is its degree of granularity in exam-
ining structural patterns and changes. This is particularly useful within the subcortical structures
where regional patterns of adaptations may be too subtle to be captured in a volumetric analysis
(like VBM for example). Of course, this technique also carries some limitations. First, like CT and
VBM, it also requires registration to standard space, which entails a degree of warping. Furthermore,
depending on the package used, this technique might only be useful in, or realistically applicable to,
the subcortical structures.
Structural Neuroimaging: Techniques for Studying White Matter Adaptation

MRI can be used to investigate structural changes not only in grey matter, but also in white matter.
Diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) is a MR technique that captures directional water displacements in
white matter tracts (Le Bihan et al., 2001), and is used to investigate changes in white matter structure
an integrity. The basic idea behind DTI is that water tends to flow anisotropically (i.e., directionally
dependent) when it is constrained by a biological “vector,” for example by the myelin sheath, and
isotropically (not directionally dependent) when it is not constrained. For example, cerebrospinal
fluid, which is not constrained, flows relatively isotropically in the ventricles within the brain and in
the spinal cord (Le Bihan et al., 2001).
DTI data is collected using specific MRI recording sequences. The duration of the sequence ranges
from four to ten minutes, depending on the resolution and scanner characteristics. The statistical
model that describes the three-dimensional diffusivity direction of each white matter voxel is called
a tensor. The tensor model in each voxel allows the calculation of levels of diffusivity and anisotropy
that describe the shape of the white matter tract using water displacement as a measurement. DTI data
enables calculating common measures of water diffusion in the white matter tracts, such as: (a) axial
diffusivity, indicating diffusivity parallel to a white matter tract; (b) radial diffusivity, indicating the
diffusivity of water molecules perpendicular to a white matter tract; (c) mean diffusivity, representing
the average diffusivity across all directions; and finally (d) fractional anisotropy, indexing whether
the diffusion is isotropic (when the value is 0, indicating non-directional diffusion) or anisotropic
(when the value is 1, indicating complete directional diffusion). It is important to remember though,
that the interpretation of fractional anisotropy values should be combined with the knowledge of the
anatomical structure of the white matter architecture, given that white matter fibers cross in specific
directions. Degrees of fractional anisotropy can thus be measured across many directions depending
64
on the direction of the white matter fibers to ascertain the directionality of water flow in each voxel
of the brain (Le Bihan et al., 2001). To date, the standard is to measure mean diffusivity in more than
six directions (measured in degrees). This type of information from each voxel can then be combined
with tractography measures to provide an estimate of longer-range directionalities (e.g., tracts), using
tract-based spatial statistics.
Benefits and disadvantages: A primary benefit of DTI is that it allows for several robust
measurements of white matter microstructure across the brain. Like the other methods described
above, however, this method also carries some limitations to its application. First, due to the way
in which diffusion tensors are calculated, the method is somewhat limited in accuracy in meas-
uring white matter microstructure in areas where fiber tracts cross. Second, it is unable to be used to
measure structural connectivity between brain regions.
Structural Neuroimaging to Study L2 and Bilingualism: Example Studies

In this section, we discuss one key example for each of the above-described methodologies to show
how they have been applied to examine the effects of L2 learning and/or bilingual experience on
the structure of the human brain. Here, we focus on studies that tested young adults. Note, however,
that the findings might not generalize to the intersection of bilingualism in populations that undergo
developmental brain changes (e.g., in childhood and in older adulthood). See the Further Readings
section below for additional, empirical work for each method.
Voxel-Based Morphometry
Mårtensson and colleagues (Mårtensson et al., 2012) used VBM to examine brain plasticity over
early stages of non-native language learning. In a longitudinal design, participants were tested in
two separate scan sessions, an initial, baseline scan, and an additional scan after three months of an
intensive language acquisition program. The participants were young adults in the Swedish mili-
tary training to be interpreters. A control group was also included in the study that was composed
of university students. The results demonstrated that grey matter volumes in the left superior tem-
poral gyrus, left middle frontal gyrus, and right hippocampus showed significant increases in the
three months post-learning for the interpreters but crucially not for the control group. Hippocampal
volumes also increased significantly more over the three-month period for the interpreters relative
to the controls. Furthermore, within the interpreters, proficiency in language acquisition (measured
by participants’ course performance) correlated positively to grey matter volume in the left superior
temporal gyrus and right hippocampus, whereas increased effort to reach language learning goals
correlated positively with grey matter volume in the left middle frontal gyrus. Altogether, this study
provides evidence that engaging in L2 learning (in this case assumingly at an intense pace), catalyzes
rapid neural grey matter volumetric changes, suggesting a general effect of L2 learning in neural
reshaping.
Cortical Thickness
CT has been utilized as a key measure to study how bilingualism can shape the human brain. Here
we showcase a recent key example. Klein and colleagues (2014) examined the effects of bilingualism
and L2 age of acquisition (AoA) on regional cortical thickness. Three groups of participants were
tested: monolinguals, simultaneous bilinguals, and sequential bilinguals who learned an L2 later in
childhood (8–13 years). The results revealed that late bilinguals had greater cortical thickness (CT)
in the left inferior frontal gyrus (specifically, pars triangularis and orbitalis) than monolinguals and
65
early bilinguals, accompanied by a reduction in CT in the right inferior frontal gyrus. Interestingly,
AoA and CT were positively correlated in the left inferior frontal gyrus and negatively correlated in
the right inferior frontal gyrus. That is, the later the AoA, the thicker the left inferior frontal gyrus
and thinner the right inferior frontal gyrus. CT in the left superior parietal lobe was also positively
correlated with AoA. The authors concluded that length of bilingualism has a differential effect on
changes in measures of CT, and that length of length of L2 use modulates CT.
Vertex-Based Analysis
Pliatsikas and colleagues (2017) assessed the effects of L2 immersion on adaptations within the sub-
cortical structures using a vertex-based analysis, which is not easily addressable via cortical thickness
analyses. They tested two experimental populations. Both were L2 speakers of English living in the
UK at the time of testing but differed primarily in their length of residence in the UK. The immersed
bilingual group had a mean length of residence of 7.6 years, whereas the low-immersion group had
a mean length of residence of 3.9 years. Both groups were compared to monolingual controls. Two
effects were examined: (a) group effects (comparing bilinguals to monolinguals); and (b) continuous
effects of language experience, i.e., proficiency, age of acquisition (years), and immersion time (for
the bilingual population only). Comparing bilinguals (with both short and long immersion time) to
the monolinguals, significant shape changes (expansions) were found in the thalamus, globus pal-
lidus, and putamen. Regressions with measures of language experience showed that length of L2
immersion predicted shape change in the globus pallidus bilaterally. Comparing the low-immersion
bilinguals to the monolinguals, shape changes (both expansions and contractions) were found in the
caudate nucleus, but no significant effects for any of the language experiences for this group were
found. The results indicate that prolonged L2 exposure in an immersive context supports increased
measurable efficiency.
Diffusion-Tensor Imaging
Kuhl et al. (2016) examined the effects of L2 immersion on white matter integrity. Two groups of
participants were scanned: young adult Spanish–English bilinguals, and a native-English speaking
control group. All participants were residing in the United States at time of testing. The bilingual
participants started learning English upon moving to the United States. Participants completed a lan-
guage background questionnaire and were scanned with a DTI sequence. Fractional anisotropy and
mean diffusivity values were calculated and compared across participants using the specific dedicated
pipelines in MRI software packages. Generally, higher fractional anisotropy and lower mean diffu-
sivity values were observed for the bilingual group in frontal tracts, while lower values were seen in
posterior tracts. In relation to length of immersion in the US, a negative correlation was found for
all diffusivity values and a positive correlation for fractional anisotropy values, suggesting that the
longer the immersion in the L2 environment, the greater the change in white matter. Furthermore,
mean diffusivity in anterior tracts of the left hemisphere was modulated by increased L2 exposure
(listening), whereas production (speaking) was found to modulate fractional anisotropy values in the
posterior section of the left hemisphere.

Even though there is a sizable body of literature, the literature covering neuroanatomical adaptations
to L2 (and bilingualism more generally) is still relatively young, and much remains to be explored.
Indeed, several study designs and methodological innovations could bring novel insights to this
66
topic, some of which we address here. Herein, we highlight several directions that could be used
to better capture variability in L2/bilingualism and structural adaptation, to further methodological
developments, and to combine structural imaging with other complementary techniques.
Extending Structural Designs to Better Capture Neural Change

As introduced, bilingualism is increasingly recognized as a multifaceted, rather than monolithic phe-
nomenon. For example, key variables such as age of acquisition, proficiency, and immersion in a L2
environment, the characteristics of that immersive environment, the length of immersion, together
with other emerging variables, including the size and typology of our social network, might shape the
magnitude and type of the observable structural brain changes, and require additional investigations.
One potential strategy to tackle the diversity of these variables and understand how they might shape
neural structural changes would ideally involve large-scale studies across multiple laboratories around
the world. This would allow for more direct comparisons across diverse populations and better cap-
ture the dynamic relationship between specific language use patterns and bilingualism-induced neural
plasticity (Stein et al., 2014).
On a similar note, most work to date comes from group studies looking at a specific type of
bilinguals/learners at a particular point in time, which, while useful for showing trends across a
population, only provide a single snapshot in time of individuals’ trajectories of adaptation to L2
acquisition and use. One key future direction to better understand these effects would be to study this
trajectory from a long-term (i.e., over multiple years) longitudinal perspective. The key advantage to
using such designs is that they allow for the use of subjects as their own baselines, and thus more dir-
ectly track the nature and degree of structural adaptations to specific aspects of L2, but crucially how
these would dynamically shift over time (see, Pliatsikas, 2020; Korenar & Pliatsikas, this volume).
Extending the concept of longer-term longitudinal research, the applications of such study designs
could be extended to examine the interaction of bilingual experiences with brain development and
cognitive aging. Such cohort studies already exist, though none have data on bilingualism in detail.
Adding a bilingualism component to such research should be relatively easy to do.
Future Directions: Methodological Developments

Methodologies have and will continue to evolve and improve. Given some of the limitations of the
techniques described in this chapter, several methodological advances might prove useful in the fur-
ther study of L2-related neuro-anatomical adaptation. For example, surface-based morphometry
has been shown to provide a more nuanced measure of grey matter volume across the cortex (e.g.,
Del Maschio et al., 2019). Surface-based morphometry is not constrained to the same degree of
smoothing as VBM and thus may be able to provide more fine-grained measures of grey matter adap-
tation (Fischl & Dale, 2000; Pantazis et al., 2010).
Similarly, structural connectivity via tractography or connectometry is another potentially useful
tool for examining adaptations to bilingual experience (for applications of these techniques see Fedeli
et al., 2021; Rahmani et al, 2017), though relatively few studies to date have used it within the field
of neurocognition and bilingualism. Tractography can be used to measure the degree of connectivity
between specific brain regions whereas tract-based spatial statistics provides a metric of white matter
microstructure but cannot be used to measure specific connection between regions, as discussed
above (but see Köhncke et al., 2021 for a multimodal study).
Critically, most studies on L2 and the brain investigate structural adaptations at a macroscopic
level, that is, measuring changes in white matter integrity or grey matter volume/density at a rank of
individual white matter tracts, cortical areas, or subcortical structures. However, very little is known
67
about the molecular underpinnings of structural brain change (which is true for general neurosci-
ence). To this end, few recent studies have used various biomarkers as precursors to changes in
structural adaptations in response to L2 experience. Only a handful of studies to date have taken this
approach. Two of these have used magnetic resonance spectroscopy (Pliatsikas et al., 2021; Weekes
et al., 2018), which allows one to measure the concentration of various brain metabolites. Metabolite
levels can serve as indicators for underlying processes supporting dendritic branching and neural
proliferation leading to changes observable on the macroscopic scale. In addition to tapping into
brain metabolites, one study has investigated the link between bilingualism and Alzheimer’s dis-
ease biomarkers in the cerebrospinal fluid in healthy middle-aged individuals (Estanga et al., 2017).
The results demonstrated that bilingual experience moderated the relationship between total-tau
protein concentration and age, such that bilinguals had a more favorable CSF-AD (cerebrospinal
fluid-Alzheimer’s disease) biomarker profile indicating a lower risk to develop Alzheimer’s dis-
ease. Examining metabolites and biomarkers in combination with structural neuroimaging is a
viable future research avenue. As the field advances and structural changes linked to bilingualism
(in its nuance as a set of experiences) become better understood, the underlying mechanisms driving
these adaptations will become subject to empirical investigation. Studying brain structure provides
only one of several aspects related to bilingualism-induced neural plasticity. In sum, by combining
structural, functional, and other methods tapping in the brain, researchers will be able to develop
a more holistic overview and a better understanding of graded brain adaptations in response to L2
experience.
Further Readings
This recent VBM study shows the structural adaptation effects of L2 learning on grey matter volume, revealing
decreased volume in cingulate cortex (ACC) and right inferior frontal gyrus (IFG) after L2 learning for one year.
Importantly, these modulations are modulated by L2 proficiency.
Liu, C., Jiao, L., Timmer, K., & Wang, R. (2021). Structural brain changes with second language learning: A
longitudinal voxel-based morphometry study. Brain and Language, 222, Article 105015. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.bandl.2021.105015
This recent study compared young bilingual and monolingual adolescents and found that bilinguals had thinner
cortex than monolinguals in several cortical regions. In addition, this study highlights that within bilinguals more
L2 use is reflected in greater CT.
Vaughn, K.A., Nguyen, M.V., Ronderos, J., & Hernandez, A.E. (2021). Cortical thickness in bilingual and mono-
lingual children: Relationships to language use and language skill. NeuroImage, 243, Article 118560. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2021.118560
This recent CT study evaluates the effects of acquiring an L2 both with regards to oral fluency and written abil-
ities and highlights the roles of Age of Acquisition as a modulator of the observed affects.
Tu, L., Niu, M., Pan, X., Hanakawa, T., Liu, X., Lu, Z., Gao, W., Ouyang, D., Zhang, M., Li, S., Wang, J., Jiang,
B., & Huang, R. (2021). Age of acquisition of Mandarin modulates cortical thickness in high-proficient
Cantonese–Mandarin bidialectals. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 50, 723–736. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10936-020-09716-5
This recent DTI study illustrates the effects of bilingualism on white matter structures across the lifespan and
demonstrates that increased engagement in bilingual language use correlates with a slower decline in white
matter integrity with age.
DeLuca, V., & Voits, T. (2022). Bilingual experience affects white matter integrity across the lifespan.
Neuropsychologia, 169, Article 108191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2022.108191
References
Abutalebi, J., Della Rosa, P.A., Green, D.W., Hernandez, M., Scifo, P., Keim, R., Cappa, S.F., & Costa, A. (2012).
Bilingualism tunes the anterior cingulate cortex for conflict monitoring. Cerebral Cortex, 22(9), 2076–2086.
https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhr287
68
Ad-Dab’bagh, Y., Singh, V., Robbins, S., Lerch, J., Lyttelton, O., Fombonne, E., & Evans, A.C. (2005). Native
space cortical thickness measurement and the absence of correlation to cerebral volume. In K. Zilles (Ed.),
Proceedings of the 11th Annual Meeting of the Organization for Human Brain Mapping. Toronto: NeuroImage.
Ashburner, J., & Friston, K.J. (2000). Voxel-based morphometry—the methods. NeuroImage, 11(6 Pt 1), 805–
821. https://doi.org/10.1006/nimg.2000.0582
Bengtsson, S.L., Nagy, Z., Skare, S., Forsman, L., Forssberg, H., & Ullén, F. (2005). Extensive piano practicing
has regionally specific effects on white matter development. Nature Neuroscience, 8(9), 1148–1150. https://
doi.org/10.1038/nn1516
Breasted J.H. (1930). The Edwin Smith Papyrus: Published in Facsimile and Hieroglyphic Transliteration with
Translation and Commentary. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Broca, P. (1861). Remarks on the seat of the faculty of articulated language, following an observation of aphemia
(loss of speech). Bulletin de la Société Anatomique, 6, 330–357.
Burgaleta, M., Sanjuán, A., Ventura-Campos, N., Sebastián-Gallés, N., & Ávila, C. (2016). Bilingualism at the
core of the brain. Structural differences between bilinguals and monolinguals revealed by subcortical shape
analysis. NeuroImage, 125, 437–445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.09.073
Del Maschio, N., Fedeli, D., Sulpizio, S., & Abutalebi, J. (2019). The relationship between bilingual experience
and gyrification in adulthood: A cross-sectional surface-based morphometry study. Brain and Language, 198,
104680. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2019.104680
DeLuca, V., Segaert, K., Mazaheri, A., & Krott, A. (2020). Understanding bilingual brain function and structure
changes? U bet! A unified bilingual experience trajectory model. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 56, Article
100930. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2020.100930
DeLuca, V., & Voits, T. (2022). Bilingual experience affects white matter integrity across the lifespan.
Neuropsychologia, 169, Article 108191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2022.108191
Estanga, A., Ecay-Torres, M., Ibañez, A., Izagirre, A., Villanua, J., Garcia-Sebastian, M., … & Martinez-Lage, P.
(2017). Beneficial effect of bilingualism on Alzheimer’s disease CSF biomarkers and cognition. Neurobiology
of Aging, 50, 144–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2016.10.013
Fedeli, D., Del Maschio, N., Sulpizio, S., Rothman, J., & Abutalebi, J. (2021). The bilingual structural
connectome: Dual-language experiential factors modulate distinct cerebral networks. Brain and Language,
220, Article 104978. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2021.104978
Finger, S. (2001). Origins of neuroscience: A history of explorations into brain function. Oxford University
Press, USA.
Fischl, B., & Dale, A.M. (2000). Measuring the thickness of the human cerebral cortex from magnetic resonance
images. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 97(20), 11050–11055. https://doi.org/10.1073/
pnas.200033797
Fuchs, E., & Flügge, G. (2014). Adult neuroplasticity: More than 40 years of research. Neural Plasticity, 2014,
Article 541870. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/541870
Gullifer, J.W., Chai, X.J., Whitford, V., Pivneva, I., Baum, S., Klein, D., & Titone, D. (2018). Bilingual experience
and resting-state brain connectivity: Impacts of L2 age of acquisition and social diversity of language use on
control networks. Neuropsychologia, 117, 123–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2018.04.037
Hernández, S.E., Suero, J., Barros, A., González-Mora, J.L., & Rubia, K. (2016). Increased grey matter associated
with long-term sahaja yoga meditation: a voxel-based morphometry study. PloS ONE, 11(3), e0150757.
Kandel, E.R., Schwartz, J.H., Jessell, T.M., Siegelbaum, S., Hudspeth, A.J., & Mack, S. (Eds.). (2000). Principles
of neural science (vol. 4, pp. 1227–1246). New York: McGraw-hill.
Klein, D., Mok, K., Chen, J.K., & Watkins, K.E. (2014). Age of language learning shapes brain structure: A cor-
tical thickness study of bilingual and monolingual individuals. Brain and Language, 131, 20–24. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.bandl.2013.05.014
Köhncke, Y., Düzel, S., Sander, M.C., Lindenberger, U., Kühn, S., & Brandmaier, A.M. (2021). Hippocampal
and parahippocampal gray matter structural integrity assessed by multimodal imaging is associated with epi-
sodic memory in old age. Cerebral Cortex, 31(3), 1464–1477. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhaa287
tion. In K. Morgan-Short & J.G. van Hell (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition
Korenar, M., & Pliatsikas, C. (this volume). Second language acquisition and neuroplasticity: Insights from
the Dynamic Restructuring Model. In K. Morgan-Short & J.G. van Hell (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of
Kroll, J.F., & Bialystok, E. (2013). Understanding the consequences of bilingualism for language processing and
cognition. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25(5), 497–514. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2013.799170
69
Kuhl, P.K., Stevenson, J., Corrigan, N.M., van den Bosch, J.J.F., Can, D.D., & Richards, T.L. (2016).
Neuroimaging of the bilingual brain: Structural brain correlates of listening and speaking in a second lan-
guage. Brain and Language, 162, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2016.07.004
Le Bihan, D., Mangin, J.F., Poupon, C., Clark, C.A., Pappata, S., Molko, N., & Chabriat, H. (2001). Diffusion
tensor imaging: Concepts and applications. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging: An Official Journal
of the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, 13(4), 534–546. https://doi.org/10.1002/
jmri.1076
Leivada, E., Westergaard, M., Duñabeitia, J.A., & Rothman, J. (2021). On the phantom-like appearance of bilin-
gualism effects on neurocognition: (How) should we proceed? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 24(1),
197–210. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728920000358
Levelt, W. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. MIT Press.
Levelt, W.J. (1993). Speaking: From intention to articulation. MIT press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/
6393.001.0001
Li, L., Abutalebi, J., Zou, L., Yan, X., Liu, L., Feng, X., … & Ding, G. (2015). Bilingualism alters brain func-
tional connectivity between “control” regions and “language” regions: Evidence from bimodal bilinguals.
Li, P., Legault, J., & Litcofsky, K.A. (2014). Neuroplasticity as a function of second language learning: Anatomical
changes in the human brain. Cortex, 58, 301–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2014.05.001
longitudinal voxel-based morphometry study. Brain and Language, 222, Article 105015. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.bandl.2021.105015
Luk, G., Pliatsikas, C., & Rossi, E. (2020). Brain changes associated with language development and
learning: A primer on methodology and applications. System, 89, Article 102209. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.system.2020.102209
Luzzatti, C., & Whitaker, H. (1996). Johannes Schenck and Johannes Jakob Wepfer: Clinical and anatomical
observations in the prehistory of neurolinguistics and neuropsychology. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 9(3),
157–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/0911-6044(96)00009-7
Maguire, E.A., Gadian, D.G., Johnsrude, I.S., Good, C.D., Ashburner, J., Frackowiak, R.S., & Frith, C.D. (2000).
Navigation-related structural change in the hippocampi of taxi drivers. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences, 97(8), 4398–4403. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.070039597
Mårtensson, J., Eriksson, J., Bodammer, N.C., Lindgren, M., Johansson, M., Nyberg, L., & Lövdén, M. (2012).
Growth of language-related brain areas after foreign language learning. NeuroImage, 63(1), 240–244. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.06.043
Mosso, A. (1881) Ueber den Kreislauf des Blutes im Menschlichen Gehirn. Verlag von Veit & Company. https://
doi.org/10.1515/9783112360606
Pantazis, D., Joshi, A., Jiang, J., Shattuck, D.W., Bernstein, L.E., Damasio, H., & Leahy, R.M. (2010). Comparison
of landmark-based and automatic methods for cortical surface registration. NeuroImage, 49(3), 2479–2493.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.09.027
Patenaude, B., Smith, S.M., Kennedy, D.N., & Jenkinson, M. (2011). A Bayesian model of shape and appearance
for subcortical brain segmentation. NeuroImage, 56(3), 907–922. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroim
age.2011.02.046
Pliatsikas, C. (2019). Multilingualism and brain plasticity. In J.W. Schwieter (Ed.), The handbook of the
neuroscience of multilingualism (pp. 230–251). Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119387
725.ch11
Pliatsikas, C. (2020). Understanding structural plasticity in the bilingual brain: The Dynamic Restructuring
Model. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 23(2), 459–471. https://doi.org/10.1017/S136672891
9000130
Pliatsikas, C., DeLuca, V., Moschopoulou, E., & Saddy, J.D. (2017). Immersive bilingualism reshapes the core
of the brain. Brain Structure and Function, 222(4), 1785–1795. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00429-016-1307-9
Pliatsikas, C., Soares, S.P., Voits, T., DeLuca, V., & Rothman, J. (2021). Bilingualism is a long-term cognitively
challenging experience that modulates metabolite concentrations in the healthy brain. Scientific reports,
11(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-86443-4
Rahmani, F., Sobhani, S., & Aarabi, M.H. (2017) Sequential language learning and language immersion in bilin-
gualism: Diffusion MRI connectometry reveals microstructural evidence. Experimental Brain Research,
235(10), 2935–2945. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-017-5029-x
Raichle, M.E. (2009). A brief history of human brain mapping. Trends in neurosciences, 32(2), 118–126. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.tins.2008.11.001
70
Rosenzweig, M.R., Krech, D., Bennett, E.L., Diamond, M.C. (1962). Effects of environmental complexity
and training on brain chemistry and anatomy: A replication and extension. Journal of Comparative and
Physiological Psychology, 55(4), 429–437. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0041137
Rossi, E., Cheng, H., Kroll, J.F., Diaz, M.T., & Newman, S.D. (2017). Changes in white-matter connectivity in
late second language learners: Evidence from diffusion tensor imaging. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 2040.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02040
Rothman, J., Alonso, J.G., & Puig-Mayenco, E. (2019). Third language acquisition and linguistic transfer
(Cambridge Studies in Linguistics). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316014660
Roy, C.S., & Sherrington, C.S. (1890) On the regulation of the blood supply of the brain. Journal of Physiology,
11, 85–108. https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.1890.sp000321
Scimeca, M., Carpenter, E., & Kiran, S. (this volume). Aphasia, rehabilitation and second language neurocognition.
In K. Morgan-Short & J.G. van Hell (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and
Stein, M., Winkler, C., Kaiser, A.C., & Dierks, T. (2014). Structural brain changes related to bilingualism: Does
immersion make a difference? Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01116
Tu, L., Niu, M., Pan, X., Hanakawa, T., Liu, X., Lu, Z., … & Huang, R. (2021). Age of acquisition of Mandarin
modulates cortical thickness in high-proficient Cantonese–Mandarin bidialectals. Journal of Psycholinguistic
Research, 50, 723–736. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-020-09716-5
Vaughn, K.A., Nguyen, M.V., Ronderos, J., & Hernandez, A.E. (2021). Cortical thickness in bilingual and mono-
lingual children: Relationships to language use and language skill. NeuroImage, 243, Article 118560. https://
Weekes, B.S., Abutalebi, J., Mak, H.K.F., Borsa, V., Soares, S.M.P., Chiu, P.W., & Zhang, L. (2018). Effect of
monolingualism and bilingualism in the anterior cingulate cortex: a proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy
study in two centers. Letras de Hoje, 53, 5–12. https://doi.org/10.15448/1984-7726.2018.1.30954
71
6
USING NON-I NVASIVE BRAIN
STIMULATION TO INVESTIGATE
SECOND LANGUAGE
Nick B. Pandža
Introduction
Learning a second language (L2) is difficult for adults, which is unsurprising due to the cognitive
demands it places on multiple memory systems, attentional mechanisms, and perceptual abilities.
These cognitive processes have commonly been targeted with behavioral training paradigms in
attempts to increase L2 learning rate and retention (e.g., Ingvalson et al., 2014). Stimulation of the
nervous system, or neurostimulation, is a category of methods that modulate neural activity and,
with the advent of non-invasive techniques, can also be used to investigate and enhance L2 learning
and processing. The two primary uses of neurostimulation to investigate L2 are through its ability
to localize behavior to a particular brain area or function and, in a more applied context, its ability
to actively modulate brain function to positively affect cognition and behavior, including language
learning outcomes.
A major distinction between neurostimulation and other methodological approaches addressed in
this volume (electroencephalography (EEG), see Dickson & Pelzl, this volume, and Mottarella & Prat
et al., this volume; magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), see Kousaie & Klein, this volume, and Rossi
et al., this volume) is that neurostimulation is inherently a neurocognitive intervention rather than a
neurocognitive measure. This paradigm shift is a fascinating new direction for neurolinguistics in
second language acquisition (SLA) as it allows us to leverage what we know about the neurocognition
of SLA, much of it foundationally built on observational neurocognitive methods, to causally affect
language learning. Compared to those other neurocognitive methods, neurostimulation research is
nascent and presently under-represented in research on L2 learning and processing.
Historically, neurostimulation has been a set of invasive and/or sometimes painful techniques
developed for clinical applications, but painless, non-invasive ways to modulate neural activity have
been developed in recent decades using electric current and magnetic fields on the outside of the body.
This chapter reviews multiple methods of non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS), including
transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), transcranial electrical stimulation (tES), and transcutaneous
peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS). In reality, these three are broad families of methods under which
differences in, for example, timing, intensity, stimulation pattern, or electrode placement can not
only affect the strength of any effects but even change the underlying mechanism of action (Polanía
et al., 2018). Following a brief history of non-invasive neurostimulation methods to examine cogni-
tion, their use and potential in the investigation of L2 learning and processing is discussed, including
72 DOI: 10.4324/9781003190912-8
Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation to Investigate Second Language
experimental paradigms, example studies, and advantages and disadvantages of specific techniques.
The chapter ends with a discussion of future directions for neurostimulation methods in the investi-
gation of L2.
Critical Definitions
Neurostimulation involves the application of stimulation (e.g., electrical, magnetic) to modulate the
activity of the nervous system. There are a variety of non-invasive techniques that target different
neurocognitive mechanisms, many of which support language learning. TMS and tES, being
transcranial, involve placing neurostimulators (e.g., electrodes) on or above the surface of the scalp
in order to affect cortical activity and have been evaluated for improving cognitive and language per-
formance (e.g., Miniussi et al., 2008). PNS, being stimulation of a peripheral cranial nerve, involves
the placement of electrodes on the surface of the skin in strategic locations such as the ear, neck, or
even forehead to electrically stimulate branches of cranial nerves to carry the stimulation back to
nuclei in the brainstem and facilitate the release of neurotransmitters with the intent to affect cogni-
tion and language (e.g., Colzato & Beste, 2020).
TMS uses a strong magnetic field produced by a coil, typically a combination of two circular coils
to optimize spatial resolution. These magnetic fields penetrate through the scalp and skull under the
coil’s position to the cortex and induce electrical fields that can stimulate neuronal activity (Sandrini
et al., 2011). A pulse of current can temporarily disrupt neural activity, and TMS has been used to
simulate lesions to localize the brain regions necessary for a given task, including several regions
necessary for language processing (Pascual-Leone et al., 2000). TMS provides a high degree of
accuracy in identifying where task-critical regions are in the brain (i.e., spatial localization), espe-
cially when combined with structural MRI (see Rossi et al., this volume). TMS pulses can also be
repeated over an extended period of time (repetitive TMS; rTMS) to facilitate or inhibit neural activity
(Miniussi et al., 2008). It has been used in people with aphasia to promote better language recovery
(e.g., Miniussi et al., 2008), and healthy individuals to facilitate picture naming and other language
tasks (e.g., Mottaghy et al., 1999). The potential mechanisms of action for TMS are still under active
investigation, and while there is some evidence it can elevate gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA)
levels to suppress brain activity, the underlying cause of the virtual lesion effect is still unknown: it
could be the suppression of neural signals or an artifact of adding random noise to an ongoing process
(Sandrini et al., 2011).
tES uses electrical currents applied at low intensities to positively or negatively affect cortical
excitability. There are many techniques under the tES umbrella that are hypothesized to be mechan-
istically different based on differences in the stimulation pattern, including transcranial direct current
stimulation (tDCS), transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS), and transcranial random
noise stimulation (tRNS). For example, the most commonly employed method, tDCS, uses con-
stant electrical currents applied at low intensities (~1–2 milliamps (mA)) between electrodes on the
head such that the current passes through the cortex in between to facilitate or inhibit cortical excit-
ability by affecting resting membrane potentials (DaSilva et al., 2015; Miniussi et al., 2008). tDCS
has inferior spatial localization to TMS but is able to penetrate somewhat deeper brain structures
(DaSilva et al., 2015) and is a silent intervention, although it can produce a physical sensation on
the scalp. Stimulation has been found to facilitate long-term memory for word pairs (Marshall et al.,
2004) and vocabulary learning (e.g., Meinzer et al., 2014).
Rather than targeting specific cortical areas directly, peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS)
involves stimulating the peripheral branches of a cranial nerve to modulate cortical function more
broadly. Cranial nerves are sensory and motor neurons that project from the brainstem and supply
nerves to (i.e., innervate) the body, especially the head and neck. Stimulation of their peripheral
73
Nick B. Pandža
branches leads to changes in the activity of neuromodulatory systems, which regulate nervous
system activity via neurotransmitters, such as changes in attention with the release of norepin-
ephrine (NE) throughout many areas of the cortex. While there are several types of cranial nerves
being targeted with neurostimulation, the most well-studied PNS to date—and thus, the type of
PNS in focus in this chapter—involves stimulation of the vagus nerve. Transcutaneous vagus
nerve stimulation (tVNS) is a type of PNS that involves electrical stimulation applied at low
levels to the skin over branches of the vagus nerve located in the ear (inner ear, tragus, or cymba
conchae) for transcutaneous auricular VNS (taVNS) or the neck for transcutaneous cervical VNS
(tcVNS) that carry nerve impulses back to the brain. The most well-studied mechanism underlying
VNS benefits for memory and cognition (Vonck et al., 2014) involves the nucleus of the solitary
tract’s innervation of the locus coeruleus (LC) brainstem nucleus, though other mechanisms are
also under investigation (e.g., George et al., 2008). The LC produces all of the neocortex’s supply
of the neurotransmitter norepinephrine (NE), and tVNS-related benefits may be due in part to the
LC-NE system’s role in optimizing behavior by controlling the trade-off between scanning and
focused states of attention (Colzato & Beste, 2020).
Relevant to the study of language learning, under certain parametrizations, TMS, tES, and PNS
have been mechanistically associated with long-term potentiation (LTP), or a facilitation of synaptic
transmission, which is arguably the major cellular mechanism underlying learning and memory for-
mation (Polanía et al., 2018). Longer tDCS stimulation periods have also been associated with LTP
(Nitsche & Paulus, 2001), rTMS has been associated with LTP (Polanía et al., 2018), and tVNS
has also been implicated in LTP given that tVNS is believed to indirectly release NE, which in turn
facilitates cortical LTP (Vonck et al., 2014).
Mechanistically, one of the ways by which LTP occurs is thought to be via modulation of brain-
derived neurotropic factor (BDNF), which is a protein encoded in the BDNF gene which has been
associated with rTMS-, tDCS-, and VNS-induced LTP (Cheeran, et al., 2008; Follesa et al., 2007;
Fritsch, et al., 2010) and a potential source of behavioral and physiological variability in NIBS-
facilitated effects (Polanía et al., 2018). However, common to all NIBS methods, their growing popu-
larity continues to generate debates about their mechanisms of action, application techniques, ethics,
and applied use.
Table 6.1 features a reference list of the critical terms and acronyms related to non-invasive
neurostimulation research presented in this chapter. Note that this list is far from comprehensive, and
there is some variation in terminology in the literature.
TMS, tES, and PNS were all first (and still are) investigated in clinical contexts. TMS currently
has FDA approval for conditions like obsessive-compulsive disorder and major depressive disorder,
tDCS is still being actively investigated for major depressive disorder, and VNS has FDA approval
for epilepsy and depression. In addition to these more or less primary uses, each of these methods has
been investigated for myriad other clinical, applied, and basic research topics.
Historically, TMS’s main use outside of clinical settings has been to disrupt neural activity to make
causal inferences about specific brain regions and cognitive functions (Sandrini et al., 2011). One of
the original and more well-known experimental paradigms for TMS is creating a virtual lesion, a safe,
temporary disruption of brain activity to imitate the effects of an actual brain lesion, such as from
stroke. For example, in the context of language research, a TMS-induced virtual lesion over Broca’s
Area would be expected to produce temporary deficits in language production that mimic Broca’s
Aphasia. TMS’s ability to disrupt brain activity and simulate lesions allow more methodologically
desirable research designs for localizing brain function than trying to find research participants with
rare brain lesions of comparable location and size.
74
Table 6.1 Reference List of Non-invasive Brain Stimulation Acronyms and Terms Presented in This Chapter
repetitive TMS (rTMS) high frequency rTMS (HF-rTMS)

low frequency rTMS (LF-rTMS)
transcranial magnetic
stimulation (TMS) theta burst stimulation continuous TBS (cTBS)
(TBS) intermittent TBS (iTBS)
transcranial direct current anodal tDCS (atDCS)
stimulation (tDCS) cathodal tDCS (ctDCS)
non-invasive transcranial alternating
transcranial electrical current stimulation
brain stimulation (tES)
stimulation (tACS)
(NIBS) transcranial random noise
methods stimulation (tRNS)
vagus nerve stimulation transcutaneous VNS auricular tVNS
(VNS) (tVNS) (taVNS)
peripheral (cranial) cervical tVNS
nerve stimulation (tcVNS)
(PNS)
trigeminal nerve
stimulation (TNS)
long-term potentiation a proposed mechanism of action for cognitive effects of TMS, tES,
(LTP) and PNS
brain-derived a protein through which LTP is thought to occur
neurotrophic factor
NIBS (BDNF)
mechanisms
locus coeruleus- the LC is a region in the brainstem responsible for producing NE, a
of action
norepinephrine neurotransmitter implicated in PNS research
(LC-NE) system
gamma-aminobutyric a neurotransmitter implicated in TMS research
acid (GABA)
While TMS indirectly induces electrical fields in cortex, tES applies weak electrical currents
directly to the scalp. The concept of tES had its origin as early as the eighteenth century, being
investigated more seriously in clinical settings starting in the 1960s (Zoefel & Davis, 2017). The
most common tES technique, tDCS, uses a weak direct current between the electrodes applied to the
scalp, and the current affects the cortex through which it partially passes. TMS and tES both have
an extensive research history related to the enhancement of motor learning (Polanía et al., 2018) and
substantial literature on their utility as a potential treatment for aphasia (Zoefel & Davis, 2017).
Unique among these three methods is PNS, which was first (and is still) an invasive manipula-
tion before non-invasive techniques were developed. VNS has been investigated invasively in clin-
ical populations since the mid-1980s for its efficacy as an antiepileptic and antidepressant (Vonck
et al., 2014). More recently, its effects on auditory processing, memory, and cognition have also been
studied (see Colzato & Beste, 2020). The vagus nerve is the tenth cranial nerve and originates from
the medulla in the brainstem. Stimulation to the vagus nerve projects along nerve fibers to the nucleus
of the solitary tract in the brainstem. Recent innovations have led to user-friendly, non-invasive tVNS
technologies that stimulate the vagus by passing electrical current on the skin of the ears or neck
allowing its use and study with neurotypical populations.
75
Nick B. Pandža
Methods and Paradigms

There are multiple ways in which NIBS may be implemented, common ones including priming (i.e.,
conditioning or offline), concurrent (i.e., online), and peristimulus (i.e., stimulus time-locked) stimu-
lation. All three NIBS methods reviewed here can easily be implemented via priming, which involves
applying stimulation for a specified number of seconds or minutes prior to starting a critical task,
presumably inducing tonic shifts in arousal and thus cortical excitability that prepare the individual
to be in an optimal state for learning or performance throughout the task. For example, VNS studies
have observed an increase in activity in LC and related brain structures (Frangos et al., 2015), and
concentrations of norepinephrine in the cortex and hippocampus (Follesa et al., 2007). In TMS terms,
the rTMS technique can be used to prime participants before a task (Klooster et al., 2016). For tES,
studies have found cathodal tDCS (ctDCS) to have longer-lasting priming effects than anodal tDCS
(atDCS) (Monte-Silva et al., 2013), although more robust learning effects have been observed for
atDCS (Simonsmeier et al., 2018).
Peristimulus (peristim) stimulation involves delivering a pulse train of stimulation just prior to
the presentation of critical stimuli, presumably inducing phasic changes in task-related attention to
and consolidation of specific to-be-learned information. Work exploring peristim VNS has shown
effectiveness at improving low-level auditory processing (Engineer et al., 2011), and peristim (or
paired pulse) TMS is mainly used to assess cortical excitability (Klooster et al., 2016). Both delivery
methods may engage LTP but, while priming NIBS is possible with TMS, tES, and PNS, peristim
may be the most practical for language learning protocols with PNS given the noise artifacts of TMS
and the low temporal resolution of tDCS.
For TMS, there are numerous implementations of the method, although rTMS is perhaps most
relevant for investigating longer-lasting changes to cognition. Typically, low-frequency rTMS (LF-
rTMS) is administered ≤ 1 Hz while high-frequency rTMS (HF-rTMS) is administered ≥ 1 Hz, and
this distinction has been found in the motor system to decrease and increase cortical excitability,
respectively (Sandrini et al., 2011). rTMS can be administered concurrently to a task of interest or
beforehand, priming the participant before a task.
Another pattern of pulses, theta burst stimulation (TBS) utilizes trains of pulses applied with
short gaps that can also be used to induce longer-term effects of TMS on cognition. Continuous TBS
(cTBS) tends to be inhibitory whereas more intermittent TBS (iTBS) is excitatory (see Sandrini et al.,
2011 for a discussion of additional implementations).
Similar to TMS, changing the parameters of tES can create either facilitative or inhibitory effects.
Among tES techniques, tDCS is the most frequently used. Differences in atDCS and ctDCS refer
to differences in experimental setup. Both involve an anode (positively charged electrode) and a
cathode (negatively charged electrode), and so atDCS involves placing the anode near a brain region
of interest and the cathode at a control region, and ctDCS is the reverse. While tDCS broadly is a con-
stant current applied at about 1–2 mA, tACS is applied at lower intensity (0.2–1 mA) and is a bidir-
ectional/biphasic current that can be applied at different frequencies (Simonsmeier et al., 2018). Even
lower in intensity is tRNS (-500 to 500 microamps (μA)), which uses alternating current with random
amplitudes and frequencies (Moreno-Duarte et al., 2014). These are not an exhaustive list of tES
techniques, but are the most commonly employed, and the types included in a recent meta-analysis
of tES on language learning in healthy adults (Balboa-Bandeira et al., 2021). While there is a logic
to both pairing NIBS with learning (e.g., to potentially improve consolidation of new information)
and assessment (e.g., to potentially improve recall of learned information), a meta-analysis of tES
recently found a more robust effect when paired with learning than with assessment, and the effect
was only significant for anodal and not cathodal tDCS (Simonsmeier et al., 2018). Balboa-Bandeira
et al. (2021) conducted a meta-analysis for the effect of tES on adult language learning (nonwords,
artificial grammar, and foreign languages) and found a moderate effect of tES. While they did not
76
find an effect on follow-up data or response times, there are a number of limitations in the review,
including the number of studies that could be included (11 in total) and disparate tES protocols,
as effects are assessed across studies encompassing tRNS, tACS, atDCS, ctDCS, and high density
tDCS. They rightfully call for further work to tease apart the potentially mechanistically different
effects of each tES technique, especially with multiple stimulation sessions. In particular they note
that a majority of the studies are tDCS and show effects with one day of training even though tRNS
may also have long-lasting effects on language learning processes. A number of studies included in
the meta-analysis involved continuous stimulation during the process of learning rather than before
as in a priming paradigm.
VNS can be implemented at the auricular or cervical branches, the former being more exten-
sively implemented to date, especially in language research. For the auricular branch of the vagus
nerve, there’s still an open question over the optimal location for stimulation. Yakunina et al. (2017)
compared three different stimulation points on the ear within individuals versus a sham control of
the earlobe: the outer ear canal, the inner tragus, and the cymba conchae. With confirmation from
functional MRI (fMRI; see Kousaie & Klein, this volume), they found stimulation of the cymba
conchae to produce the most reliable activation of the nucleus of the solitary tract and the locus
coeruleus in the brainstem compared to the other locations. However, in comparing this to other
research it’s worth noting that participants in this study were all delivered tVNS at 0.1 mA below
their pain threshold, and results here may reflect a higher tolerable threshold for the cymba conchae
than other stimulation sites on the ear, and results may have been different if stimulation was kept
below their sensory thresholds. For example, taVNS applied to the outer ear canal below sensory
threshold has been successfully implemented for both priming and peristim in the same training
study and has been found to both show positive effects but on different aspects of testing, reaction
time and accuracy, respectively (Pandža et al., 2020). These effects provide evidence for potentially
different mechanisms of action for taVNS on learning based solely on where in the learning process
NIBS is implemented.
For each of TMS, tES, and PNS, there are many ways for these methods and the techniques under
each of these umbrellas to be implemented. Care needs to be taken when deciding when, where, how,
and at what intensity NIBS are implemented so that effects can be reliably detected, the mechanism(s)
of action can be properly investigated, and the results can be replicated.
Example Studies
TMS
Of the three types of NIBS reviewed here, TMS is the most under-studied for the specific use case of
language learning. Of the few studies conducted to date, they are focused largely on the investigation
of neurocognitive mechanisms underlying language learning and/or clinical application. Many report
interesting uses of rTMS in which it enhanced implicit learning mechanisms in adults. For example,
Ambrus et al. (2020) disrupted the left and right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex with inhibitory rTMS,
leading participants to better implicit statistical learning via consolidation of non-adjacent second-
order dependencies in an alternating serial reaction time task. In contrast, Sliwinska et al. (2017)
found positive effects of rTMS on explicit vocabulary learning and focused on implications for pro-
moting post-aphasia recovery. After first conducting a word learning study with fMRI to identify
functional networks of interest, the authors conducted a second experiment on a subset of participants
in which they applied priming rTMS for 10 minutes each day in three training sessions. They found
both improved accuracy and reaction time in a paired-associates translation judgment task with feed-
back during early stages of word learning, and they posit the potential for rTMS for use in aphasia
rehabilitation.
77
Nick B. Pandža
tES
Perceval et al. (2020) implemented an ambitious atDCS multisession double-blind design in which
younger and older adults were tasked with learning non-word “names” for “space alien” characters
and two semantic attributes for each. Active atDCS was administered for 20 minutes during the
learning phase on each day over the left inferior frontal gyrus to target areas implicated in verbal asso-
ciative learning. Training was administered over five consecutive days with immediate testing and
day-after testing to assess retention, and follow-up testing done one day, one week, and three months
after the last day of training. In both younger and older adults, effects for atDCS were only observed
for those with lower scores of baseline learning ability measured at pretest. This study shows the
potential for individual differences to interact with neurostimulation to show more nuanced effects, in
this case a modest learning “boost” for those participants who were a priori disadvantaged. Learning
facilitated by atDCS was largely immediate and persisted up to three months for the low ability older
adults, contrasting with younger adults for which there were no immediate stimulation effects (pos-
sibly due to ceiling effects) but retention was enhanced at delayed testing up to three months. While
the authors conclude uncertainty around the mechanisms of action to explain their results, they pro-
pose that future research focus on the neural mechanisms underlying their novel finding of differen-
tial effectiveness of atDCS according to baseline ability.
In the minority are non-tDCS tES studies like Pasqualotto et al. (2015) looking at tRNS and
Antonenko et al. (2016) looking at tACS. In comparison to Perceval et al. (2020), Antonenko et al.
(2016) found increased retrieval accuracy in older adults but not younger adults with tACS during
implicit language learning, also finding an advantage for older adults with tES that is worth further
mechanistic exploration. Pasqualotto et al. (2015) was the first to investigate the potential of tRNS on
language learning and found a potential memory consolidation advantage for active tRNS delivered
over posterior parietal areas during learning at a one-week delayed posttest.
PNS
While PNS is a broad category of techniques, there is a rapidly growing L2 literature using a spe-
cific subtype of PNS and VNS: taVNS. Pandža et al. (2020) were the first to directly investigate
taVNS-facilitated language learning, specifically for Mandarin tone. In a double-blind study, they
directly compared priming and peristim taVNS protocols compared to a sham control in a two-day
Mandarin tone word training for tone-naïve native speakers of English. Active stimulation was
applied before (priming) or during (peristim) learning and testing tasks. They found peristim but
not priming to reliably improve accuracy on lexical recognition while priming but not peristim
improved reaction time on lexical recognition. In an analysis of pupillometry data to assess cog-
nitive effort and ties to the LC-NE system, they found a reduction in sustained effort day-to-day
for the sham group in line with the idea of less effort being applied to better-learned words, and a
significantly stronger effect for peristim. For priming, results were interpreted as possibly in line
with a tonic, rather than phasic (task-evoked) effect on arousal. In total, the authors concluded
that effects are in line with the idea that peristim taVNS supported better encoding of new to-be-
learned information whereas priming taVNS may instead support better lexical access of already-
learned information.
Thakkar et al. (2020) also found positive taVNS results to extend to orthography acquisition.
Separately, Calloway et al. (2020) investigated the potential for another researched mechanism
of action for VNS to affect language learning, the mitigation of anxiety (George et al., 2008),
and found 10 minutes of priming taVNS to reduce negative affect, somatic anxiety, and cognitive
anxiety.
78
There is still a dearth of language learning research with TMS, tES, and PNS, so there are numerous
ways to expand the field. Much more research is needed with each of these techniques to form firm
conclusions around their efficacy.
Considerations and Limitations of NIBS Methods

There are a number of pros and cons for each of these NIBS methods. All result in at least some-
what indirect neuromodulation as stimulation is applied on the outside of the body versus directly to
brain tissue. TMS and tES can be combined with structural MRIs to pinpoint where brain areas are
specific to a person and even specific to language processing (e.g., Broca’s Area, Wernicke’s Area),
given that brain morphology varies widely. In this way, TMS and tES can accurately encapsulate
a brain region of interest; however, given the spatial resolution of both methods, they are inexact
and likely to also affect neighboring regions and their associated functions. PNS has both better
and worse spatial resolution: better in that there is a specific brainstem nucleus (e.g., nucleus of
the solitary tract for VNS) that will be stimulated in turn by the stimulated cranial nerve, but worse
in that the effects of interest for PNS interventions are more about what happens downstream from
that initial nucleus, for example stimulation of the LC and the release of neurotransmitters like NE
that are dispersed throughout the cortex. Thus, a major advantage for TMS and tES over PNS is the
inability of PNS to target specific brain structures of interest. However, while TMS and tES can only
target a variety of surface-level cortical structures on the order of centimeters, PNS on the other hand
indirectly stimulates structures in the brainstem leading to connected structures such as the LC and
to the release of myriad neurotransmitters throughout the brain to produce broader (if more domain-
general) impacts to cognition and language learning. Nevertheless, TMS, tES, and PNS can each be
combined with other behavioral, physiological, and neurocognitive methods to more conclusively
pinpoint brain areas and functions and causally associate them with a particular behavior. Again, most
critically, all three techniques have also been associated with LTP under certain conditions and thus
to the causal enhancement of learning and memory processes broadly, making each relevant to the
investigation of language learning.
In terms of practical concerns around data collection, there are a number of considerations. It’s
important to note that TMS has a noise artifact (repetitive clicking noise). This may not be a problem
for NIBS priming methodologies, but may be problematic if concurrent or peristimulus stimulation is
mechanistically desired for a particular research design. Minimally, this could be distracting to a par-
ticipant during a task, and, maximally, could actively interfere with auditory task designs. While tES
and PNS are silent interventions, tES can induce somatosensory artifacts across the scalp, which can
also be distracting to participants. PNS can also produce a physical sensation under the electrodes or
even harmless muscle spasms, depending on the location and stimulation intensity. For instance, the
cervical branch of the vagus nerve is embedded deeper under the skin of the neck than the auricular
branch is under the skin of the ear. Because of this, tcVNS is practically impossible without some
physical sensation (even harmless muscle spasms in the neck if placed incorrectly) which may be
uncomfortable or distracting to individuals. However, multiple studies have now shown that taVNS
can be effectively delivered below a participant’s individual perceptual threshold while still showing
positive language learning outcomes (e.g., Calloway et al., 2020; Pandža et al., 2020).
To show causal evidence of NIBS on behavior, double-blind studies are ideal in which participants
and proctors are blind to whether the participant is receiving active stimulation vs. sham stimula-
tion or belongs to a no-stimulation control. At the minimum, single-blind studies can also be used
in which the participants but not the proctors are blind to participant group. Properly blinding NIBS
methods means replicating the TMS clicking noise for a sham control, using tES over a control
brain region to produce similar somatosensory effects or, if using PNS at a location or intensity that
79
Nick B. Pandža
necessarily causes physical sensation, using PNS over a control skin area that is not innervated by the
cranial nerve of interest.
While all three techniques involve potentially costly equipment upfront and require training for
their effective and safe use, relative to other neurocognitive methodologies there are some advantages
to neurostimulation. For example, the equipment for these techniques is cheaper than MRI data
collection, participant setup and takedown are often faster and easier than for EEG, and no specially
shielded room is required for data collection. However, methodologically sound TMS and to a lesser
extent tES studies involve “neuronavigation” such that researchers can be sure they are targeting
brain regions of interest for each individual as precisely as possible (Polanía et al., 2018), and this
is done in conjunction with a structural MRI, which increases the cost of the research and adds MRI
contraindications back into the research design.
In terms of safety, TMS, tES, and PNS appear to be safe when used properly (Antal et al., 2017;
Redgrave et al., 2018; Rossi et al., 2021). However, rare side effects can occur of which researchers
should be aware. The most serious adverse effect is for TMS, which in extremely rare circumstances,
if proper use guidelines are not followed, may cause acute seizures (Rossi et al., 2021). TMS is also
contraindicated for individuals with metallic or electronic implants near the TMS coil (Rossi et al.,
2021). For tES and PNS protocols, in which electrodes come into physical contact with the skin and
scalp, the most common side effects can include uncomfortable heating or sensation directly under
the electrode (Antal et al., 2017; Redgrave et al., 2018), but mild pain is also common under the
stimulation site for TMS (Rossi et al., 2021). The potential for headaches has also been observed for
all three methods (Antal et al., 2017; Redgrave et al., 2018; Rossi et al., 2021). Because of a remote
possibility of cardiac effects (Farmer et al., 2021), tVNS is usually administered to the left ear or
left side of the neck as right branches of the vagus nerve are more closely connected to the heart.
Because of the still relative novelty of some of these methods and the study of their implementa-
tion, researchers often impose restrictive eligibility criteria out of an abundance of caution where
safety research is still currently lacking, such as administering tVNS to the left side as mentioned or
excluding participants from tVNS if they have a history of fainting spells (vasovagal syncope is a
condition in which an overactive vagus nerve can result in fainting).
TMS, tES, and PNS in the literature currently all suffer from a replication problem due to still
active uncertainty around how different parameters affect a number of factors ranging from not only
variation in sensation artifacts but also, crucially, the neurocognitive mechanisms affected. Indeed,
it has been noted in particular that variation in how TMS and tES are implemented has actively
prevented conclusive findings from meta-analyses (see Polanía et al., 2018). All three methods can
be implemented in myriad ways, for example, at different levels of intensity, with different stimula-
tion wave forms, or with different electrode placements. The conclusive impact of any modification
of these settings is still under active investigation (e.g., see discussion in Farmer et al., 2021 for
tVNS), but researchers looking to implement these techniques should take particular care in choosing
parameters as changes in any of these could affect not only the strength of any NIBS effects but even
change the underlying mechanism of action (Polanía et al., 2018).

New NIBS parameters and techniques are still being developed for existing methods to overcome
their current limitations or even to target additional neurological mechanisms, such as to improve
both spatial resolution and the ability to target deeper brain structures for tES (Datta et al., 2009).
At the same time, new neurostimulation techniques are also being developed. For example, early
findings for transcranial focused ultrasound stimulation (tFUS) suggest it can successfully overcome
the inherent limitations of existing transcranial methods by being able to easily target deeper brain
80
structures and with a higher spatial resolution, inducing cortical excitation on the order of millimeters
compared to centimeters for TMS and tES (Tufail et al., 2010).
The topic of language learning is still relatively new to exploration with NIBS interventions, but
the cited research provides preliminary evidence that various NIBS methods have the potential to
meaningfully impact language learning outcomes. The effects of NIBS on attention and memory
consolidation could promote more effective language learning, and some of the cited studies suggest
potential for longer-lasting effects. Assessing the benefits of any new intervention on language learning
outcomes is non-trivial. Does the intervention serve to increase phoneme and/or word recognition
accuracy overall? Increase the overall learning rate? Reduce the mental load associated with learning
an individual item, freeing up mental resources for other aspects of learning? Are there interactions
with NIBS efficacy and learner individual differences? Particularly challenging for NIBS is that,
due to a paucity of established research with comparable implementations and parameterizations,
expected effect sizes have not been firmly established, and thus it is possible that NIBS-induced
changes in neural function might be subtle or very focused, and thus primarily relevant for only
a subset of possible language learning outcomes. Given the range of possibilities, assessments of
NIBS-driven language-learning benefits should encompass multiple outcome measures whenever
possible, to include indices like accuracy, reaction time, pupillometry, EEG, and fMRI. Perhaps most
importantly, rigorous assessments of longer-lasting effects of NIBS in the form of delayed posttests
are critical to evaluate the potential for any truly practical implications of NIBS to support language
learning.
As currently more tDCS and tVNS studies exist in the realm of language learning enhancement, a
promising additional line of research would be to directly pit the two NIBS methods against each other
with the same training paradigm. Given the potential differences in mechanisms of action, it would
be of interest to investigate differences in effect size improvements between the two techniques.
Additionally, there is a dearth of literature on TMS to enhance language learning, and further explor-
ation of that methodology should be made to empirically evaluate its utility versus other alternatives.
Likewise, further exploration of tES techniques in addition to tDCS (including tACS and tRNS) is
warranted given preliminary positive results. While the PNS studies cited here focused on taVNS,
tcVNS also has the potential to accelerate language learning with some incipient research showing
lasting cognitive effects after brief stimulation (e.g., Lewine et al., 2019), as does transcutaneous
trigeminal nerve stimulation (TNS) across the forehead (Colzato & Vonck, 2017).
Contrasting with more correlational neurocognitive techniques, neurostimulation provides the
opportunity to make causal inferences between particular cognitive functions and associated behav-
ioral outcomes, and it can be combined with those correlational methods for a more targeted or mech-
anistically validated impact. Research on NIBS in L2 is clearly still at the initial stages, but it has the
potential to transform the field of SLA.
Further Readings
For a comprehensive overview of NIBS research, covering primarily TMS and tES techniques:
Polanía, R., Nitsche, M.A., & Ruff, C.C. (2018). Studying and modifying brain function with non-invasive brain
stimulation. Nature Neuroscience, 21(2), 174–187. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-017-0054-4
For a systematic review of high-frequency rTMS studies stimulating over prefrontal cortex, many of which found
improvements on verbal measures:
Guse, B., Falkai, P., & Wobrock, T. (2010). Cognitive effects of high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic
stimulation: a systematic review. Journal of Neural Transmission, 117(1), 105–122. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00702-009-0333-7
For a meta-analysis of tES effects on second and foreign language learning, which covers multiple tES methods,
identifies gaps in the literature, and makes recommendations for future research:
81
Nick B. Pandža
Balboa-Bandeira, Y., Zubiaurre-Elorza, L., Ibarretxe-Bilbao, N., Ojeda, N., & Peña, J. (2021). Effects of
transcranial electrical stimulation techniques on second and foreign language learning enhancement in
healthy adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Neuropsychologia, 107985. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.neuropsychologia.2021.107985
For an empirical taVNS study of Mandarin tone word learning that analyzed event-related potentials from Pandža
et al. (2020), showing evidence of stronger lexico-semantic encoding via the N400 after taVNS:
Phillips, I., Calloway, R.C., Karuzis, V.P., Pandža, N.B., O’Rourke, P., & Kuchinsky, S.E. (2021). Transcutaneous
auricular vagus nerve stimulation strengthens semantic representations of foreign language tone words during
initial stages of learning. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_01783
Acknowledgments
This material is based in part upon work supported by the Naval Information Warfare Center and Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency under Cooperative Agreement No. N66001–17-2-4009. The views,
opinions, and/or findings contained in this material are those of the author and should not be interpreted as
representing the official views or policies of the Department of Defense or the U.S. Government.
References
Ambrus, G.G., Vékony, T., Janacsek, K., Trimborn, A. B., Kovács, G., & Nemeth, D. (2020). When less is
more: Enhanced statistical learning of non-adjacent dependencies after disruption of bilateral DLPFC.
Journal of Memory and Language, 114, 104144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2020.104144
Antal, A., Alekseichuk, I., Bikson, M., Brockmöller, J., Brunoni, A.R., Chen, R., … & Paulus, W. (2017). Low
intensity transcranial electric stimulation: safety, ethical, legal regulatory and application guidelines. Clinical
Neurophysiology, 128(9), 1774–1809. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2017.06.001
Antonenko, D., Faxel, M., Grittner, U., Lavidor, M., & Flöel, A. (2016). Effects of transcranial alternating current
stimulation on cognitive functions in healthy young and older adults. Neural Plasticity, 2016. https://doi.org/
10.1155/2016/4274127
Balboa-Bandeira, Y., Zubiaurre-Elorza, L., Ibarretxe-Bilbao, N., Ojeda, N., & Peña, J. (2021). Effects of
transcranial electrical stimulation techniques on second and foreign language learning enhancement in
healthy adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Neuropsychologia, 107985. https://doi.org/10.1016/
Calloway, R., Karuzis, V., Tseng, A., Martinez, D., & O’Rourke, P. (2020). Auricular Transcutaneous Vagus
Nerve Stimulation (tVNS) Affects Mood and Anxiety during Second Language Learning. In S. Denison., M.
Mack, Y. Xu, & B.C. Armstrong (Eds.), Proceedings of the 42nd annual conference of the Cognitive Science
Society (pp. 3496–3502). Cognitive Science Society.
Cheeran, B., Talelli, P., Mori, F., Koch, G., Suppa, A., Edwards, M., … & Rothwell, J.C. (2008). A common
polymorphism in the brain-derived neurotrophic factor gene (BDNF) modulates human cortical plasticity
and the response to rTMS. The Journal of Physiology, 586(23), 5717–5725. https://doi.org/10.1113/jphys
iol.2008.159905
Colzato, L., & Beste, C. (2020). A literature review on the neurophysiological underpinnings and cognitive effects
of transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation: challenges and future directions. Journal of Neurophysiology,
123(5), 1739–1755. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00057.2020
Colzato, L.S., & Vonck, K. (2017). Transcutaneous vagus and trigeminal nerve stimulation. In L.S. Colzato (Ed.),
Theory-driven approaches to cognitive enhancement (pp. 115–126). Springer, Cham.
DaSilva, A.F., Truong, D.Q., DosSantos, M.F., Toback, R.L., Datta, A., & Bikson, M. (2015). State-of-art neuro-
anatomical target analysis of high-definition and conventional tDCS montages used for migraine and pain
control. Frontiers in Neuroanatomy, 9, 89. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnana.2015.00089
Datta, A., Bansal, V., Diaz, J., Patel, J., Reato, D., & Bikson, M. (2009). Gyri-precise head model of transcranial
direct current stimulation: improved spatial focality using a ring electrode versus conventional rectangular
pad. Brain Stimulation, 2(4), 201–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2009.03.005
Engineer, N.D., Riley, J.R., Seale, J.D., Vrana, W.A., Shetake, J.A., Sudanagunta, S.P., … & Kilgard, M.P.
(2011). Reversing pathological neural activity using targeted plasticity. Nature, 470, 101–104. https://doi.org/
10.1038/nature09656
82
Farmer, A.D., Strzelczyk, A., Finisguerra, A., Gourine, A.V., Gharabaghi, A., Hasan, A., … & Koenig, J. (2021).
International consensus based review and recommendations for minimum reporting standards in research on
transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation (version 2020). Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 14, 409. https://
doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2020.568051
Follesa, P., Biggio, F., Gorini, G., Caria, S., Talani, G., Dazzi, L., … & Biggio, G. (2007). Vagus nerve stimu-
lation increases norepinephrine concentration and the gene expression of BDNF and bFGF in the rat brain.
Brain Research, 1179, 28–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2007.08.045
Frangos, E., Ellrich, J., & Komisaruk, B.R. (2015). Non-invasive access to the vagus nerve central projections
via electrical stimulation of the external ear: fMRI evidence in humans. Brain Stimulation, 8(3), 624–636.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2014.11.018
Fritsch, B., Reis, J., Martinowich, K., Schambra, H.M., Ji, Y., Cohen, L.G., & Lu, B. (2010). Direct current
stimulation promotes BDNF-dependent synaptic plasticity: potential implications for motor learning. Neuron,
66(2), 198–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2010.03.035
George, M.S., Ward Jr, H.E., Ninan, P.T., Pollack, M., Nahas, Z., Anderson, B., … & Ballenger, J.C. (2008). A
pilot study of vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) for treatment-resistant anxiety disorders. Brain Stimulation,
1(2), 112–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2008.02.001
Ingvalson, E.M., Ettlinger, M., & Wong, P.C. (2014). Bilingual speech perception and learning: A review of recent
trends. International Journal of Bilingualism, 18(1), 35–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006912456586
Klooster, D.C., de Louw, A.J., Aldenkamp, A.P., Besseling, R.M.H., Mestrom, R.M.C., Carrette, S., … & Boon,
P. (2016). Technical aspects of neurostimulation: Focus on equipment, electric field modeling, and stimu-
lation protocols. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 65, 113–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubio
rev.2016.02.016
Lewine, J.D., Paulson, K., Bangera, N., & Simon, B.J. (2019). Exploration of the impact of brief noninvasive
vagal nerve stimulation on EEG and event-related potentials. Neuromodulation: Technology at the Neural
Interface, 22(5), 564–572. https://doi.org/10.1111/ner.12864
Marshall, L., Mölle, M., Hallschmid, M., & Born, J. (2004). Transcranial direct current stimulation during
sleep improves declarative memory. Journal of Neuroscience, 24(44), 9985–9992. https://doi.org/10.1523/
JNEUROSCI.2725-04.2004
Meinzer, M., Jähnigen, S., Copland, D.A., Darkow, R., Grittner, U., Avirame, K., … & Flöel, A. (2014).
Transcranial direct current stimulation over multiple days improves learning and maintenance of a novel
vocabulary. Cortex, 50, 137–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2013.07.013
Miniussi, C., Cappa, S.F., Cohen, L.G., Flöel, A., Fregni, F., Nitsche, M.A., … & Walsh, V. (2008). Efficacy
of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation/ transcranial direct current stimulation in cognitive
neurorehabilitation. Brain Stimulation, 1(4), 326–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2008.07.002
Monte-Silva, K., Kuo, M.F., Hessenthaler, S., Fresnoza, S., Liebetanz, D., Paulus, W., & Nitsche, M.A. (2013).
Induction of late LTP-like plasticity in the human motor cortex by repeated non-invasive brain stimulation.
Brain Stimulation, 6(3), 424–432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2012.04.011
Moreno-Duarte, I., Gebodh, N., Schestatsky, P., Guleyupoglu, B., Reato, D., Bikson, M., & Fregni, F. (2014).
Transcranial electrical stimulation: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), transcranial alternating
current stimulation (tACS), transcranial pulsed current stimulation (tPCS), and transcranial random noise
stimulation (tRNS). In The Stimulated Brain (pp. 35–59). Academic Press.
Mottaghy, F.M., Hungs, M., Brügmann, M., Sparing, R., Boroojerdi, B., Foltys, H., … & Töpper, R. (1999).
Facilitation of picture naming after repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation. Neurology, 53(8), 1806–
1806. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.53.8.1806
Nitsche, M.A. & Paulus, W. (2001). Sustained excitability elevations induced by transcranial DC motor cortex
stimulation in humans. Neurology, 57, 1899–1901. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.57.10.1899
Pandža, N.B., Phillips, I., Karuzis, V.P., O’Rourke, P., & Kuchinsky, S.E. (2020). Neurostimulation and
pupillometry: New directions for learning and research in applied linguistics. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 40, 56–77. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190520000069
Pascual-Leone, A., Walsh, V., & Rothwell, J. (2000). Transcranial magnetic stimulation in cognitive neuroscience–
virtual lesion, chronometry, and functional connectivity. Current Opinions in Neurobiology, 10, 232–237.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4388(00)00081-7
83
Nick B. Pandža
Pasqualotto, A., Kobanbay, B., & Proulx, M.J. (2015). Neural stimulation has a long-term effect on foreign
vocabulary acquisition. Neural Plasticity, 2015, 671705. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/671705
Perceval, G., Martin, A.K., Copland, D.A., Laine, M., & Meinzer, M. (2020). Multisession transcranial direct
current stimulation facilitates verbal learning and memory consolidation in young and older adults. Brain and
Language, 205, 104788. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2020.104788
Polanía, R., Nitsche, M.A., & Ruff, C.C. (2018). Studying and modifying brain function with non-invasive brain
stimulation. Nature Neuroscience, 21, 174–187. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-017-0054-4
Redgrave, J., Day, D., Leung, H., Laud, P.J., Ali, A., Lindert, R., & Majid, A. (2018). Safety and tolerability
of transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation in humans; a systematic review. Brain Stimulation, 11(6), 1225–
1238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2018.08.010
Rossi, S., Antal, A., Bestmann, S., Bikson, M., Brewer, C., Brockmöller, J., … & Hallett, M. (2021). Safety and
recommendations for TMS use in healthy subjects and patient populations, with updates on training, ethical
and regulatory issues: expert guidelines. Clinical Neurophysiology, 132(1), 269–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.clinph.2020.10.003
Sandrini, M., Umiltà, C., & Rusconi, E. (2011). The use of transcranial magnetic stimulation in cognitive neuro-
science: a new synthesis of methodological issues. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 35(3), 516–536.
Simonsmeier, B.A., Grabner, R.H., Hein, J., Krenz, U., & Schneider, M. (2018). Electrical brain stimulation
(tES) improves learning more than performance: A meta-analysis. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews,
84, 171–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.11.001
Sliwinska, M.W., Violante, I.R., Wise, R.J., Leech, R., Devlin, J.T., Geranmayeh, F., & Hampshire, A. (2017).
Stimulating multiple-demand cortex enhances vocabulary learning. Journal of Neuroscience, 37(32), 7606–
7618. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3857-16.2017
Thakkar, V.J., Engelhart, A.S., Khodaparast, N., Abadzi, H., & Centanni, T.M. (2020). Transcutaneous auricular
vagus nerve stimulation enhances learning of novel letter-sound relationships in adults. Brain Stimulation,
13(6), 1813–1820. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2020.10.012
Tufail, Y., Matyushov, A., Baldwin, N., Tauchmann, M.L., Georges, J., Yoshihiro, A., … & Tyler, W. J. (2010).
Transcranial pulsed ultrasound stimulates intact brain circuits. Neuron, 66(5), 681–694. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.neuron.2010.05.008
Vonck, K., Raedt, R., Naulaerts, J., De Vogelaere, F., Thiery, E., Van Roost, D., … & Boon, P. (2014). Vagus
nerve stimulation… 25 years later! What do we know about the effects on cognition? Neuroscience &
Biobehavioral Reviews, 45, 63–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.05.005
Yakunina, N., Kim, S.S., & Nam, E.C. (2017). Optimization of transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation using
functional MRI. Neuromodulation: Technology at the Neural Interface, 20(3), 290–300. https://doi.org/
10.1111/ner.12541
Zoefel, B. & Davis, M.H. (2017). Transcranial electric stimulation for the investigation of speech perception
and comprehension. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 32(7), 910–923, https://doi.org/10.1080/23273
798.2016.1247970
84
PART II
The Neurolinguistics of Second

Language Learning, Representation,
and Processing
7
THE NEUROLINGUISTICS
OF SECOND LANGUAGE
PHONOLOGY
A View of Phonemic Contrast Learning
Introduction
Each speech sound (e.g., the /s/in “sound”) is as unique as a snowflake. The language learner’s job
is to observe this blizzard of sounds to discover the similarities (i.e., the distinctive acoustic features)
that distinguish one sound category from another. Babies learning a first language (L1) have the
advantage of starting from scratch: speech sounds accumulate in a pristine snowbank of acoustic
receptivity and mound into different piles—one pile might be a vowel sound like the /u/in “soup”—
another, an /l/at the beginning of “love.” Ultimately, the developing child uncovers the structure of
these piles and how they map onto words in their language. Acquiring a set of native language cat-
egories in childhood is a far less trivial process than characterized here (see Kuhl & Rivera-Gaxiola,
2008; Werker & Tees, 2005 for reviews). But by comparison, acquiring the sounds of a new language
during adolescence or in adulthood is a bigger challenge.
The perceptual system of the adult language learner is already a bumpy terrain of native lan-
guage sounds. Incoming sounds in a new language may have no obvious analogue in one’s native
language(s) (e.g., Zulu clicks are unlike any phoneme in English) or may be deceptively familiar
(e.g., the Hindi dental and retroflex stop consonants sound like barely different flavors of /d/to native
speakers of a language such as German or several varieties of English). Perceptual biases built in
childhood to quickly recognize the difference between /d/and /g/now work against the adult who is
trying to distinguish novel sounds.
The difficulty of learning speech sounds in adulthood is a fairly easy phenomenon to observe.
Non-native accents are a dead giveaway to incomplete acquisition of the sounds of that language. In
the biblical story of the shibboleth (Judges 12:1–15), non-native mispronunciations were punishable
by death. Indeed, the reported toll for incomplete second language (L2) acquisition in this case was
42,000. The consequences of incomplete acquisition are rarely so dire, but non-native accent discrim-
ination can have negative professional and social consequences (e.g. Kim et al., 2019) despite strong
evidence that listeners can and do readily adapt to accented speech (Baese-Berk et al., 2020).
In this chapter, we discuss some of the obstacles to the acquisition of non-native phonology,
focusing primarily on perception, but also with an eye towards parallel questions in production, and
with an appeal to neurobiological evidence for the representation of native and non-native speech
sounds. We will explore the hypothesis that obstacles to phonological acquisition in adulthood
are attributable to changes in neural plasticity, examine the extent to which successful non-native
DOI: 10.4324/9781003190912-10 87
acquisition co-opts processing mechanisms for native sound processing, and delve into some of the
individual differences in brain structure and function that predict individual variability in learning
success.
Critical Issues, Topics, and Methodological Challenges

Before turning to the neural evidence on this phenomenon, it is important to consider the wealth of
knowledge generated from decades of behavioral work on this topic. Several themes run through
research on the neural basis of L2 phonology. First, learning to perceive the difference between
non-native speech categories may or may not proceed in parallel with learning to accurately produce
these categories. Some have shown that perceptual gains and production accuracy tend to go hand-
in-hand, but this is not a foregone conclusion (Bradlow et al., 1997; Callan et al., 2003). Perceptual
sensitivity to the distinctive acoustic features that mark a new phonetic contrast seems like a neces-
sary prerequisite for accurate production of these contrasts (an assumption reflected in, for example,
Flege’s speech learning model; Flege, 1995). This leads to the prediction that neural sensitivity to
phonemic contrasts should emerge in perception before accurate speech production emerges, which
is a question that, to our knowledge, has yet to be tested. The literature on the neural correlates of
expertise in learning to produce non-native contrasts has received less attention compared to per-
ception. This relative paucity of work on L2 production is partially attributable to methodological
challenges—techniques like ERP and fMRI are sensitive to motion artifacts. In general, the broad
patterns found in studies of the neural correlates of L2 sound production (e.g. Carey et al., 2017,
Hashizume et al., 2014) parallel what is found in the literature on perceptual expertise.
Second, not all non-native speech contrasts are equally difficult to learn. A fundamental principle
of several models of non-native speech sound learning (e.g., Best et al., 2001; Flege, 1995; Kuhl
et al., 2008) is that non-native sounds that are closer in perceptual space to native-language sounds
are especially difficult—particularly when two non-native sounds are subsumed within an L1 cat-
egory. Examples of this phenomenon include the Hindi dental and retroflex stop consonants, /d̪/and /
ɖ/, which appear as allophones of /d/in several languages, or the English /l/and /ɹ/sounds, which are
allophonic variants in Japanese. In this sense, the difficulty of learning depends on the contrast itself
as well as the language background of the listener. Comparison of easy-vs. hard-to-learn contrasts
could reveal qualitatively or quantitatively different patterns of neural sensitivity as different pro-
cessing resources and strategies may be brought to bear. Unfortunately, most researchers tend to
work with a few “pet” contrasts, and to our knowledge there has been no thorough imaging work
comparing non-native contrasts with greater or lesser acoustic similarity. Similarly, the systems for
learning segmental distinctions (i.e., phonemes like /a/and /d/) compared to suprasegmental contrasts
(i.e., lexical tone contrasts used in many of the worlds’ languages) may not be equivalent (Feng et al.,
2018; Silbert et al., 2015; Wong et al., 2007). Tonal contrasts are different from segmental contrasts
on several dimensions—they are longer duration and are typically cued primarily by one acoustic fea-
ture (e.g., pitch, both height and direction). Further, since vocal pitch is used for other purposes (e.g.,
emotion, question vs. statement intonation), learning new tone categories may involve co-opting
systems for affective processing or linguistic prosody. In sum, although some convergence in the
neural systems for learning tone and segmental contrasts can be found, it would be unreasonable (and
perhaps surprising) to expect identical neural systems for processing all non-native sound contrasts.
Other methodological challenges of studying L2 phonology acquisition are shared with other
domains of L2 learning and the study of bilingualism in general. Namely, when studying language
learners in the wild, it is impossible to equate the quality and quantity of L2 input, nor can one con-
trol the timing of exposure to that input. Researchers (including ourselves) have resorted to training
naive listeners on L2 sounds, but these studies rarely approach the duration and intensity of exposure
88
The Neurolinguistics of Second Language Phonology
that an immersion environment would provide. Finally, as we reflect below, every study of non-
native sound learning is necessarily a study of individual differences. In our own studies, college
students with apparently similar backgrounds will perform very differently on training tasks—some
participants hit ceiling performance after a handful of trials, while other participants are still at chance
performance by the end of training. In the L2 pedagogy literature, researchers are concerned with
notions of learning “aptitude,” an estimation of a learner’s probable skill in learning non-native sound
contrasts. Aptitude is likely a combination of an interwoven set of perceptual, cognitive, and socio-
cultural factors (e.g. Sparks et al., 2011) but we argue that individual differences in brain structure and
function may be one source of differences in learning success, a topic we return to in the final section.
Theoretical Perspectives and Related Findings

Adult L2 learners rarely obtain native-like proficiency in all aspects of an L2. For example, even
highly proficient L2 speakers often have persistent difficulties perceiving and producing speech
sounds in their L2 (Bradlow et al., 1997; Flege et al., 2007). Why, then, are non-native sounds diffi-
cult to learn in adulthood? Theories of non-native speech perception have typically appealed to two
sources of difficulty—the initial perceptual state of the adult learner and differences in neuroplasticity.
Perceptual Warping as an Obstacle to Non-Native Speech Sound Acquisition

Any L2 learner has, by definition, already acquired one language. According to many mainstream
theories of non-native speech perception, the mechanisms that support the acquisition of speech cat-
egories in the L1 are still available throughout the lifespan and can, at least in principle, support L2
speech sound acquisition (e.g., Best et al., 2001; Flege, 1995; Kuhl et al., 2008). These theories of
course recognize the difficulties of perceiving and producing L2 speech sounds in adulthood, but they
primarily attribute these difficulties to experience rather than maturational constraints. Namely, the
trouble with learning new speech sounds arises not so much from hard limits on learning mechanisms,
but rather from interference from native language speech categories. This class of theories generates
the prediction that the neural systems that respond to successful acquisition of new sound categories
in adulthood will be similar to those evoked during childhood sound acquisition.
The native-language magnet model refers to this as native language neural commitment (Kuhl
et al., 2008). According to this model, the neural circuitry gradually “commits” to the activation
patterns of the L1 until the phonological system reaches stability, and these carefully honed native
language sensitivities work at odds to the process of recognizing overlapping non-native sounds.
The end result is that non-native learning in adulthood may be difficult because neural circuits have
become specialized for native language category structures (Myers, 2014).1
Critical/Sensitive Periods in the Brain

A (non-exclusive) alternative explanation is that there are changes in neural plasticity (i.e., quali-
tative shifts in the recruitment of different brain systems) over development that prevent the adult
learner from completely learning non-native sounds. One explanation for these difficulties is that
there is a critical period, sometimes also called a sensitive or optimal period, for language acquisition
(Lenneberg, 1967; Penfield, 1965).2 The critical period hypothesis assumes that there are biologic-
ally constrained time periods in which the learner is particularly capable of learning, either because
the brain is particularly plastic or because it is especially susceptible to input from the environ-
ment (Lenneberg, 1967; see also Werker & Hensch, 2015 for review). Lenneberg argued that critical
periods for language acquisition were linked to a process of hemispheric specialization over mat-
uration, where the shift from bilateral organization of language in childhood to left-lateralization
89
was accompanied by a loss in plasticity. (For more on age in L2 neurocognition, see Fromont, this
volume.)
However, more recent evidence suggests that broad-scale neural changes accompanying develop-
ment result in changes in perceptual and motor flexibility. Werker and Hensch (2015) note that neural
circuits using GABA, an inhibitory neurotransmitter, enter a plastic state, driven both by neurochem-
ical changes that accompany maturation as well as by the structure of the sensory input. Although the
GABA-linked maturational pathway has yet to be fully worked out in humans, behavioral evidence
suggests that infants begin attuning to the specific properties of speech they are exposed to in utero
(such as rhythmic classes; Mehler et al., 1988), suggesting that this window for speech plasticity is
open at birth. They describe a series of molecular “brakes” that dampen these periods of neural plasti-
city during maturation, leading to more stability, but less receptivity, in certain sensory systems (Reh
et al., 2020). Although the timing of the closure of the critical/sensitive period for speech perception
is a matter of substantial debate, it is argued that these shifts leave adult learners at a disadvantage for
non-native sound learning.
The evidence that exposure to a language in childhood results in more accurate perception and
production of phonology is nearly incontrovertible (Flege et al., 1995, 1999; Granena & Long, 2013;
Piske et al., 2001). At the same time, there is cause for optimism: changes in neural plasticity do not
entirely doom the adult language learner. In a study of 10–16-year-old and adult learners of a difficult
non-native speech contrast, we found that adults consistently outperformed adolescents, suggesting
that developmental changes in neural plasticity are not sufficient to interfere with these early learning
stages (Fuhrmeister et al., 2020; see also Heeren & Schouten, 2008; Wang & Kuhl, 2003). Indeed,
Werker and Hensch (2015) point out that the brakes on plasticity are not absolute and can be lifted—
potentially through pharmacological interventions, but also through directed attention to perceptual
stimuli.
Testing Critical/Sensitive Period Effects: Age-of-Acquisition or Exposure?

Although developmentally linked critical period effects are major drivers of first language acquisi-
tion, it is more challenging to test the hypothesis that critical periods limit L2 learning because it is
difficult to separate the effects of biological maturation from the social and cultural context in which
adults and children learn language. Adults and children typically learn new languages under different
circumstances, and it is common for children to spend more time using their L2 in their day-to-day
activities than adults (Flege et al., 1995, 1999; Piske et al., 2001). It is therefore likely that the bio-
logical age-of-acquisition effects have been over-estimated, and the effects of quantity and quality of
L2 exposure have been under-estimated. For instance, the amount of L2 use explains a great deal of
variance in how native-like a learner’s pronunciation is rated (Piske et al., 2001). Given that amount
of L2 use and age of acquisition tend to covary, and that both predict proficiency, it can be difficult to
separate these effects in studies of “real-world” learners.
Imaging studies may help disentangle influences of age of acquisition from proficiency. For
example, using fMRI, we can see where phonological processing takes place in the brain for groups
of participants who have qualitatively or quantitatively different experience with an L2 (Archila-
Suerte et al., 2015; Nichols & Joanisse, 2016; see also Golestani, 2016). Research with particular
populations may also be especially well-suited for probing critical period effects—specifically, in
participants who were adopted as young children to another country and report having forgotten their
(original) first language.
Individuals who had only brief exposure to a language as children offer insights into critical period
effects for L2 phonology by testing whether limited exposure to a language in early childhood leaves
traces that are evident later in life. Pallier et al. (2003) compared brain activation (using fMRI) of
90
individuals who were adopted from South Korea as children into French-speaking families and indi-
viduals who had learned French from birth. They found no differences in activation between these
groups when listening to Korean sentences, suggesting that no traces of the early Korean exposure
remained. They did, however, find that the amount of activation differed between the two groups
when listening to French speech, suggesting that the late exposure to French may have left subtle
neural traces. Ventureyra et al. (2004) tested similar groups of participants on a Korean phoneme dis-
crimination task and did not find that the adoptees had any advantage over the French monolinguals
in discriminating Korean sounds. Thus, early exposure to a language in itself does not seem sufficient
to induce native-like neural responses when hearing that language later in life.
Other studies have attempted to disentangle age-of-acquisition effects from proficiency and have
found that these variables may be represented independently in the brain, at least when considering
language proficiency holistically (Nichols & Joanisse, 2016). There has been less work specific-
ally on L2 speech, but one study has indeed found distinct patterns of neural activation for age of
acquisition and proficiency (Archila-Suerte et al., 2015). Archila-Suerte et al. (2015) tested Spanish–
English bilinguals of varying ages of acquisition and proficiency levels in perception and production
of English sounds. Early and late bilinguals did not differ on a behavioral speech production task,
nor did they differ from a group of monolingual English-speakers. However, they did find differences
in brain activation for perception depending on age of acquisition and proficiency: bilinguals with
higher proficiency showed more activation compared to bilinguals with lower proficiency in the
bilateral superior temporal gyri and the right rolandic operculum, areas related to perception of phon-
etic detail and subvocal rehearsal, respectively. They also found interesting similarities in activation
between late bilinguals and monolinguals compared to early bilinguals, suggesting that learning one
language in early childhood vs. learning two may influence where speech is processed in the brain.
Findings such as these, in which differences in neural activation but not in behavior are reported, are
interesting because they suggest that language users can take more than one route in the brain to get
the same outcome.
Overall, the imaging literature addressing age-of-acquisition effects on L2 phonology is sparse.
This is perhaps unsurprising, as such questions often require testing highly specific populations that
can be difficult to recruit. Ultimately, age of acquisition may play a role in how L2 speech sounds are
represented and processed in the brain, but future work will need to determine whether these effects
are due to maturational constraints, proficiency, amount of L2 use, or interference from L1 categories.
Perhaps we should be asking different questions than “whether” there is a critical period, but rather,
which parts of the L2 phoneme acquisition process are affected by age or what exactly do younger
learners have an advantage in when it comes to learning the phonology of an L2?
Does Proficient Non-Native Acquisition Become Native-Like?

A conceivable explanation for poorer sound acquisition in adulthood is that adults may recruit
different (potentially less efficient) cognitive and perceptual capacities than young children to tackle
this problem. In the following section we ask whether the neural systems devoted to novel contrast
learning resemble those for L1 contrasts in adult learners.
Brain Structures for Native-Language Speech Perception

Sensitivity to native language speech sounds can be found practically throughout the entire auditory
processing hierarchy. This pathway extends from early processing of sound in the brainstem, to pri-
mary auditory cortex, laterally over the cortex to the superior temporal gyri (STG) and superior tem-
poral sulcus, bilaterally, and projecting forward to involving the inferior frontal gyri (IFG, Blumstein
& Myers, 2014; Myers, 2014).
91
Brainstem responses to sound, as measured by a form of EEG known as auditory brainstem

response, reflect the properties of that sound with high fidelity (Coffey et al., 2019; Kraus et al.,
1995). Specific sensitivity to native-language contrasts can be seen in electrophysiological responses
to sound very early in the auditory processing stream. Speakers of tone languages, where encoding
of fine-grained differences in pitch are highly relevant for lexical status, show enhanced encoding
of pitch features in the brainstem response (Bidelman & Lee, 2015; Maggu et al., 2021), suggesting
that language learning results in selective auditory expertise for features that are language-relevant
(Pallier et al., 1997).
Further evidence of this phenomenon comes from data showing that early speech-evoked potentials
reflect the categorical structure of native-language sounds, a property that must be acquired through
experience (Bidelman & Lee, 2015). Indeed, the bilateral STG, falling just beyond the primary audi-
tory cortex, show both graded responses to speech (reflecting high fidelity to the auditory prop-
erty of the input) as well as sensitivity to the specific structure of native language categories (Desai
et al., 2008; Myers, 2007; Toscano et al., 2010). Evidence from electrocorticography (ECoG), where
electrodes are placed directly on the surface of the brain, shows sensitivity to native language cat-
egory structure in distributed neuronal populations (Chang et al., 2010; Mesgarani et al., 2014), but
intriguingly these populations show evidence of sensitivity that tracks phonetic classes (Mesgarani
et al., 2014). By the time the auditory signal arrives at the lateral surface of the STG, and into the
superior temporal sulcus, neuronal responses show tuning that reflects the composition of speech
categories. The role of regions beyond the STG for native language phonetic processing has been
debated (Hickok et al., 2011), but evidence suggests that the IFG, especially posterior portions of
these structures, are invoked under conditions of phonetic competition—for instance, when presented
with a token that falls between “back” and “pack” (Evans & Davis, 2015), and may reflect highly
categorical speech responses (Myers et al., 2009).
How then, do these native-language responses change when listeners are confronted with a new
phonetic category? In general, training on non-native speech sound categories results in a neural
pattern (both temporal and spatial) that approaches the native-like response. Early evidence for this
came from a series of studies in which participants were trained to distinguish items from a novel
sound category (Desai et al., 2008; Liebenthal et al., 2010). When participants underwent explicit
training on new non-native contrasts, increased activation was observed in a network of regions
involved in native-language processing (i.e., left-lateralized temporo-parietal and frontal regions)
after training (Callan et al., 2003; Golestani & Zatorre, 2004; Myers & Swan, 2012; Ventura-Campos
et al., 2013).
Turning to speech production, more proficient learners of an L2 vowel contrast showed increased
recruitment of a set of speech motor regions also used in native language production (Carey et al.,
2017) as participants were preparing to speak. Similar findings of overlap in non-native and native
speech production come from studies of bilinguals reading aloud (Berken et al., 2015), and naming
pictures (Parker Jones et al., 2013), although these studies were not designed to isolate the effects of
non-native phonological processing from other levels of language production (e.g. lexical selection,
semantic processing, etc.). In a well-powered study of speech production over the course of develop-
ment, Hashizume et al. (2014) scanned children (ages 6–18) while they imitated native and non-native
syllables. Increasing activation in left pars opercularis, a subregion of Broca’s area, during production
correlated with production accuracy. Strikingly, the neural systems recruited for novel sound category
learning are very similar to those recruited for native-language sound category processing.
Also of interest is how the neural response to category learning shifts as listeners gain proficiency.
In perceptual learning studies, learners initially recruit a network that includes areas that are core to
L1 phonetic processing, such as the bilateral STG, but also those that are less-important for native-
language perception, for instance the IFG and temporo-parietal junction. As listeners progress from
92
being entirely unfamiliar with the non-native sounds to an emergent proficiency with these sounds,
but while they are still working hard to distinguish them, executive and attentional demands may
be leveraged more strongly. We have proposed elsewhere (Myers, 2014) that as phonetic categories
become better-defined, top-down signals from frontal and parietal regions provide a feedback signal
to tune sensitivities in the temporal lobe, and that increased proficiency may be accompanied by
decreased reliance on frontal and parietal systems. In essence, once the superior temporal lobes have
been appropriately sensitized to the structure of non-native categories, they can handle most of the
job of perceiving non-native contrasts without intervention from more peripheral resources.
Other work has highlighted the importance of coordination between frontal-striatal circuits in
developing sensitivities to novel contrasts (Feng et al., 2018; Yi et al., 2016). In the application of the
dual learning system to tone learning, the problem of non-native sound learning is couched as one
of using external feedback to navigate a multi-dimensional acoustic space to discover the structure
of categories within this space (Chandrasekaran et al., 2014).3 This dual-learning system is proposed
to involve coordination between two learning systems, a “reflective,” strategic, rule-based system
and a “reflexive,” more automatic system mapping the sound to a reward (Chandrasekaran et al.,
2014). Feng and colleagues (2021) asked whether successful non-native learners come to resemble
native learners in the perception of lexical tone. In this fMRI study, native English speakers’ neural
patterns were compared to a group of native Mandarin speakers after the English speakers had under-
gone intensive training on Mandarin tones (Feng et al., 2019; Yi et al., 2016). Neural patterns of the
more proficient learners of the tone categories more closely resembled those of native speakers. This
finding bolsters the notion that the end result of non-native proficiency is not qualitatively different
from native language proficiency.
As alluded to earlier, a perennial problem for studies of non-native sound acquisition lies in bridging
the gap between lab-based studies characterized by shorter duration, artificial tasks, structured stimuli
and feedback, and real-world language learning, marked by immersive, variable, phonetic informa-
tion integrated with other levels of language structure, little structured feedback. Qi and colleagues
(2019) tested a group of participants who were enrolled in intensive Mandarin courses. They showed
that early recruitment of right hemisphere structures, the right IFG in particular, followed by disen-
gagement from this right hemisphere system was related to better learning outcomes. In a systematic
review, Qi and Legault (2020) argue that initial learning phases, as well as more complex learning
situations, may rely on recruitment of bilateral regions, but that successful learning is accompanied
by a shift to the left-lateralized language architecture. (For more on the context of learning in L2
neurocognition, see Bowden & Faretta-Studenberg, this volume.)
Taken together, evidence supports the view that proficient non-native speech sound learning
recruits native-language neural systems, and that these systems are available to the learner throughout
the lifespan. What, then, accounts for the pervasive age-of-acquisition effects that are still well-
attested in perception and production? As mentioned earlier in the chapter, developmental shifts in
perceptual sensitivity (Kuhl et al., 2008), maladaptive learning strategies (Chandrasekaran et al.,
2014), and differences in exposure (Piske et al,. 2001) are all likely bottlenecks on L2 learning, even
though they are not hard limiters of success. In the next section, we turn to emerging data showing
that individual differences in brain structure may predict the accuracy and speed at which adults can
learn new sounds.
Individual Differences in Brain Structure Supporting

Non-Native Sound Acquisition
Individual differences in perception and production of L2 speech sounds are common. (For more
on individual differences in L2 neurocognition, see Luque & Covey, this volume.) The previous
section identified regions of the brain that are found to be involved in perception or production of
93
L2 speech sounds, and we often see parallels between function and structure in the brain (Golestani,
2014). Relationships between brain structure and behavior can help elucidate sources of individual
differences and hint at whether behavioral differences may be innate or due to experience (e.g.,
Zatorre et al., 2012).
In one of the first studies examining relationships between brain structure and non-native speech
perception, Golestani et al. (2002) found several differences in parietal regions in faster vs. slower
learners of an unfamiliar speech contrast. They found, for example, that faster learners had more
white matter volume near the parietal-occipital sulcus, and generally more white matter volume in the
left hemisphere compared when compared to slower learners. Golestani and Pallier (2007) obtained
a similar finding for speech production: participants who produced non-native speech sounds more
accurately had more white matter in inferior parietal regions than less accurate producers.
Other studies have found relationships between structural measures of temporal areas and percep-
tion or production of non-native speech sounds. For example, we found that surface area and volume
of the left STG positively predicted learning of non-native speech sounds after training (Fuhrmeister
& Myers, 2021). Wong et al. (2007) found that more successful learners of a non-native (tonal)
contrast had more grey and white matter volume in Heschl’s gyrus, and they observed a negative
correlation between speed of learning and gray matter volume in this area. Golestani et al. (2007)
reported greater white matter densities in Heschl’s gyrus for faster learners of a non-native (seg-
mental) speech contrast. This is likely compatible with the Wong et al. (2007) findings, as there are
sometimes tradeoff relationships between gray and white matter (i.e., more white matter =less gray
matter). Some studies have even found higher instances of split or duplicate Heschl’s gyri in faster
sound learners (Golestani et al., 2007) and in individuals with more accurate production of unfamiliar
speech sounds (Turker et al., 2017). The findings of split or duplicate gyri are especially interesting
because the structure of Heschl’s gyrus is highly heritable (Peper et al., 2007) and thought to develop
in utero (White et al., 2010). Relationships between behavioral skills and gyrification patterns in this
region may be a result of an innate predisposition for that skill.
Some studies report relationships between structure of frontal regions, specifically the insula, and
non-native speech perception or production. For example, Golestani and Pallier (2007) found greater
white matter densities in the left insula among individuals who showed more vs. less accurate pro-
duction of non-native speech sounds. Rodriguez et al. (2018) found that cortical thickness of the left
anterior insula predicted learning of new speech sounds in bilinguals, but not monolinguals (but see
Sebastián-Gallés et al., 2012).
Measurements of brain structure can be informative for examining individual differences in
behavior. Some relationships that have been found between brain structure and L2 speech suggest
a potential innate predisposition (e.g., Heschl’s gyrus morphology); however, other aspects such as
white matter volume or cortical thickness may reflect experience (Hofer et al., 2020). Therefore, an
individual’s aptitude for perception and production of non-native speech sounds is likely influenced
by both innate and experience-driven factors.
Pedagogical and Clinical Implications

A review of the behavioral and neural data on non-native speech sound learning paints a far less
pessimistic picture for adult L2 learners than conventional wisdom might suppose. Lab-based
training regimens provide substantial gains (Bradlow et al., 1999; Fuhrmeister et al., 2020; Golestani
& Zatorre, 2004), adults may not have an insuperable disadvantage in learning non-native sounds
(Fuhrmeister et al., 2020), and the neural patterns of successful sound learners begin to approach
native listeners (e.g., Feng et al., 2021). There is already some use of phonetic training programs in
L2 pedagogy (Barriuso & Hayes-Harb, 2018; Thomson & Derwing, 2015), although pronunciation
94
training is more widespread than perceptual training. In general, there is substantial evidence that per-
ceptual system is still malleable in adulthood. The structure of the learning environment (e.g. the type
and quantity of exposure, and qualities of the training program), and even factors such as proximity to
sleep have been found to enhance perceptual learning across learners (Barriuso & Hayes-Harb, 2018;
Earle & Myers, 2015; Ingvalson et al., 2015).
Nonetheless, studies of individual differences in brain and behavior do suggest that some learners
may have a slightly easier time learning non-native sounds, perhaps due to differences in structural or
functional neural architectures that are more optimized for non-native speech sound learning or due to
certain experiences that support this process. Despite this, there is reason for optimism: listeners are
quite adept at compensating with contextual cues that allow them to fill in the blank when the signal
is unclear (Baese-Berk et al., 2020). Future research on the obstacles to L2 phonological acquisition
will likely focus on how to best support learning on the part of the conversation partner as well as
the L2 learner.
Current Trends and Future Directions

Several themes emerge as promising research directions in the neural correlates of non-native sound
learning. First, there is interest in determining what factors might be able to “lift the brakes” on
adult language plasticity. In the near term, this includes manipulating factors like exposure dosage
and quality to optimize learning. For instance, a line of work by our lab and others suggests that the
timing of phonetic training (i.e., closer to sleep vs. further away) influences the ability of listeners to
retain perceptual categories in memory (Earle & Myers, 2015; Qin & Zhang, 2019). Going forward,
analysis of large-scale neural, genetic, and behavioral datasets may better capture the wide range of
language-learning performance. Once this problem space has been worked out, we may be able to
tailor training paradigms to the specific perceptual and cognitive profile that each learner presents
(Wong et al., 2017). Perhaps most importantly, a shift in the culture surrounding L2 acquisition puts
the onus on the listener as well as the speaker to facilitate language comprehension (Baese-Berk et al.,
2020). Finally, the advent of methods to allow neuroimaging of conversation partners simultaneously
during spontaneous conversation (i.e., a “hyperscanning” technique) may allow us to understand
these more complex neural dynamics at play during more ecologically valid language settings.
Notes
1 The Native Language Magnet model and Perceptual Assimilation Model (Best et al., 2001) also both pre-
dict that bilingual individuals may have an advantage for subsequent learning of at least certain sound cat-
egories. In the NLM, early exposure to an L2 keeps the period of plasticity open longer (the “perceptual
wedge” hypothesis), and in the PAM, the presence of an additional phonetic inventory (e.g. a larger number
of acquired vowels and consonants in two compared to one language) increases the probability that listeners
will be able to map novel sounds to different categories. Nonetheless, evidence that bilinguals are superior
non-native sound learners (when those sound categories are not already contrastive in their native languages)
is limited (Archila-Suerte et al., 2016).
2 Note that we use terms such as “critical/sensitive period,” “age of acquisition,” and “neuroplasticity” in
this chapter. In our view, these phrases are not fully synonymous and refer to somewhat different facets of
the question. For instance, as a field we have assumed that the reason that age of acquisition effects exist is
greater neuroplasticity during a critical or sensitive period, but this is still being worked out—one could have
a sensitive period that is not about neuroplasticity, per se, but arises from competition between language-
specific and domain-general learning mechanisms.
3 In the context of tone categories, the acoustic dimensions that are integrated may reflect aspects like tone
height or trajectory; other phonetic categories similarly involve integrating probabilistic acoustic cues. Cues
to word-initial stop voicing include voice onset time, pitch, length of the proceeding vowel, and burst spec-
trum (Chodroff & Wilson, 2014); at least 24 different acoustic cues contribute to fricative place of articula-
tion (McMurray & Jongman, 2011).
95
Further Readings
This article is ideal for readers who want a fuller understanding of the cellular and chemical processes that drive
plasticity, and how these play out in language acquisition.
Werker, J.F., & Hensch, T.K. (2015). Critical periods in speech perception: New directions. Annual Review of
Psychology, 66(1), 173–196. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010814-015104
This review of non-native speech communication puts the focus on the listener rather than on the talker, pointing
out that in a communication context, listeners can and do readily adapt to non-native speech.
Baese-Berk, M.M., McLaughlin, D.J., & McGowan, K.B. (2020). Perception of non-native speech. Language
and Linguistics Compass, 14(7), Article e12375. https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12375
The authors outline an exciting new direction in language pedagogy, suggesting that neural and genetic data
could be used to tailor individualized training programs to optimize language learning.
Wong, P.C.M., Vuong, L.C., & Liu, K. (2017). Personalized learning: From neurogenetics of behaviors to
designing optimal language training. Neuropsychologia, 98, 192–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsyc
hologia.2016.10.002
References
Archila-Suerte, P., Bunta, F., & Hernandez, A.E. (2016). Speech sound learning depends on individuals’ ability,
not just experience. The International Journal of Bilingualism: Cross-Disciplinary, Cross-Linguistic Studies
of Language Behavior, 20(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006914552206
Archila-Suerte, P., Zevin, J., & Hernandez, A.E. (2015). The effect of age of acquisition, socioeducational status,
and proficiency on the neural processing of second language speech sounds. Brain and Language, 141, 35–
49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2014.11.005
Baese-Berk, M.M., McLaughlin, D.J., & McGowan, K.B. (2020). Perception of non-native speech. Language
and Linguistics Compass, 14(7), e12375. https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12375
Barriuso, T.A., & Hayes-Harb, R. (2018). High variability phonetic training as a bridge from research to practice.
CATESOL Journal, 30(1), 177–194.
Berken, J.A., Gracco, V.L., Chen, J.-K., Watkins, K.E., Baum, S., Callahan, M., & Klein, D. (2015). Neural
activation in speech production and reading aloud in native and non-native languages. NeuroImage, 112,
208–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.03.016
Best, C.T., McRoberts, G.W., & Goodell, E. (2001). Discrimination of non-native consonant contrasts varying in
perceptual assimilation to the listener’s native phonological system. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of
America, 109(2), 775–794. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1332378
Bidelman, G.M., & Lee, C.-C. (2015). Effects of language experience and stimulus context on the neural organ-
ization and categorical perception of speech. NeuroImage, 120, 191–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroim
age.2015.06.087
Bowden, H., & Faretta-Stutenberg, M. (this volume). Context of learning in second language neurocognition.
Blumstein, S.E., & Myers, E.B. (2014). Neural systems underlying speech perception. In K.N. Oshsner & S.
Kosslyn (Eds), Oxford handbook of cognitive neuroscience, volume 1: Core topics (pp. 507–523). https://doi.
org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199988693.013.0025
Bradlow, A.R., Akahane-Yamada, R., Pisoni, D.B., & Tohkura, Y. (1999). Training Japanese listeners to identify
English /r/and /l/: Long-term retention of learning in perception and production. Perception & Psychophysics,
61(5), 977–985. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206911
Bradlow, A.R., Pisoni, D.B., Akahane-Yamada, R., & Tohkura, Y. (1997). Training Japanese listeners to iden-
tify English /r/and /l/: IV. Some effects of perceptual learning on speech production. The Journal of the
Acoustical Society of America, 101(4), 2299–2310. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.418276
Callan, D.E., Tajima, K., Callan, A.M., Kubo, R., Masaki, S., & Akahane-Yamada, R. (2003). Learning-induced
neural plasticity associated with improved identification performance after training of a difficult second-
language phonetic contrast. Neuroimage, 19(1), 113–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1053-8119(03)00020-x
Carey, D., Miquel, M.E., Evans, B.G., Adank, P., & McGettigan, C. (2017). Vocal tract images reveal neural
representations of sensorimotor transformation during speech imitation. Cerebral Cortex, 27(5), 3064–3079.
https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhx056
96
Chandrasekaran, B., Yi, H.-G., & Maddox, W.T. (2014). Dual-learning systems during speech category learning.
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21(2), 488–495. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-013-0501-5
Chang, E.F., Rieger, J.W., Johnson, K., Berger, M.S., Barbaro, N.M., & Knight, R.T. (2010). Categorical speech
representation in human superior temporal gyrus. Nature Neuroscience, 13(11), 1428–1432. https://doi.org/
10.1038/nn.2641
Chodroff, E., & Wilson, C. (2014). Burst spectrum as a cue for the stop voicing contrast in American English. The
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 136(5), 2762. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4896470
Coffey, E.B.J., Nicol, T., White-Schwoch, T., Chandrasekaran, B., Krizman, J., Skoe, E., Zatorre, R.J., & Kraus, N.
(2019). Evolving perspectives on the sources of the frequency-following response. Nature Communications,
10(1), 5036. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-13003-w
Desai, R., Liebenthal, E., Waldron, E., & Binder, J.R. (2008). Left posterior temporal regions are sensitive to
auditory categorization. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20(7), 1174–1188. https://doi.org/10.1162/
jocn.2008.20081
Earle, F.S., & Myers, E.B. (2015). Sleep and native language interference affect non-native speech sound
learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 41(6), 1680–1695.
https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000113
Evans, S., & Davis, M.H. (2015). Hierarchical organization of auditory and motor representations in speech per-
ception: Evidence from searchlight similarity analysis. Cerebral Cortex, 25(12), 4772–4788. https://doi.org/
10.1093/cercor/bhv136
Feng, G., Gan, Z., Wang, S., Wong, P.C.M., & Chandrasekaran, B. (2018). Task-general and acoustic-invariant
neural representation of speech categories in the human brain. Cerebral Cortex, 28(9), 3241–3254. https://
doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhx195
Feng, G., Li, Y., Hsu, S.-M., Wong, P.C.M., Chou, T.-L., & Chandrasekaran, B. (2021). Emerging native-similar
neural representations underlie non-native speech category learning success. Neurobiology of Language,
2(2), 280–307. https://doi.org/10.1162/nol_a_00035
Feng, G., Yi, H.G., & Chandrasekaran, B. (2019). The role of the human auditory corticostriatal network in
speech learning. Cerebral Cortex, 29(10), 4077–4089. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhy289
Flege, J.E. (1995). Second language speech learning: Theory, findings, and problems. In W. Strange (Ed.),
Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-language research (pp. 233–277). York Press.
Flege, J.E., Bohn, O.-S., & Munro, M.J. (2007). Language experience in second language speech learning: In
honor of James Emil Flege. John Benjamins Publishing.
Flege, J.E., Munro, M.J., & MacKay, I.R. (1995). Factors affecting strength of perceived foreign accent in
a second language. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 97(5), 3125–3134. https://doi.org/
10.1121/1.413041
Flege, J.E., Yeni-Komshian, G.H., & Liu, S. (1999). Age constraints on second-language acquisition. Journal of
Memory and Language, 41(1), 78–104. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1999.2638
Fromont, L. (this volume). Age and proficiency in second language neurocognition. In K. Morgan-Short & J.G.
Fuhrmeister, P., & Myers, E.B. (2021). Structural variation in the temporal lobe predicts learning and retention
of non-native speech sounds. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 37(1), 63–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/
23273798.2021.1944658
Fuhrmeister, P., Schlemmer, B., & Myers, E.B. (2020). Adults show initial advantages over children in learning
difficult nonnative speech sounds. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 63(8), 2667–2679.
https://doi.org/10.1044/2020_JSLHR-19-00358
Golestani, N. (2014). Brain structural correlates of individual differences at low-to high-levels of the language
processing hierarchy: A review of new approaches to imaging research. International Journal of Bilingualism,
18(1), 6–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006912456585
Golestani, N. (2016). Neuroimaging of phonetic perception in bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition,
19(4), 674–682. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728915000644
Golestani, N., Molko, N., Dehaene, S., LeBihan, D., & Pallier, C. (2007). Brain structure predicts the learning of
foreign speech sounds. Cerebal Cortex, 17(3), 575–582. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhk001
Golestani, N., & Pallier, C. (2007). Anatomical correlates of foreign speech sound production. Cerebral Cortex,
17(4), 929. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhl003
Golestani, N., Paus, T., & Zatorre, R.J. (2002). Anatomical correlates of learning novel speech sounds. Neuron,
35(5), 997–1010. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0896-6273(02)00862-0
Golestani, N., & Zatorre, R.J. (2004). Learning new sounds of speech: Reallocation of neural substrates.
Neuroimage, 21(2), 494–506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2003.09.071
97
Granena, G., & Long, M.H. (2013). Age of onset, length of residence, language aptitude, and ultimate L2
attainment in three linguistic domains. Second Language Research, 29(3), 311–343. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0267658312461497
Hashizume, H., Taki, Y., Sassa, Y., Thyreau, B., Asano, M., Asano, K., Takeuchi, H., Nouchi, R., Kotozaki, Y.,
Jeong, H., Sugiura, M., & Kawashima, R. (2014). Developmental changes in brain activation involved in the
production of novel speech sounds in children. Human Brain Mapping, 35(8), 4079–4089. https://doi.org/
10.1002/hbm.22460
Heeren, W.F.L., & Schouten, M.E.H. (2008). Perceptual development of phoneme contrasts: How sensitivity
changes along acoustic dimensions that contrast phoneme categories. The Journal of the Acoustical Society
of America, 124(4), 2291–2302. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2967472
Hickok, G., Costanzo, M., Capasso, R., & Miceli, G. (2011). The role of Broca’s area in speech percep-
tion: Evidence from aphasia revisited. Brain and Language, 119(3), 214–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.bandl.2011.08.001
Hofer, E., Roshchupkin, G.V., Adams, H.H.H., Knol, M.J., Lin, H., Li, S., Zare, H., Ahmad, S., Armstrong, N.J.,
Satizabal, C.L., Bernard, M., Bis, J.C., Gillespie, N. A., Luciano, M., Mishra, A., Scholz, M., Teumer, A., Xia,
R., Jian, X., … Seshadri, S. (2020). Genetic correlations and genome-wide associations of cortical structure in
general population samples of 22,824 adults. Nature Communications, 11(1), 4796. https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41467-020-18367-y
Ingvalson, E.M., Dhar, S., Wong, P.C.M., & Liu, H. (2015). Working memory training to improve speech percep-
tion in noise across languages. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 137(6), 3477–3486. https://
doi.org/10.1121/1.4921601
Kim, R., Roberson, L., Russo, M., & Briganti, P. (2019). Language diversity, nonnative accents, and their
consequences at the workplace: Recommendations for individuals, teams, and organizations. The Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, 55(1), 73–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886318800997
Kraus, N., McGee, T., Carrell, T.D., King, C., Tremblay, K., & Nicol, T. (1995). Central auditory system plasti-
city associated with speech discrimination training. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 7(1), 25–32. https://
doi.org/10.1162/jocn.1995.7.1.25
Kuhl, P.K., Conboy, B.T., Coffey-Corina, S., Padden, D., Rivera-Gaxiola, M., & Nelson, T. (2008). Phonetic
learning as a pathway to language: New data and native language magnet theory expanded (NLM-e).
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 363, 363(1493), 979–1000. https://
doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2007.2154
Kuhl, P., & Rivera-Gaxiola, M. (2008). Neural substrates of language acquisition. Annual Review Neuroscience,
31, 511–534. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.neuro.30.051606.094321
Lenneberg, E.H. (1967). Biological foundations of language. Wiley.
Liebenthal, E., Desai, R., Ellingson, M.M., Ramachandran, B., Desai, A., & Binder, J.R. (2010). Specialization
along the left superior temporal sulcus for auditory categorization. Cerebral Cortex, 20(12), 2958–2970.
https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhq045
Luque, A. & Covey, L. (this volume). Factors accounting for individual differences in second language
neurocognition. In K. Morgan-Short & J.G. van Hell (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language
Maggu, A.R., Lau, J.C.Y., Waye, M.M.Y., & Wong, P.C.M. (2021). Combination of absolute pitch and tone lan-
guage experience enhances lexical tone perception. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41598-020-80260-x
McMurray, B., & Jongman, A. (2011). What information is necessary for speech categorization? Harnessing
variability in the speech signal by integrating cues computed relative to expectations. Psychological Review,
118(2), 219–246. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022325
Mehler, J., Jusczyk, P., Lambertz, G., Halsted, N., Bertoncini, J., & Amiel-Tison, C. (1988). A precursor of lan-
guage acquisition in young infants. Cognition, 29(2), 143–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(88)90035-2
Mesgarani, N., Cheung, C., Johnson, K., & Chang, E.F. (2014). Phonetic feature encoding in human superior
temporal gyrus. Science, 343(6174), 1006–1010. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1245994
Myers, E.B. (2007). Dissociable effects of phonetic competition and category typicality in a phonetic categoriza-
tion task: An fMRI investigation. Neuropsychologia, 45(7), 1463–1473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsyc
hologia.2006.11.005
Myers, E.B. (2014). Emergence of category-level sensitivities in non-native speech sound learning. Frontiers in
Neuroscience, 8, 238. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2014.00238
Myers, E.B., Blumstein, S.E., Walsh, E., & Eliassen, J. (2009). Inferior frontal regions underlie the percep-
tion of phonetic category invariance. Psychological science, 20(7), 895–903. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1467-9280.2009.02380.x
98
Myers, E.B., & Swan, K. (2012). Effects of category learning on neural sensitivity to non-native phonetic cat-
egories. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 24(8), 1695–1708. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00243
Nichols, E.S., & Joanisse, M.F. (2016). Functional activity and white matter microstructure reveal the inde-
pendent effects of age of acquisition and proficiency on second-language learning. NeuroImage, 143, 15–25.
Pallier, C., Bosch, L., & Sebastián-Gallés, N. (1997). A limit on behavioral plasticity in speech perception.
Cognition, 64(3), B9–B17. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(97)00030-9
Pallier, C., Dehaene, S., Poline, J.-B., LeBihan, D., Argenti, A.-M., Dupoux, E., & Mehler, J. (2003). Brain
imaging of language plasticity in adopted adults: Can a second language replace the first? Cerebral Cortex,
13(2), 155–161. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/13.2.155
Parker Jones, O., Seghier, M.L., Kawabata Duncan, K.J., Leff, A.P., Green, D.W., & Price, C.J. (2013). Auditory-
motor interactions for the production of native and non-native speech. The Journal of Neuroscience, 33(6),
2376–2387. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3289-12.2013
Penfield, W. (1965). Conditioning the uncommitted cortex for language learning. Brain: A Journal of Neurology,
88(4), 787–798. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/88.4.787
Peper, J.S., Brouwer, R.M., Boomsma, D.I., Kahn, R.S., & Hulshoff Pol, H.E. (2007). Genetic influences on
human brain structure: A review of brain imaging studies in twins. Human Brain Mapping, 28(6), 464–473.
Piske, T., MacKay, I.R.A., & Flege, J.E. (2001). Factors affecting degree of foreign accent in an L2: A review.
Journal of Phonetics, 29(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1006/jpho.2001.0134
Qi, Z., Han, M., Wang, Y., de Los Angeles, C., Liu, Q., Garel, K., Chen, E.S., Whitfield-Gabrieli, S., Gabrieli,
J.D.E., & Perrachione, T.K. (2019). Speech processing and plasticity in the right hemisphere predict vari-
ation in adult foreign language learning. NeuroImage, 192, 76–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroim
age.2019.03.008
Qi, Z., & Legault, J. (2020). Neural hemispheric organization in successful adult language learning: Is left always
right? In K. D. Federmeier & H.-W. Huang (Eds.), Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 72, pp. 119–
163). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.plm.2020.02.004
Qin, Z., & Zhang, C. (2019). The effect of overnight consolidation in the perceptual learning of non-native tonal
contrasts. PLOS ONE, 14(12), e0221498. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0221498
Reh, R.K., Dias, B.G., Nelson, C.A., Kaufer, D., Werker, J.F., Kolb, B., Levine, J.D., & Hensch, T.K. (2020).
Critical period regulation across multiple timescales. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
117(38), 23242–23251. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1820836117
Rodriguez, S.M., Archila-Suerte, P., Vaughn, K.A., Chiarello, C., & Hernandez, A.E. (2018). Anterior insular
thickness predicts speech sound learning ability in bilinguals. NeuroImage, 165, 278–284. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.10.038
Sebastián-Gallés, N., Soriano-Mas, C., Baus, C., Díaz, B., Ressel, V., Pallier, C., Costa, A., & Pujol, J. (2012).
Neuroanatomical markers of individual differences in native and non-native vowel perception. Journal of
Neurolinguistics, 25(3), 150–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2011.11.001
Si, X., Zhou, W., & Hong, B. (2017). Cooperative cortical network for categorical processing of Chinese lexical
tone. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 114(46), 12303–
12308. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1710752114
Silbert, N.H., Smith, B.K., Jackson, S.R., Campbell, S.G., Hughes, M.M., & Tare, M. (2015). Non-native phon-
emic discrimination, phonological short term memory, and word learning. Journal of Phonetics, 50, 99–119.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2015.03.001
Sparks, R.L., Humbach, N., Patton, J., & Ganschow, L. (2011). Subcomponents of second-language aptitude
and second-language proficiency. The Modern Language Journal, 95(2), 253–273. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1540-4781.2011.01176.x
Thomson, R.I., & Derwing, T.M. (2015). The effectiveness of L2 pronunciation instruction: A narrative review.
Applied Linguistics, 36(3), 326–344. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu076
Toscano, J.C., McMurray, B., Dennhardt, J., & Luck, S.J. (2010). Continuous perception and graded categoriza-
tion. Psychological Science, 21(10), 1532–1540. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610384142
Turker, S., Reiterer, S.M., Seither-Preisler, A., & Schneider, P. (2017). “When music speaks”: Auditory cortex
morphology as a neuroanatomical marker of language aptitude and musicality. Frontiers in Psychology, 8,
2096. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02096
Ventura-Campos, N., Sanjuán, A., González, J., Palomar-García, M.-Á., Rodríguez-Pujadas, A., Sebastián-Gallés,
N., Deco, G., & Ávila, C. (2013). Spontaneous brain activity predicts learning ability of foreign sounds. The
Journal of Neuroscience, 33(22), 9295–9305. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4655-12.2013
99
Ventureyra, V.A.G., Pallier, C., & Yoo, H.-Y. (2004). The loss of first language phonetic perception in adopted
Koreans. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 17(1), 79–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0911-6044(03)00053-8
Wang, Y., & Kuhl, P. (2003). Evaluating the “critical period” hypothesis: Perceptual learning of Mandarin tones
in American adults and American children at 6, 10 and 14 years of age. In M. J. Solé, D. Recasens, &
J. Romero (Eds.), Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 1537–1540).
Futurgraphic.
Werker, J.F., & Tees, R.C. (2005). Speech perception as a window for understanding plasticity and commitment
in language systems of the brain. Developmental Psychobiology, 46(3), 233–251. https://doi.org/10.1002/
dev.20060
White, T., Su, S., Schmidt, M., Kao, C.-Y., & Sapiro, G. (2010). The development of gyrification in childhood
and adolescence. Brain and Cognition, 72(1), 36–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2009.10.009
Wong, P.C.M., Perrachione, T.K., & Parrish, T.B. (2007). Neural characteristics of successful and less successful
speech and word learning in adults. Human Brain Mapping, 28(10), 995–1006. https://doi.org/10.1002/
hbm.20330
Wong, P.C.M., Vuong, L.C., & Liu, K. (2017). Personalized learning: From neurogenetics of behaviors to
hologia.2016.10.002
Wong, P.C.M., Warrier, C. M., Penhune, V. B., Roy, A. K., Sadehh, A., Parrish, T. B., & Zatorre, R. J. (2007).
Volume of left Heschl’s gyrus and linguistic pitch learning. Cerebral Cortex, 18(4), 828–836. https://doi.org/
10.1093/cercor/bhm115
Yi, H.-G., Maddox, W. T., Mumford, J. A., & Chandrasekaran, B. (2016). The role of corticostriatal systems in
speech category learning. Cerebral Cortex, 26(4), 1409–1420. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhu236
Zatorre, R. J., Fields, R. D., & Johansen-Berg, H. (2012). Plasticity in gray and white: Neuroimaging changes in
brain structure during learning. Nature Neuroscience, 15(4), 528–536. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3045
100
8
THE NEUROLINGUISTICS OF
THE SECOND LANGUAGE
LEXICO-S EMANTIC SYSTEM

The lexico-semantic system (words and their meanings) is the backbone of the second language (L2)
learner’s new language. As the saying goes, “Without grammar, you can’t say much; but without
vocabulary, you can’t say anything.” Indeed, learners indicate that vocabulary is one of the most sig-
nificant hurdles they face during the quest for proficiency (Huckin & Bloch, 1993).
In this chapter, we review studies that have used neurolinguistic methods to examine the L2
lexico-semantic system. Numerous neuroscientific methods have been used in this area. These
include electroencephalography (EEG), event- related brain potentials (ERPs), functional mag-
netic resonance imaging (fMRI), voxel-based morphometry (VBM), positron emission tomography
(PET), and case studies (see Table 8.1 for a list of relevant methods). These methods vary in their
invasiveness, expense, and complexity. Therefore, some have been used more often than others and
will be described in more detail. Because each method has different benefits to offer, it is useful to
compare these studies and synthesize their outcomes to paint a larger picture of the current trends in
the neurolinguistics of the lexico-semantic system.
Before diving into critical issues and topics, we begin with additional information about the most
frequently used methods in this research, which we highlight most in this chapter: ERPs and MRI.
ERPs are derived from the continuous EEG, which represents the electrical activity of the brain as
recorded from the surface of the scalp using electrodes. ERPs differ from the continuous EEG in that
they are time-locked to events (e.g., stimulus presentations, responses). ERPs are useful in examining
L2 lexico-semantic processing because parts of the ERP waveform are sensitive to this processing,
and because recording EEG and pre-processing these data is relatively inexpensive compared to other
neurolinguistic methods. ERPs are very good at indicating when in time events occur.
The N400 ERP component is the most widely researched ERP component in lexico-semantic
processing because of its immediate sensitivity to multiple word-level factors, both in first language
(L1) and L2 (for a review of the N400 in lexico-semantic processing, see Jankowiak & Rataj, 2017).
In language research, the N400 is characterized by a negative-going waveform occurring approxi-
mately 300–400 ms after stimulus onset, peaking at centro-parietal electrode sites. The N400 is
more negative to semantic violations and incongruities. It is normally most evident after averaging
waveforms across sessions and individuals. However, the exact timing, location, and amplitude of
the N400 can vary with proficiency, task demands, and materials used (Federmeier, 2021; Jankowiak,
2021; Jankowiak & Rataj, 2017). The size of the N400 in lexico-semantic processing depends on
DOI: 10.4324/9781003190912-11 101

Table 8.1 List of Relevant Methodologies
Methodology Description
Electroencephalography (EEG) Continuous measure of the electrical activity of the

brain (see Motteralla & Prat, this volume)
Event-related brain potentials (ERPs) Brain activity time locked to events; derived from
the continuous EEG (see Dickson & Pelzl, this
volume)
Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) Imaging scans of brain structure made possible by a
very powerful magnet (see Kousaie & Klein, this
volume)
Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) Imaging scans of brain function made possible by a
very powerful magnet (e.g., MRI), that measure
blood flow in the brain indirectly (see Kousaie &
Klein, this volume)
Voxel based morphometry (VBM) Measure of change in (grey or white matter) tissue
volume; derived from structural MRI scans (see
Rossi et al., this volume)
Positron emission tomography (PET) Imaging scans of brain function that make use of
radioactive tracers (see Kousaie & Klein, this
volume)
Clinical/case studies In depth, descriptive records of individuals or groups
of individuals (see Scimeca et al., this volume)
many factors, including the task type and task demands (e.g., lexical/semantic decision tasks, self-
paced reading tasks, translation production, etc.), materials used (e.g., related versus unrelated,
expected versus unexpected, and trained versus untrained words, conflict versus no conflict, etc.),
sample population (e.g., balanced versus unbalanced bilinguals,1 same script versus different script
bilinguals), and study design (e.g., within subject L1 and L2 versus observation of monolinguals
versus bilinguals; Jankowiak & Rataj, 2017).2
The other highly popular method in the neurolinguistic study of the L2 lexico-semantic system is
neuroimaging (see Kousaie & Klein, this volume). PET requires the administration of a radioactive
tracer. Because MRI is a much less invasive procedure, its popularity quickly surpassed that of PET,
and it has become the dominant neuroimaging technique in neuroscience (for a review, see Sabourin,
2014). Whereas MRI is used to compare structure, fMRI is an imaging method that takes advantage
of magnetic properties of hydrogen ions in the brain to record blood flow indirectly. This technique is
used for determining spatial location of function.
Using MRI and other methods, L1 lexical processing has been localized to regions of the left
temporal lobe, left superior frontal cortex, and the left and right angular gyrus (e.g., Sabourin, 2014;
Zhang et al., 2020). For word retrieval and generation, the inferior frontal gyrus (IFG: often known as
Broca’s area) and other areas of the frontal lobe are implicated (Sabourin, 2014).
Critical Issues and Topics

The neurolinguistic methods mentioned above have been used to address several critical issues in the
field of L2 lexico-semantics, which we will address in the upcoming section. These include: How do
the two languages interact during recognition—are both languages active when only one is needed?
And if so, how does this interaction unfold? What changes are associated with increased L2 profi-
ciency? And what additional insights about the L2 lexico-semantic system can be drawn from case
102
Neurolinguistics of the Second Language Lexico-Semantic System
studies? Critically, neurolinguistic methods may be able to reveal findings in these research areas
that could be obscured using behavioral methods alone. This may be because some neurolinguistic
methods take measurements on a finer timescale (e.g., milliseconds for ERPs) as behavior unfolds,
whereas behavioral methods often examine behavior at endpoints of a process (e.g., a button press).
Critical Research Outcomes and Current Empirical Knowledge
How Do the Two Languages Interact During Recognition?

Elston-Güttler and colleagues conducted a series of three ERP experiments examining bilinguals’
ability to “zoom into” their L2, the idea that bilinguals can focus on L2 without L1 interference.
These studies also provide critical information about the role of context on lexico-semantic pro-
cessing. Elston-Güttler et al.’s (2005) participants were native-German speakers who were learning
English (age of first exposure approximately 12 years). The participants were shown 20 minutes of
a silent crime serial that was narrated in German or English. Following the film, participants were
presented with a series of sentences, which ended either in an interlingual homograph, or in an unre-
lated control word. A target word appeared on the screen following the final word of the sentence, to
which the participants performed a lexical decision. An example sentence is “The girl gave her friend
a pretty GIFT.” followed by the related target “POISON” (“gift” means “poison” in German rather
than “gift”), or the unrelated target “SHELL”; all sentence-final words and targets were presented in
capital letters.
Participants who saw the film in German demonstrated N200 (an ERP component typically
associated with language inhibition; see Kaan, 2007, for a review) and N400 components that were
more negative for unrelated than related trials, suggesting that German remained activated despite not
being relevant to the English sentence-reading task. This effect held for the first block (15 minutes)
of the study. The same was not true for participants who viewed the English version of the film. Thus,
hearing the film narration in English enabled participants to “zoom into” L2, whereas this was made
difficult for participants presented with the German film.
Elston-Güttler and Gunter (2009) conducted a follow-up study using a similar methodology to
Elston-Güttler et al. (2005), but in addition to manipulating the context prior to the experiment (the
language of the film), they also manipulated the sound that was played during the visual experiment.
Participants were native German speakers who had begun learning English at approximately age
11. They were all deemed proficient late learners, but additional (median split) proficiency analyses
were performed. In Experiment 1, Elston-Güttler and Gunter showed the English version of the film
before the experiment, and during the experiment itself half of the participants heard noise (back-
ward pseudowords) and the other half heard German pseudowords. In Experiment 2, they showed the
German version of the film before the experiment and during the experiment the participants heard
noise. In Experiment 3, they showed the English version of the film before the experiment, and during
the experiment the participants heard real German words. They found an N400 priming effect (i.e.,
ERPs more negative for unrelated than related trials) for the conditions that supported German acti-
vation, namely seeing the film in English but hearing German pseudowords (Experiment 1); viewing
the film in German and hearing noise (Experiment 2); and viewing the film in English and hearing
German words (Experiment 3 but only for less-proficient participants). Whereas the activation was
present for participants at all proficiency levels during only the first half of Experiments 1 and 2, it
lasted throughout Experiment 3, likely because real German words were played for the duration of
the experiment. The authors concluded that playing real German words activated German semantics
and phonology, which made it more difficult for the less-proficient participants in Experiment 3 to
“zoom into” L2.
103
Paulmann et al. (2006) conducted a related experiment using a primed lexical decision task
preceded by the film narrated in German or English to determine the influence of context on “zooming
in.” In this study, the primes were interlingual homographs (e.g., “bald”) or control primes that were
matched in length and frequency to the critical primes. The targets were the German translations of
the interlingual homographs (e.g., “soon,” which translates into German as “bald”). The same items
were used as in the previous two Elston-Güttler studies. Participants were native German speakers
who began learning English at approximately age 10.5 and were proficient speakers. Trials began
with the presentation of a fixation for 200 ms, followed by the prime for 200 ms, then the target,
which remained on the screen for up to 3000 ms or until a lexical decision was made. In contrast
to the findings of the previously described studies, an N400 relatedness effect (i.e., more negative
ERPs for unrelated than related trials) was observed regardless of the language in which the film
was presented, and regardless of the block of the experiment. This suggests that without supportive
sentence context, participants were unable to “zoom into” their L2, reinforcing the view that the two
languages can remain active even when one language is irrelevant to the task. Taken together, the
findings of these studies suggest that the native language often remains active during recognition
even when not needed (i.e., that lexical access is nonselective in nature).
What Changes Are Associated with Proficiency?

In addition to examining how L1 and L2 lexical processing may interact, research has also examined the
development of L2 lexical processing with increasing proficiency. In one of the initial key studies in the
study of proficiency-related changes, McLaughlin et al. (2004) examined learners of French at a mean
of 14, 63 and 138 hours of instruction. They tested their knowledge of French using a semantic priming
paradigm while recording ERPs. The key findings of this study were that learners showed a word-
pseudoword difference in ERPs after only 14 hours of instruction, that the magnitude of the ERP effects
were correlated with hours of instruction, and that relatedness effects appeared by 63 hours of instruc-
tion. Interestingly, these effects were not mirrored in the behavioral findings, which in the absence of
ERP data would have led to the conclusion that not much learning had occurred. These findings are
important for two reasons: First, they demonstrate that adult L2 vocabulary learning can occur relatively
quickly. Second, they demonstrate that a dissociation can appear between the neurolinguistic and behav-
ioral measures used in an experiment, such that one can suggest that learning has taken place when
the other does not (see also Chen et al., 2007; Tokowicz & MacWhinney, 2005, for similar findings in
grammar). Related to the McLaughlin et al. findings, Pu et al. (2016) found early evidence of an N400
in L2 learners to novel words. After approximately two days and four hours of training total, English
monolinguals exhibited a frontal, early N400 to incorrectly paired Spanish–English word pairs—a con-
trast that was significantly different from baseline tests and from related pairings. The component was
evident across anterior regions rather than the classic centro-parietal areas normally found in more pro-
ficient speakers, and it is the earliest evidence of lexico-semantic learning present at the neural level.
Research examining proficiency and L2 lexical processing has extended beyond the earliest stages
of learning. Indeed, reviews by Jankowiak (2021), Jankowiak and Rataj (2017), and Vandenberghe
et al. (2019), encompass numerous ERP studies that were conducted to assess lexico-semantic access/
vocabulary learning in speakers of varying proficiencies. The studies outlined in these reviews show
that, with increased proficiency, L2 speakers exhibit native-like patterns. This is evident in the timing
of the N400 (e.g., less proficient speakers show a delayed N400 peak latency, that occurs with more
standard timing with increased proficiency), amplitude (e.g., more proficient speakers show more
negative amplitudes in response to L2 words), and rough topography (e.g., less proficient speakers
tend to show the N400 effect more frontally, whereas more proficient speakers show the N400 effect
more centro-parietally).
104
A few studies included in the reviews are particularly relevant for the role of proficiency in L2 lex-
ical processing. In an ERP study, Elgort et al. (2015) trained bilingual L2 English speakers on “rare”
English words through an implicit word learning task. The words were rated low in orthographic and
meaning familiarity and extracted from a database of rare English words. Participants read highly
constraining sentences containing the rare words. Testing involved a semantic relatedness task, in
which participants saw a sentence on the screen, one word at a time, containing the learned word in
the sentence-final position, followed by a word probe. Learners were then asked to determine if the
final word of the sentence (the “rare,” learned word) was related to the subsequent probe. For test
trials on which the sentence final word and the probe were not semantically related, both less and
more-proficient L2 English bilinguals showed a frontal N400 to the rare words, although the amp-
litude for less-proficient speakers was somewhat smaller. More-proficient bilinguals also showed a
robust N400 over centro-parietal regions, whereas less-proficient bilinguals did not show the same
pattern in this area. The authors concluded that less-proficient participants were at a disadvantage due
to their insufficiently developed lexico-semantic networks; because of this, new words could not be
well integrated into the network and had fewer and/or weaker connections.
In a series of three studies, Stein and colleagues investigated the influence of increased profi-
ciency on brain changes using three different imaging techniques, EEG/ERP (Stein et al., 2006),
fMRI (Stein et al., 2009), and VBM (Stein et al., 2012). Due to the use of similar experimental
methods across the three studies, an interesting set of comparisons can be drawn. In all three studies,
native English speakers who were studying German abroad in Switzerland were examined toward the
start of their stay and at end of their stay, approximately five months later. Participants varied in their
prior exposure to German, and all attended a three-week intensive German language course prior to
their first experimental session. German proficiency was measured at both experimental time points
using a multiple-choice cloze test and a task in which participants were asked to translate 40 German
words into English. A combined measure of proficiency was formed from two tasks.
Stein et al. (2006) presented English, German (L2), and Romansh (unknown) words to participants
while continuous EEG was recorded. The analyses included trials on which participants indicated
knowing the English and German words and not knowing the Romansh words. The analyses
emphasized stimulus-locked topographic differences and found differences between 396 to 540 ms
post-stimulus between Session 1 and Session 2 for German words. They then conducted a source
localization analysis to determine the neural generator(s) of this effect, which revealed that a cluster
of voxels in left IFG was less activated on Session 2 than Session 1. They conducted a microstate
analysis (an analysis of the topographical pattern of activity of the brain that lasts for several tens
of milliseconds; see Murray et al., 2004) to determine the timing of these effects. They ultimately
interpreted these results as coming from a latency shift rather than lower activation on Session 2
due to the findings of the microstate analysis. They concluded that the aspect of word processing
responsible for the topographical differences (and the left IFG activation) becomes more rapid with
increased proficiency. This is most likely semantic processing, given past research on IFG and the
timing of the topographic differences.
Stein et al. (2009) similarly presented English, German, and Romansh words to participants but
using an fMRI protocol. They compared brain activation during L1 and L2 processing on Sessions 1
and 2. For Session 1, stronger activation for L2 than L1 was observed at the following brain areas: right
IFG, left IFG, and inferior frontal sulcus, and left supplementary motor area. On Session 2, profi-
ciency was higher, and activation was higher in L2 than L1 at only left IFG. The authors concluded
that higher L2 proficiency is associated with brain activation patterns that more closely resemble
those in L1, and that left IFG activation in this context reflects the semantic nature of the task.
Stein et al. (2012) used VBM to examine whether changes in grey matter correlated with changes
in proficiency during the exchange program. The participants were scanned using MRI at the start and
105
end of their stay. Two brain clusters, roughly the left anterior temporal lobe and left IFG, correlated
with proficiency, such that increased proficiency was associated with increased grey matter density.
Thus, within a timespan of only five months, increased proficiency was correlated with increased
grey matter density in a part of the brain associated with language processing.
Across these three studies, left IFG is the common denominator. In Stein et al. (2006), for German
word processing, a cluster of voxels in left IFG was less activated on Session 2 than Session 1, and
the microstate analysis suggested that this was in fact due to faster processing in left IFG. Stein et al.
(2009) observed higher activation in the L2 than in L1 only in left IFG on Session 2. And Stein et al.
(2012) found that grey matter density in left IFG correlated with increased L2 proficiency. This
underscores the critical role of this brain area for L2 lexico-semantic processing with increased pro-
ficiency. It is unfortunate that the first two of these studies were not able to more directly link profi-
ciency changes at the individual level with brain changes as was possible in the third study, but this
was restricted due to methodological issues and small sample sizes.
In a neuroimaging review, Abutalebi and Green (2007) argued for a convergence of neural
pathways of L1 and L2 that is modulated by increased proficiency, mainly in the prefrontal cortex
(PFC), basal ganglia, and parietal areas. Increased activation in less-proficient speakers, they argue,
can be explained via automatic versus controlled processing in the PFC and these related cognitive
control areas (see also Guo & Ma, this volume). For example, in many of the studies examined,
more-proficient L2 speakers showed reduced activation during lexico-semantic processing, whereas
less-proficient speakers showed increased activation, suggesting that more advanced L2 learners’
processing was more automatic, whereas less-advanced L2 learners relied more heavily on effortful,
thoughtful processing of the L2, and necessitated more brain activation. Abutalebi and Green suggest
that future directions in this field emphasize more longitudinal studies to examine developmental
changes more closely beyond the cross-sectional level.
In line with these findings, a recent meta-analysis by Sulpizio et al. (2020) examined the shared
functional regions of the lexico-semantic network across 18 PET and fMRI studies that used several
tasks: word reading, naming, production, and repetition; picture naming; semantic judgement; lexical
decision; and discourse listening. In the L1>L2 contrast collapsing across age of acquisition, signifi-
cant clusters were found in parts of the left lateral and ventral temporal lobe, the parietal cortex, the
IFG, and the left posterior cingulate. In subcortical areas, activation was evident in the right caudate
nucleus, left thalamus, and left amygdala. These cortical and subcortical regions are thought to be a
part of the neural network that stores and activates semantic representations. In the L2>L1 contrast
collapsing over age of acquisition, only the globus pallidus, the right insula, and right cerebellum
showed significant activation. These are thought to be more responsible for cognitive control and top-
down control mechanisms. In addition, a general pattern of increased left PFC activation was found
for the L2>L1 contrast, suggesting that L2 imposes more demands on working memory, inhibitory,
or general cognitive control mechanisms than L1. Additionally, the finding that more activation for
regions associated with L1 suggests that an individual’s L1 involves a more global network of activa-
tion than the L2. This is likely indicative of more deep processing backed by a rich lexico-semantic
network, whereas less activation from L2 could suggest more shallow processing.
Although higher L2 proficiency has been associated with less activation in cognitive control brain
areas, other frontal and temporal areas of the brain exhibit more robust connectivity in proficient
speakers, which may be indicative of deeper semantic processing. Zhang et al. (2020) conducted
an fMRI study investigating the differences between embodied semantic processing of verbs in
monolinguals and L2 speakers. In a semantic judgement task, Zhang et al. found that English mono-
lingual speakers showed more complex patterns of brain area connectivity between the IFG, middle
temporal gyrus, anterior temporal lobe, posterior superior temporal gyrus, supplementary motor area,
and caudate nucleus when judging the semantic relatedness of verbs and nouns than Chinese-English
106
intermediate and high proficient bilinguals. More robust connection between these areas in English
monolinguals may indicate that L2 English speakers engage in more shallow processing of semantic
representations due to weaker connections and greater difficulty for the brain to alter existing func-
tional pathways. In monolingual English speakers, these pathways were established at a young age.
Interestingly, however, both intermediate and more-proficient L2 speakers showed the same acti-
vation as monolingual speakers in sensorimotor areas of the brain, including the precentral gyrus
and the primary motor cortex, when asked to make semantic judgements about verbs. Although the
connectivity between these regions was weaker, the L2 speakers’ activation appeared to be trending
in a native-like direction. Thus, word recognition and semantic representations of words can overlap
in some brain areas in monolinguals and more proficient L2 speakers, but also clearly differ in con-
nectivity. See Bakker-Marshall et al. (2021) and Bradley et al. (2013) for extensions of this research
to third language learning.
What Additional Insights About the L2 Lexico-Semantic System

Can Be Drawn from Case Studies?
Case studies are also a rich source of information although they can be difficult to conduct due to
the nature of the research and the overall unpredictability of brain trauma and aphasia. In bilinguals
with aphasia, the situation becomes even more complicated because pre-deficit proficiency cannot
be reliably tested and relies heavily on self-report (but see Kiran et al., 2014 for a study examining
bilingual aphasia and language proficiency). Case studies are important because they can give us
clues into what information in the brain is lost with lesions and what is retained (see Scimeca et al.,
this volume).
In a comprehensive case- study review, García (2015) examined 21 cases of brain- lesioned
bilinguals with varying degrees and subtypes of aphasia, sociolinguistic disorders, and dementia
through the lenses of the revised hierarchical model (RHM: Kroll & Stewart, 1994; Kroll et al., 2010)
and the declarative/procedural (DP) model (Ullman, 2016). The RHM proposes a strong connection
between L1 lexical and conceptual representations, a strong connection going from L2 to L1 lexical
representations, and the weakest connections between L2 lexical and conceptual representations and
from L1 lexical to L2 lexical representations. As proficiency increases, the connection between L2
lexical and conceptual representations will strengthen. Given the structure of these links, García
predicted that persons with aphasia or other language-related deficits could show imbalanced impair-
ment between the two directions of translation. In addition, because the RHM assumes a direct,
strong lexical route from L2 to L1 and a weaker lexical route from L1 to L2, it is possible that indi-
viduals with impaired language function could translate lexically while ignoring the conceptual link.
The DP model relies more on the concepts of memory to explain L2 lexico-semantic processing.
According to the DP model, word processing and semantic representations of both L1 and L2 are
predominantly located in the posterior regions of the brain: the hippocampal gyrus, the medial tem-
poral lobe, and other areas of the parietal and temporal lobes. These areas are also associated with
declarative memory. The model also suggests that general language abilities are housed in the left
hemisphere. Thus, lesions in the posterior region should produce impairment in word translation and
word processing (García, 2015).
The RHM and DP model provided confirmatory evidence for García’s (2015) clinical case-study
observations. Indeed, some patients displayed the “inability to translate” from L2 to L1 but could
translate L1 to L2, and vice versa, as well as “paradoxical translation behavior” in which patients
could not produce translations at will but could speak the language instinctively, suggesting two sep-
arate and independent routes for L1 to L2 and L2 to L1 translation. Another set of patients exhibited
“translation without comprehension,” providing clinical evidence for a lexical translation route
without conceptual mediation. Interestingly, some patients exhibited “compulsive translation,” in
107
which they produced utterances in both of their languages involuntarily. This provides some evidence
of the co-activation of the two languages as well as the argument for the continuous inhibition of one
language to produce the other (Abutalebi & Green, 2007), resulting in competition and a demand for
cognitive control. In support of the DP model, García found that most patients with left-lateralized
posterior lesions exhibited impairments in word translation, and nearly all patients in the analysis had
lesions in the left hemisphere. García concluded that word translation is left-lateralized and relies
mainly on declarative memory.
Although case studies in this area provide solid evidence for a functional and structural L2 lexico-
semantic system in the brain, a future direction in clinical research of bilingual word processing and
translation involve the integration of case studies with neuroimaging, and a direct comparison with
healthy bilingual controls. It may seem that evidence from case studies contradicts the frameworks
of a shared neural substrate such as the convergence hypothesis. This hypothesis was first proposed
by Green (2003) and states that with time and increasing proficiency, the L2 system will eventually
converge with the L1 system rather than relying on separate neural substrates. This hypothesis has
been supported by studies showing that more proficient L2 speakers show less activation while using
the L2 in brain areas traditionally associated with language control, such as the PFC, basal ganglia,
and the inferior parietal lobule. Less activation in these areas, then, gives way to the idea that inhibi-
tory control and cognitive control processes are more important for early, less-proficient speakers
than advanced, more-proficient speakers (see Grant & Li, 2015, for further discussion). However,
small samples size and varied levels of deficits and lesion locations can make generalization through
clinical observations difficult. Importantly, a solid baseline of proficiency could not be established
with the participants from García (2015) except through self-report, which may not be as reliable as
a pretest of proficiency, so the connection between proficiency and degree of deficit is still unknown.
Complications and discrepancies in the shared neural substrate framework can arise further when
investigating clinical rehabilitation and intervention in language deficits. Particularly, a question worth
answering in this field is whether bilingual proficiency pre-aphasia is connected to the degree of def-
icit and/or the degree of rehabilitation. In some cases, language intervention in one impaired language
can lead to cross-language generalization and improvement in the other language, but this may not
always be the case. In a case study of two Persian–English bilinguals, Bahadoran-Baghbaderani et al.
(2021) found that retraining the participants’ L2 (English) had some impact on the Persian L1 based
on the speaker’s L2 proficiency pre-aphasia, but the intervention did not significantly improve word
and picture naming cross-linguistically. Specifically, retraining English words improved memory
only for Persian cognates, but not Persian noncognates, suggesting that intervention in one language
does not significantly affect or benefit recovery of the other language. They concluded that there are
separate routes for translation, in support of the RHM (Kroll & Stewart, 1994; Kroll et al., 2010).
Although aphasia is generally the result of an immediate, traumatic injury, such as from a stroke
or other trauma (with some exceptions), progressive, neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s
Disease (AD) provide further insight into the neural pathways associated with L1 and L2 lexico-
semantic processing. Costa et al. (2012) examined the effects of mild or moderate stages of AD on
language dominance (compared with a group of patients with mild cognitive impairment). Highly
proficient Spanish–Catalan bilinguals performed picture naming, word translation, and picture-word
matching tasks in each language direction. There was a significant main effect of language domin-
ance (participants did better on tasks that recruited their dominant language and L2 to L1 translation
tasks), and a main effect of disease progression (patients with moderate AD showed more deficits
than patients with mild AD, who showed more deficits than patients with mild cognitive impairment).
However, no significant interaction between language dominance and group was found, suggesting
that bilingual language degeneration in proficient bilinguals declines in a similar way in healthy
controls and bilinguals with aphasia. Interestingly, the effects of cognate status and word frequency
108
interacted separately with language dominance and group, suggesting that more severely impaired
patients benefit more from higher frequency words and cognates, especially in their L2. Because the
study examined highly proficient bilinguals, Costa et al. speculated that smaller differences in profi-
ciency between languages indicate more similar patterns of language decline in the lexico-semantic
domain. These findings are consistent with the Convergence Hypothesis, suggesting that higher pro-
ficiency leads to the convergence or sharing of the same neural substrates in word processing.
Emerging Themes from the Evidence

From the critical research outcomes in the neurolinguistics of the lexico-semantic system, four themes
and current trends emerge across neuroimaging methods. First, under the theme of word recognition,
it is evident based on the studies mentioned that richness of lexical representations can make L2
vocabulary learning easier (e.g., Elgort et al., 2015). The more vocabulary words one knows already,
the easier it is to acquire more vocabulary, presumably because of the already-established lexical
and semantic representations that the new vocabulary can be connected to. Surrounding the theme
of word recognition, it has generally been found that more activation in areas associated with lexico-
semantic languages processing indicates a deeper, richer semantic network whereas less activation
and connection of these areas indicates more shallow processing. This is especially true in cortical
and subcortical brain regions associated with semantic representations and characterized by larger,
more negative N400 amplitudes located in central and posterior regions.
The second theme is bilingual word production. The studies associated with translation and L2
production hinge on the support of the RHM. Generally, translating from L1 to L2 is more difficult
than the reverse (e.g., Kroll & Stewart, 1994), as is using L2 to complete a language task, such as
picture naming. According to the RHM, L2 is generally more effortful or difficult to access than L1
because the conceptually-mediated link to L1 is stronger than then corresponding link to L2 (Kroll
& Stewart, 1994; Kroll et al., 2010). Like word recognition, bilingual production can vary based on
word features themselves, regardless of proficiency. Cognates and higher frequency words generally
facilitate L2 production more than noncognates or lower frequency words, and introducing conflict,
such as with “false friends” or interlingual homographs, creates competition and results in recurrent
errors in speech (Christoffels et al., 2013; Costa et al., 2012). Bilingual word production and transla-
tion can also hinge on the control between the two languages and switching (e.g., Abutalebi & Green,
2007; Grant & Li, 2015), as is evident in the co-activation of both languages (see, e.g., Christoffels
et al., 2013). Interestingly, case studies of persons with aphasia and traumatic language deficits
suggest that there are independent routes for translation in the brain, citing differences in translation
and bilingual word production deficits in bilinguals with aphasia (Bahadoran-Baghbaderani et al.,
2021; García, 2015). The unpredictable and complex nature of traumatic injury and brain lesions
may account for the differences cited in case studies, but a larger sample is likely needed to study this
phenomenon more closely.
Third, the L2 lexico-semantic system relies on inhibitory and cognitive control of the L1 and L2;
this is especially observed in unbalanced bilinguals. A situation or task that activates both languages
at the same time, such as a translation task, may induce competition between L1 and L2. Furthermore,
evidence from both fMRI and ERPs shows increased frontal activity at the beginning stages of word
learning in bilinguals, and this activation is thought to be modulated by proficiency. In fMRI, the
left IFG along with other frontal lobe associated areas, tend to be activated in less-proficient L2
speakers, whereas this activation is not evident in more-proficient L2 speakers (Abutalebi & Green,
2007; Grant & Li, 2015; Stein et al., 2009). In ERP, a late N400 is evident in frontal electrode sites
in less-proficient speakers for unfamiliar or newly learned words, whereas more-proficient speakers
do not show a frontal N400, and instead show the classic centro-parietal N400s associated with
109
semantic violations in monolinguals (Jankowiak, 2021; Jankowiak & Rataj, 2017; Vandenberghe
et al., 2019). Both pieces of evidence for frontal activation indicate more effortful processing of L2.
Less-proficient speakers rely on semantic retrieval and general cognitive processing to process L2,
whereas more-proficient bilinguals do not recruit these brain areas, likely because processing is less
demanding. Frontal regions of the brain, such as the PFC, are associated with greater cognitive con-
trol; we see this in activation in fMRI studies and the evidence of the frontal N400 in ERP studies,
likely indicating more cognitive effort in less-proficient bilinguals and perhaps monolinguals learning
an L2 (Abutalebi & Green, 2007)
Finally, underlying the aforementioned themes is the umbrella framework that is perhaps the
most studied in the L2 lexico-semantics; changes associated with proficiency. Across the multiple
studies examined through neuroscientific means, there is strong, accumulating evidence for a lan-
guage system that converges with increases in proficiency. The convergence hypothesis (Green,
2003), along with the RHM (Kroll & Stewart, 1994; Kroll et al., 2010), and the declarative/DPM
(Ullman, 2016), all argue for a model of some shared L1 and L2 neurolinguistic lexico-semantic
processes that, over time and with increasing proficiency, become more similar in structure and
function, so that the L2 becomes more native-like. Further neurolinguistic research is needed to
examine bilinguals through a developmental lens, because the framework of overlapping neural
pathways does not fully account for some proficiency differences when both languages are learned
relatively early in life (see, e.g., Mondt et al., 2009). Furthermore, the onset and rehabilitation of
persons with aphasia or other language deficits being able to retain one language but not the other
cannot be explained by a single, shared neural substrate of L1 and L2 (e.g., García, 2015). Because
of this, more clinical and developmental research should be done to dissect these discrepancies at
the neural level using EEG and fMRI. Although this shared neural substrate framework is not cut
and dried, there continues to be strong evidence that changes associated with proficiency lead to
neurocognitive changes that look more and more native-like in the brain. Simply, increases in profi-
ciency lead to native-like L2 processing of vocabulary. This is evident through clinical studies, fMRI
studies, and ERP studies.3

Future directions of neurolinguistic lexico-semantic research include finding a way to incorporate
all the strong assets of neurolinguistic tools to create a more complete picture of acquisition in L2
learners. A main component appears to be the collaboration of both fMRI and EEG to use the strengths
of each to create a model that accounts for temporal explanatory power of acquisition as well as
a more refined spatial resolution; it is crucial to not only know the time course of brain patterns
during which the lexico-semantic system is processed, but also in which regions of the brain this is
most important. Combining EEG and fMRI would permit us to standardize connections and regions
associated with L2 lexico-semantic processing in terms of activation and functionality (see, e.g., Zhu
et al., 2019 for a sentence comprehension study that uses this technique). Another alternative is to
use magnetoencephalography (MEG), which is a technique that maps brain activity using magnetic
fields. It is similar to EEG in some respects but has better spatial resolution. However, it also cannot
record from as much of the brain as EEG can; EEG detects activity that originates from both sulci
and cortical gyri, whereas MEG is most sensitive to activity that originates in sulci. Therefore, the
selection of a particular method will depend on several factors including the purported origin of the
activity of interest.
The studies reviewed in this chapter were conducted in a laboratory setting, which poses some
real-word external validity concerns. The use of portable EEG systems (e.g., Ammerman et al., 2016)
might be able to capture real learning in a classroom more robustly than in a laboratory, particu-
larly when examining L2 development in children. Finally, some discrepancies between the effect
110
of proficiency and age of acquisition are still debated (see Mondt et al., 2009). The predictive power
of proficiency is generally more supported by the research than that of age of acquisition, but age of
acquisition is still sometimes used as a proxy for proficiency. Therefore, a logical next step in this
research might be to directly compare and measure proficiency and age of acquisition via a longitu-
dinal design to directly observe neural differences. Studying adult learners longitudinally from initial
L2 exposure would also permit more fine-grained study of the earliest stages of L2 acquisition, which
would benefit from additional investigation.
Indeed, recent EEG and L2 lexico-semantic processing research has begun to emphasize the N400
effect in language learning, rather than in more proficient bilinguals (Jankowiak & Rataj, 2017).
Electrophysiological changes in learners have been evident after just a few hours of language training,
indicating that exposure or familiarity with the new language can cause neural changes in the brain.
An interesting next step would be to examine the underlying individual differences that might facili-
tate or attenuate this immediate language sensitivity (see Luque & Covey, this volume). Are some
people better equipped to learn L2 vocabulary more than others? Can we observe differences in
amplitude or latency between “better equipped” language learners and their counterparts? Individual
differences that span beyond working memory, cognitive control, and inhibition, such as musical
ability may even play a role in better L2 lexico-semantic learning/processing (see, e.g., Tokowicz
et al., 2023). Furthermore, more research on individual differences in this domain is warranted, par-
ticularly given that personalized instruction is already taking place for school-aged children (see,
e.g., www.carnegielearning.com/solutions/world-languages/que-chevere-spanish/; www.rosettast
one.com/k12/). These tools can be adapted to adult learners once the proper parameters have been
determined.
Taken together, neurolinguistic research on the L2 lexico-semantic system is vast and continu-
ously expanding. Neuroimaging, EEG/ERP, and case studies are on the cutting edge of investigating
deeper into L2 processing through the lenses of language control, word recognition, word production,
and proficiency to determine what processes are important for the development and maintenance
of an L2.
Notes
1 Here, we follow the convention in the psycholinguistic literature by referring to individuals as “bilingual”
if they have some level of familiarity with two languages. We provide details of the level of familiarity with
each study.
2 Note that ERPs are not necessarily generated from the neural tissue directly below the area at which they are
most prominently exhibited at the scalp.
3 Notably, L2 can also influence L1 at the lexico-semantic level (e.g., Degani et al., 2011).
Further Readings
This paper presents an overview of research using the N400 to investigate questions about bilingualism and
places the findings in the context of models of bilingual language representation and processing.
Jankowiak, K., & Rataj, K. (2017). The N400 as a window into lexico-semantic processing in bilingualism.
Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 53(1), 119–156. https://doi.org/10.1515/psicl-2017-0006.
This chapter discusses language in its historical, physical, social/cognitive, and inferential contexts.
Kutas, M., Kluender, R., Barkley, C., & Amsel, B. (2016). Language. In J. Cacioppo, L. Tassinary, & G. Berntson
(Eds.), Handbook of psychophysiology (pp. 511–525). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/
9781107415782.023
This paper summarizes MRI and EEG approaches to brain changes, specifically as related to L2 learning.
Luk, G., Pliatsikas, C., & Rossi, E. (2020). Brain changes associated with language development and learning: A
primer on methodology and applications. System, 89, 102209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102209.
111
This paper reviews fMRI studies that examine lexical processing, sentence processing, and cognitive control in
bilinguals and L2 learners.
Sabourin, L. (2014). fMRI research on the bilingual brain. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 34, 1–14.
https://doi.org/10.1017/s0267190514000038.
Acknowledgment
During the writing of this manuscript, NT and VT were funded by NSF-BCS2020793.
References
Abutalebi, J., & Green, D. (2007). Bilingual language production: The neurocognition of language representation
and control. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 20(3), 242–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2006.10.003
Ammerman, K.E., & Van Hell, J.G. (2016). Lexical processing in child and adult beginning second language
learners. The Penn State McNair Journal, 1, 1–19.
Bahadoran-Baghbaderani, A., Tahririan, M.H., Saadatnia, M., & Ketabi, S. (2021). Contributions of pre and
postmorbid nondominant language interventions to coactivation of L1–L2 lexical representations: A case
study of Persian-English bilingual stroke-induced aphasic patients. Research in Applied Linguistics, 12(1),
48–67. https://doi.org/10.22055/rals.2021.16724
Bakker-Marshall, I., Takashima, A., Fernandez, C.B., Janzen, G., McQueen, J.M., & Van Hell, J.G. (2021).
Overlapping and distinct neural networks supporting novel word learning in bilinguals and monolinguals.
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 24(3), 524–536. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1366728920000589
Bradley, K.A., King, K.E., & Hernandez, A.E. (2013). Language experience differentiates prefrontal and subcor-
tical activation of the cognitive control network in novel word learning. NeuroImage, 67, 101–110. https://
Chen, L., Shu, H.U.A., Liu, Y., Zhao, J., & Li, P. (2007). ERP signatures of subject–verb agreement in L2 learning.
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10(2), 161–174. https://doi.org/10.1017/s136672890700291x
Christoffels, I.K., Ganushchak, L., & Koester, D. (2013). Language conflict in translation: An ERP study of
translation production. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25(5), 646–664. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445
911.2013.821127
Costa, A., Calabria, M., Marne, P., Hernández, M., Juncadella, M., Gascón-Bayarri, J., Lleó, A., Ortiz-Gil, J.,
Ugas, L., Blesa, R., & Reñé, R. (2012). On the parallel deterioration of lexico-semantic processes in the
bilinguals’ two languages: Evidence from Alzheimer’s disease. Neuropsychologia, 50(5), 740–753. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2012.01.008
Degani, T., Prior, A., & Tokowicz, N. (2011). Bidirectional transfer: The effect of sharing a translation. Journal
of Cognitive Psychology, 23, 18–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2011.445986
guage. In K. Morgan-Short & J.G. van Hell (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition
Elgort, I., Perfetti, C.A., Rickles, B., & Stafura, J.Z. (2015). Contextual learning of L2 word meanings: Second
language proficiency modulates behavioural and event-related brain potential (ERP) indicators of learning.
Elston-Güttler, K.E., & Gunter, T.C. (2009). Fine-tuned: Phonology and semantics affect first-to-second-language
zooming in. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21(1), 180–196. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2009.21015
Elston-Güttler, K.E., Gunter, T.C., & Kotz, S.A. (2005). Zooming into L2: Global language context and adjust-
ment affect processing of interlingual homographs in sentences. Cognitive Brain Research, 25, 57–70. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2005.04.007
Psychophysiology, 59, 13940. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.13940
García, A. (2015). Translating with an injured brain: Neurolinguistic aspects of translation as revealed by
bilinguals with cerebral lesions. Meta, 60(1), 112–134. https://doi.org/10.7202/1032402ar
Grant, A., & Li, P. (2015). Brain mapping of lexico-semantic functions in bilinguals. Journal of Cognitive
Science, 16(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.17791/jcs.2015.16.1.1
Green, D.W. (2003). The neural basis of the lexicon and the grammar in L2 acquisition: The convergence
hypothesis. In R. van Hout, A. Hulk, F. Kuiken, & R.J. Towell (Eds.), The lexicon–syntax interface in
112
second language acquisition (pp. 197–208). John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/
lald.30.10gre
& J.G. van Hell (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and neurolinguistics.
Routledge.
Huckin, T., & Bloch, J. (1993). Strategies for inferring word meaning in context: A cognitive model. In T. Huckin,
M. Haynes, & J. Coady (Eds.), Second language reading and vocabulary learning (pp. 153–179). Ablex.
Jankowiak, K. (2021). Current trends in electrophysiological research on bilingual language processing.
Language and Linguistics Compass, 15(8), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12436
Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 53(1), 119–156. https://doi.org/10.1515/psicl-2017-0006
Kaan, E. (2007). Event-related potentials and language processing: A brief overview. Language and Linguistics
Compass, 1(6), 571–591. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818x.2007.00037.x
Kiran, S., Balachandran, I., & Lucas, J. (2014). The nature of lexical-semantic access in bilingual aphasia.
Behavioural Neurology, 2014, 389565. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/389565
Kroll, J.F., & Stewart, E. (1994). Category interference in translation and picture naming: Evidence for asym-
metric connections between bilingual memory representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 33(2),
149–174. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1994.1008
Kroll, J.F., Van Hell, J.G., Tokowicz, N., & Green, D.W. (2010). The Revised Hierarchical Model: A critical
review and assessment. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13(3), 373–381. https://doi.org/10.1017/
s136672891000009x
Kutas, M., Kluender, R., Barkley, C., & Amsel, B. (2016). Language. In J. Cacioppo, L. Tassinary, & G. Berntson
(Eds.), Handbook of psychophysiology (pp. 511–525). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/
9781107415782.023
Luk, G., Pliatsikas, C., & Rossi, E. (2020). Brain changes associated with language development and
learning: A primer on methodology and applications. System, 89, 102209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.
102209.
McLaughlin, J., Osterhout, L., & Kim, A. (2004). Neural correlates of second-language word meaning: Minimal
Mondt, K., Balériaux, D., Metens, T., Paquier, P., Van de Craen, P., Van den Noort, M., & Denolin, V. (2009).
An fMRI study of level of proficiency as a predictor of neurocognitive convergence for L1/L2 during a
lexicosemantic task in a paediatric population. Second Language Research, 25(1), 107–134. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0267658308098998
second language learning. In K. Morgan-Short & J.G. van Hell (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second
Murray, M.M., Michel, C.M., De Peralta, R.G., Ortigue, S., Brunet, D., Andino, S.G., & Schnider, A. (2004).
Rapid discrimination of visual and multisensory memories revealed by electrical neuroimaging. Neuroimage,
21(1), 125–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2003.09.035
Paulmann, S., Elston-Güttler, K.E., Gunter, T.C., & Kotz, S.A. (2006). Is bilingual lexical access influenced by
language context? NeuroReport, 17(7), 727–731. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.wnr.0000214400.88845.fa
Pu, H., Holcomb, P., & Midgley, K.J. (2016). Neural changes underlying early stages of L2 vocabulary acquisi-
tion. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 40, 55–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2016.05.002
https://doi.org/10.1017/s0267190514000038
Scimeca, M., Carpenter, E., & Kiran, S. (this volume). Aphasia, rehabilitation and second language neurocognition.
113
Stein, M., Dierks, T., Brandeis, D., Wirth, M., Strik, W., & Koenig, T. (2006). Plasticity in the adult language
system: A longitudinal electrophysiological study on second language learning. Neuroimage, 33(2), 774–783.
Stein, M., Federspiel, A., Koenig, T., Wirth, M., Lehmann, C., Wiest, R., Strik, W., Brandeis, D., & Dierks,
T. (2009). Reduced frontal activation with increasing 2nd language proficiency. Neuropsychologia, 47(13),
2712–2720. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.05.023
Stein, M., Federspiel, A., Koenig, T., Wirth, M., Strik, W., Wiest, R., Brandeis, D., & Dierks, T. (2012). Structural
plasticity in the language system related to increased second language proficiency. Cortex, 48(4), 458–465.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2010.10.007
of functional neuroimaging studies. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 108, 834–853. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.12.014
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. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263105050102
Tokowicz, N., Melcher, E., & Terrazas, G. (2023). Sleeping musicians perform better than musical
sleepers: Musical training and ability interact in second language translation-ambiguous word learning.
[Manuscript under review]. Department of Psychology, Department of Linguistics, Learning Research and
Development Center, University of Pittsburgh.
Ullman, M.T. (2016). The declarative/procedural model: a neurobiological model of language learning, know-
ledge, and use. In G. Hickok & S.A. Small (Eds.), Neurobiology of language (pp. 953–968). Academic Press.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-407794-2.00076-6
Vandenberghe, B., Montero Perez, M., Reynvoet, B., & Desmet, P. (2019). The role of Event-related potentials
(ERPs) as sensitive measures in L2 vocabulary acquisition research. Journal of the European Second
Language Association, 3(1), 35–45. https://doi.org/10.22599/jesla.60
Zhang, X., Yang, J., Wang, R., & Li, P. (2020). A neuroimaging study of semantic representation in first and
second languages. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 35(10), 1223–1238. https://doi.org/10.1080/
23273798.2020.1738509
Zhu, Z., Bastiaansen, M., Hakun, J. G., Petersson, K.M., Wang, S., & Hagoort, P. (2019). Semantic unifica-
tion modulates N400 and BOLD signal change in the brain: A simultaneous EEG-fMRI study. Journal of
Neurolinguistics, 52, 100855. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2019.100855
114
9
OF THE SECOND LANGUAGE
MORPHOLOGICAL SYSTEM
The Role of Grammar-Related and
Speaker-Related Factors

Morphemes are the smallest units that convey meaning in language. Inflectional morphemes like -i
and -ed in (1) and (2) below are combined with a stem via affixation to generate different forms of the
same lexical item, for example, a verb with different number, person, or tense features.
(1) Re-í
stem-affix1.sg.past/‘I laughed’
(2) Laugh-ed
stem-affix.past
A native or proficient non-native speaker of Spanish will be able to extract a composite set of
information from the morpheme -í in (1), namely that a single individual laughed at some point in the
past and that this is the speaker of the utterance. Conversely, a reader with little knowledge of Spanish
may be unable to extract the full set of information provided by the verb.
How is morphological knowledge attained in a second language (L2)? Can it become native-like,
and how? We review and critically evaluate recent neuroimaging studies that have addressed these
questions, with the goal of highlighting the role that grammar-and speaker-related factors play in
shaping the L2 morphological system and its neurocognitive underpinnings. Native-like morpho-
logical knowledge refers here to the ability of L2 speakers to process the L2 as efficiently and auto-
matically as their native language. Yet, we clarify that native-likeness does not assume the existence
of a monolingual speaker norm and recognizes that L2 speakers can only become bilingual, by defin-
ition, given that they already possess the knowledge of one language (their mother tongue).
L2 learning occurs either simultaneously (e.g., in early bilinguals) or sequentially (e.g., in late
learners) with respect to the first language (L1). Understanding the (possible) cross-linguistic transfer
of rules, and the conditions under which it occurs is thus pivotal to understanding how the L2 language
system develops (e.g., MacWhinney, 2005). We refer to this factor as the L1–L2 similarity factor (see
Sabourin & Manning, this volume). L1–L2 similarity refers to structurally mappable features, that is,
DOI: 10.4324/9781003190912-12 115

features that are present both in the L1 and in the L2 (MacWhinney, 2005). Morphological features
can also be similarly or dissimilarly realized/distributed across constituents in the two languages.
The L1 and the L2 are considered similar here if the morphological feature at issue (e.g., number) is
present and realized on the same constituents (e.g., noun–verb, adjective–noun) in both languages.
However, both aspects of similarity are also considered separately, when possible.
Experience-related factors that pertain to the speakers’ L2 history, such as age of acquisition
(AoA), proficiency, and immersion in an L2 environment are also considered crucial during learning
(e.g., Ullman, 2014, 2020; see Luque & Covey, this volume). AoA refers to the starting point of L2
learning, i.e., when the speaker was first exposed to the language. Proficiency refers to the ability to
use a language, as measured by performance on standardized tests or task-related accuracy scores.
Immersion duration refers to the length of residence in an L2-speaking country. We review evi-
dence about all these factors, mainly from electroencephalography (EEG/ERPs) and functional
magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), but also briefly from non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS),
and comment on their potential to investigate L2 morphological processing and the brain areas that
support it. Because of the few ERP studies available on L2 morphological production, our focus will
be primarily on L2 sentence comprehension studies.
Critical Issues and Theoretical Perspectives

Within neurolinguistics, historical, theoretical, and methodological issues exist in defining how L2
morphological knowledge is attained and whether it can reach native-likeness. Historically, early
experimental research on L2 processing was mainly conducted in English, a language with an
impoverished morphological system. Such findings are therefore difficult to generalize to morpho-
logically richer languages (such as Spanish, Hindi, or Finnish), in which inflection and morpho-
syntactic relations can include a wider set of features (e.g., gender, person, number, and tense) and
constituents (e.g., determiners, adjectives, as well as demonstratives, nouns, and verbs).
Theoretically, models of L2 processing differ in the relevance they attribute to linguistic and experi-
ential factors in L2 processing. Whereas proposals like the competition Model (MacWhinney, 2005,
2018) formalize and discuss how L1–L2 cross-language interaction can affect ultimate L2 attainment,
accounts like the declarative/procedural model (Ullman, 2014, 2020; see also Ullman & Morgan-
Short, this volume) highlight the importance of experience-related factors such as L2 AoA and
immersion.
In this vein, previous reviews and meta-analyses have failed to reach a consensus on the relative
weight that grammar-and speaker-related factors have on the native-likeness of L2 morphological
processing (e.g., Caffarra et al., 2015, De Diego-Balaguer & Rodriguez-Fornells, 2010; Roncaglia-
Denissen & Kotz, 2016; Tanner et al., 2014). L1–L2 similarity has been indicated as a key factor in
some analyses (e.g., Kotz, 2009) but less crucial in others (e.g., Caffarra et al., 2015; Polczynska &
Bookheimer, 2021). The so-called critical period hypothesis (Birdsong, 2018; Hartshorne et al., 2018;
Johnson & Newport, 1989; Newport et al., 2001), and the assumption that the later the L2 is acquired
the lower its native-likeness is, gave a prominent role to AoA, although more recent work suggests
that this factor may be less crucial than previously considered (e.g., Kotz, 2009; Steinhauer, 2014;
see also Caffarra et al., 2015).
In addition to L1–L2 similarity and AoA, proficiency has been indicated as a key factor in deter-
mining the temporal dynamics of L2 morphological processing and the degree of neural convergence
between L1 and L2 (e.g., Steinhauer et al., 2009; see also Kotz, 2009; Van Hell & Tokowicz, 2010).
Yet, this factor has also been considered problematic, due to differences in its measurement across
studies and its correlation with other variables such as exposure, AoA, and immersion (Ullman, 2014;
for more on AoA and proficiency, see Fromont, this volume). Finally, the learning environment also
116
Neurolinguistics of the Second Language Morphological System
plays a significant role in L2 final attainment. Immersive contexts have a positive impact on L2
acquisition (for a recent overview, see Jackson & Schwiter, 2019) because they provide more natur-
alistic and variegated exposure to the L2 compared to formal education settings in the L1-speaking
country. Longer immersion duration can lead to higher grammatical sensitivity (Caffarra et al., 2015).
However, the evidence available is still limited, as few studies have focused on this variable (for more
on learning context, see Bowden & Faretta-Stutenberg, this volume).
From a methodological perspective, the available neuroimaging evidence on L2 morphological
processing mainly comes from EEG/ERP studies, arguably because this technique is more accessible
across laboratories than (more expensive) techniques such as fMRI, or does not have potential side
effects, as with NIBS. Combining the experimental evidence from these three different techniques
enables the characterization of both the time course and the neural implementation of the mechanisms
that subserve L2 morphological processing, as well as the identification of the brain substrates that
could be causally involved. This is the approach that we undertake in this review.
Thus, the goals of the current review are to provide an updated picture of the role of grammar-and
speaker-related factors based on recent neuroimaging evidence and to identify overlooked aspects
that may deepen our insight into the complexity of L2 morphological processing.
Event-Related Potential (ERP) Studies

ERPs have been widely adopted in L2 research (for more on this method, see Dickson & Pelzl, this
volume). ERPs are computed by averaging the portion of the electroencephalogram (EEG) signal
that is time-locked to the presentation of a relevant stimulus (e.g., an isolated word, or a word in a
sentence). The main advantages of ERP data are the ability to record neural activity continuously,
without time delay, and with a high temporal resolution (in the millisecond range).
Sentence comprehension ERP studies offer a comprehensive picture of the role of grammar-and
speaker-related factors during L2 morphosyntactic processing. Sentences are generally presented
visually word-by-word at the center of the screen at a fixed pace, and the participant is required to
provide a grammaticality judgment at the end of each sentence. The electrophysiological activity
generated by a word containing a grammatical error (e.g., *My cat are cute) is then compared with the
activity generated by the same word in a grammatical sentence (e.g., My cats are cute).
Inflection errors tend to elicit early negativities (250–500 ms after stimulus presentation), followed
by a late positivity peaking about 600 ms post-stimulus onset. An early negativity with anterior and
left-lateralized topography is referred to as left-anterior negativity (LAN), as opposed to the more
broadly distributed negativity that characterizes the N400 effect. These negativities are thought to
reflect automatic morphosyntactic processing (see Molinaro et al., 2011 for a review) and semantic/
lexical integration difficulties (see Lau et al., 2008 for a review). Whereas these early negativities
are not consistently reported across studies and languages, late positive-going deflections represent a
rather stable correlate of morpho-syntactic anomalies. They are typically evident in central-posterior
areas of the scalp and are often referred to as a “P600.” Functionally, P600 effects are generally
interpreted as an index of structure integration or reanalysis (see Molinaro et al., 2011 for a review).
The emergence of early negative and late positive effects has been used to delineate different
stages in the development of L2 morphosyntactic knowledge (e.g., Osterhout et al., 2004; Osterhout
et al., 2006; Steinauer et al., 2009). When the speaker has very little knowledge of the L2 grammar, no
ERP effects arise when comparing grammatically correct and incorrect sentences because the speaker
cannot detect the grammatical error. Subsequently, the speaker may start memorizing salient word/
morphological combinations (e.g., My cats are…) as unanalyzed chunks. At this stage, any violation
of the memorized pattern (e.g., *My cat are…) would result as unfamiliar, thus triggering an N400,
117
which is highly sensitive to word sequence probabilities. Finally, when L2 proficiency is attained, the
speaker is able to abstract morphosyntactic rules successfully, and consequently shows native-like
ERP patterns in response to violations, i.e., left-anterior or bilateral early negativities followed by
a P600. In these accounts, different stages of morphosyntactic acquisition are mainly driven by L2
proficiency.
However, in their meta-analysis, Caffarra et al. (2015) found that other factors may play a
role. Immersion duration had an impact on early ERP responses and their underlying cognitive
mechanisms: The probability of reporting a LAN effect was higher when the immersion in an L2-
speaking country was long (> 5 years). Conversely, proficiency had an impact on late mechanisms of
(morpho)syntactic processing: More P600 effects were found when L2 proficiency was high (above
75%). Interestingly, AoA only marginally affected N400 effects, and L1–L2 similarity did not play a
crucial role in any ERP effect.
Table 9.1A summarizes ERP violation studies investigating sentence-level comprehension of L2
inflection published after Caffarra et al.’s meta-analysis. Considering these recent studies, it seems
that the native-likeness of the ERP patterns changes as a function of several factors, as suggested in
previous work and reviewed below.
Grammar-Related Factors
By considering different dimensions of L1–L2 similarity (type of feature, type of relation/configur-
ation), our review of more recent studies suggests that a finer-grained classification of L1–L2 simi-
larity can capture effects (see Alemán Bañón et al., 2017; Díaz et al., 2016; Gabriele et al., 2021;
Martinez de la Hidalga et al., 2021) that previous work could not identify, although the evidence
still appears somewhat heterogeneous. Gabriele et al. (2021) found similar ERP responses (P600) in
response to subject–verb and adjective–noun number violations in L1 English L2 Spanish speakers,
thus suggesting that the presence/absence of a feature in the L1 inventory plays a bigger role
compared to the morphological realization of this feature across languages. In contrast, Díaz et al.
(2016) reported data from Basque suggesting that the way a feature is realized is important. They
tested two groups of L1 Spanish L2 Basque speakers with early and later L2 AoA. The violation of a
shared feature (number) that is expressed on different constituents in the L2 (object-verb) triggered
an N400 in the group of late learners and a marginal P600 in early bilinguals. Native speakers showed
P600 effects in response to these violations (Díaz et al., 2011).
In contexts where the L2 speakers cannot exploit consolidated L1 grammatical knowledge to process
L2 morphology, speaker-related factors seem to become relevant. In a study with L1 Polish/Russian–
L2 German speakers, Meulman et al. (2015) showed that morphological similarity may determine
the appearance of AoA effects. They found different P600 effects as a function of AoA when pro-
cessing an L1–L2 dissimilar phenomenon (i.e., determiner–noun gender agreement; see also Nichols
& Joanisse, 2019), but not when processing a similar phenomenon (tense/finiteness marking). These
findings suggest that when the L1 and the L2 share similar morphological properties, both early and
late learners can reach native-like processing. Conversely, when the L1 and the L2 differ morpho-
logically, native-like processing may be attained only if the L2 is acquired earlier in life.
Similarly, L2 proficiency has been shown to interact with L1–L2 similarity. For example, Alemán
Bañón et al. (2018) and Gabriele et al. (2021) investigated similarity effects with L1 English speakers
of L2 Spanish. When the morphological patterns differed (e.g., gender, which is not morphologically
realized in adjective–noun relations in English), only highly proficient speakers of Spanish showed
118
P600 effects. When a feature present in both languages was manipulated (number), both low and
high-proficiency speakers showed P600 effects.
Higher proficiency is generally reported to trigger larger P600 effects (Alemán Bañón et al., 2018,
2021; Bice & Kroll, 2021; Gabriele et al., 2021; Nichols & Joanisse, 2019; but see Armstrong et al.,
2018). Interestingly, Alemán Bañón et al. (2018) compared the impact of two different measures of
proficiency, namely d-prime scores derived from a grammaticality judgment task performed during
EEG recording and overall L2 proficiency derived from standardized grammar tests. Whereas task-
related proficiency correlated with P600 amplitudes in all conditions, overall proficiency scores
did not.
Few ERP studies have investigated immersion duration effects, and just one reported a signifi-
cant effect on the amplitude of late components (Alemán Bañón et al., 2021). In line with Caffarra
et al. (2015), other studies that tested immersion (Table 9.1A) showed early negativities (either LAN
or N400, but see Meykadeh, Golfam, Nasrabadi et al., 2021), but only with intermediate or long
immersion duration.
Summary of ERP Findings

The ERP studies presented here show that the emergence of early negativities mirroring automatic
(native-like) processing is not solely driven by L2 morphosyntactic knowledge/proficiency. LAN
effects have been reported in two studies testing determiner–noun violations (Caffarra et al., 2017;
Nichols & Joanisse, 2019). However, many studies have failed to find LAN effects not only in L2 but
also in native speakers, demonstrating that such findings cannot be related to a low level of morpho-
logical knowledge. N400 effects were found to mirror intermediate stages of L2 knowledge only in
some studies (Díaz et al., 2016; Martinez de la Hidalga et al., 2021), whereas in other studies N400
effects (followed by P600s) mirrored native-like processing (Zawiszewski & Laka, 2020; Bice &
Kroll, 2021). The only ERP component that was reliably affected by proficiency was the P600, in line
with Caffarra et al.’s finding. However, the P600 amplitude was also reduced by L1–L2 dissimilar-
ities, later AoA, and shorter immersion duration. In other words, evidence coming from recent ERP
research shows that additional (grammar-and speaker-related) factors should be taken into account
when predicting the time course of L2 morphological processing.
Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI)

The slow temporal resolution that characterizes fMRI makes it unsuitable for capturing the time
course of neurocognitive processes, but its exquisite spatial resolution can give invaluable insights
into the brain areas that are actively involved during a linguistic task (for more on this method, see
Kousaie & Klein, this volume). fMRI is therefore an extraordinary resource to assess the extent of
overlap or segregation in the cortical representations of L1 and L2 and modulation of brain activation
patterns by experience-and grammar-related factors. Yet, fMRI investigations on L2 morphological
processing are still scant, and the evidence for the effect of grammar-and speaker-related variables
appears to be quite fragmented. Moreover, unlike ERPs, there is no meta-analysis or review of fMRI
studies specifically on L2 morphological processing to date. Therefore, the review below is based on
the available fMRI literature that could be identified at the time of writing this chapter.
fMRI studies investigating L2 morphological processing have mostly examined English regular
and irregular tense inflection at the single-word level. Few studies have investigated the processing
of morphosyntactic relations in sentences (e.g., subject–verb agreement, see Table 9.1B for an over-
view). Overall, the available evidence points to substantial neuroanatomical overlap between L1
and L2 morphological systems. Across studies (see Table 9.1B and references therein), consistent
119
newgenrtpdf
Table 9.1 Experimental Studies Investigating Morphosyntactic Violations
Table 9.A
Study L1 L2 Feature Constituents L1–L2 AOA PRF IMM N400 LAN P600
Meulman Polish/ German Tense/Finiteness VP S L H L NA NA X
et al. Russian Gender Det-N D L H L NA NA X (AOA)
(2015)
Díaz et al. Spanish Basque Case NP D E H L X (delayed)

(2016) L L L X (delayed)
Number Obj-V D E H L X (marginal)
L L L X
Number Subj-V S E H L NA NA X (early)
L L L NA NA X
Alemán English Spanish Number NP-Adj D L H S X (larger)
Bañón Gender NP-Adj D L H S X (smaller)
et al.
(2017)
120
Caffarra et al. Basque Spanish Gender Det-N D E H L X X

(2017)
Alemán English Spanish Number NP -Adj D L L S X
Bañón H S X
et al. Gender NP-Adj D L L S
(2018) H S X
Armstrong Chinese English Number Subj-V D L L I X
et al.
(2018)
Nichols & English French Gender Det-N D E L I/L X (AOA) X* (AOA,
Joanisse PRF)
(2019)
Zawiszewski Spanish Basque Case–ergative NP D E H L X X*
& Laka Case–dative NP S E H L X X
(2020) Case–allative NP S E H L X*
Basque Spanish Case–accusative NP D E H L X X*
Case–dative PP S E H L X X*
Case–allative PP S E H L X
newgenrtpdf
Alemán English Spanish Person–1st Subj-V S L H S X (PRF)
Bañón Person–3rd Subj-V S L H S X (IMM)
et al.
(2021)
Bice and Spanish English Number Subj-V S E H L X NA X (PRF)
Kroll
(2021)
Cheng et al. Chinese English Number Subj-V D L L S X*

(2021)
Gabriele English Spanish Number Subj-V S L L NA X (PRF)
et al. Number NP-Adj D L L NA X (PRF)
(2021) Gender NP-Adj D L L NA (PRF)
Liang et al English/ Chinese Aspect VP D L H S *
(2021) Dutch/
Italian/
Polish/
Swedish
121
Martínez de Spanish Basque Number Subj(erg)-V D E H L X* X* (smaller)

la Hidalga Person Subj(erg)-V D E H L X* X* (smaller)
et al. Number Subj(abs)-V S E H L * X (larger)
(2021) Person Subj(abs)-V S E H L * X (larger)
Meykadeh Turkish Farsi Number Subj-V S E H L X
et al.
(2021)
Morgan- English Spanish Number Subj-V S L L NA X
Short et al.
(2022)
(Continued)
newgenrtpdf
Table 9.1 (Continued)
Table 9.1B
Study L1 L2 Feature Constituents L1–L2 AOA PRF IMM Main findings
Wartenburger Italian German Person/Number/Case Subject-verb S E/L H/L L/I/S L1–L2 overlap in left IFG at early
et al. AoA. Increased IFG activation in
(2003) the late-AoA group.
Sakai et al. Japanese English Tense Single word (verb) D L L NA L1–L2 overlap in left IFG

(2004) (During
experiment
training)
Tatsuno Japanese English Tense Single word (verb) D L L/H (two NA Less left IFG activation
and Sakai (During groups) corresponding to higher proficiency
(2005) experiment
training)
Hernandez Spanish English Gender Single word (noun) D E/L H NA Greater activation for L2 late learners.
et al.
122
(2007)
Lehtonen Finnish/ Finnish/ Inflected vs. non- Single word (noun) D E H NA Greater left IFG activation for Finnish
et al. Swedish Swedish inflected nouns vs. Swedish inflected words
(2009)
Pliatsikas Greek English Tense Single word (verb) S L H I Overlapping activation patterns for
et al. natives and non-natives.
(2014) L2 immersion modulates activation
difference between regular and
irregular in left IFG. L2 proficiency
modulates activation difference
between regular and irregular in left
caudate modulated.
Yan et al. Chinese English Tense Single word (verb) D L H NA Increased activation in left IFG,
(2016) anterior/posterior STG, MTG, IPL,
and BG for regular compared to
irregular tense.
Meykhadeh Turkish Persian Person, Number Subject-verb S L H I L1–L2 overlap
et al. L1: Left pars opercularis more
(2021) sensitive to ungrammatical (relative
to grammatical conditions).
L2: Greater activation in left STG
for ungrammatical compared to
grammatical conditions.

Notes: We report the speakers’ L1, L2, morphosyntactic Feature tested, Constituents involved. L1–L2 (S: similar; D: different): “similar” when the feature at issue
was present in both languages and the violation involved the same constituents in both languages, “different” in all the other cases. AOA (E: early; L: late): “early” for
a mean AoA value below 10 years; “late” for a mean AoA above 10. PRF (L: low; H: high) was “low” for mean proficiency values below 75%; “high” for mean values
above 75%; IMM (S: short; I: intermediate; L: long) was “short” for mean length of residence in the L2-speaking country less than 2 years, “intermediate” for mean
values between 2 and 5 years, “long” for mean values above 5 years. Table 9.1 A summarizes the ERP literature. The grey boxes identify the factors that were formally
analyzed, either in traditional group-analyses or in correlation/regression analyses in relation with ERP effect amplitudes (in this last case, we report their effect in
parentheses). In the N400/LAN/P600 columns X stands for the presence of an ERP effect (violation–control condition). The asterisk (*) stands for smaller amplitude
compared to native speakers. Table 9.1 B summarizes the fMRI literature. Legend: IFG: Inferior Frontal Gyrus; STG: Superior Temporal Gyrus; IPL: Inferior Parietal
Lobule; BG: Basal Ganglia; NA=not available.
123
activation patterns have been identified both cortically, especially in left frontal regions, and
subcortically, in the left caudate nucleus, the basal ganglia, and the cerebellum.
Research on native and non-native processing offers two different functional interpretations of
the involvement of the left inferior frontal gyrus (IFG) during morphological processing. Some
proposals emphasize the domain-specific nature of the morphosyntactic computations supported by
this region (e.g., Friederici, 2017), especially with regard to the pars opercularis. In contrast, other
accounts associate this region with domain-general cognitive control mechanisms (e.g., Bornkessel-
Schlesewsky & Schlesewsky, 2013) that support linguistic processing, in light of the white-matter
tracts that connect this area with subcortical regions such as the caudate nuclei. Interestingly, studies
with bilingual speakers have functionally associated these subcortical regions with the monitoring
and control functions that are triggered when the linguistic system is required to switch between two
languages (Branzi et al., 2021; Crinion et al., 2006; Lehtonen et al., 2005; see Abutalebi, 2008 for
a review).
Grammar–and speaker-related variables can influence the amount of language control necessary to
monitor L1 interference, and thus the degree of automaticity with which L2 processing mechanisms
are performed (see Abutalebi, 2008; Polczynska & Bookheimer, 2021; Roncaglia-Denissen & Kotz,
2016 for reviews). Neurophysiologically, such factors can modulate the degree of efficiency of a
given area in supporting a specific cognitive function. In fact, the neuronal organization of a brain
region could be optimized for native language processing and its automatized mechanisms, but not
for the L2 and its more controlled computations (Abulalebi, 2008; Indefrey, 2006). The involvement
of larger neuronal populations, and so the emergence of stronger activation patterns, could there-
fore compensate for the lower neuronal and computational efficiency of the L2. As L2 processing
becomes more automatic, the neuronal organization of the involved region(s) could become more
efficient, leading to a change in the linkage between performance and strength of activation (Indefrey,
2006), i.e., a decrease in activation.
Grammar-Related Factors
Contrary to electrophysiological studies, inherently linguistic factors such as L1–L2 similarity have
received scarce attention in the fMRI literature on morphological processing. Previous reviews have
suggested that, across linguistic domains, typologically similar languages are more likely to show a
convergent neuroanatomical representation (Polczynska & Bookheimer, 2021; Roncaglia-Denissen
& Kotz, 2016). However, the studies reviewed in Table 9.1B suggest that neuroanatomical overlap
can also occur across typologically dissimilar languages. Converging patterns of activation in left
IFG regions have been found in comparisons between languages that differ in their degree of mor-
phological richness (e.g., agglutinating Finnish vs. fusional Swedish morphology in simultaneous
bilingual speakers, Lehtonen et al., 2005), or in the way a morphological feature is expressed on a
verb (e.g., tense in English L2 vs. Japanese and Chinese as L1, Sakai et al., 2004; Tatsuno & Sakai,
2005; Yan et al., 2016). These results are similar to contrasts between languages that share morpho-
syntactic features (tense in Greek and English, Pliatsikas et al., 2014; person/number in German and
Italian, as in Wartenburger et al., 2003, and in Persian and Turkish, Meykadeh, Golfam, Batouli, &
Sommer, 2021).
To complicate matters further, in both morphologically similar and dissimilar L1–L2 pairs, the
neural overlap can be accompanied by either quantitative or qualitative differences. For example,
Lehtonen et al. (2009) showed that the processing of the complex agglutinative morphology of
Finnish yielded stronger activation of the left IFG compared to the simpler fusional morphology
of Swedish. Meykadeh et al. (2021) tested Turkish and Persian, which similarly encode person and
number agreement on the verb (and showed that within their common left fronto-temporal network,
124
the left IFG was more engaged by grammatical sentences in the L1 (Turkish), whereas the left pos-
terior superior temporal gyrus was more sensitive to ungrammaticality in the L2 (Persian).
Part of the difficulty in identifying the contribution of cross-linguistic similarity to the neural
representation of L2 morphology is likely to be methodological in nature. Although L1–L2 similarity
is usually acknowledged in the rationale of the functional neuroimaging studies we reviewed, it is
neither entered in the experimental design so as to test the effect of shared vs. non-shared morpho-
logical features, nor is a precise definition of cross-linguistic (dis-)similarity provided, contrary to the
ERP studies previously described. It is therefore difficult to disentangle the effect of L1–L2 similarity
from that elicited by speaker-related variables. For example, Wartenburger et al. (2003) reported
overlapping patterns of activation between Italian L1 and German L2 (both languages similarly mark
number and gender information in determiners, nouns, adjectives, and verbs), but only at high levels
of proficiency and early AoA (i.e., when more automatic and efficient processing is expected). With a
later AoA and lower proficiency, quantitative differences between L1 and L2 emerged. Similarly, the
partial L2 specialization in left temporal areas reported by Meykadeh et al. (2021) could be modulated
by the different AoA of Persian and the different immersion that characterized the languages (natural-
istic for L1 and a mixture of naturalistic and formal for L2). These factors could affect the efficiency
and native-likeness of the response, even at very high levels of L2 proficiency. In this respect, fMRI
findings align with ERP evidence on the interaction between L1–L2 similarity and speaker-related
factors.
Clearer but not fully consistent scenarios emerge for the role of proficiency and AoA. A negative
correlation is usually identified between proficiency and neural activation: As proficiency progresses
towards a native-like level, L2 activation in a given area decreases (Tatsuno & Sakai, 2005) and
becomes indistinguishable from the L1. Pliatsikas et al. (2014) reported a positive correlation between
the size of the regularity effect (regular > irregular forms) in the left caudate nucleus and the L2 pro-
ficiency of a group of late Greek-English bilinguals. As English proficiency increased, so did the
efficiency with which English morphologically complex words were processed, such that left-caudate
activation became statistically indistinguishable from that of native speakers.
When proficiency is kept constant across groups, AoA has been found to influence morphological
processing in the L2 and lead to quantitative modulations in activation patterns, as evidenced by the
greater left IFG involvement associated with categorizing gender-irregular nouns for late learners
compared to native speakers of Spanish (Hernandez et al., 2007). Likewise, highly proficient Italian–
German speakers who had acquired their L2 late (> 6 years) showed stronger left IFG activation for
the L2 compared to the L1 in response to morphosyntactic violations (Wartenburger et al., 2003). In
both studies, following Indefrey (2006), the stronger involvement of left IFG in the L2 could be due
to this region’s lower efficiency in processing a later-learned language. However, in contrast to these
studies, Pliatsikas et al. (2014) observed no quantitative differences between native speakers and
late-learners of English in the patterns of activation elicited by regular and irregular past-tense pro-
cessing in a lexical decision task. This suggests that efficient, native-like neuronal organization can
be achieved even when the L2 is acquired late.
Task-related differences may explain the seemingly inconsistent conclusions reached by the three
studies. Compared to lexical decision tasks (as in Pliatsikas et al., 2014), gender categorization or
grammaticality judgments (as in Hernandez et al., 2007, and Wartenburger et al., 2003, respectively)
involve additional rule-based mechanisms aimed at verifying inflectional consistency across lexical
items (e.g., noun–verb, determiner–noun). Such mechanisms are activated even when not explicitly
125
required, as in gender-decision tasks (see Cubelli et al., 2005). Several single-word production studies
have shown that patterns of cortical activations during lexical access are modulated by the speakers’
L2 proficiency (low > high proficiency), but not by AoA, which appears to have a more sizeable
impact on rule-based morphosyntactic processing (Abutalebi, 2008; Indefrey, 2006; Wartenburger
et al., 2003). Thus, the distinct effects of AoA across the three studies could be due to the different
sensitivity that behavioral tasks have to this speaker-related factor.
To our knowledge, no hemodynamic study has so far systematically tested whether L2 immersion
duration has any effect on the neuroanatomical correlates of L2 morphological processing. Of the
eight functional neuroimaging studies included in this review, only three report their participants
to have been naturalistically immersed in the L2 environment, ranging from short to long periods
(Meykhadeh, Golfam, Nasrabadi et al., 2021; Pliatsikas et al., 2014; Wartenburger et al., 2003).
Both Pliatsikas et al. (2014) and Wartenburger et al. (2003) found L1–L2 overlap with increasing
immersion, thus suggesting that naturalistic exposure can guide the L2 towards reaching a native-
like neural representation. This is in line with ERP studies showing that learning in immersion-like
contexts leads to electrophysiological signatures more fully typical of native speakers (Morgan-Short
et al., 2012). However, more research is necessary to determine whether immersion duration is a
strong and independent predictor of the cortical representation of L2 morphology (for the effect of
immersion on volumetric brain changes, see Korenar & Pliatsikas, this volume).
Summary of fMRI Findings

The findings reviewed above suggest that L1–L2 similarity alone is not a robust and independent
predictor of the neural representation of L2 morphology. However, research that systematically
manipulates this factor or uses techniques with the finest spatial resolution, such as invasive brain
stimulation in neurosurgical studies, would confirm this conclusion. Speaker-related factors have the
most tangible effects on the neural representation of L2 morphology. However, as will be discussed
below, when examining the role of such variables and their predictive power, it is important to con-
sider the degree of collinearity that exists between AoA, proficiency, and immersion duration (i.e.,
early exposure to the L2 is usually associated with naturalistic immersion, thus higher proficiency).

Native-likeness refers to the ability of speakers to process stimuli in an L2 (almost) as efficiently and
automatically as in their native language. The degree of overlap between L1 and L2 electrophysio-
logical and neuroanatomical correlates is taken to be a marker of the level of native-likeness achieved
by a group of speakers. The greater their similarity, the more native-like, and so the more efficient
and automatic, L2 processing is assumed to be. Our review shows that quantitative and qualitative
modulations relative to native patterns of reference can depend on grammar-and speaker-related
factors.
Inherent to the definition of native-likeness provided above is a controversial assumption that
characterizes the profile of native speakers, namely their homogeneity in terms of processing routines,
as well as the homogeneity of the electrophysiological and hemodynamic responses to stimuli in
their native language. A legitimate question is whether it makes sense to consider native speakers as
a homogeneous group, given the increasing bi/multilingual status and globalization of the world’s
population. Many studies have suggested reconsidering the “gold standard” for nativelikeness in
ERPs and investigating L1 and L2 processing along a continuum (e.g., Tanner et al., 2013, 2014;
see also Freunberger et al., 2022). Future challenges in the field could therefore be to identify the
variables that can account for inter-individual variability both in native and non-native processing, as
126
well as the appropriate methodology to investigate and account for such variability (see for example,
Fromont, and Luque & Covey, this volume).
Factors Affecting Morphological Processing

Our review suggests that to date, none of the different grammar-and speaker-related factors considered
here are independent predictors of L2 native-likeness. This is partly due to differences in the depth
with which the different techniques have been used to examine the effects of specific predictors, as in
the case of L1–L2 similarity and proficiency, as well as the number of studies adopting these different
methodologies to investigate L2 morphosyntactic processing.
ERP research has proceeded as far as to investigate (dis-)similarities in single features and the
position in which they are expressed within morphosyntactic relations across languages. In contrast,
fMRI studies have predominantly focused on the regular vs. irregular past tense opposition and how it
is handled across broadly defined typologically similar or dissimilar languages. Future hemodynamic
studies should therefore go beyond single-word processing and assess L1–L2 (dis-)similarities at
the sentence level. In this respect, a fruitful testing ground is the contrast between morphological
features and their presence/absence in L1 and L2 languages, thus extending and complementing
existing single-word (e.g., Hernandez et al., 2007) and sentence-level L1 studies (Carreiras et al.,
2015; Mancini et al., 2017; Quiñones et al., 2014, 2018).
Like L1–L2 similarity, proficiency encompasses distinct components—such as global and task-
related proficiency—that can differentially affect the response of interest. Empirical evidence
concerning the impact that distinct proficiency assessments have on morphological processing comes
from ERP research, while to the best of our knowledge, fMRI studies have not addressed this issue.
Task-related proficiency reflects a specific and less naturalistic measure of proficiency, which, unlike
global proficiency, cannot provide a complete measure of the real linguistic abilities of L2 speakers
in everyday life. Consequently, the role that this type of proficiency has in the modulation of late ERP
components should be interpreted with more caution. One possibility, albeit more radical, would be
to abandon the general concept of proficiency and rely on more specific indices of L2 experience such
as the type and amount of L2 exposure and immersion (e.g., Ullman, 2014) and/or the frequency of
L2 use (e.g., Martinez de la Hidalga et al., 2021; Osterhout et al., 2006).
A Note on Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation

Research on non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) investigates the effects that magnetic and electric
stimulation, namely TMS (transcranial magnetic stimulation) and tDCS (transcranial direct current
stimulation), have on participants’ performance (see Pandža, this volume). In language research,
participants are generally asked to produce a word/sentence or to perform a metalinguistic task (e.g.,
grammaticality judgments) while specific brain regions are stimulated. The stimulation can either
have disruptive effects, mirrored by longer reaction times and/or lower task accuracy, or it can posi-
tively enhance the participants’ performance, leading to shorter reaction times and/or higher accuracy.
NIBS research on L2 acquisition is still in its early stages (see Pandža, this volume). For instance,
studies of picture naming (Tussis et al., 2017) and language switching (Holtzheimer et al., 2005) have
been reported. Although these studies did not manipulate morphology or morphosyntax specifically,
their results suggest that research on L2 processing could benefit from non-invasive brain stimulation
techniques.
Available NIBS evidence on native language processing with healthy and brain-damaged speakers
points to a causal role of the left IFG in morphosyntactic processing (for a review see Maran et al.,
2022) and of the temporal lobe in the retrieval of irregular past tense verbs in English (Holland &
127
Lambon-Ralph, 2010). These findings lend support to the correlational evidence provided by the
hemodynamic studies discussed above, suggesting that NIBS could provide useful insights into the
neural representation of the L1 and L2.
Final Remarks
In the introduction to this chapter, we highlighted theoretical, historical, and methodological issues
behind the lack of a comprehensive neurolinguistic account of L2 morphological processing. Our
review of recent ERP, fMRI, and NIBS literature shows that while historical limitations have been
overcome, there are still some methodological aspects that should be considered in future research.
A case in point is represented by the use of rigid categories to assess the effects of experience-related
variables (i.e., division into distinct low- and high- proficiency groups). L2 data are subject to a
high degree of variability, as it is notoriously difficult to find bilingual speakers with homogeneous
linguistic profiles, and this variability is not accounted for in the statistical analyses. New methodo-
logical approaches are thus needed (see Fromont, this volume).
Finally, ERP studies have provided a fine-grained picture of the temporal dynamics related to the
processing of different morphosyntactic features and relations, while a more fragmented scenario
emerges from fMRI and NIBS. Brain areas and networks involved during L2 morphological pro-
cessing have been identified but, to date, it is still hard to define whether these networks change as a
function of different morphosyntactic features/relations.
Further Readings
This article attempts to provide a set of global principles that determine the neuroanatomical overlap of languages
in the brain.
Połczyńska, M.M., & Bookheimer, S.Y. (2021). General principles governing the amount of neuroanatomical
overlap between languages in bilinguals. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 130, 1–14. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.08.005
This article discusses issues related to a rigid concept of native-likeness in ERP research.
Freunberger, D., Bylund, E., & Abrahamsson, N. (2022). Is it time to reconsider the “gold standard” for
nativelikeness in ERP studies on grammatical processing in a second language? A critical assessment based
on qualitative individual differences. Applied Linguistics, 43(3), 433–452. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/
amab058
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge funding from the Basque Government (BERC 2022–2025 program), the Spanish
State Research Agency (BCBL Severo Ochoa excellence accreditation CEX2020-001010-S, grants PSI2015-
65694-P, RTI2018-096311-B-I00, and PCI2022-135031-2 to NM, grants RYC-2017-22015 and PID2020-
113945RB-I00 to SM), Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant agreement No 101028370 to NB.
References
Abutalebi, J. (2008). Neural aspects of second language representation and language control. Acta Psychologica,
128(3), 466–478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2008.03.014
Alemán Bañón, J., Fiorentino, R., & Gabriele, A. (2018). Using event-related potentials to track morphosyntactic
development in second language learners: The processing of number and gender agreement in Spanish. PloS
ONE, 13(7), Article e0200791. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200791
Alemán Bañón, J., Miller, D., & Rothman, J. (2017). Morphological variability in second language learners: An
examination of electrophysiological and production data. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
Memory, and Cognition, 43(10), 1509–1536. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000394
128
Alemán Bañón, J., Miller, D., & Rothman, J. (2021). Examining the contribution of markedness to the L2
processing of Spanish person agreement: An event‑related potentials study. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 43(4), 699–728. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263120000479
Armstrong, A., Bulkes, N., & Tanner, D. (2018). Quantificational cues modulate the processing of English
subject-verb agreement by native Chinese speakers: An ERP study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
40(4), 731–754. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263118000013
Bice, K., & Kroll, J.F. (2021). Grammatical processing in two languages: How individual differences in language
experience and cognitive abilities shape comprehension in heritage bilinguals. Journal of Neurolinguistics,
58, Article 100963. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2020.100963
Birdsong, D. (2018). Plasticity, variability and age in second language acquisition and bilingualism. Frontiers in
Psychology, 9, Article 81. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00081
Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., & Schlesewsky, M. (2013). Reconciling time, space and function: A new dorsal–
ventral stream model of sentence comprehension. Brain and Language, 125(1), 60–76. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.bandl.2013.01.010
Branzi, F.M., Martin, C.D., & Paz-Alonso, P.M. (2021). Task-relevant representations and cognitive control
demands modulate functional connectivity from ventral occipito-temporal cortex during object recognition
tasks. Cerebral Cortex, 32(14), 3068–3080. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhab401
Caffarra, S., Barber, H., Molinaro, N., & Carreiras, M. (2017). When the end matters: Influence of gender cues
during agreement computation in bilinguals. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 32(9), 1069–1085.
https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2017.1283426
Carreiras, M., Quiñones, I., Mancini, S., Hernández-Cabrera, J.A., & Barber, H. (2015). Verbal and nominal
agreement: An fMRI study. NeuroImage, 120, 88–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.06.075
Cheng, Y., Cunnings, I., Miller, D., & Rothman, J. (2021). Double-number marking matters for both L1 and L2
processing of nonlocal agreement similarly: An ERP investigation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
44(5), 1309–1329. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263121000772
Crinion, J., Turner, R., Grogan, A., Hanakawa, T., Noppeney, U., Devlin, J.T., Aso, T., Urayama, S., Fukuyama,
H., Stockton, K., Usui, K., Green, D.W., & Price, C.J. (2006). Language control in the bilingual brain.
Science, 312(5779), 1537–1540. www.jstor.org/stable/3846323
Cubelli, R., Lotto, L., Paolieri, D., Girelli, M., & Job, R. (2005). Grammatical gender is selected in bare noun
production: Evidence from the picture–word interference paradigm. Journal of Memory and Language,
53(1), 42–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2005.02.007
De Diego- Balaguer, R., & Rodriguez- Fornells, A. (2010). Contributions to the functional neuroanatomy
of morphosyntactic processing in L2. Language Learning, 60(1), 231–259. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1467-9922.2009.00557.x
Díaz, B., Erdocia, K., De Menezes, R.F., Mueller, J.L., Sebastián-Gallés, N., & Laka, I. (2016). Electrophysiological
correlates of second-language syntactic processes are related to native and second language distance regard-
less of age of acquisition. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, Article 133. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00133
Díaz, B., Sebastián-Gallés, N., Erdocia, K., Mueller, J.L., & 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(3), 357–373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2010.12.003
amab058
Friederici, A.D. (2017). Language in our brain: The origins of a uniquely human capacity. MIT Press. https://
doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11173.001.0001
129
Gabriele, A., Alemán Bañón, J., Hoffman, L., Covey, L., Rossomondo, A., & Fiorentino, R. (2021). Examining
variability in the processing of agreement in novice learners: Evidence from event-related potentials. Journal
of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 47(7), 1106–1140. https://doi.org/10.1037/
xlm0000983
Hartshorne, J.K., Tenenbaum, J.B., & Pinker, S. (2018). A critical period for second language acquisition: Evidence
from 2/3 million English speakers. Cognition, 177, 263–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.04.007
Hernandez, A.E., Hofmann, J., & Kotz, S.A. (2007). Age of acquisition modulates neural activity for both
regular and irregular syntactic functions. NeuroImage, 36(3), 912–923. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroim
age.2007.02.055
Holland, R., & Lambon Ralph, M.A. (2010). The anterior temporal lobe semantic hub is a part of the language
neural network: Selective disruption of irregular past tense verbs by rTMS. Cerebral Cortex, 20(12), 2771–
2775. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhq020
Holtzheimer, P., Fawaz, W., Wilson, C., & Avery, D. (2005). Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation may
induce language switching in bilingual patients. Brain and Language, 94(3), 274–277. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.bandl.2005.01.003
Indefrey, P. (2006). A meta-analysis of hemodynamic studies on first and second language processing: Which
suggested differences can we trust and what do they mean? Language Learning, 56, 279–304. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1467-9922.2006.00365.x
Jackson, J., & Schwieter, J. (2019). Study abroad and immersion. In J. Schwieter, & A. Benati (Eds.), The
Cambridge handbook of language learning (pp. 727–750). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/
10.1017/9781108333603
Johnson, J.S., & Newport, E.L. (1989). Critical period effects in second language learning: The influence of
maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive Psychology, 21(1), 60–99.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(89)90003-0
Kotz, S.A. (2009). A critical review of ERP and fMRI evidence on L2 syntactic processing. Brain and Language,
109(2–3), 68–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2008.06.002
Lau, E.F., Phillips, C., & Poeppel, D. (2008). A cortical network for semantics: (De) constructing the N400.
Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 9(12), 920–933. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2532
Lehtonen, M., Vorobyev, V., Soveri, A., Hugdahl, K., Tuokkola, T., & Laine, M. (2009). Language-specific
activations in the brain: Evidence from inflectional processing in bilinguals. Journal of Neurolinguistics,
22(5), 495–513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2009.05.001
Lehtonen, M.H., Laine, M., Niemi, J., Thomsen, T., Vorobyev, V.A., & Hugdahl, K. (2005). Brain correlates of
sentence translation in Finnish–Norwegian bilinguals. NeuroReport, 16(6), 607–610. https://doi.org/10.1097/
00001756-200504250-00018
Liang, L., Chondrogianni, V., & Chen, B. (2021). Online processing of the grammatical aspect marker by L2
Chinese learners. Second Language Research, 38(4), 765–786. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658321996423
MacWhinney, B. (2005). New directions in the competition model. In M. Tomasello, & D.I. Slobin (Eds.),
Beyond nature-nurture: Essays in honor of Elizabeth Bates (pp. 81–110). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/
9781410611192
MacWhinney, B. (2018). A unified model of first and second language learning. In M. Hickmann, E. Veneziano,
& H. Jisa (Eds.), Sources of variation in first language acquisition: Languages, contexts and learners (pp.
287–312). John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/tilar.22
Mancini, S., Quiñones, I., Molinaro, N., Hernandez-Cabrera, J.A., & Carreiras, M. (2017). Disentangling
meaning in the brain: Left temporal involvement in agreement processing. Cortex, 86, 140–155. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.cortex.2016.11.008
Maran, M., Friederici, A.D., & Zaccarella, E. (2022). Syntax through the looking glass: A review on two-word
linguistic processing across behavioral, neuroimaging and neurostimulation studies. Neuroscience and
Biobehavioral Reviews, 142, Article 104881. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2022.104881
130
Martínez de la Hidalga, G., Zawiszewski, A., & Laka, I. (2021) Going native? Yes, if allowed by cross-linguistic
similarity. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 742127. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.742127
Meulman, N., Wieling, M., Sprenger, S.A., Stowe, L.A., & Schmid, M.S. (2015). Age effects in L2 grammar
processing as revealed by ERPs and how (not) to study them. PloS ONE, 10(12), Article e0143328. https://
Meykadeh, A., Golfam, A., Batouli, S.A.H., & Sommer, W. (2021). Overlapping but language-specific
mechanisms in morphosyntactic processing in highly competent L2 acquired at school entry: fMRI evidence
from an alternating language switching task. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 15, Article 728549. https://
doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2021.728549
Meykadeh, A., Golfam, A., Nasrabadi, A.M., Ameri, H., & Sommer, W. (2021). First event-related potentials
evidence of auditory morphosyntactic processing in a subject-object-verb nominative-accusative language
(Farsi). Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 698165. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.698165
Molinaro, N., Barber, H.A., & Carreiras, M. (2011). Grammatical agreement processing in reading: ERP findings
and future directions. Cortex, 47(8), 908–930. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2011.02.019
Morgan-Short, K., Finestrat, I., Luque, A., & Abugaber, D. (2022). Exploring new insights into explicit and
implicit second language processing: Event-related potentials analyzed by source attribution. Language
Learning, 72(2), 365–411. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12492
Morgan-Short, K., Steinhauer, K., Sanz, C., & Ullman, M.T. (2012). Explicit and implicit second language
training differentially affect the achievement of native-like brain activation patterns. Journal of Cognitive
Newport, E.L., Bavelier, D., & Neville, H.J. (2001). Critical thinking about critical periods: Perspectives on a crit-
ical period for language acquisition. In E. Dupoux (Ed.), Language, brain, and cognitive development: Essays
in honor of Jacques Mehler (pp. 481–502). MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/4108.001.0001
Nichols, E.S., & Joanisse, M.F. (2019). Individual differences predict ERP signatures of second language
learning of novel grammatical rules. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 22(1), 78–92. https://doi.org/
10.1017/S1366728917000566
Osterhout, L., McLaughlin, J., Kim, A., Greenwald, R., & Inoue, K. (2004). Sentences in the brain: Event-
related potentials as real-time reflections of sentence comprehension and language learning. In M. Carreiras,
& C. Clifton, Jr. (Eds.), The on-line study of sentence comprehension: Eyetracking, ERP, and beyond (pp.
271–308). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203509050
Osterhout, L., McLaughlin, J., Pitkänen, I., Frenck-Mestre, C., & Molinaro, N. (2006). Novice learners, longi-
tudinal designs, and event-related potentials: A means for exploring the neurocognition of second language
processing. Language Learning, 56, 199–230. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2006.00361.x
Pandža, N. (this volume). Using non-invasive brain stimulation to investigate second language. In K. Morgan-
Short & J.G. van Hell (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and neurolinguistics.
Routledge
Pliatsikas, C., Johnstone, T., & Marinis, T. (2014). fMRI evidence for the involvement of the procedural memory
system in morphological processing of a second language. PloS ONE, 9(5), Article e97298. https://doi.org/
10.1371/journal.pone.0097298
Połczyńska, M.M., & Bookheimer, S.Y. (2021). General principles governing the amount of neuroanatomical
overlap between languages in bilinguals. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 130, 1–14. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.08.005
Quiñones, I., Molinaro, N., Mancini, S., Hernández-Cabrera, J.A., & Carreiras, M. (2014). Where agreement
merges with disagreement: fMRI evidence of subject–verb integration. NeuroImage, 88, 188–201. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.11.038
Quiñones, I., Molinaro, N., Mancini, S., Hernández-Cabrera, J.A., Barber, H., & Carreiras, M. (2018). Tracing
the interplay between syntactic and lexical features: fMRI evidence from agreement comprehension.
NeuroImage, 175, 259–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.03.069
Roncaglia-Denissen, M.P., & Kotz, S.A. (2016). What does neuroimaging tell us about morphosyntactic pro-
cessing in the brain of second language learners? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19(4), 665–673.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728915000413
Sabourin, L., & Manning, G. (this volume). Cross-linguistic transfer in second language neurocognition. In
K. Morgan-Short & J.G. van Hell (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and
Sakai, K.L., Miura, K., Narafu, N. and Muraishi, Y. (2004). Correlated functional changes of the prefrontal cortex
in twins induced by classroom education of second language. Cerebral Cortex, 14(11), 1233–1239. https://
doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhh084
131
Steinhauer, K., White, E.J., & Drury, J.E. (2009). Temporal dynamics of late second language acquisi-
tion: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Second Language Research, 25(1), 13–41. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0267658308098995
Tanner, D., McLaughlin, J., Herschensohn, J., & Osterhout, L. (2013). Individual differences reveal stages of L2
grammatical acquisition: ERP evidence. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16(2), 367–382. https://doi.
org/10.1017/S1366728912000302
Tanner, D., Inoue, K., & Osterhout, L. (2014). Brain-based individual differences in online L2 grammatical com-
prehension. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17(2), 277–293. https://doi.org/10.1017/S136672891
3000370
Tatsuno, Y., & Sakai, K.L. (2005). Language-related activations in the left prefrontal regions are differentially
modulated by age, proficiency, and task demands. Journal of Neuroscience, 25(7), 1637–1644. https://doi.
org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3978-04.2005
Tussis, L., Sollmann, N., Boeckh-Behrens, T., Meyer, B., & Krieg, S.M. (2017). Identifying cortical first and
second language sites via navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation of the left hemisphere in bilinguals.
Brain and Language, 168, 106–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2017.01.011
Ullman, M.T. (2014). The declarative/procedural model: A neurobiologically motivated theory of first and second
language. In B. VanPatten, & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction
(2nd ed., pp. 147–172). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203628942
language. In B. VanPatten, G.D. Keating, & S. Wulff (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An
introduction (3rd ed., pp. 128–161). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429503986
Ullman, M.T., & Morgan-Short, K. (this volume). How the declarative and procedural memory brain circuits
support second language: Electrophysiological, neuroimaging, and neurological evidence. In K. Morgan-
Routledge.
Van Hell, J.G., & 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.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658309337637
Wartenburger, I., Heekeren, H.R., Abutalebi, J., Cappa, S. F., Villringer, A., & Perani, D. (2003). Early
S0896-6273(02)01150-9
Yan, H., Zhang, Y.M., Xu, M., Chen, H.Y. and Wang, Y.H. (2016). What to do if we have nothing to rely on: Late
bilinguals process L2 grammatical features like L1 natives. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 40, 1–4. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2016.04.002
Zawiszewski, A., & Laka, I. (2020). Bilinguals processing noun morphology: Evidence for the language distance
hypothesis from event-related potentials. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 55, Article 100908. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jneuroling.2020.100908
132
10
SYNTACTIC SYSTEM
Introduction
In this chapter, we review recent neurolinguistic evidence regarding the adult second language (L2)
processing of syntax. Examining how sentence structures are constructed and ultimately mapped to
meaning at the brain level can shed new light on the extent to which adult learners are successful in
processing the L2, including whether they can utilize L2 grammatical knowledge in real time and
whether they rely on the same mechanisms during processing as native speakers. Ultimately, research
in this area can inform our understanding of core theoretical issues regarding the nature of L2 acqui-
sition, shedding light on the possibilities and limitations of L2 processing. In the following, we first
discuss approaches to examining L1 and L2 syntactic processing, reviewing approaches to examining
the cortical organization of L1 and L2 syntactic systems, and approaches allowing one to examine
the dynamics of L1 and L2 syntactic processing with high temporal precision. We then introduce core
theoretical issues and critical factors such as age of acquisition and proficiency which may impact
the L2 acquisition and processing of syntax, and discuss recent research examining the L2 processing
of word order and wh-dependency resolution, informing our understanding of the L2 processing of
fundamental syntactic operations such as structure building and dependency resolution; these studies
also suggest promising areas for future research, as we discuss in the section “Current trends and
future directions.”
Syntactic Processing in Native Speakers

Syntactic processing in adult native speakers is widely argued to be incremental, with incoming
material incorporated into the syntactic and semantic representation of the sentence as it unfolds (e.g.,
Tanenhaus et al., 1995). Studies on native language processing have demonstrated the incremental
processing of a range of core syntactic phenomena, including the construction of syntactic structure
and the establishment of grammatically constrained dependencies between elements in the syntax
(for discussion of the relation between grammar and processing, see e.g., Lewis & Phillips, 2015).
Native language processing has also been shown to involve, at least to some extent, prediction: the
anticipation of linguistic elements before they appear in the bottom-up input (see e.g., Altmann &
Mirković, 2009; Federmeier, 2007; Kaan, this volume). Such effects are widely attested in studies
at the lexical (e.g., Ito et al., 2018) and morphosyntactic levels (e.g., Wicha et al., 2004), and are
also observed in the more limited set of studies examining syntactic prediction (e.g., Bovolenta &
DOI: 10.4324/9781003190912-13 133

Husband, 2022). Prediction is also argued to be recruited by native speakers in the establishment of
syntactic dependencies (see e.g., Covey et al., 2022, and Michel, 2014, discussed below). Questions
remain regarding to what extent L2 learners utilize the same types of processing argued to subserve
native processing; this includes both the integration of encountered linguistic elements and the pre-
diction of upcoming linguistic elements (see Hopp, 2022, for recent discussion).
Examining the Cortical Organization of L1 and L2 Syntax

Insights regarding the cortical organization of native and non-native languages can be gained from
neurolinguistic methods yielding information regarding to what extent the brain areas recruited for
native processing are also recruited when processing the L2. One such approach involves the use of
hemodynamic imaging methods such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and positron
emission tomography (PET; see Kousaie & Klein, this volume) to examine changes in brain activity
related to syntactic processing, with high spatial resolution, allowing one to examine to what extent
similar locations are recruited for L1 and L2 processing. Complementary information regarding the
organization of the L1 and L2 syntactic systems can be gained from neuropsychological approaches
such as the examination of spared and impacted aspects of language in people with aphasia (see
Scimeca et al., this volume) or those with neurodegenerative diseases impacting language.
The neurolinguistic literature on native language syntax has yielded a rich set of findings regarding
the brain regions involved in syntactic processing, implicating areas such as the left inferior frontal
gyrus (Broca’s area), as well as anterior and posterior temporal areas, although debate continues
regarding the precise functional contributions of these and other brain areas (for recent discussion, see
Matchin & Hickok, 2020). L2 syntactic research in this vein has addressed questions such as to what
extent L2 syntactic processing involves recruitment of brain areas associated with L1 syntax (e.g.,
Johnson et al., 2018; Sakai et al., 2004). For example, Johnson et al. (2018) tested native English-
speaking adult learners of American Sign Language (ASL) in an fMRI study examining responses
to visually presented sentences, testing participants in both the L1 (English) and L2 (ASL). A main
finding of the study was that L1 and L2 areas responsive to the syntactic manipulation largely over-
lapped, despite differences in modality (written English vs. ASL). Some differences in the extent of
activation for the L2 compared to the L1 were also observed, including greater activation for the L2
in Broca’s area; Johnson et al. (2018) suggest that this may reflect increased cognitive load during
L2 processing, under the view in which Broca’s area engagement for syntax reflects the recruitment
of cognitive resources during processing. This study exemplifies how hemodynamic research can
be used to examine the cortical organization of L1 and L2 syntactic systems, and to reveal potential
differences between L1 and L2 syntactic processing that may be related to factors such as increased
processing demands in the L2. Structural imaging methods (see Rossi et al., this volume) have also
begun to yield information regarding differences or changes over time in brain structures as they relate
to the L2 acquisition of syntax. Yamamoto and Sakai (2016), for example, observed differences in
connections between frontal and tempo-parietal areas that correlated with native Japanese-speaking
L2 English learners’ performance on a syntactic judgment task targeting structural properties of verbs
(e.g., transitivity/argument structure). Studies like these inform our understanding of how the brain
networks subserving L2 syntax are organized and change over the course of L2 acquisition (for a
recent meta-analysis of neuroimaging findings, see Sulpizio et al., 2020).
Examining the Dynamics of L1 and L2 Syntactic Processing

A second family of neurolinguistic approaches to examining syntactic processing utilizes methods
providing precise information regarding the timing of brain activity, including the electrophysiological
134
Neurolinguistics of the Second Language Syntactic System
measures electroencephalography (EEG) and magnetoencephalography (MEG). The native and L2

neurolinguistic literature on syntactic processing has relied heavily on these approaches, and particu-
larly on EEG, as these methods allow one to track the dynamics of processing of particular aspects of
syntax as the sentence unfolds during real-time processing. Thus, in the remainder of this chapter, we
primarily focus on L1 and L2 studies on syntactic processing that utilize EEG.
EEG is a brain-imaging method offering a precise (millisecond-level) record of brain activity (see
Dickson & Pelzl, this volume, for more detail). Analysis of brain responses time-locked to critical
events (e.g., the appearance of a critical word in a sentence) yields event-related potentials (ERPs).
Different ERPs can be characterized and distinguished via properties including their timing, whether
they are short-duration or sustained, their polarity (positive vs. negative), and their distribution over
the scalp (e.g., Kaan, 2007). Crucially, different ERPs have been associated with distinct aspects
of syntactic processing. These include the early left anterior negativity (ELAN), emerging around
150–300 ms post stimulus onset and canonically largest on left-anterior electrode sites on the scalp,
which has been argued to index an early stage of processing involving the building of basic phrase
structure (but see Steinhauer & Drury, 2012 for critical discussion of this literature). The left anterior
negativity (LAN), emerging around 300–500 ms post onset, has been associated with the processing
of morphosyntax (e.g., Molinaro et al., 2011). The N400 is a negativity emerging around 300–600
ms post onset and typically largest at centro-posterior electrode sites, and has been associated with
processing of lexical-semantic information (e.g., Lau et al., 2008). The P600 is a positivity emerging
between approximately 400–900 ms, most prominently at centro-posterior electrode sites, which has
been associated with the detection of syntactic violations, unexpected syntactic continuations, and
parts of the sentence engendering complex syntactic processing, such as when a dependency can
be resolved (e.g., Kaan et al., 2000). Thus, the P600 is often characterized as reflecting syntactic
processes including integration, reanalysis, and repair, although the P600 has also been observed for
semantic anomalies (e.g., Kim & Osterhout, 2005), and alternative interpretations, for example that
the P600 may reflect conflict monitoring or error detection, have also been proposed (see e.g., Kaan,
2007; Tanner et al., 2017, for discussion).
We next discuss research examining the L2 processing of syntax using EEG in order to highlight
core theoretical issues in L2 acquisition and processing in this domain.
Theoretical Perspectives and Approaches

Although the scope of research on the neurolinguistics of L2 syntax continues to broaden, certain
issues have received special attention (Caffarra et al., 2015). Most early reports investigated the
extent to which age of L2 acquisition shapes both the mechanisms recruited for L2 syntactic pro-
cessing (e.g., Bowden et al., 2013; Fromont et al., 2020; Hahne & Friederici, 2001; Rossi et al., 2006;
Weber-Fox & Neville, 1996) and the cortical representation of the L2 (e.g., Kim et al., 1997; Perani
et al., 1998; Wartenburger et al., 2003). Theoretically, this research was motivated by the question
of whether there is a critical period for L2 acquisition. Under most versions of this hypothesis (e.g.,
Lenneberg, 1967; Johnson & Newport, 1989), it is posited that a gradual decline in brain plasticity
with an offset around puberty hinders the acquisition of formal aspects of the L2 to native-like levels,
including its syntax. For that reason, SLA researchers became interested in bringing neurolinguistic
evidence in the form of brain responses or cortical areas of specialization, to bear on this question.
Results from these early reports revealed more native-like results for early relative to late learners,
in line with the predictions of critical period proposals. However, age of L2 acquisition was largely
confounded with L2 proficiency in these studies, such that learners with a later age of acquisition also
tended to be less proficient (e.g., Weber-Fox & Neville, 1996). Subsequent studies investigated the
unique contribution of L2 proficiency to syntactic development among post-puberty learners, with a
135
focus on whether high-proficiency learners were capable of showing native-like brain responses to
syntactic computations (e.g., Rossi et al., 2006) and engaging similar brain regions for the L1 and
the L2 (e.g., Perani et al., 1998; Wartenburger et al., 2003). This literature on syntactic development
showed that, at high levels of proficiency, adult L2 learners tend to show native-like brain responses,
at least for basic syntactic computations (i.e., phrase structure), and recruit similar cortical areas as
early L2 learners (e.g., Perani et al., 1998; Rossi et al., 2006), although age of acquisition remains a
modulating factor in some reports (e.g., Wartenburger et al., 2003).
With respect to the ERP literature, the linguistic properties investigated in these early studies
and the predicted patterns of brain responses were informed by Friederici’s syntax-first model of
sentence processing (2002). Under this model, implicit knowledge of phrase structure is argued to
guide the initial stages of sentence processing. In native speakers, phrase structure violations such
as The scientist criticized Max’s *of proof the theorem, where the preposition of violates the selec-
tional restrictions (with respect to word category) of the preceding genitive phrase (e.g., Weber-
Fox & Neville, 1996) were found to elicit an ELAN and a P600. Under Friederici’s model, the
ELAN indexes first-pass, automatic, and unconscious syntactic processing (Friederici, 2002; Hahne
& Friederici, 2002), whereas the P600 is assumed to reflect more controlled processes of syntactic
reanalysis and repair (Hahne & Friederici, 2002).
Most early ERP studies investigated whether adult L2 learners, too, were capable of such
rapid phrase structure building, as indexed by the ELAN (and the P600), in order to inform the
abovementioned debates regarding the possibilities and limitations of adult L2 acquisition (Weber-
Fox & Neville, 1996; Hahne & Friederici, 2001; Rossi et al., 2006; Pakulak & Neville, 2011).
Although some reports found that high-proficiency learners elicited an ELAN for phrase structure
violations (e.g., Rossi et al., 2006), the functional interpretation of the ELAN was later challenged by
Steinhauer and Drury (2012), who identified a number of limitations with the paradigm eliciting the
ELAN, including baseline differences between grammatical and ungrammatical sentences that may
distort ERPs (e.g., compare Max’s proof of… to Max’s of proof…).
Age of acquisition and proficiency have remained prevalent topics in more recent research on the
neurolinguistics of L2 syntax (see also Fromont, this volume; Luque & Covey, this volume), although
both the theoretical and the linguistic focus have shifted. As opposed to testing the predictions of
Friederici’s model (2002), recent studies have tested current theoretical models of L2 processing.
Some studies have examined whether the processing of long-distance syntactic dependencies among
adult L2 learners is grammatically constrained (e.g., Covey et al., 2022; Jessen et al., 2017; Jessen &
Felser, 2019), a question raised by Clahsen and Felser’s Shallow Structure Hypothesis (2006, 2018).
The Shallow Structure Hypothesis posits that adult L2 learners have a representational deficit at the
level of the syntax and rely on abstract syntax to a lesser extent than native speakers in real-time
processing, regardless of proficiency and L1–L2 similarity. Other studies have examined the extent
to which the neurocognitive mechanisms involved in L2 syntactic processing can develop to native-
like levels (e.g., Bowden et al., 2013; Mickan & Lemhöfer, 2020) and how syntactic development is
modulated by cross-linguistic similarity (e.g., Andersson et al., 2019; Mickan & Lemhöfer, 2020).
These questions have been largely informed by Ullman’s Declarative/Procedural Model (2001, 2004)
and Steinhauer et al.’s hierarchy of developmental stages (2009). The Declarative/Procedural Model
posits that language relies upon two neurobiologically distinct memory systems, the declarative and
procedural memory systems. While declarative memory subserves the lexicon, procedural memory
subserves grammatical rules. With respect to L2 processing, the model’s core tenet is that learners rely
on declarative memory for (morpho)syntactic properties for which native speakers rely on procedural
memory. However, with increased proficiency and experience, learners can come to process syn-
tactic rules in a qualitatively native-like manner. Steinhauer et al. (2009) also argue against absolute
136
limitations in learners’ ability to process (morpho)syntactic dependencies. Instead, the authors pro-
pose that learners go through a series of developmental stages, as a function of L2 proficiency and
factors such as L1–L2 similarity. Finally, other studies have examined the extent to which adult L2
learners can generate predictions about upcoming syntactic structure in real-time (e.g., Covey et al.,
2022; Kaan et al., 2016;), in order to test theoretical proposals that make different claims regarding
learners’ predictive capabilities (e.g., Grüter et al., 2017; Kaan, 2014; Kaan, this volume). Although
very few studies have examined this question, the available evidence suggest that structural predic-
tion might be an area of divergence between native and nonnative speakers. In the next session, we
review research related to these issues in two particular syntactic domains that have received attention
in the recent L2 ERP literature: word order and wh-dependencies.

The L2 Processing of Word Order Constraints
A number of ERP studies have investigated whether L2 learners obey different word order constraints
in the same way as native speakers. The question of how learners process phrase structure violations,
which inspired most early reports (e.g., Hahne & Friederici, 2001; Müller et al., 2005; Pakulak &
Neville, 2011; Rossi et al., 2006; Weber-Fox & Neville, 1996), has continued to spur interest. For
example, Bowden et al. (2013) and Fromont et al. (2020) manipulated phrase structure constraints in
Spanish and French, respectively, with designs that minimized the abovementioned baseline issues
identified by Steinhauer and Drury (2012). In Bowden et al.’s study, phrase structure violations yielded
a LAN-P600 biphasic pattern in both native speakers and high-proficiency learners of Spanish. In
contrast, intermediate learners only showed a P600, which the authors interpret as support for the
Declarative/Procedural Model. In Fromont et al.’s study, phrase structure errors elicited an N400,
which might reflect the mismatch between the predicted morphological features of the target versus
the encountered words. In addition, an analysis of individual differences revealed that, in both native
speakers and learners, high levels of proficiency, daily usage of French, and years of immersion were
associated with larger P600 effects, in line with earlier studies pointing to proficiency as a more deter-
ministic factor than age of acquisition (e.g., Rossi et al., 2006).
Other studies have investigated how the processing of word order constraints is impacted by L1–
L2 similarity (e.g., Andersson et al., 2019; Mickan & Lemhöfer, 2020). For example, Andersson
et al. (2019) investigated the processing of verb-second “V2” word order in L2 Swedish by learners
of intermediate proficiency whose L1 did or did not instantiate the V2 property, German and English,
respectively. V2 is a word order constraint by which the finite verb of a declarative main clause must
occupy the second syntactic position in the sentence. In Swedish, basic word order is Subject-Verb-
Object (SVO), as shown in (1a). However, if an element such as an adverb is fronted, the verb appears
before the subject (Adverb-Verb-Subject-Object), as in (1b). Placing the verb in the third position
(V3) renders the sentence ungrammatical (1c).
(1) a. Hon spelade piano.

she played piano
“She played piano.”
b. Idag spelade hon piano.
today played she piano
“Today she played piano.”
c. *Idag hon spelade piano.
today she played piano
137
Studies on production showed that L2 learners of V2 languages incorrectly produce V3 order even
when their L1 instantiates the V2 property (e.g., Bardel & Falk, 2007; Håkansson et al., 2002). The
study by Andersson et al. (2019) extended this investigation to comprehension. Importantly, unlike
ERP studies probing word order violations that are less representative of L2 learners’ production
errors (e.g., The scientist criticized Max’s *of the theorem), Andersson et al.’s study examined an error
type that is widely attested among L2 learners acquiring V2 languages.
In the EEG task, participants read sentences with correct V2 and incorrect V3 order (1b,c), and
provided a grammaticality judgment. Behaviorally, the two learner groups did not differ from one
another, and both were outperformed by the native controls. In terms of brain responses, across
all three groups, ungrammatical V3 sentences yielded a posterior negativity (300–500ms), which
reached anterior electrodes in the L1 Swedish group (partly consistent with the LAN), and a pos-
terior P600 (700–1000ms).1 Additional analyses showed that the L1 English learners differed from
the native controls to a greater extent than the L1 German learners. Thus, the results by Andersson
et al. are among the first to show an effect of transfer on the L2 processing of word order constraints.
Although both learner groups in their study were sensitive to the V2 property, having V2 in the L1
facilitated the learners’ processing.
Mickan and Lemhöfer (2020) investigated how L2 syntactic development was modulated by
L1–L2 similarity with a cross-sectional design including German-speaking learners of Dutch at
three levels of experience (beginners, intermediate, advanced). The study probed a word order
constraint that applies similarly in Dutch and German (V2 order), and one where Dutch and
German are in direct conflict (double infinitives). The results of the grammaticality judgment task
associated with the EEG task showed a clear developmental trajectory, with advanced learners
showing native-like accuracy in both the no-conflict and conflict conditions, and intermediate and
beginning learners lagging behind in both conditions. In terms of brain responses, word order
violations in the no-conflict condition yielded a central-posterior P600 relative to grammatical
sentences in native speakers and learners of advanced and intermediate proficiency. In contrast,
beginning learners showed a broadly distributed N400-like effect (and a late frontal negativity). In
the conflict condition, all learner groups differed either quantitatively (intermediate, advanced) or
qualitatively (beginning) from the Dutch controls. While the latter showed a broadly distributed
P600 for violations, the P600 in the intermediate and advanced groups was delayed and topo-
graphically restricted. Finally, the beginners elicited a similar N400 effect to the one in the no-
conflict condition.
Thus, Mickan and Lemhöfer’s results (2020) lend support to the trajectory of processing stages
outlined by Steinhauer et al. (2009). With only two months of L2 experience, the beginners relied on
qualitatively different neurocognitive mechanisms, as indexed by N400-like effects for both viola-
tion types (Stage 2 in Steinhaeur et al.’s model). In contrast, the intermediate and advanced learners
(six and ten months of experience, respectively) showed qualitatively native-like brain responses
for both word order constraints (i.e., P600 effects), although these were impacted by L1–L2 simi-
larity, which is also in line with Steinhauer et al.’s model (Stages 3 and 4). Crucially, the fact that
beginners showed an N400 effect for violations of a property that was similar in the L1 and the L2
provides strong evidence in favor of Steinhauer et al.’s model (e.g., see Osterhout et al., 2006 in the
domain of morphosyntax; cf. Gabriele et al., 2021) and against prominent theories of transfer from
the behavioral literature which predict an advantage for properties that exist in the L1 (e.g., Schwartz
& Sprouse, 1996), since it suggests that the learners did not engage in grammatical processing for
properties instantiated in their L1. That said, as the authors themselves acknowledge, it remains
an open question whether the same development trajectory would emerge if the learners had been
grouped based on their global proficiency (which was tested with two metrics) as opposed to their
L2 experience.
138
The Processing of Wh-Dependencies

A recent series of L2 studies has used ERPs to investigate the processing of wh-dependencies as in
(2a), from Stowe (1986).
(2) a. My brother wanted to know who Ruth will bring us home to __at Christmas.
b. My brother wanted to know if Ruth will bring us home to Mom at Christmas.
In languages such as English, the derivation of sentences with relative clauses and wh-questions is
argued to involve wh-movement such that a wh-phrase (who), called the “filler,” has been moved from
its canonical position in the syntactic structure to the beginning of the clause, leaving behind a “gap,”
as indicated by the underscore in (2a). During online processing, encountering a wh-filler such as who
initiates a search for a potential gap position at each grammatically possible position in the syntax
until the dependency is successfully completed, and the fronted wh-element can then be integrated
into the syntactic and semantic representation of the sentence (e.g., Frazier, 1987; Frazier & Flores
D’Arcais, 1989). Early evidence for this model of “active gap prediction” comes from studies such as
Stowe (1986), in which native speakers read sentences such as (2), and reading times of the word us in
sentences with wh-extraction as in (2a) were compared to reading times of the same word in sentences
without extraction (2b). The results showed longer reading times at us in (2a) as compared to (2b), a
slowdown which has been argued to index the unmet prediction of a gap in the direct object position
following the verb (bring), which is already filled with lexical material. This effect is referred to as
a “filled-gap effect.” These results suggest that processing of wh-dependencies is incremental, and
that the parser predicts a gap in structurally licensed positions in the syntax (e.g., following the verb)
before confirmation of the actual location of the gap site (in 2a, following the preposition to) where the
filler can be integrated. An advantage of using ERPs to examine the processing of wh-dependencies
is that the measure is well-suited to assess whether similar mechanisms underlie processing in natives
and L2 learners. In the native ERP literature on wh-dependencies, gap prediction has been argued to
be indexed by the N400 (e.g., Michel, 2014) while filler integration has been argued to be indexed by
the P600 (e.g., Felser et al., 2003; Gouvea et al., 2010; Kaan et al., 2000; Phillips et al., 2005).
Jessen and Felser (2019) used ERPs to examine two aspects of wh-dependency processing, gap
prediction and reanalysis, which in this study refers to a case in which the prediction of a gap is
disconfirmed. The key question was whether L2 learners can recover from an initial misanalysis, as
this is an area that has been shown to be difficult (e.g., Dussias & Piñar, 2010). Jessen and Felser
examined whether native speakers and advanced German-speaking learners of English show evidence
of an active gap filling strategy, linking a wh-filler to a potential lexical licensor before evidence of a
gap is confirmed in the bottom-up input (see also Dallas et al., 2013). They used a plausibility para-
digm, manipulating the semantic fit of the filler argument, which was a relativized noun phrase (the
house/women that), and the potential subcategorizer (built) as in (3a,b) below.
(3) a. Bill liked the house that Bob built some ornaments for _at his workplace.
b. Bill liked the women that Bob built some ornaments for _at his workplace.
Jessen and Felser observed an N400 effect for both natives and L2 learners at the verb “built” in
(3b) as compared to (3a), an effect that was argued to index an active gap-filling strategy, reflecting
difficulty in integrating the implausible filler (the women that) with the potential lexical licensor
(built). The negativity was present for the learners at the following region as well (e.g., some).
Jessen and Felser also observed a P600 at the preposition for in the plausible condition (3a) as
compared to the implausible condition (3b) only for the L2 learners. The P600 was argued to
139
index reanalysis, reflecting difficulty in abandoning the original direct object analysis and instead
integrating the filler at the actual gap site following the preposition. Reanalysis is argued to be
more difficult in the plausible condition (3a) because it should be easier to abandon the direct
object analysis in (3b) where the link between the noun phrase filler and the verb is semantically
implausible. They argue that reanalysis may be more difficult for the L2 learners (e.g., Dussias &
Piñar, 2010, Jacob & Felser, 2016), as evidenced by the P600, and more automatic and effortless
for the natives.
Jessen et al. (2017) make a similar argument on the basis of evidence from the processing of
indirect object wh-dependencies (see 4a) by similar groups of native and L1 German L2 English
speakers.
(4) a. *Sara tickled the monkey for which Peter arranged some classes for it after the
vacation.
b. Sara tickled the monkey while Peter arranged some classes for it after the vacation.
Indirect object wh-dependencies are interesting to examine because it is easier to tease apart effects
of semantic integration and effects related to positing a gap. The filler phrase the monkey for which in
(4a) should clearly indicate that the noun phrase is not a direct object of the verb arrange, but rather
an indirect object/goal argument of the verb whose canonical position in the syntax follows the direct
object. Thus, any effects observed at the verb should be related to argument structure/semantic inte-
gration and not gap-filling. The actual gap position in (4a) follows the direct object (some classes),
but in this experiment, the gap was filled with a resumptive indirect object phrase (for it), rendering
the sentence ungrammatical.
Jessen et al. compared the processing of (4a) with the sentence in (4b), which did not involve a
wh-dependency. The results showed that both natives and L2 learners yielded an N400 effect in the
350–500 ms time window following the verb. Although this effect had been predicted as an index of
semantic integration, Jessen et al. state that the N400 may index a pragmatic anomaly as the filler (the
monkey for which) is an unlikely Goal argument of the verb arrange and others in the stimuli such as
confess which usually require the Goal argument to be human.
At the filled gap position (for it), which renders the sentence ungrammatical, both natives and
learners yielded a positivity in the 600–800 ms time window; although the effect was frontally
distributed for the natives, there was suggestive evidence that the effect was more broadly distributed
for L2 learners. Jessen et al. additionally examined whether the processing of the filler phrase itself
(for/to which) would elicit a sustained LAN, which has been argued to index the storage of the filler
phrase in working memory until the point at which it can be integrated in the structure (e.g., King
& Kutas, 1995; Kluender & Kutas, 1993; Phillips et al., 2005). This effect was observed only in L2
learners and was more restricted in distribution as compared to the sustained LAN effects observed
in previous studies of native speakers (e.g., Fiebach et al., 2002; Phillips et al., 2005). Jessen et al.
propose that the filler storage may have been more automatized in natives, and thus, did not show any
effects. Overall, Jessen et al. argue that the processing of indirect object wh-dependencies is qualita-
tively similar in L2 learners and natives, but may be more effortful in learners.
Covey et al. (2022) also used a filled-gap paradigm to examine the processing of wh-dependencies,
but following Stowe (1986), the sentences were fully grammatical. Covey et al. examined whether
gap prediction is grammatically constrained in native English speakers and Chinese-speaking learners
of English, using a design as in (5a–d) that manipulated both clause type (wh-or declarative) and
whether or not the sentence included an “island,” (Ross, 1967), a structure from which wh-extraction
is prohibited by the grammar.
140
(5)a. Jamie wondered if the editor interviewed Dave Campbell with the reporter from the
department. (Declarative, Non-Island)
b. Jamie wondered who the editor interviewed Dave Campbell with __from the
department. (Wh-, Non-Island)
c. Jamie wondered if the editor [that interviewed Dave Campbell] kissed the reporter after
the meeting. (Declarative, Island)
d. Jamie wondered who the editor [that interviewed Dave Campbell] kissed __after the
meeting. (Wh-, Island)
Covey et al. predicted that an N400 effect would emerge at the object filled-gap position (Dave
Campbell) in the wh-sentence in (5b) as compared to (5a) if both natives and L2 learners hypothe-
size that the filler who is a direct object of the verb, showing evidence of active gap prediction
(Michel, 2014). In contrast, they predicted no effects at the same region in (5c,d) as the critical region
following the verb is embedded within a relative clause island (the editor that interviewed Dave
Campbell) and thus, does not license extraction. Covey et al. found evidence that wh-processing is
grammatically constrained as both L2 learners and natives showed filled-gap effects in (5a,b), but
not in (5c,d). However, the effect that emerged for the two groups at the critical region in (5a,b)
differed, with native speakers yielding an N400 effect as predicted, and L2 learners yielding a broadly
distributed P600. Covey et al. interpreted the N400 which emerged in the natives as indexing active
gap prediction (Michel, 2014). In contrast, the P600 observed for the learners was argued to index
syntactic integration difficulty. The overall results suggest that although predictive processing may
be limited in some contexts for L2 learners (Grüter et al., 2017), there is evidence that L2 processing
is grammatically constrained.
The differences observed at the filled-gap region between L2 learners and natives in the Covey
et al. study may seem to contrast with the results of the studies by Jessen and colleagues, but direct
comparison is difficult. Jessen and Felser (2019) used a plausibility manipulation, measuring effects
at the verb (3a,b), and thus, the N400 effect that was observed for both learners and native speakers
may indeed index active gap prediction or alternatively, as Jessen and Felser (2019) acknowledge,
it may index a violation of semantic plausibility. In addition, while Jessen et al. (2017) observed
positivities for both natives and learners at the filled-gap region, the filled gap position also rendered
the sentence ungrammatical, and thus, the positivity may index sensitivity to the grammatical viola-
tion (e.g., Friederici, 2002). Thus, the question of whether L2 learners and natives use similar pre-
dictive mechanisms in this domain is still ripe for investigation.

In this section, we highlight some of the trends exemplified in the studies above and point to new
directions that future studies can address. First, the Andersson et al. (2019) study on the processing of
V2 word order in L2 Swedish pioneered a new direction in L2 ERP studies of word order by exam-
ining a syntactic property that behavioral evidence had previously established as challenging for L2
learners. Previous L2 ERP studies had focused largely on word category violations, a property that
allowed for a test of Friederici’s (2002) model of language processing but did not clearly link up to
core issues in L2 theories. Focusing systematically on syntactic properties that are difficult for L2
learners allows neurolinguistic research to more directly address the possibilities and limitations of
L2 processing and allows for an investigation of the factors that modulate difficulty in processing.
Another issue highlighted by the Andersson et al. (2019) study is the role of the L1, as the results
differed depending on whether the learners’ L1 also instantiated the V2 property. The extent to which
the learners’ L1 may have potentially modulated processing is an open question in the literature on the
141
L2 processing of wh-dependencies reviewed above. The Covey et al. (2022) study that showed quali-
tative differences between L2 learners and natives included Chinese-speaking learners of English
whose L1 does not instantiate overt wh-movement, unlike the L1 German learners in the studies by
Jessen and colleagues. Future studies in this domain, and in others, should follow the approach taken
by Andersson et al. (2019) and systematically examine the role of the L1 with direct comparisons of
multiple L1 groups whose L1 varies with respect to the syntactic phenomenon under investigation.
An area that is ripe for the examination of transfer is syntactic binding. Binding Theory is a set of
syntactic principles that govern the set of licit, possible antecedents for a reflexive pronoun, pronoun,
or noun phrase (Chomsky, 1981). As just one example, Principle A of the Binding Theory states that
a reflexive pronoun (himself/herself) must take an antecedent within a local domain and thus, in (6),
Silvia is a possible antecedent for herself, but Elisa is not, as indicated by co-indexation below.
(6) Elisai said that Silvia j likes herself*i/j.

The successful woman congratulated herself/*himself on the promotion. (Osterhout &
(7)
Mobley, 1995)
A series of studies in the L1 ERP literature has shown that native speakers adhere to binding
constraints online and yield P600s when confronted with violations of this constraint, such as when
a possible antecedent is in a syntactically licensed position but presents a mismatch in morpho-
syntactic features as is seen in (7) (Osterhout & Mobley, 1995; Harris et al., 2000). Liang et al.
(2018) found that L1 Chinese learners of L2 English were also sensitive to gender mismatches
with reflexives. However, to our knowledge, no L2 ERP study has examined whether L2 learners
can systematically rule out illicit antecedents outside of the licit binding domain (e.g., Elisa in 6), a
question that has received attention in the L2 psycholinguistics literature (e.g., Felser & Cunnings,
2012). Furthermore, there are languages such as Mandarin that allow what is called long-distance
binding, and the reflexive ziji in Mandarin would allow both local (Silvia) and long-distance (Elisa)
antecedents (Pan, 1997). Systematically examining these crosslinguistic differences in L2 processing
would not only allow for an examination of L1 transfer, but would also speak to theories such as the
Shallow Structure Hypothesis, discussed above, which predicts a limited ability to adhere to syn-
tactic constraints online.
Finally, we would like to highlight the experimental design in Covey et al. (2022), who examined
the processing of wh-dependencies and is to our knowledge one of the first L2 ERP studies to not rely
on a violation paradigm. Although the examination of brain responses to ungrammatical sentences
has yielded interesting results, the focus on grammatical violations, particularly in studies that
include an acceptability judgment task, may encourage the use of metalinguistic knowledge and thus
makes it more challenging to understand L2 processing in more natural contexts. The experimental
design used by Covey et al. (2022) builds directly on the psycholinguistic paradigm pioneered by
Stowe (1986). There are many such domains in which the psycholinguistics literature can inspire the
neurolinguistics literature in its examination of fully grammatical but “challenging” contexts such as
garden path sentences, which would allow for an examination of structure building and reanalysis,
addressing recent proposals in the L2 literature that learners differ from native speakers in their
ability to reanalyze a syntactic structure on the basis of further input (e.g., Cunnings, 2017). The
psycholinguistics literature could also be a source of inspiration for future L1 and L2 ERP studies on
the prediction of syntactic structure. Evidence for structure prediction (outside of the domain mor-
phosyntax) is still relatively limited (see Kaan et al., 2016), and the field may benefit from revisiting
psycholinguistic paradigms that have been argued to reflect structural prediction in various contexts
(e.g., Staub & Clifton, 2006; Yoshida, 2006; Yoshida et al., 2013; see Ferreira & Qiu, 2021). Overall,
the future directions we suggest are aligned towards systematically focusing on specific linguistic
142
phenomena that provide test cases for the kinds of mechanisms underlying processing for natives
and L2 learners and using experimental designs that allow for a more direct test of theories in L2
acquisition.
Note
1 Although V3 sentences did not yield the purported ELAN, the critical word had different baselines in V2
(e.g., …spelade hon) and V3 sentences (e.g., …idag hon).
Further Readings
This book provides an overview of research on the cognitive neuroscience of language:
Hickok, G., & Small, S.L. (2015). Neurobiology of language. Elsevier.
This paper provides an overview of key theoretical issues in the L2 sentence processing literature:
Hopp, H. (2022). Second language sentence processing. Annual Review of Linguistics, 8, 235–256. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-030821-05411d
This issue of Brain Research presents cutting-edge studies on prediction in native speakers:
Onnis, L., & Huettig, F. (2021). Recent advances in prediction in language processing research. Special Issue,
Brain Research, 1757.
Authors’ Note
All authors contributed equally. Correspondence can be addressed to Alison Gabriele, Department of Linguistics,
1541 Lilac Lane, Lawrence, KS 66045. Email: [email protected]
References
Andersson, A., Sayehli, S., & Gullberg, M. (2019). Language background affects online word order processing
in a second language but not offline. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 22(4), 802–825. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1017/S1366728918000573
Altmann, G.T.M., & Mirković, J. (2009). Incrementality and prediction in human sentence processing. Cognitive
Science, 33, 583–609. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2009.01022.x
Bardel, C., & Falk, Y. (2007). The role of the second language in third language acquisition: the case of Germanic
syntax. Second Language Research, 23, 459–484. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0267658307080557
Bovolenta, G., & Husband, E.M. (2022). Structural prediction during language comprehension revealed by elec-
trophysiology: Evidence from Italian auxiliaries. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory,
and Cognition. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/xlm0001115
Bowden, H.W., Steinhauer, K., Sanz, C., & Ullman, M.T. (2013). Native-like brain processing of syntax can
be attained by university foreign language learners. Neuropsychologia, 51, 2492–2511. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2013.09.004
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2015.01.010
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures in Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006). Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27(1),
3–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0142716406060024
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2018). Some notes on the shallow structure hypothesis. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 40, 693–706. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263117000250
Covey, L., Fiorentino, R., & Gabriele, A. (2022). Island sensitivity in L2 learners: evidence from acceptability
judgments and event-related potentials. Second Language Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/02676583221116039
Cunnings, I. (2017). Parsing and working memory in bilingual sentence processing. Bilingualism: Language and
Cognition, 20(4), 659–678. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1366728916000675
Dallas. A., DeDe, G., & Nicol, J. (2013). An event-related potential (ERP) of filler-gap processing in native and
second language speakers. Language Learning, 63(4), 766–799. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/lang.12026
143
Dussias, P.E., & Piñar, P. (2010). Effects of reading span and plausibility in the reanalysis of wh gaps by
Chinese–English second language speakers. Second Language Research, 26(4), 443–472. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0267658310373326
Federmeier, K. (2007). Thinking ahead: The role and roots of prediction in language comprehension.
Psychophysiology, 44, 491–505. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2007.00531.x
Felser, C., Clahsen, H., & Münte, T.F. (2003). Storage and integration in the processing of filler-gap dependen-
cies: An ERP study of topicalization and wh-movement in German. Brain and Language, 87, 345–354. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0093-934X(03)00135-4
Felser, C., & Cunnings, I. (2012). Processing of reflexives in a second language: the timing of structural and
discourse-level constraints. Applied Psycholinguistics, 33, 571–603. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S014271641
1000488
Ferreira, F., & Qiu, Z. (2021). Predicting syntactic structure. Brain Research, 1770, 147632. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.brainres.2021.147632
Fiebach, C.J., Schlesewsky, M., & Friederici, A.D. (2002). Separating syntactic memory costs and syntactic inte-
gration costs during parsing: The processing of German WH-questions. Journal of Memory and Language,
47(2), 250–272. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00004-9
Frazier, L. (1987). Processing syntactic structures: Evidence from Dutch. Natural Language and Linguistic
Theory, 5, 519–559. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00138988
Frazier, L., & Flores D’Arcais, G.B. (1989). Filler-driven parsing: A study of gap-filling in Dutch. Journal of
Memory and Language, 28, 331–344. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(89)90037-5
Friederici, A.D. (2002). Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,
6(2), 78–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01839-8
Fromont, L.A. (this volume). Age and proficiency in second language neurocognition. In K. Morgan-Short & J.G.
Fromont, L.A., Royle, P., & Steinhauer, K. (2020). Growing Random Forests reveals that exposure and profi-
ciency best account for individual variability in L2 (and L1) brain potentials for syntax and semantics. Brain
and Language, 204, 104770. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2020.104770
variability in the processing of agreement in novice learners: evidence from event-related potentials. Journal
of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 47(7), 1106–1140. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
xlm0000983
Gouvea, A.C., Phillips, C., Kazanina, N., & Poeppel, D. (2010). The linguistic processes underlying the P600.
Language and Cognitive Processes, 25, 149–188. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01690960902965951
Grüter, T., Rohde, H., & Schafer, A.J. (2017). Coreference and discourse coherence in L2: The roles of gram-
matical aspect and referential form. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 7(2), 199−229. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1075/lab.15011.gru
Hahne, A., & Friederici, A.D. (2001). Processing a second language: Late learners’ comprehension mechanisms
as revealed by event-related brain potentials. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4(2), 123–141. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1366728901000232
Hahne, A., & Friederici, A.D. (2002). Differential task effects on semantic and syntactic processes as revealed by
ERPs. Cognitive Brain Research, 13, 339–356. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0926-6410(01)00127-6
Harris, T., Wexler, K., & Holcomb, P. (2000). An ERP investigation of binding and coreference. Brain and
Language, 75(3), 313–346. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/brln.2000.2318
Håkansson, G., Pienemann, M., & Sayehli, S. (2002). Transfer and typological proximity in the context of
second language processing. Second Language Research, 18, 250–273. http://dx.doi.org/10.1191/026765
8302sr206oa
Hopp, H. (2022). Second language sentence processing. Annual Review of Linguistics, 8, 235–256. http://doi.org/
10.1146/annurev-linguistics-030821-054113
Ito, A., Pickering, M.J., & Corley, M. (2018). Investigating the time-course of phonological prediction in native
and non-native speakers of English: A visual world eye-tracking study. Journal of Memory and Language, 98,
1−11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2017.09.002
Jacob, G., & Felser, C. (2016). Reanalysis and semantic persistence in native and non-native garden path
recovery. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(5), 907–925. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17470
218.2014.984231
Jessen, A., & Felser, C. (2019). Reanalysing object gaps during non-native sentence processing: Evidence from
ERPs. Second Language Research, 35(2), 285−300. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0267658317753030
144
Jessen, A., Festman, J., Boxell, O., & Felser, C. (2017). Native and non-native speakers’ brain responses to filled
indirect object gaps. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 46(5), 1319−1338. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10
936-017-9496-9
Johnson, L., Fitzhugh, M.C., Yi, Y., Mickelsen, S., Baxter, L.C., Howard, P., & Rogalsky, C. (2018). Functional
neuroanatomy of second language sentence comprehension: An fMRI study of late learners of American Sign
Language. Frontiers in Psychology, 9(1626). http://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01626
Johnson, J.S., & Newport, E.L. (1989). Critical period effects in second language learning: The influence of mat-
urational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 60–99. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(89)90003-0
Kaan, E. (2007). Event-related potentials and language processing: A brief overview. Language and Linguistics
Compass, 1(6), 571–591. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2007.00037.x
Kaan, E. (2014). Predictive sentence processing in L1 and L2. What’s different? Linguistic Approaches to
Bilingualism, 4, 257–282. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/lab.4.2.05kaa
Morgan- Short & J.G. van Hell (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and
Kaan, E., Harris, A., Gibson, E., & Holcomb, P. (2000). The P600 as an index of syntactic integration difficulty.
Language and Cognitive Processes, 15, 159–201. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/016909600386084
Kaan, E., Kirkham, J., & Wijnen, F. (2016). Prediction and integration in native and second-language processing
of elliptical structures. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19(1): 1–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/
S1366728914000844
Kim, K.H.S., Relkin, N.R., Lee, K.M., & Hirsch, J. (1997). Distinct cortical areas associated with native and
second languages. Nature, 388, 171–174. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/40623
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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jml.2004.10.002
King, J.W., & Kutas, M. (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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/
jocn.1995.7.3.376
Kluender, R., & Kutas, M. (1993). Bridging the gap: Evidence from ERPs on the processing of unbounded
dependencies. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 5, 196–214. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/jocn.1993.5.2.196
Lau, E.F., Phillips, C., & Poeppel, D. (2008). A cortical network for semantics: (de)constructing the N400.
Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 9, 920–933. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nrn2532
Lenneberg, E.H. (1967). Biological Foundations of Language. Wiley.
Lewis, S., & Phillips, C. (2015). Aligning grammatical theories and language processing models. Journal of
Psycholinguistic Research, 44, 27–46. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1007/s10936-014-9329-z
Liang, L., Wen, Y., & Dong, Y. (2018). Gender constraint in L1 and L2 reflexive pronoun resolution by Chinese-
English bilinguals. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 45, 1–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2017.08.001
Matchin, W., & Hickok, G. (2020). The cortical organization of syntax. Cerebral Cortex, 30, 1481–1498. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhz180
Mickan, A., & Lemhöfer, K. (2020). Tracking syntactic conflict between languages over the course of L2 acqui-
sition: A cross-sectional ERP study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 32(5), 822–846. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1162/jocn_a_01528
Michel, D. (2014). Individual cognitive measures and working memory accounts of syntactic island phenomena.
Doctoral Dissertation, University of California, San Diego.
and future directions. Cortex, 47, 909–930. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2011.02.019
Müller, J.L., Hahne, A., Fujii, Y., & Friederici, A.D. (2005). Native and nonnative speakers’ processing of a mini-
ature version of Japanese as revealed by ERPs. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17(8), 1229–1244. https://
psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1162/0898929055002463
Osterhout, L., & Mobley, L. (1995). Event related potentials elicited by failure to agree. Journal of Memory and
Language, 34, 739–773. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1995.1033
145
Osterhout, L., McLaughlin, J., Pitkanen, I., Frenck-Mestre, C., & Molinaro, N. (2006). Novice learners,
longitudinal designs, and event- related potentials: A means for exploring the neurocognition of
second language processing. Language Learning, 56(Suppl 1), 199–230. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
j.1467-9922.2006.00361.x
Pakulak, E., & Neville, H.J. (2011). Maturational constraints on the recruitment of early processes for
syntactic processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23, 2752–2765. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/
jocn.2010.21586
Pan, H. (1997). Constraints on reflexivization in Mandarin Chinese. New York, NY: Garland.
Perani, D., Paulesu, E., Sebastián Gallés, N., Dupoux, E., Dehaene, S., Bettinardi, V., et al. (1998). The bilingual
brain. Proficiency and age of acquisition of the second language. Brain, 121(10), 1841–1852. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1093/brain/121.10.1841
Phillips, C., Kazanina, N., & Abada, S.H. (2005). ERP effects of the processing of syntactic long-distance depend-
encies. Cognitive Brain Research, 22(3), 407−428. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2004.09.012
Ross, J. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT.
Rossi, S., Gugler, M.F., Friederici, A.D., & Hahne, A. (2006). The impact of proficiency on syntactic second-
language processing of German and Italian: Evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of Cognitive
Neuroscience, 18, 2030–2048. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2006.18.12.2030
Sakai, K.L., Miura, K., Narafu, N., & Muraishi, Y. (2004). Correlated functional changes of the prefrontal cortex
in twins induced by classroom education of second language. Cerebral Cortex, 14(11), 1233–1239. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhh084
Schwartz, B.D., & Sprouse, R.A. (1996). L2 cognitive states and the full transfer/full access model. Second
Language Research, 12(1), 40–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/026765839601200103
Scimeca, M., Carpenter, E., & Kiran, S. (this volume). Aphasia, rehabilitation, and second language
Staub, A., & Clifton, C. (2006). Syntactic prediction in language comprehension: evidence from either…or.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32(2), 425–436. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/0278-7393.32.2.425
Steinhauer, K., & Drury, J.E. (2012). On the early left-anterior negativity (ELAN) in syntax studies. Brain and
Language, 120, 135–162. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2011.07.001
tion: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Second Language Research, 25, 13–41. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1177/0267658308098995
Stowe, L. (1986). Parsing wh– constructions: Evidence for online gap location. Language and Cognitive
Processes, 1, 227–245. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01690968608407062
of functional neuroimaging studies. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 108, 834–853. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.12.014
Tanenhaus, M.K., Spivey-Knowlton, M.J., Eberhard, K.M., & Sedivy, J.C. (1995). Integration of visual and lin-
guistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science, 268(5217), 1632–1634. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1126/science.7777863
Tanner, D., Grey, S., & van Hell, J.G. (2017). Dissociating retrieval interference and reanalysis in the P600
during sentence comprehension. Psychophysiology, 54(2), 248–259. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/psyp.12788
Ullman, M.T. (2001). A neurocognitive perspective on language: The declarative/procedural model. Nature
Reviews Neuroscience, 2, 717–726. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/35094573
Ullman, M.T. (2004). Contributions of memory circuits to language: The declarative/ procedural model.
Cognition, 92, 231–270. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2003.10.008
setting of grammatical processing in the bilingual brain. Neuron, 37, 159–170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
S0896-6273(02)01150-9
Weber-Fox, C., & Neville, H.J. (1996). Maturational constraints on functional specializations for language pro-
cessing: ERP and behavioral evidence in bilingual speakers. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 8, 231–256.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/jocn.1996.8.3.231
146
Wicha, N.Y.Y., Moreno, E.M., & Kutas, M. (2004). Anticipating words and their gender: An event-related brain
potential study of semantic integration, gender expectancy, and gender agreement in Spanish sentence reading.
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16(7), 1272–1288. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/0898929041920487
Yamamoto, K., & Sakai, K. L. (2016). The dorsal rather than ventral pathway better reflects individual syn-
tactic abilities in second language. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 10(295). http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/
fnhum.2016.00295
Yoshida, M. (2006). Constraints and mechanisms in long-distance dependency formation [Unpublished doctoral
dissertation]. University of Maryland, College Park.
Yoshida, M., Dickey, M.W., & Sturt, P. (2013). Predictive processing of syntactic structure: Sluicing and ellipsis
in real-time sentence processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(3), 272–302. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/01690965.2011.622905
147
11
PRAGMATIC SYSTEM

The field of pragmatics is concerned with the comprehension of meaning in context. Pragmatic com-
petence allows us, for example, to make sense of seemingly unrelated utterances or to infer a request
from a statement. See the e xamples below:
(1) Mum: Do we have fruit?

Son: Dad is buying apples.
(2) It’s quite warm in here.
In (1) the son’s answer is not a direct yes/no response; nevertheless, based on our knowledge of the
world we understand the relevance of his answer, which goes one step further to provide an upcoming
solution to the lack of fruit. Only new information is explicitly provided to make communication
efficient, given that the rest can be easily inferred, i.e.: (a) there is no fruit (b) but there will be some.
Similarly, in an appropriate context, (2) can be interpreted as a request to open a window to lower the
temperature. Pragmatic competence requires a range of non-verbal skills beyond language mastery
such as: inferring implied meaning, understanding the intention of the speaker by walking a mile in
their shoes (theory of mind), generating alternative meanings and selecting the most appropriate one
for a given context (executive control); finally, integration of background and culture-specific know-
ledge within a communicative interaction.
Second language (L2) or intercultural pragmatics is concerned with how meaning in context is
understood and negotiated between speakers of different native languages or speakers of the same
native language but with different cultures (e.g., Portuguese versus Brazilian). For example, in Italian
“Listen!” is a positive way to draw someone’s attention before communicating something; however,
to a British English speaker such an utterance would imply that they haven’t been listening. One of
the most influential theories of intercultural pragmatics is the Socio-Cognitive Approach by Kecskes
(2014) which combines cognitive, social, and interactional elements by taking into account the com-
municative intention of the speaker (a priori) and the co-constructed intention that emerges during
the actual social communicative experience (post factum). Interlocutors from different cultures are
continually searching for meaning using their individual minds within a socio-cultural context by
negotiating and co-constructing norms of interaction that are unique to their intercultural communi-
cative situation (Kecskes, 2014; Kecskes & Zhang, 2009); as a result, new pragmatic norms are often
148 DOI: 10.4324/9781003190912-14

Neurolinguistics of the Second Language Pragmatic System
set (Pennycook, 2009). This approach is particularly helpful in current times of globalization: with
English as a Lingua Franca being used worldwide for communication by a larger number of non-
native than native speakers, intercultural pragmatics has moved away from the concept of language
learner to embrace the alternative concept of language user (Firth & Wagner, 1997).
The large body of extant research on L2 pragmatics is applied research that stems from L2 learning
and teaching; it has been concerned with how to teach pragmatic phenomena such as politeness rules
and expressions, and how to assess their mastery after learning. Most of the time, language produc-
tion tasks have been employed. In contrast, research on pragmatics within one target language and
culture has had less of an applied focus, exploring how different pragmatic phenomena are processed
by listeners or readers, looking at different processing stages and at which linguistic and non-verbal
skills are needed for comprehension. This body of research has focused on more automatic, often
implicit online processes, employing psycho-and neurolinguistic methods such as response times
(button press), eye-movements, physiological and brain activity measures during the comprehension
of meaning in context, with little to no attention to meaning production.
The aim of the present chapter is to integrate these two apparently separate fields by reviewing: (1)
any extant neurolinguistic research on L2 pragmatics, highlighting its precious contributions to the
field when compared to more traditional applied research; (2) extant neurolinguistic research on spe-
cific pragmatic phenomena in native speakers, which would be worth extending to L2 speakers,
highlighting the benefits. The main focus throughout is on neurolinguistic research on pragmatics in
L2 speakers and differences between L2 and native speakers.
Theories of Conversational Pragmatics

In everyday communication, much meaning is implied because it would be inefficient, tedious and
time-consuming to make any single piece of information explicit. This requires listeners/readers to
infer meaning, by generating conversational implicatures (Grice, 1975/1989), i.e., inferences based
on contextual factors and conventions typically observed in conversation. To account for how implied
meaning is inferred in conversation, Grice has posited the Cooperative Principle (Grice, 1975/1989,
p. 26): “Make your contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted
purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged.”
In other words, this principle suggests one gives enough information for the needs of the current
conversational exchange. It is further specified by four maxims that prescribe how much information
to provide (Maxim of Quantity), that the content must be based on truthful and actual knowledge
(Quality) and be relevant (Relevance), and that one must avoid obscure, ambiguous, overly lengthy
and confused information (Grice, 1975/1989, pp. 26–27). In the case of (1) above, the apparent lack
of cooperation, e.g., the fact that the son does not answer “No, we don’t have fruit,” is a signal to the
mum to find cooperation at a deeper level, namely to infer what is not explicitly said by generating a
conversational implicature.
Grice’s influential theory provided an account of the general standards governing verbal commu-
nication and led to predictions of a two-stage process whereby meaning is first extracted independ-
ently of context: if the utterance adheres to the cooperative principle, then no additional processing
is required, whereas if one of the maxims is violated, then the listener/reader needs to infer implied
meaning to find cooperation at a deeper level. This will lead to longer processing times. However,
much psycholinguistic and neurolinguistic research has shown that a two-stage process is not always
needed, that available contextual cues are immediately used to make sense of the conversational
exchange, and help predict which meaning is intended by the speaker/writer (e.g., Beeman et al.,
2000; Glucksberg, 2001; Penolazzi et al., 2007).
149
A further influential framework for pragmatic processing is Relevance Theory, according to which
“Human cognition tends to be geared toward the maximization of relevance” (Sperber & Wilson,
1995, p. 260); humans are viewed as information processing systems whose cognitive functions
(e.g., perception, attention, memory) are constrained, and who need to select what is most relevant
to avoid getting overwhelmed by the amount of information the environment provides. Relevance is
determined by extracting the most information for the least effort, therefore obtaining maximum cog-
nitive effects. Successful communication will take place if the information conveyed by the speaker
in a specific context to a specific audience will be relevant, i.e., it will consist of new, interesting
information, and the message will be not too complex and not too simple to understand. Relevance
theory considers human cognition in explaining communicative exchanges, assumes less cooperation
than Grice, and includes both implicit and explicit information, with no clear distinction; further-
more, relevance principles apply automatically, with no need to go through norms and violations as
in Grice’s maxims, or separate processing stages. Finally, Relevance Theory is more compatible with
models and empirical evidence that postulate concurrent processing of a range of information cues
in the environment.
Traditional Research on L2 Pragmatics

Historically, research on L2 pragmatics has focused on speech acts and politeness. Speech acts are
utterances that perform a communicative action such as refusal, assertion, request, and apology.
Speech Act Theory revolutionized the traditional view of utterances as true/false assertions to posit
that utterances “do things” (Austin, 1962), e.g.: “Sorry!” or “I nominate you to be the representative.”
This body of research compared speech acts, such as requests and apologies, across different
languages, investigating how these change across situations, or how many different speech strat-
egies exist in a language (e.g., Blum-Kulka & Olshtain, 1984). Using a discourse completion task
(DCT), which involves presenting speakers with a scenario followed by a blank space that elicits a
targeted speech act utterance (e.g., Yuan, 2001), this work identified potential areas of difficulty due
to differences between languages (Gass & Neu, 2009); it also showed that proficiency and length
of study led to higher pragmatic competence in L2 speakers (e.g., Bardovi-Harlig & Bastos, 2011);
nevertheless, it concluded overall that pragmatic competence is difficult to define, measure and com-
pare across languages (Culpeper et al., 2018).
Subsequent research on teaching and assessment of pragmatics in L2 has also predominantly
focused on speech acts, and particularly requests (although formulaic language has also received
attention) as well as the use of technology in teaching pragmatics (e.g., Taguchi, 2015); meta-analyses
concluded that pragmatics can certainly be taught, that structurally simple pragmatic utterances (e.g.,
greetings) are easier to learn, and that explicit instruction on the pragmatic rules of a target language/
culture is more effective than implicit teaching (e.g., Plonsky, 2011), although the latter can be just
as effective if it promotes noticing of the pragmatic function of the utterance, and deeper processing
of it (Taguchi, 2015). This led to the development of teacher guides (e.g., Martínez-Flor & Usó-Juan,
2006) and online resources (Cohen, 2016). With regards to assessment, different methods have been
developed and an integration of DCT, role plays, self-assessment surveys, interviews, and others, has
proven useful to test acquisition of a range of pragmatic utterances, from speech acts to implicatures
and routines (e.g., Bardovi-Harlig & Shin, 2014; Roever, 2011).
Only more recently the study of L2 pragmatics has expanded to include comprehension of
implicatures, routines and discourse comprehension more generally, by starting to incorporate
psycholinguistic studies of online comprehension to complement more traditional approaches
outlined above. However, only routines and discourse comprehension have featured neurolinguistic
experiments. In the following two sections, a brief outline of research findings on routines using
150
more traditional corpus, teaching, and assessment approaches will be provided, to then delve into
neurolinguistic studies. The complementarity of different approaches and the crucial contribution of
neurolinguistics to our understanding of pragmatic routines in L2 speakers will be discussed.
Pragmatic Routines: Traditional Applied Research

Pragmatic routines are fixed linguistic forms or chunks whose meanings are systematic and
conventionalized according to a particular context. They include formulaic expressions (FEs) such
as “Ladies and Gentlemen,” which requests attention and is associated with the opening of a formal
occasion. FEs are extensively used in daily communication because their salient meanings are easily
accessible and retrievable from memory, therefore allowing interlocutors to achieve more cognitive
effects with less processing effort (e.g., Giora, 1999; Sinclair, 1991; Sperber & Wilson, 1995).
Research on the use of routines, mainly based on corpus studies, has shown that L2 speakers do
make use of FEs in relevant contexts when they know them, i.e., they generate less FEs than native
speakers, and create their own FEs during interactions (Kecskes, 2015, 2016). Furthermore, fre-
quency is a key determinant of processing and use of FEs in L2 speakers, who are less sensitive to
meaning salience than native speakers (Ellis et al., 2008).
While corpus linguistics does not help to distinguish between frequently occurring collocations
(e.g., bride and groom; black and white) and pragmatic routines/FEs, relevant work on the acqui-
sition of routines has combined corpus data with discourse elicitation tasks in both native and L2
speakers of a target language to help identify conventional FEs (Bardovi-Harlig et al., 2015). This
research investigated why L2 learners have less routines in their repertoire and use less routines than
native speakers (House, 1996), showing that, as L2 proficiency increased, acceptance of authentic
FEs also increased, while acceptance of modified versions decreased (Bardovi-Harlig et al., 2010).
Other studies showed that, even at lower levels of proficiency, L2 learners were able to accurately
judge the naturalness of FEs in context and to select appropriate FEs for a given situational context
(Edmonds, 2014). Research on production is in line with the previously mentioned corpus research
in showing evidence of creation of new FEs and the development of interlanguage pragmatics (e.g.,
Bardovi-Harlig & Stringer, 2017; Taguchi et al., 2013; Tateyama et al., 1997).
Pragmatic Routines: Neural Evidence

FEs, such as idioms and metaphors, have received attention in psycholinguistic and neurolinguistic
research on L2 processing. This research is highly relevant as it provides a detailed timeline of how
formulaic expressions are processed, from the initial presentation of an expression (in written or
spoken form) up until a response is given (e.g., judgment or categorization). It also provides an over-
view of the neural network and associated cognitive functions at play during comprehension.
Idiom Comprehension: Neural Evidence

According to Wray (2002), formulaic expressions are sequences of words or other elements that
appear to be prefabricated, i.e., stored and retrieved whole from memory, instead of being generated
by the language grammar. A predominant type of FE in daily communication consist of idioms,
e.g., She spilled the beans, which are preferred over literal expressions because of humans’ natural
tendency to economy of effort (idiom principle; Sinclair, 1991; see also Sperber & Wilson, 1995).
Idioms are the most conventionalized form of FE, given that their meaning is found in dictionaries
151
and can be specialized but not radically modified by context or phrasal modifications (e.g., She
didn’t spill a single bean or I’m going to spill the beans retain the same idiomatic meaning of
“revealing a secret”). One of the most influential theories of idiom processing states that these are
initially processed incrementally (word by word) until a recognition point is reached, at which the
hearer recognizes it as idiom; at this point, incremental processing stops and the idiomatic meaning
is retrieved from memory as a whole (Configuration Hypothesis; Cacciari & Tabossi, 1988).
However, Cieślika (2006) suggests that the literal interpretation of idioms is more salient to L2
speakers; proficient L2 speakers represent the literal, less salient, meaning even when they know
the idiomatic meaning and even within a context supporting the idiomatic interpretation (Cieślika
& Heredia, 2011).
Measures of online processing, such as behavioral, eye-movement, and electrophysiological
studies, on native speakers have supported the Configuration Hypotheses (Cacciari & Tabossi, 1988)
showing: (a) faster response times to idioms compared to literal or novel metaphorical expressions;
(b) an advantage in late eye-movement measures during natural reading, i.e., faster total reading time
for idioms, a smaller number of fixations, and shorter fixations overall (Carrol & Littlemore, 2020;
Siyanova-Chanturia et al., 2011; Underwood et al., 2004); and (c) less semantic integration costs
indexed by smaller amplitude of the N400 component (Laurent et al., 2006; Paulmann et al., 2015;
Strandburg et al., 1993; Vespignani et al., 2010); crucially, (d) after the recognition point, evidence
of automatic idiom retrieval from memory has been provided by the observation of a P300 compo-
nent in response to idioms (Canal et al., 2017; Vespignani et al., 2010) or highly predictable sentence
closures (Roehm et al., 2007). This neural signature is crucial to prove automatic memory retrieval;
in fact, shorter response times can otherwise be accounted for by other factors, such as frequency
(for details on electrophysiological methodology and ERP components, see Dickson & Pelzl, this
volume).
As previously mentioned, L2 speakers show a slightly different pattern of results. Eye movement
studies show a smaller number of fixations to idioms than literal or novel strings, however no
differences in either early or late measures of reading times (Underwood et al., 2004). Furthermore,
L2 speakers need more time to retrieve idiomatic than literal meanings of ambiguous idioms
embedded in story contexts that bias toward one interpretation or the other (Siyanova-Chanturia et al.,
2011). Nevertheless, at high levels of proficiency, native-like eye-movement patterns were found
(Carrol et al., 2016). Similar processing of phrasal verbs by proficient L2 and native speakers was
also reported, whereby literal uses evoked a larger N400 amplitude than figurative uses (Paulmann
et al., 2015).
Metaphor Comprehension: Neural Evidence

When it comes to metaphors, e.g., That was a bitter breakup, slightly different processing mechanisms
are at play. On a continuum that goes from prefabricated language to ad hoc generated language,
conventional metaphors constitute less conventionalized expressions than idioms as their meaning
is less strictly defined and can change depending on context. Metaphors are not simply commonly
used expressions; rather, they help us understand abstract concepts in more concrete terms through
conceptual mappings, e.g., in the example above “bitter taste” is used to conceptualize something
“bad” (Gibbs, 2006; Lakoff & Johnson, 1980). Conceptual mappings, e.g., KIND is WARM, underlie
a range of different conventional metaphors (i.e., She has a sunny disposition; He’s a warm person;
Warmth oozes from him), while novel metaphors used in poetry and literary texts are creative
extensions of existing mappings (e.g., Steen & Gibbs, 2004). However, the Emergentist Account of
metaphor challenges the latter stance to show the role of language use and (non-literary) discourse in
152
the generation of novel metaphors that rely on new conceptual mappings, some of which gradually
become conventional and frequently used (Cameron & Deignan, 2006).
Conventional metaphors are typically processed as quickly as literal expressions by native speakers
(Giora, 1999; Glucksberg, 1998; Keysar, 1989). However, at the neural level stronger engagement
of the bilateral extended language network (ELN; Ferstl, 2010; Ferstl et al., 2008) is found for con-
ventional metaphors, and in particular the left inferior frontal gyrus and left superior temporal gyrus,
indexing activation and selection of multiple semantic representations, and semantic and pragmatic
processing, respectively (Bohrn et al., 2012). Novel metaphors are instead more difficult to pro-
cess than both conventional metaphorical and literal expressions and engage the ELN to a much
larger extent (Bohrn et al., 2012; Rapp et al., 2012). Novel metaphors are also more likely to involve
the right hemisphere since they require semantic associations between distant concepts (Cardillo
et al., 2012; Yang, 2014). Event-related potentials clearly show higher semantic integration costs
due to contextual expectations, indexed by a graded effect on the N400 component, which has larger
amplitude for conventional metaphors than literal expressions, and even larger for novel metaphors
(Bambini et al., 2016; Lai & Curran, 2013; Weiland et al., 2014). In addition, some studies report
larger amplitude of a late positive component for metaphors (LPC; some authors labelled it P600),
indexing interpretation and pragmatic integration processes that are independent of context (Bambini
et al., 2016; Rataj et al., 2018; Weiland et al., 2014).
L2 speakers, even when highly proficient, typically show stronger activation of the ELN than
native speakers during language processing, independently of whether the expression is metaphor-
ical or literal (Citron et al., 2020; Marian et al., 2003; Perani & Abutalebi, 2005). Additionally,
they show activation of the language-switching network, even during tasks that involve only the L2
and require no switching (e.g., Citron et al., 2020; Luk et al., 2011); this network involves execu-
tive control functions in the prefrontal cortex, the anterior cingulate cortex, but also the caudate
nucleus (within the basal ganglia). Interestingly, in addition to showing less clear-cut distinction
between metaphorical and literal language (Citron et al., 2020),1 L2 speakers tend to process conven-
tional metaphors more similarly to novel metaphors, involving the right hemisphere more strongly,
even when they know their meaning (Mashal et al., 2015). Converging evidence comes from ERP
research that shows larger amplitude of the LPC in response to conventional and novel metaphors
compared to literal expressions in L2 speakers, while a clear distinction between the two metaphor-
ical conditions was observed only in their native language (L1; Jankowiak et al., 2017). More gen-
erally, proficient L2 speakers show more effortful processing for metaphors than literal expressions,
and for metaphors in their L2 than in L1, both indexed by larger amplitude of the N400 component
(Chen et al., 2013).
Overall, conventionalized expressions such as idioms and conventional metaphors are processed
more efficiently and lead to larger cognitive effects than literal language, while novel, more creative
expressions require more processing effort. When it comes to L2 speakers, the processing effort
involved in processing conventionalized expressions may outweigh the cognitive effects; therefore,
L2 speakers end up using less FEs or making up new FEs based on their native language to try
and create more cognitive effects. Using more traditional methods from applied L2 pragmatics, one
can only infer L2 speakers’ struggle despite their high proficiency, given that they show similar
understanding and acceptance of FEs as native speakers. Yet, neurolinguistics shows that their online
processing is still quite far off the one observed in native speakers. Also, neurolinguistics provides
proof of the larger cognitive effects of conventional metaphors, i.e., stronger activation of the ELN,
which are otherwise as easy to process as their literal counterparts if one looks at reading times or
offline comprehension measures. Hence, the rhetorical advantage provided by (even conventional)
FEs can be more subtly picked up by neurolinguistic methods.
153
Discourse Comprehension: Neural Evidence

Psycho/ neurolinguistic research has investigated the comprehension of expository or narrative
texts, which requires non-verbal cognitive functions beyond linguistic knowledge. Topics include
integration of linguistic information in context, establishment of text coherence, drawing of tem-
poral or causal inferences to connect events, processing of semantic and pragmatic incongruencies,
and violation of expectations based on world knowledge. These phenomena are tightly related to
conversational pragmatics and relevant to L2 pragmatics. However, neurolinguistic studies so far
have investigated whether pragmatic processing differs in L2 speakers independently of cultural
differences. This section provides a review of initial neurolinguistic research on text/discourse com-
prehension in L2 speakers.
Text or discourse comprehension involves the construction of different mental representations: (a)
an initial surface structure or verbatim representation, which will quickly decay from memory;
followed by (b) a text-base representation, containing the main relational terms, predicates and
arguments, i.e., gist-like memory, enriched by bridging inferences which help establish text coher-
ence; (c) an overall mental model of what the text is about, the situation model, constructed by
integrating information from the text with the reader’s background and world knowledge; this
goes beyond explicit information to include interpretations and the drawing of temporal and causal
inferences (Kintsch & van Dijk, 1978).
Foucart et al. (2016) investigated the time course of discourse comprehension in L2 and native
speakers using three-sentence texts with different degrees of causal relatedness, and asked participants
to rate how easy it is to connect the outcome sentence to the initial context (replication of Kuperberg
et al., 2011, on native speakers):
(3) Highly related: Jill had very fair skin

She forgot to put sunscreen on
She had sunburn on Monday
(4) Intermediately related:
Jill had very fair skin
She usually remembered to wear sunscreen
(5) Unrelated: Jill’s skin always tanned well
She always puts on sunscreen
While Kuperberg et al. (2011) reported largest N400 amplitude for causally unrelated sentences,
followed by intermediately related and then highly related sentences, showing that the complexity
of causal inferences needed to establish coherence affects semantic integration, Foucart et al. (2016)
showed a clear N400 distinction in native speakers between unrelated and highly related sentences
only, while an early distinction between intermediate and highly related sentences was found in an
early positivity (100–200 ms). Crucially, L2 speakers also showed sensitivity to the three conditions,
but at later processing stages than native speakers, with a larger late positivity (600–750 ms) for unre-
lated than highly related conditions, and a larger late negativity (same time window) for intermedi-
ately than highly related sentences. Behavioral responses confirmed that both native and L2 speakers
perceived the sentences in the three conditions as increasingly more difficult to connect (Foucart
et al., 2016). This is in line with the proposal and psycholinguistic evidence for limited resource allo-
cation to discourse-level processes during comprehension of L2 (Morishima, 2013).
Further neurolinguistic research shows that, when semantic and pragmatic processes are con-
currently at play, L2 speakers pay more attention to pragmatic factors. In another replication study,
Foucart et al. (2015) investigated semantic and pragmatic (age and gender) incongruencies in L2 and
154
native speakers during listening comprehension, using similar materials and design to Van Berkum
et al. (2008), and adding a plausibility rating task:
(6) Pragmatic (in)consistency I talk a lot to my son on the weekend

Speaker: woman (consistent) vs. girl
(inconsistent)
(7) Semantic violation I talk a lot with my valley on the weekend
Speaker: woman
Van Berkum et al. (2008) found both types of incongruency to elicit larger amplitude of an early N400
(200-700 ms) in L1 speakers, indexing early integration of both pragmatic and semantic informa-
tion, with an additional late positivity effect in response to speaker’s gender inconsistency. However,
Foucart et al. (2015) observed an N400 effect for semantic incongruencies only, both in L1 and
L2 speakers, although a subset of L1 speakers showed N400 sensitivity to pragmatic violations. In
addition, pragmatic incongruencies evoked larger amplitude of a late positive component in native
speakers (LPC; 700–1200). These results show similar semantic processing in L1 and L2, but are
inconsistent with regards to whether pragmatic processing occurs concurrently with or later than
semantic processing in L1 (Lattner & Friederici, 2003; Van Berkum et al., 2008).
Most importantly, pragmatic incongruencies evoked an earlier positivity in L2 speakers (P300;
400–700 ms), suggesting that they either process pragmatic cues at earlier stages than native speakers
or/and rely more strongly on pragmatic than semantic information. The latter suggestion is con-
sistent with L2 speakers’ lower confidence in the interpretation of semantic violations (i.e., more “I
do not understand” answers than native speakers; Foucart et al., 2015). L2 speakers may rely more
on speaker’s identity when they have difficulty integrating meaning. This stronger sensitivity or reli-
ance to pragmatic information is in line with psycholinguistic research on scalar implicatures (Dupuy
et al., 2018; Slabakova, 2010) and metaphor comprehension (Johnson & Rosano, 1993), which show
preference for pragmatic interpretations in L2 speakers, and is likely due to the fact that pragmatic
processing is common across L1 and L2 because non-verbal, whereas lexico-semantic processing
depends more critically on language proficiency (see Jankowiak & Rataj, 2017).
A further investigation of pragmatic and semantic processing in L2 speakers focused on the inte-
gration of world knowledge during sentence comprehension (Martin et al., 2016; replicating Martin
et al., 2014, on native speakers):
(8) Context Before the age of eight, children start to…

(9) Correct completion read and to write
(10) World- smoke and to write
knowledge violation
(11) Semantic violation bark and to write
The original study in native speakers showed that both types of violation affected the N400 amplitude,
with largest amplitude for semantic violations, followed by pragmatic violations, and smallest for
correct sentences (Martin et al., 2014), in line with previous similar findings, and with the suggestion
of concurrent, parallel processing of pragmatic and semantic information in discourse comprehension
(Hagoort et al., 2004; Kelly et al., 2004; Van Berkum et al., 2008). In addition, smaller amplitude of
the P2 component for the semantic violation than the other conditions (Martin et al., 2014) points
to early semantic integration, in line with similar studies in native speakers (Landi & Perfetti, 2007;
Penolazzi et al., 2007; Pinheiro et al., 2010). L2 speakers also showed sensitivity to both types of
violations as indexed by N400 effects; however, a similar amplitude was observed for pragmatic and
semantic violations, each of which differed from the correct sentences (Martin et al., 2014). This
155
suggests either that L2 speakers are less sensitive to semantic violations, possibly because of their
lower proficiency, or that they rely more strongly on pragmatic information, in line with previous
arguments brought forward by Foucart et al. (2015). Furthermore, no modulation of the P2 compo-
nent in response to semantic violations was observed in L2 speakers, either because of less sensitivity
to semantic information or later semantic integration compared to native speakers. Finally, in a group
comparison across studies, both P2 and N400 amplitudes showed larger amplitudes in L1 than L2
speakers.
Overall, from the studies reviewed in this section, we can conclude that L2 speakers can use
different sources of information in parallel during discourse comprehension, similarly to native
speakers, however the time course of these processes differs. In particular, L2 speakers are more
sensitive to pragmatic information, while they show reduced or delayed responses to semantic infor-
mation, in line with previous psycholinguistic research (Dupuy et al., 2018; Johnson & Rosano,
1993; Slabakova, 2010). Neurolinguistic research confirms and complements this evidence by pro-
viding a detailed overview of the time-course of online comprehension processes. However, what
would happen at the neural level when a pragmatic violation in one language/culture is perceived as
perfectly appropriate in another language/culture? Future research ought to address this and similar
questions.
Speech Act Comprehension in Native Speakers: Neural Evidence

Intercultural pragmatic research on speech acts could greatly benefit from neurolinguistic studies.
In recent years, a handful of studies has investigated the temporal unfolding and neural correlates
of speech act comprehension in native speakers. For example, requests and naming were compared
by presenting short videos with interacting partners talking: one partner asked the other to either
request or name three objects among 12. In terms of temporal unfolding, ERP results showed
that the two types of speech act are distinguished very early on (around 120 ms), showing larger
amplitude for requests (Egorova et al., 2013). Using a very similar paradigm and stimuli, a subse-
quent MEG study showed temporal and spatial distinction whereby requests specifically activated
action representations in the sensorimotor cortex around 50–90 ms, while naming activated areas
associated with referential semantic retrieval (angular gyrus) around 100–150 ms. Furthermore,
both speech acts showed recruitment of the theory of mind (ToM) network around 200–300 ms
(Egorova et al., 2014). Finally, converging fMRI evidence, which provides better spatial reso-
lution (see also Kousaie & Klein, this volume), confirmed common (e.g., ToM network) and
distinct activations (e.g., premotor cortices for requests) between the two types of speech acts
(Egorova et al., 2016). Overall, these results show extremely early access to pragmatic and socio-
communicative information during language comprehension, a clear neural distinction between
different speech acts, and a common network devoted to the understanding of the speaker’s
intentions. These findings are in line with other neuroimaging work showing stronger recruit-
ment of the ToM network for indirect than direct replies (e.g., Bašnáková et al., 2015; Feng et al.,
2017; Van Ackeren et al., 2016), while requests for actions specifically activated motor-related
cortices (Van Ackeren et al., 2016). Further fine-grained distinctions in the temporal unfolding
of declinations, pre-offers and answers to questions were elegantly investigated using ERPs and
EEG oscillations by Gisladottir et al. (2018; 2015).
Conducting similar work on L2 speakers would provide precious information on their online com-
prehension processes (see Boxer & Rossi, 2021): are L2 speakers able to distinguish among different
speech acts as early as native speakers, or do they show later distinction? Will L2 speakers struggle
with such differentiations and possibly need to revise initial representations to finally achieve correct
interpretation?
156

Neuropragmatics is also concerned with affective processes such as empathy, humor, persua-
sion, immersion during reading of narrative texts, and emotional engagement more generally. For
example, when implied emotions are inferred during sentence comprehension, activation of the
emotion neural network has been shown, including the amygdala, which quickly and automatically
responds to evolutionary relevant stimuli, but also the ventro-medial prefrontal cortex, associated
with the evaluation of affective information (Lai et al., 2015). In addition to the recruitment of ToM
areas, previous neuroimaging work on indirect replies during job interviews showed activation of the
bilateral anterior insula, associated with awareness of viscero-sensory bodily responses to emotive
stimuli/events, and pregenual anterior cingulate cortex, related to empathy, when participants acted
as interviewers rather than passive listeners (Bašnáková et al., 2015). Furthermore, recent neuro-
physiological research has shown that conventional figurative language is better suited than literal
language in engaging readers/listeners at the emotional level, showing enhanced left amygdala acti-
vation in response to metaphorical and idiomatic expressions than their literal counterparts (Citron
et al., 2019; Citron & Goldberg, 2014; Citron et al., 2016; Forgács et al., 2012), among other areas,
and larger pupil dilations (Mon et al., 2021). These findings show how certain pragmatic phenomena
give rise to rhetorical advantages. Finally, a recent study on eye movements during humor com-
prehension shows emotional reactions indexed by changes in pupil dilation, in addition to online
punchline incongruency processing, which leads to a switch from an initial to a final interpretation,
elegantly described by eye movements (Israel et al., 2022).
Virtually no neurocognitive work exists on emotional aspects of L2 pragmatic processes, despite
a large body of research showing L2 speakers’ emotional distance from the L2, especially when it
comes to taboo words or reprimands (see review by Pavlenko, 2012). Other work shows instead that
L2 speakers are equally able to detect and process emotive content in single words and show similar
ERP components to native speakers, although slightly delayed or with smaller amplitude (e.g., Opitz
& Degner, 2012). Finally, bilinguals are less vulnerable to negative information and to heuristic
biases in decision making in their L2 (Costa et al., 2014; Wu & Thierry, 2012; see also Foucart, this
volume).
Only two neuroimaging studies related to pragmatics in L2 speakers provide initial information
on their emotional engagement. Hsu et al. (2015) looked at brain activity during literary reading of
happy, sad, and affectively neutral passages from Harry Potter in L1 and L2, showing clear recruit-
ment of the emotion neural network in response to happy versus neutral texts only when reading
in the L1, while the extended-language network and ToM areas, necessary for narrative compre-
hension, were similarly recruited in L1 and L2. Further analyses showed that emotion-laden texts
elicit a stronger and more nuanced emotional experience when read in the L1. Similarly, Citron et al.
(2020) extended their investigation of emotional engagement in response to conventional figurative
language to proficient L2 speakers, to find little distinction between metaphorical and literal phrases
at the neural level. Furthermore, while affective engagement increased in response to increasingly
more metaphorical sentences in native speakers, no additional recruitment of emotion-related neural
structures was observed in L2 speakers, therefore pointing toward a reduced rhetorical advantage of
figurative expressions in L2 (Citron et al., 2020). More neurolinguistic work on the affective aspects of
pragmatics in L2 is needed; understanding what role emotion plays in L2 pragmatics may also provide
important insights into more applied research on teaching and learning of pragmatics across languages.
Note
1 A result confirmed by Ibáñez et al. (2010) for low-proficiency L2 speakers in ERP research showing no dis-
tinction between metaphorical and literal meanings in the N400 component.
157
Further Readings
For a broader overview of intercultural pragmatics:
Culpeper, J., Mackey, A., & Taguchi, N. (2018). Second language pragmatics: From theory to research.
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315692388
State of the art:
Félix-Brasdefer, J.C., & Shively, R.L. (2021). New directions in second language pragmatics. De Gruyter
Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110721775
Overview of online processing of figurative expressions in L2:
Heredia, R.R., & Cieślika, A.B. (2015). Bilingual figurative language processing. Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139342100
Acknowledgments
I am grateful to Professor Evelyn Ferstl and an anonymous reviewer for their comments on previous versions of
this chapter.
References
Austin, J.L. (1962). How to do things with words. Harvard University Press.
Bambini, V., Bertini, C., Schaeken, W., Stella, A., & Di Russo, F. (2016). Disentangling metaphor from con-
text: An ERP study. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 559. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00559
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Bastos, M.-T. (2011). Proficiency, length of stay, and intensity of interaction, and the
acquisition of conventional expressions in L2 pragmatics. Intercultural Pragmatics, 8, 347–384. https://doi.
org/10.1515/IPRG.2011.017
Bardovi-Harlig, K., Kasper, G., Nguyen, H.T., & Yoshimi, D.R. (2010). Recognition of conventional expressions
in L2 pragmatics. Pragmatics and Language Learning, 12, 141–162.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., Mossman, S., & Vellenga, H.E. (2015). The effect of instruction on pragmatic routines in aca-
demic discussion. Language Teaching Research, 19, 324–350. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168814541739
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Shin, S.-Y. (2014). Expanding traditional testing measures with tasks from L2 pragmatics
research. Iranian Journal of Language Testing, 4, 26–49.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Stringer, D. (2017). Unconventional expressions: Productive syntax in the L2 acquisition
of formulaic language. Second Language Research, 33, 61–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658316641725
Bašnáková, J., Van Berkum, J.J.A., Weber, K., & Hagoort, P. (2015). A job interview in the MRI scanner: How
does indiretness affect addressees and overhears? Neuropsychologia, 76, 79–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.neuropsychologia.2015.03.030
Beeman, M.J., Bowden, E.M., & Gernsbacher, M.A. (2000). Right and left hemisphere cooperation for drawing
predictive and coherence inferences during normal story comprehension. Brain and Language, 71, 310–336.
https://doi.org/10.1006/brln.1999.2268
Blum-Kulka, S., & Olshtain, E. (1984). Requests and apologies: A cross-cultural study of speech act realization
patterns (CCSARP). Applied Linguistics, 5, 196–213.
Bohrn, I.C., Altmann, U., & Jacobs, A.M. (2012). Looking at the brains behind figurative language—A quantita-
tive meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies on metaphor, idiom, and irony processing. Neuropsychologia, 50,
Boxer, D., & Rossi, E. (2021). Studying speech acts: An expanded scope and refined methodologies. In J.C.
Félix-Brasdefer & R. Shively (Eds.), New directions in second language pragmatics. Walter De Gruyter.
Cacciari, C., & Tabossi, P. (1988). The comprehension of idioms. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 668–
683. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(88)90014-9
Cameron, L., & Deignan, A. (2006). The emergence of metaphor in discourse. Applied Linguistics, 27, 671–690.
https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/aml032
Canal, P., Pesciarelli, F., Vespignani, F., Molinaro, N., & Cacciari, C. (2017). Basic composition and eriched
integration in idiom processing: An EEG study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and
Cognition. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000351
Cardillo, E.R., Watson, C.E., Schmidt, G.L., Kranjec, A., & Chatterjee, A. (2012). From novel to familiar: Tuning
the brain for metaphors. NeuroImage, 59, 3212–3221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.11.079
158
Carrol, G., Conklin, K., & Gyllstad, H. (2016). Found in translation. The influence of the L1 on the reading of
idioms in a L2. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 403–443. https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226311
5000492
Carrol, G., & Littlemore, J. (2020). Resolving figurative expressions during reading: The role of familiarity, trans-
parency, and context. Discourse Processes, 57, 609–626. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2020.1729041
Chen, H., Peng, X., & Zhao, Y. (2013). An ERP study on metaphor comprehension in the bilingual brain. Chinese
Journal of Applied Linguistics, 36, 505–517. https://doi.org/10.1515/cjal-2013-0034
Cieślika, A.B. (2006). Literal salience in on-line processing of idiomatic expressions by second language
learners. Second Language Research, 22, 115–144.
Cieślika, A.B., & Heredia, R.R. (2011). Hemispheric asymmetries in processing L1 and L2 idioms: Effects of
salience and context. Brain and Language, 116, 136–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2010.09.007
Citron, F.M.M., Cacciari, C., Funcke, J., Hsu, C.-T., & Jacobs, A.M. (2019). Idiomatic expressions evoke
stronger emotional responses in the brain than literal sentences. Neuropsychologia, 131, 233–248. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2019.05.020
Citron, F.M.M., & Goldberg, A.E. (2014). Metaphorical sentences are more emotionally engaging than their lit-
eral counterparts. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 26, 2585–2595. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00654
Citron, F.M.M., Güsten, J., Michaelis, N., & Goldberg, A.E. (2016). Conventional metaphors in longer passages
evoke affective brain response. NeuroImage, 139, 218–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.06.
020
Citron, F.M.M., Michaelis, N., & Goldberg, A.E. (2020). Metaphorical language processing and amygdala acti-
vation in L1 and L2. Neuropsychologia, 140, 107381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2020.
107381
Cohen, A.D. (2016). The design and construction of websites to promote L2 pragmatics. In K. Bardovi-Harlig
& J. C. Félix-Brasdefer (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning. National Foreign Language Resource
Centre, University of Hawai’i.
Costa, A., Foucart, A., Arnon, I., Aparici, M., & Apesteguia, J. (2014). “Piensa” twice: On the foreign language
effect in decision making. 130, 236–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.11.010
Culpeper, J., Mackey, A., & Taguchi, N. (2018). Introduction to second language pragmatics. In J. Culpeper, A.
Mackey, & N. Taguchi (Eds.), Second language pragmatics: From theory to research (pp. 1–24). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315692388
Dupuy, L., Stateva, P., Andreetta, S., Cheylus, A., Déprez, V., & Henst, J.B.V.D. (2018). Pragmatic abilities in
bilinguals: The case of scalar implicatures. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 9, 314–340. https://doi.
org/10.1075/lab.17017.dup
Edmonds, A. (2014). Conventional expressions: Investigating pragmatics and processing. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 36, 69–99. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263113000557
Egorova, N., Pulvermueller, F., & Shtyrov, Y. (2014). Neural dynamics of speech act comprehension: An MEG
study of naming and requesting. Brain Topography, 27, 375–392. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10548-013-
0329-3
Egorova, N., Shtyrov, Y., & Pulvermueller, F. (2013). Early and parallel processing of pragmatic and semantic
information in speech acts: neurophysiological evidence. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 86. https://
doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00086
Egorova, N., Shtyrov, Y., & Pulvermueller, F. (2016). Brain basis of communicative actions in language.
Ellis, N.C., Simpson-Vlach, R., & Maynard, C. (2008). Formulaic language in native and second language
speakers: Psycholinguistics, corpus linguistics, and TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 42, 375–396.
Feng, W., Wu, Y., Jan, C., Yu, H., Jiang, X., & Zhou, X. (2017). Effects of contextual relevance on pragmatic
inference during conversation: An fMRI study. Brain and Language, 171, 52–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.bandl.2017.04.005
Ferstl, E.C. (2010). Neuroimaging of text comprehension: Where are we now? Italian Journal of Linguistics,
22, 61–88.
Ferstl, E.C., Neumann, J., Bogler, C., & von Cramon, D.Y. (2008). The extended language network: A meta-
analysis of neuroimaging studies on text comprehension. Human Brain Mapping, 29, 581–593.
Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research.
The Modern Language Journal, 81, 285–300.
159
Forgács, B., Bohrn, I.C., Baudewig, J., Hofmann, M J., Csaba, P., & Jacobs, A.M. (2012). Neural correlates of
combinatorial semantic processing of literal and figurative noun noun compound words. NeuroImage, 63,
1432–1442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.07.029
Foucart, A. (this volume). Moral decision making and second language neurocognition. In K. Morgan-Short
Routledge.
Foucart, A., Garcia, X., Ayguasanosa, M., Thierry, G., Martin, C.D., & Costa, A. (2015). Does the speaker matter?
Online processing of semantic and pragmatic information in L2 speech comprehension. Neuropsychologia,
75, 291–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2015.06.027
Foucart, A., Romero-Rivas, C., Gort, B.L., & Costa, A. (2016). Discourse comprehension in L2: Making
sense of what is not explicitly said. Brain and Language, 163, 32–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.bandl.2016.09.001
Gass, S., & Neu, J. (2009). Speech acts across cultures: challenges to comunication in a second language.
Mouton De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219289
Gibbs, R.W. (2006). Metaphor interpretation as embodied simulation. Mind and Language, 21, 434–458. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2006.00285.x
Giora, R. (1999). On the priority of salient meanings: studies of literal and figurative language. Journal of
Pragmatics, 31, 919–929. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00100-3
Gisladottir, R.S., Bögels, S., & Levinson, S.C. (2018). Oscillatory brain responses reflect anticipation during
comprehension of speech acts in spoken dialog. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 12, 34. https://doi.org/
10.3389/fnhum.2018.00034
Gisladottir, R.S., Chwilla, D.J., & Levinson, S.C. (2015). Conversation electrified: ERP correlates of speech
act recognition in underspecified utterances. PLoS ONE, 10, e0120068. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.
pone.0120068
Glucksberg, S. (1998). Understanding metaphor. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 7, 39–43. https://
doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.ep13175582
Glucksberg, S. (2001). Understanding figurative language: From metaphors to idioms. Oxford University Press.
Grice, H.P. (1975/1989). Studies in the way of words. Harvard University Press.
Hagoort, P., Hald, L., Bastiaansen, M., & Petersson, K.M. (2004). Integration of word meaning and world know-
ledge in language comprehension. Science, 304, 438–441. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1095455
House, J. (1996). Developing pragmatic fluency in English as a foreign language: Routines and metapragmatic
awareness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 225–252.
Hsu, C.-T., Jacobs, A.M., & Conrad, M. (2015). Can Harry Potter still put a spell on us in a second language?
An fMRI study on reading emotion-laden literature in late bilinguals. Cortex, 63, 282–295. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cortex.2014.09.002
Ibáñez, A., Manes, F., Escobar, J., Trujillo, N., Andreucci, P., & Hurtado, E. (2010). Gesture influences the
processing of figurative language in non-native speakers: ERP evidence. Neuroscience letters, 471, 48–52.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2010.01.009
Israel, L., Konieczny, L., & Ferstl, E.C. (2022). Cognitive and affective aspects of verbal humor: A visual-world
eye-tracking study. Frontiers in Communication, February 2. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2021.758173
Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 53, 119–156. https://doi.org/10.1515/psicl-2017-0006
Jankowiak, K., Rataj, K., & Naskręcki, R. (2017). To electrify bilingualism: Electrophysiological insights into
bilingual metaphor comprehension. PLoS ONE, 12, e0175578. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175578
Johnson, J., & Rosano, T. (1993). Relation of cognitive style to metaphor interpretation and second language
proficiency. Applied Psycholinguistics, 14, 159–175. https://doi.org/10.1017/S014271640000953X
Kecskes, I. (2014). Intercultural pragmatics. Oxford University Press.
Kecskes, I. (2015). Is the idiom principle blocked in bilingual L2 production? In R.R. Heredia & A. B. Cieślika
(Eds.), Bilingual figurative language processing (pp. 28–53). Cambridge University Press.
Kecskes, I. (2016). Deliberate creativity and formulaic language use. In K. Allan, A. Capone, & I. Kecskes
(Eds.), Pragmemes and theories of language use (pp. 3–20). Springer International Publishing Switzerland.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43491-9
Kecskes, I., & Zhang, F. (2009). Activating, seeking and creating common ground: A socio-cognitive approach.
Pragmatics and Cognition, 17, 331–355. https://doi.org/10.1075/p&c.17.2.06kec
Kelly, S.D., Kravitz, C., & Hopkins, M. (2004). Neural correlates of bimodal speech and gesture comprehension.
Brain and Language, 89, 253–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-934X(03)00335-3
Keysar, B. (1989). On the functional equivalence of literal and metaphorical interpretations in discourse. Journal
of Memory and Language, 28, 375–385. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(89)90017-X
160
Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T.A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological
Review, 85, 363–394. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.85.5.363
Kuperberg, G.R., Paczynski, M., & Ditman, T. (2011). Establishing causal coherence across sentences: An ERP
study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23, 1230–1246. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2010.21452
Lai, V.T., & Curran, T. (2013). ERP evidence for conceptual mappings and comparison processes during the
comprehension of conventional and novel metaphors. Brain and Language, 127, 484–496. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.bandl.2013.09.010
Lai, V.T., Willems, R.M., & Hagoort, P. (2015). Feel between the lines: Implied emotion in sentence comprehen-
sion. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00798
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago.
Landi, N., & Perfetti, C.A. (2007). An electrophysiological investigation of semantic and phonological pro-
cessing in skilled and less-skilled comprehenders. Brain and Language, 102, 30–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.bandl.2006.11.001
Lattner, S., & Friederici, A.D. (2003). Talker’s voice and gender stereotype in human auditory sentence
processing–evidence from event-related brain potentials. Neuroscience Letters, 339, 191–194. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0304-3940(03)00027-2
Laurent, J.-P., Denhières, G., Passerieux, C., Iakimova, G., & Hardy-Baylé, M.-C. (2006). On understanding
idiomatic language: The salience hypothesis assessed by ERPs. Brain Research, 1068, 151–160. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.brainres.2005.10.076
Luk, G., Green, D., Abutalebi, J., & Grady, C. (2011). Cognitive control for language switching in bilinguals: A
quantitative meta-analysis of functional neuroimaging studies. Language and Cognitive Processes, 27, 1479–
1488. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2011.613209
Marian, V., Spivey, M., & Hirsch, J. (2003). Shared and separate systems in bilingual language pro-
cessing: Converging evidence from eyetracking and brain imaging. Brain and Language, 86, 70–82. https://
doi.org/10.1016/S0093-934X(02)00535-7
Martin, C.D., Garcia, X., Breton, A., Thierry, G., & Costa, A. (2014). From literal meaning to veracity in two
hundred milliseconds. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 40. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00040
Martin, C.D., Garcia, X., Breton, A., Thierry, G., & Costa, A. (2016). World knowledge integration during second
language comprehension. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31, 206–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/
23273798.2015.1084012
Martínez-Flor, A., & Usó-Juan, E. (2006). A comprehensive pedagogical framework to develop pragmatics in the
foreign language classroom: The 6Rs approach. Applied Language Learning, 16, 39–63.
Mashal, N., Borodkin, K., Maliniak, O., & Faust, M. (2015). Hemispheric involvement in native and non-native
comprehension of conventional metaphors. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 35, 96–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jneuroling.2015.04.001
Mon, S., Nencheva, M., Citron, F.M.M., Lew-Williams, C., & Goldberg, A.E. (2021). Conventional metaphors
elicit greater real-time engagement than literal paraphrases or concrete sentences. Journal of Memory and
Language, 121, 104285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2021.104285
Morishima, Y. (2013). Allocation of limited cognitive resources during text comprehension in a second language.
Discourse Processes, 50, 577–597. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2013.846964
Opitz, B., & Degner, J. (2012). Emotionality in a second language: It’s a matter of time. Neuropsychologia, 50,
Paulmann, S., Ghareeb-Ali, Z., & Felser, C. (2015). Neurophysiological markers of phrasal verb processing: evi-
dence from L1 and L2 speakers. In R.R. Heredia & A. Cieślika (Eds.), Bilingual figurative language pro-
cessing (pp. 245–267). Cambridge University Press.
Pavlenko, A. (2012). Affective processing in bilingual speakers: Disembodied cognition? International Journal
of Psychology, 47, 405–428. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207594.2012.743665
Pennycook, A. (2009). Global Englishes and transcultural flows. Applied Linguistics, 30, 305–307. https://doi.
org/10.1093/applin/amp017
Penolazzi, B., Hauk, O., & Pulvermueller, F. (2007). Early semantic context integration and lexical access as
revealed by event-related brain potentials. Biological Psychology, 74, 347–388. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.biopsycho.2006.09.008
Perani, D., & Abutalebi, J. (2005). The neural basis of first and second language processing. Current Opinion in
Neurobiology, 15, 202–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2005.03.007
161
Pinheiro, A.P., Galdo-Alvarez, S., Sampaio, A., Niznikiewicz, M., & Gonçalves, O.F. (2010). Electrophysiological
correlates of semantic processing in Williams syndrome. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 31, 1412–
1425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2010.06.017
Plonsky, L. (2011). The effectiveness of second language strategy instruction: A meta-analysis. Language
Learning, 61, 993–1038. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00663.x
Rapp, A.M., Mutschler, D.E., & Erb, M. (2012). Where in the brain is nonliteral language? A coordinate-based
meta-analysis of functional magnetic resonance imaging studies. NeuroImage, 63, 600–610. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.06.022
Rataj, K., Przekoracka-Krawczyk, A., & van der Lubbe, R.H.J. (2018). On understanding creative language: The
late positive complex and novel metaphor comprehension. Brain Research, 1678, 231–244. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.brainres.2017.10.030
Roehm, D., Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., Rösler, F., & Schlesewsky, M. (2007). To predict or not to pre-
dict: Influences of task and strategy on the processing of semantic relations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,
19, 1259–1274. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2007.19.8.1259
Roever, C. (2011). Testing of second language pragmatics: Past and future. Language Testing, 28, 463–481.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532210394633
Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford University Press, USA.
Siyanova-Chanturia, A., Conklin, K., & Schmitt, N. (2011). Adding more fuel to the fire: An eye-tracking study
of idiom processing by native and non-native speakers. Second Language Research, 27, 251–272. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0267658310382068
Slabakova, R. (2010). Scalar implicatures in second language acquisition. Lingua, 120, 2444–2462. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.lingua.2009.06.005
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition (2nd ed.). Blackwell Publishers.
Steen, G.J., & Gibbs, R.W. (2004). Questions about metaphor in literature. European Journal of English Studies,
8, 337–354. https://doi.org/10.1080/1382557042000277421
Strandburg, R., Marsh, J., Brown, W., Asarnow, R., Guthrie, D., & Higa, J. (1993). Event-related potentials in high-
functioning adult autistics. Neuropsychologia, 31, 413–434. https://doi.org/10.1016/0028-3932(93)90058-8
Taguchi, N. (2015). Instructed pragmatics at a glance: Where instructional studies were, are, and should be going.
Language Teaching, 48, 1–50. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444814000263
Taguchi, N., Li, S., & Xiao, F. (2013). Production of formulaic expressions in L2 Chinese: A developmental
investigation in a study-abroad context. Chinese as a Second Language Research, 2, 23–58. https://doi.org/
10.1515/caslar-2013-0021
Tateyama, Y., Kasper, G., Mui, L. P., Tay, H M., & Thananart, O.O. (1997). Explicit and implicit teaching of
pragmatic routines. Pragmatics and Language Learning, 8, 163–178.
Underwood, G., Schmitt, N., & Galpin, A. (2004). The eyes have it: An eye-movement study into the processing
of formulaic sequences. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), Formulaic sequences (pp. 153–172). John Benjamins.
Van Ackeren, M.J., Smaragdi, A., & Rueschemeyer, S.-A. (2016). Neuronal interactions between mentalising
and action systems during indirect request processing. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 11,
1402–1410. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsw062
Van Berkum, J.J.A., van den Brink, D., Tesink, C.M.J.Y., Kos, M., & Hagoort, P. (2008). The neural integra-
tion of speaker and message. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20, 580–591. https://doi.org/10.1162/
jocn.2008.20054
Vespignani, F., Canal, P., Molinaro, N., Fonda, S., & Cacciari, C. (2010). Predictive mechanisms in idiom com-
prehension. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22, 1682–1700.
Weiland, H., Bambini, V., & Schumacher, P.B. (2014). The role of literal meaning in figurative language com-
prehension: evidence from masked priming ERP. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 583. https://doi.org/
10.3389/fnhum.2014.00583
Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge University Press.
Wu, Y.J., & Thierry, G. (2012). How reading in a second language protects your heart. The Journal of
Neuroscience, 32, 6485–6489. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.6119-11.2012
Yang, J. (2014). The role of the right hemisphere in metaphor comprehension: A meta-analysis of functional mag-
netic resonance imaging studies. Human Brain Mapping, 35, 107–122. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.22160
Yuan, Y. (2001). An inquiry into empirical pragmatics data-gathering methods: Written DCTs, oral DCTs,
field notes, and natural conversations. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 271–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0378-2166(00)00031-X
162
PART III
Neurolinguistic Theories and Models

of Second Language
12
HOW THE DECLARATIVE AND
PROCEDURAL MEMORY BRAIN
CIRCUITS SUPPORT SECOND
LANGUAGE
Electrophysiological, Neuroimaging, and
Neurological Evidence
Introduction
The declarative/procedural (DP) model is a neurocognitive theoretical framework that addresses
multiple aspects of typical and disordered language, including across first and second language (L1
and L2) (Ullman, 2004, 2016, 2020; Ullman et al., 2020). The model is grounded in the notion of
cooptation. According to this basic principle of evolution and biology, previously existing structures
and mechanisms are constantly being reused—co-opted—for new purposes. Thus, language should
depend importantly on previously existing neurocognitive substrates that were coopted for this new
function—whether or not those substrates have become further specialized for language through evo-
lution, development, or learning.
The DP model applies this principle of cooptation to language, with a focus on learning. The model
is based on two premises related to learning. First, most of language must be learned, whether or not
aspects are innately specified. Second, declarative and procedural memory are arguably the two most
important learning and memory circuits (systems) in the brain, in both animals and humans (Squire
& Dede, 2015; Ullman, 2004, 2016, 2020). Given these premises and the principle of cooptation, the
declarative and procedural memory circuits are predicted to play critical roles in language, across
both L1 and L2. This is the essence of the DP model.
The DP Model, with a Focus on Second Language

We first describe the declarative and procedural learning and memory circuits. We then summarize
key predictions for language that follow from this independent understanding of the circuits, focusing
on the neural basis of L2.
DOI: 10.4324/9781003190912-16 165

The Declarative and Procedural Learning and Memory Circuits

According to the neurocognitive perspective espoused by the DP model, declarative and procedural
memory are defined on the basis of their neuroanatomy (Ullman, 2004, 2020; Ullman et al., 2020).
In this section, we provide an overview of the two learning and memory circuits independent of lan-
guage, focusing on their neural bases. (For other theoretical perspectives of declarative and proced-
ural memory or knowledge and their roles in language, see Morgan-Short & Ullman, 2022.)
Declarative memory is defined as the learning and memory that rely on the medial temporal lobe
(MTL) and associated circuitry (Ullman, 2004, 2016, 2020; Ullman et al., 2020). The DP model
focuses on the portion of this circuitry that underlies “what” (as opposed to “where”) knowledge,
which appears to be most relevant to language. (The “what” circuit may be characterized as sub-
serving information about what things are in the world about us, which can be contrasted with “where”
in space they occur.) This “what” declarative memory circuit (which for simplicity we refer to below
as “declarative memory”) encompasses several core structures: the hippocampus, entorhinal cortex,
and perirhinal cortex, all of which lie within the MTL, as well as the visual and auditory neocortical
temporal lobe-based ventral streams (“what” pathways) (Ullman, 2016, 2020; Ullman & Reichle,
2023). Evidence suggests that these different structures play somewhat different roles even while
working closely together (Diana et al., 2007; Fernández & Tendolkar, 2006; Miyashita, 2019; Suzuki
& Naya, 2014; Ullman & Reichle, 2023). Here we summarize these roles. The visual and auditory
ventral streams hierarchically process inputs, in a posterior to anterior manner (Rauschecker & Scott,
2009). The resulting representation is passed to perirhinal cortex (directly for the visual modality,
indirectly via parahippocampal cortex for audition). Perirhinal cortex evaluates to what extent the
representation mismatches existing representations in neocortex and perirhinal cortex, by retrieving
that neocortical information. If there is a mismatch (in content or strength), that is, the representation
is unfamiliar, warranting updating/strengthening that existing representation (if there is no mismatch,
no learning need occur), perirhinal cortex encodes the representation and passes it downstream via
(anterior) entorhinal cortex to the hippocampus. The hippocampus rapidly binds together the various
(novel) aspects of the representation (and thus is critical for learning associations), including back
upstream in neocortex across the ventral streams and temporopolar and middle temporal cortex.
Thanks to this binding, direct corticocortical connections can then be formed and strengthened via
Hebbian learning (fire together, wire together). Gradually these associations tend to undergo systems
consolidation, whereby they become more dependent on direct corticocortical connections, with a
decreased dependence on the hippocampus/MTL, though the latter may continue to play a role for
years or even decades.
The (what) declarative memory circuit also involves other brain structures, ranging from structures
in the “circuit of Papez” that are closely connected to the hippocampus (e.g., the fornix, the mammil-
lary bodies, and anterior nucleus of the thalamus) to various neocortical regions, including inferior
frontal and posterior parietal cortex (Ullman, 2004, 2016, 2020). For example, inferior frontal cortex,
perhaps in particular Brodmann’s areas 45/47 within traditional Broca’s area, appear to be important
for recalling information, though at least for recently learned knowledge this may occur in concert
with hippocampal-based “recollection.” Although we have focused here on the functional neuro-
anatomy of the declarative memory circuit (that is, what parts of the brain do what), since most
research on the circuit has examined its functional neuroanatomy, there is also a good-sized literature
on other neurobiological correlates of the circuit, including the genes (e.g., BDNF, APOE, KIBRA)
and hormones (e.g., estrogen) that modulate it (Ullman, 2004, 2016, 2020; Ullman et al., 2020).
The declarative memory circuit’s functional characteristics are quite well understood, in par-
ticular regarding what and how it learns. The circuit has been implicated in the learning, storage, and
processing of various types of information, across domains and sensory modalities, even including
166
Declarative and Procedural Memory Brain Circuits
motor knowledge (Squire & Dede, 2015; Ullman, 2004, 2016, 2020; Ullman et al., 2020). Indeed,
it is extremely flexible in what it can learn. The circuit seems to be critical for learning arbitrary
pieces of information and their associations. It can support both explicit information (which entails
awareness and is linked closely to working memory) and implicit information (which does not entail
awareness)—although it appears to be the only learning circuit that can underlie explicit knowledge.
Learning in the circuit can be extremely rapid, even after one presentation of the relevant stimulus.
Of interest in this chapter focusing on L2, evidence suggests that learning in declarative memory
improves during childhood and then plateaus in adolescence and early adulthood, after which it
declines.
Procedural memory is defined as the learning and memory that rely on the basal ganglia and
associated circuitry (Ullman, 2004, 2016, 2020; Ullman et al., 2020). Evidence suggests that the basal
ganglia, in particular the anterior neostriatum (the anterior caudate nucleus and anterior putamen),
underlie early phases of procedural learning. Learning involves generating predictions about associ-
ations (e.g., the next item of a sequence, or the output of a rule), and then evaluating these predictions
based on the correctness of the prediction (Frank, 2005; Ullman et al., 2020). Learning occurs in par-
ticular when predictions are incorrect (if they were correct, there is no need to learn), especially when
such disconfirmatory information is rapidly available after the prediction is generated (e.g., predic-
tion of the next item in a sequence is rapidly followed by an item that can (dis)confirm the prediction).
This process depends critically on dopaminergic-neostriatal projections from midbrain structures,
in particular the substantia nigra pars compacta. Basal ganglia-based learning involves the creation/
strengthening of connections between cortical neuronal populations that project to the neostriatum
and those to which the basal ganglia project via the thalamus, while these input and output neuronal
populations (representing the input and output elements of the association) are both active. The basal
ganglia-based formation of these connections between cortical regions, which is gradual but can occur
reasonably quickly, then facilitates the formation/strengthening of direct corticocortical connections
via Hebbian learning, which tends to occur quite slowly. An increased reliance on the corticocortical
connections (systems consolidation) is associated with increased automatization, though the analo-
gous input-output circuitry passing through the basal ganglia may continue to be relied upon, and
indeed posterior neostriatal regions may also support automatized processing. Consistent with basal
ganglia inputs originating importantly in parietal regions, and the basal ganglia projecting strongly to
(pre)motor and other frontal regions, the corticocortical circuits formed by the basal ganglia may play
a key role in the dorsal stream “how” pathway (Ullman, 2004, 2016). Although, as with declarative
memory, we have focused on the functional neuroanatomy of procedural memory, other aspects of the
neurobiology of the circuit have also been studied, including the genes (e.g., PPP1R1B, DRD2, and
FOXP2) that affect it (Ullman, 2004, 2016, 2020; Ullman et al., 2020).
The functional characteristics of the procedural memory circuit are quite well understood, in
particular regarding what and how it learns. The procedural memory circuit underlies the learning,
storage, and processing of predictable relations for a range of functions, including cognitive and
(perceptuo-)motor skills (such as motor sequences), perceptual sequences (often tested in statistical
learning paradigms), categories, habits, and routes (for navigation). Learning and knowledge in the
circuit seem to be entirely implicit. Learning occurs gradually over multiple exposures, although it
can take place as quickly as a few minutes or as slowly as months or more, as a function of various
factors. For example, associations (e.g., between items in a sequence) are learned faster if they are
more predictable or if they are adjacent (vs. non-adjacent). Unlike declarative memory, learning
in this circuit seems to already be robust early in childhood, though it appears to decline around
adolescence.
The declarative and procedural memory circuits also interact (Packard, 2008; Ullman, 2004, 2016;
Ullman et al., 2020). First, representations learned in declarative memory can apparently inhibit
167
(block) analogous representations learned in procedural memory, and vice versa, depending on which
is predominant. For example, if a rat learns to navigate a maze by quickly learning landmarks in
declarative memory, these can inhibit navigation strategies, such as automatically turning at a corner,
that are gradually being learned in procedural memory. The two circuits can therefore be thought of
as being in competition, which is often referred to as the “seesaw effect.” Second, the two circuits
can complement each other by learning analogous functions, such as knowledge of a given route,
sequence, or category. That is, the two circuits play at least partly redundant roles, though they gen-
erally learn somewhat different types of knowledge. For example, declarative memory may learn
explicit knowledge of the order of elements of a sequence whereas procedural memory may impli-
citly learn to predict subsequent elements in the sequence. Certain types of knowledge, however, can
be learned by only one or the other of the two systems; importantly, arbitrary pieces of information
and their associations may only be learnable by declarative memory.
A range of variables appear to modulate which of the two circuits is relied on more for those tasks
and functions that can be learned in either. Here we focus on a few variables that are particularly rele-
vant for learning L2. First, the amount of input matters. Less input often leads to a greater reliance on
declarative memory (since it learns quickly), whereas more input can shift dependence to procedural
memory (which can become predominant due to automatization). Second, the type of input makes
a difference. In particular, explicit, instructed input should lead to learning in declarative memory,
since that is the only memory system to support explicit knowledge. Third, age of acquisition also
matters. Children will tend to rely more on procedural memory and younger adults more on declara-
tive memory, simply because learning in procedural memory is stronger during childhood whereas
learning in declarative memory improves over the course of childhood and adolescence.
Predictions of the DP Model for Language, with a Focus on L2

Here we present a subset of the wide range of predictions for language that can be generated by the
DP model based on our independent understanding of the memory systems, as summarized in the
previous section. Although the model has numerous predictions for language across L1 and L2, this
section focuses on the functional neuroanatomy of the lexicon and grammar in L2 (Morgan-Short &
Ullman, 2022; Ullman, 2004, 2016, 2020; Ullman et al., 2020).
Lexical memory should depend heavily on declarative memory, across both L1 and L2. This
follows from this circuit’s critical role in learning arbitrary pieces of information and their asso-
ciations, since such knowledge constitutes a substantial portion of the lexicon. Thus, all idiosyn-
cratic lexical knowledge, including about open-class words, irregular morphology, and unpredictable
multi-word linguistic forms such as idioms should be learned largely in declarative memory. As
such, various brain structures in the declarative memory circuit are expected to be involved in lexical
learning, representation, and processing, with the exact structure(s) depending on which functions the
task at hand depends on. For example, a task that involves learning should rely importantly (though
not only) on MTL structures, particularly the hippocampus if new associations (e.g., word form-
meaning pairings) are being learned. In contrast, if the task involves existing (familiar) knowledge, it
may rely less on the MTL and more on neocortical structures in the circuit. More generally, our inde-
pendent understanding of declarative memory, including its functional neuroanatomical, endocrine,
and genetic correlates, should inform our understanding of lexical memory.
In contrast, lexical abilities should depend much less on procedural memory. Nevertheless, they
may do so in certain specific circumstances, such as during word segmentation (in which word-
forms are being implicitly extracted from sequences of sounds in the speech stream), for closed-class
words and morphemes (e.g., the, -ed), and for motor-related words like hammer (which involve
representations of motor skills that were likely learned in procedural memory) (Ullman et al., 2020).
168
Grammar is a different story. Grammar shares key characteristics with procedural memory. Both
grammar and procedural memory involve learning sequential and categorical knowledge, which
is largely implicit and eventually automatized in both cases, and both involve prediction (Ullman
et al., 2020). Thus, procedural memory may be expected to play a critical role in grammar, across
linguistic subdomains, including syntax, morphology, and phonology (phonotactics). The structures
constituting the procedural circuit should therefore be involved in the learning, representation,
and processing of grammar, with the exact structure depending on which functions are involved.
For example, early stages of learning should engage the anterior neostriatum. Learning should
depend on dopaminergic projections from midbrain structures, in particular the substantial nigra
pars compacta. And as grammatical procedures become automatized, they should depend more on
neocortical regions, especially in parietal and frontal cortex. Left hemisphere procedural memory
structures may be particularly important for grammar given the more general left lateralization of
language.
However, as discussed earlier, the two memory circuits interact. Of particular interest here, given
their redundant roles, declarative memory may also be expected to support grammar. In fact, thanks
to its flexible nature, declarative memory may memorize individual chunks (e.g., the affixed form
kicked), generalize analogically across such forms to new forms (e.g., blicked), and learn explicit
rules. Thus, procedural and declarative memory should both support grammar, but in different ways.
Importantly, because the two memory systems have different characteristics, grammar should
depend more on one or the other system as a function of various factors (Ullman, 2020; Ullman
et al., 2020). This should result in a differential dependence of grammar on declarative and proced-
ural memory in L2 and L1. First, because declarative memory learns faster than procedural memory,
grammar should depend more on declarative memory during early stages of L2 (and L1) learning
and more on procedural memory at later stages (after more exposure). Second, because explicit
knowledge can only be supported by declarative memory, explicit instructed grammatical informa-
tion (e.g., in L2 classroom settings) should lead to a greater dependence of grammar on declarative
memory, whereas an absence of such input may shift reliance to procedural memory—especially
when instead the learner is exposed to naturalistic/immersion contexts (in L1 or L2). This is because
the rapid input of natural speech may be particularly well-suited for procedural learning, given that
this system learns by predicting subsequent elements and receiving rapid feedback (e.g., subsequent
linguistic elements can be predicted, and the rapid appearance of such elements in the input in natural
speech can constitute rapid feedback; Ullman, 2020). Third, because learning in procedural memory
seems well-established early in life and then may decline, whereas learning in declarative memory
is poor early on, but then improves during childhood, grammar should tend to rely more heavily on
procedural memory for early-learned languages (L1 or L2), and more on declarative memory for
languages acquired comparatively later in life (at least to early adulthood, after which declarative
memory in particular declines).
Overall, grammar in adult L2 should therefore tend to depend more on declarative than proced-
ural memory as compared to adult L1, for the reasons laid out just above: the L2 will be at an earlier
stage of learning (because it was learned later, and thus will have had less exposure); L2s are more
likely than L1s to be taught explicitly; and L2 learners have later ages of acquisition. Nevertheless,
we emphasize that L2 grammar can also be expected to depend on procedural memory, in particular
(but not only) with more exposure and in immersion contexts.
Empirical Evidence
Now we turn to empirical evidence relevant to the predictions of the DP model. We focus on electro-
physiological (event-related potential), functional neuroimaging, and neurological (lesion) studies,
concentrating on reviews and meta-analyses when available.
169
Event-Related Potentials
Event-related potentials (ERPs) are scalp-recorded electrophysiological measures of brain activity.
ERP research on language, in particular on lexical and grammatical processing, has identified three
main ERP components: N400s, P600s, and (left) anterior negativities, or ANs (see Dickson & Pelzl,
this volume, and Tokowicz & Tkacikova, this volume). Evidence (mainly from L1) has linked all
three components to declarative or procedural memory, though with different degrees of certainty.
N400s have been tied to the “what” declarative memory circuit and its functions (Ullman, 2001;
Ullman & Reichle, 2023). Indeed, the component has been most clearly localized to temporal lobe
structures, in particular the MTL, especially (peri)rhinal cortex, as well as middle temporal cortex
(Lau et al., 2008; Ullman, 2001; Ullman & Reichle, 2023). The neurocognitive bases of P600s
are somewhat less clear. P600s have been linked to conscious (explicit) aspects of processing and
declarative memory, including its temporal-lobe neural substrates (Morgan-Short, Finestrat, et al.,
2022; Ullman, 2001). The apparent involvement of the basal ganglia in P600s (Kotz et al., 2003) may
be explained by this structure’s role in attention and working memory (Janacsek et al., 2022). The
neurocognitive bases of ANs are least clear, and indeed this component is observed less reliably than
the other two. Nevertheless, it has been tentatively suggested that ANs, which have been linked to the
left frontal cortex, may at least partially reflect the processing of automatized procedures learned in
procedural memory (Morgan-Short et al., 2012; Ullman, 2001, 2005, 2020).
Recent reviews of ERP L2 research suggest that L2 lexical stimuli commonly elicit N400s, even
from very early stages of L2 word learning (Jankowiak, 2021; Tokowicz & Tkacikova, this volume;
Vandenberge et al., 2019; we are not aware of any meta-analyses on this topic). This pattern is con-
sistent with the DP model’s claim that words are learned and stored in declarative memory. Indeed,
the finding that N400s are found at very early stages of word learning is expected, given that learning
in declarative memory can be very rapid.
The substantial body of ERP research on L2 grammar has been the focus of several reviews (e.g.,
Steinhauer et al., 2009) and one meta-analysis (Caffarra et al., 2015). Steinhauer et al. (2009) suggests
that for L2 grammar (a) N400s can be found at early L2 stages and low proficiency; (b) P600s
may also be observed at low proficiency, but are more robust at later stages, with intermediate and
high proficiency; and (c) ANs are only evidenced much later, at very high or native-like proficiency.
Caffarra et al. (2015) reported similar patterns, for example, that P600s are more reliably elicited at
high proficiency, while ANs emerge when participants experience long periods of immersion.
These L2 grammatical ERP patterns are consistent with the DP model. The N400s at early stages
of learning are expected, given the rapid learning of declarative memory, and its ability to support
grammar (e.g., via chunking or explicit rules). The P600s that emerge at somewhat later stages, and
continue to high proficiency, are also consistent with the model, given that the P600 may reflect
(explicit) processing in declarative memory. In particular, we suggest that P600s may emerge over
time as learners gain sufficient knowledge of the grammar to be able to consciously process the input.
Finally, the appearance of ANs (the only component tentatively linked to procedural memory) at high
proficiency, in particular after immersion, is consistent with the model’s prediction that grammar will
be gradually proceduralized with experience, particular in immersion contexts.
Functional Neuroimaging
Functional neuroimaging, an approach that generally employs functional magnetic resonance
imaging (fMRI) or positron emission tomography (PET), provides high spatial resolution of the brain
structures engaged in a given task or activity (for more details, see Kousaie & Klein, this volume).
Here we report findings from two recent meta-analyses of neuroimaging studies. Tagarelli et al.
(2019) examined early-stage lexical and grammatical learning in adults in controlled experimental
170
paradigms; for simplicity, we refer to their findings as L2 lexical and grammatical learning. Sulpizio
et al. (2020) examined L2/L1 contrasts for lexical and grammatical processing in adult bilinguals. In
reviewing findings from these meta-analyses, we focus on L2 lexical and grammatical activation in
the core structures of the two memory circuits, namely medial/neocortical temporal lobe regions for
declarative memory and the basal ganglia for procedural memory.
We discuss lexical findings first. Tagarelli et al. (2019) found that lexical but not grammatical
learning yielded (primarily left hemisphere) ventral stream structures. This finding is consistent
with the DP model’s predictions that lexical learning and memory depend on the “what” declarative
memory circuit. Sulpizio et al. (2020) did not report greater activation in this region (or any other
temporal lobe region) for the L2 lexicon as compared to the L1 lexicon. This may be attributed to
the fact that the region is expected to be involved in both L2 and L1, and activation in the latter was
subtracted from the former. Interestingly, hippocampal and other MTL activation was not observed
for the L2 lexicon in either meta-analysis. The reasons for this are unclear, but it could be partly due
to the general difficulty of obtaining hippocampal/MTL activation in neuroimaging studies (Tagarelli
et al., 2019), as well as systems consolidation resulting in ventral stream neocortical activation pre-
dominating even in the relatively early-stage lexical learning studies included in Tagarelli et al.
(2019). Nevertheless, a fair number of imaging studies have by now reported hippocampal/MTL
activation in L2 word learning studies, including some not included in one or both meta-analyses
(Bartolotti et al., 2017; Berens et al., 2018; Tagarelli et al., 2019; see also Eckerdt et al., this volume).
L2 grammatical but not L2 lexical abilities yielded left anterior neostriatal activation in both
meta-analyses. This is consistent with early stages of procedural learning depending on the anterior
neostriatum. The finding of greater activation for L2 than L1 grammar in the left anterior neostriatum
(Suplizio et al., 2020) is consistent with this structure underlying early stages of procedural learning,
given that grammar is presumably still being learned in the L2, but not the L1. Importantly, Tagarelli
et al. (2019) reported that grammar learning predicted by the DP model to rely particularly on pro-
cedural memory (e.g., with implicit training) showed left anterior neostriatal but not hippocampal
activation, whereas grammar learning predicted to rely especially on declarative memory (e.g., with
explicit training) showed hippocampal but not neostriatal activation. Interestingly, Sulpizio et al.
(2020) reported that L1 yielded more activation than L2 in the right neostriatum for both lexicon and
grammar; however, this neostriatal activation occurred more posteriorly than the anterior neostriatal
activation obtained for L2 grammar in both meta-analyses. Though the reasons for this finding remain
to be elucidated, it seems consistent with evidence that posterior portions of the neostriatum underlie
later stages of procedural learning, including the processing of automatized procedures (e.g., rules for
grammar, articulation for lexicon).
Lesion Method
The lesion method is premised on the notion that lesions (damage) to particular brain structures
that are followed by impairments to particular cognitive functions may be taken to imply that the
lost functions had previously depended on the damaged structures (for discussion of this method,
including in relation to the DP model, see Ullman, 2020). The lesion literature that is directly rele-
vant to the predictions of the DP model for L2 appears to be substantially smaller than the relevant
literature for ERPs and functional neuroimaging, and indeed we are not aware of any relevant meta-
analyses or reviews. Here we focus on the most pertinent papers.
Given the DP model’s prediction that lexical knowledge is learned and stored in the “what” declara-
tive memory circuit, we focus on lesions to the core structures in this circuit, namely medial and neo-
cortical temporal lobe regions. Lexical knowledge is posited to be learned in declarative memory
in both L1 and L2. However, because L2 words are generally expected to be learned later than L1
171
words, they should have undergone less systems consolidation. Thus, lesions to the MTL may be
expected to impact L2 words more than L1 words. Unfortunately, we are not aware of any studies that
have directly examined this prediction, leaving an important gap for future research. Nevertheless,
some studies have examined L1 and L2 lexical abilities in patients with broad or unspecified temporal
lobe lesions. The studies we are aware of have found that such patients have more trouble finding
words (Hyltenstam & Stroud, 1989; Ku et al., 1996) or comprehending words (Brice et al., 2014)
in the L2 than the L1. For example, a patient with herpes simplex encephalitis with damage appar-
ently restricted to the left temporal lobe showed much greater impairments at picture naming in their
L2 than their L1 (Ku et al., 1996). Similarly, a patient with Alzheimer’s disease with medial and as
well as broader temporal lobe shrinkage showed greater word comprehension deficits in L2 than L1
(Brice et al., 2014). Importantly though, greater L2 than L1 impairments must be treated with caution,
simply because the L2 is often less well-learned and thus likely involves weaker representations than
the L1. In other words, the L2 may have been weaker even prior to damage, in addition to potentially
being more susceptible to damage for this reason.
There appear to be more lesion studies relevant to the DP model’s predictions about grammat-
ical than lexical abilities in L2. First of all, some evidence suggests that temporal lobe damage can
affect sentence level processing involving syntax more in the L2 than the L1 (Brice et al., 2014;
Hyltenstam & Stroud, 1989; Ku et al., 1996). This is consistent with the DP model’s prediction
that L2 grammar relies more on declarative memory than L1 grammar, which should have been
largely proceduralized. However, as mentioned just above, because the L2 likely involves weaker
representations as compared to the L1, such a finding must be treated with caution, and does not con-
stitute strong evidence that declarative memory plays a more important role in L2 than L1 grammar.
Lesions to the core structures underlying procedural memory, in particular the basal ganglia,
lead to a different pattern (Ullman, 2001, 2005, 2020). Accumulating evidence suggests that greater
impairments of grammar are found in L1 than L2, across syntax, morphology, and phonology, in
expressive as well as receptive language. This pattern has been observed both in patients with focal
lesions to the left basal ganglia (Fabbro & Paradis, 1995) and in patients with Parkinson’s disease
(Johari et al., 2013; Zanini et al., 2004; Zanini et al., 2010), which is also closely linked to basal
ganglia dysfunction. Left basal ganglia damage has also been found to lead to more grammatical
errors in non-native language with greater experience (and proficiency) than in non-native language
with less experience (and proficiency) (Fabbro & Paradis, 1995; Ullman, 2001). A similar pattern of
greater impairments in L1 than L2 has been observed in agrammatic aphasics with likely left frontal
damage (Fabbro, 1999; Ullman, 2001). Overall, these findings are particularly striking because the
basal ganglia or frontal damage leads to more severe problems in the L1 and higher experience lan-
guage, which presumably have stronger rather than weaker representations. Importantly, basal gan-
glia damage does not appear to lead to worse lexical performance in Ll than L2 or in high than low
experience L2, even in the same patients who show worse grammatical performance in Ll than L2 or
in the stronger L2 (Fabbro & Paradis, 1995; Ullman, 2001). Thus, basal ganglia and perhaps frontal
damage appears to be at least somewhat selective, resulting in greater impairments of grammar (but
not lexicon) in Ll than L2, and in higher than lower experience L2. This pattern is highly consistent
with the claims of the DP model, since grammatical (but not lexical) knowledge is expected to be
gradually learned in procedural memory, and thus should depend more on the procedural circuit in L1
than L2 and in higher than lower experience L2.
Summary of Empirical Evidence

Overall, the extant evidence from ERP, neuroimaging, and lesion studies is largely consistent with the
predictions of the DP model. The evidence suggests the following. L2 words are learned and stored
172
in the “what” declarative memory circuit (as evidenced by N400s, temporal lobe activation, and
impairments from temporal lobe lesions). L2 grammar instead depends importantly on procedural
memory (ANs and left anterior neostriatal activation for L2 grammar but not L2 lexicon). However,
L2 grammar can also rely on declarative memory. The extent to which it relies on declarative or
procedural memory depends on various factors. L2 grammar appears to initially rely on declarative
memory (N400s found at early L2 stages), but then is gradually proceduralized (ANs found at late
stages; frontal/basal ganglia lesions impact grammar more in L1 than L2 and in higher than lower
experience L2). Additionally, the nature of the training matters. L2 grammar learned under conditions
that should increase dependence on declarative memory (e.g., explicit training) shows reliance on the
hippocampus but not the basal ganglia, whereas the opposite pattern is found for grammar learning
that should rely particularly on procedural memory (e.g., implicit training) (neuroimaging evidence).
The factors influencing the relative dependence of L2 grammar on declarative or procedural memory
can also interact (ANs observed at late stages, specially in immersion contexts). Importantly, although
here we focus on neurocognitive evidence, behavioral evidence also supports these patterns (Morgan-
Short, Hamrick, & Ullman, 2022; Morgan-Short & Ullman, 2022).
Future Directions
In our review of empirical evidence, we focused on certain widely used neurocognitive methodo-
logical approaches. However, many other approaches can be used to test the predictions of the DP
model. Here we briefly discuss some of these.
Structural neuroimaging can be employed to examine associations between metrics of grey matter
(e.g., grey matter volume, cortical thickness) or white matter (e.g., fractional anisotropy, mean dif-
fusivity) of the two circuits and behavioral measures of language (e.g., accuracy or response time
measures of performance at lexical or grammatical tasks). For example, a correlation between
hippocampal volume and word learning ability implicates the former in the latter (Greve et al., 2014).
Additionally, one can examine structural metrics following L2 learning, or in bilinguals as compared
to monolinguals (Korenar & Pliatsikas, this volume). For example, some evidence suggests that
during development bilinguals show higher white matter integrity (a greater developmental increase)
than monolinguals in striatal-inferior frontal fibers (Pliatsikas et al., 2020), consistent with striatal
changes consequential to increased procedural learning of two rather than one language.
Other techniques can also elucidate the relation between language and the two memory
circuits, including intracranial recording and stimulation, transcranial magnetic stimulation,
magnetoencephalography, and transcranial electrical stimulation methods such as transcranial direct
current stimulation (for more on stimulation techniques, see Pandža, this volume). Importantly, such
techniques can be used to localize function even in deep brain structures such as the MTL and the
basal ganglia (Janacsek et al., 2022).
Although we have focused here on approaches that can reveal the electrophysiological and neuro-
anatomical bases of language, and how they are related to the declarative and procedural memory
circuits, other predictions of the DP model can also be tested. For example, one can also test endo-
crine (e.g., estrogen-related), neurochemical (e.g., dopamine-related), and genetic predictions (Johari
et al., 2019; Ullman, 2004, 2016, 2020; Ullman et al., 2020); for more on genetic evidence regarding
L2, see Vaughn et al. (this volume).
These approaches can also be fruitfully combined. For example, fMRI concurrent with ERPs can
synergistically combine benefits of both techniques. We also emphasize that while in this chapter we
have focused on neurobiological approaches, behavioral methods can also be useful for testing the
predictions of the DP model (Morgan-Short & Ullman, 2022). For example, examining correlations
between language abilities on the one hand, and learning abilities in the two circuits on the other, can
173
reveal which aspects of the former rely on which circuit (Morgan-Short, Hamrick, & Ullman, 2022).
Finally, neurobiological techniques can also be usefully combined with behavioral methods (e.g.,
examining whether fMRI language activation in the memory circuits correlates with learning abil-
ities in the circuits; Morgan-Short et al., 2015). Overall, each neurobiological and behavioral method,
examined independently or in combination, has the potential to test the predictions of the DP model,
and to augment our understanding of the neurocognition of L2.
Further Readings
This chapter is a recent review of the declarative and procedural memory systems and their roles in L1 and L2:
Ullman, M.T. (2020). The Declarative/Procedural model: A neurobiologically-motivated theory of first and
second language. In B. VanPatten, G.D. Keating, & S. Wulff (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition
(3rd ed., pp. 128–161). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429503986-7
This study presents results from a series of functional neuroanatomical meta-analyses of lexical and grammatical
learning in adults:
org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.02.061
This chapter lays out the declarative/procedural model of L2 and L1 in a historical context, and, complementing
the present chapter, focuses on psycholinguistic predictions, methods, and evidence:
Morgan- Short, K., & Ullman, M. T. (2022). Declarative and procedural memory in second language
learning: Psycholinguistic considerations. In A. Godfroid & H. Hopp (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of
second language acquisition and psycholinguistics (pp. 322– 334). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/
9781003018872-30
References
Bartolotti, J., Bradley, K., Hernandez, A.E., & Marian, V. (2017). Neural signatures of second language learning
and control. Neuropsychologia, 98, 130–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2016.04.007
Berens, S.C., Horst, J.S., & Bird, C.M. (2018). Cross-situational learning is supported by propose-but-verify
hypothesis testing. Current Biology, 28(7), 1132–1136.e5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2018.02.042
Brice, A.E., Wallace, S.E., & Brice, R.G. (2014). Alzheimer’s dementia from a bilingual/bicultural perspective: A
case study. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 36(1), 55–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525740114524435
Diana, R.A., Yonelinas, A.P., & Ranganath, C. (2007). Imaging recollection and familiarity in the medial tem-
poral lobe: A three-component model. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(9), 379–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.tics.2007.08.001
Eckerdt, C., Takashima, A., & McQueen, J.M. (this volume). Memory consolidation in second language
Fabbro, F. (1999). The Neurolinguistics of Bilingualism. Psychology Press.
Fabbro, F., & Paradis, M. (1995). Differential impairments in four multilingual patients with subcortical lesions.
In M. Paradis (Ed.), Aspects of bilingual aphasia: Vol. III (pp. 139–176). Pergamon Press.
Fernández, G., & Tendolkar, I. (2006). The rhinal cortex: “Gatekeeper” of the declarative memory system. Trends
in Cognitive Sciences, 10(8), 358–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.06.003
Frank, M. J. (2005). Dynamic dopamine modulation in the basal ganglia: A neurocomputational account of
cognitive deficits in medicated and nonmedicated parkinsonism. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17(1),
51–72. https://doi.org/10.1162/0898929052880093
174
Greve, A., Cooper, E., & Henson, R.N. (2014). No evidence that “fast-mapping” benefits novel learning in
healthy Older adults. Neuropsychologia, 60, 52–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.05.011
Hyltenstam, K., & Stroud, C. (1989). Bilingualism in Alzheimer’s dementia: Two case studies. In K. Hyltenstam
& L.K. Obler (Eds.), Bilingualism across the lifespan: Aspects of acquisition, maturity and loss (pp. 202–
226). Cambridge University Press.
Janacsek, K., Evans, T.M., Kiss, M., Shah, L., Blumenfeld, H., & Ullman, M.T. (2022). Subcortical cogni-
tion: The fruit below the rind. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 45(1), 361–386. https://doi.org/10.1146/annu
rev-neuro-110920-013544
Jankowiak, K. (2021). Current trends in electrophysiological research on bilingual language processing.
Language and Linguistics Compass, 15(8), Article e12436. https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12436
Johari, K., Ashrafi, F., Zali, A., Ashayeri, H., Fabbro, F., & Zanini, S. (2013). Grammatical deficits in bilin-
gual Azari–Farsi patients with Parkinson’s disease. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 26(1), 22–30. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jneuroling.2012.02.004
Johari, K., Walenski, M., Reifegerste, J., Ashrafi, F., & Ullman, M.T. (2019). Sex, dopamine, and hypokinesia: A
study of inflectional morphology in Parkinson’s disease. Neuropsychology, 33, 508–522. https://doi.org/
10.1037/neu0000533
Kotz, S.A., Frisch, S., Von Cramon, D.Y., & Friederici, A.D. (2003). Syntactic language processing: ERP lesion
data on the role of the basal ganglia. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 9(7), 1053–
1060. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355617703970093
Ku, A., Lachmann, E.A., & Nagler, W. (1996). Selective language aphasia from herpes simplex encephalitis.
Pediatric Neurology, 15(2), 169–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/0887-8994(96)00154-3
Lau, E.F., Phillips, C., & Poeppel, D. (2008). A cortical network for semantics: (De)constructing the N400.
Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 9(12), 920–933. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2532
Miyashita, Y. (2019). Perirhinal circuits for memory processing. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 20(10), Article
10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41583-019-0213-6
Morgan-Short, K., Deng, Z., Brill-Schuetz, K.A., Faretta-Stutenberg, M., Wong, P.C.M., & Wong, F. (2015).
A view of the neural representation of second language syntax through artificial language learning under
implicit contexts of exposure. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37(2), 383–419. https://doi.org/
10.1017/S0272263115000030
Morgan-Short, K., Finestrat, I., Luque, A., & Abugaber, D. (2022). Exploring new insights into explicit and
Morgan-Short, K., Hamrick, P., & Ullman, M.T. (2022). Declarative and procedural memory as predictors of
second language development. In S. Li, P. Hiver, & M. Papi (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second lan-
guage acquisition and individual differences. Routledge.
Morgan- Short, K., & Ullman, M. T. (2022). Declarative and procedural memory in second language
learning: Psycholinguistic considerations. In A. Godfroid & H. Hopp (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of
second language acquisition and psycholinguistics (pp. 322– 334). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/
9781003018872-30
Packard, M.G. (2008). Neurobiology of procedural learning in animals. In J.H. Byrne (Ed.), Concise learning
and memory: The editor’s selection (pp. 341–356). Elsevier.
Pandža, N.B. (this volume). Using non-invasive brain stimulation to investigate second language. In K. Morgan-
Routledge.
Pliatsikas, C., Meteyard, L., Veríssimo, J., DeLuca, V., Shattuck, K., & Ullman, M.T. (2020). The effect of
bilingualism on brain development from early childhood to young adulthood. Brain Structure and Function,
225(7), 2131–2152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00429-020-02115-5
175
Rauschecker, J.P., & Scott, S.K. (2009). Maps and streams in the auditory cortex: Nonhuman primates illuminate
human speech processing. Nature Neuroscience, 12(6), Article 6. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.2331
Squire, L.R., & Dede, A.J.O. (2015). Conscious and unconscious memory systems. Cold Spring Harbor
Perspectives in Biology, 7(3), Article a021667. https://doi.org/10.1101/cshperspect.a021667
10.1177/0267658308098995
Sulpizio, S., Maschio, N.D., Fedeli, D., & Abutalebi, J. (2020). Bilingual language processing: A meta-analysis
of functional neuroimaging studies. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 108, 834–853. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.12.014
Suzuki, W.A., & Naya, Y. (2014). The perirhinal cortex. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 37(1), 39–53. https://
doi.org/10.1146/annurev-neuro-071013-014207
org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.02.061
Tokowicz, N., & Tkacikova, V. (this volume). The neurolinguistics of the second language lexico-semantic
system. In K. Morgan-Short & J.G. van Hell (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition
Ullman, M.T. (2001). The neural basis of lexicon and grammar in first and second language: The declarative/
procedural model. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4(2), 105–122. https://doi.org/10.1017/S13667
28901000220
Cognition, 92, 231–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2003.10.008
Ullman, M. T. (2005). A cognitive neuroscience perspective on second language acquisition: The declarative/
procedural model. In C. Sanz (Ed.), Mind and context in adult second language acquisition (pp. 141–178).
Georgetown University Press.
Ullman, M.T. (2016). The declarative/procedural model: A neurobiological model of language learning, know-
ledge, and use. In G. Hickok & S.L. Small (Eds.), Neurobiology of language (pp. 953–968). Elsevier Inc.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-407794-2.00076-6
Ullman, M.T. (2020). The declarative/procedural model. In B. VanPatten, G.D. Keating, & S. Wulff (Eds.),
Theories in second language acquisition (3rd ed., pp. 128–161). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/978042
9503986-7
Ullman, M.T., Earle, F. S., Walenski, M., & Janacsek, K. (2020). The neurocognition of developmental disorders
of language. Annual Review of Psychology, 71(1), 389–417. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-
011555
Ullman, M.T., & Reichle, R.V. (2023, March 25). The N400 reflects learning and processing in the declarative
memory “what” circuit: A unifying neurocognitive account [Poster presentation]. Annual Meeting of the
Cognitive Neuroscience Society, San Francisco, CA, United States.
Vandenberghe, B., Perez, M.M., Reynvoet, B., & Desmet, P. (2019). The role of Event-Related Potentials (ERPs)
as sensitive measures in L2 vocabulary acquisition research. Journal of EuroSLA, 3(1), 35–45. https://doi.
org/10.22599/jesla.60
Vaughn, K.A., Oak, A., & Hernandez, A.E. (this volume). Genetic factors in second language neurocognition.
In K. Morgan-Short & J. G. van Hell (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and
Zanini, S., Tavano, A., & Fabbro, F. (2010). Spontaneous language production in bilingual Parkinson’s disease
patients: Evidence of greater phonological, morphological and syntactic impairments in native language.
Brain and Language, 113(2), 84–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2010.01.005
Zanini, S., Tavano, A., Vorano, L., Schiavo, F., Gigli, G.L., Aglioti, S.M., & Fabbro, F. (2004). Greater syntactic
impairments in native language in bilingual Parkinsonian patients. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery &
Psychiatry, 75(12), 1678–1681. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.2003.018507
176
13
NEUROLINGUISTIC METHODS
AND GENERATIVE APPROACHES
TO SECOND LANGUAGE
ACQUISITION
Introduction
From its onset in the early 1980s, Generative Second Language Acquisition (GenSLA) applied the
tenets of generative linguistic theory to the domain of non-native language acquisition. One early
goal of GenSLA research was to determine if the logical problem of language acquisition (e.g.,
Chomsky, 1965) also applied to additional language learning in young adulthood (e.g., Bley-Vroman,
1989; Clahsen & Muysken, 1986; Flynn, 1987; Schachter, 1990; Schwartz, 1987; White, 1989): Do
constraints from Universal Grammar (UG) reduce the adult second language (L2) hypothesis space,
as argued for child language acquisition?
With the above in mind, much GenSLA research focused on testing the logical/latent extensions
of a strong (and weaker) version(s) of the Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH; Lenneberg, 1967) to
L2 acquisition in adulthood (e.g., Johnson & Newport, 1989, van der silk et al., 2021). Originally,
the CPH postulated that if an L1 was not acquired by around puberty, mastery of the L1 would be
hampered (Lenneberg, 1967; Penfield & Roberts, 1959). Alongside other cognitive approaches to
language acquisition, GenSLA examined whether a similar restriction applied to adult L2 acquisition
or, conversely, whether hypothesized domain-specific mechanisms for language acquisition remain
accessible to typical L2 learners after having been activated in child L1 acquisition. In other words,
was there a critical period for UG? To test this, research investigated the potential for acquiring L2
representations that: (a) could not be transferred from the L1; (b) were not explicitly taught to L2
learners; and (c) were neither acquirable on the basis of available input alone nor from solely domain-
general cognitive principles.
Over time, GenSLA has refined its questions and expanded its scope to examine variables that go
beyond the initial questions of access to UG and L1 transfer effects. This includes better modeling of
external factors such as quality and quantity of input, degree and context of exposure, and patterns
of use, as well as internal ones such as individual cognitive differences. A good example of more
contemporary approaches is that of Sorace’s (2011) Interface Hypothesis. The Interface Hypothesis
brings GenSLA more aligned with processing considerations proper, claiming that a major bottleneck
for L2 acquisition concerns processing difficulties related to information integration across linguistic
domains, such as when choice of syntactic forms is dependent on discourse context.
DOI: 10.4324/9781003190912-17 177

Processing-focused studies with a neuroimaging component and a specific GenSLA angle are
not very common, though this observation does not entail that the fingerprint of generative theory
is un(der)represented in mainstream L2 psycholinguistic theorizing and empiricism. Other theories
grounded originally in a generative conceptualization of linguistic architecture, i.e. beyond the
Interface Hypothesis, have had significant impact in the wider L2 literatures, such as the Shallow
Structure Hypothesis (SSH, Clahsen & Felser, 2006, 2018). This is the case as they offer universal
relevance via testable insights that can be applied with or without assuming a generative approach to
grammar. This is welcome since, as a result of these and similar theories, there has been increased com-
patibility between GenSLA and other SLA traditions in recent years (Rothman & Slabakova, 2018).
After the advent of processing-facing theories in the early 2000s in GenSLA, research made exten-
sive use of online methods, such as eye-tracking in masked priming studies examining morpho-
logically complex words (Clahsen et al., 2013), wh-dependencies (Cunnings et al., 2010), reflexive
pronouns (Felser & Cunnings, 2012; Kim et al., 2015), gender assignment (Hopp, 2013, 2015), and
case (Hopp & León Arriaga, 2016). More recently, an increasing amount of event-related potential
(ERP) research has examined gender and number (e.g., Alemán Bañón et al., 2014; Alemán Bañón,
et al., 2017; Gabriele et al., 2013; see also Biondo et al., this volume), focus structure (Reichle &
Birdsong, 2014), third language (L3) transfer (González Alonso et al., 2021; Rothman et al., 2015;
see also Sabourin & Manning, this volume), verbal domain dependencies (Sabourin & Stowe, 2008),
and filler-gap dependencies (Dekydtspotter et al., 2019, 2021, 2023; Swanson, 2021; Swanson &
Dekydtspotter, 2022; see also Alemán Bañón et al., this volume). Together, this work reflects a shift
in the focus of GenSLA; it has expanded its purview beyond the grammar itself by acknowledging
the role of parsing and input in the overall development of linguistic competence (e.g., Carroll, 2001;
Dekydtspotter, 2001), focusing on language-external variables for individual difference outcomes
(e.g., Rothman & Slabakova, 2018) and considering how formal linguistic knowledge is deployed in
processing (see Clahsen & Felser, 2006, 2018; Cunnings, 2017).
Our goal herein is not to synthesize what is available on the topic of GenSLA per se; for more
depth we refer the reader to recent state- of-
the-science work (Rothman & Slabakova, 2018;
Slabakova et al., 2020). Rather, our focus relates to how GenSLA has adapted methodologically, par-
ticularly into neurolinguistic methods (see Roberts et al., 2018). From a GenSLA perspective, how
can one capitalize on neuroimaging methods to address important questions such as: (1) Can adults
acquire/process properties of an L2 that have no equivalent representation in the L1?, and at the
same time (2) how can neurolinguistic methods aid in testing the ecological validity of specific claims
made within generative theory? For example, are there neurological indications of constructs such
as morphological markedness; processing evidence for the hierarchical structure argued for within
generative grammar, for instance, structural as opposed to linear distance; and support for abstract
constructs such as traces/copies in an L2?
With these two questions in italics in mind, we use the processing of grammatical gender and
non-local (filler-gap) dependencies as exemplars in the remainder of this chapter. In doing so, we
show how the use of neuroimaging methodologies has provided new evidence for older questions in
contemporary GenSLA research. At the same time, we highlight how this work addresses recent calls
to better understand what online processing data mean for formal and applied linguistic theories (e.g.,
Roberts et al., 2018; Ullman & Lovelett, 2018).
Domains of Grammar in Focus
Grammatical Gender and Number

Gender is a grammatical category that sorts nouns into different classes. For example, in Spanish all
nouns are divided into two gender classes—masculine and feminine:
178
Neurolinguistic Methods and Generative Approaches
(1) El libro nuevo de Amazon por fin ha llegado.

‘The new book from Amazon (has) finally arrived.’
(2) La puerta nueva de la casa por fin ha llegado.
‘The new door for the house (has) finally arrived.’
Spanish presents a relatively transparent gender system such that canonical gender markings largely
distinguish between masculine and feminine nouns (-o indicates masculine and -a indicates fem-
inine), though neither gender value is necessarily identified by a unique marker (Harris, 1991).
Gender assignment is considered an inherent lexical feature of nouns (e.g., Carroll, 1989; Corbett,
1994; but see Alexiadou, 2004) acquired as part of the lexical inventory of a given word. Gender
agreement, however, is a morphosyntactic consequence reflecting the underlying syntax of grammat-
ical gender that is seen overtly in other elements related to the noun, such as determiners and adjectives
in (1–2), which agree overtly with assigned gender (Corbett, 1991; Hockett, 1958). Traditionally, the
acquisition of gender has been studied using behavioral methods, though advances in experimental
methodologies facilitate the study of implicit aspects of language processing, including syntactic
agreement processing in real-time.
Non-Local Dependencies
Several types of non-local dependencies, or constructions where a constituent appears in a different
position than it typically would in a basic sentence, have been taken advantage of in the study of L2
processing. To illustrate a basic case first, direct objects generally follow transitive verbs, as in (3),
but in wh-dependencies in English, they typically occur in sentence-initial position, as in (4).
(3) Ben saw hawks with binoculars yesterday.

(4) What did Ben see with binoculars yesterday?
Chomsky (1973) introduced the idea that the syntactic representations for wh-questions in English
actually include empty slots in canonical direct object position—instantiated under the Government
and Binding approach as traces (Chomsky, 1981), under Minimalism as silent copies of the wh-phrase
itself (Chomsky, 1995), and under general psycholinguistic approaches as gaps.
In terms of sentence processing, Fodor (1978) proposed that computing gaps might increase the
activation level of the wh-phrase in working memory, as if the wh-phrase served as a filler for the gap.
A critical mass of evidence indeed supports the claim that speakers attempt to interpret what as the
direct object of see as soon as they encounter this verb in questions like (4) (Frazier & Clifton, 1989;
Stowe, 1986); however, one challenge is that the verb and the copy are coextensive. As Pickering and
Barry (1991) argued, the lexical semantics of see allow for a direct object, so the verb’s thematic grid
alone could also increase activation of the wh-phrase in working memory here.
One construction that avoids the confound between lexical semantic and syntactic processing is
wh-dependencies with indirect objects, as in (5–7):
(5) Ben saw hawks with binoculars yesterday.

(6) With what did Ben see hawks yesterday?
(7) With what did Ben see hawks with what yesterday?
If there is no syntactic gap, then the activation of with what in working memory should increase only
at see. In contrast, if a copy exists between hawks and yesterday, then with what should increase in
179
activation at this position too. Another construction that avoids the same confound is wh-dependencies
across multiple clauses, as in (8). Crucially, these questions are argued to involve two copies, as
(9) shows.
(8) What did Ben say that Amy saw yesterday?

(9) What did Ben say what that Amy saw what yesterday
A new type of copy appears at the bridge between clauses, between say and that. A final construc-
tion also involves wh-dependencies across multiple clauses, but, importantly, the wh-phrases contain
reflexives (like herself) or pronouns (like them). Zooming in on wh-phrases with reflexives, a key pre-
liminary observation is that reflexives only allow local antecedents (Chomsky, 1986), as (10) shows.
(10) Mikei said that Joshj tore a picture of himself*i/j.
Here, himself must be Josh (Chomsky, 1995; but see Keller & Asudeh, 2001). In contrast, in (11),
himself allows either Mike or Josh as its antecedent.
(11) Which picture of himselfi/j did Mikei say that Joshj tore?
There is substantial debate on the mechanics that enable this change in referential possibilities
(Sportiche, 2006), but Barss (1986) made the case that it generally results from the fact that such
structures involve intermediate copies. In particular, as (12) shows, Josh is local to the lowest copy of
himself and Mike is local to the intermediate copy.
(12) Which picture of himself did Mike say which picture of himself that Josh tore
which picture of himself
Gender and Number in L2 Spanish: From Stalemate to Event-Related Potentials

The Interpretability Hypothesis (IH; Tsimpli & Dimitrakopoulou, 2007), a prominent GenSLA model,
posits that access to the full inventory of syntactic features provided by UG in childhood diminishes
with age as the speaker approaches a critical period, after which the acquisition of new syntactic L2
features, like grammatical gender, is impossible if the L1 does not instantiate it. According to the IH,
while advanced L2 learners can use markers of gender agreement for comprehension and production,
they do so by means of learning, using an alternative mechanism not reliant on syntactic agreement
and thus leading to enduring optionality. Such an approach captures what behavioral studies on the
acquisition of gender in Spanish by native English speakers have shown over decades: While produc-
tion of obligatory gender agreement improves with L2 proficiency, even advanced L2 learners display
significant variability (e.g., Franceschina, 2002, 2005; McCarthy, 2008)
Contrary to the predictions of the IH, other studies have shown that the performance of advanced
L2 learners on properties licensed by grammatical gender can be indistinguishable from that of native
speakers, at least in comprehension tasks. For example, White et al. (2004) and Iverson (2009) show
that advanced L2 Spanish learners reliably use gender as a cue for disambiguation and comprehen-
sion, to the same degree as natives. Both studies argue that gender production underestimates the
representations L1 English-L2 Spanish learners have at advanced proficiency. One promising alter-
native to the IH is Hopp’s (2013) claim that variability in gender for advanced L2 learners pertains
more to gender assignment: It is not that L2 learners cannot acquire gender features, realize syntactic
agreement with articles and adjectives, or process genderlike natives, but that they do not always
180
associate the right gender value with each noun at the lexical level. In this sense, child and adult
acquisition would essentially be the same, with potentially distinct surface manifestations arising
from variables beyond accessibility to the same cognitive and linguistic mechanisms.
To test whether adult L2 ultimate attainment in morphosyntax is delimited by an absolute crit-
ical period for acquiring novel L2 structures, a complementary approach would be to examine pro-
cessing. Showing that processing mechanisms of adult L2 learners and native monolinguals are
qualitatively similar (or not) would help reduce alternative interpretations of the same available
data. According to the tenets of the Shallow Structure Hypothesis (SSH; Clahsen & Felser, 2006)
processing is destined to be shallow in comparison to the L1—e.g., driven by semantics—since
it is argued that it is not guided by complete syntactic representations, at least not novel L2 ones,
which are assumed to not be acquirable. Thus, evidence of qualitatively similar processing in both
L1 and L2 speakers would provide evidence that new L2 structures can be acquired and mentally
represented like in L1 grammars.
With the adoption of neuroimaging technology to examine linguistic processing, it has been noted
that qualitatively distinct brain signatures such as event-related potentials (ERPs; for details on the
method, see Dickson & Pelzl, this volume) correlate with different types of processing underlying
distinct linguistic phenomena. Thus, qualitative differences between L2 and native control groups’
ERP responses to the same stimuli might reflect differences at a level of linguistic representation that
led to the use of distinct processing mechanisms (see, e.g., Alemán Bañón et al., 2014; Alemán Bañón
et al., 2017; Clahsen and Felser, 2006; Phillips & Ehrenhofer, 2015). Although language-related ERP
components do not uniquely reflect linguistic representations (Sassenhagen et al., 2014; Tanner et al.,
2017), they are reliably found in monolingual and advanced bilingual populations. Moreover, and
relevant to whether the driver of variability in adult L2 ability is age-related brain maturation, findings
show qualitative shifts in ERP signatures with increased L2 proficiency. This increasingly native-like
processing over time indicates not only that processing is related to the acquisition of grammar but
that the mechanisms underlying adult L2 acquisition are flexible.
Gabriele et al. (2013), for example, used ERPs to investigate gender and number processing
among L1 English-L2 Spanish learners at three distinct levels of proficiency. Interestingly, at low
levels of proficiency, learners revealed only budding P600 effects (the expected signature for syn-
tactic violations) for number violations; intermediate learners showed an overall advantage for
number over gender, though their ERPs did not differ qualitatively from those of the native speakers;
and advanced learners showed no advantage for number or gender, processing both like the native
speakers. While more robust P600 effects emerged alongside increased L2 proficiency, the learners’
ERPs suggest that the underlying processing mechanisms for gender and number are qualitatively
similar in both groups, lending support to Full Accessibility to UG approaches. Importantly, Gabriele
et al. (2013) is not alone. A handful of studies show continuity in cases where the L1 and L2 make use
of similar features and where a novel feature in one or the other language is examined, particularly
among highly proficient learners (e.g., Frenck-Mestre et al., 2008; Morgan-Short et al., 2010; Ojima
et al., 2005; Tokowicz & MacWhinney, 2005).
Similarly, Alemán Bañón et al. (2014) used ERPs to examine the processing of number and gender
agreement among advanced L1 English-L2 Spanish learners. Focusing on the extent to which pro-
cessing was impacted by specific properties of the L1 and/or by structural distance between agreeing
elements, their learners showed a P600 for both number and gender violations, similarly to natives.
Additionally, they found that learners were able to process syntactic dependencies outside local
domains, given that the P600 emerged equally for local violations and those that occurred across
phrases—though the robustness of the effect was modulated by structural distance for both natives
and learners. Thus, this study also provides evidence that late learners can be sensitive to hierarchical
structure.
181
Alemán Bañón et al. (2017) examined both production and online processing (with ERPs) of
number and gender agreement among intermediate and advanced L1 English-L2 Spanish learners,
focusing on the role of morphological markedness. The authors tested two hypotheses regarding
the types of suppliance errors L2 learners are more likely to make: either an overreliance on default
morphology (e.g., McCarthy, 2008) or errors reflecting the strength of learners’ lexical representations
(e.g., Hopp, 2013). The authors specifically examined nouns whose endings did not have canonical -o
and -a markers and, thus, whose agreement could not depend on phonological matching. While the
learners performed better overall with number than gender, they exhibited P600s for both number
and gender that were qualitatively similar to native speakers on the same experiments (published
in a separate study; Alemán Bañón & Rothman, 2016). Figure 13.1 highlights the ERP effects and
associated topographical distributions from Alemán Bañón et al. (2017). For ease of visualization,
only the number condition is presented here, though we refer the reader to the original study for more
information.
Interestingly, learners performed well in production and they did not over-rely on morphological
defaults (i.e., oversuppliance of masculine adjectives with feminine nouns), suggesting that vari-
ability in gender agreement stemmed from aspects of the lexis rather than the syntax. Thus, marked-
ness did impact processing, and it did so in a native-like manner, meaning that late L2 learners can
acquire and process novel syntactic features in the L2 in a native-like way.
Despite the processing advantage for properties that exist in both the L1 and L2, as well as the
advantage advanced learners have over beginners, a recent study showed that some variability seen
in L2 processing of agreement dependencies can, in part, reflect individual differences in working
memory, verbal aptitude, and task design. Gabriele et al. (2021) used a battery of behavioral and pro-
duction tasks, including an ERP analysis, to examine number and gender in Spanish by L1 speakers
of English at lower proficiency. The authors found that the learners showing qualitatively similar
ERPs for gender and number violations were those with greater metalinguistic abilities and working
Figure 13.1 Grand Average ERPs of Number Conditions.

Notes: Left: ERPs of relevant number manipulations at electrode Pz; Right: Topographical distribution of relevant number
manipulations at 250–450 ms and 450–900 ms post stimulus. Central parietal distribution (the red in the rightmost plots) is
typical for a P600 effect. (Figure adapted from a pre-print of Alemán Bañón et al. (2017). A color version of this figure is
accessible through this link: https://osf.io/shnbq/).
182
Figure 13.2 Areas of the Brain Where Activation was Significantly Greater in the Sentences With Wh-
dependencies Compared to Sentences Without Wh-dependencies. (Figure adapted from Pliatsikas,
Johnstone and Marinis (2017); doi: https:// doi.org/ 10.5334/ gjgl.95.)
Source: Adapted from Pliatsikas, Johnstone and Marinis (2017); doi: https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.95. A color version of this
figure is accessible through this link: https://osf.io/shnbq/?view_only=edfe0707cf04385ac9f580b6 fa0eb5e).
memory. Because processing agreement dependencies requires the manipulation of linguistic features
in working memory, and working memory is known to modulate agreement processing even in native
speakers, the authors conclude that variability in L2 agreement processing is not unlike variability
seen in native speakers. Their study provides evidence that not only are differences between L1 and
L2 processing at the early stages the result of language-specific idiosyncrasies, but also that indi-
vidual characteristics of the learner and the nature of the task are important.
Non-Local Dependencies: Evidence from Neuroimaging Methods

The body of research that has accumulated to test the SSH speaks indirectly to representational
questions. As a counterweight to the SSH, the Full Transfer/Full Access/Full Parse Hypothesis
(FPH; Dekydtspotter et al., 2006) proposes that L2 speakers attempt to compute complete syntactic
representations. The FPH allows, however, that speakers do not compute grammatical representations
as efficiently in their L2, and thus computations may occasionally fail. The inefficiency is argued to
stem from increased costs for upstream processes (e.g., activating less-entrenched lexis), leaving
fewer resources for downstream processes.
183
Non-local dependencies have played a critical role in research on the SSH and FPH, but results
from behavioral studies have not been clear cut. For example, in the case of wh-dependencies with
indirect objects, one cross-modal priming study reports data suggesting that L2 speakers may keep
fillers active in working memory across a whole dependency rather than reactivating them only at gap
positions (Felser & Roberts, 2007). Several later priming studies, however, find patterns of results
indicating that L2 speakers do indeed selectively re-activate fillers at gaps, suggesting real-time com-
putation of complete syntactic representations (e.g., Dekydtspotter & Miller, 2013).
Moving the debate forward, Jessen et al. (2017) used ERPs to characterize how non-native
speakers compute such dependencies. L1 English speakers and L1 German-L2 English speakers at
intermediate or advanced proficiency read sentences with adjunct clauses, as well as minimal pair
sentences with a non-local dependency with an indirect object. The L2 speakers alone exhibited a Left
Anterior Negativity (LAN) across the whole dependency, until the site of a presumptive gap for the
indirect object. L1 and L2 English speakers produced a N400 at the verb. Finally, L1 and L2 English
speakers exhibited a P600 at an (ungrammatical) resumptive indirect object. Jessen and colleagues
observe that the LAN could reflect continuous activation of the wh-filler in working memory, in line
with Felser and Roberts (2007). However, they acknowledge that LANs in such contexts are well-
attested in L1 sentence processing (e.g., Fiebach et al., 2002). In any case, Jessen and colleagues
observe that both L1 and L2 speakers appear to assign preliminary thematic roles at the verb, and then
to confirm it at the actual gap, as Nicol (1992) had proposed for L1 speakers. ERPs here thus seem to
offer a way to disentangle various cognitive processes involved in filler-gap dependencies, providing
additional insight on how L2 speakers may engage in them.
Regarding wh-dependencies across multiple clauses, data from behavioral studies about the SSH
and FPH have been subject to debate from the very start. For example, Marinis et al. (2005) report
that L2 speakers showed increased self-paced reading times at embedded verbs in conditions with
wh-dependencies in comparison to conditions without wh-dependencies, but no difference based on
whether an intermediate copy also featured in the wh-dependency. However, in their study of L2
speakers with and without substantial immersion experience, Pliatsikas and Marinis (2013) found
that the former group read the embedded verb more quickly when the dependency contained an inter-
mediate trace than when it did not, in line with the claim that intermediate gaps facilitate retrieval
of fillers from working memory at later gap sites. Likewise, using aural stimuli presentation and
pupillometry measurements, Fernandez et al. (2018) found an analogous decrease in pupil change
slope. In all three studies, L1 speakers exhibited telling effects at both intermediate gaps as well as
at the embedded verb. Taken together, behavioral evidence is mixed with respect to L2 speakers, and
findings mainly point to the complexity involved in processing these constructions.
Crucially, however, (f)MRI has been able to provide further insights into the neural correlates
of L2 processing of this construction (for more information on fMRI methodology, see Kousaie
and Klein, this volume). For example, Pliatsikas et al. (2017) scanned L1 Greek-L2 English
speakers with high proficiency while they read the stimuli from Marinis et al. (2005). These
speakers exhibited greater activation of the posterior bilateral medial and superior temporal gyri
for sentences with wh-dependencies, in comparison to sentences without them (Figure 13.2).
Speakers with the most immersion experience showed numerically (but not statistically) less acti-
vation of the left medial and superior temporal gyri in conditions with an intermediate gap in a wh-
dependency to conditions without an intermediate gap. Pliatsikas and colleagues argue that these
findings challenge the across-the-board claims of the SSH, arguing alternatively that shallow compu-
tation may be an L2 developmental stage. The spatial granularity of fMRI not only allows us to cap-
ture differences in processing load that behavioral measures might miss, but it also, as the researchers
noted, feeds our understanding of the neurobiology of second languages and the ecological validity
of structural hierarchy as envisaged and understood by generative grammar (Friederici et al., 2017).
184
Turning to wh-questions across multiple clauses where reference is at stake, Dekydtspotter and
Gilbert (2019) used L1-English advanced L2-French speakers to test the proposal in Roberts (2013)
that L2 speakers may only compute complete syntactic representations when the task at hand requires
them to do so. The researchers found effects consistent with the FPH, so Dekydtspotter and colleagues
(2019) next used a component-independent design as recommended in Luck (2014) to investigate
whether ERPs could also provide evidence for computation of complete syntactic representations in
L1 English advanced L2 French speakers. Dekydtspotter and colleagues focused on the window from
250–550ms into the processing of a bridge verb and complementizer between clauses. At the bridge
verb, L1 speakers exhibited a posterior positivity for conditions involving discourse coreference
instead of syntactic binding, only in cases where the matrix subject could not serve as a referent for
a pronoun in the wh-filler. At the complementizer, L1 speakers exhibited a right-posterior positivity
for conditions where the matrix subject could serve as a reference for the pronoun in the wh-filler, in
comparison to conditions where it could not. On the other hand, L2 speakers instead exhibited a mar-
ginal right-posterior positivity for conditions where binding rather than discourse coreference was
enabled. Since speakers would not show such a difference here unless they computed an intermediate
copy, Dekydtspotter et al. concluded against the SSH.
Wang (2012) had concluded on the basis of results from a series of self- paced reading
experiments that L1 Mandarin intermediate L2 English speakers could compute complete syntactic
representations for similar constructions, even though Mandarin wh-phrases appear in canonical
position. Swanson (2021) examined neural responses related to the successful computation of this
construction in the same population. He looked across the dependency, rather than just at the bridge
between clauses. L1 speakers only produced ERPs that reflected referential computations at the
sites of copies—the bridge and embedded verbs. While the pattern of ERPs in L2 speakers was
more complex, these speakers, crucially, produced ERPs that reflected referential computations
at these same words. The timing and topography of ERPs in L1 and L2 speakers differed starkly,
however. Swanson also concluded in favor of the FPH and, since Mandarin does not allow this con-
struction, findings were argued to constitute further evidence for continued access to UG beyond
childhood.
In a final behavioral study on wh-questions across multiple clauses where reference is at stake,
Dekydtspotter et al. (2018) interpreted their priming data to indicate that their L1 English advanced
L2 French speakers successfully computed complete syntactic representations online, but that they
may not have had enough working memory left to compute additional inferences related to the con-
struction. Following up on this finding, Dekydtspotter et al. (2021) recorded EEG while a similar
group of participants read the same stimuli in an RSVP paradigm, and the researchers examined the
oscillatory activity at the bridge verb and complementizer (for details on this analytical method,
see Mottarella & Prat, this volume). While L1 and L2 speakers showed increased induced power
at 15–16Hz from 347–497ms into the bridge verb for conditions allowing additional inferential
processing, their patterns differed starkly in induced power at 17–22Hz from 412ms–552ms at the
subordinator: L1 speakers showed greater power for conditions allowing inferences, whereas L2
speakers showed greater power for conditions not requiring inferences, due to their greater degree
of featural specification. A similar difference appeared in induced power at 42–51Hz from 299–
354ms into the bridge verb, and at 41–44Hz from 402–522ms into the subordinator. Dekydtspotter
et al. (2021) thus argued that L2 speakers may actually prioritize syntactic representations at
the brain level, supporting their Minimal Brain Adaptation for Representational Prioritization
(MBARP) hypothesis. Using a similar design, Dekydtspotter et al. (2023) provided complemen-
tary evidence for MBARP, but from a different set of construction comparisons. As elsewhere in
this chapter, the body of research discussed in this section has used neurocognitive measures to
bring new insights into current questions in the field, but the nature of the neuronal activity that has
185
been observed has also raised new questions about the neurocognition of non-native grammatical
processing.

Using neuroimaging methods to study L2 acquisition and processing has led to a better understanding
of the neurological machinery responsible for grammatical competence and processing in L2 acquisi-
tion, including the utility of historically contested hypotheses such as the Critical Period Hypothesis.
However, efforts to connect theory to application, such as second language education and pedagogy,
would be a welcome domain of research. Additionally, budding topics such as additive multilin-
gualism stand to gain meaningful insight from neurolinguistic methods in the quest to understand the
mechanisms responsible for language acquisition and processing beyond an L2.
Further Readings
This paper offers and extensive overview of the neurophysiological methods applied to L2 acquisition, language
teaching, and language processing:
Roberts, L., González Alonso, J., Pliatsikas, C., & Rothman, J. (2018). Evidence from neurolinguistic meth-
odologies: Can it actually inform linguistic/language acquisition theories and translate to evidence-based
applications? Second Language Research, 34(1), 125–143. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658316644010
This paper offers an historical perspective on GenSLA while also discussing the shifts within the field to focus
on input, new test populations, and psycho/neurolinguistic methods:
Rothman, J., & Slabakova, R. (2018). The generative approach to SLA and its place in modern second lan-
guage studies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40, 417–442. https://doi.org/10.1017/S02722
63117000134
References
Alemán Bañón, J., Fiorentino, R., & Gabriele, A. (2014). Morphosyntactic processing in advanced second lan-
guage (L2) learners: An event-related potential investigation of the effects of L1–L2 similarity and structural
distance. Second Language Research, 30(3), 275–306. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658313515671
Alemán Bañón, J., Fiorentino, R., & Gabriele, A. (this volume). The neurolinguistics of the second language
Alemán Bañón, J., & Rothman, J. (2016). The role of morphological markedness in the processing of number
and gender agreement in Spanish: An event- related potential investigation. Language, Cognition and
Neuroscience, 31(10), 1273–1298. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2016.1218032
Alemán Bañón, J., Miller, D., & Rothman, J. (2017). Morphological variability in second language learners: An
examination of electrophysiological and production data. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
Memory, and Cognition, 43(10), 1509–1536. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000394
Alexiadou, A. (2004). Inflection class, gender and DP internal structure. In G. Müller, L. Gunkel, & G. Zifonun
(Eds.), Explorations in nominal inflection (pp. 21–49). De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197
501.21
Barss, A. (1986). Chains and anaphoric dependences: On reconstruction and its implications [Unpublished doc-
toral dissertation]. MIT.
Bley-Vroman, R. (1989). What is the logical problem of foreign language learning. Linguistic Perspectives on
Second Language Acquisition, 4, 1–68. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524544.005
Biondo, N., Molinaro, N., & Manchini, S. (this volume). The neurolinguistics of the second language morpho-
logical system: the role of grammar-related and speaker-related factors. In K. Morgan-Short and J.G. van Hell
Carroll, S.E. (1989). Second-language acquisition and the computational paradigm. Language Learning, 39(4),
53–594. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1989.tb00902.x
186
Carroll, S.E. (2001). Input and evidence: The raw material of second language acquisition. John Benjamins
Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1075/lald.25
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.21236/AD0616323
Chomsky, N. (1973). Conditions on transformations. In S.R. Anderson & P. Kiparsky (Eds.), A festschrift for
Morris Halle (pp. 232–286). Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding: The Pisa lectures. Foris.
Chomsky, N. (1986). Barriers. MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. MIT Press.
Clahsen, H., Balkhair, L., Schutter, J.S., & Cunnings, I. (2013). The time course of morphological processing
in a second language. Second Language Research, 29(1), 7–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658312464970
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006). Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27(1),
3–42. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716406060024
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2018). Some notes on the Shallow Structure Hypothesis. Studies in Second Language
Clahsen, H., & Muysken, P. (1986). The availability of universal grammar to adult and child learners–a study of
the acquisition of German word order. Second Language Research, 2(2), 93–119. https://doi.org/10.1177/026
765838600200201
Corbett, G.G. (1991). Gender. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139166119
Corbett, G.G. (1994). Gender and gender systems. In R.E. Asher & J.M.Y. Simpson (Eds.), The encyclopedia of
language and linguistics, Vol. 3 (pp. 1347–1353). Pergamon Press.
Cunnings, I. (2017). Parsing and working memory in bilingual sentence processing. Bilingualism: Language and
Cognition, 20(4), 659–678. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728916000675
Cunnings, I., Batterham, C., Felser, C., & Clahsen, H. (2010). Constraints on L2 learners’ processing of wh-
dependencies. Research in Second Language Processing and Parsing, 87–112. https://doi.org/10.1075/
lald.53.04cun
Dekydtspotter, L. (2001). The universal parser and interlanguage: Domain-specific mental organization in the
comprehensilm undombien interrogatives in English-French interlanguage. Second Language Research,
17(2), 91–143. https://doi.org/10.1177/026765830101700201
Dekydtspotter, L., Black, M., Frimu, R. & Panwitz, A.R. (2018). Animacy-based processing loads in anaphora
resolution in (non-native) French. In J. Cho, M. Iverson, T. Judy, T. Leal, & E. Shimanskaya (Eds.), Meaning
and structure in second language acquisition: In honor of Roumyana Slabakova (pp. 95–119). John Benjamins
Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.55.04dek
Dekydtspotter, L. & Gilbert, C. (2019). When nonnative speakers show distinction: Syntax and task interactions
in long-distance anaphoric dependencies in French. In D. Arteaga (Ed.), L2 grammatical representation and
processing: Theory and practice (pp. 68–92). Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781788925
358-006
Dekydspotter, L. & Miller, A.K. (2013). Inhibitive and facilitative priming induced by traces in the processing
of wh-dependencies in a second language. Second Language Research, 29, 345–372. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0267658312467030
Dekydtspotter, L., Miller, A.K., Gilbert, C., Iverson, M., Leal, T. & Swanson, K. (2019). An electrophysio-
logical investigation of domain-specific procedures in (nonnative) French. In H. Wilson, N. King, E.J. Park,
& K. Childress (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 2017 Second Language Research Forum (pp. 48–61).
Cascadilla.
Dekydtspotter, L., Miller, A.K., Iverson, M., Xiong, Y., Swanson, K., & Gilbert, C. (2021). Minimal brain adap-
tation for representational prioritization in non-native parsing: Evidence from a time-frequency analysis of
recursion in wh-dependencies in French. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 59, 101002. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jneuroling.2021.101002
Dekydtspotter, L., Miller, A.K., Iverson, M., Xiong, Y., Swanson, K., & Gilbert, C. (2023). The timing versus fre-
quency problem in nonnative sentence processing: Evidence from a time-frequency analysis of anaphora reso-
lution in successive wh-movement in native and nonnative speakers of French. PLOS ONE, 18: ee0275305.
Dekydtspotter, L., Schwartz, B.D., & Sprouse, R.A. (2006). The comparative fallacy in L2 processing research.
In M. Grantham O’Brien, C. Shea, & J. Archibald (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th Generative Approaches to
Second Language Acquisition Conference (pp. 33–40). Cascadilla.
187
Felser, C., & Cunnings, I. (2012). Processing reflexives in a second language: The timing of structural and
discourse-level constraints. Applied Psycholinguistics, 33(3), 571–603. https://doi.org/10.1017/S014271641
1000488
Felser, C. & Roberts, L. (2007). Processing wh-dependencies in a second language: A crossmodal priming study.
Second Language Research, 23, 9–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658307071600
Fernandez, L., Höhle, B., Brock, J., & Nickels, L. (2018). Investigating auditory processing of syntactic gaps
with L2 speakers using pupillometry. Second Language Research, 34, 201–227. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0267658317722386
Fiebach, C.J., Schlesewsky, M., & Friederici, A.D. (2002). Separating syntactic memory costs and syntactic inte-
gration costs during parsing: The processing of German wh-questions. Journal of Memory and Language, 47,
250–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00004-9
Flynn, S. (1987). Contrast and construction in a parameter-setting model of L2 acquisition. Language Learning,
37(1), 19–62. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1968.tb01311.x
Fodor, J.D. (1978). Parsing strategies and constraints on transformations. Linguistic Inquiry, 9, 427–473.
Franceschina, F. (2002). Case and φ-feature agreement in advanced L2 Spanish grammars. EuroSLA yearbook,
2(1), 71–86. https://doi.org/10.1075/eurosla.2.07fra
Franceschina, F. (2005). Fossilized second language grammars: The acquisition of grammatical gender (38).
John Benjamins Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1075/lald.38
Frazier, L., & Clifton, C. (1989). Successive cyclicity in the grammar and the parser. Language and Cognitive
Processes, 4, 93–126. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690968908406359
Friederici, A.D., Chomsky, N., Berwick, R.C., Moro, A., & Bolhuis, J.J. (2017). Language, mind and brain.
Nature Human Behaviour, 1(10), 713–722. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0184-4
Frenck-Mestre, C., Osterhout, L., McLaughlin, J., & Foucart, A. (2008). The effect of phonological realization
of inflectional morphology on verbal agreement in French: Evidence from ERPs. Acta Psychologica, 128(3),
528–536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2007.12.007
Gabriele, A., Fiorentino, R., & Alemán Bañón, J. (2013). Examining second language development using event-
related potentials: a cross-sectional study on the processing of gender and number agreement. Linguistic
Approaches to Bilingualism, 3(2), 213–232. https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.3.2.04gab
of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 47(7), 1106–1140. https://doi.org/10.1037/
xlm0000983
González Alonso, J., Alemán Bañon, J., DeLuca, V., Miller, D., Soares, S.M.P., Puig-Mayengo, E., Slaats, S., &
Rothman, J. (2021). Event related potentials at initial exposure in third language acquisition: Implications
from an artificial mini-grammar study. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 56, 100939. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jne
uroling.2020.100939
Harris, J.W. (1991). The exponence of gender in Spanish. Linguistic Inquiry, 22(1), 27–62.
Hockett, C.F. (1958). A course in modern linguistics. Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1958.
tb00870.x
Hopp, H. (2013). Grammatical gender in adult L2 acquisition: Relations between lexical and syntactic vari-
ability. Second Language Research, 29(1), 33–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658312461803
Hopp, H. (2015). Individual differences in the second language processing of object–subject ambiguities. Applied
Psycholinguistics, 36(2), 129–173. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716413000180
Hopp, H., & León Arriaga, M.E. (2016). Structural and inherent case in the non- native processing of
Spanish: Constraints on inflectional variability. Second Language Research, 32(1), 75–108. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0267658315605872
Iverson, M. (2009). Competing SLA hypotheses assessed: Comparing heritage and successive Spanish bilinguals
of L3 Brazilian Portuguese. In A. Pires & J. Rothman (Eds.), Minimalist inquiries into child and adult lan-
guage acquisition: Case studies across Portuguese (pp. 221–244). De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/
10.1515/9783110215359.2.221
Jessen, A., Festman, J., Boxell, O. & Felser, C. (2017). Native and non-native speakers’ brain responses to
filled indirect object gaps. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 46, 1319–1338. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10
936-017-9496-9
Johnson, J.S., & Newport, E.L. (1989). Critical period effects in second language learning: The influence of
maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive Psychology, 21(1), 60–99.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(89)90003-0
188
Keller, F., & Asudeh, A. (2001). Constraints on linguistic coreference: Structural vs pragmatic factors. In J. D.
Moore & K. Stenning (Eds.), Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society
(pp. 483–488). Erlbaum.
Kim, E., Montrul, S., & Yoon, J. (2015). The on-line processing of binding principles in second language acqui-
sition: Evidence from eye tracking. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36(6), 1317–1374. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0142716414000307
Lenneberg, E.H. (1967). The biological foundations of language. Hospital Practice, 2(12), 59–67. https://doi.
org/10.1080/21548331.1967.11707799
Luck, S.J. (2014). An introduction to the event-related potential technique. MIT press.
Marinis, T., Roberts, L., Felser, C. & Clahsen, H. (2005). Gaps in second language sentence processing. Studies
in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 53–78. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263105050035
McCarthy, C. (2008). Morphological variability in the comprehension of agreement: An argument for represen-
tation over computation. Second Language Research, 24(4), 459–486. https://doi.org/10.1177/026765830
8095737
Morgan-Short, K., Sanz, C., Steinhauer, K., & Ullman, M.T. (2010). Second language acquisition of gender
agreement in explicit and implicit training conditions: An event-related potential study. Language Learning,
60(1), 154–193. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00554.x
Nicol, J.L. (1992). Reconsidering reactivation. In R. Shillcock & G.T.M. Altmann (Eds.), Cognitive models of
speech processing: The second Sperlonga meeting. Erlbaum.
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. https://doi.org/10.1162/089892905
5002436
Penfield, W., & Roberts, L. (1959). Speech and Brain Mechanisms. Princeton University Press.
Phillips, C., & Ehrenhofer, L. (2015). The role of language processing in language acquisition. Linguistic
Approaches to Bilingualism, 5(4), 409–453. https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.5.4.01phi
Pickering, M. & Barry, G. (1991). Sentence processing without empty categories. Language and Cognitive
Pliatsikas, C., Johnstone, T., & Marinis, T. (2017). An fMRI study on the processing of long distance wh-
movement in a second language. Glossa, 2, 101. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.95
Pliatsikas, C., & Marinis, T. (2013). Processing empty categories in a second language: When naturalistic
exposure fills the (intermediate) gap. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16, 167–182. https://doi.org/
10.1017/S136672891200017X
Reichle, R.V., & Birdsong, D. (2014). Processing focus structure in L1 and L2 French: L2 proficiency effects
on ERPs. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36(3), 535–564. https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226311
3000594
Roberts, L. (2013). Sentence processing in bilinguals. In R.P.G. van Gompel (Ed.), Sentence processing (pp.
221–246). Psychology Press.
Roberts, L., González Alonso, J., Pliatsikas, C., & Rothman, J. (2018). Evidence from neurolinguistic meth-
odologies: Can it actually inform linguistic/language acquisition theories and translate to evidence-based
applications? Second Language Research, 34(1), 125–143. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658316644010
Rothman, J., Alemán Bañón, J., & González Alonso, J. (2015). Neurolinguistic measures of typological effects
in multilingual transfer: Introducing an ERP methodology. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1087. https://doi.org/
10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01087
Rothman, J., & Slabakova, R. (2018). The generative approach to SLA and its place in modern second language
studies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40, 417–442. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263117000134
Sabourin, L., & Manning, G. (this volume). Cross-linguistics transfer in second language neurocognition. In
Sabourin, L., & Stowe, L.A. (2008). Second language processing: When are first and second languages processed
similarly? Second Language Research, 24(3), 397–430. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658308090186
189
Sassenhagen, J., Schlesewsky, M., & Bornkessel- Schlesewsky, I. (2014). The P600- as-
P3 hypothesis
revisited: Single-trial analyses reveal that the late EEG positivity following linguistically deviant material is
reaction time aligned. Brain and Language, 137, 29–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2014.07.010
Schachter, J. (1990). On the issue of completeness in second language acquisition. Second Language Research,
6(2), 93–124. https://doi.org/10.1177/026765839000600201
Schwartz, B.D. (1987). The modular basis of second language acquisition. Unpublished dissertation, University
of Southern California
Slabakova, R., Leal, T., Dudley, A., & Stack, M. (2020). Generative second language acquisition. Cambridge
University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108762380
Sorace, A. (2011). Pinning down the concept of “interface” in bilingualism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism,
1(1), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.1.1.01sor
Sportiche, D. (2006). Reconstruction, binding and scope. In M. Everaert & H. van Riemsdijk (Eds.), The Blackwell
companion to syntax, Volume 1 (pp. 35–93). Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470996591.ch54
Stowe, L.A. (1986). Parsing WH-constructions: Evidence for on-line gap location. Language and Cognitive
Swanson, K. (2021). Neurocognition and non-native grammatical processing: The view from anaphora in
successive-cyclic wh-movement in L1-Mandarin/L2-English [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Indiana
University Bloomington.
Swanson, K. & Dekydtspotter, L. (2022). A full parse or a shallow structure in L2? An ERP study of anaphora in
successive-cyclic wh-movement in L1-Mandarin/L2-English. In Y. Gong & F. Kpogo (Eds.), Proceedings of
the 46th annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 768–782). Cascadilla.
Tanner, D., Grey, S., & Van Hell, J.G. (2017). Dissociating retrieval interference and reanalysis in the P600
during sentence comprehension. Psychophysiology, 54(2), 248–259. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.12788
language grammar: An event-related potential investigation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(2),
173–204. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263105050102
Tsimpli, I.M., & Dimitrakopoulou, M. (2007). The interpretability hypothesis: Evidence from wh-interrogatives
in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 23(2), 215–242. https://doi.org/10.1177/02676
58307076546
Ullman, M.T., & Lovelett, J.T. (2018). Implications of the declarative/procedural model for improving second
language learning: The role of memory enhancement techniques. Second Language Research, 34(1), 39–65.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658316675195
van der Silk, F., Schepens, J., Bongaerts, T., & van Hout, R. (2021). Critical period claim revisited: Reanalysis of
Hartshorne, Tenenbaum, and Pinker (2018) suggests steady decline and learner-type differences. Language
Wang, Y.-T. (2012). Deep processing of long-distance dependencies in L2 English: The case of anaphora
[Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Indiana University Bloomington.
White, L. (1989). Universal grammar and second language acquisition. John Benjamins Publishing. https://doi.
org/10.1075/lald.1
White, L., Valenzuela, E., Kozlowska-Macgregor, M., & Leung, Y.K.I. (2004). Gender and number agreement in
nonnative Spanish. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25(1), 105–133. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716404001067
190
14
SECOND LANGUAGE
ACQUISITION AND
NEUROPLASTICITY
Insights from the Dynamic Restructuring Model
Introduction
Learning and using a second language (L2) has been shown to have effects that extend beyond lan-
guage use per se. Notably, these include well-documented effects in the function and the structure of
the brain, which support and relate to effects observed in behavior. The literature on functional and
structural neuroplasticity that is induced by L2 learning remains relatively limited, and not without its
controversies, which usually relate to the methods that have been used and the characteristics of the
tested samples. The present chapter focuses on the available evidence for structural brain adaptations,
and relates this to contemporary models for experience-based neuroplasticity, with the aim of offering
a unifying explanation for seemingly variable patterns documented in previous studies on structural
brain changes induced by L2 acquisition.
This chapter is organized as follows: after a general overview of theories of patterns of experience-
based neuroplasticity on brain structure, evidence for adaptations that are induced by bilingualism is
summarized and explained on the basis of the dynamic restructuring model (DRM; Pliatsikas, 2020),
a recent model in the field. This is followed by an extensive overview of evidence from L2 training
studies and longitudinal language learning studies. This evidence is evaluated against the predictions
of the DRM. The chapter concludes with theoretical and methodological suggestions about how this
emerging field should move forward.
Experience-Based Neuroplasticity
It has been firmly established that the brain is a highly plastic and adaptable organ. The ability of our
brains to change is a crucial part of our healthy ontogenesis, forming us into unique individuals and
helping us to achieve our goals effectively (Lindenberger et al., 2017). Brain alterations occur when
we face influential changes in our environment: for example, after a brain injury or disease, when
we must increase the efficiency of our behavior, or during acquisition of a new skill (Lindenberger
& Lövdén, 2019). As for the latter, when we acquire demanding skills we also often must face new,
emergent tasks, which brings new challenges to our cognitive processes. This creates a mismatch
between the functional supply of the brain structure and how demanding we experience the skill at
DOI: 10.4324/9781003190912-18 191

hand (Wenger et al., 2017). To address this mismatch, the brain adapts its structure at the neuronal
level in various ways to deal with these demands, usually by increasing the means for effective com-
munication between brain regions. For example, skill acquisition has been shown to increase the
volume of the grey matter. Grey matter is a collective term for the neurons’ cell bodies (or somata,
see Figure 14.1). Cell bodies carry out most of the processing and synthesizing of information that is
received in the form of electric impulses by the dendrites, small extensions on the surface of the cell
bodies. Dendrites contain dendritic spines, which form synapses with neighboring neurons. Thus,
dendrites constitute the major avenues for the communication of information. Cognitively challen-
ging experiences trigger the creation of new dendritic spines in order to provide more synapses, i.e.,
communication avenues, eventually leading to volumetric growth of structures responsible for the
given task. Skill acquisition has also been shown to affect the integrity of the white matter of the
brain. White matter is the collective term for the neurons’ axon¸ single cable-like structures that
transfer electrical signals from the cell body to other neurons via synapses that are formed at the
axon terminals. Axons are usually insulated by myelin, a lipid-rich protein that helps to transfer
the electric signal at higher rates, which also gives the axons their white color. Skill acquisition has
been shown to increase the availability of myelin in implicated white matter tracts, suggesting that
white matter reorganizes to provide better communication between regions, eventually providing the
means for efficient delivery of the information required for the new skill. Therefore, these processes
enable brain regions involved in the acquisition of new skills to respond to the altered environmental
demands effectively (Wenger et al., 2017). The ability of the human brain to adapt when acquiring
and mastering a new skill is termed experience-dependent neuroplasticity (Lövdén et al., 2013).
Three basic principles are critical in experienced-based neuroplasticity (Kleim & Jones, 2008):
(i) for an experience to trigger structural brain changes, the increased cognitive demands must be high
enough to exceed the possibilities of the existing neural resources; (ii) the duration and continuity of
such experiences are co-determining factors for the changes to occur, and for the time-course within
which they happen; and (iii) the changes occur in brain areas that subserve the behavior relevant for
the task at hand.
Figure 14.1 Neuron Anatomy.

Note: Created with BioRender.com
192
Second Language Acquisition and Neuroplasticity
These predictions have been repeatedly confirmed in animal research (Crawford et al., 2020; Mesa-
Gresa et al., 2021) and in human studies that used structural brain imaging, comparing brain archi-
tecture before and after engagement in a new or newly demanding experience (De Sousa Fernandes
et al., 2020; Teixeira-Machado et al., 2019). For example, London taxi drivers have been reported
to have an enlarged region in the posterior hippocampus, which was linked to them maintaining and
continuously navigating an elaborate mental map of the city (Woollett & Maguire, 2011). Further
evidence of experience-related grey matter increases in the relevant brain areas comes from a variety
of other populations including medical students (Draganski et al., 2006), musicians (Wenger et al.,
2021), and, crucially, bilinguals (Mårtensson et al., 2012).
Importantly, it would be simplistic to expect that the immense amount of knowledge and skills that
humans acquire throughout their lives will lead to continuous increases of brain volumes. Such a view
is also inconsistent with evolutionary principles that posit that nature’s solution to efficient progress
is not never-ending growth, but rather the selection of the best candidates among many candidates
and elimination of the less suitable ones (Lindenberger & Lövdén, 2019; Wenger et al., 2017). This
principle has also recently crystallized within the field of experience-dependent neuroplasticity into
the expansion-renormalization model1 (Lindenberger & Lövdén, 2019; Lövdén et al., 2013; Wenger
et al., 2017).
According to this model (Figure 14.2), experience-related changes often follow a three-phased
trajectory of expansion, selection, and renormalization. First, the brain reacts to a newly emergent
demanding task by expanding neuronal resources, such as the availability of synapses in structures
responsible for the given task, which leads to an overall increase of the relevant regional brain
volumes. Continuous practice in the new task creates opportunities for the brain to explore which
of the newly built neural resources are most suitable and effective to achieve the targeted behavior.
Figure 14.2 Expansion-Renormalization Model.

Note: The illustration depicts the relationship between grey matter changes and behavioral performance according to the
expansion-renormalization model (Wenger et al., 2017).
Created with BioRender.com
193
On the behavioral level, the performance in the concerned task increases with training until it hits
a ceiling of efficiency, after which it stabilizes, at which point, the structural volumes in the related
brain regions are posited to renormalize, sometimes even completely back to the levels prior to
learning. This potentially reflects the changes on the microscopic level. Namely, among the expanded
network of neuronal connections, the most efficient ones are selected, whereas the superfluous ones
are eliminated through a process of so-called synaptic pruning.
In all, skill acquisition may trigger a non-linear trajectory of initial volumetric increases of
implicated brain structures, followed by decreases as a behaviorally optimal neural circuitry is being
selected (Wenger et al., 2017).
Bilingualism and the Brain

As already mentioned, the basic principles of neuroplasticity have mainly been applied to instances
of skill acquisition, usually after intensive training and/or long-term application of a particular skill.
If that is the case, would the same principles apply to cognitively challenging long-term experiences?
One such experience can be bilingualism, which is a cognitively demanding experience that requires
constant monitoring of the environment for linguistic cues and constant inhibition of the non-target
languages (e.g., Kroll et al., 2012; for more on cognitive control in the context of L2, see Guo & Ma,
this volume). Moreover, bilingualism very often is a life-long experience, in which people engage
continuously, which means that the above skills need to be continuously exercised in the long term to
achieve increasing efficiency in language control, steadily more fluent communication, and growing
language proficiency.
Based on the above assumption, it is not surprising that an emerging body of literature has reported
changes in the structure of a range of cortical and subcortical regions and the connections between
them as an underlying effect of bilingualism (see Tao et al., 2021 for a recent review). These are
regions that have been particularly shown to be activated in tasks related to language acquisition,
processing, and control, using predominantly functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) (for
more on this methodology, see Kousaie & Klein, this volume). Specifically, brain activation linked to
bilingual language control has been observed in brain structures and networks that typically underlie
cognitive control (Anderson et al., 2018; Garbin et al., 2010), as summarized in the next section of
this chapter. Given the principles of experience-dependent neuroplasticity (Lövdén et al., 2013), the
regions subserving the highly demanding cognitive control processes during bilingual language use
are also potential targets for expected structural adaptations. This also presumes that, if bilingualism
follows these principles, different groups of bilinguals with different experiences may yield different
results that may correspond to nonlinear effects. Indeed, this has been the case in the field of bilin-
gualism (see Pliatsikas, 2019 for a review).
The Dynamic Restructuring Model

If the principles of the expansion-renormalization model hold for bilingualism, it is unlikely that
increasing efficiency in bilingual language use should result in linearly corresponding increases of
neural tissue in the relevant brain regions. Recently, a model of bilingualism-related brain changes
has been proposed that incorporated assumptions of non-linearity: the dynamic restructuring model
(DRM, Pliatsikas, 2020). The DRM brought together evidence from existing studies on structural
brain changes in various bilingual populations with qualitatively and quantitatively different sets of
experiences (for more on structural imaging methodology, see Rossi et al., this volume). According
to the DRM, structural brain adaptations are governed by the ways bilinguals use their languages, the
contexts in which they operate, and by the timing of their language experiences (see also Li et al.,
194
2014). Such an approach is consistent with the new development in the field of bilingualism where
researchers aim to identify which sets of bilingual experiences give rise to consistent neurocognitive
effects (e.g., Navarro-Torres et al., 2021), Therefore, the DRM evaluated the existing evidence
according to the various bilingual factors and experiences that have been hypothesized to have effects
on cognitive demands, and set forth three interesting observations (Pliatsikas et al., 2020).
First, different groups of bilinguals who had long-standing experience in bilingual language use
and were using both languages frequently in their daily lives (e.g., immersed bilinguals who live in
an L2-speaking environment, interpreters, and translators) had similar patterns of structural changes
irrespective of the onset of L2 acquisition, including simultaneous, early sequential, and late sequen-
tial bilinguals. The reported effects spanned largely similar effects on the shape and volumes of
subcortical structures (Burgaleta et al., 2016; Pliatsikas et al., 2017), and properties of white matter
tracts connecting regions that subserve language processing and cognitive control (García-Pentón
et al., 2014; Mohades et al., 2012). Second, effects in cortical grey matter pertained predominantly to
sequential bilinguals who had limited to no immersion in bilingual environments, but also to elderly
adults with a history of lifetime use of multiple languages (e.g., Voits et al., 2022). Third, grey matter
reductions were observed in interpreters relatively to bilinguals who were not trained as interpreters,
even though interpreters’ routine is marked by exceptional language control and switching demands
(Elmer et al., 2014).
Based on these findings, the DRM inferred that structural brain changes brought about by bilin-
gualism are dynamic, likely following phases of increases and decreases throughout the bilingual
experiential trajectory. The observed direction of these effects and their magnitude will then likely
differ depending on where on the trajectory the measured bilingual is positioned with respect to L2
learning and use. Ultimately, the DRM incorporates the principle of expansion-renormalization to
propose testable predictions of bilingualism-induced non-linear brain adaptations. The model consists
of three stages during which qualitatively different structural adaptations of grey and white matter are
observed depending on the duration, intensity, and quality of exposure to the L2.
During the initial exposure, the first stage, vocabulary learning, and the need to control between
lexical alternatives for the same concepts, sets off additional demands on cognitive control. This stage
induces cortical grey matter changes in regions related to executive control and short-term memory,
such as caudate nuclei, inferior frontal gyrus (IFG), anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), and medial
frontal gyrus (MFG), and a network of regions linked to semantic and phonological learning, namely
hippocampus, inferior parietal lobe (IPL), superior parietal lobe (SPL), anterior temporal lobe (ATL),
anterior temporal gyrus (ATG), and Heschl’s gyrus (HG).
The second stage, consolidation, is marked by the lack of effects on grey matter typical for the ini-
tial stage as indicated by the absence of effects in the cortex, the caudate nucleus, and hippocampus,
accompanied by expansions in other subcortical structures, including the basal ganglia and the thal-
amus in highly proficient bilinguals with prolonged engagement with both languages (Pliatsikas,
2020). The absence of effects in the cortex and the caudate nucleus has been interpreted as evidence
for reversion of the expansions (or renormalization to baseline) of the regions that expanded in the
initial stage, a sign that the brain has reached the required level of optimization in learning new
words and controlling for competing lexical alternatives. Conversely, at this stage, bilinguals face
increased needs for differentiating between semantic, phonological, and grammatical alternatives.
Concurrently, they need to monitor the situations when to use each language and, if necessary,
suppress the non-target language. Bilinguals at this stage demonstrated significant restructuring of
the left putamen (Abutalebi et al., 2013; Berken et al., 2016) and globus pallidus (Burgaleta et al.,
2016), which have been implicated in articulatory control and phonological selection (Pliatsikas et al.,
2017). Also, the increased lexical selection needs during production at this stage leads to expansion
of thalamic volumes, which is assumed to enable a more efficient selection mechanism (Abutalebi &
195
Green, 2016). The acquired skill to switch and differentiate between two languages more efficiently
is reflected in increased connectivity between some of the regions underlying the cognitive demands
at the initial stage. The increased structural connectivity is indexed by reductions in diffusivity, which
reflects greater connectivity, of white matter tracts connecting IFG, MFG, superior temporal gyrus
(STG), middle temporal gyrus (MTG), and supramarginal gyrus (SMG) (DeLuca et al., 2020). These
white matter tracts include the inferior fronto-occipital fasciculus (IFOF) (Kuhl et al., 2016), anterior
thalamic radiation (ATR) (Cummine & Boliek, 2013), and superior longitudinal fasciculus (SLF)
(Mamiya et al., 2016). Also, reduced diffusivity is reported in corpus callosum (CC), which is another
white matter tract involved in cognitive control that is strongly connected to ACC (Coggins et al.,
2004). In sum, the consolidation stage is characterized by shifting the focus of neuroplastic change
from the regions affected at the initial stage, which are now renormalizing, to subcortical regions and
the white matter, which now start undergoing restructuring.
The final stage, peak efficiency, predicts adaptations in the most experienced groups of bilinguals,
such as professional interpreters. Efficient and automatic language control stemming from longstanding
and intensive training in interpreting practices results in maximally efficient connectivity and leads to
increases in connectivity within the cerebellum (Van de Putte et al., 2018). Importantly, the caudate
nucleus is thought to renormalize at this stage (Elmer et al., 2014). Furthermore, frontal white matter
structural connectivity decreases while white matter diffusivity of anterior regions is posited to
increase. This indicates a shift in reliance from prefrontal to posterior regions. However, this stage
has received less attention, and it remains unclear whether other parts of the bilingual brain would
also adapt to deal with both growing bilingual experience and changing demands (Pliatsikas, 2020).
L2 Acquisition and Brain Restructuring

The DRM describes specific trajectories for restructuring of both grey and white matter, which differ
from each other and appear to happen over extended periods of time. Given that most evidence for
the classical models of experience-based neuroplasticity has emerged typically from studies looking
at the acquisition of a particular skill, it follows that similar patterns would be observed in studies
looking at the effects of language acquisition. This section reviews the available evidence on grey and
white matter from a handful of studies that tested individuals in language training settings (excluding
training for interpreters and translators that goes typical language learning, for more information
on this topic, see Hervais-Adelman & Babcock, 2020; or Pliatsikas, 2020). Special attention here is
given to recent studies that have not been viewed through the lens of the DRM so far (see Pliatsikas
(2020) for a consideration of previous language training studies through the lense of the DRM).
Grey Matter
A large part of the beginning of the journey to learn a L2 consists of learning a new vocabulary. This
brings an array of challenges, such as learning new phonological rules and putting them in practice to
pronounce the words correctly. Moreover, beginning L2 learners need to assign the newly sounding
lexical units to their meaning. The newly acquired words in the L2 denote conceptual representations
of the items and situations from the world around us. It is important to realize that every language sets
distinctive boundaries of the semantic representations of its language units (see Casaponsa & Thierry,
this volume). This means that learners of a new language need to build a new semantic representation
of concepts with which they may be familiar but which also map onto words in each language in often
very different ways (Neumann et al., 2018).
The challenges of word acquisition, learning how to pronounce the words in a foreign language
and building new semantic representations, would lead to increases in the volume of the relevant
grey matter regions, predominantly in the left hemisphere, as predicted for the initial stage of the
196
DRM. Indeed, the earliest study in the field (Osterhout et al., 2008) showed that training in L2
leads to increases of the SMG, an anatomical component of the IPL, which subserves the semantic
phonological encoding of newly acquired words into the knowledge system. Such effects have been
replicated in a study investigating structural brain changes in children who underwent foreign lan-
guage training (Della Rosa et al., 2013).
Bilinguals need to constantly resolve a mental conflict in their minds in choosing the appropriate
language. This process requires cognitive control, which triggers changes in prefrontal regions that
enable it, i.e., IFG, MFG, and ACC. These grey matter regions were shown to increase in volume in
monolinguals trained to read words in three different languages (Stein et al., 2012), which is indi-
cative of the need to develop effective cognitive control processes already in the initial stages of
language learning. Notably, these effects may not be specific to the spoken language modality: in a
study testing participants five times over an eight-month training course on American Sign Language,
Banaszkiewicz and colleagues (Banaszkiewicz et al., 2021) reported increasing grey matter volume
in the IFG, which peaked towards the end of the training program.
Additional language learning has also been shown to affect the structure of other regions of the
brain, beyond those subserving cognitive control. For example, Legault and colleagues (2019a)
reported an increase in grey matter thickness of the STG after a 20-day training course in Mandarin
Chinese vocabulary, a language that differentiates words by tone. This is significant as the STG
is an important node for phonological processing with a particular importance for tonal languages
(Liang & Du, 2018). This suggests that properties of the L2 may influence which regions undergo
neuroplasticity in the context of language acquisition in line with the predictions for the consolidation
stage of the DRM.
Another important region that increases in volume as a function of language training is the hippo-
campus (Bellander et al., 2016; Mårtensson et al., 2012). These changes have been traditionally
linked to the importance of this structure in learning and memory (Voits et al., 2022). However,
none of the brain structures, including the hippocampus, IFG, and STG, underwent any significant
grey matter changes in the span of an eleven-week L2 training course in older adults (Nilsson et al.,
2021). Nilsson and colleagues interpreted these results as an indication of the gradual loss of the
brain’s ability to adapt its structure as we age. Such findings echo behavioral studies that also did
not find effects of bilingual experiences in seniors on inhibitory control (Antón et al., 2016) and
switching (Ramos et al., 2017; but see Bak et al., 2014). It also prompts the DRM and other models
of neuroplasticity to incorporate the age at which a new experience is exercised into the models’
predictions (effects of age on L2 are further discussed in Fromont, this volume).
As mentioned above, the duration of an experience is an important factor when predicting struc-
tural brain changes. However, the training studies mentioned only report the effects of relatively short
duration language training; to the best of our knowledge, only two studies have looked at the effects
of longer periods of language acquisition (Legault et al., 2019b; Liu et al., 2021). Liu and colleagues
(2021) acquired data from Chinese college students majoring in English (L2) at two time-points one
year apart, and reported that grey matter volumes of left ACC and right IFG decreased after a year of
English learning. In contrast, another longitudinal study on learners of L2 Spanish found increases of
cortical thickness in ACC and MTG after two semesters of intermediate language courses (Legault
et al., 2019b). These discrepancies can be explained by the differences in the cumulative number of
hours of language training in both studies; participants in Liu et al.’s spent approximately three times
longer in the language course than those in Legault et al. Such an explanation is also rooted in the
prediction of the DRM’s consolidation phase that sustained and intensive engagement with the L2
will eventually lead to volumetric decreases of initially expanded brain structures. Another important
note pertains to the language proficiency at the moment of entering an L2 training, which can serve
as a proxy of the level of engagement in the L2 (but see Deluca et al., 2019 for arguments against this
197
concept). The participants in Lui et al.’s study were already relatively proficient in their L2, which
presumes that some levels of volumetric increase would already be in place. In contrast, a study on
complete bilingual novices revealed that the volume of the left IFG, STG/SMG, and ACC were posi-
tively related to the vocabulary size of the trained language (Hosoda et al., 2013). Taken together,
findings from studies studying long-term training support the view that a long-enough window of
opportunity to exercise the new skill will eventually lead to selection of the most efficient brain
networks whereas the superfluous ones will be eliminated (see Korenar et al., 2023a and 2023b for a
recent direct evidence of this principle).
In all, the reviewed evidence for grey matter suggests that individuals at earlier stages of language
learning tend to show volumetric increases in regions related to language acquisition and control,
which recalls the predictions of the DRM for an initial stage of restructuring. Importantly, these
effects seem to revert (possibly renormalize) in cases of prolonged periods of acquisition, recalling
the consolidation stage of the DRM.
White Matter
Adaptations in the volume and shape of the grey matter regions have been interpreted to reflect
accommodation of the additional information that is being acquired by the brain during the course of
language acquisition. However, because the brain is an interconnected system, it is also necessary to
account for the effects of language training on the structural connectivity between these regions, an
index of which is the integrity of myelin in implicated white matter tracts. This is usually measured
with indices such as Fractional Anisotropy (FA) and Radial Diffusivity (RD), measures of water dif-
fusivity in the brain. Higher FA reflects lower diffusivity, usually interpreted as increased amounts
of myelin, which provides more efficient structural connectivity between brain regions. In contrast,
RD measures water diffusivity perpendicular (i.e., crosswise) to axonal fibres. Increases in RD index
relative loss of myelin, and as a result, greater diffusivity. Evidence of reductions in diffusivity after
skill training have been interpreted as structural reorganization that addresses increased demands for
communication between brain regions. In this vein, training studies on participants acquiring an L2
have reported increases in integrity in white matter tracts that subserve phonological processing, such
as arcuate fasciculus (AF) and SLF as will be discussed below.
Xiang et al. (2015) investigated white matter after a six-week long language course of Dutch
in the Netherlands. The authors reported increases in FA around the left AF, suggesting increased
connectivity. Importantly, high levels of white matter connectivity in this tract shifted to the right
hemisphere once participants became more proficient, and back to the left side of the brain with fur-
ther increased L2 proficiency. Such observations highlight the dynamicity of white matter changes
following training in a L2 and that the demands put on the language-related regions can change as a
function of efficiency in bilingual language use.
Schlegel et al. (2012) provided evidence that L2 learning induces increases in interhemispheric
connectivity, indexed by increases of the FA in the CC, an effect that has been explained by increased
cognitive control demands. In this study, participants were tested on nine different occasions, a month
apart, during completion of L2 training. Additionally, the study reported gradual increases in left
hemispheric white matter tracts connecting regions subserving language comprehension and pro-
duction such as the IFG, caudate nucleus, and STG, as well as right hemispheric tracts that are
linked to these language-related brain areas. Increases in connectivity between the IFG and caudate
nucleus were also reported in a 16-week long training study (Hosoda et al., 2013). Crucially, when
the participants of that study were tested again a year after the program finished, during which time
they did not use their newly acquired language, the originally reported effects in the white matter had
disappeared. Mamiya et al. (2016) reported that the time participants spent in an immersive language
198
program was positively related to FA in bilateral SLF, and negatively to RD of this tract. However,
the effects observed during the immersion program disappeared after the program ended. Such results
suggest that the effects of bilingualism on white matter are conditioned by the sustained L2 use.
Therefore, the increased efficiency that led to restructuring of the white matter is no longer needed
once a bilingual stops using the L2. As a result, the relevant white matter effects revert to baseline.
Although most of the time, white matter changes in the above-mentioned studies pertain to
months of L2 training, it has been reported that even an hour of intensive vocabulary training leads
to decreased white matter diffusivity (Hofstetter et al., 2017). This potentially hints at a powerful
reorganization of the brain triggered by sudden and intensive demands linked to L2 learning. By
contrast, a recent study on the effects of language training in older participants did not reveal any
significant white matter changes even after much longer period of L2 training (Nilsson et al., 2021).
In line with the lack of grey matter effects discussed earlier, this suggests that the progressive loss of
plasticity in older age pertains also to the adaptability of white matter.
In all, the evidence for white matter changes in training studies generally shows increases after
some period of training, which do not seem to renormalize. Viewed through the lens of the DRM,
the absence of renormalization of white matter indicates either that these learners have not reached
peak efficiency yet or that those increases in white matter integrity are crucial even at high levels of
language expertise.
Conclusions Regarding the Dynamic Restructuring Model

The DRM posits that the duration and intensity of language learning experiences govern the emer-
gence and character of structural effects in the brain. We reviewed the available evidence from L2
learning studies on structural changes in grey and white matter. The findings support the view that
such adaptations are dynamic and yet highly regular when viewed through the prism of experience-
based neuroplasticity. The dynamicity of these effects in the grey matter is reflected in results reporting
both increases and decreases of the regional brain volumes. On the other hand, evidence suggests that
white matter increases (seemingly subsequent to grey matter adaptations) but does not renormalize
(although the structural increases seem to disappear if the L2 is not used). In all, these findings offer
support for the DRM that effects of L2 acquisition on brain structure will be dynamic, following an
expansion-renormalization trajectory. These effects are likely conditioned by the quantity but also by
the quality of bilingual training and experiences.
Future Directions
This chapter shows that longitudinal and training studies in the field of L2 learning have been invalu-
able in informing the DRM on the neurological impact of weeks to years of bilingual language use.
Indeed, such designs enable the control of extraneous variables more effectively, and they appear to
be especially relevant for revealing arguably rather subtle effects of L2 acquisition on the brain out-
side of immersive settings. However, commonly used designs that administer two imaging sessions
(one pre-and one post-language training) cannot provide insights on the non-linear, dynamic trajec-
tory of bilingualism-induced structural brain changes. Therefore, future studies should engage with
more complex longitudinal study designs with measurements at multiple points in time to unravel
progression of such changes.
Furthermore, we mentioned that phonological language characteristics impact structural
brain changes. But obviously, languages do not differ only in their phonology. The level of simi-
larity between languages, i.e., typological proximity has been proposed as a modulating factor of
levels of cognitive control (Puig-Mayenco et al., 2020). The effects of linguistic proximity on our
199
neurocognition could be addressed in a study which investigates groups of bilinguals with a constant
first language and variably distant L2 (e.g. Czech-Slovak bilinguals vs. Czech-English bilinguals vs.
Czech-Vietnamese bilinguals). Furthermore, a part of the effect might stem from cultural differences
rather than linguistic ones (Treffers-Daller et al., 2020). A possible way to disentangle the effects of
languages and cultures is to study various bilingual communities that use the same languages but
differ in their sociocultural backgrounds (i.e., comparing Turkish-English bilinguals living in the
UK coming from Turkey with those coming from Cyprus). The neurocognitive effects of different
language and cultural pairs is a question that deserves further investigation, with potential import-
ance for the DRM and related models, such as the framework unifying the bilingual experience tra-
jectories (DeLuca et al., 2020), or the bilingual anterior-to-posterior and subcortical shift (Grundy
et al., 2017).
Note
1 Note that this model is called differently in the studies we refer to; i.e., the exploration–selection–refinement
model (Lindenberger & Lövdén, 2019); expansion-partial renormalization hypothesis (Lövdén et al., 2013);
expansion-renormalization model (Wenger et al., 2017).
Further Readings
This article presents a theoretical model predicting brain changes induced by simultaneous interpreters.
Hervais-Adelman, A., & Babcock, L. (2020). The neurobiology of simultaneous interpreting: Where extreme
language control and cognitive control intersect. Bilingualism, 23(4), 740–751. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S1366728919000324
This study evidences the need to consider that the brain changes brought about bilingualism can be non-linear.
Korenar, M., Treffers-Daller, J., & Pliatsikas, C. (2023). Dynamic effects of bilingualism on brain structure map
onto general principles of experience-based neuroplasticity. Scientific Reports, 13(1), 3428. https://doi.org/
10.1038/s41598-023-30326-3
An accessible summary of the principles of the experience-based neuroplasiticity.
Wenger, E., Brozzoli, C., Lindenberger, U., & Lövdén, M. (2017). Expansion and renormalization of human
brain structure during skill acquisition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21(12), 930–939. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.tics.2017.09.008
Acknowledgments
This research has received funding from the European Union‘s Horizon2020 research and innovation programme
under the Marie Skłodowska Curie grant agreement No 765556. This publication was supported by the grant
GAUK No. 368120, realized at the Faculty of Arts, Charles University.
References
Abutalebi, J., & Green, D.W. (2016). Neuroimaging of language control in bilinguals: Neural adaptation and
reserve. Bilingualism, 19(4), 689–698. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728916000225
Abutalebi, J., Rosa, P.A. Della, Castro Gonzaga, A.K., Keim, R., Costa, A., & Perani, D. (2013). The role of the
left putamen in multilingual language production. Brain and Language, 125(3), 307–315. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.bandl.2012.03.009
Anderson, J.A.E., Chung-Fat-Yim, A., Bellana, B., Luk, G., & Bialystok, E. (2018). Language and cognitive
control networks in bilinguals and monolinguals. Neuropsychologia, 117, 352–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/
Antón, E., Fernández García, Y., Carreiras, M., & Duñabeitia, J.A. (2016). Does bilingualism shape inhibitory con-
trol in the elderly? Journal of Memory and Language, 90, 147–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2016.04.007
Bak, T.H., Vega-Mendoza, M., & Sorace, A. (2014). Never too late? An advantage on tests of auditory attention
extends to late bilinguals. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 485. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00485
200
Banaszkiewicz, A., Matuszewski, J., Bola, Ł., Szczepanik, M., Kossowski, B., Rutkowski, P., Szwed, M.,
Emmorey, K., Jednoróg, K., & Marchewka, A. (2021). Multimodal imaging of brain reorganization in hearing
late learners of sign language. Human Brain Mapping, 42(2), 384–397. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.25229
Bellander, M., Berggren, R., Mårtensson, J., Brehmer, Y., Wenger, E., Li, T.Q., Bodammer, N.C., Shing, Y.L.,
Werkle-Bergner, M., & Lövdén, M. (2016). Behavioral correlates of changes in hippocampal gray matter
structure during acquisition of foreign vocabulary. NeuroImage, 131, 205–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neu
roimage.2015.10.020
Berken, J.A., Gracco, V.L., Chen, J.K., & Klein, D. (2016). The timing of language learning shapes brain struc-
ture associated with articulation. Brain Structure and Function, 221(7), 3591–3600. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00429-015-1121-9
Burgaleta, M., Sanjuán, A., Ventura-Campos, N., Sebastian-Galles, N., & Ávila, C. (2016). Bilingualism at the
core of the brain. Structural differences between bilinguals and monolinguals revealed by subcortical shape
analysis. NeuroImage, 125, 437–445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.09.073
Fromont, L. (this volume). Age and proficiency in second language neurocognition. In K. Morgan-Short and J.G.
Casaponsa, A., & Thierry, G. (this volume). Linguistic relativity and second language. In K. Morgan-Short
Routledge.
Coggins, P.E., Kennedy, T.J., & Armstrong, T.A. (2004). Bilingual corpus callosum variability. 89, 69–75.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-934X(03)00299-2
Crawford, L.E., Knouse, L.E., Kent, M., Vavra, D., Harding, O., LeServe, D., Fox, N., Hu, X., Li, P., Glory, C., &
Lambert, K.G. (2020). Enriched environment exposure accelerates rodent driving skills. Behavioural Brain
Research, 378, 112309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2019.112309
Cummine, J., & Boliek, C. A. (2012). Understanding white matter integrity stability for bilinguals on language
status and reading performance. Brain Structure and Function, 218(2), 595–601. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00
429-012-0466-6
de Sousa Fernandes, M.S., Ordônio, T.F., Santos, G.C., Santos, L.E., Calazans, C.T., Gomes, D.A., & Santos,
T.M. (2020). Effects of physical exercise on neuroplasticity and brain function: A systematic review in human
and animal Studies. Neural Plasticity, 2020, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/8856621
Della Rosa, P.A., Videsott, G., Borsa, V.M., Canini, M., Weekes, B.S., Franceschini, R., & Abutalebi, J. (2013).
A neural interactive location for multilingual talent. Cortex, 49(2), 605–608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor
tex.2012.12.001
Deluca, V., Rothman, J., & Pliatsikas, C. (2019). Linguistic immersion and structural effects on the bilingual
brain: A longitudinal study. Bilingualism, 22(5), 1160–1175. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728918000883
DeLuca, V., Segaert, K., Mazaheri, A., & Krott, A. (2020). Understanding bilingual brain function and struc-
ture changes? U bet! A unified bilingual experience trajectory model. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 56, 1–29.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2020.100930
Draganski, B., Gaser, C., Kempermann, G., Kuhn, H.G., Winkler, J., Büchel, C., & May, A. (2006). Temporal and
spatial dynamics of brain structure changes during extensive learning. The Journal of Neuroscience, 26(23),
6314–6317. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4628-05.2006
Elmer, S., Hänggi, J., & Jäncke, L. (2014). Processing demands upon cognitive, linguistic, and articula-
tory functions promote grey matter plasticity in the adult multilingual brain: Insights from simultaneous
interpreters. Cortex, 54(1), 179–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2014.02.014
Garbin, G., Sanjuan, A., Forn, C., Bustamante, J.C., Rodriguez-Pujadas, A., Belloch, V., Hernandez, M., Costa,
A., & Ávila, C. (2010). Bridging language and attention: Brain basis of the impact of bilingualism on cogni-
tive control. NeuroImage, 53(4), 1272–1278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.05.078
García-Pentón, L., Pérez Fernández, A., Iturria-Medina, Y., Gillon-Dowens, M., & Carreiras, M. (2014).
Anatomical connectivity changes in the bilingual brain. NeuroImage, 84, 495–504. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.neuroimage.2013.08.064
Grundy, J.G., Anderson, J.A., & Bialystok, E. (2017). Neural correlates of cognitive processing in monolinguals
and bilinguals. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1396(1), 183–201. https://doi.org/10.1111/
nyas.13333
Routledge.
Hervais-Adelman, A., & Babcock, L. (2020). The neurobiology of simultaneous interpreting: Where extreme
language control and cognitive control intersect. Bilingualism, 23(4), 740–751. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S1366728919000324
201
Hofstetter, S., Friedmann, N., & Assaf, Y. (2017). Rapid language-related plasticity: microstructural changes
in the cortex after a short session of new word learning. Brain Structure and Function, 222(3), 1231–1241.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00429-016-1273-2
Hosoda, C., Tanaka, K., Nariai, T., Honda, M., & Hanakawa, T. (2013). Dynamic neural network reorgan-
ization associated with second language vocabulary acquisition: A multimodal imaging study. Journal of
Neuroscience, 33(34), 13663–13672. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0410-13.2013
Kleim, J.A., & Jones, T.A. (2008). Principles of experience-dependent neural plasticity: Implications for rehabili-
tation after brain damage. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 51(1), 225–239. https://doi.
org/10.1044/1092-4388(2008/018)
Korenar, M., Treffers-Daller, J., & Pliatsikas, C. (2023a). Brain structure adapts dynamically to highly
demanding bilingual experiences: Insights from interpreters and translators. Ampersand, 11, 100148. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.amper.2023.100148
Korenar, M., Treffers-Daller, J., & Pliatsikas, C. (2023b). Dynamic effects of bilingualism on brain structure map
onto general principles of experience-based neuroplasticity. Scientific Reports, 13(1), 3428. https://doi.org/
10.1038/s41598-023-30326-3
tion. In K. Morgan-Short and J.G. van Hell (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition
Kroll, J.F., Dussias, P.E., Bogulski, C.A., & Kroff, J.R. (2012). Juggling two languages in one mind. Psychology
of Learning and Motivation, 56, 229–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-394393-4.00007-8
Kuhl, P.K., Stevenson, J., Corrigan, N.M., Van den Bosch, J.J.F., Can, D.D., & Richards, T. (2016). Neuroimaging
of the bilingual brain: Structural brain correlates of listening and speaking in a second language. Brain and
Language, 162, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2016.07.004
Legault, J., Fang, S.Y., Lan, Y.J., & Li, P. (2019a). Structural brain changes as a function of second language
vocabulary training: Effects of learning context. Brain and Cognition, 134, 90–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.bandc.2018.09.004
Legault, J., Grant, A., Fang, S.Y., & Li, P. (2019b). A longitudinal investigation of structural brain changes during
second language learning. Brain and Language, 197, 104661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2019.104661
Liang, B., & Du, Y. (2018). The functional neuroanatomy of lexical tone perception: An activation likelihood
estimation meta-analysis. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 12, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2018.00495
Lindenberger, U., & Lövdén, M. (2019). Brain plasticity in human lifespan development: The exploration–
selection–refinement model. Annual Review of Developmental Psychology, 1(1), 197–222. https://doi.org/
10.1146/annurev-devpsych-121318-085229
Lindenberger, U., Wenger, E., & Lövdén, M. (2017). Towards a stronger science of human plasticity. Nature
Reviews Neuroscience, 18(5), 261–262. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn.2017.44
longitudinal voxel-based morphometry study. Brain and Language, 222, 105015. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.bandl.2021.105015
Lövdén, M., Wenger, E., Mårtensson, J., Lindenberger, U., & Bäckman, L. (2013). Structural brain plasticity in
adult learning and development. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 37(9), 2296–2310. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.02.014
Mamiya, P.C., Richards, T.L., Coe, B.P., Eichler, E.E., & Kuhl, P.K. (2016). Brain white matter structure and
COMT gene are linked to second-language learning in adults. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the United States of America, 113(26), 7249–7254. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1606602113
Mårtensson, J., Eriksson, J., Bodammer, N. C., Lindgren, M., Johansson, M., Nyberg, L., & Lövdén, M. (2012).
Growth of language-related brain areas after foreign language learning. NeuroImage, 63(1), 240–244. https://
Mesa-Gresa, P., Ramos-Campos, M., & Redolat, R. (2021). Behavioral impact of experience based on envir-
onmental enrichment: Influence of age and duration of exposure in male NMRI mice. Developmental
Psychobiology, 63(5), 1071–1081. https://doi.org/10.1002/dev.22093
Mohades, S.G., Struys, E., Van Schuerbeek, P., Mondt, K., Van De Craen, P., & Luypaert, R. (2012). DTI reveals
structural differences in white matter tracts between bilingual and monolingual children. Brain Research,
1435, 72–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2011.12.005
Navarro-Torres, C.A., Beatty-Martínez, A.L., Kroll, J. ., & Green, D.W. (2021). Research on bilingualism as dis-
covery science. Brain and Language, 222, 105014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2021.105014
202
Neumann, N., Domin, M., Erhard, K., & Lotze, M. (2018). Voxel-based morphometry in creative writers: Grey
matter increase in a prefronto-thalamic-cerebellar network. European Journal of Neuroscience, 48(1), 1647–
1653. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejn.13952
Nilsson, J., Berggren, R., Garzón, B., Lebedev, A.V., & Lövdén, M. (2021). Second language learning in older
adults: Effects on brain structure and predictors of learning success. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, 13,
1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2021.666851
Osterhout, L., Poliakov, A., Inoue, K., McLaughlin, J., Valentine, G., Pitkanen, I., Frenck-Mestre, C., &
Hirschensohn, J. (2008). Second-language learning and changes in the brain. Journal of Neurolinguistics,
21(6), 509–521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2008.01.001
Pliatsikas, C. (2020). Understanding structural plasticity in the bilingual brain: The dynamic restructuring model.
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 23(2), 459–471. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728919000130
Pliatsikas, C., DeLuca, V., & Voits, T. (2019). The many shades of bilingualism: Language experiences modu-
late adaptations in brain structure. Language Learning, 70(S2), 133–149. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12386
Puig-Mayenco, E., González Alonso, J., & Rothman, J. (2020). A systematic review of transfer studies in third
language acquisition. Second Language Research, 36(1), 31–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658318809147
Ramos, S., Fernández García, Y., Antón, E., Casaponsa, A., & Duñabeitia, J.A. (2017). Does learning a language
in the elderly enhance switching ability? Journal of Neurolinguistics, 43, 39–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jne
uroling.2016.09.001
Schlegel, A.A., Rudelson, J.J., & Tse, P.U. (2012). White matter structure changes as adults learn a second lan-
guage. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 24(8), 1664–1670. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00240
Stein, M., Federspiel, A., Koenig, T., Wirth, M., Strik, W., Wiest, R., Brandeis, D., & Dierks, T. (2012). Structural
plasticity in the language system related to increased second language proficiency. Cortex, 48(4), 458–465.
Tao, L., Wang, G., Zhu, M., & Cai, Q. (2021). Bilingualism and domain-general cognitive functions from a
neural perspective: A systematic review. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 125, 264–295. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.02.029
Teixeira-Machado, L., Arida, R.M., & de Jesus Mari, J. (2019). Dance for neuroplasticity: A descriptive sys-
tematic review. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 96, 232–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubio
rev.2018.12.010
Treffers-Daller, J., Ongun, Z., Hofweber, J., & Korenar, M. (2020). Explaining individual differences in execu-
tive functions performance in multilinguals: The impact of code-switching and alternating between multicul-
tural identity styles. Frontiers in Psychology, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.561088
Van de Putte, E., De Baene, W., García-Pentón, L., Woumans, E., Dijkgraaf, A., & Duyck, W. (2018). Anatomical
and functional changes in the brain after simultaneous interpreting training: A longitudinal study. Cortex, 99,
243–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2017.11.024
Voits, T., Robson, H., Rothman, J., & Pliatsikas, C. (2022). The effects of bilingualism on hippocampal
volume in ageing bilinguals. Brain Structure and Function, 227(3), 979–994. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00
429-021-02436-z
Wenger, E., Brozzoli, C., Lindenberger, U., & Lövdén, M. (2017). Expansion and renormalization of human
brain structure during skill acquisition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21(12), 930–939. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.tics.2017.09.008
Wenger, E., Papadaki, E., Werner, A., Kühn, S., & Lindenberger, U. (2021). Observing plasticity of the auditory
system: Volumetric decreases along with increased functional connectivity in aspiring professional musicians.
Cerebral Cortex Communications, 2(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1093/texcom/tgab008
Woollett, K., & Maguire, E.A. (2011). Acquiring “the knowledge” of London’s layout drives structural brain
changes. Current Biology, 21(24), 2109–2114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2011.11.018
Xiang, H., van Leeuwen, T.M., Dediu, D., Roberts, L., Norris, D.G., & Hagoort, P. (2015). L2-proficiency-
dependent laterality shift in structural connectivity of brain language pathways. Brain Connectivity, 5(6),
349–361. https://doi.org/10.1089/brain.2013.0199
203
15
LINGUISTIC RELATIVITY AND
SECOND LANGUAGE
How learning a Second Language May
Reshape Cognition
Introduction and Definitions

Today, the world counts more than 7,000 languages, which can be grouped into approximately 150
families (Eberhard et al., 2019). Languages can vary considerably from one another across all lin-
guistic representation levels (Evans & Levinson, 2009), including the number and nature of phonemes
and graphemes, labels—auditory or written—used to classify objects or colors, and grammatical
properties such as gender or aspect. The fact that each language has its own manifold characteristics
and rules, which must be respected when we use it to communicate, has led linguists such as Sapir
and Whorf (1956) to question whether individuals’ behavior and their way of thinking could reflect
the characteristics of their language.
The idea of an influence of language structure on thought has been extensively debated over the
last century, and especially in the fields of linguistics, anthropology, philosophy, and more recently
cognitive neuroscience (Athanasopoulos & Casaponsa, 2020; Everett, 2013; Lucy, 2016; Thierry,
2016). The Whorfian theory of linguistic relativity stems from the idea that the constant use of gram-
matical and structural characteristics idiosyncratic to a particular language orients attention and
thereby “shapes the way” we perceive and think about the environment. As Whorf puts it: “users of
markedly different grammars are pointed by their grammars toward different types of observations
and different evaluations of externally similar acts of observation, and hence are not equivalent as
observers but must arrive at somewhat different views of the world” (Whorf, 1956, p. 221). Sadly,
Whorf died in his early forties, a few years after his mentor Sapir who also died prematurely at the
age of 55. Neither of them had the chance to articulate their theoretical views in a way that would
not leave the door wide open to interpretation. Whorf posthumously became the target of repeated,
vitriolic attacks portraying him as a dilettante (Pullum, 1991), as irrational (Pinker, 2003), or even
immoral (McWhorter, 2014). However, character denigration is not a valid ground for dismissal and
the debate should focus on formal scientific testing of the theory.
Our purpose here will not be to extensively discuss the validity of Whorf’s views, which has
received substantial empirical support in recent times (see Athanasopoulos & Casaponsa, 2020;
Lupyan, 2012; Lupyan et al., 2020; Thierry, 2016), but rather to offer an account of how learning a
second language (L2) may shift and reshape one’s perception and conceptualization of the world. We
204 DOI: 10.4324/9781003190912-19

Linguistic Relativity and Second Language
therefore explore the idea that learning an additional language entails far more than the acquisition of
language elements, structures and systems, but also new ways of thinking about and interacting with
the world around us.
First, let us consider a few useful definitions:
• Language: Crystal and Robins (2018) define language as “a system of conventional spoken,
manual (signed), or written symbols by means of which human beings, as members of a social
group and participants in its culture, express themselves.” The term “conventional” implies some
degree of arbitrariness: Language is usually not considered to make direct (analogic) references to
the perceptual world, it uses arbitrary code making symbolic references to objects and concepts.
• Native language (L1): The first and generally main language(s) of exposure from birth, that is, the
language(s) one is first exposed to and starts learning from the environment during early devel-
opment. Generally, a native language is the main language spoken by parents of a child, but there
can be many variations relating to language diversity in the environment, migration, childcare, or
education.
• Second language (L2): Language acquired by an individual after the foundations of the native
language(s) have been laid (i.e., the case of sequential bilinguals). The term may also be used to
describe the lesser used of two languages acquired simultaneously.
• Bilingualism: Broadly speaking, bilinguals are individuals who have a functional command of
two languages.
• Embodiment: As Lakoff and Johnson (1999, pp. 41) put it: “Reason is not disembodied, as the
tradition has largely held, but arises from the nature of our brains, bodies, and bodily experi-
ence.” In other words, the mind is built based on biophysiological, perceptual experiences of
the world, rather than abstract representations detached from a physical input. This view, widely
shared amongst the scientific community of cognitivists and neuroscientists, is often referred to as
cognitive embodiment (see also Zappa & Frenck-Mestre, this volume).
• Linguistic relativity: The linguistic relativity hypothesis, also known as Sapir-Whorf hypothesis,
postulates a link between language structure (mostly at lexical and syntactic levels) and mental
representations (mostly at perceptual, attentional, and conceptual levels). In its broadest sense,
linguistic relativity is concerned with a possible shaping of perception and (nonverbal) conceptu-
alization by language. Linguistic relativity must be distinguished from the more extreme account
of language determinism, which argues that language forms and structures are the foundation of
thought and perception and thus, that nonverbal conceptual representations in fact do not exist.
The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis has recently regained interest in the wake of findings from cognitive
neuroscience regarding the neurophysiological bases of language and embodied cognition (Li
et al., 2019; Pulvermüller, 2005).
• Event-related potentials (ERPs): This method, derived from electroencephalography, allows the
researcher to isolate a prototypical response of the brain (potentials) to a particular set of stimuli
(events) presented in a time-controlled fashion (see Dickson & Pelzl, this volume).
Historical Perspective and Theoretical Accounts:

Language, Thought and the Brain
The world’s linguistic diversity alluded to in the introduction (Eberhard et al., 2019; Evans &
Levinson, 2009) makes it immediately obvious that objects and actions, whether concrete or abstract,
and their properties, are denoted by different words or labels in different languages. Such cross-
language variation concerns not only the nature of words qualifying objects and actions, such as
205
color or manner of motion (e.g., nouns and adjectives) but also grammatical properties (e.g., gender
and aspect), which can convey functional relationships between agents and objects as well as con-
textual information about space and time. Languages also vary considerably in terms of supra-lexical
syntax, for instance in their use of connectives or word order, leading to markedly diverse sentence
organization.
This simple observation has led academics to question whether people’s mental representations
and behavior could reflect linguistic characteristics specific to their language. Beyond the philosoph-
ical debate triggered by the idea of a relationship between language and thought, scientific evidence
in the field of cognitive neuroscience indicates that the terms and grammatical constructs we use to
communicate have a measurable impact on non-linguistic cognitive processes such as color percep-
tion (Athanasopoulos et al., 2010; Mo et al., 2011; Thierry et al., 2009; Xia et al., 2019), object cat-
egorization (Boutonnet et al., 2012; Boutonnet et al., 2013, Boutonnet & Lupyan, 2015; Casaponsa
et al., 2022), the passage of time (Boroditsky et al., 2011; Bylund & Athanasopoulos, 2017; Li et al.,
2018; Li et al., 2019), action conceptualization (Athanasopoulos & Bylund, 2013; Athanasopoulos
et al., 2015; Bylund et al., 2013; Flecken et al., 2015; Francken et al., 2015; Kersten et al., 2010), and
emotional processing (Barrett et al., 2007; Jonczyk et al., 2016; Lindquist et al., 2006; Wu & Thierry,
2012). Therefore, understanding how the brain organizes and processes linguistic information and
how this information is integrated with other non-linguistic processes is especially important if we
want to measure the impact of learning a L2 and improve learning efficiency.
Starting from a Hebbian perspective on learning (Hebb, 1949) and the idea that the nervous system
is highly adaptative, cognitive processes such as perception, memory, reasoning, decision making,
and language must necessarily be distributed across interactive assemblies of neurons rather than
packed into discrete functional modules. Through experience, interconnections and associations
between neurons are constantly modified and updated, restructuring the way in which our brain
processes and stores information. For example, when we learn how to play an instrument, such as the
piano, distant motor, visual, and auditory areas of the cortex become functionally related through the
association of pressing a given key with a finger, a visually perceived note, and the sound produced
by the piano. With only five hours of training involving key presses and hearing the associated sound,
neuronal restructuring means that hearing a particular note is enough to specifically elicit activation
in the motor cortex controlling the fingers (Lahav et al., 2007). Similar mechanisms obtain when
we learn a language, resulting in fast and resilient associations between the sound of words and
their meaning, as well as sensory attributes intrinsically connected to the association through neural
subnets (embodiment). For example, seeing the word “coffee” activates brain areas involved in visual
word form recognition and comprehension as well as sensory areas such as olfactory or visual cor-
tices (Pulvermüller & Fadiga, 2010). In the same vein, verb forms such as “running” will not only
stimulate brain areas involved in language, but also areas of the sensorimotor cortex, providing some
of the strongest empirical evidence in support of embodied cognition (Pulvermüller et al., 2001;
Pulvermüller et al., 2005; see Zappa & Frenck-Mestre, this volume).
We should, therefore, abandon theoretical conceptualizations of language as an encapsulated
“module,” somewhat functionally independent from other cognitive systems. With Pulvermüller
(2005) and Barsalou (2008), we take the view that lexical-grammatical subsystems and “non-verbal”
cognitive systems are reciprocally and intimately connected in the human brain (Athanasopoulos
& Casaponsa, 2020; Thierry, 2016). This implies that mental representations are distributed across
neural networks that implement both linguistic information and their sensorimotor attributes.
Conceptual representations, then, could arise from synchronization of neural firing patterns within
and between multimodal and multisensory cell assemblies. Here, we consider in some detail the
extent to which connections between our native language and other cognitive representations are
penetrable and modified when we learn a L2.
206
One notable attempt at modelling interactions between language and non-verbal representations
in long-term memory is Lupyan’s (2012) label feedback hypothesis. Lupyan posits that word
representations (or labels) are crystallized independently from the concepts they refer to during
learning, and that links between conceptual representations and labels are progressively strengthened
over time. Eventually, a new word becomes well connected with the concept it refers to such that
label representations are systematically activated when a concept is accessed and that, in turn,
the corresponding concept becomes more salient for perception and attention. This proposal does
not differ significantly from more general connectionist models of language processing, although
it focusses rather selectively on the lexical (word/label) level of representation and thus does not
readily account for relativistic effects relating to grammatical properties such as gender or aspect,
let alone supra-lexical syntax (Sato & Athanasopoulos, 2018). In fact, a more general model of
language-cognition interaction based on a Hebbian conception of the human brain (Pulvermüller,
1999) makes predictions similar to those made by Lupyan’s label-feedback hypothesis, albeit based
on synchronized activity in Hebbian cell assemblies, some representing word forms and others con-
ceptual associations, be they strongly embodied or not.
Evidence for Linguistic Relativity Effects in Second Language Learning

Much more so than L1 acquisition, L2 learning requires the integration of new representations into
a network of pre-existing ones. When we learn a new language, we must acquire new phonological
and orthographic rules, new word forms, new syntactic and grammatical patterns, but also nego-
tiate how the new information will coexist alongside native language representations. For example,
learning the grammatical aspect of actions in progress conveyed by the progressive or gerund in
Spanish should be easier for a native speaker of English (which also has a progressive form) than
for a native speaker of German (which does not). But we argue here that learning a L2 is also
about learning a new way of perceiving and thinking. A German learner of Spanish needs to both
acquire a new grammatical device (e.g., the progressive) and adopt the corresponding conceptual-
isation of action unfolding over time (see Bylund & Athanasopoulos, 2015; Flecken et al., 2015;
Pavlenko, 2014). In this section, we review examples of cognitive processes affected by language
and how L2 learners might change the way they conceptualize and perceive their environment as
a consequence.
Words, Perception, and Categorization
Color Categories
Thierry et al. (2009) conducted one of the first studies looking into early and automatic effects of
terminology on color perception. They tested English monolinguals and Greek-English bilinguals
(all native speakers of Greek living in the United Kingdom) in an oddball paradigm known to elicit
modulations of the visual mismatch negativity (vMMN), an index of pre-attentive change detec-
tion caused by a stimulus presented rarely (deviant) with in a stream of stimuli presented frequently
(standards). Participants had to report squares and ignore round shapes. Stimulus color, which was
not mentioned and task-irrelevant, varied such that light blue or green was a deviant and dark blue
or green was a standard (and reciprocally in another block). The authors predicted that the existence
of two basic terms in Greek for light blue (ghalazio) and dark blue (ble) would lead to differential
vMMN modulation in Greek between 100–200 ms post stimulus onset. Indeed, compared to Greek-
English bilinguals, the vMMN was smaller in English monolinguals, who only have one basic term
for blue, while green contrasts elicited similar vMMN effects in the two groups (Greek also has only
one term for green, prasino). When the data was subsequently split into two groups based on the
207
length of stay in the United Kingdom, short stay (< two years) bilinguals showed a stronger light blue/
dark blue differentiation effect than long stay bilinguals (Athanasopoulos et al., 2010).
Categorical perception thus seems affected by distinctions made by language terminology, and it
can be reshaped by language experience. Subsequent studies have investigated whether visual per-
ceptual restructuring can be observed with short periods of vocabulary learning (e.g., Clifford et al.,
2012; Zhong et al., 2015; Zhou et al., 2010). With only five half-hour sessions of associating words
with new color subcategories, Kwok et al. (2011) detected structural changes in cortical areas under-
pinning color perception, the same areas shown to activate jointly with language networks during
color and shape association tasks (Siok et al., 2009; Tan et al., 2008). Thus, minimal experience with
new labels to refer to colors leads to quick changes in categorical perception at a neurophysiological
level. This evidence stands in contrast with the study by Athanasopoulos et al. (2010) where changes
in color perception only emerged after 2 years of L2 immersion. Note however, that the latter study
concerned category fusion (e.g., from ghalazio and ble to “blue”) as opposed to category refine-
ment (from one category in L1 to two via learning of new labels). Indeed, beyond the fact that new
information is generally learnt faster than old information is forgotten, especially in the case of long-
established knowledge, it is also arguably more ecologically valid to learn a new (relevant) category
fast than forget an old one.
Object Categories
Spanish has two terms to distinguish glasses with and without a stem, copa and vaso, respect-
ively, while in other languages, such as English, both objects are usually designated as “glass.”
Reciprocally, the word taza in Spanish encompasses two categories of objects in English: cups and
mugs. Given that categorizing objects in the environment is one of our most fundamental cogni-
tive abilities (Lakoff et al., 1987), the link between terminology and object categorization seems
obvious. Categorization is an effective way of relating new objects and experiences to previous
ones and therefore not only to memorize them but also associate them with meaning. This process
is mostly implicit and automatic. If we come across an animal standing on two legs with a beak and
feathers, we would likely categorize it as a kind of “bird.” If it is bigger than a cat and its feathers
are colorful, we might categorize it as “pheasant” or “peacock,” even if we are unsure what such
birds look like. Similarly, when a native speaker of Spanish encounters a cup-looking object, they
may assign it to the taza category, whereas a native speaker of English could assign the same
object to the “mug” category, based on properties such as size, proportions, thickness, material, et
cetera. If systematic use of terms contributes to consolidating neural associations between mental
representations of objects held in long-term memory, we can predict that objects assigned to these
categories will be perceived as more different by a speaker of English than a speaker of Spanish.
Boutonnet et al. (2013) tested this prediction in an ERP oddball paradigm using the vMMN in a
visual object recognition task. Rare presentations of a cup amongst frequent instances of a mug failed
to elicit, in native speakers of Spanish, the vMMN effect that was elicited by the same contrast in
native speakers of English. To be clear, Spaniards could still tell the two objects apart—otherwise the
results would support linguistic determinism—but their brain failed to meaningfully engage with the
distinction during early perception. Consistent with the idea conveyed by Whorf, the authors argued
that the two objects differently attract attention in speakers of English but not in native speakers of
Spanish. What happens, then, when new categories are learnt, as is the case when the L2 makes cat-
egorical distinctions that do not exist in L1?
Maier et al. (2014) asked participants to learn new words to label invented objects (i.e., pseudo-
objects). Some labels were associated with two different pseudo-objects, de facto belonging to the
208
same category, while other labels were associated with only one object. Two days after training, which
lasted only 45 minutes, P1 ERP modulations suggested that participants perceived objects belonging
to the same category as more similar than objects belonging to a different category. Learning of
new categories mediated by vocabulary thus modulates perceptual processing very quickly (see also
Rabovsky et al., 2012; Yu et al., 2017a, 2017b). However, learning in this experiment was highly
artificial and the objects had no pre-existing representation in memory or linguistic representation
already associated with them, which is markedly different from the natural conditions in which a L2
is learned.
Pan and Jared (2020) tested the premises of the label-feedback hypothesis (Lupyan, 2012) in
Chinese-English bilinguals using a vMMN paradigm with pictures of birds: a robin and an ostrich,
whose Chinese labels both contain the character for bird, and a penguin and a pigeon, whose Chinese
labels do not overlap. As predicted by the label-feedback hypothesis, the vMMN effect elicited by
the robin/ostrich contrast was smaller than that elicited by the penguin/pigeon contrast, in a group
of short-stay bilinguals (who had lived in Canada for <1.5 years). In a group of long-stay bilinguals
(having lived in Canada for 2–9 years), the vMMN difference between the two contrasts tended to
disappear, providing converging evidence with Athanasopoulos et al.’s (2010) observation in the
domain of color.
Recently, our group conducted an adaptation of Boutonnet et al. (2013)’s ERP oddball paradigm in
Spanish–English bilinguals using arrays of cups and mugs rather than single objects. Modulation of
the vMMN by oddball arrays of peripherally presented objects, suggests that bilinguals (who learned
L2 English at age 6 or later) become sensitive to category distinctions made in the L2 while retaining
the distinctions made by the native language. We did not find any sign of category fusion, which is
a tendency to perceive objects as more similar when a single term in L2 is associated with two cat-
egories dissociated in L1. Together the examples reviewed above point to fast and early effects of
word learning on visual object processing, which suggests that L2 learning may have a general effect
on perception in line with predictions from linguistic relativity (see Lucy, 2016). The next section
reviews examples of linguistic relativity effects driven by the learning of L2 grammar.
Grammar and Conceptualization
Grammatical Gender and Object Conceptualization

Learning a L2 is far from limited to acquiring new vocabulary. Unless one has particularly poor ver-
batim memory, L2 grammatical properties and syntax are arguably more difficult to learn than new
words, especially when such properties are absent in the native language (e.g., grammatical tense
in Chinese) or when syntactic rules function differently in the two languages. Individuals whose
native language does not have grammatical gender, for instance, find it particularly challenging when
learning French, Spanish or German (Franceschina, 2005; Grüter et al., 2012; Sabourin & Stowe,
2008; see also Biondo et al., this volume, and Sabourin & Manning, this volume).
Contrary to conceptual gender (i.e., the gender of people and animals), grammatical gender of
nouns is mostly arbitrary in nature and mappings between object and gender differ widely between
languages. The French word monde, meaning “world” is masculine (le monde), as it is in Spanish (el
mundo), but it is feminine in German (die Welt). English learners of French or Spanish will need to
not only learn the word for “world” in the L2 but also its grammatical gender, which will dictate its
form and agreement with other words in a sentence (determiner, verbs, adjectives, etc.). By contrast,
German learners of French or Spanish will need to learn the word and the fact that it has a different
gender in the L2.
209
One interesting question, then, given the obvious links between semantic and grammatical gender,
is whether the constant use of male and female references when speaking of objects influences object
conceptualization. Boutonnet et al. (2012) sought to determine whether Spanish–English bilinguals
tested in a L2 English context would implicitly access the grammatical gender of objects presented to
them as pictures (non-verbally), when they are engaged in a semantic categorization task. Participant
were asked to indicate via button press whether the last of three objects presented in a row was from
the same semantic category as the first two (as in, Tomato–Celery–Asparagus vs. Tomato–Celery–
Truck). Unbeknownst to participants, the grammatical gender of the last object in Spanish was either
consistent with that of the two first objects or not. In addition to expected modulations of the N400
by semantic priming (e.g., Kutas & Federmeier, 2011), bilinguals showed a Left Anterior Negativity
(Friederici et al., 1993; see also Dickson & Pelzl, this volume) for objects with a grammatical gender
inconsistent with that of the first two. Thus, Spanish-English bilinguals automatically, and presum-
ably unconsciously, access grammatical gender information about everyday objects while immersed
in a L2 context. The question then is whether they perceive concepts such as moon and sun in the
same way as native speakers of English, given that Spanish grammar systematically associates moon
with femininity (la luna) and the sun with masculinity (el sol).
The question of grammatical gender–semantic representation interactions has not yet been exten-
sively addressed in L2 learners, possibly owing to the difficulty of controlling linguistic characteristics
simultaneously in the two languages of a bilingual while measuring semantic interference of gram-
matical gender in a non-verbal task. Sato et al. (2020) sought to understand such interactions by
measuring automatic responses of the brain to masculine and feminine faces primed by different
sets of objects during a semantic categorization task. Objects were either stereotypically congruent
or incongruent with the gender of the target face (e.g., a skirt or a tie). Unbeknown to participants,
the authors also manipulated grammatical gender congruency in the participants’ native language,
French. Behaviorally, French–English bilinguals living in the UK and tested in English performed
similarly as native English speakers, displaying also similar N300 modulations by conceptual gender
priming (gender stereotypes). However, in contrast to English natives, bilingual participants impli-
citly matched the grammatical gender of the objects with the gender of faces, as shown by early per-
ceptual modulations (indexed by N1 amplitude). Thus, grammatical gender representations appear
to be spontaneously accessed in a non-verbal context, which is likely to interfere with conceptual-
semantic processing of visual objects.
Grammatical Aspect and Motion Conceptualization

Another grammatical characteristic that varies considerably across languages and which could affect
perception and conceptualization is grammatical aspect. Athanasopoulos and Bylund (2013) tested
the relationship between the characteristics of the native language and the perception of motion
events in native speakers of English and native speakers of German. When German speakers describe
an event depicted in a video clip (e.g., a woman walking towards a car), they tend to describe not
only the action itself, but also the goal of the action (i.e., the fact that the woman walks towards
a car), while English speakers tend to focus primarily on the action itself (i.e., the fact that the
woman is walking). English and Spanish, contrary to German, have grammatical aspect. English, for
instance, denotes unfolding actions using a gerund (e.g., children are running), whereas German lacks
such progressive form. Athanasopoulos and Bylund (2013) confirmed their prediction that German
speakers refer more to the goal of an action (e.g., children run to school) than English speakers when
describing pictures. However, these observations were made in a context of language production
(picture description) and could boil down to an effect of language-on-language, failing to capture
how non-verbal representations are affected by linguistic constructs when language is not primarily
involved (e.g., Thierry, 2016; Wessel-Tolvig & Paggio, 2016).
210
Nevertheless, Flecken et al. (2015) found converging evidence for effects of grammar on event
conceptualization in a non-verbal, perceptual task. They used a P300 oddball paradigm, comparing
brain responses to target pictures matching a preceding short animation in terms of either end point
or trajectory in native English and native German speakers. The limitation mentioned above was also
later addressed behaviorally using the ABX paradigm, in which participants are only required to com-
pare events “visually” and decide which of two events (A/B) is most comparable to a third one (X),
without resorting to a verbal description (e.g., Athanasopoulos et al., 2015). Athanasopoulos et al.
(2015) not only showed greater focus on the goal of an unfolding action in native speakers of German
compared to speakers of English, but also a shift from a German-like to an English-like pattern of
behavior when bilingual participants switched from a verbal interference task conducted in English to
one conducted in German. These results suggest that conceptualization depends on the language con-
text and that shifts in conceptualization can be observed in real time, as the language context changes
(see also Bylund & Athanasopoulos, 2015).
Other Factors to Consider

Together, the studies reviewed above establish that learning new lexical forms fosters neuroplasticity
beyond linguistic representations. Such plasticity likely depends on several factors known to be
involved in language learning: (a) developmental maturity and age of acquisition: the sooner we
engage in learning, the greater the restructuring of the cognitive architecture (e.g., Kersten et al.,
2010); (b) generic cognitive ability, such as intelligence, attention, and working memory (e.g.,
Casaponsa et al., 2015); and (c) the learning context, such as method, duration and rate of exposure
(e.g., Athanasopoulos et al., 2015).
In addition to acquiring new language forms and structures, L2 learners have to manage constant
and implicit activation of first language representations, which happen unconsciously and automat-
ically (Thierry & Wu, 2007; Vaughan-Evans et al., 2015; Wu & Thierry, 2010), whether they are
helpful, as in the case of cognates (Casaponsa et al., 2015) or counterproductive, as in the case of
interlingual homographs or false friends. However, language co-activation is not always found, as
has been observed in the case of affective words (Jończyk et al., 2016; Wu & Thierry, 2012), but
also when equivalence across language involves complex mapping, as is the case of tense in Chinese
learners of English (Li et al., 2018; Li et al., 2023). In other words, the degree of correspondence
between L1 and L2 in terms of, for example, translation equivalents and grammatical forms, may
modulate the magnitude of linguistic relativity effects.
Finally, it is noteworthy that linguistic relativity likely concerns L2 learners to a greater degree
than monolinguals, who probably seldom face the question of perceiving or conceptualizing the
world under a “different light.” For instance, a monolingual trainee might need to acquire extensive
new vocabulary as they grow their expertise in a particular field of knowledge such as surgery or
architecture, but any linguistic relativity effect will be restricted to the acquisition of new (open-class)
words. It is highly unlikely that such individuals will learn new grammatical classes of (closed-class)
words or novel syntactic patterns. Learning a second language, therefore, is likely to come hand-in-
hand with stronger relativity effects, due to simultaneous learning of (many) new words together with
new grammatical mechanisms and rules of syntax that shape the way we perceive and conceptualize
our environment.
Innovations, Current Trends, and Future Directions

In the laboratory, participants can acquire new categories based on the acquisition of new words, via
reorganization of links between cell assemblies dealing with perception and language representations.
However, Athanasopoulos et al. (2010) showed in the case of color perception that category fusion
211
does not seem to happen until two years of immersion in a foreign-speaking country have passed.
Further investigation using objective measures of change detection at a perceptual and conceptual
levels (e.g., mismatch negativity, P300, N400) is required that can measure longitudinally how cat-
egory boundaries may be blurred over time as an individual learns a L2.
Preliminary evidence from our group suggests that expansion may not be measurable in the case of
object categories, possibly because it is more informative to segment the world in as many categories
as possible (category refinement), whereas regrouping previously learned categories under the same
umbrella (category fusion) is arguably less useful. For instance, an English learner of Spanish will
find it easier to learn the terms copa and vaso than the term taza. Indeed, learning to consider cups
and mugs as belonging to one class of objects comes down to “forgetting” the distinction between
cups and mugs and, as argued throughout this chapter, this would require forgetting the distinction
made in the native language between the words “cup” and “mug.” While this is theoretically possible,
for instance in the case of severe attrition following a change of linguistic environment or language-
selective aphasia, this should be observed in exceptional situations only and needs further investiga-
tion. This will require measures of implicit, unconscious information processing, using neuroscientific
methods such as electrophysiology and magnetoencephalography, because participants and patients
may not be able to overtly report perceptual differences, and such differences might not be detectable
behaviorally either.
Such investigations could benefit from new methodological developments offering more sensitive
and individually reliable measures, such as frequency tagging. Frequency tagging is an EEG tech-
nique capitalizing on brain entrainment to specific stimulus presentation frequencies. If two stimulus
categories are visually and/or auditorily presented at two defined frequencies, different neural assem-
blies may latch on the two frequencies based on their “interest” in the particular stimuli, and thus
start oscillating accordingly. While it is technically challenging to implement, this method has sev-
eral potentially groundbreaking advantages: no task/response required, fast presentation rate meaning
short experiment duration, statistical validity at the individual participant level, to name only a few.
This latter advantage is crucial as it may allow correlating performance to individual proficiency in or
exposure to L2.
Another area for future investigation concerns the speed at which the linguistic relativity effect can
be “switched” on and off. To our knowledge, no immediate perceptual modulation by language con-
text has yet been demonstrated in the literature. Future studies could test whether early, pre-attentive
color perception can be modulated in real time by language of operation within the same L2 learners,
possibly using oddball paradigm and the visual mismatch negativity as index combined with lan-
guage cues, in order to set the language context in different blocks.
Further Readings
Comprehensive review of the Whorfian hypothesis on the intersection between language, cognition, and
neuroscience:
Athanasopoulos, P., & Casaponsa, A. (2020). The Whorfian brain: Neuroscientific approaches to linguistic
relativity. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 37(5–6), 393–412. https://doi.org/10.1080/02643294.2020.1769050
Theoretical review highlighting how linguistic labels can influence visual perception of the world around us:
Lupyan, G., Rahman, R.A., Boroditsky, L., & Clark, A. (2020). Effects of language on visual perception. Trends
in Cognitive Sciences, 24(11), 930–944. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2020.08.005
First review emphasizing the need for neurolinguistic empirical evidence to support the Whorfian hypothesis:
Thierry, G. (2016). Neurolinguistic relativity: How language flexes human perception and cognition. Language
Learning, 66 (3): 690–713. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12186
212
Acknowledgments
A.C. was supported by the British Academy/Leverhulme Small Research Grant (SG171343). G.T. was supported
by the Polish National Agency for Academic Exchange (NAWA) under the NAWA Chair Program (PPN/
PRO/2020/1/00006).
References
Athanasopoulos, P., & Bylund, E. (2013). Does grammatical aspect affect motion event cognition? A cross-
linguistic comparison of English and Swedish speakers. Cognitive Science, 37(2), 286–309. https://doi.org/
10.1111/cogs.12006
Athanasopoulos, P., Bylund, E., Montero-Melis, G., Damjanovic, L., Schartner, A., Kibbe, A., Riches, N., &
Thierry, G. (2015). Two languages, two minds: Flexible cognitive processing driven by language of oper-
ation. Psychological Science, 26(4), 518–526. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614567509
Athanasopoulos, P., & Casaponsa, A. (2020). The Whorfian brain: Neuroscientific approaches to linguistic rela-
tivity. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 37(5–6), 393–412. https://doi.org/10.1080/02643294.2020.1769050
Athanasopoulos, P., Dering, B., Wiggett, A., Kuipers, J.R., & Thierry, G. (2010). Perceptual shift in bilin-
gualism: Brain potentials reveal plasticity in pre-attentive colour perception. Cognition, 116(3), 437–443.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.05.016
Barrett, L.F., Lindquist, K.A., & Gendron, M. (2007). Language as context for the perception of emotion. Trends
Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Cognitive and neural contributions to understanding the conceptual system. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 17(2), 91–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00555.x
Boroditsky, L., Fuhrman, O., & McCormick, K. (2011). Do English and Mandarin speakers think about time dif-
ferently? Cognition, 118(1), 123–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.09.010
Boutonnet, B., Athanasopoulos, P., & Thierry, G. (2012). Unconscious effects of grammatical gender during
object categorisation. Brain Research, 1479, 72–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2012.08.044
Boutonnet, B., Dering, B., Viñas-Guasch, N., & Thierry, G. (2013). Seeing objects through the language glass.
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 25(10), 1702–1710. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00415
Boutonnet, B., & Lupyan, G. (2015). Words jump-start vision: A label advantage in object recognition. Journal
of Neuroscience, 35(25), 9329–9335. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5111-14.2015
Bylund, E., & Athanasopoulos, P. (2015). Televised Whorf: Cognitive restructuring in advanced foreign lan-
guage learners as a function of audiovisual media exposure. The Modern Language Journal, 99(S1), 123–
137. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2015.12182.x
Bylund, E., & Athanasopoulos, P. (2017). The Whorfian time warp: Representing duration through the lan-
guage hourglass. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 146(7), 911. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/
10.1037/xge0000314
Bylund, E., Athanasopoulos, P., & Oostendorp, M. (2013). Motion event cognition and grammatical
aspect: Evidence from Afrikaans. Linguistics, 51(5), 929–955. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2013-0033
Casaponsa, A., Antón, E., Pérez, A., & Duñabeitia, J. A. (2015). Foreign language comprehension achievement: Insights
from the cognate facilitation effect. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 588. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00588
Casaponsa, A., García-Guerrero, M. A., Martínez, A., Ojeda, N., Thierry, G., & Athanasopoulos, P. (2022).
Electrophysiological evidence for a Whorfian double dissociation of categorical perception across two
languages. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/fdr3u
Clifford, A., Franklin, A., Holmes, A., Drivonikou, V.G., Özgen, E., & Davies, I.R. (2012). Neural correlates of
acquired color category effects. Brain and Cognition, 80(1), 126–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2012.04.011
Crystal, D., & Robins, R.H. (2018). Language. In Encyclopaedia britannica. Retrieved from www.britannica.
com/contributor/Robert-Henry-Robins/2482
Eberhard, D.M., Simons, G.F., & Fennig, C.D. (2019). Ethnologue: Languages of the world. Twenty-second
edition. SIL International. www.ethnologue.com
213
Evans, N., & Levinson, S.C. (2009). The myth of language universals: language diversity and its importance
for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Science, 32(5), 429–48. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x0
999094x
Everett, C. (2013). Linguistic Relativity: Evidence across languages and cognitive domains. De Gruyter Mouton.
https://doi.irg/10.1515/9783110308143
Friederici, A.D., Pfeifer, E., & Hahne, A. (1993). Event-related brain potentials during natural speech pro-
cessing: Effects of semantic, morphological and syntactic violations. Cognitive Brain Research, 1(3), 183–
192. https://doi.org/10.1016/0926-6410(93)90026-2
Flecken, M., Athanasopoulos, P., Kuipers, J.R., & Thierry, G. (2015). On the road to somewhere: Brain potentials
reflect language effects on motion event perception. Cognition, 141, 41–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognit
ion.2015.04.006
Francken, J.C., Kok, P., Hagoort, P., & De Lange, F.P. (2015). The behavioral and neural effects of language on
motion perception. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 27(1), 175–184. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00682
Franceschina, F. (2005). Fossilized second language grammars: The acquisition of grammatical gender. John
Benjamins Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1075/lald.38
Hebb, D.O. (1949). The Organization of Behavior: A Psychological Theory. Wiley & Sons.
Grüter, T., Lew-Williams, C., & Fernald, A. (2012). Grammatical gender in L2: A production or a real-time
processing problem? Second Language Research, 28(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658312437
Jończyk, R., Boutonnet, B., Musiał, K., Hoemann, K., & Thierry, G. (2016). The bilingual brain turns a blind
eye to negative statements in the second language. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 16(3),
527–540. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-016-0411-x
Kersten, A.W., Meissner, C.A., Lechuga, J., Schwartz, B.L., Albrechtsen, J.S., & Iglesias, A. (2010). English
speakers attend more strongly than Spanish speakers to manner of motion when classifying novel objects and
events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 139(4), 638. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020507
Kutas, M., & Federmeier, K.D. (2011). Thirty years and counting: Finding meaning in the N400 component of
the event related brain potential (ERP). Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 621. https://doi.org/10.1146/annu
rev.psych.093008.131123
Kwok, V., Niu, Z., Kay, P., Zhou, K., Mo, L., Jin, Z., … & Tan, L.H. (2011). Learning new color names produces
rapid increase in gray matter in the intact adult human cortex. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, 108(16), 6686–6688. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1103217108
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western
thought. Basic Books.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, & dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. University of
Chicago Press.
Lahav, A., Saltzman, E., & Schlaug, G. (2007). Action representation of sound: audiomotor recognition network
while listening to newly acquired actions. Journal of Neuroscience, 27(2), 308–314. https://doi.org/10.1523/
Li, Y., Casaponsa, A., Wu, Y.J., & Thierry, G. (2019). Back to the future? How Chinese-English bilinguals switch
between front and back orientation for time. NeuroImage, 203, 116180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroim
age.2019.116180
Li, Y., Casaponsa, A., Jones, M., & Thierry, G. (2023). Chinese learners of English are conceptually blind to tem-
poral differences conveyed by tense. Language Learning.https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12584
Li, Y., Jones, M., & Thierry, G. (2018). Timeline blurring in fluent Chinese-English bilinguals. Brain Research,
1701, 93–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2018.07.008
Lindquist, K.A., Barrett, L.F., Bliss-Moreau, E., & Russell, J.A. (2006). Language and the perception of emotion.
Emotion, 6(1), 125–138. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.6.1.125
Lucy, J. (2016). The implications of linguistic relativity for language learning. In R. Alonso Alonso (Ed.),
Crosslinguistic influence in second language acquisition (pp. 53–70). Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/
10.21832/9781783094837-006
Lupyan, G. (2012). Linguistically modulated perception and cognition: The label-feedback hypothesis. Frontiers
in Psychology, 3, 54. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00054
Lupyan, G., Rahman, R.A., Boroditsky, L., & Clark, A. (2020). Effects of language on visual perception. Trends
in Cognitive Sciences, 24(11), 930–944. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2020.08.005
McWhorter, J. H. (2014). The language hoax: Why the world looks the same in any language. Oxford
University Press.
Maier, M., Glage, P., Hohlfeld, A., & Abdel Rahman, R. (2014). Does the semantic content of verbal categories
influence categorical perception? An ERP study. Brain and Cognition, 91, 1–10. https://doi.org/https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.bandc.2014.07.008
214
Mo, L., Xu, G., Kay, P., & Tan, L.H. (2011). Electrophysiological evidence for the left-lateralized effect of lan-
guage on preattentive categorical perception of color. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108
(34), 14026–30. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.111186010
Pan, X., & Jared, D. (2021). Effects of Chinese word structure on object perception in Chinese–English
bilinguals: Evidence from an ERP visual oddball paradigm. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 24(1),
111–123. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728920000206
Pavlenko, A. (2014). The bilingual mind: And what it tells us about language and thought. Cambridge University
Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139021456
Pinker, S. (2003). The language instinct: How the mind creates language. Penguin.
Pullum, G.K. (1991). The great Eskimo vocabulary hoax and other irreverent essays on the study of language.
University of Chicago Press.
Pulvermüller, F. (2005). Brain mechanisms linking language and action. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 6(7),
576–582. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn1706
Pulvermüller, F. (1999). Words in the brain's language. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(2), 253–279. https://
doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X9900182X
Pulvermüller, F., & Fadiga, L. (2010). Active perception: sensorimotor circuits as a cortical basis for language.
Nature Reviews Neuroscience 11(5), 351. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2811
Pulvermüller, F., Härle, M., & Hummel, F. (2001). Walking or talking? Behavioral and neurophysiological
correlates of action verb processing. Brain and Language, 78(2), 143–168. https://doi.org/10.1006/
brln.2000.2390
Pulvermüller, F., Hauk, O., Nikulin, V. V., & Ilmoniemi, R. J. (2005). Functional links between motor
and language systems. European Journal of Neuroscience, 21(3), 793–797. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1460-9568.2005.03900.x
Rabovsky, M., Sommer, W., & Abdel Rahman, R. (2012). Depth of conceptual knowledge modulates visual
processes during word reading. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 24(4), 990–1005. https://doi.org/10.1162/
jocn_a_00117
Sabourin, L., & Stowe., L.A. (2008). Second language processing: When are first and second languages processed
similarly? Second Language Research, 24(3), 397–430. https://doi.org/10.1177/02676583080901
Sato, S., & Athanasopoulos, P. (2018). Grammatical gender affects gender perception: Evidence for the structural-
feedback hypothesis. Cognition, 176, 220–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.03.014
Sato, S., Casaponsa, A., & Athanasopoulos, P. (2020). Flexing gender perception: Brain potentials reveal the cog-
nitive permeability of grammatical information. Cognitive Science, 44(9), e12884. https://doi.org/10.1111/
cogs.12884
Siok, W.T., Kay, P., Wang, W.S., Chan, A.H., Chen, L., Luke, K.K., & Tan, L.H. (2009). Language regions of
brain are operative in color perception. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(20), 8140.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0903627106
Tan, L.H., Chan, A.H., Kay, P., Khong, P.L., Yip, L.K., & Luke, K.K. (2008). Language affects patterns of brain
activation associated with perceptual decision. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(10),
Thierry, G. (2016). Neurolinguistic relativity: How language flexes human perception and cognition. Language
Learning, 66 (3), 690–713. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12186
Thierry, G., & Wu, Y. J. (2007). Brain potentials reveal unconscious translation during foreign language com-
prehension. Proceeding of National Academy of Sciences, 104, 12530–12535. https://doi_10.1073_pnas.060
9927104
Thierry, G., Athanasopoulos, P., Wiggett, A., Dering, B., & Kuipers, J.R. (2009). Unconscious effects of language-
specific terminology on preattentive color perception. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106
(11), 4567–70. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0811155106
Vaughan- Evans, A., Thierry, G., Kuipers, J.- R., & Jones, M. W. (2014). Anomalous transfer of syntax
between languages. The Journal of Neuroscience, 34(24), 8333–8335. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEURO
SCI.0665-14.2014
Wessel-Tolvig, B., & Paggio, P. (2016). Revisiting the thinking-for-speaking hypothesis: Speech and gesture
representation of motion in Danish and Italian. Journal of Pragmatics, 99, 39–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.pragma.2016.05.004
Whorf, B.L. (1956). Language, Thought, and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf (J.B. Carroll,
Ed.). MIT Press.
215
Wu, Y. J., & Thierry, G. (2010). Chinese–english bilinguals reading english hear chinese. Journal of Neuroscience,
30(22), 7646–7651. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1602-10.2010
Wu, Y.J., & Thierry, G. (2012). How reading in a second language protects your heart. Journal of Neuroscience,
Xia, T., Xu, G., & Mo, L. (2019). Bi-lateralized Whorfian effect in color perception: Evidence from Chinese
Sign Language. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 49, 189–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2018.07.004
Yu, M., Li, Y., Mo, C., & Mo, L. (2017a). Newly learned categories induce pre-attentive categorical perception
of faces. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 14006. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-14104-6
Yu, M., Mo, C., Zeng, T., Zhao, S., & Mo, L. (2017b). Short-term trained lexical categories affect preattentive
shape perception: Evidence from vMMN. Psychophysiology, 54(3), 462–468. https://doi.org/10.1111/
psyp.12797
Zappa, A., & Frenck-Mestre, C. (this volume). Embodied second language processing and learning from a
neurocognitive perspective. In K. Morgan-Short and J.G. van Hell (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second
Zhong, W., Li, Y., Li, P., Xu, G., & Mo, L. (2015). Short-term trained lexical categories produce preattentive cat-
egorical perception of color: Evidence from ERPs. Psychophysiology, 52(1), 98–106. https://doi.org/10.1111/
psyp.12294
Zhou, K., Mo, L., Kay, P., Kwok, V.P., Ip, T.N., & Tan, L.H. (2010). Newly trained lexical categories produce
lateralized categorical perception of color. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(22), 9974–
216
16
NEUROCOGNITION OF SOCIAL
LEARNING OF SECOND
LANGUAGE
How Can Second Language be Learned as
First Language?
Introduction
Both folk wisdom and scientific knowledge have pointed to the apparent differences between chil-
dren and adults in language learning, especially with regard to how native language (L1) acqui-
sition versus second language (L2) learning differ. As compared with child L1 learning, adult L2
learning not only tends to be less successful, but also displays highly variable learning outcomes
across individuals. According to the critical period hypothesis (Lenneberg, 1967), such differences
are due to biological constraints including the timing of maturation of brain functions (e.g., hemi-
spheric lateralization). In contrast to the original critical period hypothesis, Johnson and Newport
(1989) suggested the possibility of a cognitive account of how mechanisms of learning differ
in children versus adults, with particular reference to the way linguistic input is processed and
analyzed. More recent theories further suggest that the learning principles may not be fundamen-
tally different between L1 and L2, but the context, conditions, and environmental support to chil-
dren and adults are very different (i.e., different ecosystems; see Claussenius-Kalman et al., 2021),
along with different methods and manners of learning. For example, most adult learners do not have
the same opportunities for language learning as children (Caldwell-Harris & MacWhinney, 2023;
MacWhinney, 2012).
In this chapter, we attempt to provide a framework to address the issue of whether and how L2
learning by adults can occur like L1 learning by children. The framework called social L2 learning
(SL2) assumes that L2 learning, especially beyond the sensitive period, may benefit from social inter-
action and enriched exposure in real-life, as in L1 learning. SL2 also highlights the neurocognitive
correlates of perception, action, and multimodal processing of information relevant to the target L2
environment in real-world or simulated contexts (see Li & Jeong, 2020 for the details). In this chapter,
we first provide the key dimensions of the context and conditions under which children and adults
learn. Then, we will highlight in particular the social and affective dimensions of language learning,
along with the underlying cognitive and neural correlates that reflect learning differences.
DOI: 10.4324/9781003190912-20 217

Benefits of Social-Based Language Learning: Some Theoretical Considerations

The remarkable ability for an infant to acquire any human language has led some scholars, most not-
ably Chomsky (1981), to argue for an innate “language acquisition device” or “universal grammar.”
Because this theoretical approach focuses only on innate mechanisms as the core principles that pre-
pare humans to learn a language (the capacity or competence), they ignore the learning process itself.
In other words, the learning process could be impacted by a host of environmental and social factors,
but these factors are performance-related, and are external to the linguistic competence of the indi-
vidual. However, as cognitive science breaks the boundaries of language and cognition and abandons
the “modularity” hypothesis of Fodor (1983) that posits that language is an independent and separate
module from the rest of cognition (perception, memory, vision), it is important for us to look at how
children actually acquire language from the social environment and through social interactions (e.g.,
Kuhl, 2004).
When we start to look at social-based language learning process, we quickly see that adults learn
languages with very different methods and conditions that differ from children learning their L1 (for
information on child L2 neurocognition, see Ortiz Villalobos et al., this volume). An L1 is naturally
learned and acquired in a safe interpersonal space where the child integrates multidimensional linguistic
forms (e.g., spelling, grammar, pronunciation) with their meanings, integrates multimodal information
from auditory, visual, and tactile channels, and incorporates the actions and intentions of parents and
peers (Bloom, 2000; Tomasello, 2003). Such learning allows children to integrate the rich sensory and
perceptual experiences of the environment, interacting with objects and people, and performing actions.1
By contrast, perhaps most often, L2 acquisition in adults takes place in an instructional context, that is,
the classroom. For example, in Asian countries, learners of English as a foreign language are often asked
to perform mechanical memory-based grammar drills, word translations, comprehension checks, and
reading aloud, with limited input and practical language use in the social context and limited interpersonal
social interactions. These traditional learning experiences may weakly connect word forms, meanings,
and concepts, resulting in poor semantic representations that may be parasitic on L1 representations (see
Bowden & Faretta-Stutenberg, this volume, for more L2 neurocognition and L2 learning contexts).
Below we draw from conceptual frameworks in psycholinguistics, memory, and cognitive theories
to discuss first how L1 is learned and then what the benefits are when L2 is learned like L1.
Social Interaction
In the New Science of Learning framework, language learning is a social-based process, supported
by computational mechanisms and a neural circuit that supports and links cognition, perception,
and action (Meltzoff et al., 2009). Children rely on a multitude of social cues such as eye gazes,
facial expressions, and the intention of others, in order to understand what they need to learn and
when. Computation models based on data from mother–child interactions, which consider social
cues tend to perform better than models without those cues (Li & Zhao, 2017; Yu & Ballard, 2007).
In social interaction, joint attention (i.e., two social partners looking at the same object) is essen-
tial for early language learning and social skill development (Sanchez-Alonso & Aslin, 2022, for a
review). During joint attention, a child is susceptible to eye gazes from his/her parents/caregivers
and adjusts his/her attention. For example, Yu and Smith (2016) found that parents’ gaze toward toys
positively facilitated infants’ attention to the toys and guided them to avoid distractions. For joint
attention to play a significant role, contingent, reciprocal interaction between infants and parents is
the key: Reciprocal interaction improves a range of skills such as sustained attention and social skills
(i.e., self-regulating and engaging conscious control of one’s attention).
Social interaction is imperative when infants and toddlers learn languages (Hakuno et al., 2017;
Kuhl et al., 2003). A baby’s ability to recognize the differences between the sounds of all languages
218
Neurocognition of Social Learning of Second Language
declines between 6 and 12 months of age (Kuhl, 2004). Kuhl et al. investigated sufficient conditions
when such a decline in foreign-language phonetic perception may be delayed. Only infants exposed
to a live tutor, not the recorded video or audiotape conditions, showed similar discrimination ability
to native speakers. Although the presence of a live person is a clear advantage (compared to recorded
videos), children can also learn languages from video chat with a partner, as long as they can interact
with their partner, suggesting the importance of social contingency for learning (Myers et al., 2017).
While interacting with others, children are sensitive to the speaker’s goal and communicative
intentions, and use these cues to infer word meanings (Frank & Goodman, 2014). This ability is
related to theory of mind and social reasoning skills. Although research with adults is still limited,
recent studies have shown that for adults as well, face-to-face interactions, social response contin-
gency, and social signals from others can lead to more effective learning by promoting higher levels
of attention, motivation, and emotional arousal (Caldwell-Harris et al., 2014; Verga & Kotz, 2017,
2019). This line of research indicates the importance of social interaction in language learning and
other types of learning, regardless of age.
Embodied Cognition
Action-based experiences, such as those that occur during L1 acquisition, are likely to help the
child build sensory and motor-based semantic representations in the brain. Based on embodied
cognition theory (Barsalou, 2008), our mental representation of concepts, objects, and behaviors
is embedded in our experiences of the body (e.g., mouth, hands, feet), as well as our experiences
in specific modalities (e.g., auditory, visual, tactile). Therefore, semantic/conceptual knowledge
appears to be represented in the distributed networks associated with experiential information
such as perception, sensation, movement, hearing, and emotion in real-life (see Meteyard et al.,
2012 for a review). Behavioral and neurocognitive studies have so far mainly examined native
L1 speakers in providing supportive evidence for the embodied cognition hypothesis (e.g., Aziz-
Zadeh & Damasio, 2008; Gianelli & Dalla Volta, 2015). The limited number of neurocognitive L2
and bilingual studies have reported that, unlike in L1, the sensory-motor areas were not strongly
engaged in processing action-related words and sentences in the L2 (Xue et al., 2015; Zhang et al.,
2020). This finding suggests that the L2 representation in bilinguals (especially late learners) is
less embodied than their L1 representations. Different learning conditions, such as the age at
which learners begin to learn L2 (i.e., age of acquisition), limited real-life experiences (i.e., L2
exposure), and L2 proficiency levels, may all influence the degree of L2 embodiment (Hernandez
& Li, 2007; Zappa & Frenck-Mestre, this volume).
There is still little evidence that body-specific and modality-specific experiences during learning
would affect L2 representation, although a few recent studies have provided some initial evidence
for embodiment effects in the brain (Legault, Fang, et al., 2019; Mayer et al., 2015). For example,
Mayer et al. (2015) compared L2 vocabulary learning under three conditions: performing gestures,
viewing pictures, and no-enrichment control. When performing a translation task inside fMRI (func-
tional magnetic resonance imaging; see Kousaie & Klein, this volume for more on this neuroimaging
method) after learning, participants who learned words with pictures showed activity in the right
lateral occipital cortex, whereas those who learned words with gestures had more activity in the
posterior superior temporal sulcus and in the premotor area, regions that have been implicated in
multimodal and action-based information processing. Critically, brain activation in superior temporal
sulcus and premotor cortex was significantly correlated with behavioral performance. The L2 learners
showed significantly greater retention for words learned with gestures than those with pictures, even
after two to six months. These results indicate that body-specific activities are essential for adult L2
learning and are consistent with sensorimotor-based neural explanations of semantic representation.
219
Multimodal Learning and Elaborative Processing

The disparity between L1 and L2 during learning with respect to both qualitative and quantitative
information processing may lead to different degrees of the richness of semantic representation in the
acquisition of two languages, which profoundly impacts successful memory retrieval, as suggested
by previous memory research (Craik & Lockhart, 1972; Tulving & Thomson, 1973). According to
the “encoding specificity principle” (Tulving & Thomson,1973), semantic memories have the best
chance of being retrieved if recalled in the context in which they were initially encoded than other-
wise. A similar memory hypothesis, “level of processing theory” (Craik & Lockhart, 1972), also
suggests that more elaborate semantic processing during learning leads to more successful retrieval
than shallow or superficial processing of the same items.
Social learning involves elaborative semantic processing using various social cues and multimodal
information for language acquisition. The “dual coding theory” (Paivio, 1990) and the “multimedia
learning theory” (Mayer, 2014) both support the notion that the elaborate processing of multi-
modal information enhances the quality of semantic memory. Specifically, Mayer and colleagues
have postulated several principles that account for why people learn better and build better mental
representations with multimodal information (text, video, animation) than with information of only
one modality. For example, processing text with pictures and images is more effective than that of
text alone, indicating the multimodal advantage in both behavior and in the brain (e.g., Liu et al.,
2020). Furthermore, recent cognitive neuroscience research suggests that deep/elaborative encoding
(involving active discovery, multiple sources of information, and social/emotional processing) boosts
cortical activity during encoding, and this cortical activation plays a vital role in retaining information
in long-term memory (see Hebscher et al., 2019, for a review). This perspective is consistent with
emerging brain evidence that elaborative SL2 leads to the successful long-term effect of learning
(Jeong et al., 2021; Legault, Fang, et al., 2019; Mayer et al., 2015). This evidence will be reviewed
in more detail below.
Emergentist Perspectives of Language Learning

The competition model provides social-based and emergentist explanations of the distinctions between
L1 and L2 learning (Hernandez & Li, 2007; MacWhinney, 2012; see a recent volume in emergentist
approaches to language; MacWhinney et al., 2022). According to MacWhinney (2012), adult lan-
guage learning is susceptible to several major “risk factors” that may be particularly strong in late
adults. Such risk factors include (a) thinking in L1 only, which implies the need to translate from L2
to L1 rather than directly using L2; (b) social isolation, which means learning occurs in an individual
or within-group communities; and (c) the lack of perception–action embodied contexts due to lack
of real-life experiences in language learning. In particular, the lack of perception–action embodied
contexts may explain why adult learners’ parasitic L2-on-L1 representations are strengthened to
a high level (Zhao & Li, 2010). However, if adults are offered rich environmental support in the
learning context, similar to children, their L2 learning may be better positioned to fend off these risk
factors. This can result in the development of inner speech in L2, social integration, and independent
representations of L2, separate from L1 (Li, 2013; Li & Jeong, 2020).
Added to the risk factors facing adults is a consolidated L1, often precluding the L2 of adults, espe-
cially late adult learners, from reaching a level of native competency. Adults usually begin learning
L2 after establishing their L1, which facilitates the association of L2 to L1 translation, but greater
experience in learning and use of L2 in real-life situations may enhance the direct connection between
L2 words and objects/concepts (see Kroll & Stewart, 1994). Research findings that study-abroad
experiences of late learners tend to weaken the interference of L1 on L2 may support the importance
of social experiences in language learning (Linck et al., 2009).
220
Such series of empirical and theoretical studies imply that language learning does not occur solely
as an individual cognitive activity; by contrast, language experience in real life is deeply involved in
learning and processing L2 through interaction with others. This notion is consistent with historical
and recent trends in various fields of language studies: sociocultural theory (Lantolf, 2006), usage-
based learning (Ellis, 2019), interaction hypotheses (Mackey et al., 2012), and neuroemergentism
(Claussenius-Kalman et al., 2021). All of these perspectives emphasize the characteristics and
conditions of social interaction and learning environments.
Neural Representations of Social L2 Learning
Different Brain Networks for L1 vs. L2

Although it is clear that L2 researchers are now paying more attention to the role of social learning,
relatively few studies in the past have tapped into the neural substrates of SL2. Many neuroimaging
studies have been performed in the domain of L2 learning, but so far, most of them have focused
on brain changes as a result of L2 learning experiences (see Abutalebi et al., 2005; Li et al., 2014,
for reviews). In addition, most published neuroimaging studies have relied on traditional learning
tasks, such as rote memorization and translation training, either in the classroom or lab-based inten-
sive training settings (e.g., Breitenstein et al., 2005; Grant et al., 2015; Qi et al., 2015; Yang et al.,
2015). Generally, findings from these studies suggest that classic language-related brain networks
(e.g., frontoparietal area) and memory-related brain regions (e.g., hippocampus) in the left hemi-
sphere are involved in learning and consolidating linguistic information. Such findings, however,
may be insufficient to reveal the potential differences between L1 and L2 brain networks when
the two languages are learned differently. Despite the argument that the same neural substrates
may be recruited for L2 as for L1 processing (Abutalebi et al., 2005; Abutalebi & Green, 2007),
there is now growing evidence that L1 vs. L2 processing and representation may involve the
same regions but different brain network configurations or computations (Li, 2013; Xu et al.,
2017). Specifically, new brain data suggest that the connectivity patterns in semantic representa-
tion may significantly differ between L1 and L2. For example, Zhang et al. (2020) showed that the
processing of nouns and verbs in L1 engages a more integrated network that connects language
areas with sensorimotor processing and semantic integration regions (e.g., caudate nucleus and
supramarginal gyrus), whereas such connections are weak or absent in L2 processing even for
highly proficient L2 speakers.
In contrast to the results of previous studies of traditional learning, recent studies on social-based
L2 learning are beginning to provide new evidence that such L1–L2 differences may be attenuated,
as SL2 positively influences successful learning of the L2 and enhances the semantic representation
of the L2 with embodied, multimodal, and richer contextual information. Furthermore, the cognitive
demands during social learning similar to L1 may influence the development of the brain systems
underlying L2 knowledge (see Li & Jeong, 2020, for a review), making L1 and L2 representations
more on a par with each other. In what follows, we provide an overview of some neural evidence on
how adult foreign language learning can be optimally facilitated by incorporating some features of
social learning.
Role of the Right Hemisphere: Temporal-Parietal Junction and Adjacent Regions

Previous studies on SL2 have consistently reported that the activation of the right-hemisphere brain
regions, including social cognition and action perception areas as well as both cortical and subcortical
areas, play an essential role in SL2 (e.g., Jeong et al., 2021; Jeong et al., 2010; Legault, Fang, et al.,
2019; Verga & Kotz, 2019; see Li & Jeong, 2020, for a review) (see Figure 16.1).
221
Figure 16.1 The Neural Network Underlying Social L2 Learning.

Notes: The left hemisphere regions (blue) control lexical-semantic processing, whereas the right hemisphere cortical
plus the subcortical regions (green) engage in social learning. IFG = inferior frontal gyrus; SMG = supramarginal gyrus;
AG = angular gyrus; LG = lingual gyrus; CN = caudate nucleus; MTG/ITG = middle temporal gyrus/inferior temporal
gyrus. (From Li & Jeong, 2020; reproduced with permission from Springer Nature.)
Most of these previous studies on SL2 showed involvement of the right temporal-parietal junction
(TPJ) and adjacent areas such as the right inferior parietal lobule, including supramarginal gyrus
(SMG) and angular gyrus. The right TPJ has been implicated as a multimodal association area that
integrates multisensory information (Carter & Huettel, 2013). This region has long been recognized
as one of the social cognition areas associated with the perception of various social stimuli, attention
to social cues, and higher cognitive processing of social reasoning such as theory of mind (i.e.,
thinking about the beliefs, emotions, and intentions of others) (e.g., Deen et al., 2015). For example,
Jeong et al. (2010), one of the initial studies on SL2, trained Japanese native speakers to learn Korean
words under the following two conditions: (a) L1 translation and (b) simulated video. The stimulated
videos included joint activities using target words in real-life situations (e.g., a video showing an
actor trying to move a heavy bag and asking another actor for help, using the L2 target Korean word
dowajo which means help me in English). After participants had remembered all the target words,
they performed a retrieval task (i.e., testing) inside the MRI scanner. Results showed that the right
SMG became more activated when retrieving words learned through simulated videos than words
learned through translation. Also, brain activity in the right SMG for processing L2 words encoded
via stimulated videos was similar to processing the participants’ L1 words (learned through daily life
as a child). Jeong et al. interpreted these results as suggesting that L2 words learned through real-
life situations might be processed similarly to L1 words in the brain, even when the learning was
conducted through simulated videos in relatively short sessions.
In a follow-up study, Jeong et al. (2021) used the same learning conditions (simulated video vs.
L1 translation) to determine the extent to which the qualitative and quantitative involvement of brain
systems during actual form-meaning mapping (i.e., encoding) affects the acquisition of semantic
representations of L2 words. The left inferior frontal gyrus (one of the core language-related areas)
was activated during learning in both social learning and L1 translation conditions. In contrast, the
222
social learning condition uniquely induced neural activation in the right inferior parietal lobule, the
posterior superior temporal sulcus, and the posterior middle temporal gyrus. These areas may have
been engaged due to processing of multiple perceptual, action-related, social, and emotional cues in
the simulated real-life video condition. Consistent with the encoding theories mentioned earlier, such
elaborative cognitive processes during learning may have led to the more enriched semantic represen-
tation of L2 words.
Notably, successful learners in the social learning condition recruited the right TPJ, motor areas
(post and precentral areas), and right hippocampus more strongly than did less successful learners.
In Jeong et al. (2021), those who had higher activation in the right TPJ, motor areas, and right hippo-
campus during the initial stage of learning performed significantly better on a delayed vocabulary
test where they applied target words to novel social situations. In contrast, those who encoded L2
words through L1 translation did not perform as well in novel contexts when recalling the L2 words.
They may have relied on rote associative memory processes for L1–L2 word pairs in the translation
condition, resulting in surface and weaker encoding of words. It is interesting to note that the L1-
translation learners recruited only limited brain areas (e.g., left inferior frontal gyrus) as compared
with the SL2 learners during encoding. Thus, SL2 may be a successful learning process that can lead
to an integrated brain network to support multimodal integration, social reasoning, motor simulation,
and long-term memory.
The crucial role of the right inferior parietal lobule, including both SMG and angular gyrus, in
social learning has also been supported by experiments with virtual reality (VR)-based interactive
learning of L2 words. Legault, Fang et al. (2019) investigated the differential effects of different
learning contexts on structural brain changes. Two groups of English L1 speakers participated in
Chinese vocabulary learning with a paired picture–word association or VR environment training
for 20 days. The VR group engaged in an interactive 3D environment in which they dynamically
interacted with target words such as objects and animals. It was found that intensive VR vocabu-
lary learning enhanced the cortical thickness of the right SMG compared to L2-picture associative
learning (within the same amount of time and learning the same material). Furthermore, its cortical
thickness showed a positive correlation with better scores at a delayed retention test.
Verga and Kotz (2019) reported that the right SMG was more activated in simulated partner-based
word learning than individual-based learning when their participants explored the meanings of target
words with contextual information. Also, during partner-based learning, activity in the right lin-
gual gyrus and right caudate nucleus, known as the visuospatial attentional network, correlated with
better temporal coordination between a learner and a partner. Furthermore, learners with greater right
inferior frontal gyrus activity showed better learning outcomes during the partner-based learning
condition, but there was no such correlation in the individual-based learning condition. Unlike L2
classroom learning contexts in which social cues are generally not present, these findings suggest that
awareness of partners during social interaction facilitates L2 learning success by directing learners’
attention to the correct L2 referent from alternative mappings, in a similar way as social cues can
enhance L1 acquisition (e.g., Kuhl, 2004; Yu & Smith, 2016). This effect is further identified in an
fMRI study (Jeong et al., 2011) that showed that L2 learners are more responsive to a live person
than a recorded person when communicating in L2 (cf. Kuhl et al., 2003). The live person condition
activated more brain regions associated with L1 communication than the recorded person condition.
There is also supportive evidence that adaptive and social enriched exposure can change the sub-
stantial neural plasticity of L2 phonetic perception in adulthood (Zhang et al., 2009). Zhang et al.
stimulated multimodal and enriched exposure of English sound categories (/r/and /l/) to Japanese
adults who had received limited English exposure. They used a computer-adaptive training program
with visible facial articulation cues, acoustic exaggeration, and high multiple-talker variability. They
measured brain changes by magnetoencephalography with an oddball task before and after intensive
223
training for two weeks. Enriched exposure induced significant improvement of speech discrimination
scores, and enhanced neural sensitivity to phonetic distinction and neural efficiency during passive
listening. Furthermore, behavioral improvement was positively correlated with increased neuro-
physiological response. This finding suggests that enriched exposure develops new memory traces of
L2 phonetic representations in the adult brain.
In summary, the previous findings suggest that SL2 may result in stronger activation of brain regions
or networks linked to multimodal, visual, and spatial processing, social, affective, and perception-
action-related processing, enhancing the rich semantic representation of L2 (Jeong, et al., 2021; Jeong,
et al., 2010; Legault, Fang, et al., 2019; Verga & Kotz, 2019). Contrary to the notion that a child’s
brain, not an adult’s, is sensitive to social cues in learning, such studies show that the adult brain also
exhibits significant neuroplasticity and changes in response to social learning even during short-term
training. When L2 words are initially learned in a socially interactive condition (even in a simulated
context, Jeong et al., 2010), those words could be stored and processed in the same brain area as
L1 words.
Practical Applications in Technology-Enhanced Social L2 Learning

The theoretical and empirical evidence reviewed so far suggests that social learning not only posi-
tively impacts L2 learning success but also leads to the neural representation of L2 more similar to
that of L1 due to its enriched, embodied, and multimodal information. However, it is often difficult
to provide adults directly with a rich social learning environment similar to what children receive
for L1 acquisition. One way is for adults to study abroad. Although it is undoubtedly effective for
L2 learning, studying abroad is not practical or feasible for everyone due to its costs, time, and
family separation. Li and Lan (2021a) suggest that digital language learning (DLL) can be one of the
best solutions for providing an environment conducive to social learning (e.g, VR, mobile-assisted
language learning, game-based language learning, and even robot-assisted language learning). For
example, Legault, Fang et al. (2019) is a VR study that found that simulated physical interaction with
objects allowed participants to acquire L2 words like in L1 contexts, leading to a positive impact on
the learner’s brain functionally and anatomically.
Another potential use of DLLs is to facilitate the affective and emotional processing of L2, which
is often lacking in the traditional language classroom. Recently developed DLL tools and platforms
may provide L2 learners with reciprocal feedback and social reward during learning. For example,
automatic feedback may be embedded in mobile-assisted language learning apps, avatars with
emotional expressions can be built in VR platforms, and performance-contingent rewards can be
a feature of game-based language learning (Park et al., 2019). Social interaction is one of the most
crucial contributors to L2 learning motivation in applied linguistics (MacIntyre et al., 2011). This is
supported by a brain imaging study (Ripollés et al., 2014) that shows that feedback during learning
increased activation of the reward system in the brain, which in turn fostered motivation to learn.
Adult L2 learning is affected by individual cognitive abilities and learner characteristics (e.g., L1
background, age, proficiency, motivation, aptitude, working memory; for more on L2 neurocognition
and individual differences, see Luque & Covey, this volume). DLL learning may be able to provide
methods for both revealing and reducing these individual differences due to the design features and
its connection to big data analytics. For example, Legault et al. (2019) found that the outcome of
learning for successful learners was high in both VR and non-VR conditions, but for less successful
learners, the VR condition significantly facilitated their learning. In other words, VR learning assisted
and facilitated L2 learning for learners who are typically “struggling” in the language classroom.
Thus, it appears that VR may benefit some individual learners more than others.
This last example points to a future research direction for understanding the interaction between
technology and the learner (see Li & Lan, 2021b), which will enable us to develop learning platforms
224
to accommodate the characteristics and needs of individual learners with the specific design features
of VR and DLL more generally. With DLL tools, students do not have to limit their language learning
experience in the classroom, and can learn L2 anywhere and anytime. For researchers, this provides a
unique opportunity to study and track individual learners in terms of their cognitive and linguistic abil-
ities and profiles over time, and develop curriculum that is tailor-made to individual students’ learning
to promote learning success. This will ride on the tide of the so-called “personalized learning,” for not
only language learning but education in general. Consequently, big data analytics based on machine
learning and artificial intelligence will also have a prominent place in L2 learning and education (see
a recent call for integration in Luan et al., 2020).
Future Directions
In this chapter, we have provided an overview of the framework of SL2 and the theoretical models
and hypotheses that support social learning for language acquisition in general, and we reviewed the
neural evidence that supports the SL2 framework, showing significantly different brain networks
may be implicated in social-based learning as compared with those in traditional classroom-based
learning. Further, we suggested that it is possible to leverage the rapidly developing digital technolo-
gies to simulate the conditions of social learning, which may produce the relevant neural and cogni-
tive changes in the brain.
There are a number of new exciting avenues along which we can pursue future studies in this
domain. The first avenue is to examine the neural basis of social interaction at the interpersonal level. As
discussed in Li and Jeong (2020; see their Figure 1), whereas previous research has focused primarily
on the structure and function of individual brains (i.e., single brain), the hyperscanning approach (i.e.,
inter-brain) allows the investigation of real-time dynamics between two or more interacting brains
during social interaction (e.g., Redcay & Schilbach, 2019). Recent advances in both imaging tech-
nologies and the data analytics have enabled us to pursue this exciting research direction (e.g., Noah
et al., 2020; Piazza et al., 2020). The second possibility is to study the role of motivation and emotion
as important ingredients of learning to accelerate SL2. It is essential to understand how SL2 influences
affective processing (e.g., emotion and motivation) and how it interacts with the limbic and subcor-
tical reward systems of the brain during SL2. The third avenue is to use machine learning approach
to analyze large-scale real-time interaction data to identify individual learner profiles, with the aim
of providing personalized learning (e.g., through feedback and reciprocal interpersonal interactions)
as in real social learning (see also Li & Lan, 2021a). Adult L2 learning can be expected to develop
to greater levels of success than in traditional learning contexts if we can capitalize on technology-
enhanced language learning and optimized social learning that incorporates key dimensions of indi-
vidual differences. Finally, to understand different aspects of L2 learning from multi-level language
systems, future studies should extend their focus from the lexico-semantic level to phonological, mor-
phological, syntactic, and discourse levels with the SL2 approach (Hagoort, 2019).
Note
1 This is what distinguishes a human child from a Large Language Model (LLM) such as ChatGPT. LLMs
can approximate human language performance by analyzing and aggregating large-scale text data but do not
interact with objects and people in a social context as humans do, and do not display a developmental trajec-
tory in language or knowledge acquisition.
Further Readings
This article provides a first attempt at integrating the theoretical, empirical, and neural bases of SL2 framework.
Li, P., & Jeong, H. (2020). The social brain of language: Grounding second language learning in social inter-
action. npj Science of Learning, 5, Article 8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-020-0068-7
225
This article provides an overview of the current trends and future promises of DLL for L2 from a neurocognitive
approach. (see also the accompanying article that discusses the interaction between technology and the learner: Li
& Lan 2021b in the References below)
Li, P., & Lan, Y.J. (2021a). Digital language learning (DLL): Insights from behavior, cognition, and the brain.
This article highlights the significant role of social interaction in facilitating sustained attention and language
acquisition in young children.
Yu, C., & Smith, L.B. (2016). The social origins of sustained attention in one-year-old human infants. Current
Biology, 26(9), 1235–1240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2016.03.026
References
Abutalebi, J., Cappa, S.F., & Perani, D. (2005). Functional neuroimaging of the bilingual brain. In J.F. Kroll &
A. de Groot (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches (pp. 497–515). Oxford, Oxford
University Press.
Aziz-Zadeh L., & Damasio, A. (2008). Embodied semantics for actions: Findings from functional brain imaging.
Journal of Physiology-Paris, 102(1–3), 35–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jphysparis.2008.03.012
Barsalou, L.W. (2008). Grounding symbolic operations in the brain’s modal systems. In G.R. Semin & E.R.
Smith (Eds.), Embodied grounding: Social, cognitive, affective, and neuroscientific approaches (pp. 9–42).
Cambridge University Press.
Bloom, P. (2000). How children learn the meanings of words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. https://doi.org/
10.7551/mitpress/3577.001.0001
Breitenstein, C., Jansen, A., Deppe, M., Foerster, A.- F., Sommer, J., Wolbers, T., & Knecht, S. (2005).
Hippocampus activity differentiates good from poor learners of a novel lexicon. NeuroImage, 25(3), 958–
Caldwell-Harris, C.L. (2014). Emotionality differences between a native and foreign language: Theoretical
implications. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, Article 1055. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01055
Caldwell-Harris, C.L., & MacWhinney, B. (2023). Age effects in second language acquisition: Expanding the
emergentist account. Brain and Language, 241, 105269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2023.105269
Carter, M.R., & Huettel, S.A. (2013). A nexus model of the temporal-parietal junction. Trends in cognitive
sciences, 17, 328–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2013.05.007
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Foris.
Claussenius-Kalman, H., Hernandez, A., & Li, P. (2021). Expertise, ecosystem, and emergentism: Dynamic devel-
opmental bilingualism, Brain and Language, 222, Article 105013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2021.105013
Craik, F.I., & Lockhart, R.S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal
Learning & Verbal Behavior, 11(6), 671–684. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(72)80001-X
Deen, B., Koldewyn, K., Kanwisher, N., & Saxe, R. (2015). Functional organization of social perception and
cognition in the superior temporal sulcus. Cerebral Cortex, 25(11), 4596–4609. https://doi.org/10.1093/cer
cor/bhv111
Ellis, N.C. (2019). Essentials of a theory of language cognition. The Modern Language Journal, 103, 39–60.
https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12532
Fodor, J.A. (1983). The modularity of mind. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/4737.001.0001
Frank, M.C., & Goodman, N.D. (2014). Inferring word meanings by assuming that speakers are informative.
Cognitive Psychology, 75, 80–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2014.08.002
Gianelli, C., & Dalla Volta, R. (2015). Does listening to action-related sentences modulate the activity of the
motor system? Replication of a combined TMS and behavioral study. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, Article
1511. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01511
Grant, A.M., Fang, S.-Y.Y., & Li, P. (2015). Second language lexical development and cognitive control: A lon-
gitudinal fMRI study. Brain and Language, 144, 35–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2015.03.010
Hagoort, P. (2019). The neurobiology of language beyond single-word processing. Science, 366(6461), 55–58.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aax0289
226
Hakuno, Y., Omori, T., Yamamoto, J., & Minagawa, Y. (2017). Social interaction facilitates word learning in pre-
verbal infants: Word–object mapping and word segmentation. Infant Behavior and Development, 48, 65–77.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2017.05.012
Hebscher, M., Wing, E., Ryan, J., & Gilboa, A. (2019). Rapid cortical plasticity supports long-term memory for-
mation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23(12), 989–1002. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2019.09.009
Hernandez, A., & Li, P. (2007). Age of acquisition: Its neural and computational mechanisms. Psychological
Bulletin, 133(4), 638–650. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.4.638
Jeong, H., Hashizume, H., Sugiura, M., Sassa, Y., Yokoyama, S., Shiozaki, S. & Kawashima, R. (2011). Testing
second language oral proficiency in direct and semidirect settings: A social-cognitive neuroscience perspec-
tive. Language Learning, 61(3), 675–699. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00635.x
Jeong, H., Sugiura, M., Sassa, Y., Wakusawa, K., Horie, K., Sato, S., & Kawashima, R. (2010). Learning second
language vocabulary: Neural dissociation of situation-based learning and text-based learning. NeuroImage,
Jeong, H., Li, P., Suzuki, W., Kawashima, R., & Sugiura, M. (2021). Neural mechanisms of language learning
from social contexts. Brain and Language, 212, Article 104874. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2020.104874
Johnson, J.S., & Newport, E.L. (1989). Critical period effects in second language learning: The influence of mat-
urational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 60–99. https://
doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(89)90003-0
metric connections between bilingual memory representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 149–
174. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1994.1008
Kuhl, P.K. (2004). Early language acquisition: Cracking the speech code. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5(11),
831–843. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn1533
Kuhl, P., Tsao, F.M., & Liu, H.M. (2003). Foreign-language experience in infancy: Effects of short-term exposure
and social interaction on phonetic learning. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 100(15), 9096–
Lantolf, J. (2006). Sociocultural theory and L2: State of the art. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28,
67–109. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263106060037
Legault, J., Fang, S., Lan, Y., & Li, P. (2019). Structural brain changes as a function of second language vocabu-
lary training: Effects of learning context. Brain and Cognition, 134, 90–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.bandc.2018.09.004
Legault, J., Zhao, J., Chi, Y-A., Chen, W., Klippel, A., & Li, P. (2019). Immersive virtual reality as an effective
tool for second language vocabulary learning. Languages, 4(1), Article 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages
4010013
Lenneberg, E.H. (1967). Biological foundations of language. Oxford, UK: Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548
331.1967.11707799
Li, P. (2013). Computational modeling of bilingualism. A special issue of Bilingualism: Language and Cognition,
16(2), 241–366. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728913000059
action. npj Science of Learning, 5, Article 8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-020-0068-7
Li, P., & Lan, Y.J. (2021a). Digital language learning (DLL): Insights from behavior, cognition, and the brain.
Li, P., & Lan, Y.J. (2021b). Understanding the interaction between technology and the learner: The case of DLL.
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 23(3), 402–405.
Li, P., & Zhao, X. (2017). Computational modeling. In A. de Groot & P. Hagoort (Eds.), Research methods in
psycholinguistics and the neurobiology of language: A practical guide (pp. 208–229). John Wiley & Sons.
Linck, J., Kroll, J., & Sunderman, G. (2009). Losing access to the native language while immersed in a second
language: Evidence for the role of inhibition in second-language learning. Psychological Sciences, 20(12),
1507–1515. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02480.x
Liu, C., Wang, R., Li, L., Ding, G., Yang, J., & Li, P. (2020). Effects of encoding modes on memory of naturalistic
events. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 53, Article 100863. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2019.100863
Luan, H., Geczy, Z., Gobert, J., C., Yang., S., Ogata, H., Baltes, J., Guerra, R., Li, P., & Tsai, C.C. (2020).
Challenges and future directions of big data and artificial intelligence in education. Frontiers in Psychology,
11, Article 580820. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.580820
227
MacIntyre, P.D., Burns C., & Jessome A. (2011). Ambivalence about communicating in a second language: A
qualitative study of French immersion students’ willingness to communicate. Modern Language Journal,
95(1), 81–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2010.01141.x
Mackey, A., Abbuhl, R., & Gass, S. (2012). Interactionist approach. In S. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge
handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 7–24). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410612564
MacWhinney, B. (2012). The logic of the Unified Model. In S. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge hand-
book of second language acquisition (pp. 211–227). Routledge.
MacWhinney, B., Kempe, V., Brooks, P., & Li, P. (2022). Emergentist approaches to language. Frontiers in
Psychology, 12, Article 6580. https://doi.org/10.3389/978-2-88974-483-1
Mayer, K.M., Yildiz, I.B., Macedonia, M., & von Kriegstein, K. (2015). Visual and motor cortices differentially
support the translation of foreign language words. Current Biology, 25(4), 530–535. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.cub.2014.11.068
Mayer, R.E. (2014). Principles based on social cues in multimedia learning: Personalization, voice, image, and
embodiment principles. In Mayer, R.E. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 345–
370). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139547369.017
Meltzoff, A., Kuhl, P., Movellan, J., & Sejnowski, T. (2009). Foundations for a new science of learning. Science,
325, 284–288. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1175626
Meteyard, L., Cuadrado, S.R., Bahrami, B., & Vigliocco, G. (2012). Coming of age: A review of embodiment and
the neuroscience of semantics. Cortex, 48, 788–804. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2010.11.002
Myers, L., LeWitt, R., Gallo, R., & Maselli, N. (2017). Baby FaceTime: Can toddlers learn from online video
chat? Developmental Science, 20, e12430. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12430
Noah, J.A., Zhang, X., Dravida, S., Ono, Y., Naples, A., McPartland, J.C., & Hirsch, J. (2020). Real-time eye-to-
eye contact is associated with cross-brain neural coupling in angular gyrus. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience,
14, Article 19. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2020.00019
Ortiz Villalobos, V., Kovelman, I., & Satterfield, T. (this volume). The neurocognition of child second language
development. In K. Morgan-Short & J.G. van Hell (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language
Paivio, A. (1990). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/
10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195066661.001.0001
Park, J., Kim, S., Kim, A., & Yi, M.Y. (2019). Learning to be better at the game: Performance vs. completion
contingent reward for game-based learning. Computers & Education, 139, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.compedu.2019.04.016
Piazza, E.A., Hasenfratz, L., Hasson, U., & Lew-Williams, C. (2020). Infant and adult brains are coupled to the
dynamics of natural communication. Psychological Science, 31(1), 6–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/095679761
9878698
Qi, Z., Han, M., Garel, K., Chen, E., & Gabrieli, J. (2015). White-matter structure in the right hemisphere
predicts Mandarin Chinese learning success. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 33, 14–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jneuroling.2014.08.004
Redcay, E., & Schilbach, L. (2019). Using second-person neuroscience to elucidate the mechanisms of social
interaction. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 20, 495–505. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41583-019-0179-4
Ripollés, P., Marco-Pallarés, J., Hielscher, U., Mestres-Missé, A., Tempelmann, C., Heinze, H.-J.J., Rodríguez-
Fornells, A., & Noesselt T. (2014). The role of reward in word learning and its implications for language
acquisition. Current biology, 24(21), 2606–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2014.09.044
Sanchez-Alonso, S., & Aslin, R. (2022). Towards a model of language neurobiology in early development. Brain
and Language, 224, Article 105047. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2021.105047
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Harvard
University Press.
Tulving, E., & Thomson, D.M. (1973). Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in episodic memory.
Psychological Review, 80(5), 352–373. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0020071
Verga, L., & Kotz, S.A. (2017). Help me if I can’t: Social interaction effects in adult contextual word learning.
Verga, L., & Kotz, S.A. (2019). Spatial attention underpins social word learning in the right fronto-parietal net-
work. NeuroImage, 195, 165–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.03.071
228
Xu, M., Baldauf, D., Chang, C.Q., Desimone, R., & Tan, L.H. (2017). Distinct distributed patterns of neural
activity are associated with two languages in the bilingual brain. Science Advances, 3(7), Article e1603309.
https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1603309
Xue, J., Marmolejo-Ramos, F., & Pei, X. (2015). The linguistic context effects on the processing of body–object
interaction words: An ERP study on second language learners. Brain Research, 1613, 37–48. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.brainres.2015.03.050
Yang, J., Gates, K., Molenaar, P., & Li, P. (2015). Neural changes underlying successful second language
word learning: An fMRI study. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 33, 29–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneurol
ing.2014.09.004
Yu, C., & Ballard, D. (2007). A unified model of early word learning: Integrating statistical and social cues.
Neurocomputing, 70(13–15), 2149–2165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2006.01.034
Yu, C., & Smith, L.B. (2016). The social origins of sustained attention in one-year-old human infants. Current
Biology, 26(9), 1235–1240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2016.03.026
neurocognitive perspective. In K. Morgan-Short & J.G. van Hell (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second
Zhang, Y., Kuhl, P.K., Imada, T., Iverson, P., Pruitt, J., Stevens, E.B., Kawakatsu, M., Tohkura, Y., & Nemoto, Y.
(2009). Neural signatures of phonetic learning in adulthood: A magnetoencephalography study. Neuroimage,
46, 226–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.01.028
23273798.2020.1738509
Zhao, X., & Li, P. (2010). Bilingual lexical interactions in an unsupervised neural network model.
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 13, 505–524. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670
050.2010.488284
229
PART IV
Underlying Factors and Individual

Differences in the Neurocognition
of Second Language
17
GENETIC FACTORS IN SECOND
LANGUAGE NEUROCOGNITION
Introduction, Critical Definitions, and Historical Perspectives

In a second language classroom, there will be some students who can quickly and easily learn new
vocabulary and grammar, and there will be other students who struggle to acquire the second lan-
guage. Similarly, within a family that uses multiple languages, there may be some children who easily
switch between languages to match the speaker and the context, and there may be other children who
insist on using only one language regardless of context. Much of the existing research on second
language acquisition has focused on the environments that make it easy to learn a second language
(De Houwer, 2011; Hammer et al., 2014; Hoff & Core, 2013), but even within specific environments,
there are individual differences in who is most successful at acquiring a second language (Li, et al.,
2022; see also Luque & Covey, this volume). Recently, some researchers have begun to investigate
how individual genetic differences may also play a role in second language acquisition and bilin-
gualism. In situations where second language acquisition is necessary or desired, understanding how
individual genetic differences play a role in second language acquisition can ensure that resources are
allocated efficiently to the second language learners who need the most support.
One foundational approach in genetics research is twin studies. These studies capitalize on the
similarities and differences between identical and fraternal twins. In theory, identical twins are close
to 100% similar in genetics, whereas fraternal twins are closer to 50% similar in genetics. Both iden-
tical and fraternal twins likely have some similar environments and some unique environments, so
the key difference between identical and fraternal twins is their genetics. If identical twins are more
similar in a trait, such as second language acquisition, than fraternal twins, then this trait is considered
“heritable.” Twin studies often result in “heritability estimates,” which represent the amount of vari-
ability in that trait that seems to be explained by genetic similarity. Multiple studies have reported
heritability estimates in second language acquisition ranging from 36–72% (Coventry et al., 2012;
Dale et al., 2010; Dale et al., 2012; Rimfeld et al., 2015; Vinkhuyzen et al., 2009), which provides
some initial evidence that genetics plays a role in second language acquisition.
A limitation of twin studies is that, although they provide broad estimates of the role of gen-
etics in a given trait, they do little to pinpoint specific genetic variants that may be involved in the
trait. Simply knowing that second language acquisition is heritable does not provide a clear path for
improving outcomes. Ideally, research should identify the “genotypes” (i.e., specific genetic variants)
that lead to the “phenotype” (i.e., observable trait) of successful second language acquisition.
DOI: 10.4324/9781003190912-22 233

An early project that sought to uncover a specific genotype associated with native language acqui-
sition focused on a family with speech and language difficulties known as the KE family. Within three
generations of this family, approximately half of the family members showed difficulties producing
fluent speech. Researchers identified a FOXP2 gene mutation that had a dominant monogenic inher-
itance pattern (i.e., a single genetic variant impacting all individuals who inherit it) as the critical
determinant of which family members had these speech and language difficulties and which family
members were unaffected (Enard et al., 2002; Hurst et al., 1990). Further research has not identified
the FOXP2 mutation as a common cause of speech or language difficulties (Meaburn et al., 2002;
Newbury et al., 2002), but the KE family research was pivotal in suggesting that a specific genetic
mutation could be related to language.
The case of the KE family represents a simple and straightforward pattern of inheritance: all family
members who inherited the genetic mutation demonstrated speech and language difficulties. The rela-
tionship between genetics and language skills is often less simple and straightforward; differences
between someone with high language skills and lower language skills are likely caused by a combin-
ation of language used in the environment and a large number of genetic variants, each with a small
effect size. In combination, the language environment and many different genetic variants can explain
who develops high language skills and who develops low language skills. Research uncovering the
multitude of genetic variants that could impact language development is just beginning, but some
early evidence suggests an association between dopamine-related genetic variants and second lan-
guage acquisition (described in the next section).

There are at least tens of millions of genetic variants in the human genome (Consortium, 2015), so
identifying those that are related to bilingualism or second language acquisition requires one of two
approaches. The first is known as a genome-wide association study, in which thousands of subjects
provide DNA samples and researchers compare many genetic variants, with corrections for multiple
comparisons, to determine which genetic variants are associated with the outcome of interest (Wang
et al., 2005). The second is a candidate gene study, in which researchers use a hypothesis-driven
approach to select a single genetic variant, and then assess its relation to an outcome (Tabor et al.,
2002). There are parallels to these approaches in cognitive neuroscience research. One approach is to
collect data from a large sample and conduct “whole-brain” analyses, in which data from every voxel
in the brain is modeled and a correction for multiple comparisons is applied. The other approach is to
conduct “region-of-interest” analyses, in which analyses are restricted to hypothesis-driven regions
of the brain. In a broader sense, both single-gene and region-of-interest studies could be considered
“confirmatory,” whereas genome-wide and whole-brain studies could be considered “exploratory.”
To date, research on the genetics of bilingualism has mostly taken a hypothesis-driven, confirma-
tory approach. In 2012, Wong and colleagues posited several dopamine-related genes as potential
predictors of second language learning because of their role in basal ganglia and prefrontal cortex
circuits and the corresponding procedural learning networks, which have been associated with
learning grammar (e.g., Ullman, 2004). They identified genetic variants within the dopamine system
as (a) those on the genes that encode for dopamine receptors (DRD1, DRD2, DRD3, DRD4, and
DRD5); (b) those on the gene that encodes for the dopamine transporter (DAT1); (c) those on the
gene that encodes for the Catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT) enzyme, which breaks down dopa-
mine; and (d) those that code for the Dopamine-and-cAMP-regulated neuronal phosphoprotein
(DARPP-32), which affects the functioning of dopamine receptors in the basal ganglia. Given that
there are multiple genes associated with this dopamine system (see Figure 17.1), and that they likely
interact (e.g., overall dopamine levels in the brain depend on the number of dopamine receptors in
234
Genetic Factors in Second Language Neurocognition
Figure 17.1 Dopamine-Related Genes in the Prefrontal Cortex and Basal Ganglia.

Notes: A) Prefrontal cortex–Genes code for dopamine receptors (DRD1-DRD5) on the post-synaptic neurons (* indicates
lower density of DRD2, DRD3, and DRD4 receptors in the prefrontal cortex compared to the basal ganglia); transporter
(DAT), which eliminates dopamine (DA) from the synapse; and the catabolizer enzyme Catechol-O-methyltransferase
(COMT), which breaks down the dopamine molecules after reuptake. B) Basal ganglia– Genes code for dopamine
receptors (DRD1-DRD5) on the post-synaptic neuron; dopamine transporter (DAT), which eliminates DA from the syn-
apse; and Dopamine-and-cAMP-regulated neuronal phosphoprotein (DARPP-32), which is regulated by cyclic adenosine
monophosphate (cAMP), through protein kinase A (PKA), and calcium (CA2+), through protein phosphate 2B (calcineurin)
and affects the functioning of dopamine receptors.
combination with how well dopamine is transported, how quickly it is broken down, and how well
the receptors function), even this relatively simple theory—that dopamine-related genes may predict
procedural learning of language (i.e., grammar), results in potentially complex hypotheses.
The importance of the basal ganglia-prefrontal cortex dopamine system in bilingualism and second
language acquisition is also supported by other theories. Stocco’s conditional routing model suggests
that basal ganglia and prefrontal cortex connectivity is associated with overriding an automatic
response in favor of a controlled response (Stocco et al., 2010), and additional research has extended
this model to explain bilingual language switching as a specific example of using cognitive control to
override an ongoing/automatic response (i.e., one language) in favor of a different response (i.e., the
other language) (Stocco et al., 2014; Yamasaki et al., 2019). In addition, the sensorimotor hypothesis
(Hernandez & Li, 2007) suggests that developmental changes in the connectivity between the basal
ganglia and the prefrontal cortex can explain a shift from sensorimotor to cognitive approaches for
second language learning. This hypothesis is focused on the importance of basic auditory percep-
tion for learning a language during early childhood (i.e., sensorimotor approach) and the importance
of building off of first language knowledge to acquire a second language (i.e., cognitive approach)
for later second language acquisition. Finally, the declarative/procedural model describes the basal
ganglia as a key brain region for implicit, procedural language learning, such as the acquisition of
grammar in a second language (Ullman, 2016, see also Ullman & Morgan-Short, this volume). These
235
theories suggest that second language acquisition is likely related, in some way, to dopamine systems
in the brain. Therefore, genetic variants associated with differences in these dopamine systems have
been a target for identifying some of the genetic variants associated with second language acquisition.

The studies reviewed here represent, to our knowledge, all of the published research on the dopamine-
related genetic variants associated with bilingualism and second language acquisition to date. This
research has focused on two central hypotheses (described under each subheading below). The
first is that dopamine-related genetic variants can explain differences in bilingual proficiency, and
dopamine-related genetic variants can inform theories about bilingual language control and cognitive
control
Dopamine-Related Genetic Variants and Proficiency

A few studies have examined whether dopamine-related genetic variants are related to proficiency
within bilinguals. Mamiya and colleagues (2016) examined how white matter tracts correlated with
amount of time Chinese–English bilinguals spent in foreign language (i.e., English) immersion
classes. They found that more time spent in the immersion classroom was related to greater white
matter integrity, and that there was less white matter integrity in students who were no longer enrolled
in immersion classes (for more about changes in brain structure and L2, see Korenar & Pliatsikas,
this volume). Further, they found that this relationship was not present in students with the Met/Met
genotype of the Val158Met polymorphism of the COMT gene, which is associated with lower levels
of COMT enzyme activity, resulting in higher levels of prefrontal dopamine. These findings suggest
that the neural changes that accompany second language learning may depend on genetic factors
related to prefrontal dopamine.
Our research team also investigated whether dopamine-related genetic variants were related to
bilingual proficiency for Spanish-English bilinguals (i.e., heritage/native Spanish-speakers who
learned English as a second language) (Vaughn & Hernandez, 2018). We focused on the same
Val158Met polymorphism on the COMT gene (described above), along with the ANKK1 TaqIA
polymorphism on the DRD2 gene, and age of English acquisition to predict “bilingual proficiency.”
We calculated “bilingual proficiency” as the sum of English and Spanish proficiency multiplied
by a balance coefficient, which gave a boost to bilinguals who had more similar levels of profi-
ciency across two languages. The purpose of using this measure of bilingual proficiency was to give
bilinguals credit not only for successfully acquiring a second language, but also for maintaining a
high level of proficiency in their native language. We considered bilinguals who could achieve high
levels of proficiency in both languages as the “most bilingual,” whereas bilinguals who achieved high
proficiency only in one language and bilinguals who achieved relatively low levels of proficiency in
both languages scored lower on this measure.
We were interested in whether carriers of the A1 allele were able to achieve higher levels of
bilingual proficiency than non-carriers. We also investigated the COMT genetic variant (Val158Met)
based on research by Garcia-Garcia and colleagues (2011), who found that optimal cognitive per-
formance was related to a balance of subcortical and prefrontal dopamine levels. The DRD2 variant
is associated with subcortical dopamine, while the COMT variant is associated with prefrontal dopa-
mine. Carriers of the A1 allele have higher levels of subcortical dopamine than non-carriers, and
carriers of the Met allele of the COMT genotype have higher levels of prefrontal dopamine than
carriers of the Val allele. Therefore, balanced levels of subcortical and prefrontal dopamine would be
present in carriers of the Val allele who also carry the A1 allele and in carriers of the Met allele who
do not carry the A1 allele.
236
Finally, we predicted that the relationship between genotype and bilingual proficiency could also
depend on age of English acquisition. The sensorimotor hypothesis (Hernandez & Li, 2007) suggests
that when a language is acquired early in life, it relies more on subcortical brain regions, but when a
language is acquired later in life, it relies more on frontal brain regions. Therefore, subcortical dopa-
mine (i.e., A1 allele) may be more important for bilingual proficiency when the second language is
acquired early in life, and prefrontal dopamine (i.e., Met/Val alleles) may be more important for bilin-
gual proficiency when the second language is acquired later in life.
Results reveled a significant three-way interaction between the DRD2 genotype (A1 carrier
or non-carrier), the COMT genotype (Met/Val), and age of English acquisition (see Figure 17.2).
Around age five, genotype did not seem to matter for bilingual proficiency; all bilinguals who
learned English around age five achieved moderate levels of bilingual proficiency. At younger and
older ages, genotype seemed to matter more. For bilinguals who acquired two languages before
the age of five, those with more subcortical dopamine (i.e., A1 carriers) seemed to have the highest
levels of bilingual proficiency. For bilinguals who acquired two languages after the age of five, those
with more balanced levels of subcortical and prefrontal dopamine had the highest levels of bilingual
proficiency.
Overall, these studies suggest that second language learning in adulthood may be related to genetic
variants associated with prefrontal-dopamine (i.e., COMT genotype). The research by Mamiya and
colleagues (2016) suggests that COMT genotype could mediate the relationship between white matter
adaptations and second language learning in adulthood, which would mean that research examining
white matter properties associated with second language learning may want to account for variability
in participants associated with COMT genotype. The research by Vaughn and colleagues (2018) also
Figure 17.2 Summary of the Results from Vaughn and Hernandez (2018).

Notes: The results of this study highlight that there is not one genetic variant that makes someone a successful bilingual.
As outlined by Wong and colleagues (2012), even if we focus on dopamine as a target neurotransmitter for learning new
languages, there are many genetic variants that impact the functioning of the dopamine system. Our 2018 study further
highlights that the importance of different genetic variants may change over time in relation to either brain development or
environmental influences. For example, in our study, genetic differences did not seem to matter for bilinguals who learned
English at age five. This could be because this period marks an important shift from subcortical to frontal language pro-
cessing, in line with the sensorimotor hypothesis, or it could simply be that bilinguals who learn English at this age are
the most likely to be immersed in English in school, and therefore the language environment is more important for their
ultimate bilingual proficiency than their individual genetic differences.
237
suggests that early childhood second language learning is associated with subcortical dopamine (i.e.,
DRD2 genotype), which aligns well with both the sensorimotor hypothesis (Hernandez & Li, 2007)
and the procedural/declarative model of language learning (Ullman, 2004).
Dopamine-Related Genetic Variants, Bilingual Language Control,

and Cognitive Control
Some key theories regarding bilingualism state that people who know and use two languages need
to control which language is used at any given time (i.e., “language control”) (Kroll et al., 2008; for
more on cognitive control and L2, see Guo & Ma, this volume). Experience with language control
strengthens the brain networks underlying control more generally (i.e., “domain-general control”),
which may lead to an advantage for bilinguals over monolinguals in tasks that require cognitive con-
trol (Abutalebi & Green, 2007; Bialystok, 2017; cf. Paap & Greenberg, 2013; Nichols et al., 2020).
These theories highlight language use as the driving influence for neural changes in the domain-
general control networks of the brain that then lead to behavioral changes observed in tasks that
require cognitive control. In other words, when the environment requires more language control
(e.g., environments in which only one language is understood by others; or environments in which
the language being used could change when a new person enters the conversation), the brain adapts to
that environment and becomes more efficient at language and cognitive control (Green & Abutalebi,
2013). An alternative that is not considered in these theories is that bilinguals who have better cog-
nitive control skills (e.g., because of genetic variation) may already have more efficient domain-
general control networks in the brain, and therefore may be the best able to learn and flexibly use
two languages (Li & Grant, 2015). This aligns well with research suggesting that genetic influences
increase with age because children, adolescents, and adults increasingly choose and shape their own
environments (Haworth et al., 2010; Rimfeld et al., 2015; Tucker-Drob et al., 2013).
In 2015, Hernandez and colleagues published one of the first studies identifying a genetic variant
associated with bilingualism (Hernandez et al., 2015). As part of a larger research project focused on
the neural substrates of language control and cognitive control for Spanish–English bilingual (i.e.,
heritage/native Spanish-speakers who learned English as a second language) and English monolin-
gual young adults, the researchers collected DNA samples from each participant. This study was
motivated by research from Stelzel and colleagues (2010), who found that genotype of the DRD2/
ANKK1 TaqIA single-nucleotide polymorphism (i.e., SNP, a genetic difference that can be identified
across individuals based on differences in a single nucleotide at a single location within the DNA
sequence) predicted frontal lobe activity during a cognitive control task (i.e., task switching). In the
study by Stelzel and colleagues (2010), carriers of the A1 allele (i.e., one of the two versions of the
SNP) from the DRD2/ANKK1 TaqIA SNP had better cognitive control task performance and reduced
frontal lobe activity for task switching. Surprisingly, within the sample of students recruited from the
University of Houston for Hernandez et al. (2015), bilinguals carried the A1 allele at twice the rate of
monolinguals. Approximately two-thirds of bilingual participants carried the A1 allele, whereas only
approximately one-third of monolingual participants carried the A1 allele. In the broader population
of both Hispanic and non-Hispanic ethnicities, approximately one-third of people carry the A1 allele
(Phan et al., 2020). Therefore, we concluded that the bilingual college students who participated in
this research did not represent the broader population of Hispanic Americans.
There are two ways we have considered interpreting this finding. The first is that this genetic
variant associated with cognitive flexibility might support academic success for bilingual students.
In other words, bilinguals with this genetic variant might be more likely to enroll in college than
bilinguals who do not carry the A1 allele. The second interpretation is that this genetic variant
associated with cognitive flexibility may support bilingual skills, making these students more com-
fortable with volunteering for a study on bilingualism. In other words, bilinguals with this genetic
238
variant may be more likely to volunteer as a bilingual research participant than bilinguals who do not
carry the A1 allele. Again, this is in line with research that suggests that older children, adolescents,
and adults increasingly choose and shape their own environments in a way that may fit best with their
genetic variants (Haworth et al., 2010; Rimfeld et al., 2015; Tucker-Drob et al., 2013).
Whether either of these interpretations is correct or whether there is another explanation, the
results of this initial study (Hernandez et al., 2015) suggested that bilingual participants differed from
our monolingual participants in a genetic variant associated with cognitive control. This raised some
concerns about the “bilingual advantage,” which assumes that differences between bilinguals and
monolinguals in cognitive control skills are a result of their language experiences. Our results are not
necessarily incompatible with the bilingual advantage, but suggest that there may be variables other
than language experience that explain differences between bilinguals and monolinguals in cognitive
control skills.
To test how bilingualism and genes involved in dopamine influence brain activity, we conducted
a follow-up fMRI study with a subset of the Spanish–English bilinguals from the Hernandez and
colleagues (2015) sample. We analyzed the bilingual fMRI data during cognitive control and language
control tasks to investigate whether DRD2/ANKK1 TaqIA polymorphism genotype could explain
individual differences within bilinguals in fMRI activity (Vaughn et al., 2016). We asked bilingual
participants to complete three fMRI tasks: one task switching/working memory task; one inhibition
task; and one language switching/control task. Based on previous research by Stelzel and colleagues
(2010), we expected that carriers of the A1 allele would show reduced activity in the inferior frontal
gyrus (IFG) for the more cognitively demanding task conditions (e.g., task switching; inhibition;
and language switching). We also expected that carriers of the A1 allele might show reduced activity
in the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) for the more cognitively demanding task conditions because
Fossella and colleagues (2006) found that this was the case during a different cognitive control task
(i.e., the attentional networks task).
An important aspect of this study (Vaughn et al., 2016) was to determine whether differences
in task performance within bilinguals were explained by genotype or by language background
(i.e., age of English acquisition, English proficiency, and Spanish proficiency) or a combination of
both. We used multiple regression to examine the unique contributions of genotype and language
background to performance on the three tasks. If we found that genotype was the only significant
predictor of fMRI activity in the IFG and ACC during these tasks, this would suggest that we
may be confounding bilingualism with key genetic differences in studies that compare bilinguals
and monolinguals on cognitive control tasks. In other words, if bilinguals and monolinguals
differ in dopamine-related genetic variants and, within bilinguals, the dopamine-related genetic
variants explain neural activity above and beyond language background, future research comparing
bilinguals and monolinguals on cognitive control tasks would need to carefully control for genetic
differences to ensure that the differences between bilinguals and monolinguals reflect differences
in language experience rather than genetics. Alternatively, if we found that language background
was the only significant predictor of fMRI activity, we would conclude that variation in the DRD2/
ANKK1 TaqIA SNP is not particularly important for explaining individual differences in the brain
within bilingual samples.
The results of this study (Vaughn et al., 2016) did not neatly align with either of these conclusions,
and instead revealed some nuance in the relationship between the DRD2/ANKK1 TaqIA poly-
morphism, language background, and fMRI activity. Broadly, we found that genotype predicted fMRI
activity in the ACC during task switching and in the IFG during language control (see Figure 17.3). In
both tasks, carriers of the A1 allele had greater fMRI activity than non-carriers, which runs counter to
the findings by Stelzel and colleagues (2010) and Fossella and colleagues (Fossella et al., 2006). We
also found that language background was related to fMRI activity in the ACC during the inhibition
task and in the IFG during the language control task. Together, these results suggest that this genetic
239
variant may play some role in both language control and cognitive control. Based on these data, how-
ever, we cannot conclude that carrying the A1 allele facilitates language control, which then improves
cognitive control, leading to a bilingual advantage.
Similarly, Liu and colleagues (2022) recently examined COMT genotypes in relation to bilinguals’
neural activity measured using EEG during a language switching task and the Iowa Gambling Task,
which involves cognitive control. Participants were Chinese–English bilinguals who learned Chinese
as a native language and English between ages three and thirteen. The researchers found a dissoci-
ation, such that bilinguals who had the Val/Val genotype had poorer cognitive control as measured by
the Iowa Gambling Task, but bilinguals who had the Met/Met genotype had poorer language control
as measured by the language switching task. Surprisingly, bilinguals with the Met/Met genotype also
had better performance on the Iowa Gambling task. Like the results from Vaughn and colleagues
(2016), these results suggest that dopamine-related genes may play a role in both cognitive control
and language control for bilinguals, but there is no evidence that the same genotypes are related to
better performance on both language control and cognitive control tasks.
Together, this set of studies raises questions about the relationship between bilingualism, language
control, and cognitive control. Previous research has suggested that because bilinguals need to exert
Figure 17.3 Relationship Between Genotype of the ANKK1 TaqIa Polymorphism on the DRD2 Gene and
fMRI Activity in the IFG During a Language Control Task and in the ACC During a Cognitive
Control Task.
Note: Figure created based on the supplemental material from Vaughn et al. (2016).
240
language control in order to produce the context-appropriate language, they may have an advantage
in cognitive control tasks through the enhancement of a domain-general control network that supports
both language control and cognitive control. The studies reviewed here suggest that dopamine-related
genetic variants are differently related to performance on language control and cognitive control tasks
for bilinguals. More research is needed to understand whether these results can be compatible with a
domain-general control network, or whether they suggest that there are different neural mechanisms
that support language control and cognitive control within bilinguals.
Pedagogical Implications
It is still early to determine the exact pedagogical implications from this line of research. In the
long term, one might expect that this research could lead to “personalized learning,” similar to
“personalized medicine,” in which medical treatment is designed to fit a specific person, rather
than taking a one-size-fits-all approach. Personalized learning would mean that education is
tailored to optimize learning for each person based on their unique characteristics (e.g., genotypes)
(Wong et al., 2017). Much more research is needed on different dopamine-related genetic variants
and how they interact with each other and the environment before we can begin to personalize
second language learning based on genetics. In the short term though, the research reviewed above
highlights that in even a fixed learning environment, there will still be variability in second lan-
guage proficiency across learners. Research suggests that people self-select environments that fit
well with their genetics (Haworth et al., 2010; Tucker-Drob et al., 2013), so if someone is not
feeling successful at learning or using a second language, they may avoid situations that require
the second language.
Genome-Wide Association Studies

As highlighted throughout this chapter, the existing research on the genetics of second language
acquisition has been hypothesis-driven and focused only on dopamine-related genetic variants.
There is still a lot of work to be done targeting these dopamine-related genetic variants, but it is
important not to become so focused on the dopamine system that we miss other important gen-
etic variants. In cognitive neuroscience research, region-of-interest analyses are complemented by
whole-brain analyses that might identify new brain regions that should be explored and considered
in later research and theories. The same is true for candidate gene studies and genome-wide associ-
ation studies. If they are well-powered, genome-wide association studies can identify new genetic
variants that can be explored and considered in subsequent research and theories. As is the case with
most research on bilingualism, researchers who wish to conduct genome-wide associations studies
should be thoughtful about whether they collect DNA samples from a diverse population of bilinguals
(e.g., different first and second languages; different language environments; different ages of second
language learning; etc.) or from a well-controlled population of bilinguals (e.g., Spanish–English
bilinguals in the southwest U.S.), as these choices can impact internal and external validity (i.e., a
large, diverse sample would improve external validity, whereas, a well-controlled population would
improve internal validity).
Assessing Dopamine Levels

Dopamine-related genetic variants can provide information about the general level of dopamine in
the brain, but future research should also consider more moment-to-moment measures of dopamine
241
levels. PET scanning can assess dopamine levels in the brain (Stelzel et al., 2013; Volkow et al., 1996),
but these days, PET scanning is less common than fMRI for research. In a meta-analysis on bilingual
neuroimaging, Cargnelutti and colleagues (2019) identified 53 fMRI studies and only four PET studies.
Because PET research is less common, it would be ideal to assess dopamine levels during fMRI or
during behavioral tasks outside of the scanner. There is some research suggesting that spontaneous eye
blink rates, which can be measured using video recordings or eye tracking, may indicate dopamine
levels (Barkley-Levenson & Galvan, 2017; Eckstein et al., 2017), but there are also questions about
the validity of this measure (Dang et al., 2017; Sescousse et al., 2018). Another recently proposed
method for assessing dopamine functioning during MRI is to use neuromelanin- sensitive MRI
because neuromelanin is produced during dopamine metabolism (Carter, 2021; Cassidy et al., 2019;
Reneman et al., 2021). Measures of moment-to-moment dopamine functioning can validate research
on dopamine-related genetic variants (i.e., do individuals with different genetic variants also differ in
their dopamine levels during a task?) and provide a fine-grained look at individual differences during
task performance (i.e., moment-to-moment dopamine levels may provide new insight into neuronal
activity during task performance). If dopamine is indeed a critical part of second language acquisi-
tion and use, measures of moment-to-moment dopamine functioning will be important for developing
robust theories that tie together genetics, brain function, and language and cognition.
Longitudinal Research
Research suggests that the heritability of traits increases with age because older children, adolescents,
and adults have increasing control over their environments, and are therefore able to self-select envir-
onments that best match their genetics (Haworth et al., 2010; Tucker-Drob et al., 2013). Consequently,
research with adults may be better able to capture the relationship between genetic variants and
second language acquisition than research at earlier ages, but as our 2015 study highlights, it may also
lead to a biased sample of “successful” bilinguals, as bilinguals who struggle more with their second
language may choose not to volunteer for research studies on bilingualism. Infants, on the other
hand, do not have much say in whether their environment contains one or two languages. Therefore,
longitudinal research that begins in infancy would have the best chance at identifying which genetic
variants are associated with later “opting out” of second language acquisition or bilingualism.
Further Readings
A review article that provides an introduction to the field of cognitive neurogenetics.
Green, A. E., Munafò, M. R., DeYoung, C. G., Fossella, J. A., Fan, J., & Gray, J. R. (2008). Nature Reviews
Neuroscience, 9(9), 710–720. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2461
This article provides a perspective on personalized language learning.
Wong, P. C., Vuong, L. C., & Liu, K. (2017). Personalized learning: From neurogenetics of behaviors to
hologia.2016.10.002
This article provides a detailed explanation of the genetic variants involved in the dopamine system and their
relation to language learning.
Wong, P. C., Morgan-Short, K., Ettlinger, M., & Zheng, J. (2012). Linking neurogenetics and individual
differences in language learning: The dopamine hypothesis. Cortex, 48(9), 1091–1102. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cortex.2012.03.017
These two papers describe a neuroemergentist theory on the development of bilingual language control and cog-
nitive control.
Hernandez, A. E., Claussenius-Kalman, H. L., Ronderos, J., & Vaughn, K. A. (2018). Symbiosis, parasitism and
bilingual cognitive control: a neuroemergentist perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2171. https://doi.org/
10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02171
242
Claussenius-Kalman, H., Hernandez, A. E., & Li, P. (2021). Expertise, ecosystem, and emergentism: Dynamic
developmental bilingualism. Brain and Language, 222, 105013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2021.105013
This article provides a related perspective about the interaction between bilingualism and prenatally determined
neuroanatomy.
Del Maschio, N., Sulpizio, S., & Abutalebi, J. (2020). Thinking outside the box: The brain-bilingualism relation-
ship in the light of early neurobiological variability. Brain and Language, 211, 104879. https://doi.org/https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2020.104879
Acknowledgments
Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Institutes of Health to the National Institute
on Aging under Award Number R21AG063537 as well as to the National Institutes of Child Health and
Human Development under the Award Number P50HD052117.
References
Barkley-Levenson, E., & Galvan, A. (2017). Eye blink rate predicts reward decisions in adolescents.
Developmental Science, 20(3), e12412. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12412
Bialystok, E. (2017). The bilingual adaptation: How minds accommodate experience. Psychological Bulletin,
143(3), 233. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000099
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 13, 154. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2019.00154
Carter, C.S. (2021). Further evidence that MRI based measurement of midbrain neuromelanin may serve as a
proxy measure of brain dopamine activity in psychiatric disorders. Neuropsychopharmacology, 46(7), 1231–
1232. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41386-020-00944-w
Cassidy, C.M., Zucca, F.A., Girgis, R.R., Baker, S.C., Weinstein, J.J., Sharp, M.E., Bellei, C., Valmadre, A.,
Vanegas, N., Kegeles, L.S., Brucato, G., Kang, U.J., Sulzer, D., Zecca, L., Abi-Dargham, A., & Horga, G.
(2019). Neuromelanin-sensitive MRI as a noninvasive proxy measure of dopamine function in the human
brain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(11), 5108–5117. https://doi.org/10.1073/
pnas.1807983116
Claussenius-Kalman, H., Hernandez, A.E., & Li, P. (2021). Expertise, ecosystem, and emergentism: Dynamic
developmental bilingualism. Brain and Language, 222, 105013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2021.105013
Consortium, G.P. (2015). A global reference for human genetic variation. Nature, 526(7571), 68.
Coventry, W., Antón-Méndez, I., Ellis, E.M., Levisen, C., Byrne, B., Van Daal, V.H., & Ellis, N.C. (2012). The
etiology of individual differences in second language acquisition in Australian school students: A behavior-
genetic study. Language Learning, 62(3), 880–901. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00718.x
Dale, P.S., Harlaar, N., Haworth, C.M., & Plomin, R. (2010). Two by two: A twin study of second-language
acquisition. Psychological Science, 21(5), 635–640. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610368060
Dale, P.S., Harlaar, N., & Plomin, R. (2012). Nature and nurture in school-based second language achievement.
Language Learning, 62, 28–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00705.x
Dang, L.C., Samanez-Larkin, G.R., Castrellon, J.J., Perkins, S.F., Cowan, R.L., Newhouse, P.A., & Zald, D.H.
(2017). Spontaneous eye blink rate (EBR) is uncorrelated with dopamine D2 receptor availability and unmodu-
lated by dopamine agonism in healthy adults. eNeuro, 4(5). https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0211-17.2017
De Houwer, A. (2011). Language input environments and language development in bilingual acquisition. Applied
Linguistics Review, 2(2011), 221–240. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110239331.221
Del Maschio, N., Sulpizio, S., & Abutalebi, J. (2020). Thinking outside the box: The brain-bilingualism rela-
tionship in the light of early neurobiological variability. Brain and Language, 211, 104879. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.bandl.2020.104879
Eckstein, M.K., Guerra-Carrillo, B., Singley, A.T.M., & Bunge, S.A. (2017). Beyond eye gaze: What else can
eyetracking reveal about cognition and cognitive development? Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 25,
69–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2016.11.001
Enard, W., Przeworski, M., Fisher, S.E., Lai, C.S., Wiebe, V., Kitano, T., Monaco, A.P., & Pääbo, S. (2002).
Molecular evolution of FOXP2, a gene involved in speech and language. Nature, 418(6900), 869–872.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01025
243
Fossella, J., Green, A.E., & Fan, J. (2006). Evaluation of a structural polymorphism in the ankyrin repeat and
kinase domain containing 1 (ANKK1) gene and the activation of executive attention networks. Cognitive,
Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 6(1), 71–78. https://doi.org/10.3758/CABN.6.1.71
Garcia-Garcia, M., Barceló, F., Clemente, I., & Escera, C. (2011). COMT and ANKK1 gene–gene interaction
modulates contextual updating of mental representations. Neuroimage, 56(3), 1641–1647. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.02.053
Green, A.E., Munafò, M.R., DeYoung, C.G., Fossella, J.A., Fan, J., & Gray, J.R. (2008). Using genetic data in
cognitive neuroscience: from growing pains to genuine insights. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 9(9), 710–
720. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2461
Green, D.W., & Abutalebi, J. (2013). Language control in bilinguals: The adaptive control hypothesis. Journal of
Cognitive Psychology, 25(5), 515–530. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2013.796377
Routledge.
Hammer, C.S., Hoff, E., Uchikoshi, Y., Gillanders, C., Castro, D.C., & Sandilos, L.E. (2014). The language
and literacy development of young dual language learners: A critical review. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 29(4), 715–733. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2014.05.008
Haworth, C.M., Wright, M.J., Luciano, M., Martin, N.G., de Geus, E.J., Van Beijsterveldt, C.E., Bartels, M.,
Posthuma, D., Boomsma, D.I., Davis, O.S.P., Kovas, Y., Corley, R.P., DeFries, J.C., Hewitt, J.K., Olson, R.K.,
Rhea, S.A., Wadsworth, S.J., Iacono, W.G., McGue, M., … . Davis, O.S. (2010). The heritability of general
cognitive ability increases linearly from childhood to young adulthood. Molecular Psychiatry, 15(11), 1112–
1120. https://doi.org/10.1038/mp.2009.55
Hernandez, A.E., Claussenius-Kalman, H.L., Ronderos, J., & Vaughn, K.A. (2018). Symbiosis, parasitism and
bilingual cognitive control: a neuroemergentist perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2171. https://doi.org/
10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02171
Hernandez, A.E., Greene, M.R., Vaughn, K.A., Francis, D.J., & Grigorenko, E.L. (2015). Beyond the bilingual
advantage: The potential role of genes and environment on the development of cognitive control. Journal of
Neurolinguistics, 35, 109–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2015.04.002
Hernandez, A.E., & Li, P. (2007). Age of acquisition: its neural and computational mechanisms. Psychological
Bulletin, 133(4), 638. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.4.638
Hoff, E., & Core, C. (2013). Input and language development in bilingually developing children. Seminars in
Speech and Language, 34(04), 215–226. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0033-1353448
Hurst, J. A., Baraitser, M., Auger, E., Graham, F., & Norell, S. (1990). An extended family with a dominantly
inherited speech disorder. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 32(4), 352–355.
Kroll, J.F., Bobb, S.C., Misra, M., & Guo, T. (2008). Language selection in bilingual speech: Evidence for inhibi-
tory processes. Acta Psychologica, 128(3), 416–430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2008.02.001
Li, P., & Grant, A. (2015). Identifying the causal link: Two approaches toward understanding the relation-
ship between bilingualism and cognitive control. Cortex, 73, 358–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor
tex.2015.07.013
Li, S., Hiver, P., & Papi, M. (2022). Individual differences in second language acquisition: theory, research, and
practice. In S. Li, P. Hiver, & M. Papi (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and
individual differences (pp. 3–34). Routledge.
Liu, D., Schwieter, J.W., Liu, W., Mu, L., & Liu, H. (2022). The COMT gene modulates the relationship between
bilingual adaptation in executive function and decision-making: an EEG study. Cognitive Neurodynamics,
1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11571-022-09867-2
Mamiya, P.C., Richards, T.L., Coe, B.P., Eichler, E.E., & Kuhl, P.K. (2016). Brain white matter structure and
COMT gene are linked to second-language learning in adults. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, 113(26), 7249–7254. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1606602113
Meaburn, E., Dale, P., Craig, I., & Plomin, R. (2002). Language-impaired children: No sign of the FOXP2 muta-
tion. Neuroreport, 13(8), 1075–1077. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001756-200206120-00020
Newbury, D.F., Bonora, E., Lamb, J.A., Fisher, S.E., Lai, C.S., Baird, G., Jannoun, L., Slonims, V., Stott, C.M.,
Merricks, M.J., Bolton, P.F., Bailey, A.J., Monaco, A.P., & the International Molecular Genetic Study of
244
Autism Consortium. (2002). FOXP2 is not a major susceptibility gene for autism or specific language impair-
ment. The American Journal of Human Genetics, 70(5), 1318–1327. https://doi.org/10.1086/339931
Nichols, E.S., Wild, C.J., Stojanoski, B., Battista, M.E., & Owen, A.M. (2020). Bilingualism affords no general
cognitive advantages: A population study of executive function in 11,000 people. Psychological Science,
31(5), 548–567. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620903113
Paap, K.R., & Greenberg, Z.I. (2013). There is no coherent evidence for a bilingual advantage in executive pro-
cessing. Cognitive Psychology, 66(2), 232–258. https://doi.org/0.1016/j.cogpsych.2012.12.002
Phan, L., Jin, Y., Zhang, H., Qiang, W., Shekhtman, E., Shao, D., Revoe, D., Villamarin, R., Ivanchenko, E.,
Kimura, M., Wang, Z.Y., Hao, L., Sharopova, N., Bihan, M., Strucke, A., Lee, M., Popova, N., Wu, W., ….
Kattman, B.L. (2020). ALFA: Allele Frequency Aggregator. National Center for Biotechnology Information,
U.S. National Library of Medicine. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/snp/docs/gsr/alfa/
Reneman, L., Van der Pluijm, M., Schrantee, A., & Van de Giessen, E. (2021). Imaging of the dopamine system
with focus on pharmacological MRI and neuromelanin imaging. European Journal of Radiology, 140,
109752. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2021.109752
Rimfeld, K., Dale, P.S., & Plomin, R. (2015). How specific is second language-learning ability? A twin study
exploring the contributions of first language achievement and intelligence to second language achievement.
Translational Psychiatry, 5(9), e638–e638. https://doi.org/10.1038/tp.2015.128
Sescousse, G., Ligneul, R., Van Holst, R.J., Janssen, L.K., de Boer, F., Janssen, M., Berry, A.S., Jagust, W.J.,
& Cools, R. (2018). Spontaneous eye blink rate and dopamine synthesis capacity: preliminary evidence for
an absence of positive correlation. European Journal of Neuroscience, 47(9), 1081–1086. https://doi.org/
10.1111/ejn.13895
Stelzel, C., Basten, U., Montag, C., Reuter, M., & Fiebach, C.J. (2010). Frontostriatal involvement in task
switching depends on genetic differences in d2 receptor density. Journal of Neuroscience, 30(42), 14205–
14212. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1062-10.2010
Stelzel, C., Fiebach, C.J., Cools, R., Tafazoli, S., & D’Esposito, M. (2013). Dissociable fronto-striatal effects of
dopamine D2 receptor stimulation on cognitive versus motor flexibility. Cortex, 49(10), 2799–2811. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2013.04.002
Stocco, A., Lebiere, C., & Anderson, J.R. (2010). Conditional routing of information to the cortex: A model of the basal
ganglia’s role in cognitive coordination. Psychological Review, 117(2), 541. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019077
Stocco, A., Yamasaki, B., Natalenko, R., & Prat, C.S. (2014). Bilingual brain training: A neurobiological frame-
work of how bilingual experience improves executive function. International Journal of Bilingualism, 18(1),
67–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006912456617
Tabor, H.K., Risch, N.J., & Myers, R.M. (2002). Candidate-gene approaches for studying complex genetic
traits: practical considerations. Nature Reviews Genetics, 3(5), 391–397. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg796
Tucker-Drob, E.M., Briley, D.A., & Harden, K.P. (2013). Genetic and environmental influences on cognition
across development and context. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22(5), 349–355. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0963721413485087
Cognition, 92(1–2), 231–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2003.10.008
Ullman, M.T. (2016). The declarative/procedural model: A neurobiological model of language learning, know-
ledge, and use. In G. Hickok & S.A. Small (Eds.) Neurobiology of language (pp. 953–968). Academic Press.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-407794-2.00076-6
Routledge.
Vaughn, K.A., & Hernandez, A.E. (2018). Becoming a balanced, proficient bilingual: Predictions from age of
acquisition & genetic background. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 46, 69–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneurol
ing.2017.12.012
Vaughn, K.A., Nuñez, A.I.R., Greene, M.R., Munson, B.A., Grigorenko, E.L., & Hernandez, A.E. (2016).
Individual differences in the bilingual brain: The role of language background and DRD2 genotype in verbal
and non-verbal cognitive control. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 40, 112–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneurol
ing.2016.06.008
Vinkhuyzen, A.A., Van der Sluis, S., Posthuma, D., & Boomsma, D.I. (2009). The heritability of aptitude and
exceptional talent across different domains in adolescents and young adults. Behavior Genetics, 39(4), 380–
392. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10519-009-9260-5
Volkow, N.D., Fowler, J.S., Gatley, S.J., Logan, J., Wang, G.-J., Ding, Y.-S., & Dewey, S. (1996). PET evaluation
of the dopamine system of the human brain. Journal of Nuclear Medicine, 37(7), 1242–1256.
245
Wang, W.Y., Barratt, B.J., Clayton, D.G., & Todd, J.A. (2005). Genome-wide association studies: theoretical and
practical concerns. Nature Reviews Genetics, 6(2), 109–118. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg1522
Wong, P.C.M., Morgan-Short, K., Ettlinger, M., & Zheng, J. (2012). Linking neurogenetics and individual
differences in language learning: The dopamine hypothesis. Cortex, 48(9), 1091–1102. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cortex.2012.03.017
Wong, P.C.M., Vuong, L. C., & Liu, K. (2017). Personalized learning: From neurogenetics of behaviors to
hologia.2016.10.002
Yamasaki, B.L., Stocco, A., Liu, A.S., & Prat, C. S. (2019). Effects of bilingual language experience on basal
ganglia computations: A dynamic causal modeling test of the conditional routing model. Brain and Language,
197, 104665. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2019.104665
246
18
AGE AND PROFICIENCY
IN SECOND LANGUAGE
NEUROCOGNITION
Lauren A. Fromont

When can one tell that they master a second (third, fourth…) language? Popular culture might
say: “When one can speak (and understand) like a native speaker.” This brings a second, more dif-
ficult question: How does one get there? (and another, related one: What does it even mean to be
native or native-like?). Although we can name a long list of relevant factors for learning languages
(see Luque & Covey, this volume), their relative importance in promoting “native-likeness” remains
under debate. In particular, age of acquisition on the one hand, and proficiency on the other, have
received considerable attention in second language (L2) research, and thus, they are focus of this
chapter.
Age of Acquisition
Age of acquisition (AoA) of a L2 is a determining factor in reaching a “first language-like” attainment
level: the later one learns a L2, the less likely one is to achieve native-like proficiency. There are a
number of explanations as to why learning a language early in life is usually associated with high
attainment (e.g., Caffarra et al., 2015). Some relate to the individuals’ linguistic experience. First, the
interplay between first language (L1) and L2 through time may play a role: The L1 becomes more
entrenched as the individual gains experience, and therefore may impact the learning process of the
L2 grammar (Hernandez et al., 2005). Second, linguistic circumstances in childhood may be more
beneficial for L2 learning (Hyltenstam & Abrahamsson, 2003; Lu et al, 2016; Row & Snow, 2020; but
see Flege, 2019). These can relate to characteristics inherent to the learners (e.g., higher motivation to
acquire the L2 compared to adults), or to their environment (e.g., better linguistic input, more oppor-
tunities to interact with native speakers). Other explanations, of greater interest within the context of
the present chapter, are biological in nature. It has been claimed that biological changes that occur
typically during puberty are responsible for the increased difficulty in learning an L2 later in life.
Those changes span from the completion of the lateralization that happens during puberty to increases
in estrogen or testosterone (see Hyltenstam & Abrahamsson, 2003, for a review), and, of course,
decreased in brain plasticity (Pallier et al., 2003). Brain plasticity refers to the ability of the brain
to change its activity in response to stimuli, by reorganizing its structure or connections. Hormonal
change during puberty seems to lead to a decrease in brain plasticity, therefore affecting the learning of
higher-order cognitive abilities, such as language (for a biological perspective, see Laube et al., 2020).
DOI: 10.4324/9781003190912-23 247

Lauren A. Fromont
Proficiency
Readers who are less familiar with the debates surrounding the neurocognitive substrates of L2
learning may be puzzled by the fact that proficiency is often pitched against AoA when trying to
account for native-likeness. Isn’t proficiency precisely what we are trying to measure? Not really: In
the neurocognition of language, we are mostly interested in the underlying mechanisms of language
processing. In fact, the loss of plasticity described above may lead to mechanisms that are quali-
tatively different between any L2 learner (regardless of their proficiency) and a given L1 speaker.
In order to evaluate whether the neurocognitive mechanisms underlying L2 processing are mainly
dependent on AoA, it is therefore important to assess for proficiency. Assessing proficiency is quite
controversial (Leclercq et al., 2014). Park et al. (2022) studied proficiency assessment practices in
500 L2 research studies between 2012 and 2019. They showed that although around 90% of studies
do report proficiency, only around 42% use an independent measure to evaluate it, and most of the
studies use the “academic” or institutional level. Although an extended battery of offline measures
exists, including, lexical decisions tasks (Meyer & Schvaneveldt, 1971), c-tests (where participants
are asked to complete deleted parts of a paragraph; Klein-Braley & Raatz, 1984), and standardized
tests such as the Test of English as a foreign language–TOEFL®, these are not always available in
minority languages. Neurolinguists also rely on independent measures, such as performance on an
acceptability judgment task, which consists of asking a participant whether they consider a given sen-
tence “acceptable” in a specific language. Originally implemented as informal judgments in genera-
tive linguistics, acceptability judgment tasks are now widely used in experiments while brain activity
is recorded (see Sprouse & Almeida, 2017, for a comprehensive account of acceptability judgment
tasks). However, one must keep in mind that both types of measures do not reflect the variety of
communication situations happening in the real world. Therefore, proficiency is sometimes assessed
using, for example, the amount of exposure to an L2 (Ojima et al., 2005). This measure, however,
correlates with AoA if taken along the lifespan.
On Age of Acquisition vs. Proficiency: Preliminary Remarks

It is important to note a few things before further examining AoA and proficiency effects in L2 pro-
cessing. First, there is very little dispute over the effects of AoA in L2 acquisition. What we all intui-
tively know holds: It is easier to learn an L2, and to get good at it, if we start early. When discussing
the importance of AoA, we might want to rephrase the question as such: Is it due to biological factors
(“true” AoA) or to other factors that may be confounded with AoA? In thinking about the second
category, the list gets very long. We may refer to inherent motivation, or to quality and quantity of
linguistic exposure, all of which are mentioned to be higher early in life (Hyltenstam & Abrahamsson,
2003). But we must also keep in mind that high proficiency is also generally negatively correlated
with AoA (Steinhauer, 2014). This point will be discussed when reviewing the empirical evidence,
but should be kept in mind throughout the whole chapter.
It is also apparent that AoA does not affect all linguistic domains the same way (Birdsong,
2006; Hahne, 2001; Newport et al., 2001). While lexical-semantics—i.e., the acquisition of new
vocabulary—seems relatively unaffected (after all, native speakers also need to learn new words in
their L1), many findings report AoA effects in L2 phonology, morphology, and syntax (for a review
of these domains, see Myers & Fuhrmeister, this volume; Biondo et al., this volume; Alemán Bañon
et al., this volume, respectively). Therefore, these domains are usually the focus of the discussion
surrounding AoA. In the present chapter, we will focus on morpho-syntactic processing in particular.
Thirdly, it is important to reflect on the concept of “native-likeness” or “L1 attainment.” Although
it is undeniable that one primary objective of L2 learning is to get close to a native speaker’s level, we
must also reconsider the validity of the “standard L1 speaker profile” (for example, see Freunberger
248
Age and Proficiency in Second Language Neurocognition
et al., 2022; Singleton & Leśniewska, 2021). Native speakers too, vary immensely in the usage
and exposure of their L1.1 Although there is virtually no argument of this variability, in almost all
L2 studies, L1 “controls” have been analyzed as a single, monolithic group in a way that ignores
interindividual variability (Fromont, Royle, & Steinhauer, 2020).
Considering the definitions and critical issues described above, the structure of this chapter is as
follows. After describing two hypotheses that insist on the importance of AoA (the critical period
hypothesis, Johnson & Newport, 1989; Lenneberg, 1967; Newport, Bavelier, & Neville, 2001) and
proficiency (the convergence hypothesis, Steinhauer, 2014) in accounting for L2 processing, we will
review the corresponding empirical evidence focusing on event-related potentials studies. In par-
ticular, we will address the challenge of assessing the importance of often correlated factors in L2
processing, and unveil relevant evidence focusing on interindividual variability, both in L1 and L2
speakers.
Historical Perspectives: Early Insights from Linguistics and Education Sciences

Although the idea that AoA is instrumental to native-like attainment was brought up in 1959 by
neurolinguists Penfield and Roberts, who at the time claimed that the brain started to lose its plasti-
city at the age of nine, it was largely popularized by the pivotal figure of linguistics Noam Chomsky.
In 1968, Chomsky focused on L1 acquisition to demonstrate that a native language, guided by
innate properties common to all human languages, is acquired easily and implicitly. Children are
hypothesized to follow a common trajectory and eventually reach the target “adult” grammar. This
process has been mirrored—and extended—to understand early vs. late L2 learning (Johnson &
Newport, 1989). Indeed, researchers espousing this position have claimed that L2 learners, may not
benefit from the mechanisms that facilitate L1 acquisition.2 Thus, late L2 learning may be explicit
and difficult, and the target (now defined as “native”) grammar may never fully be reached (e.g.,
DeKeyser, 2010).
Fewer people know that, despite the importance given to AoA, several early studies showed con-
trary findings. For example, Burstall et al.’s research (1974), one of the first large-scale and longi-
tudinal empirical studies addressing the age effect on L2 learning, focused on the feasibility and
desirability of teaching and learning a foreign language in primary grades. Although AoA was not
the primary focus of the research, looking at the results of several language tasks, Burstall observed
that the L2 learners that started at an earlier onset were on par with their peers who started learning
later. This suggests that AoA did not affect listening and speaking (even phonological) skills of the
children in a L2.
These historical considerations show that the debate around AoA with other factors has been
active since the popularization of neuro- and psycholinguistics as a research field. However, later
technical advances in electrophysiology and neuro-imaging have been instrumental for observing
the neurocognitive correlates of L2 processing and addressing the hypothesis that L2 processing is
different from L1’s due to a loss of brain plasticity.
Theories on Age of Acquisition and L2 Proficiency and Native-like Attainment

For the purposes of this chapter, we will distinguish between hypotheses that insist on the importance
of AoA in explaining native-like attainment, and the ones that focus on the importance of proficiency.
The Earlier, the Better: The Critical Period Hypothesis

As noted earlier, there is a broad consensus that AoA is important when it comes to L2 learning. In
general, later-life language learning is associated with lower attainment attributed—at least partly—to
249
Lauren A. Fromont
biological factors such as decline in brain plasticity. The critical period hypothesis (CPH; Newport,
Bavelier, & Neville, 2001; Johnson & Newport, 1989; Lenneberg, 1967) states that there is an early
time window in life when the brain can establish the neural connections that will enable optimal
grammatical processing.
Although there is virtually no argument that there is a critical period for L1 acquisition, whether
or not it should apply to all the languages one learns in one’s lifespan is still under debate. Proponents
of the CPH in the context of L2 learning predict native-like processing in one’s L2 would be contin-
gent upon early exposure (e.g., Bylund et al., 2021; DeKeyser, 2010; Weber-Fox & Neville, 1996).
In other words, an individual who speaks and understands their L2 as well as a native speaker must
rely on completely different cognitive mechanisms to process said L2. The exact span of the crit-
ical period is unclear: Although it is generally limited to the onset of puberty (Vanhove, 2013), a
compelling large-scale study has suggested that it extends until around 17 years (Chen et al., 2021;
Hartshorne et al., 2018; but see, Van der Slik et al., 2022).3 As previously mentioned, it is important
to note that not all linguistic domains are equally affected by this factor. The processing of phon-
ology, morphology, and syntax are known to be particularly sensitive to AoA. On the other hand, late
L2 learners’ lexical-semantic processing is generally quite comparable to L1 speakers’ (Clahsen &
Felser, 2006).
Proficiency Matters: The Convergence Hypothesis

The convergence hypothesis (Steinhauer et al., 2009) suggests that distinct neurocognitive processing
mechanisms characterize proficiency levels, and that ultimately, highly proficient L2 learners may
converge on native-like profiles. At early learning stages (low-proficiency level), L2 learners rely on
frequency-based mechanisms to process syntax. As proficiency increases, L2 learners start applying
grammatical rules.
This hypothesis is related to an influential model in L2 processing: the declarative/procedural
model (Ullman, 2001, 2004, 2020). According to this model, two learning and memory systems
underlie language processing: the declarative system subserves the processing of lexical-semantic
information, whereas the procedural system plays a crucial role in computation (required in phon-
ology, morphology, syntax). During language acquisition, the L2 would rely more on the declarative
system for grammatical processing at first. As proficiency increases, the procedural system plays a
more important role and rule-driven combinatorial processes are preferentially used during gram-
matical structure building. Note that, since this model defines proficiency as the general amount of
L2 experience (Ullman, 2005), this factor remains conflated with AoA. The convergence hypothesis
focuses on the actual linguistic level of individual, and predicts that proficiency will drive some
changes in neurocognitive mechanisms underlying L2 processing, regardless of AoA.
The convergence hypothesis does not predict a unique learning trajectory common to all L2 users,
because learning may depend on other factors. For example, the degree of similarity between L1 and
L2 may lead to transfer effects that explain why a given structure, however complex it may be, can be
integrated in a native-like manner early on during the learning process (Steinhauer, 2014).
Predictions of the Critical Period and the Convergence hypotheses

The predictions of the critical period and convergence models described above can be examined
through the use of event-related potential (ERP) components. ERPs potentials are obtained by
recording the brain activity from electrodes placed on the participant’s scalp, and averaging that
activity respective to a specific stimulus or input (e.g., a word onset or apparition on a screen). They
offer two major advantages for studying online sentence processing: (a) they have excellent tem-
poral resolution, and (b) they are a fined-grained measure that allow researchers to draw qualitative
250
differences (or similarities) about the underlying cognitive processes of sentence processing in different
populations, even when their behavior is indistinguishable. In past decades, ERP research has sig-
nificantly contributed to the development of dynamic sentence processing models. ERP components
are characterized by their polarity (positive or negative), latency (in ms), and topographical distribu-
tion on the scalp (see Disckson & Pelzl, this volume, for an extended account on ERPs). In sentence
processing, we usually consider the N400, the LAN, and the P600 as the three basic components of
interest (see, e.g., Swaab et al., 2012, for a general description that inspired this paragraph). The N400
is a centrally (sometimes broadly) distributed negative deflection that occurs between 300 and 500
ms after word presentation. It is observed in response to a range of experimental manipulations on
lexical-semantic processing: from word frequency to the integration of world knowledge information
(see Federmeier, 2021; Kutas & Federmeier, 2011, for a review). It is also described as the component
reflecting processes relying on the declarative memory (Ullman, 2001). The left anterior negativity,
or LAN, is observed around 300–500 ms, usually at left anterior sites (even though its topography
varies depending on the modality of the experiment). LAN effects are mostly elicited in response to
agreement violations, and more generally associated with the processing of local syntactic structures.
The P600 effect is a long-lasting (up to 1000 ms) and posterior positivity that starts around 500 ms,
and has been observed in response to a range of syntactic manipulations.
Considering these components, the general prediction is that native speakers elicit a N400 in
response to errors or incongruencies of lexical-semantic nature, and a (LAN)-P600 in response to
syntactic violations (e.g., agreement error, wrong syntactic category). The LAN component is in
parenthesis to reflect the fact that it mostly appears in response to morphosyntactic errors but not
to purely syntactic ones, and also because its validity has been put into question (see the discussion
between Tanner, 2015, and Molinaro et al., 2015). Both hypotheses described above would agree that
late L2 learners would also show modulations of the N400 in response to semantic errors. Syntax is
the domain that divides proponents of AoA vs. proficiency as a driving factor in cognitive mechanisms
underlying L2 processing. The CPH would predict that, regardless of proficiency, late L2 learners
will rely on different mechanisms compared to L1 speakers. For example, they may elicit a N400
component, showing their reliance on heuristics to process rule-based linguistic aspects. The con-
vergence theory would predict that, with enough proficiency, late learners may converge on similar
mechanisms as L1 speakers. Low proficiency L2-learners may either show no ERP responses or elicit
an N400 in response to morpho-syntactic violations, reflecting the fact that these participants process
the violations as lexical anomalies. However, as proficiency increases and linguistic rules become
more grammaticalized, ERP signatures are expected to transform to broadly distributed P600-like
effects, and finally converge toward a native-like response (e.g., a biphasic LAN-P600 effect).
Empirical Evidence on the Critical Period and the Convergence Hypotheses
Evidence Supporting the Critical Period Hypothesis and Limitations

As specified in the introduction, AoA does not influence all linguistic domains equally. For example,
lexical-semantic processing seems relatively unaffected by AoA (Birdsong, 2006; Vanhove, 2013),
even though N400 effects may be somewhat delayed or smaller in late L2-learners (Clahsen & Felser,
2006; Mueller, 2005; see also Tokowicz, & Tkacikova, this volume). These results show quantitative
(same component varying in latency and amplitude), rather than qualitative (distinct ERP compo-
nent) differences between L1 and L2 speakers. This suggests that in the lexical-semantic domain,
both groups indeed rely on similar neurocognitive mechanisms. The real domain of interest within
sentence processing is morpho-syntax.
Early ERP work on syntactic-category processing supported the CPH. In a seminal study, Weber-
Fox and Neville (1996) investigated brain responses to syntactic category violations (e.g., Max’s *of
251
Lauren A. Fromont
proof the theorem. vs. Max’s proof of the theorem) and lexical-semantic violations (Max’s *event of
the theorem. vs. Max’s proof of the theorem.). Participants were L2 speakers of English (Mandarin
Chinese L1) who were divided into five groups according to their AoA (1–3; 4–6; 7–10;11–13; >16),
and a group of monolingual English speakers. In the lexical-semantic condition, N400 effects were
reliably observed across groups. In the syntax condition, ERP profiles for syntax violations appeared
less native-like with increasing AoA. Only the lowest AoA group elicited a LAN-like/P600 response
similar to native speakers, and participants who learned English after 16 did not even display a P600
component. As predicted by the CPH, these findings suggest that late learners (AoA > 16) rely on
totally different mechanisms than native speakers to process local syntactic structures, but show no
qualitative difference in lexical-semantic processing. Similarly, auditory ERP studies that attempted
to combine lexical-semantic anomalies and syntactic-category errors on the same target word (Hahne
& Friederici, 2001) reported that L2-learners displayed late semantic N400s in response to these
combined anomalies, whereas L1-speakers displayed a “syntactic” early LAN (ELAN)4 but no N400,
presumably because syntactic violations block any lexical-semantic processing in native speakers
(i.e., the “semantic blocking” effect, Hahne & Friederici, 2001). Therefore, late (adult) L2 learners
appeared to rely more on lexical-semantic cues than syntax-guided native speakers, and seemed to
never rely on rapid/automatic mechanisms to process morpho-syntax, as demonstrated by the absence
of (E)LANs. At the time, this was considered very compelling evidence in favor of the CPH, and
also fell in line with the dominant “syntax-first” sentence processing model developed by Friederici
(2002).
More recently, a study by Meulman et al (2015) used generalized additive models to investigate
AoA effects in gender processing in a more “data driven” approach. They observed that whereas
participants with AoAs until around 20 years old showed gradually smaller P600 as their AoA
increased, learners with later AoAs showed a different component (namely, a posterior negativity),
indicating that (at least partially) different groups of neurons are involved, in turn suggesting different
processing mechanisms.
However, in these studies, AoA was confounded with proficiency. For example, in the Weber-Fox
and Neville (1996) study, the scores on several offline proficiency measures (such as CELF and sen-
tence structure subsets), as well as online acceptability judgment scores negatively correlated with
AoA, and the same was true for the more recent Meulman et al. (2015) study as well. In other words,
the earlier learners were also the more proficient participants. In these conditions, it remains unclear
whether the observed ERP differences are really attributable to AoA (as the authors concluded) or
to proficiency levels. In the next section, we will focus on studies that show that late L2 learners
can converge toward L1 profiles with sufficient proficiency (Caffarra et al., 2015; Steinhauer, 2014;
Steinhauer et al., 2009).
Evidence Supporting the Convergence Hypothesis and Limitations

By design, there are two ways of assessing the effect of proficiency while avoiding the confound with
AoA: (a) keep AoA constant, and (b) train the participants on a language (artificial or real) they have
not previously been in contact with.
In a study focusing on L2-learners of an artificial language, Friederici et al. (2002) divided their
participants into two groups: one that received grammar training, and another that received only
vocabulary training. They showed that, in response to syntactic category violations, the grammar-
training group elicited ERP responses similar to those usually found in native speakers (early nega-
tivities followed by a P600), whereas the vocabulary-training group did not. Similarly, Morgan-Short
et al. (2012) investigated the effects of implicit (immersion-like) vs. explicit (classroom-like) training
and further tested each group at high and low proficiency levels (performance at the acceptability
252
judgment task). Interestingly, more proficient participants elicited a P600 regardless of the type of
training (implicit or explicit), whereas only the highly proficient group that learned the language
through implicit training elicited a LAN in addition to a P600. This suggests that not only proficiency,
but also the type of exposure, influences the convergence of L2 learners toward native-like patterns.
The advantage of using artificial languages is that experimenters have more control over the learning
conditions of the participants. The drawbacks are that (a) it is a less “organic” setting, and (b), there
are no native speakers to compare the participants to.
Using natural languages is trickier, because experimenters must control for AoA and proficiency
during the recruitment phase. This was elegantly done by Rossi et al. (2006), who tested early (before
age 10) and late learners (after age 10)5 of L2 German (L1 Italian), and Italian (L1 German). They
recruited participants at high and low levels of L2 proficiency in each group. The authors used com-
parable sets of stimuli both in German and Italian, containing syntactic category violations, agreement
errors, or a combination of the two. In both languages, high proficiency L2 learners displayed an
ELAN-P600 complex for syntactic category violations (and a smaller similar complex for the low
proficiency group), and a LAN-P600 complex for agreement errors (vs. a small P600 for the low
proficiency participants). Results were thus (a) consistent with L1 typical responses for the highly
proficient participants, and (b) either quantitatively smaller or qualitatively different for the less pro-
ficient groups. To our knowledge, this was the first study showing that late learners could indeed
show typical native-like electrophysiological responses to morpho-syntactic errors. Altogether, these
studies suggest that the LAN component could be a marker of proficiency rather than AoA, as it is
completely absent from the lower proficiency groups’ responses.
Later studies seem to confirm these interpretations. Bowden et al. (2013) recruited participants
with adulthood experience in L2 Spanish (L1 English). They had a “low Spanish” group who had
classroom experience for 2–4 semesters, and an “advanced Spanish” group that had more exten-
sive classroom experience and immersion experience. They used lexical semantic and word-order
manipulations. In the former conditions, all participants exhibited N400 effects, which was also
evidenced in a control group of L1 Spanish speakers). The word-order violation elicited a LAN-
P600 response in both L1 controls and advanced Spanish learners, again supporting the convergence
hypothesis. Interestingly, the low Spanish participants elicited a frontal positivity that started early
and lingered until 900–100ms. This suggests that lower proficiency L2 learners may rely on qualita-
tively different mechanisms to process syntactic aspects during comprehension.
Overall, the convergence hypothesis has received convincing empirical support from studies
that controlled for AoA and showed that late learners could indeed elicit similar ERP responses
compared to native speakers. Although methodologically sound, the convergence hypothesis, just
like the studies supporting the CPH did before, tends to overlook two important aspects related to
individuals: L1 controls are not a monolithic group, and in all participants, other factors may also be
confounded with proficiency. In particular, the type and length of exposure to the target language is
often used to select proficiency groups (e.g., in Bowden et al.’s (2003) study), and therefore also may
act as possible confounds. Generally, the convergence hypothesis would benefit from a closer inspec-
tion of interindividual variability in order to establish the relative importance of factors such as AoA,
proficiency, but also exposure and other cognitive abilities, in explaining successful L2 learning.
Moving Away from “Ultimate L1 Attainment”: Back to Individuals

Proficiency seems to play a role even in native monolinguals’ language processing. Pakulak and
Neville (2011) recruited 72 native English speakers, and used an ERP paradigm containing syntactic
category violations in both English and Jabberwocky sentences.6 The authors split participants into
low and high proficiency groups based on their performance on a TOAL-3 offline evaluation. Their
253
Lauren A. Fromont
findings suggest that L1-speakers’ proficiency correlates with the magnitude of both anterior nega-
tivities and late positivity in response to the syntactic category violations (see White et al., 2006, for
similar findings).
A deeper investigation of interindividual differences in both native and L2 speakers came
from Osterhout’s and Tanner’s research teams. In a number agreement processing study focusing
on interindividual variability in German L2-learners, Tanner et al. (2013) observed that individ-
uals varied along a continuum from an N400 to a P600 profile, and that only the P600 increased
as participants became better able to detect anomalies. Later, Tanner et al. (2014) observed that
proficiency (with self-ratings and pencil-and-paper assessments) predicted the overall response
magnitude (reflected by a larger N400 or a larger P600), rather than a specific ERP component,
whereas early AoA and motivation to speak like a native speaker were associated with a P600-
dominant response. As individual differences along an N400–P600 continuum are also observed
in L1-speakers (Osterhout, 1997; Osterhout et al., 2004; Tanner & Van Hell, 2014), variation in
response dominance may be a characteristic of sentence processing in general, reflecting individual
tendencies to rely on one processing stream over the other, e.g., memory-based heuristics (N400
dominance) versus procedural or combinatorial information (P600 dominance). In sum, a biphasic
LAN-P600 should not be considered as the gold standard for L1 attainment (see also Freunberger
et al., 2022).
Overall, these findings suggest that neurolinguistic research should consider interindividual vari-
ability in L1 speakers instead of referring to “ultimate L1 attainment” (Hartshorne et al., 2018). As
the convergence hypothesis predicts that at very high proficiency, L2 speakers’ responses to syntactic
violations would be indistinguishable from those of native speakers, whatever this profile may be, it
is important to consider interindividual variability in L2 as well as in L1 speakers.
Innovations, Current Trends, and Future Directions

In this section, we will focus on a few studies that went a step further in examining the contributions
of age and proficiency in L2 neurocognition. Later, we provide some pointers for possible future
research in the field.
On the Relative Importance of Age of Acquisition and Proficiency in L2 Processing

In a meta-analysis performed over group-level data, Caffarra et al. (2015) performed logistic regres-
sion analyses over L2 processing studies to determine the weight of various predictors (AoA, pro-
ficiency, L1–L2 similarity, and immersion) in accounting for the presence or absence of sentence
processing-related components (N400, LAN, P600). They showed that proficiency was a reliable
predictor for the presence of a P600 response to syntactic violations, while immersion predicted
the presence of a LAN effect. In this context, AoA did not seem to have any effect over any of the
components. However, Caffarra et al. (2015) could not solve the confound problem, as it was already
present in the studies they included in their analysis.
Nichols and Joanisse (2019) examined the joint contribution of AoA and proficiency in French
L2 speakers (L1 English), who learned French relatively early (at about seven years old on average).
They used a syntactic violation condition (similar between French and English, allowing for transfer
effects), and a gender agreement error condition (dissimilar between those languages, thus preventing
transfer effects). They analyzed the results using linear mixed-effect models and added proficiency
and AoA in a stepwise manner in order to obtain the optimal model. They observed that proficiency,
not AoA, predicted the LAN amplitude in response to syntactic violations that are based on similar
rules in French and English, whereas AoA was a better predictor of ERP responses to agreement
254
errors. In order to perform this type of study with late learners, however, one might, once again, be
facing the issue of correlated variables, as later AoAs are often associated with lower proficiency.
Fromont, Royle, & Steinhauer (2020) ran into precisely this issue in an ERP study addressing
individual variability among native French speakers and late learners of L2 French (L1 English)
when processing syntactic category violations, lexical-semantic anomalies, and combined anom-
alies in French sentences. First, they performed a group analysis between L1 and L2 speakers. As
the CPH would have predicted, they observed that native speakers elicited a biphasic N400–P600
in response to ungrammatical sentences, whereas L2 learners only elicited an N400. However,
individual response patterns showed variation in both L1 and L2 speakers, as individuals in both
groups displayed both patterns of responses. Because the predicting variables, such as AoA, profi-
ciency (score at the online acceptability task), and daily exposure were all correlated, they adapted a
machine learning algorithm (random forests) that, contrary to other common statistical analyses tools,
handles multicollinearity, in order to assess the relative importance of these predictors. This approach
revealed that language exposure and proficiency were the most reliable predictors in explaining ERP
responses, with biphasic responses to ungrammatical sentences becoming larger as daily exposure to
French and proficiency increased, as predicted by the convergence hypothesis. The AoA effect that
was seemingly apparent in the group analyses completely disappeared, as this predictor was the least
explanatory of all. Overall, then the results of this study, which uniquely addressed the confound
between AoA and proficiency, provided evidence consistent with the convergence hypothesis rather
than the CPH.
Future Directions: Grouping Must Be Meaningful

In the most recent years, neurocognitive research on L2 processing has gradually been moving
away from group comparisons in order to explore interindividual variability. This approach is
proving useful to refine or complement existing theories of L2 learning. However, as the use
of (especially statistical) tools to explore individual variability are relatively new to the field
of neurolinguistics, we may observe (ironically) a certain variability in the results yielded,
depending on the approach used and the measures employed to express individual factors such as
proficiency, motivation, or even exposure. For example, while Fromont, Royle, and Steinhauer
(2020) did observe language experience and working memory effects even in native speakers,
Tanner (2019), using a different approach, did not report any such effect. One challenge for the
future of neurolinguistics research, in particular to examining age and proficiency effects in L2
neurocognition, would be to gather more hypothesis-driven (rather than exploratory) evidence
using consistent tools and parameters to assess individual variation, leading to a “grouping” of
those individuals into profiles based on this empirical evidence.
Notes
1 One striking example is that of “attriters,” individuals that “lose” certain aspects of their L1 due to a lack of
use and exposure (see Kasparian et al, 2017, for an example in the morphosyntactic domain).
2 This also explains why we contrast the terms “L2 learning” to “L1 acquisition.”
3 In these studies, individual variability with regards to when puberty occurs and its domain-general cognitive
effects are usually disregarded [Author Note].
4 Note that the studies eliciting ELANs have since been shown to present very problematic experimental
designs (Steinhauer & Drury, 2012), which has been backed by empirical evidence suggesting that it is an
artefact (Fromont, Steinhauer, & Royle, 2020).
5 For the purpose of the argument, we appreciate the intent of balancing the different groups; but we also warn
the reader against the seemingly arbitrary choice of 10 year old as a cut-off for early vs. late AoA.
6 A Jabberwocky sentence is a sentence which uses English syntax but contains nonsense words, rendering it
semantically meaningless. Its name derives from the famous Lewis Caroll poem (1871).
255
Lauren A. Fromont
Further Readings
This article presents a compelling evaluation of statistical methods to deal with multicollinearity in linguistic data.
Tomaschek, F., Hendrix, P., Baayen, R.H. (2018). Strategies for addressing collinearity in multivariate linguistic
data, Journal of Phonetics, 71, 249–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2018.09.004
This article provides a detailed introduction to get started with random forests.
Strobl, C., Malley, J., & Tutz, G. (2009). An introduction to recursive partitioning: Rationale, application, and
characteristics of classification and regression trees, bagging, and random forests. Psychological Methods,
14(4), 323–348. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016973
Acknowledgments
Many of the ideas presented in this chapter were discussed with the research teams led by Phaedra Royle, PhD
(Université de Montréal) and Karsten Steinhauer, PhD (McGill University).
References
syntactic system. In K. Morgan-Short & J.G. van Hell (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language
Biondo, N., Molinaro, N., & Mancini, S. (this volume). The neurolinguistics of the second language grammatical
system: The role of grammar-related and speaker-related factors. In K. Morgan-Short & J.G. van Hell (Eds.),
The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and neurolinguistics. Routledge.
Birdsong, D. (2006). Age and second language acquisition and processing: A selective overview. Language
Learning, 56(s1), 9–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2006.00353.x
Bowden, H. W., Steinhauer, K., Sanz, C., & Ullman, M. T. (2013). Native-like brain processing of syntax can
be attained by university foreign language learners. Neuropsychologia, 51(13), 2492–2511. https://doi.org/
Burstall, C., Jamieson, M., Cohen, S. & Hargreaves, M. (1974). Primary French in the Balance, Slough: NFER.
Bylund, E., Hyltenstam, K., & Abrahamsson, N. (2021). Age of acquisition—not bilingualism—is the pri-
mary determinant of less than nativelike L2 ultimate attainment. Bilingualism, 24(1), 18–30. https://doi.org/
10.1017/S1366728920000188
through event-related potentials: an empirical review. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 51, 31–47.
Chen, T., & Hartshorne, J.K. (2021). More evidence from over 1.1 million subjects that the critical period
for syntax closes in late adolescence. Cognition, 214, Article 104706. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognit
ion.2021.104706
Chomsky, N. (1968). Language and Mind. Harcourt, Brace & World.
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006). Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistcs, 27,
3–42. https://doi.org/10.1017.S0142716406060024
DeKeyser, R. (2010). The robustness of critical period effects in second language acquisition. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 22(4), 499–533. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100004022
Psychophysiology, 59(1), Article e13940. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.13940
Flege, J.E. (2019). A non-critical period for second-language learning, In A. M. Nyvad, M. Hejná, A. Højen, A.
B. Jespersen & M. H. Sørensen (Eds.), A sound approach to language matters—in honor of Ocke-Schwen
Bohn (pp. 501–541). Open access e-book at Aurhus University Library.
nativelikeness in erp studies on grammatical processing in a second language? A critical assessment based
amab058
256
Friederici, A.D. (2002). Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,
6(2), 78–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01839-8
Fromont, L.A., Steinhauer, K., Royle, P. (2020a). Verbing nouns and nouning verbs: ERP evidence against
“syntax-first” approaches to sentence processing. PLoS ONE, 15(3): e0229169. https://doi.org/10.1371/jour
nal.pone.0229169
& Language, 204, Article 104770. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2020.104770
Hahne, A., & Friederici, A.D. (2001). Processing a second language: Late learners’ comprehension mechanisms
as revealed by event-related brain potentials. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4(02). https://doi.org/
10.1017/S1366728901000232
Hartshorne, J.K., Tenenbaum, J.B., & Pinker, S. (2018). A critical period for second language acquisi-
tion: Evidence from 2/3 million English speakers. Cognition, 177, 263–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.cognition.2018.04.007
Hernandez, A., Li, P., & MacWhinney, B. (2005). The emergence of competing modules in bilingualism. Trends
Hyltenstam, K., & Abrahamsson, N. (2003). Maturational constraints in SLA. In C.J. Doughty & M.H. Long
(Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 539–588). Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Johnson, J.S., & Newport, E.L. (1989). Critical period effects in second language learning: the influence of mat-
urational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 60–99. https://
doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(89)90003-0
Kasparian, K., Vespignani, F., & Steinhauer, K. (2017). First language attrition induces changes in online mor-
phosyntactic processing and re-analysis: An ERP study of number agreement in complex Italian sentences.
Cognitive Science, 41, 1760–1803. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12450
Klein-Braley, C., & Ulrich R. (1984). A survey of research on the C-Test1. Language Testing, 1(2),134–146.
https://doi.org/10.1177/026553228400100202
Kutas, M., & Federmeier, K.D. (2011). Thirty years and counting: Finding meaning in the N400 component
of the event related brain potential (ERP). Annual Review of Psychology, 62(1), 621–647. https://doi.org/
10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.131123
Laube, C., Van den Bos, W., & Fandakova,Y. (2020). The relationship between pubertal hormones and brain plas-
ticity: Implications for cognitive training in adolescence. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 42, Article
100753. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2020.100753
Leclercq, P., Edmonds, A., & Hilton, H. (2014). Measuring L2 Proficiency: Perspectives from SLA.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Lenneberg, E. (1967). Biological foundations of language. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548
331.1967.11707799
Lu, J., Jones, A., & Morgan, G. (2016). The impact of input quality on early sign development in native and
non-native language learners. Journal of Child Language, 43(3), 537–552. https://doi.org/10.1017/S03050
00915000835
Meulman, N., Wieling, M., Sprenger, S. A., Stowe, L.A., & Schmid, M.S. (2015). Age effects in L2 grammar
processing as revealed by ERPs and how (not) to study them. PloS ONE, 10(12), Article e0143328. https://
Meyer, D.E., & Schvaneveldt, R.W. (1971). Facilitation in recognizing pairs of words: Evidence of a dependence
between retrieval operations. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 90(2), 227–234. https://doi.org/10.1037/
h0031564
Molinaro N., Barber H.A., Caffarra S., & Carreiras M. (2015). On the left anterior negativity (LAN): The case
of morphosyntactic agreement: A reply to Tanner et al. Cortex, 66, 156–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor
tex.2014.06.009
Mueller, J.L. (2005). Electrophysiological correlates of second language processing. Second Language Research,
21(2), 152–174. https://doi.org/10.1191/0267658305sr256oa
257
Lauren A. Fromont
Myers, E., & Fuhrmeister, P. (this volume). The neurolinguistics of the second language phonological system.
Newport, E.L., Bavelier, D., & Neville, H.J. (2001). Perspectives on a critical period for language acquisition.
In E. Dupoux (Ed.), Language, brain, and cognitive development (pp. 481–502). MIT Press. https://doi.org/
10.1067/mhn.2001.115372
5002436
Osterhout, L. (1997). On the brain response to syntactic anomalies: Manipulations of word position and word class
reveal individual differences. Brain and Language, 59(3), 494–522. https://doi.org/10.1006/brln.1997.1793
10.1017/S1366728917000566
Pakulak, E., & Neville, H.J. (2011). Maturational constraints on the recruitment of early processes for syntactic
processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(10), 2752–2765. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2010.21586.
Maturational
Pallier, C., Dehaene, S., Poline, J.B., LeBihan, D., Argenti, A.M., Dupoux, E., & Mehler, J. (2003) Brain imaging
of language plasticity in adopted adults: Can a second language replace the first? Cerebral Cortex, 13(2),
155–61. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/13.2.155
Park, H.I., Solon, M., Dehghan-Chaleshtori, M., & Ghanbar, H. (2022), Proficiency reporting practices in
research on second language acquisition: Have we made any progress? Language Learning, 72, 198–236.
https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12475
Penfield, W., & Roberts, L. (1959). Speech and Brain Mechanisms. Princeton University Press.
language processing of German and Italian: evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of Cognitive
Neuroscience, 18(12), 2030–2048. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2006.18.12.2030
Row, M.L., & Snow, E.C. (2020). Analyzing input quality along three dimensions: Interactive, linguistic, and
conceptual. Journal of Child Language, 47(1), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000919000655
Singleton, D., & Lesniewska, J. (2021). The critical period hypothesis for L2 acquisition: An unfalsifiable embar-
rassment? Languages, 6(3), Article 149. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages6030149
Sprouse, J., & Almeida, D. (2017). Design sensitivity and statistical power in acceptability judgment experiments.
Glossa: A journal of general linguistics, 2(1), Article 14. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.236
Steinhauer, K. (2014). Event-related potentials (ERPs) in second language research: a brief introduction to the
10.1177/0267658308098995
Strobl, C., Malley, J., & Tutz, G. (2009). An introduction to recursive partitioning: Rationale, application, and
characteristics of classification and regression trees, bagging, and random forests. Psychological Methods,
14(4), 323–348. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016973
Swaab, T., Ledoux, K., Camblin, C.C., & Boudewyn, M. (2012). Language-related ERP components. In S.J.
Luck & E.S. Kappenman (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of event-related potential components (pp. 397–440).
Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195374148.013.0197
Tanner, D. (2015). On the left anterior negativity (LAN) in electrophysiological studies of morphosyntactic
agreement: A commentary on “grammatical agreement processing in reading: ERP findings and future
directions” by Molinaro et al., 2014, Cortex, 66, 149–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2014.04.007
Tanner, D. (2019). Robust neurocognitive individual differences in grammatical agreement processing: a latent
variable approach. Cortex, 111, 210–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2018.10.011
prehension. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17(2), 277–293. https://doi.org/10.1017/S136672891
3000370
org/10.1017/S1366728912000302
Neuropsychologia, 56(1), 289–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.02.002
258
Tomaschek, F., Hendrix, P., & Baayen, R.H. (2018). Strategies for addressing collinearity in multivariate lin-
guistic data, Journal of Phonetics, 71, 249–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2018.09.004
Ullman, M.T. (2001). A neurocognitive perspective on language: The declarative/procedural model. Nature
Reviews Neuroscience, 2(10), 717–726. https://doi.org/10.1038/35094573
Cognition, 92(1–2), 231–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2003.10.008
Ullman, M.T. (2005). A cognitive neuroscience perspective on second language acquisition: The declarative/
procedural model. In C. Sanz (Ed.), Mind and context in adult second language acquisition: Methods, theory
and practice (141–178). Georgetown University Press.
Ullman, M.T. (2020). The declarative/procedural model: A neurobiologically-motivated theory of first and
(3rd ed., pp. 128–161). Routledge.
Van der Slik, F., Schepens, J., Bongaerts, T., & Van Hout, R. (2022). Critical period claim revisited: Reanalysis
of Hartshorne, Tenenbaum, and Pinker (2018) suggests steady decline and learner-type differences. Language
Learning, 72, 87–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12470
Vanhove, J. (2013). The critical period hypothesis in second language acquisition: A statistical critique and a
reanalysis. PLoS ONE, 8(7), Article e102922. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0069172
Weber-Fox, C.M., & Neville, H.J. (1996). Maturational constraints on functional specializations for language
processing: ERP and behavioral evidence in bilingual speakers. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 8(3),
White, E., Genesee, F., White, L., King, E., & Steinhauer, K. (2006). Factors contributing to native-like pro-
cessing of a late-acquired second language: Evidence from event-related brain potentials [Poster presenta-
tion]. Boston University Conference on Language Development, Boston, MA.
259
19
DE-G ENERACY AS
AN ORGANIZING PRINCIPLE
OF BILINGUAL LANGUAGE
PROCESSING
Evidence from Brain and Behavior
Introduction
Traditionally, research on bilingual language processing characterizes the ways that bilingual speakers
process language differently from monolinguals, particularly in the second language (L2). In the adult
L2 processing literature, for example, behavioral and brain indices are typically evaluated against
native-like benchmarks with deviations from some target response (e.g., the presence/absence of the
LAN-P600 effect for grammatical gender violations) interpreted as reflecting constraints associated
with incomplete acquisition or suboptimal performance (Batterink & Neville, 2013). The dominant
assumption in this research is that of an ideal and uniform speaker, where people’s idiosyncrasies
are discarded as noise. However, new evidence points to substantial variability in language use, pro-
cessing, and experience even among monolingual speakers (Beatty-Martínez, Bruni et al., 2020; Bice
& Kroll, 2019; Pakulak & Neville, 2010). Language experience is complex, and is a compelling,
socially relevant example of how people adapt to the communicative demands of their environment.
This calls for more ecologically nuanced characterizations of variation in natural language use and
in participant samples, which considers individual differences in language and cognitive abilities, as
well as environmental influences on how people actively learn and use their language(s) (for recent
proposals, see Navarro-Torres et al., 2021; Titone & Tiv, 2022).
Here, we add to this conversation by illustrating how variability in language use, processing,
and experience reveals fundamental insights into the evolutionary and ecological forces that shape
dynamic and adaptive changes in both language and control networks. To do so, we highlight the
contributions of three distinct sources of variability and describe how the distributed property of de-
generacy applied in systems biology (Edelman & Gally, 2001; Whitacre, 2010) can help organize the
array of adaptations to linguistic and cognitive demands that can occur under different communicative
constraints. Here, we use de-generacy with a hyphen as suggested by Mason (2015) and others to dis-
tinguish the scientific term from the historical baggage associated with degeneration.1 De-generacy in
complex systems refers to the way that different elements (e.g., linguistic forms, cognitive processes,
or brain regions) are functionally interchangeable under certain conditions yet can perform different
functions under other conditions. Having variable pathways is an advantageous evolutionary strategy
260 DOI: 10.4324/9781003190912-24

De-generacy as an Organizing Principle
not only for assuring a system’s robustness to perturbation, but also for increasing its adaptability to
changing environments (Whitacre & Bender, 2010).
While we focus on language and bilingualism, the concept of de-generacy has been applied to a
wide range of biological and cognitive phenomena, including the genetic code (e.g., the coding of an
amino acid may be specified by more than one codon; González et al., 2019) and the immune system
(e.g., different antibodies may bind to the same antigen; Eisen, 2001). In regard to the human brain,
de-generacy contributes to the robustness of neural networks through distributed actions whereby
complex cognitive processes can be supported by distinct components (Friston & Price, 2003; Price
& Friston, 2002). One implication is that idiosyncratic patterns of neural activation (e.g., hemispheric
lateralization for language comprehension; Gurunandan et al., 2020) might not reflect random noise,
but de-generacy across people (Green et al., 2006; Noppeney et al., 2004).
In terms of language use, de-generacy means a particular discourse function can be fulfilled by
different constructions (Mason et al., 2015; Winter, 2014). For example, quick and fast can both be
used to express motion with great speed. These two linguistic forms are functionally de-generate
because they show how alternative forms can have similar communicative functions. However,
similarity does not imply equivalence in that there are contexts where they might convey different
meanings (Goldberg, 2019). Accordingly, “a quick shower” and “a fast car” are preferred over “a
fast shower” and “a quick car” because quick and fast respectively convey speed with an endpoint
and without one. Thus, de-generacy implies variation without compromised function. However, in
some cases (see Figure 19.1), it can also lead to diversity that gives rise to novelty through offering
different legitimate outputs that align with different constraints (Mason et al., 2015). In this way,
de-generacy does not entail redundancy in that the different variants are context-dependent and thus
conditionally interchangeable.
In multilingual people and contexts, de-generacy can occur in many ways. However, it is ideally
exemplified through codeswitching, whereby bilinguals use their languages opportunistically, which
can enhance communicative precision (Feldman et al., 2021; Xu et al., 2021). For example, in a
study on opportunistic speech planning by Beatty-Martínez, Navarro-Torres, and Dussias (2020),
codeswitching bilinguals showed higher rates of codeswitching from Spanish into English when dis-
ambiguating between two referents. To illustrate, when referring to duplicate objects such as the two
cars in Figure 19.2, bilinguals were more likely to use English or codeswitched forms (e.g., “the
black car” and/or “el black car” respectively), over Spanish alternatives (e.g., “el carro negro”).
The interpretation is that people’s choices between functionally equivalent, yet structurally distinct,
alternatives depend on what is most optimal for a given situation (i.e., prenominal modification to
disambiguate between competing referents more efficiently). In this way, variation in language use
is a hallmark of de-generacy, exhibiting adaptability to novel or changing demands and in so doing,
contributing to the robustness of the language system.
Figure 19.1 Schematic Representation of Redundant (One-to-one) and De-generate (Many-to-one) Form-

function Relationships.
261
Figure 19.2 De-generacy Exemplified through Variation in Language Use.

Note: Beatty-Martínez, Navarro-Torres, and Dussias (2020) show how codeswitching bilinguals choose between unilingual
and codeswitched forms to capitalize on what is most optimal in a given context (e.g., in terms of greater discriminatory
efficiency).
In what follows, we illustrate de-generacy using three different sources of variation. Specifically,
section “De-generacy in language use” addresses de-generacy in the context of form-function asym-
metries in language use (Sankoff, 1988). Indeed, people’s choices among different forms (e.g., a
Spanish–English bilingual producing “el black car” over “el carro negro” to identify a target referent)
are not random but functionally de- generate, as evidenced by conditional and probabilistic
constraints. Thus, de-generacy can help us understand the (extra)linguistic conditioning of parallel
but differently variable forms and how they relate to differential processing patterns.
Section “De-generacy in language processing” capitalizes on the notion that people differ in how
they deploy cognitive and linguistic resources during language processing. An important implica-
tion that follows is that complex processes can be accomplished in different ways (i.e., by engaging
different neurophysiological components or brain regions, or by using different processing strategies)
while achieving similar outcomes (Green et al., 2006; Kroll et al., 2021). For example, figurative
interpretations of idioms can be accessed through a direct-retrieval and/or compositional processing
route (Senaldi et al., 2022). By the same token, cognitive outcomes can be achieved through differ-
ential coordination of control processes (Morales et al., 2013). Thus, de-generacy can provide an
insightful view of individual differences in language processing.
Section “De-generacy in language experience” addresses de-generacy in phenotypic variation in
language experience (i.e., the behavioral ecology of language use). Interactional contexts differ in
how they constrain which and how language(s) can be used (Gullifer & Titone, 2020; Kroll et al.,
2018). This variation in language experience relates to distinct behavioral phenotypes (i.e., identi-
fiable characteristics that differentiate between populations of speakers; Beatty-Martínez & Titone,
2021). Accordingly, de-generacy at a contextual level is exemplified by recent findings that transcend
a binary approach (e.g., monolinguals vs. bilinguals), which showcase the wide variety of bilingual
phenotypes that lead to complex yet systematic patterns of performance across distinct contexts of
language use. Altogether, the examples of de-generacy provided here call into question traditional
benchmarks of native-like performance and offer new insights that unravel variability in bilingual
language use, processing, and experience.
De-generacy in Language Use

Language use is inherently variable. Increasingly sophisticated tools for data collection and statistical
modeling have uncovered richer patterns of variability in natural language use than previously under-
stood. Increasing evidence shows that people are sensitive to, and can adapt to, the statistical regu-
larities in their language experience with important implications for representation and processing
(Beatty-Martínez & Dussias, 2018; Dell & Chang, 2014; MacDonald, 2013).
262
One impetus for shifting to the psycholinguistic analysis of natural language variation is the dis-
covery of learning and processing biases (Beatty-Martínez et al., 2018; MacDonald, 2013). Consider
the comprehension of passive and active constructions in English. Whereas previous research
suggested that passives are inherently more difficult than actives (Ferreira, 2003), recent work has
shown that this difficulty is modulated by information structure constraints as observed in natural-
istic usage (Kaiser & Trueswell, 2004). Corpus data suggests asymmetrical information structure
constraints on actives and passives, such that passive constructions are felicitous only when they
express given-before-new information structure (Birner & Ward, 1998). Consequently, one relevant
factor in understanding the relationship between word order and processing difficulty is whether the
experimental stimuli reflect naturalistic usage of information structure constraints.
López-Beltrán et al. (2021) compared the processing of active and passive sentences in monolin-
gual and L2 speakers using eye-tracking. Specifically, active and passive sentences were embedded
in a preceding context that varied by information structure (given–new or new–given). A simple
main effects analysis found that, for both monolingual and L2 speakers, actives were read faster than
passives, and sentences with a given–new information structure were read faster than those with
new–given patterns. Initially, it would be tempting to interpret these findings as typical frequency
effects, where more frequent constructions (i.e., actives and given–new ordering of information) led
to faster reading times. However, hypothesized interactions between word order and information
structure patterns revealed a more nuanced picture. In line with previous corpus studies, an inter-
action between word order and information structure emerged whereby the cost for passives was rela-
tively attenuated in given–new contexts (1) compared to new–given contexts (2). Further, whereas
past research argued that bilingual speakers often fail to acquire information structural constraints
during L2 processing (Bel et al., 2016), the study found that monolingual and L2 speakers were
equally sensitive to information structure in the comprehension of actives and passives. Critically,
these findings would have been missed had the authors not accounted for how functionally equiva-
lent alternatives may produce different processing outcomes under different information structure
constraints (i.e., de-generacy).
(1) The mayor’s present term of office expires Jan. 1.

HeGIVEN will be succeeded by Ivan Allen Jr.NEW
(2) Ivan Allen Jr. will take office Jan. 1.
The mayorNEW will be succeeded by himGIVEN
The second illustration of de-generacy in language use involves grammatical gender, a nominal clas-
sification system typically specified through agreement with other elements of speech. Eye-tracking
studies have shown that monolingual children and adults make use of gender cues to facilitate lan-
guage processing (Lew Williams & Fernald, 2007). Similarly, event-related potential (ERP) studies
have reported that native speakers are sensitive to grammatical gender violations, as evidenced by a
biphasic LAN-P600 pattern (Caffarra & Barber, 2015). Overall, the LAN has been argued to reflect
detection of a morphosyntactic expectancy violation, while the P600 has been interpreted as an index
of reanalysis and structural integration (Molinaro et al., 2011). Although previous work established
the LAN-P600 response as an index of native-like processing, this biphasic pattern is not consistent
across studies, even those of monolinguals (Caffarra et al., 2019; Molinaro et al., 2015). One explan-
ation proposed is that biphasic responses may be, in part, a spurious artifact of averaging across
individuals who show predominantly negative (LAN/N400) or positive (P600/LPC) ERP responses
(Tanner & Van Hell, 2014; cf., Caffarra et al., 2019). We return to the role of individual differences
in language processing in section “De-generacy in language processing,” but first we consider
how grammatical gender categories may differ in terms of cue validity and schematicity and the
implications thereof for processing and representation.
263
Gendered languages differ in the number of categories they recognize and in the factors that
influence gender assignment criteria. In Spanish, for example, nouns are classified into masculine or
feminine categories based on their phonological shape (Eddington, 2002; Trawick & Bero, 2021).
This relationship in turn creates a distributional asymmetry in schematicity between the two genders
categories (see Beatty-Martínez & Dussias, 2019, for discussion on the differential behavior of mas-
culine and feminine gender in Spanish). In short, the feminine gender category is schematically
constrained, allowing only a small number of phonological forms. Conversely, the masculine gender
category is schematically more open, allowing all other forms, including those of most loanwords
and neologisms. This difference in category schematicity additionally leads to a difference in the
weighting of gender cues, where feminine cues ostensibly exclude masculine referents but not vice
versa (Eddington & Hualde, 2008).
In an ERP study, Beatty-Martínez, Bruni et al. (2020) investigated the implications of the differ-
ential behavior between masculine and feminine gender for the processing of grammatical gender
violations in L1 Spanish speakers. When collapsed across gender categories, congruency effects
showed the classical LAN-P600 biphasic pattern. Notwithstanding, splitting the data by noun gender
showed that individuals’ ERP response dominance (LAN or P600) systematically differed across
the two genders: individuals who showed a LAN-dominant response to masculine-noun violations
were more likely to show a P600 effect in response to feminine-noun violations. One interpretation
is that the LAN indexes morpheme-based expectations, where feminine gender cues (i.e., encoded
in determiners, e.g., la, “theF”) incur greater prediction costs compared to masculine cues (e.g., el
“theM”). In contrast, the P600 indexes category exemplar strength, with categories of higher coher-
ence (here, the feminine gender category), yielding more robust responses to gender mismatches (see
Bambini et al., 2021 for converging evidence).
These examples illustrate how functionally de-generate alternatives contribute to people’s choices
among forms serving generally similar discourse functions and elicit different patterns of neurophysio-
logical activity. In this way, applying the concept of de-generacy in language use opens new avenues
for discovery into how parallel yet differently variable forms—within and across languages—can
induce differential processing outcomes.
De-generacy in Language Processing

The previous section applied the concept of de-generacy (i.e., many-to-one mappings of form to
function) within individuals to account for distributional asymmetries in language use, showing how
people’s choices among different forms have consequences for representation and processing more
generally. In this section, we focus on individual differences in language processing and show how
de-generacy is found across people, allowing for different processing strategies to achieve similar
outcomes.
Contrary to a native speaker model, increasing research shows that language learning and pro-
cessing is modulated by individual differences such as linguistic proficiency, age of acquisition, and
cognitive control ability (Birdsong, 2018; see Fromont, this volume; Luque & Covey, this volume).
Accumulating evidence suggests that grand mean analyses may not reflect a normative response
across people but rather an aggregate of distinct phenotypes with different profiles and processing
strategies (Tanner & Van Hell, 2014). Thus, one pitfall of main-effect practices such as those that
uphold the monolingual vs. bilingual group comparisons is that they potentially mask de-generate
behavior during language processing (i.e., alternative pathways engaged by different components or
by using different strategies).
In the first illustration, we examine de-generacy in predictive processing. The typical approach
to studying L2 predictive processing has been to focus on whether bilingual speakers generate and
264
recover from predictions like monolingual speakers (e.g., Foucart et al., 2014; see Kaan, this volume).
However, rather than framing this question as a binary issue that is contingent on the presence/
absence of prediction costs, one could instead focus on which cognitive processes support predic-
tion in comprehension and explore how their coordination is differentially modulated as a function
of language experience. To this end, an ERP study by Zirnstein et al. (2018) examined the role of
cognitive control and verbal fluency as mediators of readers’ susceptibility to prediction error costs
during sentence processing. English monolinguals and L2-immersed Mandarin–English bilinguals
read highly semantically constraining sentences with embedded target words that were either pre-
dictable or plausible but unexpected (e.g., “After their meal, they forgot to leave a tip/ten for the
waitress”). For monolinguals and bilinguals alike, prediction errors (i.e., when unexpected words
were encountered) resulted in a frontally distributed positivity modulated by individual differences
in cognitive control, with better control relating to a reduced prediction error effect. However, for
bilinguals, the relationship between prediction error costs and cognitive control skill was addition-
ally moderated by L1 fluency, though in the opposite direction. Bilinguals with better L1 regulation
skill (i.e., higher L1 fluency performance in an L2-immersion context) produced greater prediction
error costs in the L2, an effect that was attenuated by increasing control ability. This suggests that
becoming adept at regulating the L1 in an L2-immersion context can influence the processes involved
in generating predictions during L2 reading. Notably, there was no independent effect of L1 fluency
ability, showing that the interaction between these processes was vital for effective signal extraction
(see Navarro-Torres et al., 2021, for discussion). These findings illustrate how different groups of
speakers can achieve the same outcome (i.e., a frontally distributed positivity) by engaging different
cognitive resources. In this way, de-generacy provides an interpretive framework for understanding
how language experience influences alternative strategies during language processing.
Our second example focuses on individual variability in reading speed. In studies examining nat-
ural reading, faster reading times may indicate in-depth and more efficient processing (Kaan et al.,
2015), but also “good-enough” processing that is shallow and/or disengaged (Karimi & Ferreira,
2016). These alternative interpretations highlight the complexities of individual differences in reading
speed, which may account for and predict variability in L2 processing more generally. In a recent
study, Pulido (2021a) examined L1 English–L2 Spanish learners’ eye-movements as they read L2
verb–noun collocations in which the verb is cross-linguistically incongruent (e.g., blanquear dinero
“launder money” literally translates to “whiten money”). To account for variability in reading per-
formance, the study capitalized on measures of L2 collocational knowledge and chunking ability as
an index of processing efficiency. The findings revealed an inverse U-shaped pattern of results (see
Figure 19.3), where readers at both extremes of chunking ability exhibited faster reading times, albeit
for underlyingly different reasons. While faster reading suggests shallower processing for bilinguals
with the lowest chunking ability scores, it suggests faster integration and more efficient processing for
those on the opposite end of the spectrum. These results thus exemplify de-generacy across people.
The implication is that people may exploit language processing in different ways while still achieving
similar outcomes.
As a third illustration, consider individual differences in the processing of codeswitched speech.
Traditional psycholinguistic approaches to codeswitching have been primarily concerned with
whether the processing of codeswitched speech is inherently effortful. However, switch costs are
not consistently observed in the literature (Beatty-Martínez & Dussias, 2017; Blanco-Elorrieta &
Pylkkänen, 2017), suggesting that, under particular circumstances, bilinguals may adopt different
modes of language control in face of changing cognitive demands.
Beatty-Martínez et al. (2021) examined changes in pupil size during the comprehension of unilin-
gual and codeswitched speech. An individual difference analysis linking variability in pupil
responses to attentional skill and bilinguals’ habits of language use unveiled a complex pattern
265
Figure 19.3 De-generacy Exemplified Through Individual Differences in Language Processing.

Notes: Pulido (2021a) shows how both high-and low-efficient readers (i.e., people at the extremes of the chunking ability
continuum) have faster reading times, but modulated through different processing strategies (i.e., fast integration in the
former and lack of integration in the latter).
of results. Only bilinguals who reported a greater tendency to use each of their languages in separate
communicative contexts (i.e., Spanish at home, English at school) and who had high attention
ability, showed larger increases in pupil size during the comprehension of codeswitched speech.
Additionally, the results exemplify de-generacy across two phenotypic subgroups for whom pupil
size was unaffected by codeswitching. For bilinguals who reported using their languages in separate
communicative contexts but had low attention ability, the absence of a codeswitching effect is
indicative of a good-enough processing strategy with low levels of engagement. At the same time,
bilinguals for whom codeswitching is common practice also processed unilingual and codeswitched
speech similarly, regardless of attentional skill. In this case, the absence of a codeswitching effect
on pupil size can be interpreted as evidence for the differential modulation of attentional resources,
where bilinguals with increasing codeswitching experience were able to allocate their attentional
resources more broadly during bilingual language processing. The implication through the lens of
de-generacy is that codeswitching is not inherently costly, and that, overall, variability in bilingual
language processing may reflect complex and dynamic interactions between individual abilities and
the behavioral ecology of language use.
De-generacy in Language Experience

In the previous sections, we discussed how the concept of de-generacy accounts for how alternative
routes (i.e., within people as exemplified through people’s choices among variant forms of language
use or across people as exemplified by alternate neurocognitive strategies of processing) may reach
similar ends. In this section, we discuss how de-generacy allows for people with different language
experiences to adopt different modes of control in different contexts.
Recent work suggests that processing demands on language control vary based on concurrent task
demands in the learning environment (Bogulski et al., 2019; Misra et al., 2012; Wu & Thierry, 2013).
Perhaps one of the most dramatic examples of how contextual demands mediate processing trajec-
tories and outcomes relates to the consequences of regulating the L1. For instance, Pulido (2021b)
266
compared processing strategies of English learners of Spanish under different training conditions.
Following familiarization, participants were presented with L2 target and distractor verbs (e.g.,
gastar-ordenar; “spend-order”) followed by a noun (e.g., bromas; “jokes”) and were instructed to
select the most conventional collocate (e.g., gastar bromas). In the practice phase of a multiword
selection paradigm, critical conditions differed depending on the need to suppress L1 information.
For one group, non-target verbs were unrelated distractors (e.g., gastar–ordenar–bromas; “spend–
order–jokes”; target: gastar “spend”). In a second group, learners had to avoid choosing a distractor
verb that was inadequate in the L2 but congruent in the L1 (e.g., gastar–jugar–bromas; “spend–
play–jokes”; target: gastar “spend”). Group comparisons showed similar behavioral outcomes during
practice, but individual differences in ERPs revealed different processing strategies based on the need
to suppress information from L1-congruent choices. Whereas learners in the unrelated group showed
increased monitoring during target selection, learners in the L1-interference group showed an inhibi-
tory effect to L1-congruent distractors as indexed by differences in N400. Furthermore, individual
responses indexing the degree of L1 inhibition predicted overall learning rates, demonstrating how
engagement of cross-language regulation affects L2 learning outcomes. Overall, these results reveal
how alternate neurocognitive pathways engaged during learning exhibit de-generacy by achieving
dissimilar outcomes in divergent contexts.
Increasing evidence suggests that adaptive changes in language control processes stem beyond the
immediate context of the experiment itself, and that individuals may adopt different control strategies
as a function of bilinguals’ conversational practices within a community (Beatty-Martínez et al., 2021;
Beatty-Martínez, Navarro-Torres, Dussias et al., 2020; Gullifer & Titone, 2020; Hartanto & Yang,
2016). Elsewhere, we discussed the ways that distinct interactional contexts vary in the demands
they impose on language control, leading to different paths of adaptive change (Beatty-Martínez &
Titone, 2021; Green & Abutalebi, 2013; Kroll et al., 2021). Here we focus on L2-immersion contexts
in which bilinguals experience a global change in the communicative demands of their language
environment, revealing a decline in L1 accessibility with increasing L2 exposure (Baus et al., 2013;
Botezatu et al., 2020; Linck et al., 2009). The claim in recent studies is that L2-immersion contexts
introduce a stronger pressure for regulating the L1 to accommodate to changes in the relative support
for each language. In this way, L2 immersion creates a natural context that increases reliance on
proactive control so as to monitor the appropriateness of using each language (Beatty-Martínez,
Navarro-Torres, Dussias et al., 2020; Navarro-Torres et al., 2019; Xie & Antolovic, 2021).
In a series of language training studies, Zhang and colleagues examined how language immersion
context mediated the relation between language regulation ability and proactive control reliance.
Mandarin-English bilinguals underwent short-term intensive language switching training in either
the native language environment (Zhang et al., 2015) or while studying abroad in an L2-immersion
context (Zhang et al., 2021). To explore effects of language switching training on proactive control
reliance, participants performed a domain-general measure of cognitive control while their EEG
was recorded before and after training. For L1-immersed bilinguals, language switching training
led to an increase in proactive control as measured by larger N2 amplitudes at post-test, suggesting
that language training may differentially affect the recruitment of cognitive control. Notably, L2-
immersed bilinguals did not show any effects of training. Instead, the analysis of naming latencies
in the language switching task showed that L2-immersed bilinguals inhibited the L1 to a greater
extent than those immersed in the native language, a result that is consistent with prior studies on the
consequences of L2 immersion. L2-immersed bilinguals also showed a stronger relationship between
language switching and cognitive control measures such that greater reliance on proactive control
predicted faster naming latencies in both languages. Critically, these proactive effects were observed
at pre-test, suggesting that they are the consequence of L2 immersion itself (see Beatty-Martínez,
Navarro-Torres, Dussias et al., 2020 for converging evidence). Thus, these findings exemplify
267
Figure 19.4 De-generacy Exemplified Through Variation in Language Experience.

Note: Zhang et al. (2021) observed how language switching training and L2 immersion confer similar increases in proactive
control reliance.
de-generacy in language experience by demonstrating how different paths (i.e., short-term language
switching training and L2 immersion) are associated with greater reliance on proactive components
of control (see Figure 19.4).
Similar associations have been observed in language environments characterized by greater
diversity in language use across communicative contexts. As in L2-immersion contexts, contexts
that involve greater contextual diversity in language use, and hence higher language-related uncer-
tainty (i.e., entropy; Gullifer & Titone, 2020), require bilinguals to closely monitor and regulate
their languages to best suit the communicative demands of a given situation. There is increasing evi-
dence that high-entropy contexts may lead to greater reliance on proactive control processes (Chan
et al., 2020; Gullifer & Titone, 2021; Singh, 2021). Moreover, recent studies examining individual
differences in resting-state fMRI have demonstrated that contextual diversity of language use is
related to adaptive changes in functional brain organization. For example, Li et al. (2021) found that
bilinguals reporting greater diversity in language usage across social contexts in Singapore displayed
brain patterns that were more strongly associated with better monitoring, task switching, and goal
maintenance, albeit poorer response inhibition. This is consistent with earlier results reported in
Gullifer et al. (2018), where bilinguals with high language diversity in Montréal exhibited greater
reliance on proactive control and higher connectivity between regions implicated in monitoring and
goal maintenance, such as the anterior cingulate cortex and the putamen.
There is still much we do not know about how different behavioral ecologies of language use
mediate adaptive change in bilinguals. Current evidence suggests that different forms of language
experience may elicit different strategies for monitoring and maintaining access to relevant informa-
tion. A consideration of interpersonal language dynamics using network analysis offers a promising
approach. For example, Tiv et al. (2022) examined interpersonal language diversity through social
network structure in bilinguals from two distinct language environments: Montréal, Canada, a multi-
lingual context with high language diversity, and Gainesville, Florida, a relatively more homoge-
neous context where English is the predominant language. They specifically considered bilinguals’
position in their social network, how often they brokered connections between different language
268
subgroups, and how these related to individual differences in the ability to represent and attend
to the intentions and actions of others (i.e., mentalizing). The results showed that bilinguals who
brokered between different language subgroups in their network had greater mentalizing abilities.
Critically, this was observed only among bilinguals embedded in Montréal, where there is relatively
greater language-related uncertainty and need for people to keep track of the language profiles of
their interlocutors. This illustrates how processing outcomes reflect individuals’ adaptive responding
to the challenges and demands of their interpersonal as well broader societal dynamics of language
use (see Navarro-Torres et al., 2021; Titone & Tiv, 2022 for discussion). Overall, these studies show
remarkable convergence of findings regarding the role of the interactional context of language use in
shaping bilinguals’ adaptive response to distinct communicative demands. Together, they exemplify
de-generacy across multiple levels of language experience.
Concluding Remarks and Future Directions

We used the concept of de-generacy (i.e., an organizing principle characterizing form-function
relationships) to showcase how variability in language use, processing, and experience, tradition-
ally regarded as noise, reflects a distributed property of complex adaptive systems. Collectively, the
studies reviewed here challenge traditional reductionist assumptions of monolingual normativity and
processing uniformity. They instead suggest a framework for characterizing the behavioral, cogni-
tive, and neural markers that give rise to variability within and across different contexts. An important
insight is that de-generacy provides a lens into how variant forms can come across as functionally
redundant in some contexts yet diverse in others. The emerging evidence suggests that bilinguals
drawn from the same underlying population can exhibit differential performance, and even those
who appear to behave similarly can achieve the same outcome via different pathways or trajectories
by engaging different cognitive processes or neural measures. Characterizing variability in com-
plex systems presents fundamental challenges. However, it also opens new avenues of discovery to
pursue a more nuanced and socially informed scientific understanding of bilingualism, along with its
consequences for language learning and processing.
Note
1 The term de-generacy has been historically confounded with medical terminology relating to pathological
degeneration, commonly implying deviance or deterioration. We note however that the contemporary scien-
tific usage of de-generacy has no negative connotations and is constructively applied as an explanatory tool
for understanding complex systems within and beyond the biological sciences (Mason, 2010, 2015; Mason
et al., 2015).
Further Readings
A review commentary on the historical and theoretical scope of the concept of de-generacy including illustrative
examples from immunology, neuroscience, and linguistics:
Mason, P.H., Domínguez D., J.F., Winter, B., & Grignolio, A. (2015). Hidden in plain view: Degeneracy in com-
plex systems. BioSystems, 128, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystems.2014.12.003
A perspective piece advocating against normative prescriptive approaches to research on bilingualism,
highlighting instead the value of science as a discovery process that acts on variety:
Navarro-Torres, C.A., Beatty-Martínez, A.L., Kroll, J.F., & Green, D.W. (2021). Research on bilingualism as
discovery science. Brain and Language, 222, 105014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2021.105014
An illustrative overview conceptualizing de-generacy as a point of synthesis between biology and linguistics:
Winter, B. (2014). Spoken language achieves robustness and evolvability by exploiting degeneracy and neu-
trality. BioEssays, 36, 960–967. https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.201400028
269
Acknowledgments
The writing of this paper was supported in part by NIH Fellowship F32-AG064810 to A.L. Beatty-Martínez,
and by NSERC RGPIN-2022-03375, SSHRC 430-2019-000935, Canada Research Chair (Tier 1) awarded
to D.A. Titone.
References
Bambini, V., Canal, P., Breimaier, F., Meo, D., Pescarini, D., & Loporcaro, M. (2021). Capturing language
change through EEG: Weaker P600 for a fading gender value in a southern Italo-Romance dialect. Journal of
Batterink, L., & Neville, H. (2013). Implicit and explicit second language training recruit common neural
mechanisms for syntactic processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 25, 936–951. https://doi.org/
10.1162/jocn_a_00354
Baus, C., Costa, A., & Carreiras, M. (2013). On the effects of second language immersion on first language pro-
duction. Acta Psychologica, 142, 402–409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2013.01.010
Beatty-Martínez, A.L., Bruni, M.R., Bajo, M.T., & Dussias, P.E. (2020). Brain potentials reveal differential pro-
cessing of masculine and feminine grammatical gender in native Spanish speakers. Psychophysiology, 58,
e13737. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.13737
Beatty-Martínez, A.L., & Dussias, P.E. (2017). Bilingual experience shapes language processing: Evidence from
codeswitching. Journal of Memory and Language, 95, 173–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2017.04.002
Beatty-Martínez, A.L., & Dussias, P.E. (2018). Tuning to languages: Experience-based approaches to the lan-
guage science of bilingualism. Linguistics Vanguard, 4, 20170034. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2017-0034
Beatty-Martínez, A.L., & Dussias, P.E. (2019). Revisiting masculine and feminine grammatical gender in
Spanish: Linguistic, psycholinguistic, and neurolinguistic evidence. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 751. https://
doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00751
Beatty-Martínez, A.L., Guzzardo Tamargo, R.E., & Dussias, P.E. (2021). Phasic pupillary responses reveal dif-
ferential engagement of attentional control in bilingual spoken language processing. Scientific Reports, 11,
23474. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-03008-1
Beatty-Martínez, A.L., Navarro-Torres, C.A., & Dussias, P.E. (2020). Codeswitching: A bilingual toolkit for
opportunistic speech planning. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1699. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01699
Beatty-Martínez, A.L., Navarro-Torres, C.A., Dussias, P.E., Bajo, M.T., Guzzardo Tamargo, R. E., & Kroll, J.F.
(2020). Interactional context mediates the consequences of bilingualism for language and cognition. Journal
Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 46, 1022–1047. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm
0000770
Beatty-Martínez, A.L., & Titone, D.A. (2021). The quest for signals in noise: Leveraging experiential variation to
identify bilingual phenotypes. Languages, 6, 168. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages6040168
Bel, A., Sagarra, N., Domínguez, J.P., & García-Alcaraz E. (2016). Transfer and proficiency effects in L2 pro-
cessing of subject anaphora. Lingua, 184, 134–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2016.07.001
Bice, K., & Kroll, J.F. (2019). English only? Monolinguals in linguistically diverse contexts have an edge in lan-
guage learning. Brain and Language, 196, 104644. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2019.104644
Birdsong, D. (2018). Plasticity, variability, and age in second language acquisition and bilingualism. Frontiers in
Psychology, 9, 81. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00081
Birner, B.J. & Ward, G.L. (1998). Information status and non-canonical word order in English. John Benjamins.
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.40
Blanco-Elorrieta, E., & Pylkkänen, L. (2017). Bilingual language switching in the laboratory versus in the
wild: The spatiotemporal dynamics of adaptive language control. Journal of Neuroscience, 37, 9022–9036.
https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0553-17.2017
Bogulski, C.A., Bice, K., & Kroll, J.F. (2019). Bilingualism as a desirable difficulty: Advantages in word learning
depend on regulation of the dominant language. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 22, 1052–1067.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728918000858
Botezatu, M.R., Kroll, J.F., Trachsel, M.I., & Guo, T. (2020). Second language immersion impacts native lan-
guage lexical production and comprehension. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 12, 347–376. https://
doi.org/10.1075/lab.19059.bot
Caffarra, S., & Barber, H.A. (2015). Does the ending matter? The role of gender-to-ending consistency in sen-
tence reading. Brain Research, 1605, 83–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2015.02.018
Caffarra, S., Mendoza, M., & Davidson, D. (2019). Is the LAN effect in morphosyntactic processing an ERP
artifact? Brain and Language, 191, 9–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2019.01.003
270
Chan, C.G.H., Yow, W.Q., & Oei, A. (2020). Active bilingualism in aging: Balanced bilingualism usage and
less frequent language switching relate to better conflict monitoring and goal maintenance ability. Journal of
Gerontology: Series B, 75, E231–E241. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbaa058
Dell, G.S., & Chang, F. (2014). The P-chain: relating sentence production and its disorders to comprehension
and acquisition. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 369, 20120394. https://doi.org/10.1098/
rstb.2012.0394
Edelman, G.M., & Gally, J.A. (2001). Degeneracy and complexity in biological systems. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 98, 13763–13768. https://doi.org/10.1073/
pnas.231499798
Eddington, D. (2002). Spanish gender assignment in an analogical framework. Journal of Quantitative
Linguistics, 9, 49–75. https://doi.org/10.1076/jqul.9.1.49.8482
Eddington, D., & Hualde, J.I. (2008). El abundante agua fría: Hermaphroditic Spanish nouns. Studies in Hispanic
and Lusophone Linguistics, 1, 5–32. https://doi.org/10.1515/shll-2008-1004
Eisen, H.N. (2001). Specificity and degeneracy in antigen recognition: Yin and yang in the immune system.
Annual Review of Immunology, 19, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.immunol.19.1.1
Feldman, L.B., Srinivasan, V., Fernandes, R.B., & Shaikh, S. (2021). Insights into codeswitching from
online communication: Effects of language preference and conditions arising from vocabulary richness.
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 24, 791–797. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728921000122
Ferreira, F. (2003). The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 47, 164–203. https://
doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0285(03)00005-7
Foucart, A., Martin, C.D., Moreno, E.M., & Costa, A. (2014). Can bilinguals see it coming? Word anticipation
in L2 sentence reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 40, 1461–
1469. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036756
Friston, K.J., & Price, C.J. (2003). Degeneracy and redundancy in cognitive anatomy. Trends in Cognitive
Sciences, 7, 151–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00034-2
Fromont, L. A. (this volume). Age and proficiency in second language neurocognition. In K. Morgan-Short & J.G.
Goldberg, A.E. (2019). Explain me this: Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions.
Princeton University Press.
González, D.L., Giannerini, S., & Rosa, R. (2019). On the origin of degeneracy in the genetic code. Interface
Focus, 9, 20190038. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsfs.2019.0038
Cognitive Psychology, 25, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2013.796377
Green, D.W., Crinion, J., & Price, C.J. (2006). Convergence, degeneracy, and control. Language Learning, 56,
99–125. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2006.00357.x
Gullifer, J.W., Chai, X.J., Whitford, V., Pivneva, I., Baum, S., Klein, D., & Titone, D.A. (2018). Bilingual
experience and resting-state brain connectivity: Impacts of L2 age of acquisition and social diversity of lan-
guage use on control networks. Neuropsychologia, 117, 123–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsycholo
gia.2018.04.037
Gullifer, J.W., & Titone, D.A. (2020). Characterizing the social diversity of bilingualism using language
entropy. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 23, 283–294. https://doi.org/10.1017/S136672891
9000026
Gullifer, J.W., & Titone, D.A. (2021). Engaging proactive control: Influences of diverse language experiences
using insights from machine learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 150, 414–430. https://
doi.org/10.1037/xge0000933
Gurunandan, K., Arnaez-Telleria, J., Carreiras, M., & Paz-Alonso, P.M. (2020). Converging evidence for differ-
ential specialisation and plasticity of language systems. Journal of Neuroscience, 40, 9715–9724. https://doi.
org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0851-20.2020
Hartanto, A., & Yang, H. (2016). Disparate bilingual experiences modulate task-switching advantages: A
diffusion-model analysis of the effects of interactional context on switch costs. Cognition, 150, 10–19. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.01.016
Morgan- Short & J.G. van Hell (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and
Kaan, E., Ballantyne, J.C., & Wijnen, F. (2015). Effects of reading speed on second-language sentence pro-
cessing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36, 799–830. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716413000519
Kaiser, E. & Trueswell, J.C. (2004). The role of discourse context in the processing of a flexible word-order lan-
guage. Cognition, 94, 113–147. https://doi.org/:10.1016/j.cognition.2004.01.002
271
Karimi, H., & Ferreira, F. (2016). Good-enough linguistic representations and online cognitive equilibrium in
language processing. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69, 1013–1040. https://doi.org/10.1080/
17470218.2015.1053951
Kroll, J.F., Dussias, P.E., & Bajo, M.T. (2018). Language use across international contexts: Shaping the minds of
L2 speakers. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 38, 60–79. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190518000119
Kroll, J.F., Takahesu Tabori, A., & Navarro-Torres, C.A. (2021). Capturing the variation in language experience
to understand language processing and learning. Language, Interaction and Acquisition, 12, 82–109. https://
doi.org/10.1075/lia.20018.kro
Li, X., Kei, K., Ju, J., Wong, Y., Wen, J., Helen, J., & Yow, W.Q. (2021). Bilingual language entropy influences
executive functions through functional connectivity and signal variability. Brain and Language, 222, 105026.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2021.105026
Linck, J.A., Kroll, J.F., & Sunderman, G. (2009). Losing access to the native language while immersed in a
second language evidence for the role of inhibition in second-language learning. Psychological Science, 20,
1507–1515. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02480.x
Lew- Williams, C., & Fernald, A. (2007). Young children learning Spanish make rapid use of grammat-
ical gender in spoken word recognition. Psychological Science, 18, 193–198. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1467-9280.2007.01871.x
López-Beltrán, P., Johns, M.A., Dussias, P.E., Lozano, C., & Palma, A. (2021). The effects of information struc-
ture in the processing of word order variation in the second language. Second Language Research, 38, 639–
670. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658321992461
MacDonald, M.C. (2013). How language production shapes language form and comprehension. Frontiers in
Mason, P.H. (2010). Degeneracy at multiple levels of complexity. Biological Theory, 5, 277–288. https://doi.org/
10.1162/BIOT_a_00041
Mason, P.H. (2015). Degeneracy: Demystifying and destigmatizing a core concept in systems biology.
Complexity, 20, 12–21. https://doi.org/10.1002/cplx.21534
Mason, P.H., Domínguez D., J.F., Winter, B., & Grignolio, A. (2015). Hidden in plain view: Degeneracy in com-
plex systems. BioSystems, 128, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystems.2014.12.003
Misra, M., Guo, T., Bobb, S.C., & Kroll, J.F. (2012). When bilinguals choose a single word to
speak: Electrophysiological evidence for inhibition of the native language. Journal of Memory and Language,
67, 224–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.05.001
and future directions. Cortex, 47, 908–930. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2011.02.019
Molinaro, N., Barber, H.A., Caffarra, S., & Carreiras, M. (2015). On the left anterior negativity (LAN): The case
of morphosyntactic agreement. Cortex, 66, 156–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2014.06.009
Morales, J., Gómez-Ariza, C.J., & Bajo, M.T. (2013). Dual mechanisms of cognitive control in bilinguals and
monolinguals. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25, 531–546. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2013.807812
Navarro-Torres, C.A., Beatty-Martínez, A.L., Kroll, J.F., & Green, D.W. (2021). Research on bilingualism as
discovery science. Brain and Language, 222, 105014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2021.105014
Navarro-Torres, C.A., Garcia, D.L., Chidambaram, V., & Kroll, J.F. (2019). Cognitive control facilitates atten-
tional disengagement during second language comprehension. Brain Sciences, 9, 95. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/
brainsci9050095
Noppeney, U., Friston, K.J., & Price, C.J. (2004). Degenerate neuronal systems sustaining cognitive functions.
Journal of Anatomy, 205, 433–442. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0021-8782.2004.00343.x
Pakulak, E., & Neville, H.J. (2010). Proficiency differences in syntactic processing of monolingual native
speakers indexed by event-related potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12, 2728–2744. https://doi.
org/ 10.1162/jocn.2009.21393
Price, C.J., & Friston, K.J. (2002). Degeneracy and cognitive anatomy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 416–421.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s1364-6613(02)01976-9
Pulido, M.F. (2021a). Individual chunking ability predicts efficient or shallow L2 processing: Eye-tracking evi-
dence from multiword units in relative clauses. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 607621. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fpsyg.2020.607621
Pulido, M.F. (2021b). Native language inhibition predicts more successful second language learning: Evidence
of two ERP pathways during learning. Neuropsychologia, 152, 107732. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsyc
hologia.2020.107732
272
Sankoff, D. (1988). Sociolinguistics and syntactic variation. In F.J. Newmeyer (Ed.), Linguistics: The Cambridge
survey (pp. 140–161). Cambridge University Press.
Senaldi, M.S.G., Wei, J., Gullifer, J.W. & Titone, D.A. (2022). Scratching your tête over language-switched
idioms: Evidence from eye-movement measures of reading. Memory & Cognition, 50, 1230–1256. https://
doi.org/10.3758/s13421-022-01334-x
Singh, L. (2021). Evidence for an early novelty orientation in bilingual learners. Child Development Perspectives,
15, 110–116. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12407
Titone, D.A., & Tiv, M. (2022). Rethinking multilingual experience through a Systems Framework of
Bilingualism. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728921001127
Tiv, M., Kutlu, E., O’Regan, E., & Titone, D. (2022). Bridging people and perspectives: General and language-
specific social network structure predict mentalizing across diverse sociolinguistic contexts. Canadian
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 76, 235–250. https://doi.org/10.1037/cep0000273
Trawick, S., & Bero, T. (2021). Gender assignment: Monolingual constraints contribute to a bilingual outcome.
International Journal of Bilingualism, 26, 181–197. https://doi.org/10.1177/13670069211053466
Whitacre, J.M. (2010). Degeneracy: A link between evolvability, robustness and complexity in biological
systems. Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, 7, 6. https://doi.org/10.1186/1742-4682-7-6
Whitacre, J.M. & Bender A. (2010). Degeneracy: A design principle for achieving robustness and evolvability.
Journal of Theoretical Biology, 263, 143–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2009.11.008
Winter, B. (2014). Spoken language achieves robustness and evolvability by exploiting degeneracy and neu-
trality. BioEssays, 36, 960–967. https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.201400028
Wu, Y., & Thierry, G. (2013). Fast modulation of executive function by language context in bilinguals. Journal
of Neuroscience, 33, 13533–13537. https://doi.org/ 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4760-12.2013
Xie, Z., & Antolovic, K. (2021). Differential impacts of natural L2 immersion and intensive classroom L2
training on cognitive control. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 75, 550–562. https://doi.org/
10.1177/1747021821104081
Xu, Q., Markowska, M., Chodorow, M., & Li, P. (2021). Modeling bilingual lexical processing through code-
switching speech: A network science approach. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 662409. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fpsyg.2021.662409
Zhang, H., Diaz, M.T., Guo, T., & Kroll, J.F. (2021). Language immersion and language training: Two paths
to enhanced language regulation and cognitive control. Brain and Language, 223, 105043. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.bandl.2021.105043
Zhang, H., Kang, C., Wu, Y., Ma, F., & Guo, T. (2015). Improving proactive control with training on language
switching in bilinguals. Neuroreport, 26, 354–359. https://doi.org/10.1097/WNR.0000000000000353
monolinguals and bilinguals. Cognition, 176, 87–106. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.cognition.2018.03.001
273
20
FACTORS ACCOUNTING FOR
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES
IN SECOND LANGUAGE
NEUROCOGNITION
Introduction
Acquiring a second language (L2) as an adult has been defined as one of the most complex tasks the
adult mind can undertake. In contrast to child language learning, adult language learners often have
limited exposure to L2 input, in terms of both quality and quantity, and significantly less access to
opportunities to meaningfully engage with the L2, often resulting in a high degree of variability in
learning trajectories and outcomes (see Li et al., 2022). The present chapter aims to provide a com-
prehensive synthesis of empirical research findings that have shed light on the relative contribution
that different factors play in adult L2 acquisition, to better understand the neurocognitive mechanisms
underlying L2 processing and the individual-level variation amongst learners. One important dis-
tinction when examining factors accounting for individual differences in L2 neurocognition regards
establishing to what extent and under what conditions variability is driven by learner-internal factors,
such as the different individual abilities and experiences each learner brings, or by external factors,
such as the language learning environment or specific characteristics about the L2 itself, among
others. In the present chapter, we aim to provide a review of a subset of widely studied individual
difference factors that have been posited to be important for L2 acquisition. Specifically, empirical
studies which utilize neurocognitive methods, such as EEG, ERPs, and fMRI are outlined. Hence,
the goal of this chapter is to better understand the underlying factors which account for individual
differences in L2 neurocognition, including background characteristics, linguistic and cognitive abil-
ities, and contextual and instructional factors.

In the past 30 years, a significant body of research within the field of Second Language Acquisition
(SLA) has attempted to disentangle what underlies successful adult L2 learning, using behavioral
methods to examine the relative contribution that a variety of different individual difference factors
play in explaining or predicting group-level variability in L2 trajectories and outcomes (Roberts &
Meyer, 2012). This work improved our understanding of the individual factors that are particularly
relevant for successful L2 acquisition (Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015). In recent years, mainly due to signifi-
cant technological advances that have made the use of neurocognitive methods more accessible to
researchers in the language sciences, a new area of research in SLA has emerged. This work aims to
better understand L2 neurocognition as well as its underlying mechanisms by utilizing a wide range
274 DOI: 10.4324/9781003190912-25

Factors Accounting for Individual Differences
of neurocognitive methods, which make it possible to investigate L2 acquisition and processing in a

more fine-grained and multidimensional manner. This chapter reviews research in this domain spe-
cifically for studies taking an individual-difference approach, and the following sections synthesize
some of the most critical research outcomes.
The Role of Personal and Linguistic Factors

Many factors relating to learners’ personal and linguistic background have been investigated as a
method of explaining variability in L2 performance. The most well-studied of these is age of acqui-
sition (AoA), the age at which the learner began acquiring or became immersed in the L2. Early cog-
nitive neuroscience studies examining the role of AoA investigated whether there are differences in
how learners with an early as opposed to a late AoA process linguistic information in their L2 (e.g.,
Rossi et al., 2006; Weber-Fox & Neville, 1996), with some studies reporting native-like processing
for early learners but not for late learners. Some recent studies have investigated AoA by including
it as a continuous measure, exploring whether AoA differences can account for some of the vari-
ability often found in L2 outcomes, revealing the role of AoA in L2 acquisition and processing at
different stages of learning and across different types of learners (e.g., Nichols & Joanisse, 2019).
Much of this work has utilized electroencephalography (EEG), a neuroimaging technique with a
high temporal resolution which measures electrical activity to specific cognitive events, such as lan-
guage processing. For example, Meulman et al. (2015) measured event-related potentials (ERPs)
during sentence reading with Russian and Polish advanced learners of L2 German, reporting that
individuals’ average ERP response to a grammatical gender violation varied based on AoA, with early
learners showing the native-like brain response expected for grammatical violations, the P600, and
older learners eliciting a posterior negativity or an N400, the native-like brain response expected for
semantic violations.1 To date, many studies argue for a neurocognitive benefit in L2 processing for
learners with an earlier AoA; for further discussion, see Fromont, this volume.
Perhaps the most well-studied linguistic factor is proficiency, the ability of an individual to func-
tionally produce and comprehend language. Proficiency can be determined in a variety of ways,
including via self-rating, language learning history, and/or performance on standardized proficiency
tests. Note, however, that proficiency assessments are not able to provide a holistic account of
L2 competence, but rather provide information regarding how well a learner performed on a spe-
cific language-related task. For researchers interested in exploring the underlying neurocognitive
mechanisms involved in L2 processing, proficiency measurements can be used as a proxy to tap into
different L2 abilities.
Many studies have analyzed proficiency as a dichotomous variable, categorizing participants into
high vs. low-proficiency groups (e.g., Díaz et al., 2016; Di Liberto et al., 2021; Tanner et al., 2013). In
general, these studies report increasingly native-like processing for learners with higher proficiency
(cf. Coughlin et al., 2019).
Fromont et al. (2020) presented a new approach for understanding individual variability as it relates
to proficiency. They found that ERPs at the group level revealed an N400 for L2 French learners,
whereas native French speakers yielded a biphasic N400–P600 signature in response to ungrammat-
ical sentences containing both syntactic and semantic anomalies. Crucially, using a Random Forests
approach to model the individual brain data, Fromont et al. found that language exposure and profi-
ciency reliably predicted ERP responses in both L1 and L2 groups. For the learners, proficiency was
among the most important measures that predicted N400 size in a semantic anomaly condition. For
the P600 effect, different individual difference measures were shown to be important in predicting
neural signatures: for natives, vocabulary size as assessed via the LexTALE was the most important
predictor, whereas for learners, it was daily L2 usage.
275
Apart from AoA and proficiency, the amount of language exposure, experience and/or usage can
vary greatly amongst L2 learners, and studies like Fromont et al. (2020) have revealed its importance
in modulating neurolinguistic processing. This has also been shown in a study by Perani et al. (2003)
using functional magnetic resonance (fMRI), a brain-imaging method with a high spatial resolution.
Their work argued for the critical role of language exposure in L2 acquisition, with results showing
less activation in prefrontal regions in bilinguals with increased L2 exposure, as compared to a group
of bilinguals with less L2 exposure. Perani et al. claim that with increasing L2 usage, bilinguals’
neural activations are increasingly automatic and, as such, fewer neural resources may be recruited.
Recent work by Pereira Soares et al. (2021) also investigated how individual differences in language
experience modulate neural signatures in a large-scale study of L2 learners and proficient bilinguals
using resting-state EEG, which provides insight into the dynamics of brain activity during rest. Their
research suggested that exposure and experience are related to both power and coherence factors in
specific EEG frequency bands, with higher levels of alpha power for participants related to higher
rates of L2 usage overall, and increased coherence in the theta band of activity being related to indi-
viduals who report using the non-societal (L1) language at home. In sum, this work reveals that bilin-
gual language experience impacts neural activity and connectivity among different brain regions. In
the ERP domain, Mickan and Lemhöfer (2020) tested three groups of German-speaking learners of
L2 Dutch with different degrees of L2 exposure: a mean of less than 3 months (beginner), 10 months
(intermediate), or more than a year (advanced). Their study measured ERPs in response to violations
that were either similar or different to the L1 German. Learners with the least experience showed
N400-like responses to both types of violations rather than the native-like P600. The two groups of
more experienced learners showed native-like P600 responses for the condition which was similar
for the L1 German group. However, for the violation which contained a structure that had a different
word order in Dutch, the groups’ P600s were delayed, which was interesting given that their offline
performance on these structures was native-like.
A different approach to individual differences has been to examine the relationship between
behavioral and neural sensitivity during language tests. An influential study by Tanner et al. (2013)
operationalized grammatical sensitivity as an individual difference measure, calculated via d-prime
scores from grammaticality judgments on experimental sentences. In their ERP study, intermediate
L2 learners of German judged sentences with subject–verb agreement anomalies, which yielded
a P600 effect for native speakers. Analyses for the L2 learners revealed that while some learners
showed a P600 effect, others elicited an N400 effect. Interestingly, learners’ behavioral accuracy was
significantly related to their ERP responses, such that learners who were more accurate in identifying
agreement anomalies showed more positive ERP effects, i.e., P600 (see also White et al., 2012).
A factor that has been a central focus in L2 research is language aptitude, described as an innate
ability to learn a language, although there are several sub-components to aptitude that can be broken
down by linguistic domain (e.g., grammatical vs. phonological) or the type of knowledge (e.g.,
explicit vs. implicit). A recent review paper by Turker et al. (2021) makes a more specific claim
about the neurocognitive role of aptitude in language learning as it relates to individual brain plas-
ticity. One of the first widely adopted aptitude measurements was the Modern Language Aptitude
Test (MLAT), which consists of five subtests measuring specific skills related to (mostly explicit)
language learning (e.g., grammatical structure, spelling, vocabulary, phonetic awareness). Bond et al.
(2011) utilized several MLAT subtests in an ERP experiment examining the processing of agreement
dependencies in L2 Spanish. Both native speakers and L2 learners demonstrated the canonical P600
in response to a morphosyntactic violation, and interestingly, learners’ P600 effect size was correlated
with aptitude scores in the noun–adjective number condition. That is, learners with higher aptitude
showed increased sensitivity to the violation in their ERP response. More recent aptitude tests, like
the LLAMA, measure a participant’s ability to pick up some facet of an artificial language. A recent
276
study that used both of these measures was Gabriele et al. (2021); in contrast to Bond et al. (2011),
they found that neither MLAT nor LLAMA scores significantly predicted ERP effects for novice
English-speaking learners of L2 Spanish. However, related work using fMRI by Kepinska and
colleagues (Kepinska et al., 2017a, 2017b) found that LLAMA scores significantly predicted novel
grammar learning in an artificial language, Brocanto. In their study, participants were classified into
high-and low-aptitude groups based on their LLAMA scores. In an fMRI learning task, participants
with high aptitude scores showed more activity overall, resulting from greater engagement of the
right hemisphere. Thus, while some studies suggest an important role for aptitude in L2 neurolin-
guistic processing, further work is needed to shed light on its specific contribution.
Related to aptitude, a learner’s phonological abilities have been measured as an individual diffe-
rence factor. For example, Reiterer et al. (2011) examined how speech imitation ability impacted L2
outcomes on an fMRI task. L1 German participants’ ability to “mimic” an accent was assessed in the
L2 English as well as a language they had never been exposed to, Hindi. Reiterer et al. found that poor
Hindi imitators showed increased BOLD activation in the left hemisphere network associated with
speech motor activities during two imitation tasks. This is particularly interesting given that learners
had no experience with Hindi and suggests that an aptitude for articulation may underlie L2 produc-
tion abilities (for related work with bilinguals, see Díaz et al., 2008).
Apart from abilities related to the learners themselves, other ways to explore individual variability
stem from the language itself. Some studies examine the role of language background as it relates
to linguistic similarity between the L1 and L2 (e.g., Alemán Bañon et al., 2014; Carrasco-Ortíz
et al., 2017; Díaz et al., 2016). The expectation for this type of research is that features which are
different between the two languages are more difficult to acquire or process, resulting in different
patterns of neural processing. White et al. (2012) examined the acquisition of regular past tense -ed
in L2 English by two different groups: L1 Chinese, which does not inflect for tense, and L1 Korean,
which instantiates past tense albeit differently than English. In a longitudinal ERP study, White et al.
found an expected P600 effect for morphosyntactic violations emerged after intensive exposure to L2
English in both groups. However, the onset of the ERP effect was roughly 250 ms later in Chinese
learners as compared to Korean learners. Because the groups were proficiency matched, the authors
argue that the onset latency difference emerged due to factors related to L1 background, such as the
instantiation of grammatical features or reading strategies related to the L1 writing system.
Besides linguistic similarity at the level of grammar or phonology, there is also a line of research
that explores language modality (i.e., visual vs. auditory domain). A new line of longitudinal MRI
studies has examined functional brain changes occurring in hearing speakers learning a signed lan-
guage as an adult (Banaszkiewicz et al., 2021; Williams et al., 2016, 2018; see also Meade, this
volume). These studies followed novice learners in their first eight to ten months of learning and
revealed a complex pattern of neural changes in acquiring a visuospatial signed language. Specifically,
this work showed increased activation in the left inferior frontal gyrus, a brain region that serves lan-
guage processing independent of modality (see Emmorey et al., 2014), as well as in regions linked
specifically to sign language processing (e.g., superior parietal lobule).
Finally, a new strand of research has investigated resting-state EEG, or individuals’ brain oscil-
latory patterns during wakeful rest as a factor predicting L2 learning outcomes (see Mottarella &
Prat, this volume). This research explores whether an individual’s resting neural rhythms may cap-
ture underlying differences in one’s general neural functioning or “readiness,” leading to potential
differences in linguistic processing and L1 abilities. For example, Prat et al. (2016; 2019) measured
quantitative EEG (qEEG) during an eyes-closed resting state to extract data from different frequency
bands (theta, alpha, beta, gamma), which have been linked to different underlying mechanisms
associated with cognitive systems like working memory and language processing, among others.
For English learners in a virtual eight-week immersive French program, Prat et al. found that qEEG
277
indices significantly predicted the rate of L2 acquisition as measured by learners’ progression through
a training paradigm, indicating a promising new line of individual differences research (see also
Ogunniyi et al., 2021; Pereira Soares et al., 2021; Qi et al., 2017).
The Role of Cognitive Factors

It is increasingly common for neurolinguistic L2 studies to include a range of cognitive measures to
explore the underlying cognitive mechanisms related to L2 processing and learning as well as the
relative contribution of each factor, which may account for inter-individual variability. This section
reviews the most well-studied cognitive factors in the L2 literature.
Cognitive control has gained significant attention in the realm of bilingualism and language
learning in the past years, mostly due to groundbreaking findings which suggests that bilinguals have
both languages active during language processing/production. This co-activation requires bilinguals
to correctly select the language(s) they want to use each time, necessitating an ability to suppress
and manage interference from the language(s) they are not using (for review, see Kroll et al., 2012).
Cognitive control is linked to attentional resources and broadly defined as “an individual’s ability to
regulate their own thoughts and actions in accordance with internally represented behavioral goals”
(Braver, 2012, p. 106). It is one of the key mechanisms for facilitating efficient language selection
as well as promoting proficient bilingual language processing and use (e.g., Green & Abutalebi,
2013; Zirnstein et al., 2018). Indeed, there is increasing evidence suggesting that the experience of
acquiring and managing multiple languages can change the volume and shape of cortical and subcor-
tical brain regions underlying language acquisition and control, as well as the integrity of the white
matter tracts that connect them (Pliatsikas, 2019; see also Korenar and Pliatsikas, this volume).
Considering the relevance of these findings, an increasing number of neurolinguistic studies have
investigated the role that cognitive control plays in the (time)course of L2 acquisition. For example,
Grant et al. (2015) conducted a longitudinal fMRI study with English-speaking Spanish L2 learners,
whose proficiency ranged from intermediate to advanced, exploring the neural correlates of L2 lex-
ical processing over the course of an academic year. For less proficient learners, there was increased
activation in the brain areas traditionally associated with cognitive control, such as the anterior cingu-
late cortex and caudate nucleus. Interestingly, the opposite pattern of results was found for the more
proficient learners, who showed decreased activation in the prefrontal cortex and increased activation
in brain areas traditionally associated with L1 semantic processing (middle temporal gyrus). These
results reveal a relationship between cognitive control abilities and L2 outcomes, specifically during
the early stages of L2 learning, suggesting that learners’ ability to use cognitive control to access
and engage with their L2 especially at beginning stages might be particularly critical to achieving
proficient L2 performance, at least at the lexical level. Relatedly, Covey et al. (2022), building on
L2 psycholinguistic research (e.g., Johnson et al., 2016), conducted an ERP study with Mandarin
Chinese L2 learners of English. The ERP experiment targeted the processing of wh-dependencies
using a filled-gap design to examine whether learners engaged in syntactic prediction during long-
distance dependency resolution. A number Stroop task was used to assess cognitive control. At a
filled-gap site, native English speakers showed an N400 effect, which was argued to be related to
gap prediction, and better Stroop scores were associated with larger N400s for natives. In contrast,
learners showed a P600 effect, suggesting that learners did not predict a gap but rather experienced
syntactic integration difficulty. Interestingly, increased cognitive control scores were associated with
larger P600s for L2 learners. The results of this study suggest that attentional resources may be
related to prediction for native speakers and to integration efforts for L2 learners.
Additionally, Pulido (2021) conducted an ERP study with adult English speakers learning L2
Spanish where learners acquired new L2 sentence collocations. Participants first completed practice
278
blocks in which difficulty was manipulated across groups, such that the practice block contained
either all “easy” distractors or “difficult” distractors that were incongruent collocations in the L1. In
the main experiment, Pulido found ERP evidence of L1 inhibition as indexed by an N400 effect that
was elicited for phrases that were congruent with the L1, only for participants in the difficult prac-
tice group. These results were argued to be linked to the cognitive control resources learners used to
monitor and regulate the influence of their L1 to avoid interference during L2 word selection which
is hypothesized to be a crucial step for acquiring the more difficult L2 collocations. Interestingly,
the results also revealed a relationship between individuals’ degree of L1 regulation and learning
outcomes during testing, highlighting once again that one’s ability to engage cognitive control
mechanisms to manage the influence of the L1 during L2 processing has the potential to influence L2
acquisition (see also Guo & Ma, this volume).
Another cognitive factor that has received significant attention in L2 neurocognition is working
memory, defined as an individual’s ability to temporarily store, organize, and manipulate informa-
tion in the mind (Engle et al., 1999). Working memory is thought to be involved in many of the
underlying cognitive processes hypothesized to support L2 learning, such as attentional control,
information retrieval, explicit deduction, and decision making (e.g., Linck et al., 2014; Tagarelli
et al., 2015). Additionally, working memory capacity has been shown to facilitate the retention of
metalinguistic information for both L2 comprehension and use (Roehr, 2008), as well as to modu-
late the neural responses elicited during language processing (Dallas et al., 2013; Prat, 2011; Vos
et al., 2001). Studies examining working memory in the context of L2 acquisition using neurolin-
guistic methods have often found a positive relationship between learners’ working memory cap-
acity and adult L2 outcomes across different linguistic domains. For example, Reichle et al. (2016)
conducted an ERP study that required English-speaking intermediate L2 learners of French to process
L2 sentences containing subject–verb agreement errors in both short-and long-distance dependen-
cies. Results evidenced a positive relationship between L2 learners’ working memory capacity, as
assessed by a reading-span task, and the size of the N400 effect elicited in response to the morpho-
syntactic violations. Their findings suggest that working memory capacity modulates L2 morphosyn-
tactic processing and that individual differences in working memory abilities may explain variability
in outcomes related to the acquisition of L2 morphosyntax.
A recent ERP study by Gabriele et al. (2021) explored how individual differences in working
memory modulated the processing of morphosyntactic agreement in novice learners. In a longitu-
dinal design, L2 Spanish learners (L1 English) were tested throughout the academic year on number
and gender agreement violations, which yield a canonical P600 response in native speakers. Their
study showed that working memory, assessed via a letter-number sequencing task, was a predictor
of P600 effect size, such that L2 learners with better working memory capacity showed greater sen-
sitivity to both number and gender violations in the L2, with the more advanced learners showing
larger effects for number and marginal sensitivity to gender violations. These results are taken to
suggest that working memory, which underlies the encoding and maintenance of the relevant lin-
guistic features during processing, is involved in sensitivity to grammatical anomalies of features
which are shared (number) and unique (gender) to the L1 and L2. Related ERP findings were found
in a study by Schwab et al. (2020) testing adult French speakers learning either English or German.
In an auditory training task, a positive relationship between working memory and L2 learners’ ability
to discriminate lexical stress contrasts emerged. Working memory abilities were indexed via the
P3b amplitude: Larger P3b amplitudes index an increased ability to track and maintain information
related to stress during acoustic processing. Crucially, their results showed that participants with
increased working memory performed better at discriminating L2 prosodic information, suggesting
that working memory supports the acquisition and development of L2 phonetic and phonological
features. Together, results from these three studies contribute to previous claims that situate individual
279
differences in working memory as a key cognitive factor to better understand variability in L2 acqui-
sition. Additionally, they provide evidence suggesting that individual differences in working memory
abilities might help explain variability in L2 outcomes.
Declarative and procedural memory are two additional cognitive factors often studied in par-
allel given their intricate relationship as long-term memory systems as well as their attested role in the
language domain (e.g., Paradis, 2009; Ullman, 2020; see also Ullman & Morgan-Short, this volume).
Declarative memory is generally known as “knowing what” and is broadly defined as one’s ability
to remember facts about the world as well as information related to episodes or experienced events
(Tulving, 1993). Cognitive psychology has generally linked declarative memory with earlier stages
of learning, making it possible to learn explicit information relatively quickly after a short period
of exposure. Crucially, declarative knowledge is thought to be the learning and memory system
that underlies explicit knowledge (i.e., knowledge that is available to conscious awareness), even
though the declarative memory system also underlies implicit or unconscious knowledge (Ullman,
2020). Procedural memory is generally known as “knowing how,” broadly defined as one’s ability
to gradually acquire the necessary skills to learn new habits or perform different actions that eventu-
ally become automatic, including those that might involve motor skills (Ohlsson, 2008). Procedural
knowledge is thought to be less available to conscious awareness, and, as such, has been characterized
as implicit (Eichenbaum & Cohen, 2001).
Neurolinguistic studies with adult L2 learners have, in large part, found a relevant but distinctive
role for both declarative and procedural knowledge, generally suggesting a stronger role for declara-
tive memory/knowledge at earlier stages of L2 learning and a more relevant role for procedural
memory/knowledge at later stages of L2 learning (e.g., Morgan-Short et al., 2012; Ullman, 2020). For
example, Morgan-Short et al. (2015) conducted an fMRI study that evidenced a relationship between
individual differences in declarative and procedural memory and L2 outcomes during implicit-based
L2 learning, revealing that L2 learners with stronger declarative memory abilities were better able
to learn an L2 naturalistically. Additionally, a similar pattern of results was found in an ERP study
with adult L2 learners of Spanish with different types of L2 learning experience (Faretta-Stutenberg
& Morgan-Short, 2018). Individual differences in procedural memory, assessed by the Alternating
Serial Response Time Task and Weather Prediction Task, significantly predicted both L2 processing
and outcomes for their most experienced L2 learners: those who had studied abroad and therefore
had more opportunities to engage with naturalistic (i.e., more implicit) input. Their results contribute
to previous claims that situate individual differences in both declarative and procedural memory
abilities as a key cognitive factor to better understand variability in L2 neurocognition as well as L2
outcomes. Additionally, they provide evidence suggesting that the extent to which learners might
rely on one memory system over the other might differ but also be mediated by other factors, such as
learning stage, proficiency, or learning context, among others.
The Role of Instructional and Contextual Factors

Contextual and instructional factors have also been investigated as a source of variability in L2 studies,
with empirical work exploring the relative role that different types of L2 instruction, explicit versus
implicit-based, and contexts of learning play in adult L2 learning (Bowden & Faretta-Stutenberg,
this volume; see Bultena, this volume). Studies in this area typically examine learners at the group
level rather than taking an individual difference approach. For example, artificial language learning
paradigms have been used to compare explicit and implicit L2 learning as a way to control for pre-
vious exposure with the language (e.g., Batterink et al., 2015; Morgan-Short et al., 2012, 2015).
Tagarelli et al. (2019) conducted a neuroanatomical meta-analysis and reported that explicit training
of grammar was associated with hippocampal involvement, a region linked to declarative memory
280
resources, whereas implicit training resulted in the recruitment of anterior caudate/putamen, areas
associated with procedural memory (see also Morgan-Short et al., 2015). A related line of research has
investigated the instructional context by comparing learners who participate in traditional classroom
learning to those who complete a study abroad program (e.g., Grey et al., 2015; Faretta-Stutenberg
& Morgan-Short, 2018), suggesting that instructional and contextual factors play a crucial role in
understanding variability in L2 outcomes.

We briefly review trends and future directions for L2 neurolinguistic research with a focus on indi-
vidual difference factors. It is important to first point out that a majority of the studies reviewed in
this chapter utilize the ERP method, which has strengths in its ability to tease apart different types
of language processing (e.g., semantic/syntactic) as they are argued to be linked to specific ERP
responses. However, an emerging trend is to analyze EEG data via frequency bands or resting-state
EEG to capture individual variability in brain oscillations amongst learners, as these measurements
have been shown to predict L2 learning rates and outcomes (Prat et al., 2016, 2019). We expect to
see additional L2 studies in this domain, which would allow researchers to take advantage of a rich
source of inter-individual brain variability.
Regarding future directions of the field, we recommend two approaches, the first of which considers
a line of well-cited L2 studies using behavioral measures to investigate the relative contribution of
a set of individual differences in socio-cognitive/affective abilities and L2 outcomes. For example,
there is a large body of work examining motivation (Dörnyei, 2009). In a meta-analysis, Al-Hoorie
(2018) reported that motivation was a significant predictor of L2 intended effort, although crucially, a
weak predictor of objective measures of L2 achievement. Al-Hoorie points to the need for methodo-
logical improvements in motivation research and calls for further experimental research, which may
inform future studies in the neurocognitive domain. A related socio-affective factor is grit, defined as
both passion and perseverance for long-term goals (Duckworth et al., 2007). Language scientists have
recently investigated its relevance for L2 acquisition. For example, Teimouri et al. (2022) argued for
the relevance of language-specific grit as a critical individual difference factor modulating ultimate
success in L2 learning (see also Khajavy et al., 2021; Sudina et al., 2020).
A second direction future research could take follows current trends in identifying individual
differences in L1 processing along the native speaker continuum. Tanner (2019) used a latent factor
analysis to investigate individual differences in a large sample of native English speakers’ ERP
responses to sentences with subject-verb agreement anomalies. Even in a relatively homogenous
sample of highly literate adults, the results showed great individual variability during L1 processing: at
the group-level, a P600 effect emerged, but at the individual level, some participants showed N400
responses whereas others demonstrated P600 ones for grammatical processing. Tanner argues that
there might be a trait-like effect regarding how individuals process grammar violations specifically
in the domain of agreement, which has important implications for how future ERP studies inter-
pret grand mean effects that may mask individual neural response dominance as well as for moving
away from considering language processing and learning as a monolithic construct (Freunberger
et al., 2022).
In sum, there is an increased emphasis in both the native and L2 literature on investigating internal
and external factors that explain the variability in language processing, and we anticipate that the field
of cognitive neuroscience of SLA will continue to explore the role of the individual difference factors
reviewed in this chapter. The research highlighted here also points to a need for studies that include
multiple individual difference measures, to better understand the relative contribution of each factor
in a more holistic manner (e.g., Gabriele et al., 2021; López et al., 2023; Pereira Soares et al., 2021),
281
as well as research which directly examines the relative weight that each one of those individual diffe-
rence measures plays along the continuum of L2 acquisition and processing.
Note
1 Early accounts of the N400 and P600 made strong claims about their generation being linked to semantic and
syntactic processing respectively. However, more recent investigations have revealed that this distinction is
not so clearly delineated (e.g., Delogu et al., 2019) with individual-level ERP differences emerging even for
native speakers (e.g., Tanner, 2019) as well as L2 learners (e.g., Grey, 2022); see also Beatty-Martínez and
Titone (this volume).
Further Readings
Review paper examining the underlying sources of L2 variability, with a focus on neural plasticity and individual
differences:
Birdsong, D. (2018). Plasticity, variability, and age in second language acquisition and bilingualism. Frontiers in
Comprehensive volume highlighting the role of multiple individual difference factors and L2 acquisition:
Li, S., Hiver, P., & Papi, M. (Eds.). (2022). The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and indi-
vidual differences. Taylor & Francis.
Review article highlighting the neural changes in functional brain networks during L2 acquisition, shedding light
on neural bases of individual differences:
Li, P., & Grant, A. (2016). Second language learning success revealed by brain networks. Bilingualism: Language
and Cognition, 19(4), 657–664. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728915000280
References
Alemán Bañón, J., Fiorentino, R., & Gabriele, A. (2014). Morphosyntactic processing in advanced second lan-
guage (L2) learners: An event-related potential investigation of the effects of L1–L2 similarity and structural
distance. Second Language Research, 30(3), 275–306. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658313515671
Al-Hoorie, A.H. (2018). The L2 motivational self-system: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Learning
and Teaching, 8(4), 721–754. http://dx.doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2018.8.4.2
Banaszkiewicz, A., Matuszewski, J., Szczepanik, M., Kossowski, B., Mostowski, P., Rutkowski, Śliwińska, P.,
Jednoróg, K. Emmorey, K., & Marchewka, A. (2021). The role of the superior parietal lobule in lexical pro-
cessing of sign language: Insights from fMRI and TMS. Cortex, 135, 240–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor
tex.2020.10.025
Batterink, L.J., Reber, P.J., Neville, H.J., & Paller, K.A. (2015). Implicit and explicit contributions to statistical
learning. Journal of Memory and Language, 83, 62–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2015.04.004
Beatty-Martínez, A.L., & Titone, D.A. (this volume). De-generacy as an organizing principle of bilingual lan-
guage processing: Evidence from brain and behavior. In K. Morgan-Short and J.G. van Hell (Eds.), The
Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and neurolinguistics. Routledge.
Birdsong, D. (2018). Plasticity, variability and age in second language acquisition and bilingualism. Frontiers in
psychology, 9, 81. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00081
Bond, K., Gabriele, A., Fiorentino, R., & Aleman Banon, J. (2011). Individual differences and the role of the
L1 in L2 processing: An ERP investigation. In Proceedings of the 11th generative approaches to second lan-
guage acquisition conference (GASLA 2011) (pp. 17–29).
Braver, T.S. (2012). The variable nature of cognitive control: a dual mechanisms framework. Trends in Cognitive
Sciences, 16(2), 106–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2011.12.010
Bowden, H.W. & Faretta-Stutenberg, M. (this volume). Context of learning and second language neurocognition.
Bultena, S. (this volume). Feedback in second language neurocognition. In K. Morgan-Short and J.G. van Hell
282
Carrasco-Ortíz, H., Herrera, A.V., Jackson-Maldonado, D., Ramírez, G.N.A., Pereyra, J.S., & Wicha, N.Y.
(2017). The role of language similarity in processing second language morphosyntax: Evidence from ERPs.
International Journal of Psychophysiology, 117, 91–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2017.04.008
Coughlin, C.E., Fiorentino, R., Royle, P., & Steinhauer, K. (2019). Sensitivity to inflectional morphology in
a non-native language: evidence from ERPs. Frontiers in Communication, 4, 21. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fcomm.2019.00021
Covey, L., Fiorentino, R., & Gabriele, A. (2022). Island sensitivity in L2 learners: Evidence from acceptability
judgments and event-related potentials. Second Language Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.
org/10.1177/02676583221116039
Dallas, A., DeDe, G., & Nicol, J. (2013). An event-related potential (ERP) investigation of filler-gap processing
in native and second language speakers. Language Learning, 63(4), 766–799. https://doi.org/10.1111/
lang.12026
Delogu, F., Brouwer, H., & Croker, M.W. (2019). Event-related potentials index lexical retrieval (N400) and inte-
gration (P600) during language comprehension. Brain and Cognition, 135, 103569. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.bandc.2019.05.007
Díaz, B., Baus, C., Escera, C., Costa, A., & Sebastián-Gallés, N. (2008). Brain potentials to native phoneme
discrimination reveal the origin of individual differences in learning the sounds of a second language.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(42), 16083–16088. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.080
5022105
Díaz, B., Erdocia, K., De Menezes, R.F., Mueller, J.L., Sebastián-Gallés, N., & Laka, I. (2016).
Electrophysiological correlates of second-language syntactic processes are related to native and second
language distance regardless of age of acquisition. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 133. https://doi.org/
10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00133
Di Liberto, G.M., Nie, J., Yeaton, J., Khalighinejad, B., Shamma, S.A., & Mesgarani, N. (2021). Neural represen-
tation of linguistic feature hierarchy reflects second-language proficiency. NeuroImage, 227, 117586. https://
Dörnyei, Z. (2009). Motivation, Language Identities and the L2 Self: Future Research Directions. In Z. Dörnyei
& E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 350–356). Multilingual Matters.
Dörnyei, Z., & Ryan, S. (2015). The Psychology of the Language Learner Revisited. Routledge.
Duckworth, A.L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M.D., & Kelly, D.R. (2007). Grit: perseverance and passion for long-
term goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(6), 1087. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/
0022-3514.92.6.1087
Eichenbaum, H., & Cohen, N.J. (2001). From conditioning to conscious recollection: Memory systems of the
brain. New York: Oxford University Press.
Emmorey, K., McCullough, S., Mehta, S., & Grabowski, T.J. (2014). How sensory-motor systems impact
the neural organization for language: Direct contrasts between spoken and signed language. Frontiers in
Psychology, 5, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00484
Engle, R.W., Tuholski, S.W., Laughlin, J.E., & Conway, A.R. (1999). Working memory, short-term memory, and
general fluid intelligence: a latent-variable approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 128(3),
309–331. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0096-3445.128.3.309
Faretta-Stutenberg, M., & Morgan-Short, K. (2018). The interplay of individual differences and context of
learning in behavioral and neurocognitive second language development. Second Language Research, 34(1),
67–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658316684903
amab058
and Language, 204, 104770. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2020.104770
of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/xlm
0000983
Grant, A.M., Fang, S.Y., & Li, P. (2015). Second language lexical development and cognitive control: A longitu-
dinal fMRI study. Brain and Language, 144, 35–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2015.03.010
283
Grey, S. (2022). Variability in native and nonnative language: An ERP study of semantic and grammar pro-
cessing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0272263122000055
Grey, S., Cox, J.G., Serafini, E.J., & Sanz, C. (2015). The role of individual differences in the study abroad
context: Cognitive capacity and language development during short-term intensive language exposure. The
Modern Language Journal, 99(1), 137–157. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12190
Guo, T., & Ma, F. (this volume). Cognitive control in second language neurocognition. In K. Morgan-Short
and J. G. van Hell (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and neurolinguistics.
Routledge.
Johnson, A., Fiorentino, R., & Gabriele, A. (2016). Syntactic constraints and individual differences in native
and non- native processing of wh- movement. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 549. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fpsyg.2016.00549
Kepinska, O., De Rover, M., Caspers, J., & Schiller, N.O. (2017a). On neural correlates of individual differences
in novel grammar learning: an fMRI study. Neuropsychologia, 98, 156–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuro
psychologia.2016.06.014
Kepinska, O., De Rover, M., Caspers, J., & Schiller, N.O. (2017b). Whole-brain functional connectivity
during acquisition of novel grammar: Distinct functional networks depend on language learning abilities.
Behavioural Brain Research, 320, 333–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2016.12.015
Khajavy, G.H., MacIntyre, P.D., & Hariri, J. (2021). A closer look at grit and language mindset as predictors
of foreign language achievement. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 43(2), 379–402. https://doi.org/
10.1017/S0272263120000480
Korenar, M. & Pliatsikas, C. (this volume). The dynamic restructuring model and second language. In K. Morgan-
Routledge.
Kroll, J.F., Dussias, P.E., Bogulski, C.A., & Kroff, J.R.V. (2012). Juggling two languages in one mind: What
bilinguals tell us about language processing and its consequences for cognition. Psychology of Learning and
Motivation, 56, 229–262.
Li, P., & Grant, A. (2016). Second language learning success revealed by brain networks. Bilingualism: Language
and cognition, 19(4), 657–664. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728915000280
Li, S., Hiver, P., & Papi, M. (Eds.). (2022). The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and indi-
vidual differences. Taylor & Francis.
Linck, J.A., Osthus, P., Koeth, J.T., & Bunting, M.F. (2014). Working memory and second language compre-
hension and production: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21(4), 861–883. https://doi.org/
10.3758/s13423-013-0565-2
López, B. G., Luque, A., & Piña-Watson, B. (2023). Context, intersectionality, and resilience: Moving toward a
more holistic study of bilingualism in cognitive science. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology,
29(1), 24. https://doi.org/10.1037/cdp0000472
Meade, G. (this volume). The neurocognition of learning a second language in the visual-auditory modality.
processing as revealed by ERPs and how (not) to study them. PloS One, 10(12), e0143328. https://doi.org/
10.1371/journal.pone.0143328
sition: A cross-sectional event-related potential study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 32(5), 822–846.
https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_01528
Morgan-Short, K., Deng, Z., Brill-Schuetz, K.A., Faretta-Stutenberg, M., Wong, P.C., & Wong, F.C. (2015).
implicit contexts of exposure. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37(2), 383–419. https://doi.org/
10.1017/S0272263115000030
Morgan-Short, K., Finger, I., Grey, S., & Ullman, M.T. (2012). Second language processing shows increased
native-like neural responses after months of no exposure. PLoS One, 7(3), e32974. https://doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pone.0032974
284
10.1017/S1366728917000566
Ogunniyi, V., Abugaber, D., Finestrat, I., Luque, A., & Morgan-Short, K. (2021). Predicting second language
proficiency with resting-state brain rhythms. Columbia Undergraduate Science Journal, 15, 39–54. https://
doi.org/10.52214/cusj.v15i1.7797
Ohlsson, S. (2008). Computational models of skill acquisition. In R. Sun (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of
computational psychology, pp. 359–395. Cambridge University Press.
Paradis, M. (2009). Declarative and procedural determinants of second languages (Vol. 40). John Benjamins
Publishing.
Perani, D., Abutalebi, J., Paulesu, E., Brambati, S., Scifo, P., Cappa, S.F., & Fazio, F. (2003). The role of age
of acquisition and language usage in early, high-proficient bilinguals: An fMRI study during verbal fluency.
Pereira Soares, S.M., Kubota, M., Rossi, E., & Rothman, J. (2021). Determinants of bilingualism predict
dynamic changes in resting-state EEG oscillations. Brain and Language, 223, 105030. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.bandl.2021.105030
Pliatsikas, C. (2019). Multilingualism and brain plasticity. The handbook of the neuroscience of multilingualism,
230–251.
Prat, C.S. (2011). The brain basis of individual differences in language comprehension abilities. Language and
Linguistics Compass, 5(9), 635–649. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2011.00303.x
Prat, C.S., Yamasaki, B.L., Kluender, R.A., & Stocco, A. (2016). Resting-state qEEG predicts rate of second
language learning in adults. Brain and Language, 157, 44–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2016.04.007
Prat, C.S., Yamasaki, B.L., & Peterson, E.R. (2019). Individual differences in resting-state brain rhythms
uniquely predict second language learning rate and willingness to communicate in adults. Journal of Cognitive
Pulido, M.F. (2021). Native language inhibition predicts more successful second language learning: Evidence
of two ERP pathways during learning. Neuropsychologia, 152, 107732. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsyc
hologia.2020.107732
Qi, Z., Beach, S.D., Finn, A.S., Minas, J., Goetz, C., Chan, B., & Gabrieli, J.D.E. (2017). Native-language N400
and P600 predict dissociable language-learning abilities in adults. Neuropsychologia, 98, 177–191. https://
Reichle, R.V., Tremblay, A., & Coughlin, C. (2016). Working memory capacity in L2 processing. Probus, 28(1),
29–55. https://doi.org/10.1515/probus-2016-0003
Reiterer, S.M., Hu, X., Erb, M., Rota, G., Nardo, D., Grodd, W., … & Ackermann, H. (2011). Individual
differences in audio-vocal speech imitation aptitude in late bilinguals: functional neuro-imaging and brain
morphology. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 271. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00271
Roberts, L. & Meyer, A. (2012) Individual differences in second language learning: Introduction. Language
Learning, 62(S2), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00703.x
Roehr, K. (2008). Metalinguistic knowledge and language ability in university-level L2 learners. Applied
Linguistics, 29(2), 173–199. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amm037
Rossi, S., Gugler, M. F., Friederici, A.D., & Hahne, A. (2006). The impact of proficiency on syntactic second-
language processing of German and Italian: Evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of Cognitive
Neuroscience, 18(12), 2030–2048. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2006.18.12.2030
Schwab, S., Giroud, N., Meyer, M., & Dellwo, V. (2020). Working memory and not acoustic sensitivity is related
to stress processing ability in a foreign language: An ERP study. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 55, 100897.
Sudina, E., Brown, J., Datzman, B., Oki, Y., Song, K., Cavanaugh, R., … & Plonsky, L. (2020). Language-specific
grit: exploring psychometric properties, predictive validity, and differences across contexts. Innovation in
Language Learning and Teaching, 4, 334–351. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2020.1802468
Tagarelli, K.M., Mota, M.B., & Rebuschat, P. (2015). 13. Working memory, learning conditions and the acquisi-
tion of L2 syntax. In Z. Wen, M.B. Mota, and A. McNeill (Eds.), Working memory in second language acqui-
sition and processing (pp. 224–247). Multilingual Matters.
org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.02.061
Tanner, D. (2019). Robust neurocognitive individual differences in grammatical agreement processing: A latent
variable approach. Cortex, 111, 210–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2018.10.011
285
org/10.1017/S1366728912000302
Teimouri, Y., Plonsky, L., & Tabandeh, F. (2022). L2 grit: Passion and perseverance for second-language learning.
Language Teaching Research, 26(5), 893–918. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820921895
Tulving, E. (1993). What is episodic memory?. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2(3), 67–70. https://
doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.ep10770899
Turker, S., Seither- Preisler, A., & Reiterer, S.M. (2021). Examining individual differences in language
learning: a neurocognitive model of language aptitude. Neurobiology of Language, 2(3), 389–415. https://
doi.org/10.1162/nol_a_00042
(3rd ed., pp. 128–161). Routledge.
Routledge.
Vos, S. H., Gunter, T.C., Schriefers, H., & Friederici, A.D. (2001). Syntactic parsing and working memory: The
effects of syntactic complexity, reading span, and concurrent load. Language and Cognitive Processes, 16(1),
65–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960042000085
Weber-Fox, C.M., & Neville, H.J. (1996). Maturational constraints on functional specializations for language
processing: ERP and behavioral evidence in bilingual speakers. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 8(3),
White, E.J., Genesee, F., & Steinhauer, K. (2012). Brain responses before and after intensive second language
learning: Proficiency-based changes and first language background effects in adult learners. PloS One, 7(12),
e52318. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0052318
Williams, J.T., Darcy, I., & Newman, S.D. (2016). Modality-specific processing precedes amodal linguistic pro-
cessing during L2 sign language acquisition: A longitudinal study. Cortex, 75, 56–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.cortex.2015.11.015
Williams, J.T., Darcy, I., & Newman, S.D. (2018). Neural substrates of sign language vocabulary pro-
cessing in less-skilled hearing M2L2 signers: Evidence for difficult phonological movement perception.
monolinguals and bilinguals. Cognition, 176, 87–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.03.001
286
PART V
Second Language in Relation to the

Neurocognition of First Language and
Additional Languages
21
CROSS-L INGUISTIC TRANSFER
IN SECOND LANGUAGE
NEUROCOGNITION
Introduction
By definition, second language (L2) acquisition requires that speakers possess a first language (L1).
This previously established L1 and its similarities and/or differences with the L2 has been shown
to greatly impact the learning of the latter (e.g., Odlin, 2003; Serratrice, 2013), which is known as
cross-linguistic transfer.1 Similarities in structure and concepts often result in positive transfer and
ease of L2 acquisition and processing, whereas differences result in negative transfer and processing
difficulty (Kotz, 2009).2 In addition to transfer from L1 to L2 and other known languages (Ln), cross-
linguistic effects can also be found from the L2 and Ln on to the L1 (this is sometimes referred to as
L1 attrition; see Keijzer & Seton, this volume; also for more on cross-linguistic transfer to languages
subsequent to L2, see Xu & Wong, this volume).
Cross-linguistic transfer is widely studied from a behavioral perspective, with a focus on effects
found after processing has occurred and not on what effects are occurring as decisions are made.
Although valuable information regarding the transfer of knowledge and how it relates to language
acquisition has been gained from such research, measures of L2 neural processing can provide insight
into the underlying neural mechanisms that regulate how and when our brains process cross-linguistic
transfer. L2 speakers of a language similar to their L1 may benefit from positive cross-linguistic
transfer effects to acquire and use the language to a highly proficient degree. Thus, speakers can
appear to have reached native-like skills in areas such as production, comprehension, and grammar.
However, the possibility exists that these positive transfer effects that result in native-like behavior
by L2 learners may be regulated by different neurological underpinnings (Díaz et al., 2016; Mueller,
2005; Wartenburger et al., 2003). For example, it might be possible to see native-like performance in
L2 acceptability judgments, but for participants whose L1 is more like the L2, it may reflect transfer
of linguistic mechanisms (suggesting cross-linguistic transfer of the structure of interest). On the
other hand, participants who have a less similar L1 may be recruiting working memory mechanisms
suggesting that cross-linguistic transfer is not at play (e.g., Sabourin & Stowe, 2008). These effects
may occur at all levels of linguistic processing from phonetic level processing up to and including the
processing of pragmatic information. We will, however, limit our present discussions to the phono-
logical, lexical, and syntactic linguistic levels.
The present chapter focuses on transfer from L1 to L2, with emphasis on the neurological
underpinnings associated with these effects. Below, we provide a brief overview of historical
perspectives that have helped guide current empirical investigations of cross-linguistic transfer.
DOI: 10.4324/9781003190912-27 289

Next, we introduce the critical issues and topics surrounding cross-linguistic transfer in relation to
neurocognition and summarize the current empirical knowledge in the field. Finally, we provide
current trends in transfer research and introduce avenues and considerations for future research.
Cross-linguistic transfer has been studied extensively in the field of second language acquisition
(SLA) research with a focus both on facilitation (positive transfer) and interference (negative transfer)
effects on the learning and processing of an L2. This section outlines and evaluates a set of earlier
views based on behavioral data sets that have had a great influence on the field of language transfer
effects in SLA.
Many models and theories of SLA have directly or indirectly focused on the role of transfer from
the L1. For instance, at the phonological level, models such as the perceptual assimilation model
(Best et al., 2001) and the speech learning model (Flege, 1995; Flege & Bohn, 2021) assume that the
ability to acquire L2 speech sounds is related to the degree of similarity between the speech sounds
of the L1 and L2. At the syntax level, models such as those incorporating markedness (Eckman et al.,
1986) suggest that similarity between the L1 and L2 can predict the outcomes of L2 learning.
One of the earliest approaches to transfer, known as contrastive analysis (Lado, 1957), compared
the degree of similarity between L1 and L2 surface forms to predict the outcome of language
learning. Specifically, similarities between the L1 and L2 were predicted to facilitate the process of
L2 learning, whereas differences were expected to make those aspects more difficult to learn. This
approach treated language learning as consisting of a set of habits that needed to be learned, espe-
cially for aspects that were dissimilar (Flynn, 2019). Although this approach to language highlighted
potential areas of learning difficulty, evidence from language learners did not always support these
predictions: differences between the L1 and L2 did not always result in difficulty, and not all errors
produced by L2 learners were due to L1 transfer effects (Whitman & Jackson, 1972). Alternatively,
the error analysis approach viewed L2 grammatical errors as a window into the process of language
learning (Corder, 1967). The source of these errors was thought to reflect language transfer from
the L1. Over time, focus thus shifted from more behaviorist views of language as habit formation
to an internal focus on the rules of grammar and linguistic structure representing competence; SLA
researchers began to investigate the underlying processes of language learning.
Interest in grammatical competence can be linked to the seminal theories of Chomsky (1965).
According to this view of L1 acquisition, children possess an innate language learning mechanism
(a “Language Acquisition Device” or LAD) rooted in a Universal Grammar (UG). UG is a system of
principles (i.e., universal statements that specify properties shared by all languages) and parameters
(i.e., universal options available within the principles of UG that explain language variation) and is
considered to be innate (Dabrowska, 2015; Towell & Hawkins, 1994). Dulay and Burt (1974) argued
that SLA may be analogous in its usage of the LAD and UG. Within this perspective, there are various
views on the degree of access to specific UG elements that L2 learners are privy to, beyond what is
accessible from L1 grammar via transfer, resulting in different views of transfer: (a) The Full Access
account argues that speakers have the ability to reset their UG parameters when learning a new lan-
guage (White, 1985a; Flynn, 1996), and that all UG mechanisms from the L1 are made available
for transfer and access when utilizing the L2 (Schwartz & Sprouse, 1994); (b) The Partial Access
account states that a subset of UG knowledge is available to L2 speakers during language acquisition
(Hawkins & Chan, 1997; Tsimpli & Roussou, 1991); although the precise aspects of UG knowledge
that is readily available is a matter of debate; and (c) The No Access account claims that speakers
cannot access any UG-related mechanisms that are not present in the established L1 (Bley-Vroman,
1989, 1990; Clahsen & Felser, 2006).
290
Cross-Linguistic Transfer in Second Language Neurocognition
Other models that may also provide explanations of transfer effects are usage-based models in
which language learning is determined by the properties of input. One such model, MacWhinney’s
Unified Competition Model (1987, 2012), states that children acquire their L1 based on the presence
of cues in the target language. How frequently the cue is encountered by the learner as well as
whether the cue reliably signals the form being learned are both determinants of acquisition (Janssen
& Meir, 2019; MacWhinney, 1987, 2012). These L1 forms become entrenched and create competi-
tion with the L2 patterns being learned. This results in transfer effects that are stronger in adult than
child L2 learners as the L1 patterns have had longer to consolidate in the adult learners (Bates &
MacWhinney, 1981).
Moving forward from the historical perspectives to cross-linguistic transfer, current psycholinguistic
outlooks on this topic and its processes fall under two distinct approaches to language acquisition.
The first was largely influenced by the UG framework and assumes that L2 acquisition, including lan-
guage transfer effects, is constrained by an interlanguage (i.e., the current state between the L1 and the
target L2) that follows UG. This approach led to many studies comparing different types of languages
with contrasting parameter settings and how different parametric values are treated during the pro-
cess of L2 learning (e.g., White, 1985b) and investigating, more generally, the effect of syntactic
differences between L1 and L2. In contrast, the second approach applies a functionalist perspective.
Specifically, it looks at how the L2 learner can process and learn regularities (based on frequency)
provided in the input (Agebjörn, 2021; MacWhinney, 2012; Shirai, 2019). These different approaches
to transfer have led to several successful research avenues with largely behavioral research methods.
With the use of methods that investigate neural processing, we can pinpoint the locus of transfer
effects. In the section that follows we discuss these methodological issues.

There are a number of issues related to the study of cross-linguistic transfer that has made it dif-
ficult to adequately describe the role of transfer in SLA. Current research attempts to document
transfer in terms of positive vs. negative effects and explain whether these effects are modulated by
various factors, such as the underlying grammar of the L1 system being applied during the process
of L2 learning, more strategic processing (i.e., working memory or other cognitive effects), or the
frequency of structures in the input. To distinguish between these explanations of cross-linguistic
transfer, we need to ensure that an adequate methodology is implemented alongside appropriate
research questions. The remainder of this section focuses on methodological considerations and
research considerations in relation to linguistic and non-linguistic processing.
Methodological Considerations
Historically, issues in the field of SLA, and subsequently cross-linguistic transfer, have been studied
using behavioral experimental techniques. These have allowed for the collection of information
regarding accuracy and speed during the production or comprehension of an L2. Although such
results are valuable, we argue that additional neurocognitive evidence is required to obtain a well-
rounded understanding of the impact of cross-linguistic transfer on L2 acquisition and use. Whereas
behavioral techniques have contributed to our knowledge on the final state of processing and surface-
level effects, a neurocognitive approach allows for a deeper investigation into the neurological
underpinnings associated with cross-linguistic transfer, including whether L2 acquisition makes use
of the same or related processing routines and mechanisms as those employed by L1 speakers.3
Although the neurocognitive techniques have yet to provide a definitive answer regarding the precise
mechanisms of transfer effects in SLA, they show promising results (Rothman et al., 2015) and have
started to contribute to a clearer and more complex understanding of cross-linguistic transfer. The
291
remainder of this section discusses two (neuro)cognitive experimental approaches, and how they can
be used to investigate cross-linguistic transfer.
One useful method for investigating the neural underpinnings of language processing and cross-
linguistic transfer is the event-related brain potentials (ERPs) technique (see, for example, Sabourin
et al., 2013; Dickson & Pelzl, this volume). By measuring the electrical currents produced in the
brain, ERPs allow us to see how and when the brain reacts with high temporal resolution. Therefore,
ERPs are useful for investigating the time-course of a reaction as well as automatic processing of
language-related stimuli (Luck, 2014). Certain ERP components are strongly associated with lan-
guage processing including the mismatch negativity (MMN), N400, and P600. The MMN is a nega-
tive deflection peaking between 100 and 250 ms post-stimulus that indicates that a change in sound
has been detected in a stream of otherwise similar sounds (Näätänen, 2001). The N400 is a nega-
tive deflection peaking at 400 ms post-stimulus onset reflective of semantic integration and access
of words into context (Kutas & Hillard, 1980; Kutas & Federmeier, 2011). Finally, the P600 is a
positive deflection peaking at 600 ms post-stimulus onset demonstrating syntactic integration and
reanalysis (Osterhout & Holcomb, 1992). Several aspects of ERP components can be considered
and compared, such as latency (when an effect starts), amplitude (how strong an effect is), polarity
(whether the deflection is negative or positive) and scalp topography (where on the scalp the effect
is seen). In studies of cross-linguistic transfer effects, we can identify which neural mechanisms
are being recruited for each language by comparing how ERP components differ in L1 and L2 pro-
cessing. Thus, researchers can determine if there is simply a quantitative difference between the L1
and L2, as reflected by modulations in the timing and strength of a particular component. This can
be further differentiated from a qualitative difference showing the presence of a different component
altogether, which may be reflective of the use of distinct mechanisms.
Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) is another brain-imaging technique. It allows
researchers to determine where language processes occur at a neural level via changes in blood flow
(Sabourin & Stowe, 2008a; see also Kousaie & Klein, this volume). Due to its excellent spatial reso-
lution, fMRI can help pinpoint when and if L2 speakers use typical L1 language-related areas in
the brain for processing or whether they rely on alternative neural resources. Although there seems
to be fewer studies utilizing fMRI (likely due to less access to the technique for cost and expertise
reasons) to test cross-linguistic transfer, they provide essential information regarding underlying
neurocognitive processes and add complementary data to ERP findings.
Linguistic vs. Non-linguistic Processing

By investigating transfer from a neurocognitive perspective, we can determine if L2 learners can learn
different structures and whether they make use of the same neural mechanisms as native speakers or
more general cognitive mechanisms. Ultimately, this refers to whether the L2 is learned linguistic-
ally (with primarily the use of linguistic knowledge and strategies) or whether the same processes
and mechanisms that are used in other cognitive domains (e.g., attention, memory, learning) are used
in the learning of the L2. In the case of positive transfer from the L1 to L2, we expect to see similar
ERP components modulated in comparable ways. For example, if grammatical gender information is
transferred from the L1 to the L2, and gender in the target language results in P600 effects by native
speakers, then P600 effects would also be expected when gender must be processed in the L2. On the
other hand, if native-like behavioral level use of the L2 (thought to be the result of positive linguistic
transfer effects) is in fact reflecting the use of the L1 in a strategic, non-linguistic way, we could
observe the absence of language-related ERP components or the presence of components relating
to general cognitive processes (e.g., memory). As discussed below, this distinction in L2 gender
processing can be seen in the comparison of German and Romance learners of Dutch (Sabourin &
292
Stowe, 2008). The German speakers can transfer an almost identical gender agreement system to
show similar ERP patterns to gender violations as L1 Dutch speakers (a modulation of the P600
component). On the other hand, Romance speakers show that they can process L2 gender violations,
although their ERP patterns are suggestive of a more general cognitive strategy to perform like native
speakers (a late frontal negativity).
Likewise, by using an oddball paradigm to modulate the MMN component it may be possible
to distinguish between whether L2 speakers discriminate non-native speech sounds acoustically
(suggestive of non-linguistic processing of the L2 stimuli) or at a phonological level (representing
linguistic ability to discriminate L2 sounds). An acoustic change in the MMN is seen at bilateral
scalp sites whereas a phonological MMN is larger in amplitude and left lateralized (Näätänen, 2001;
Näätänen, Ilmoniemi & Alho, 1994). In short, tracking the presence versus absence of different lin-
guistic ERP components as well as the topography across the development of the L2 should allow for
an exploration of when and how information from the L1 affects L2 processing.
Current Empirical Knowledge

Using ERPs and fMRI, researchers have begun to test when and how cross-linguistic transfer
influences the neurocognitive process of language learning. As previously discussed, transfer from
the L1 to the L2 can be deemed positive or negative (resulting in facilitation or interference) and has
been studied primarily at the syntactic, lexical, and phonological levels of language acquisition and
processing. We will now discuss the current neurocognitive literature in relation to varied linguistic
cross-linguistic phenomena resulting in positive or negative transfer.
Cross-Linguistic Influence Resulting in Positive Transfer

Language similarity plays a considerable role in cross- linguistic transfer resulting in positive
effects. In particular, related languages that are also typologically similar (e.g., French and Spanish)
greatly overlap in regard to lexical items and grammatical rules. When an L2 is closely related to
the established L1, it is argued to result in simpler L2 acquisition. An example of this stems from
research on cognates, which are words with similar or overlapping phonological/orthographic form
and meaning. Cognates have been shown to easily map from form to meaning in the L2, displayed
through ERPs by the presence of a smaller N400 amplitude, suggesting less cognitive effort to recog-
nize or access the item in the L2 (Midgley et al., 2011). Likewise, L2 speech sounds with equivalents
or near-equivalents in the L1 are easier to produce and perceive (e.g., Werker & Tees, 1984a; 1984b),
indicating that the processing of non-native speech contrasts is heavily influenced by the phono-
logical system of the native language (Best, McRoberts & Goodell, 2001). In fact, it is possibly such
an overlapping phonological system that is partly responsible for the cognate effects. There seems to
be some evidence that both cross-language cognates and cross-language homophones make use of a
shared L1–L2 language specific network (Ghazi-Saidi & Ansaldo, 2017). In contrast, words that are
not phonologically similar across the L1 and L2 seem to activate neural structures associated with
the L1 but also rely on neural regions that are more typically found to be active in working memory
and attention tasks.
Linguistic overlap of syntactic systems has also been shown to result in positive transfer effects.
Using fMRI, Jeong and colleagues (2007) found that Korean L1 speakers show similar neural acti-
vation patterns for Korean and Japanese (languages that share a flexible subject–verb–object word
order), whereas different neural activation was exhibited for Korean and English (languages with
different syntactic structures).4 The lack of substantial difference between Korean and Japanese is
attributed to the languages’ shared syntactic structure, resulting in speakers using Japanese L2 effi-
ciently during processing due to positive transfer.
293
Additional evidence for positive transfer effects at the syntactic level is seen when investigating
syntactic violations. Kotz and colleagues (2008) studied a group of L1 Spanish–L2 English speakers
and monolingual English speakers’ neural responses to English sentences containing phrasal
violations or syntactic ambiguities that would require additional syntactic elements in either lan-
guage to be made unambiguous or syntactically sound. A P600 response was elicited in both groups
of speakers, consistent with L1 Spanish speakers having positively transferred structural syntactic
knowledge to their L2. Of particular interest is that similarities in processing were only seen at a
neurological level during the online ERP task and were not reflected in an offline judgment task,
reinforcing the importance of using neurocognitive techniques in studies of cross-linguistic transfer.
Similar transfer effects were found in an earlier study looking at L1 Spanish–L2 English (Tokowicz
& MacWhinney, 2005).
Further effects of positive word order transfer are seen in Swedish L2 acquisition, a verb-
second (V2) language. Andersson et al. (2019) studied L1 English (non-V2 language)–L2 Swedish,
L1 German (V2 language)–L2 Swedish, and L1 Swedish speakers. The L1 German participants
showed an overall pattern of processing like the L1 Swedish speakers. Indeed, the L1 German
group exhibited fully native-like ERP responses to the stimuli, whereas the L1 English group only
showed partially similar processing effects. This was attributed to the fact that the L1 German
speakers were able to transfer their L1 knowledge of V2 word order along with the required pro-
cessing mechanisms.
More examples of positive transfer are found in studies of predictive processing. Alemán Bañón
and Martin (2021) studied the processing of possessive pronouns in L2 English learners with either
Spanish or Swedish as an L1. English and Swedish contain possessive pronouns providing refer-
ence to the natural gender of the antecedent (e.g., his/her), whereas in Spanish possessive pronouns
refer to syntactic features (e.g., number, syntactic gender), of the possessed noun. Therefore, when
accessing possessive pronouns, Spanish activates representations different from those of English
and Swedish. Accordingly, native English and L1 Swedish-L2 English speakers showed an N400
effect when presented with unexpected possessive pronouns (i.e., a mismatch between the possessor
and possessive pronoun), reflective of integration and access difficulties. This was not observed for
Spanish L1 learners, showing that only Swedish L1 learners benefit from potential positive cross-
linguistic transfer in processing the gender of English possessive pronouns.
Studies focusing on the grammatical property of gender are often used as a tool to investigate
cross-linguistic transfer, especially as regards gender agreement and gender congruency (e.g.,
Sabourin et al., 2006; Sabourin & Stowe, 2008b). Gender congruency refers to a noun bearing the
same gender in two languages (e.g., the table in French, la table, and Spanish, la mesa, both possess
feminine gender). Using ERPs, it was found that positive transfer effects at the level of linguistic pro-
cessing only hold when the gender categories are similar across the L1 and L2 (Sabourin & Stowe,
2008b), in contrast to behavioral findings via acceptability judgements (Sabourin et al., 2006).
The studies presented above showed effects of positive transfer at all levels of linguistic pro-
cessing. It seems to be the case that the ability to transfer information from the L1 and have that
information be successfully used to guide L2 learning facilitates may result in the earlier appearance
of native-like processing in the L2.
Cross-Linguistic Influence Resulting in Negative Transfer
In contrast to facilitation because of positive cross-linguistic transfer, negative effects are found when
conflicting information is transferred at various linguistic levels. In studies aimed at determining
whether L2 learners can acquire and discriminate new speech sounds (e.g., Dehaene-Lambertz, 1997;
Rivera-Gaxiola et al., 2000), the focus has been on whether speech sounds that are present, or more
to the point, those that are not present in the learner’s L1 will cause difficulty in the acquisition of a
294
new speech contrast. For example, using ERPs, Dehaene-Lambertz (1997) showed that non-native
contrasts did not elicit a MMN (neither within-category nor between category) demonstrating that the
MMN is not simply an index of acoustic similarity but that it is modulated by the phonemic status of
the contrast. On the other hand, Rivera-Gaxiola et al. (2000) did find electrophysiological evidence
(in the absence of behavioral evidence) that both native and non-native contrasts can elicit an MMN.
Both studies, however, do not place a primary focus on transfer effects, but instead on the presence
vs. absence of speech sounds in the L1 vs. L2.
Negative transfer effects are commonly observed at the syntactic level of cross-linguistic
transfer, particularly in relation to variation in word order between the L1 and L2 (e.g., Foucart
& Frenck-Mestre, 2012). For instance, Erdocia and Laka (2018) studied whether word order in
the L1 (Spanish) influences the processing of word order in the L2 (Basque). Specifically, they
investigated the processing of subject–verb–object (SVO) and object–verb–subject (OVS) word
orders. The canonical word order in Spanish is SVO, whereas for Basque it is subject–object–verb
(SOV); OVS word order is possible but non-canonical in both languages. Native speakers of
Basque showed a P600 effect to non-canonical (but grammatical) SVO sentences reflecting the
idea that non-canonical word orders are processed, at least initially, as ungrammatical. However,
L2 speakers did not show a P600 effect to the non-canonical SVO word order, which is standard in
their L1. Specifically, L2 speakers processed this word-order using the grammatical restrictions of
their L1, consistent with the negative transfer causing them to fail to recognize the non-canonical
nature of the SVO order in Basque. Likewise, another ERP study (Mickan & Lemhöfer, 2020) also
showed that L2 word order processing remained difficult for learners when there were differences
between the L1 and the L2 and that this was the case for even advanced L2 users. Importantly, they
provided data suggesting that, even for the same participants, comparable L1 and L2 structures
resulted in native-like L2 processing whereas structures that are conflicting do not result in native-
like processing.
A handful of studies have focused on the processing of negative cross-linguistic transfer in con-
junction with predictive processing (e.g., Van Bergen & Flecken, 2017). In the previously mentioned
Alemán Bañón and Martin (2021) study, whereas positive transfer effects were seen for L1 Swedish–
L2 English speakers, L1 Spanish–L2 English speakers provided evidence for negative transfer effects
by displaying a P600, suggesting that speakers relied on the structure of their L1 in relation to antici-
patory processing of the gender of possessive pronouns.
Further evidence for negative transfer has been found with agreement relations between languages
with comparable or conflicting adjective placement. For example, both French and German allow pre-
posed adjectives, but only French permits post-posed adjectives. Foucart and Frenck-Mestre (2011)
tested L1 French and L1 German–L2 French learners: participants were read French plural sentences
containing pre-posed adjectives and plural sentences with post-posed adjectives where the gender of
the adjective either agreed (matched) or disagreed (mismatched) with the corresponding noun. L1
French speakers exhibited a P600 to gender agreement violations between pre-posed adjectives and
the noun, as well as post-posed adjectives and the noun. In contrast, German–French learners did not
show an effect of agreement errors in either adjective condition. Although the researchers acknow-
ledge that their study was not intended to directly probe transfer effects, and therefore cannot assert
any strong conclusions, they do discuss the possibility that negative transfer effects from German
may hinder gender agreement processing. As opposed to French, grammatical gender is not overtly
marked when the plural is used in German and, consequently, L1 German speakers potentially relied
on this construction, resulting in processing differences.
In all, research suggests that differences between languages that may cause negative transfer
effects do seem to result in differences in the processing of the L2. This non-native like performance
in the L2 is likely due to the interference of the L1 structures.
295

As the field of SLA and cross-linguistic transfer continues to grow and evolve, new methodo-
logical and experimental considerations surface. For instance, various neuroimaging techniques are
becoming increasingly implemented not only within the fields of psycholinguistics and L2 processing
but in the more specific research interest of cross-linguistic transfer. This is allowing researchers
to investigate more than just the effects of positive and/or negative linguistic processing strategies
at a surface level. For example, Wang and colleagues (2022) investigated morphosyntactic cross-
linguistic influence from the L1 (Spanish or Mandarin) to L2 (English) using functional near infrared
spectroscopy (fNIRS).
Additionally, researchers are adopting newer trends, such as artificial language learning paradigms.
Artificial languages are useful tools to investigate how natural languages are learned, as they are
made up of linguistic rules and constraints that can mimic those found in natural language while con-
trolling the number of variables learners are exposed to (e.g., Ferman, et al., 2009; Morgan-Short,
2020). Artificial languages are taught in a controlled environment where researchers can ensure that
all participants have received equal amounts of input (Braine et al., 1990), and that they have not had
previous exposure to the language (Hulstijn, 1997). L2 learning provides a logical application for the
artificial language learning approach, as all participants would necessarily already have a native lan-
guage and be L2 (or Ln) learners (e.g., Ettlinger, et al., 2016; Robinson, 2005). Thus, these studies are
able to model what is likely to happen during natural SLA in a controlled manner. Studies combining
artificial language learning techniques with investigations of cross-linguistic transfer are gaining in
importance (e.g., Berthelsen et al., 2021; Havas et al., 2017). For instance, Berthelsen and colleagues
(2020) found that speakers of Swedish, a language with word accents (an aspect of some types of
tonal languages) show positive transfer of morphosyntactic tone when learning a novel artificial lan-
guage. Such approaches could be incorporated into neurocognitive studies of cross-linguistic transfer.
Common methods of testing for cross-linguistic transfer effects utilize stimuli items such as
sentences, determiner phrases, and single words. Despite the valuable insight these constructions
provide, it is rarely the case that they are thus spoken, heard, or read in isolation during natural-
istic communication. Therefore, these widely implemented methods are not necessarily ecologic-
ally valid (i.e., representative of natural language comprehension and use). Research has begun to
incorporate more ecologically valid measures (Blanco-Elorrieta & Pylkkänen, 2018); for example,
Alemán Bañón and Martin (2021) implemented a measure that is more reflective of conversational
practices and interactions by providing participants with stories consisting of contextual information
and potential responses.
Recent studies are also touching on the importance of investigating non-linguistic cognitive
processes in conjunction with cross-linguistic transfer (e.g., Verbeek et al., 2022). Inhibitory con-
trol is of particular interest, as speakers are required to contend with interference from the L1 that
may hinder processing in the L2. In addition, by investigating non-linguistic processing, we can
detect what kind of strategies are being used during L2 acquisition and processing. For example, Von
Grebmer Zu Wolfsthurn and colleagues (2021) suggest investigating ERP components such as the
P300, which is thought to underlie more general inhibitory processes. It would also be worthwhile to
determine the precise roles of other cognitive mechanisms like working memory and cognitive flexi-
bility (Diamond, 2013; Valian, 2015) on the process of cross-linguistic transfer from the L1 to the L2
and in the ultimate attainment of the L2.
Lastly, there are several other psycholinguistic factors, such as metalinguistic awareness, pro-
cessing demands, age of acquisition, and proficiency, that often play important roles in the ultimate
attainment of the L2. These factors are often reflected in L2 learning strategies (Bialystok, 1990;
Kellerman, 1995, Lago et al., 2021) and have been shown to interact with cross-linguistic transfer.
296
For example, increased proficiency in the L2 can counter negative transfer effects, such that highly
proficient non-native speakers show native-like processing patterns (Hopp, 2007). Future studies
determining the strength of these effects, how they interact with language similarity and their time-
line in affecting L2 processing are desirable in contributing to a full-fledged understanding of the
mechanisms of cross-linguistic transfer.
Notes
1 Various terms are used throughout the literature to refer to cross-linguistic transfer: transfer, cross-linguistic
influence, language transfer, etc. For the purpose of this chapter, we will refer to this phenomenon as cross-
linguistic transfer, or transfer for short.
2 It should be noted that language-specific structures may also exist: these are not expected to participate in
transfer effects, neither positive nor negative.
3 Falling between behavioral and neurocognitive methods is eye-tracking, which can reveal information
regarding cognitive load and the time-course of processes.
4 It should be noted that participants in this study were L1 Korean, L2 English, L3 Japanese speakers; the
researchers refer to both English and Japanese as L2s.
Further Readings
This article examines behavioral and ERP effects of proficiency and syntactic structure similarity (positive
transfer) and conflict (negative transfer).
sition: A cross-sectional event-related study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 32(5), 822–846. https://doi.
org/10.1162/jocn_a_01528
This article uses an artificial language learning paradigm to investigate cross-linguistic transfer effects with bilin-
gual heritage speakers.
Perreira Soares, S.M., Kupisch, T., & Rothman, J. (2022). Testing potential transfer effects in heritage and adult
L2 bilinguals acquiring a mini grammar as an additional language: An ERP approach. Brain Sciences, 12(5),
669. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci12050669
This article utilizes a more recent neuroimaging technique to provide valuable neurological information regarding
cross-linguistic transfer.
Wang, D., Wang, S., Zinszer, B., Sheng, L., & Jasińska, K. (2022). Cross-linguistic influences of L1 on L2 mor-
phosyntactic processing: An fNIRS study. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 63, 101063. https://doi.org/10.1016/
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Ariane Senécal for her thoughtful edits and suggestions, and the editors of this edition for their
comments.
References
Agebjörn, A. (2021). Swedish noun-phrase structure in Russian-speaking learners: An explorative study of L1
influence and input-frequency effects. Journal of the European Second Language Association, 5(1), 16–29.
http://doi.org/10.22599/jesla.70
Alemán Bañón, J., & Martin, C. (2021). The role of crosslinguistic differences in second language anticipa-
tory processing: An event-related potentials study. Neuropsychologia, 155, 107797. https://doi.org/10.1016/
Andersson, A., Sayehli, S., & Gullberg, M. (2019). Language background affects online word order processing
in second language but not offline. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 22(4), 802–825. http://doi.org/
10.1017/S1366728918000573
297
Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1981). Second language acquisition from a functional perspective. Annals of the
New York Academy of Sciences, 379(1), 190–210.
Berthelsen, S.G., Horne, M., Shtyrov, Y., & Roll, M. (2020). Different neural mechanisms for rapid acquisition
of words with grammatical tone in learners from tonal and non-tonal backgrounds: ERP evidence. Brain
Research, 1729, 146614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2019.146614
Berthelsen, S.G., Horne, M., Shtyrov, Y., & Roll, M. (2021). Phonological transfer effects in novice learners: A
learner’s brain detects grammar errors only if the language sounds familiar. Bilingualism: Language and
Cognition, 24(4), 656–669. http://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728921000134
Best, C., McRoberts, G., & Goodell, E. (2001). Discrimination of non-native consonant contrasts varying in
perceptual assimilation to the listener’s native phonological system. Journal of the Acoustical Society of
America, 109(2), 775–794. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1332378
Bialystok, E. (1990). Communication strategies: A psychological analysis of second language use. Basil
Blackwell.
Blanco-Elorrieta, E., & Pylkkänen, L. (2018). Ecological validity in bilingualism research and the bilingual
advantage. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22(12), 1117–1126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2018.10.001
Bley-Vroman, R. (1989). What is the logical problem of foreign language learning? In S. Gass & J. Schacter
(Eds.), Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition (pp. 41–68. Cambridge University Press.
Bley-Vroman, R. (1990). The logical problem of foreign language learning. Linguistic Analysis, 20, 3–49. http://
doi.org/ 10.1017/CBO9781139524544.005
Braine, M.D.S., Brody, R.E., & Brooks, P.J. (1990). Exploring language acquisition in children with miniature
artificial language: Effects of item and pattern frequency, arbitrary subclasses, and correction. Journal of
Memory and Language, 29, 591–610. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(90)90054-4
Chomsky, N. (1995). Bare phrase structure. In G. Webelhuth (Ed.), Government and binding theory and the min-
imalist program (pp. 71–132). Blackwell.
Clashen, H., & Felser, C. (2006). Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27(1),
3–42. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716406060024
Corder, S.P. (1967). The significance of learners’ errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language
Teaching, 5, 161–170.
Dabrowska, E. (2015). What exactly is Universal Grammar, and has anyone seen it? Frontiers in Psychology, 6,
852. http://doi.org/ 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00852
Dehaene-Lambertz, G. (1997). Electrophysiological correlates of categorical phoneme perception in adults.
NeuroReport, 8, 919–924.
Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 135–168. http://doi.org/10.1146/
annurev-psych-113011-143750
Díaz, B., Erdocia, K., de Menezes, R.F., Mueller, J.L., Sebastián-Gallés, N., & Laka, I. (2016). Electrophysiological
less of age of acquisition. Frontiers in Psychology, 12(7), 133. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00133
Dickson, D., & Pelzl, E. (this volume). Using time-based electro encephalography to investigate second lan-
Dulay, H.C., & Burt, M.K. (1974). Natural sequences in child language acquisition. Language Learning, 24,
Eckman, F., Moravcsik, E., & Writh, J. (1986). Markedness. Plenum Press.
Erdocia, K., & Laka, I. (2018). Negative transfer effects on L2 word order processing. Frontiers in Psychology,
9, 337. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00337
Ettlinger, M., Morgan-Short, K., Faretta-Stutenberg, M., & Wong, P.C.M. (2016). The relationship between arti-
ficial and second language learning. Cognitive Science, 40(4), 822–847. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12257
Ferman, S., Olshtain, E., Schechtman, E., & Karni, A. (2009). The acquisition of a linguistic skill by
adults: Procedural and declarative memory interact in the learning of an artificial morphological rule. Journal
of Neurolinguistics, 22, 384–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2008.12.002
Flege, J.E. (1995). Second-language speech learning: Theory, findings, and problems. In W. Strange (Ed.),
Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-linguistic research (pp. 229–273). York Press.
Flege, J.E., & Bohn, O.-S. (2021). The revised speech learning model (SLM-r). In R. Waylands (Ed.), Second
language speech learning: Theoretical and empirical progress (pp. 3–83). Cambridge University Press.
Flynn, S. (1996). A parameter setting approach to second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.),
Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 121–158). Academic Press.
Flynn, S. (2019). Foreword. In J.M. Gutierrez-Mangado, M. Martinez-Adrián & F. Gallardo-del-Puerto. (Eds.),
Cross-linguistic influence: From empirical evidence to classroom practice (pp. vii–vix). Springer Cham.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22066-2
298
Foucart, A., & Frenck-Mestre, C. (2011). Grammatical gender processing in L2: Electrophysiological evidence
of the effect of L1–L2 syntactic similarity. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 14(3), 379–399. http://
doi.org/10.1017/S136672891000012X
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(1), 226–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jml.2011.07.007
Ghazi-Saidi, L., & Ansaldo, A.I. (2017). The neural correlates of semantic and phonological transfer
effects: Language distance matters. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 20(5), 1080–1094. http://doi.org/
10.1017/S136672891600064X
Havas, V., Laine, M., & Fornells, A.R. (2017). Brain signatures of early lexical and morphological learning of a
new language. Neuropsychologia, 101, 47–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2017.04.005
Hawkins, R., & Chan, C.Y.-H. (1997). The partial availability of Universal Grammar in second language acqui-
sition: The “failed functional features hypothesis.” Second Language Research, 13, 187–226. https://doi.org/
10.1191/026765897671476153
Hopp, H. (2007). Ultimate attainment at the interfaces in second language acquisition: Grammar and pro-
cessing. (Publication No. 9789088910234). [Doctoral dissertation, University of Groningen]. University of
Groningen.
Hulstijn, J.H. (1997). Second language acquisition research in the research lab: Possibilities and limitations.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 131–144. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263197002015
Janssen, B., & Meir, N. (2019). Production, comprehension and repetition of accusative case by monolingual
Russian and bilingual Russian-Dutch and Russian-Hebrew-speaking children. Linguistic Approaches to
Bilingualism, 9(4–5), 736–765. https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.17021.jan
Jeong, H., Sugiura, M., Sassa, Y., Haji, T., Usui, N., Taria, M., Horie, K., Sato, S., & Kawashima, R. (2007).
Effect of syntactic similarity on cortical activation during second language processing: A comparison of
English and Japanese among native Korean trilinguals. Human Brain Mapping, 28, 194–204. https://doi.org/
10.1002/hbm.20269
Keijzer, M., & Seton, B. (this volume). Second language neurocognition and first language attrition. In K. Morgan-
Routledge.
Kellerman, E. (1995). Crosslinguistic influence: Transfer to nowhere? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 15,
125–150. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190500002658
Kotz, S.A. (2009). A critical review of ERP and fMRI evidence on L2 syntactic processing. Brain & Language,
109, 68–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2008.06.002
Kotz, S.A., Holcomb, P.J., & Osterhout, L. (2008). ERPs reveal comparable syntactic sentence processing in
native and non-native readers of English. Acta Psychologia, 128(3), 514–527. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.act
psy.2007.10.003
tion. In K. Morgan-Short & J.G. van Hell (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of second language acquisition
Kutas, M., & Federmeier, K.D. (2011). Thirty years and counting: finding meaning in the N400 component of
the event-related brain potential (ERP). Annual review of psychology, 62, 621–647. https://doi.org/10.1146/
Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S.A. (1980). Event-related brain potentials to semantically inappropriate and surprisingly
large words. Biological Psychology, 11(2), 99–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-0511(80)90046-0
Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across Cultures. Ann Arbor, MI. University of Michigan Press.
Lago, S., Mosca, M., & Stutter Garcia, A. (2021). The role of crosslinguistic influence in multilingual pro-
cessing: Lexicon versus syntax. Language Learning, 71(S1), 163–192. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12412
Luck, S.J. (2014). An introduction to the event-related potential technique. MIT Press.
MacWhinney, B. (1987). Applying the competition model to bilingualism. Applied Psycholinguistics, 8(4), 315–
327. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716400000357
MacWhinney, B. (2012). The logic of the Unified Model. In S. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), Handbook of second
language acquisition (pp. 211–227). Routledge.
sition: A cross-sectional event-related study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 32(5), 822–846. https://doi.
org/10.1162/jocn_a_01528
Midgley, K.J., Holcomb, P.J., & Grainger, J. (2011). Effects of cognate status on word comprehension in second
language learners: An ERP investigation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(7), 1634–1647. https://doi.
org/10.1162/jocn.2010.21463
299
Morgan-Short, K. (2020). Insights into the neural mechanisms of becoming bilingual: A brief synthesis of second
language research with artificial linguistic systems. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 23(1), 87–91.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728919000701
Mueller, J.L. (2005). Electrophysiological correlates of second language processing. Second Language Research,
21(2), 152–172. https://doi.org/10.1191/0267658305sr256oa
Näätänen, R. (2001). The perception of speech sounds by the human brain as reflected by the mismatch nega-
tivity (MMN) and its magnetic equivalent (MMNm). Psychophysiology, 38, 1–21. http://doi.org/10.1111/
1469-8986.3810001
Näätänen, R., Ilmoniemi, R.J., & Alho, K. (1994). Magnetoencephalography in studies of human cognitive brain
function. Trends in Neuroscience, 17, 389–395. https://doi.org/10.1016/0166-2236(94)90048-5
Odlin, T. (2003). Cross-linguistic influence. The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Osterhout, L., & Holcomb, P.J. (1992). Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. Journal of
Memory and Language, 31(6), 785–806. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(92)90039-Z
Perreira Soares, S.M., Kupisch, T., & Rothman, J. (2022). Testing potential transfer effects in heritage and adult
L2 bilinguals acquiring a mini grammar as an additional language: An ERP approach. Brain Sciences, 12(5),
669. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci12050669
Rivera-Gaxiola, M., Csibra, G., Johnson, M.H., & Karmiolff-Smith, A. (2000). Electrophysiological correlates
of crosslinguistic speech perception in native English speakers. Behavioral Brain Research, 111, 13–23.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4328(00)00139-X
Robinson, P. (2005). Cognitive abilities, chunk-strength and frequency effects in implicit artificial grammar and
incidental second language learning: Replications of Reber, Walkenfeld, and Hernstadt (1991) and Knowlton
and Squire (1996) and their relevance for SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 235–268. http://
doi.org/10.1017/S0272263105050126
Rothman, J., Alemán Bañón, J., & González Alonso, J. (2015). Neurolinguistic measures of typological effects
in multilingual transfer: Introducing an ERP methodology. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1087. https://doi.org/
10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01087
Sabourin, L., Brien, C., & Tremblay, M.-C. (2013). Electrophysiology of second language processing: The
past, present and future. In M.P. García Mayo, M. Junkal Gutierrez-Mangado, & M. Martínez Adrián (Eds.)
Contemporary approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 221–242). John Benjamins.
Sabourin, L., & Stowe, L.A. (2008a). Neurobiology of language learning. In B. Spolsky & F.M. Hult (Eds.),
The handbook of educational linguistics (pp. 25–37). Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470694138.ch3
Sabourin, L., & Stowe, L.A. (2008b). Second language processing: When are first and second languages processed
similarly. Second Language Research, 24(3), 397–430. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658308090186
Sabourin, L., Stowe, L.A., & de Haan, G.J. (2006). Transfer effects in learning a second language grammatical
gender system. Second Language Research, 22(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1191/0267658306sr259oa
Schwartz, B.D., & Sprouse, R. (1994). Word order and nominative case in nonnative language acquisition. In T.
Hoekstra & B. Schwartz (Eds.), Language acquisition studies in generative grammar (pp. 317–368). John
Benjamins.
Serratrice, L. (2013). Cross-linguistic influence in bilingual development: Determinants and mechanisms.
Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 3, 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.3.1.01ser
Shirai, Y. (2019). Connectionism and second language acquisition. Routledge.
language grammar: An event-related potential investigation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(2),
173–204. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263105050102
Towell, R., & Hawkins, R. (1994). Approaches to second language acquisition. Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Tsimpli, I.M., & Roussou, A. (1991). Parameter resetting in L2? UCL Working Paper in Linguistics, 3, 149–169.
Valian, V. (2015). Bilingualism and cognition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 18(1). 3–24. http://doi.
org/10.1017/S1366728914000522
Van Bergen, G., & Flecken, M. (2017). Putting things in new places: Linguistic experience modulates the pre-
dictive power of placement verb semantics. Journal of Memory and Language, 92, 26–42. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jml.2016.05.003
Verbeek, L., Vissers, C., Blumenthal, M., & Verhoeven, L. (2022). Cross-language transfer and attentional con-
trol in early bilingual speech. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 6(2), 450–468. 1–19.
https://doi.org/10.1044/2021_JSLHR-21-00104
Von Grebmer Zu Wolfsthurn, S.V.G., Robles, L.P., & Schiller, N.O. (2021). Cross-linguistic interference
in late language learners: An ERP study. Brain and Language, 221, 104993. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.bandl.2021.104993
300
Wang, D., Wang, S., Zinszer, B., Sheng, L., & Jasińska, K. (2022). Cross-linguistic influences of L1 on L2 mor-
phosyntactic processing: An fNIRS study. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 63, 101063. https://doi.org/10.1016/
setting of grammatical processing in the bilingual brain. Neuron, 37, 159–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0896-6273(02)01150-9
Werker, J.F., & Tees, R.C. (1984a). Cross-language speech perception: Evidence for perceptual reorganiza-
tion during the first year of life. Infant Behavior and Development, 7(1), 49–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0163-6383(84)80022-3
Werker, J.F., & Tees, R.C. (1984b). Phonemic and phonetic factors in adult cross-language speech perception.
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 75, 1866–1878. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.390988
White, L. (1985a). The acquisition of parameterized grammar: subjacency in second language acquisition.
Second Language Research, 1, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/02676583850010010
White, L. (1985b). The “pro-drop” parameter in adult second language acquisition. Language Learning, 35,
Whitman, R., & Jackson, K. (1972). The unpredictability of contrastive analysis. Language Learning, 22, 29–41.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1972.tb00071
Xu, E.S., & Wong, P.C.M. (this volume). First language/second language cross-linguistic influence on third
language acquisition via neurocognitive memory systems. In K. Morgan-Short & J.G. van Hell (Eds.), The
301
22
SECOND LANGUAGE
NEUROCOGNITION AND FIRST
LANGUAGE ATTRITION

The research field of language attrition is unique in that the initiation of few other research realms can
be marked so distinctly. In 1980, the Loss of Language Skills conference organized at the University
of Pennsylvania and the ensuing edited volume by Richard Lambert and Barbara Freed (1982) marked
the start of empirical work in a research field that, until that time, had mainly generated interest based
on self-perceived changes in mastery and accessibility of the first language or additional languages
as new languages were being learned. The 1982 volume, which targeted second language loss after
periods of non-use, did not yet clearly distinguish between irretrievable language loss and the tem-
porary inaccessibility of earlier learned languages.
In subsequent years, this very distinction formed the main tenet in the development of the research
field. The term language attrition was introduced, setting temporarily inaccessible language firmly
apart from the language loss that may characterize pathological settings and processes following
neurological or psychological cases associated with stroke, brain trauma, or normal aging (cf. Köpke,
2004 for a more detailed account). First language (L1) attrition also came to be distinctly studied
from second (L2) or foreign language attrition, based on the premise that the two “share termin-
ology, [but] there are also a number of differences that have to be clarified” (Mehotcheva & Köpke,
2019, p. 332). L1 attrition came to be more widely studied compared to L2 attrition, but defining L1
attrition proved difficult, resulting in a “terminological jungle” (Köpke, 2004) and the phenomenon
was mostly defined based on what it did not entail. The most commonly used definition to this day
describes L1 attrition as the non-pathological decline in a language that had previously been mastered
and used as the dominant language by an individual (Köpke & Schmid, 2004). It is important to note
that the field of L1 attrition is highly interdisciplinary (cf. Raffaldini, 1983), and moves “at the cross-
roads of brain, mind, and society” (Köpke, 2007). It is counterintuitive, then, that a neurocognitive
perspective on attrition has only relatively recently been introduced. Indeed, Gallo et al. (2021), in a
recent overview of the neurological correlates of L1 attrition, note specifically the “salient lacuna in
this field, namely the neurocognitive mechanisms underlying linguistic attrition” (p. 2).
In this chapter, we explore L1 attrition specifically from a neurocognitive perspective. We depart
from the intricate definition of the field and explore—through historical perspectives and current state
of the art—whether this difficulty may not partly be due to the fact that language attrition cannot be
seen in isolation from more broadly construed multilingual perspectives.
302 DOI: 10.4324/9781003190912-28

Second Language Neurocognition and First Language Attrition
Historical Perspectives of Neurocognitive Approaches to L1 Attrition

Despite the earliest (1982) endeavor to adopt an interdisciplinary perspective, including calls to
incorporate neurocognitive approaches and research methods (cf. Raffaldini, 1983), language attrition
has mostly been studied using linguistic, applied linguistic and sociolinguistic approaches. Linguistic
accounts of attrition have traditionally been concerned with the question how linguistic proper-
ties change as a function of specific attrition settings, typically pointing to typological distinctions
between the L1 and L2 and using language contact models to interpret research findings (Schmid &
De Leeuw, 2019). Indeed, attrition was first viewed as “a special case of variability” (Anderson, 1982,
p. 86). More applied research questions have centered on the consequences of (L2) language attrition
for language teaching practices, asking how language teaching practices could be geared towards
long-term language retention and maintenance (cf. Kupske, 2019). With sociolinguistic-oriented
attrition studies, finally, came the realization that attrition is manifested radically differently in indi-
viduals, warranting a closer inspection into the combined “extralinguistic, personal, and individual
predictors” that drive the attrition process (Schmid & Cherciov, 2019, p. 268).
Köpke and Keijzer (2019) describe that it took 20 years since the inauguration of the field for the
first collection of papers specifically detailing neurolinguistic attrition dimensions to be published.
The premise that underlies psycho-and neurolinguistic investigations of language attrition is that
attrition cannot be seen in isolation from processes and mechanisms fundamental to human cogni-
tion. After all, attrition occurs in the mind and brain. Köpke and Keijzer (2019) detail that one of the
first psycholinguistically inspired attrition questions was related to the language competence versus
performance dichotomy (cf. Bialystok & Sharwood Smith, 1985, for a more detailed account); to
what extent do changes in language use and mastery that are witnessed in attriters reflect underlying
changes in language representation and/or to what extent are underlying representations intact but are
the fluctuations in language use due to competition (two languages competing for limited cognitive
resources)?
Once psycho-and neurolinguistic approaches became more commonplace in attrition work, one
of the challenges was to interweave what we know about language processing and access with psy-
chosocial accounts (see also Bylund, 2019, for an elaboration on psychosocial effects underlying lan-
guage attrition): how do life events and extralinguistic, highly individual factors modulate language
accessibility at a neurocognitive level? Integrating psycho-and neurolinguistic models and theoret-
ical frameworks with sociolinguistic ones has proven challenging in the broader realm of multilin-
gualism studies as well (De Bot, 2019).
In relation to this question, one of the most robust findings in language attrition research is that
there are profound qualitative and quantitative differences in the attested attrition and online L1 pro-
cessing between those speakers who, due to sudden and impactful life events beyond their control,
find themselves in situations where they are abruptly cut off from their L1 environment versus those
who continue to reside in their home language environment until adulthood and have more agency in
language dominance shift patterns. Within the former category, the case of international adoptees has
come to be widely investigated (cf. Pierce et al., 2019, for an overview), but extends to the well-cited
case of German Jews who fled the Nazi regime at different times before, during, and after World War
II and were found to show different degrees of attrition based on how traumatic their experiences had
been, reported in Schmid (2002).
In more recent years, inspired by an integrated account where the neurocognitive bases for attrition
are studied in conjunction with psychosocial factors, a tenet to place attrition on the more general
multilingualism research spectrum can be seen. Indeed, multilingual language processing studies
have vastly advanced in recent years (reflected in the contributions in the current volume). Integrating
and embedding language attrition within this framework may at first glance seem as undoing the
work of carving a research niche for language attrition but instead creates a bidirectional research
303
opportunity: rather than Anderson (1982) describing attrition as “a special case of variability,” it is
a special case of multilingual language processing and use, shedding light on more general multilin-
gual models. Moreover, insights into the neurofunctional and cognitive bases of language can greatly
inform the mechanisms underlying language attrition.
Theoretical Perspectives: The Potential of Neuroscience

Insights to Shape Attrition Research
From a neurocognitive perspective, attrition is viewed as a language processing, memory, or brain
mechanism phenomenon. With that, attrition work has greatly profited from recent advances in both
neuroscience methods and models, but much unexplored potential remains. Indeed, notions based on
neurocognitive foundations, such as language activation and inhibition, have been foundational in
psycholinguistic and neurolinguistic attrition research, but other neuroscientific insights have hardly
been taken into account. Köpke and Keijzer (2019) point, for instance, to research with monolinguals
that have resulted in models of the neural substrate and, crucially, the time course of language pro-
cessing (e.g. Friederici, 2012; Hickok, 2014; Price, 2012). Although these models are hard to trans-
late directly to multilingual speakers, an attempt may well prove worthwhile as the time course of
language processing changes in attrition is crucial.
But perhaps the greatest potential in transferring neuroscience insights to attrition settings lies
in the construct of neural plasticity. In the realm of language development, critical periods have
received abundant attention; a later onset of language acquisition has traditionally been associated
with compromised native-like attainment (cf. Abrahamsson & Hyltenstam, 2009). But, reversely, it
has been claimed that adults, having reached full language maturation, are less susceptible to attrition
than children, who may only have partly developed their first language when attrition set in. This
has led Bylund (2019) to postulate principles that relate age effects to attrition, but he adds that “an
important question that is open to further research concerns the mechanisms underlying age effects in
attrition” (p. 287). Illustrative in this context is neuroscience work demonstrating that brain pathways
are malleable and adaptive when new skills (including language skills) are learned and that rapid func-
tional and structural changes can be attested in children as well as adults. This has been shown both
at a micro-level involving the learning of new speech sounds (see Myers & Furhmeister, this volume)
but also more broadly in learning novel languages (see Ekerdt et al., this volume). While most brain
flexibility has been reported at the macroscopic level, meaning in changed brain volume and/or func-
tional connectivity, recent explorations have also found the neurobiological bases of these adaptations
to be observable at the cellular level (Pliatsikas et al., 2021). These authors found metabolite con-
centration differences between mono and multilingual speakers specifically in the basal ganglia, a
structure known to be susceptible to restructuring following multilingual experiences. Important for
the context of attrition is that Pliatsikas, in his Dynamic Restructuring Model, postulates that such
changes are not irreversible: structural brain adaptations may be undone depending on different lan-
guage input and exposure patterns (Pliatsikas, 2020; see also Korenar & Pliatsikas, this volume).
The potential of applying neuroscientific evidence to attrition also lies in the use of innovative
tools and methods of data collection, extending attrition work that has so far mainly relied on behav-
ioral evidence to both structural and connectivity-related brain imaging data (see Kousaie & Klein,
this volume; see Rossi et al., this volume) Findings from Osterhout et al. (2006, 2008) add to this
by suggesting that event-related potentials (ERPs; see Dickson & Pelzl, this volume) allow us to see
changes arising as a function of classroom L2 instruction in the brain’s electrical activity. The poten-
tial of the ERP metric has, more recently, been pointed out for second and foreign language attrition
(Osterhout et al., 2019), showing that the ERP neural indicator of grammatical processing (the P600)
“decreased in magnitude during the attrition period, whereas lexical sensitivity (reflected by the N400
304
effect) increased over time” (p. 415; see also the section “Critical research outcomes and current
empirical knowledge” below).

Neuroimaging methods, as opposed to behavioral measures, are sensitive enough to pick up changes
in language processing ahead of overt changes in behavior (McLaughlin et al., 2004). For a long time,
attrition was regarded a long-term and gradual process; in guidelines, researchers were recommended
to observe a minimum of 10 years of subjects being away from the home language environment and
immersed in a new language environment (Schmid, 2011). But with the advent of neuroimaging
techniques, bidirectional (L1 to L2 and vice versa) influences are detectable at much shorter time
intervals. Novel skill learning studies other than language show that functional neural effects may be
most profound in initial stages of familiarization with the new skills, whereas structural changes most
likely follow after prolonged periods of exposure and input, but can also set in quicker than has previ-
ously been assumed (see e.g. Li et al., 2014 for an overview). This has provided an important impetus
for researchers to emphasize the need for an integrative account of attrition, showing that what is
labeled attrition may have its origin in general memory retrieval processes; Linck and Kroll (2019)
go as far as to postulate that good language learners may also be good forgetters; they allow the L2 to
impact on the accessibility and use of the L1 at early stages of L2 mastery. Based on psycholinguistic
laboratory studies and relying on so-called retrieval induced forgetting paradigms, they show that
more local effects of having difficulty accessing the L1 after having been asked to name items in an
L2 for a set number of times may not be fundamentally different from global effects that ensue from
prolonged immersion periods. By consequence, attrition effects may even be detected in the absence
of a clearly marked shift from an L1 to L2 environment and can also characterize language learning in
subjects who still reside in their dominant language environment (see also Bice & Kroll, 2015). The
fact that attrition can happen in the absence of a radical shift in language use patterns or immersion
experiences is not new; already in 2002, Van Hell and Dijkstra posited that foreign language know-
ledge can influence native language performance, even in exclusively native contexts. This finding
is extended by Chang (2015, 2019), who looked at L1 phonetic drift following a brief but intense
foreign language course, where he ascribed some of these effects to L2 exposure and some to L2 use
(see Keijzer, 2020, for a more detailed summary of these studies).
Based on these insights, a refinement of the original definition of language attrition seems to be in
order. Rather than the non-pathological decline in a language that had previously been mastered and
used as the dominant language by an individual (Köpke & Schmid, 2004; see Introduction), attrition
from a neurocognitive and integrative multilingual perspective is perhaps better conceptualized as a
phenomenon that cannot be seen in isolation from L2 development. This renewed approach in turn
bears relevance to two of the most commonly invoked questions in the context of attrition: 1) Is L1
attrition primarily caused by reduced L1 use or increased L2 use?; and 2) Is the phenomenon of L1
attrition temporary or permanent? In relation to the first question, Keijzer (2020) shows that studies
have pointed to both options in the past but that psycholinguistic and neurolinguistic attrition studies
have emphasized that “competition in processing multiple languages in one mind more so than
changes to the L1 alone” (p. 223) should be the main object of study in attrition work. In response
to the second question, too, a strong position of L1 attrition leading to irreversible changes is most
likely untenable based on insights from neurocognitive investigations of attrition. There is additional
evidence of the L1, after years of non-use and apparent attrition, resurfacing in older adulthood.
This phenomenon, labeled “language reversion,” has been empirically investigated in Schmid and
Keijzer (2009). But converging evidence is also found in other work, ranging from once suppressed
L1s becoming accessible again following hypnosis (Footnick, 2007), to retraining studies of once
305
lost languages in international adoptees (Zhou, 2015). Collectively, these findings invoke the so-
called savings paradigm, which stipulates that languages learned at an earlier life stage leave a trace
of some sort and are quicker and less effortful to relearn than mastering an entirely new language
(see Keijzer & de Bot, 2018, for more details). But to fully answer the (ir)reversibility question, both
functional and structural brain data obtained through methods such as (f)MRI are needed, as will be
discussed next.

While neurocognitive approaches have helped shape and redefine both the research field and con-
ceptualization of language attrition, empirical work investigating attrition using neurocognitive
(including neuroimaging) techniques has only very sparsely augmented behavioral set-ups. As a
result, mechanisms of attrition as a language processing, memory or brain mechanism “still remain
speculative” (Köpke & Keijzer, 2019, p. 64). This section details all the work (that we are aware of)
investigating the neural underpinnings of attrition.
In the realm of language processing, a construct that has formed the foundation of many attrition
investigations is that of competition. Gallo et al. (2021) claim that, as a consequence of “the tendency,
intrinsic to our brain, to favor cost-efficient processes: to relieve the cognitive burden on the linguistic
system, an attriter would unconsciously shift to a less costly simpler construction common to both
languages” (p. 4). Under the umbrella of competition, the mirror notions of activation and inhibition
(see Sharwood Smith, 2019, for details) set the stage for many attrition investigations that specific-
ally tested the tenability of Paradis’ (2007) Activation Threshold Hypothesis (ATH). The underlying
tenets of the ATH are recency and frequency of use. With language use patterns shifting in attrition
situations, less frequently and recently used language items (which can be words, but also gram-
matical features or even sounds) are claimed to become harder to activate and are inhibited instead,
allegedly leading to greater response time latencies and increased error rates on behavioral tasks.
Using the ATH as a framework, Köpke (2002) found that grammar was not as affected by frequency
or recency effects compared to the lexical domain. This was partially corroborated by Gürel (2004),
who added that frequency effects only seem to emerge on the basis of competition if there are in fact
competing grammatical structures in a speaker’s two (or more) languages. As a more general finding,
then, cumulative efforts of past studies have not found a uniform frequency or recency of use effect
(detailed in Schmid, 2019) and instead indicate that the more general construct of competition has
greater explanatory value in attrition settings. That competition underlies multilingual processing
in a broader sense is underscored by Dussias et al. (2019), who detail the interactive nature of the
multilingual system through their review of eye-tracking methods. They posit that the eye-tracking
technique can help shed more light on attrition as a language processing phenomenon.
Moving from attrition as a processing phenomenon to cognitive and brain mechanisms underlying
attrition, a relevant cognitive psychological framework to invoke in addition to retrieval induced for-
getting and the savings paradigm (see section “Critical issues and topics”) is catastrophic interference,
whereby the sudden introduction of new information deeply impacts earlier stored representations
(McClosky & Cohen, 1989). These frameworks were construed outside of the confines of linguis-
tics and later applied to attrition settings, because attrition too pertains to memory structures and
to retrieving linguistic memories in the face of competing (L2) information. But only a handful of
studies so far have investigated the neural correlates of such cognitive memory systems, for instance
by means of ERP methods.
The main aim in using ERP methods in attrition studies is to explore if online L1 comprehen-
sion can ever become non-native like. ERP methods can advance our understanding of attrition
phenomena as they can detect subtle processing changes at early attrition stages without requiring
306
an overt behavioral response (Steinhauer & Kasparian, 2019). Studying grammatical gender,
Bergmann et al. (2015) found that L1 German attriters overall still processed gender violations
in a native-like manner, eliciting expected P600 effects upon encountering an ungrammatical
German article choice, although in attiters this was followed by a biphasic pattern (an N400 that
preceded the significant P600). This study was part of a larger study focusing on grammatical
gender violations in a cross-sectional design comparing monolingual speakers, L2 learners and L1
attriters of various European languages (cf. Schmid et al., 2016, for a full outline). A robust and
expected P600 effect was thus elicited in L1 speakers and L1 attriters; the same pattern was attested
for some advanced L2 learners but they showed substantial variability as a function of how old they
were when they first started acquiring the language (Meulman et al., 2015). Focusing on L1 Italian
attriters immersed in an Anglophone environment, Kasparian et al. (2014, 2017) investigated
the processing of morpho-syntactic agreement violations. They found distinctive patterns for the
attriters versus their monolingual L1 Italian controls but, crucially, the degree of continued L1
Italian exposure in the attriters positively correlated with convergence in ERP patterns to the non-
attrited baseline performance. Steinhauer and Kasparian (2019) interpret these findings and their
non-uniformity as pointing to methodological complexities as well as discrepancies in subject
selection across studies. In a later conceptual review paper by Steinhauer and Kasparian (2020),
the implications of these (diverging) ERP attrition data for our understanding of the plasticity of
the bilingual brain are discussed.
Focusing on the lexical domain, Kasparian and Steinhauer (2016) found a two-way distinction
between what they termed high-proficient (i.e. showing little attrition) and low-proficient (showing
considerable attrition) L1 speakers of Italian who were immersed in an L2 English environment: the
low-proficient attriters did not uniformly show an expected N400 effect when encountering a lexical
violation in their L1. This finding is corroborated by Datta (2010), who tested L1 Bengali speakers
immersed in the US. Their ERP signatures showed a more negative deflation to English but also to
Bengali words compared to native speakers of both languages. In short, the scant ERP evidence to
date shows that L1 attriters can come to process their mother tongue in a non-native like manner, and
that there is a difference among participants at various time points of their attrition trajectories.
Although ERP techniques can aptly tap into language processing differences between attriting
and non-attriting individuals, and detail how these deviances are manifested at different time axes of
the attrition process, they cannot say anything about the brain localization of such effects. To fully
answer the question whether attrition is permanent or temporary (see section “Critical issues and
topics”), brain data are needed for a holistic picture of attrition, both functional brain data that are
obtained while participants carry out a given task, and structural data that yield anatomic pictures
and measures of white matter integrity. (Functional) Magnetic Resonance Imaging ((f)MRI) is a non-
invasive brain imaging technique that provides information about brain structures, on task and at rest,
on the basis of blood demands in given brain regions following required energy consumption (for
an introduction to this technique, see Kousaie & Klein, this volume). Seminal and much-cited fMRI
attrition work comes from Christophe Pallier’s lab. Pallier and colleagues examined neural traces of
an abandoned L1 in Korean international adoptees being adopted into Francophone families between
the ages of 4;0 and 9;0 (Pallier, 2007; Ventureyra et al., 2004). The findings corroborated earlier
obtained behavioral results that reflected no recollection or heightened sensitivity to Korean sounds
in the adoptees as compared to their non-adopted Francophone peers. A somewhat different picture
emerged from a study by Pierce et al. (2014, 2019) targeting neural traces of Mandarin in Chinese
international adoptees who were adopted at the mean age of 1;2. As opposed to a group of controls,
the Chinese adoptees did show some activation in specifically the left planum temporale (PT) when
listening to Mandarin three-syllable phrases. The extent of this activation, moreover, depended on
how much exposure to Chinese they had had prior to adoption. These results were taken to denote that
307
“early experiences unconsciously influence neural processing for years, if not indefinitely” (Pierce
et al, 2014, p. 17314). The discrepancy in findings between these studies set aside, it needs to be
pointed out that these are extreme L1 attrition cases, where language suppression may also have been
at force due to potentially traumatic childhood experiences (see Footnick, 2007).
Rossi et al. (2019) plea for (f)MRI to be employed at early stages of L1 attrition, capturing attrition
as “a flexible, continuous adaptation of the language system that is characterized by modulations
in the linguistic, cognitive, and neural functioning of the L1” (p. 171). They formulate attrition
predictions based on (f)MRI work such as that by Guo et al. (2011) that rendered higher levels of
brain activation when L1 naming followed L2 naming in blocked naming trials rather than the other
way around. This robust psycholinguistic finding is reflective of greater cognitive effort that is needed
to switch back into the dominant L1 following L2 use. Rossi et al. (2019) formulate the need for
future attrition work to build on these results. But with both the technique and the analysis of (f)MRI
data being quite complex, it is necessary to ask the right questions and this has proven particularly
difficult to do in attrition research (cf. Köpke, 2021; see Gallo et al. (2021) for a research agenda on
attrition that includes functional and structural brain changes).
Pedagogical Implications
Against the backdrop of what we now know about attrition as a processing, memory, and brain phe-
nomenon, perhaps the most substantial implications to follow from neurocognitive attrition insights
are pedagogical in nature and specifically relate to the foreign language classroom. What stands out
here is the bold claim that good language learners may also be good forgetters (see section “Critical
issues and topics”). This would speak to a meta approach in the foreign language classroom: making
learners aware how their brain adapts to learning multiple languages and explicate how this dynam-
ically changes as a function of increased or decreased foreign language exposure, learning, and pro-
ficiency. Such an approach of “learning about language learning” while simultaneously developing
proficiency is advocated in recent curriculum reforms highlighting what has been labeled “a human
ecological language pedagogy” (Levine, 2020). Indeed, the current modern foreign language class-
room is still predominantly skills based. Depending on the context of language classrooms around the
world, the focus is either on the receptive (reading and listening) or productive (speaking and writing)
skills dimension (see Magyar et al., 2022 for an overview). Learning about language and how lan-
guage development shapes and restructures both the L2 but also the L1 as several languages compete
in one mind may help boost skills training.
This need is underscored by the fact that bilingual education or foreign-language medium edu-
cation through content and language integrated learning (CLIL; see Coyle, 2018 for more informa-
tion) have grown in popularity. In CLIL curricula, a portion of content courses is taught through the
medium of a second or foreign language. Concerns have been raised as to whether such high-intensity
input settings have an impact on the native language (see explorations in Tedick & Lyster, 2019);
insights from especially neurocognitive and psychological studies looking into first language attrition
can elucidate whether these concerns are justified and can provide a scientific perspective on the
bidirectional influences between the first and additional languages and the time course during which
these fluctuations tend to settle back into more stable patterns.

This chapter has highlighted the trend to approach attrition from a holistic perspective, viewing attrition
as a dynamic interplay between the first and second or additional languages that can characterize both
308
radical shifts in language use patterns (following, for instance, an international move), but also more
subtle processes of learning new languages while still residing in the dominant L1 environment.
The neurocognitive turn in attrition, which has taken some time to become established, is set to fur-
ther develop in years to come; researchers have specifically emphasized the need to understand in
more detail the neural correlates of attrition, through techniques such as (f)MRI, but also EEG and
magnetoencephalography (MEG) (Gallo et al., 2021; Rossi et al., 2019). More specifically, a future
research avenue for the field that has been proposed is a combined approach of (f)MRI and more
task-independent neural oscillations recorded using MEG or high-density EEG (for more details on
this technique, see Mottarella & Prat, this volume). But tools are merely instruments and in order to
use neuroscientific advances to the fullest, the right questions have to be asked in relation to attrition
to dictate which method or combination of techniques are best employed.
Related to this, attrition researchers, in applying neurocognitive and neuroimaging methods,
have been prompted to remain mindful of what has been called psychosocial underpinnings of
attrition (Köpke, 2021, see also section “Critical issues and topics”) and the individual differences
that characterize attrition narratives. This aligns with other work in multilingualism showing that
individual multilingual histories and (current) use patterns better predict any cognitive advantage
that comes from juggling several languages in one mind than merely the number of languages a
person has ever acquired in life (cf. Gullifer & Titone, 2020). In short, two trends likely dictate the
future of attrition research: 1) an integrative approach that embeds attrition within the spectrum
of multilingualism research; and 2) the use of neurocognitive approaches and tools that allow for
a more detailed look at how the native language fluctuates as another language or other languages
compete for selection in one mind. Neural correlates of attrition as they emerge as a function of an
individual’s psychosocial multilingual reality can then move from the speculative domain towards
empirical substantiation. Under these premises, the field of attrition can benefit and benefit from
multilingual theorizing.
To do justice to an integrative account of attrition, where behavioral tests are augmented by
neuroimaging tools, a shift in data analysis methods is also in order. Past attrition studies have noted
the difficulties in finding a good native, non-attrited reference point (cf. Schmid, 2011), but this need
is less stringent when a perspective shift comes to focus on fluctuations in multilingual processing,
the multilingual mind and brain. Moving away from group comparisons, the dynamic and non-linear
fluctuations in multilingual systems can be captured in data analysis tools that encapsulate such com-
plexities. Generalized Additive Mixed Models (GAMMs) are one such way to do that and are prom-
ising for attrition findings as well (cf. Miwa & Baayen, 2021, for an introduction to this technique
based on bilingual visual word recognition data).
Further Readings
A state-of-the-art handbook edited by leading researchers in the field of attrition:
Schmid, M. & Köpke, B. (2019). The Oxford Handbook of Language Attrition. Oxford University Press.
One of the best introductions towards an integrative neurocognitive and psychosocial account of attrition:
Köpke, B. (2007). Language attrition at the crossroads of brain, mind, and society. In B. Köpke, M.S.
Schmid, M. Keijzer, & S. Dostert (Eds.), Language attrition: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 9–37). John
Benjamins.
An epistemological issue of the journal Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, comprising a keynote paper by
Schmid and Köpke on the relevance of first language attrition to theories of bilingual development, followed by
a number of commentaries by attrition researchers:
Schmid, M.S., & Köpke, B. (2017). The relevance of first language attrition to theories of bilingual development.
Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 7(6), 637–667. https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.17058.sch
309
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the editors and anonymous reviewer for their very helpful comments on the first draft of
this chapter.
References
Abrahamsson, N., & Hyltenstam, K. (2009). Age of onset and nativelikeness in a second language: Listener
perception versus linguistic scrutiny. Language Learning, 59(2), 249–306. https://doi.org/10.1111/
J.1467-9922.2009.00507.X
Anderson, R.W. (1982). Determining the linguistic attributes of language attrition. In R.D. Lambert & B.F. Freed
(Eds.), The loss of language skills (pp. 83–118). Newbury House.
Bergmann, C., Meulman, N., Stowe, L.A., Sprenger, S.A., & Schmid, M.S. (2015). Prolonged L2 immersion
engenders little change in morphosyntactic processing of bilingual natives. NeuroReport, 26(17), 1065–1070.
https://doi.org/10.1097/WNR.0000000000000469
Bialystok, E., & Sharwood Smith, M. (1985). Interlanguage is not a state of mind: An evaluation of the con-
struct for second-language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 6(2), 101–117. https://doi.org/10.1093/APPLIN/
6.2.101
Bice, K., & Kroll, J.F. (2015). Native language change during early stages of second language learning.
NeuroReport, 26(16), 966–971. https://doi.org/10.1097/WNR.0000000000000453
Bylund, E. (2019). Age effects in language attrition. In M.S. Schmid, & B. Köpke (Eds.), The Oxford handbook
of language attrition (pp. 276–287). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/OXFORDHB/978019
8793595.013.23
Chang, C.B. (2015). Accounting for multicompetence and restructuring in the study of speech. The Journal of the
Acoustical Society of America, 137(4), 2383. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4920671
Chang, C.B. (2019). Language change and linguistic inquiry in a world of multicompetence: Sustained phonetic
drift and its implications for behavioral linguistic research. Journal of Phonetics, 74, 96–113. https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.WOCN.2019.03.001
Coyle, D. (2018). The place of CLIL in (bilingual) education. Theory into Practice, 57(3), 166–176. https://doi.
org/10.1080/00405841.2018.1459096
Datta, H. (2010). Brain bases for first language lexical attrition in Bengali-English speakers [PhD thesis]. City
University of New York.
De Bot, K. (2019). Defining and assessing multilingualism. In J.W. Schwieter, & M. Paradis (Eds.), The hand-
book of the neuroscience of multilingualism (pp. 1–18). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119387725.CH1
guage. In K. Morgan-Short. & J.G. van Hell (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition
Dussias, P.E., Valdés Kroff, J.R., Johns, M., & Villegas, Á. (2019). How bilingualism affects syntactic processing
in the native language. In M.S. Schmid, & B. Köpke (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of language attrition
(pp. 97–107). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/OXFORDHB/9780198793595.013.9
Ekerdt, C., Takashima, A., & McQueen, J.M. (this volume). Memory consolidation in second language
neurocognition. In K. Morgan-Short, & J.G. van Hell (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language
Footnick, R. (2007). A hidden language: Recovery of a “lost” language is triggered by hypnosis. In B. Köpke,
M.S. Schmid, M. Keijzer, & S. Dostert (Eds.), Language attrition: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 169–187).
John Benjamins.
Friederici, A.D. (2012). The cortical language circuit: from auditory perception to sentence comprehension.
Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(5), 262–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TICS.2012.04.001
Gallo, F., Bermudez- Margaretto, B., Shtyrov, Y., Abutalebi, J., Kreiner, H., Chitaya, T., Petrova, A., &
Myachykov, A. (2021). First language attrition: What it is, what it isn’t, and what it can be. Frontiers in
Human Neuroscience, 15, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.3389/FNHUM.2021.686388
Gullifer, J.W., & Titone, D. (2020). Characterizing the social diversity of bilingualism using language entropy.
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 23, 283–294. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728919000026
Guo, T., Liu, H., Misra, M., & Kroll, J.F. (2011). Local and global inhibition in bilingual word production: fMRI
evidence from Chinese–English bilinguals. NeuroImage, 56(4), 2300–2309. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.NEU
ROIMAGE.2011.03.049
Gürel, A. (2004). Selectivity in L2-induced L1 attrition: a psycholinguistic account. Journal of Neurolinguistics,
17(1), 53–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0911-6044(03)00054-X
310
Hickok, G. (2014). Towards an integrated psycholinguistic, neurolinguistic, sensorimotor framework for

speech production. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29(1), 52–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690
965.2013.852907
Kasparian, K., & Steinhauer, K. (2016). Confusing similar words: ERP correlates of lexical-semantic processing
in first language attrition and late second language acquisition. Neuropsychologia, 93, 200–217. https://doi.
org/10.1016/J.NEUROPSYCHOLOGIA.2016.10.007
Kasparian, K., Vespignani, F., & Steinhauer, K. (2014). The case of a non-native-like first language: ERP evi-
dence of first language (L1) attrition in lexical and morphosyntactic processing. International Journal of
Psychophysiology, 94(2), 159–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJPSYCHO.2014.08.700
Kasparian, K., Vespignani, F., & Steinhauer, K. (2017). First language attrition induces changes in online mor-
phosyntactic processing and re-analysis: An ERP study of number agreement in complex Italian sentences.
Cognitive Science, 41(7), 1760–1803. https://doi.org/10.1111/COGS.12450
Keijzer, M. (2020). First language attrition in the twenty-first century: How continued L1 contact in the digital
age fuels language attrition theorizing. In E. Adamou, & Y. Matras (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of lan-
guage contact (pp. 221–233). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351109154-15
Keijzer, M., & de Bot, K. (2018). Unlearning and relearning of languages from childhood to later adulthood.
In A. de Houwer, & L. Ortega (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of bilingualism (pp. 67–286). Cambridge
University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316831922.015
Köpke, B. (2002). Activation thresholds and non-pathological first language attrition. In F. Fabbro (Ed.),
Advances in the neurolinguistics of bilingualism (pp. 119–142). Forum.
Köpke, B. (2004). Neurolinguistic aspects of attrition. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 17(1), 3–30. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0911-6044(03)00051-4
Köpke, B. (2007). Language attrition at the crossroads of brain, mind, and society. In B. Köpke, M.S. Schmid,
M. Keijzer, & S. Dostert (Eds.), Language attrition: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 9–37). John Benjamins.
Köpke, B. (2021). Language attrition: A matter of brain plasticity? Language, Interaction and Acquisition, 12(1),
110–132. https://doi.org/10.1075/LIA.20015.KOP
Köpke, B., & Keijzer, M. (2019). Introduction to psycholinguistic and neurolinguistic approaches to language
attrition. In M.S. Schmid, & B. Köpke (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of language attrition (pp. 61–72). Oxford
University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/OXFORDHB/9780198793595.013.6
Köpke, B., & Schmid, M.S. (2004). Language attrition: the next phase. In M.S. Schmid, B. Köpke, M. Keijzer, &
L. Weilemar (Eds.), Language attrition: Interdisciplinary perspectives on methodological issues (pp. 1–43).
John Benjamins.
Korenar, M. & Pliatsikas, C. (this volume). The dynamic restructuring model and second language. In K. Morgan-
Short, & J. G. van Hell (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and neurolinguistics.
Routledge.
tion. In K. Morgan-Short, & J.G. van Hell (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition
Kupske, F.F. (2019). The impact of language attrition on language teaching: the dynamics of linguistic know-
ledge retention and maintenance in multilingualism. Ilha Do Desterro, 72(3), 311–329. https://doi.org/https://
doi.org/10.5007/2175-8026.2019v72n3p3n
Lambert, R.D., & Freed, B. (1982). The Loss of Language Skills. Newbury House.
Levine, G.S. (2020). Supplementary issue; Monograph issue; A human ecological language pedagogy. The
Modern Language Journal, 104(S1), 1–130.
changes in the human brain. Cortex, 58, 301–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CORTEX.2014.05.001
Linck, J.A., & Kroll, J.F. (2019). Memory retrieval and language attrition. In M.S. Schmid, & B. Köpke (Eds.),
The Oxford handbook of language attrition (pp. 87–97). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/
OXFORDHB/9780198793595.013.8
Magyar, A., Habók, A., & Molnár, G. (2022). Exploring the role of English as a foreign language receptive skills
and learning strategy usage in the ability to acquire and apply knowledge at the beginning of higher educa-
tion. Frontiers in Psychology, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg2022.808546
McClosky, M., & Cohen, N.J. (1989). Catastrophic interference in connectionist networks: The sequential
learning problem. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 24, 109–165.
McLaughlin, J., Osterhout, L., & Kim, A. (2004). Neural correlates of second-language word learning: minimal
instruction produces rapid change. Nature Neuroscience, 7(7), 703–704. https://doi.org/10.1038/NN1264
Mehotcheva, T.H., & Köpke, B. (2019). Introduction to L2 attrition. In M.S. Schmid, & B. Köpke (Eds.), The
Oxford handbook of language attrition (pp. 329–348). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/
OXFORDHB/9780198793595.013.27
311
Meyers, E., & Fuhrmeister, P. (this volume). The neurolinguistics of second language phonemic contrast learning.
In K. Morgan-Short, & J.G. van Hell (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and
processing as revealed by ERPs and how (not) to study them. PLoS ONE, 10(12). https://doi.org/10.1371/
JOURNAL.PONE.0143328
Miwa, K., & Baayen, H. (2021). Nonlinearities in bilingual visual word recognition: An introduction to
generalized additive modeling. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 24(5), 825–832. https://doi.org/
10.1017/S1366728921000079
Mottarella, M., & Prat, C.S. (this volume). Using quantitative electro encephalography (qEEG) to investigate
second language learning. In K. Morgan-Short, & J.G. van Hell (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second
processing. Language Learning, 56, 199–230. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1467-9922.2006.00361.X
Osterhout, L., Pitkänen, I., McLaughin, J., & Zeitlin, M. (2019). Event-related potentials as metrics of foreign
language learning and loss. In M.S. Schmid, & B. Köpke (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of language attrition
(pp. 402–416). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/OXFORDHB/9780198793595.013.32
Osterhout, L., Poliakov, A., Inoue, K., McLaughlin, J., Valentine, G., Pitkanen, I., Frenck-Mestre, C., &
Hirschensohn, J. (2008). Second-language learning and changes in the brain. Journal of Neurolinguistics,
21(6), 509–521. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JNEUROLING.2008.01.001
Pallier, C. (2007). Critical periods in language acquisition and language attrition. In B. Köpke (Ed.), Language
attrition: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 155–168). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.33.11pal
Paradis, Michel. (2007). L1 attrition features predicted by a neurolinguistic theory of bilingualism. In B. Köpke,
M.S. Schmid, M. Keijzer, & S. Dostert (Eds.), Language attrition: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 121–134).
John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.33.09par
Pierce, L.J., Genesee, F., & Klein, D. (2019). Language Loss and Language Learning in Internationally Adopted
Children. In M.S. Schmid, & B. Köpke (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of language attrition (pp. 469–480).
Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/OXFORDHB/9780198793595.013.37
Pierce, L.J., Klein, D., Chen, J.-K., Delcenserie, A., & Genesee, F. (2014). Mapping the unconscious main-
tenance of a lost first language. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America, 111, 17314–17319. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1409411111
9000130
Pliatsikas, C., Pereira Soares, S.M., Voits, T., Deluca, V., & Rothman, J. (2021). Bilingualism is a long-term
cognitively challenging experience that modulates metabolite concentrations in the healthy brain. Scientific
Reports, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/S41598-021-86443-4
language and reading. NeuroImage, 62(2), 816–847. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.NEUROIMAGE.2012.04.062
Raffaldini, T. (1983). The loss of language skills. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6(1), 94–100. https://
doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100000334
Rossi, E., Prystauka, Y., & Diaz, M.T. (2019). Neuroimaging perspectives on L1 attrition and language change.
In M.S. Schmid & B. Köpke (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of language attrition (pp. 165–177). Oxford
University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/OXFORDHB/9780198793595.013.14
Schmid, M.S. (2002). First Language Attrition, Use and Maintenance: The Case of German Jews in Anglophone
Countries. John Benjamins.
Schmid, M.S. (2011). Language attrition. Cambridge University Press.
Schmid, M.S. (2019). The impact of frequency of use and length of residence on L1 attrition. In M.S. Schmid &
B. Köpke (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of language attrition (pp. 287–303). Oxford University Press. https://
doi.org/10.1093/OXFORDHB/9780198793595.013.24
Schmid, M.S., Berends, S.M., Bergmann, C., Brouwer, S.M., Meulman, N., Seton, B.J., Sprenger, S.A., & Stowe,
L.A. (2016). Designing research on bilingual development. Springer International. https://doi.org/10.1007/
978-3-319-11529-0
Schmid, M.S., & Cherciov, M. (2019). Introduction to extralinguistic factors in language attrition. In M.S.
Schmid, & B. Köpke (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of language attrition (pp. 265–276). Oxford University
Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/OXFORDHB/9780198793595.013.22
312
Schmid, M.S., & de Leeuw, E. (2019). Introduction to linguistic factors in language attrition. In M.S. Schmid, &
B. Köpke (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of language attrition (pp. 179–190). Oxford University Press. https://
doi.org/10.1093/OXFORDHB/9780198793595.013.15
Schmid, M.S., & Keijzer, M. (2009). First language attrition and reversion among older migrants. International
Journal of the Sociology of Language, 200, 83–101. https://doi.org/10.1515/IJSL.2009.046
Schmid, M.S., & Köpke, B. (2017). The relevance of first language attrition to theories of bilingual development.
Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 7(6), 637–667. https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.17058.sch
Sharwood Smith, M. (2019). Language attrition as a special case of processing change. In M.S. Schmid & B.
Köpke (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of language attrition (pp. 72–87). Oxford University Press. https://doi.
org/10.1093/OXFORDHB/9780198793595.013.7
Steinhauer, K., & Kasparian, K. (2019). Electrophysiological approaches to L1 attrition. In M.S. Schmid, & B.
Köpke (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of language attrition (pp. 145–165). Oxford University Press. https://
doi.org/10.1093/OXFORDHB/9780198793595.013.13
Steinhauer, K., & Kasparian, K. (2020). Brain plasticity in adulthood–ERP evidence for L1 attrition in lexicon
and morphosyntax after predominant L2 use. Language Learning, 70(S2), 171–193. https://doi.org/10.1111/
lang.12391
Tedick, D.J., & Lyster, R. (2019). Scaffolding Language Development in Immersion and Dual Language
Classrooms. Taylor and Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429428319
Van Hell, J.G., & Dijkstra, T. (2002). Foreign language knowledge can influence native language performance
in exclusively native contexts. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(4), 780–789. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF0
3196335
Ventureyra, V.A.G., Pallier, C., & Yoo, H.-Y. (2004). The loss of first language phonetic perception in adopted
Koreans. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 17(1), 79–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0911-6044(03)00053-8
Zhou, W. (2015). Assessing birth language memory in young adoptees [PhD thesis]. Radboud University.
313
23
FIRST LANGUAGE/S ECOND
LANGUAGE CROSSLINGUISTIC
INFLUENCE ON THIRD
LANGUAGE ACQUISITION VIA
NEUROCOGNITIVE MEMORY
SYSTEMS
Introduction to Crosslinguistic Influence and Critical Definitions

Neurolinguistic studies in recent decades have sought to investigate the neurocognitive mechanisms
that underlie the crosslinguistic influence observed in second or third language acquisition.
Crosslinguistic influence, in the broad context of language use, refers to the phenomenon where
knowledge of one language affects the production or perception of another, regardless of the acquisi-
tion sequence of the source and recipient languages. Different terms have been used to describe such
interaction between languages, including but not limited to crosslinguistic influence, crosslinguistic
interference and language transfer. Crosslinguistic influence and crosslinguistic interference are used
more often in second language acquisition literature, and language transfer was used historically in
second language research and has recently reemerged as the common term in the younger field of
third language acquisition. Crosslinguistic interference, as indicated by the name, suggests a nega-
tive effect of the interactions between language systems and is thus imprecise when knowledge of
one language facilitates the development of another. To maintain clarity throughout the chapter, we
will use crosslinguistic influence and language transfer interchangeably to denote the neural-effect
interactions between languages. The term crosslinguistic interference is used specifically to refer to
an inhibition effect.
There are various types of crosslinguistic influence (CLI) across various dimensions. For instance,
if categorized by directionality, there are forward (from first language (L1) to second language
(L2)) and backward (from L2 to L1) CLI; if categorized by linguistic knowledge across language
components, there are phonological, lexical, (morpho)syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic CLI (Jarvis
& Pavlenko, 2008). In this chapter, we will focus on CLI that happens in a forward direction in
the (morpho)syntactic system, and we aim to address how previously acquired language knowledge
influences the processing of rule-governed regularities (i.e., morphology and syntax) in a newly learnt
language. In other words, this chapter explores the neurocognitive mechanisms of CLI of known
languages (e.g., L1/L2) on the acquisition of a to-be-known language (e.g., L3/Ln), or target lan-
guage, with a focus on the (morpho)syntactic system.
314 DOI: 10.4324/9781003190912-29

Crosslinguistic Influence on Third Language Acquisition
After nearly two decades of rigorous research, L2 acquisition studies now consist of a siz-
able collection of findings on the neurocognitive basis of (morpho)syntactic transfer from L1 to
L2 (Alemán Bañón et al., 2018; Foucart & Frenck-Mestre, 2011; Tokowicz & MacWhinney, 2005;
Tolentino & Tokowicz, 2011; see also Sabourin & Manning, this volume). As research on third lan-
guage acquisition matures, we see the rise of a new line of literature that examines how transfer from
L1 and L2 affects the acquisition of a third/later language (L3/Ln). This body of research has largely
focused on two major outcomes that result from crosslinguistic interactions, namely facilitation and
inhibition, and has sought to understand why and how existing language knowledge expedites or
slows down a learner’s acquisition of new linguistic knowledge. To answer this “why and how”
question, we need to closely examine the available findings to identify the condition(s) where facili-
tation or inhibition happens and to establish the neurocognitive embodiment of the facilitative or
inhibitory effect of CLI. We believe it is timely to collect and synthesize available empirical evidence
concerning the neurocognition of CLI to reach a comprehensive and thorough interpretation of CLI
and its effects on language learning and, more imperatively, to identify research gaps in the literature
and discuss pedagogical implications for future language education.
Historical Review of Crosslinguistic Influence

The earliest observations of CLI can be traced back to the 1900s when intercontinental migrations
became frequent and motivated language learning or borrowing for the purpose of communication
among speakers of different mother tongues. Evidence of CLI, such as texts that used a mixture of
lexical properties from different languages, speech production with the phonological system of one
language and lexical/syntactic system of another, and the wrong application of L1 word order onto
L2 production, were uncovered by anthropologists, philosophers, and linguists (Jarvis & Pavlenko,
2008). Put simply, CLI started off as unappreciated language transfer errors that indicated poor cog-
nitive ability and should be consciously subdued with careful language use. It was not until the mid-
twentieth century when linguists and language teachers started to recognize CLI as an inevitability
in language learning. From 1960s to 1980s, CLI research revealed that 1) the consequences of CLI
can be both facilitative or inhibitory to language learning, depending on the similarity or difference
between the source form and the target form; 2) CLI not only influences the trajectory of language
development but also modulates the ultimate language attainment; 3) any previously learned lan-
guage can influence the acquisition of subsequent languages, e.g., from L1 to L2 or from L1/L2 to
L3; and 4) the effect of CLI extends beyond linguistic forms to the language-related ideology or view
of the world (for a comprehensive review, see Jarvis & Pavlenko, 2008). Together, these findings
helped to form a holistic understanding of CLI and contributed to later examinations of CLI as a legit-
imate (psycho)linguistic phenomenon. Since then, CLI studies have been subdivided by the linguistic
components (e.g., phonology, vocabulary, sentential structure, morphological inflection) they focused
on and have further expanded the scope of research to include the crosslinguistic interactions between
three or more languages. The recent two decades have seen a remarkable endeavor in developing the-
oretical accounts for (morpho)syntactic CLI (Puig-Mayenco et al., 2020), as will be discussed next.
Crosslinguistic Influence Models and Neurocognitive Approaches

To date, studies of crosslinguistic influence (CLI) in L2 and L3 acquisition (SLA and TLA) have
formulated different theoretical accounts to predict the source of (morpho)syntactic transfer and its
effect on modulating L2/Ln acquisition (for a review, see Lago et al., 2021).
Regarding the source of CLI, particularly in TLA studies, there are single-source CLI models,
such as the L1-dominant hypothesis (Hermas, 2010; Lozano, 2003), the L2 Status Factor (Bardel &
315
Sánchez, 2017) and the Typological Primacy Model (TPM: Rothman, 2011), and models that predict
accumulated CLI from all known languages (De Angelis, 2007), such as the Cumulative Enhancement
Model (CEM: Flynn et al., 2004). As for the effect of CLI on the learning of new (morpho)syntactic
features, there are generally two possible outcomes: facilitation and inhibition. When the acquired
and target linguistic forms align well, CLI from acquired language(s) results in facilitated learning,
whereas mismatched or conflicting forms induce inhibitory CLI that hinders language acquisition.
The L1-dominant hypothesis, also referred to as the L1 status factor, considers L1 as the privileged
source of CLI on L3 grammatical preference in the early acquisition stage. Empirical support was
provided by Hermas’ (2010) examination of how L1-Arabic and L2-French affect learners’ acquisition
of adverbial and negation word orders in L3-English, a feature that differs among all three languages.
The findings revealed L1-Arabic’s interference with the learning of English and no significant influence
of L2-French. Lozano (2003) also provided supporting evidence by testing L1-Greek, L2-English, L3-
Spanish learners’ performance in the Spanish contrastive focus structure, in comparison to L1-English
learners of L2-Spanish and L1-Spanish controls. The study showed that the L1-English group’s perform-
ance in Spanish differed from that of the L1-Greek, L2-English group. L1-English learners failed to reject
ungrammatical items, presumably caused by the syntactic difference between English and Spanish, while
L1-Greek learners performed similarly well to Spanish natives, presumably due to the syntactic similarity
between Greek and Spanish, without observable interference from their L2 English.
The L2 Status Factor, on the other hand, originally argued for the L2 to be the major source of
CLI. Falk and Bardel (2011) tested L1-English, L2-French, L3-German learners with the placement
of object pronouns and compared them to a mirror group (i.e., L1-French, L2-English & L3-German).
Results showed that both groups showed L2-like processing of L3-German with good performance
when German and the L2 conformed, but compromised performance when L2-L3 structures differed.
The updated L2 status model (Bardel & Sánchez, 2017) postulated that the privileged status of L2
being the transfer source comes from the learner’s distinct cognitive access to L1 and L2 grammars
that results from the segregation of declarative and procedural memory systems, as predicted by the
Declarative/Procedural Model (DP model: Paradis, 2009; Ullman, 2020; see Ullman & Morgan-Short,
this volume). Specifically, L2 is the more accessible transfer source during L3/Ln acquisition as both
L2 and L3/Ln are presumably stored as explicit metalinguistic knowledge in the declarative memory
system, while L1 grammar is stored separately in the procedural memory system as implicit know-
ledge. Ergo, L2 serves as the dominant source of crosslinguistic transfer and can potentially cause
inhibition on L3 development when L2–L3 structurally differ.
According to the TPM (Rothman, 2011), the source of CLI is the overall similarity or relatedness
perceived by the learners based on the degree of structural crossover between the source (L1/L2) and
recipient (L3) languages (i.e., psychotypology; Kellerman, 1983), instead of the acquisition sequen-
tial status. L1-English-L2-Spanish and L1-Spanish-L2-English learners of L3-Brazilian Portuguese
(BP) were tested with the subject-verb word order and relative clause attachment in BP. Both groups
presented Spanish-like processing of BP structures, with evidence for both facilitative and inhibiting
CLI hinged on whether BP structurally coincided or conflicted with Spanish. As Spanish shares a
higher degree of structural similarity with BP than English, the author concluded that the perceived
overall similarity between the L1 or L2 and the L3 determines the transfer source. Converging
findings were reported by Cawalho and Silva (2006).
The CEM (Flynn et al., 2004), on the other hand, hypothesized combined or accumulated (morpho)
syntactic CLI on L3 acquisition that comes from both the L1 and L2, i.e., a multi-source facilitative-
only CLI. Findings in Fernández-Berkes and Flynn (2021) on the L2/L3-English acquisition revealed
that crosslinguistic transfer from L1 modulates the learning outcome of L2, but such outcome can
be changed by learning an extra language in between. In their study, L2 learners of the head-initial
316
English with a head-final L1 presented a unique acquisition pattern that was altered by learning
another head-initial language before English (e.g., comparing L1-Japanese learners of L2-English
to L1-Japanese, L2-Russian learners of L3 English). The CEM thus concluded that any prior lan-
guage experience is potentially influential to the development of a new language, and such influence
is incremental or cumulative. For a review of transfer models in L3 acquisition, see Puig-Mayenco
et al. (2020).
Although L3 models were predominantly built upon behavioral measurements that do not have
an explicit neurocognitive component, one touched upon the underlying neurocognition of CLI.
For instance, the L2 Status Factor’s affirmation of L2 being the transfer source was built upon the
segregated storage of the L1 and L2/L3 in the memory systems (i.e., the DP model: Ullman, 2020). To
date, most of the research that tested the effect of grammatical CLI from a neural perspective has been
conducted in an L2 acquisition context using neurocognitive measures such as functional magnetic
resonance imaging (fMRI), electroencephalography (EEG) and memory tasks.
fMRI measures brain activities by detecting the changes in the blood-oxygen-level-dependent
(BOLD) signal to reflect the activated brain regions and the activation magnitude (for more details,
see Kousaie & Klein, this volume). EEG, on the other hand, records real-time brainwaves during
stimulus processing (for more details, see Dickson & Pelzl, this volume). Two critical language-
related ERP components are the P600 and N400 (Kutas & Federmeier, 2011; Tanner et al., 2014).
Memory tests are commonly conducted to investigate how procedural and declarative memory
systems are recruited during Ln learning and to demonstrate the role of working memory capacity
(WMC) in modulating Ln learning. For instance, by testing a learner’s implicit or explicit knowledge
of a Ln structure that is potentially influenced by prior language knowledge, studies can delineate if
both procedural and declarative memory systems are accessible during Ln acquisition. By correlating
learners’ Ln performance to their WMC, we can extrapolate how an individual’s inhibition control
affects language learning under the influence of crosslinguistic interference.
While behavioral methods largely reveal which learner-internal (e.g., proficiency) or learner-
external (typological distances between L1/L2 and L3) factors manipulate the effect of CLI, they
rarely provide direct evidence of the distinct processing mechanisms that lead to contrastive behav-
ioral outcomes or the underlying difference between similar behavioral performance. Neurocognitive
methods, on the other hand, provide mechanistic evidence for the behavioral findings by revealing
the cognitive factors that effectuated learner’s observed behaviors. In other words, as behavioral
outcome externalizes learner’s linguistic knowledge, neurocognitive outcome instantiates the online
processing or cognitive resource recruitment, and hence allow us to understand how CLI functions
on the cognitive level (Jarvis & Pavlenko, 2008).
Empirical Evidence for Crosslinguistic Influence Effects

Various research methods have been adopted to investigate the effects of CLI from both behavioral
and neurocognitive perspectives. Common behavioral tasks include timed/untimed grammaticality
judgment, self-paced reading, structural priming, and elicited imitation, sometimes coupled with eye-
tracking. Neurocognitive approaches often combine aforementioned behavioral tasks with a brain-
imaging component such as EEG recording or fMRI scan, and/or include a cognitive task that tests
working memory, implicit versus explicit learning ability or declarative versus procedural memory.
In this section, we report key findings from studies that applied the neurocognitive approach to under-
stand CLI and its effects on Ln learning. Our discussion covers CLI from different source languages
that results in facilitation and/or inhibition.
317
Neurocognitive Evidence for Facilitative Crosslinguistic Influence

Similarity between the learnt language(s) and the target language is the primary impetus for facili-
tative CLI that consolidates and accelerates correct production or processing of the target language.
In SLA literatures, empirical evidence of a shared neuronal mechanism that serves the processing of
L1–L2 congruent structures mostly comes from brain imaging studies that captured learner’s brain
activities when carrying out language tasks. The commonly adopted brain imaging techniques are
fMRI and EEG.
fMRI studies of crosslinguistic similarity have reported supporting findings for shared neural
circuits in processing L1–L2 shared representations. In an fMRI study that tested Korean native
speakers’ processing of L2-English and L2-Japanese sentences, Jeong, Sugiura, Sassa, Haji, et al.
(2007) studied how interlanguage syntactic similarity affects brain activation during L2 sentence
comprehension. Korean and Japanese share a sentential structure of Subject (S)-Object (O)-Verb
(V) while English has a canonical SVO structure. Korean natives with two L2s (i.e., English and
Japanese) were auditorily presented with SOV Japanese sentences and SVO English sentences.
Results showed that L1-Korean elicited a similar brain activation pattern as L2-Japanese did, but
different from L2-English. Jeong, Sugiura, Sassa, Yokoyama, et al. (2007) replicated this finding
with a group of SVO-Chinese natives who spoke both SVO-English and SOV-Japanese as their
L2s. Converging with earlier findings, L2-English induced a comparable brain activation as did L1-
Chinese while L2-Japanese elicited a unique, different neural response. The overlapping activation
pattern for the structurally similar L1 and L2 indicated an efficient processing of L2 without recruit-
ment of extra neural resource and hence proved how L1–L2 crosslinguistic similarity motivates a
unified processing mechanism that promotes efficient L2 grammaticalization.
EEG studies of morphological or syntactic acquisition (for reviews, see Alemán Bañón et al.,
this volume; Biondo et al., this volume) examined L2 learners’ brainwaves during (morpho)syn-
tactic processing and found that (morpho)syntactic violations typically evoked a meaning-sensitive
N400 in low proficient learners. As proficiency increases, learner’s response eventually shifts to
a form-sensitive P600 that is typically seen in native speaker’s structural processing, sometimes
preceded by a left anterior negativity (LAN). In sum, typical L2 development experiences a transi-
tion from meaning-dependent integration to structure-oriented analysis during L2 (morpho)syntactic
processing. Nonetheless, upon examination of low proficient learners’ processing of L2 grammars,
researchers found a native-like P600 effect for structures that are formed similarly in L1 and L2,
corroborating an earlier, automatic grammaticalization of the L1–L2 shared features (for number
agreement, see Alemán Bañón et al, 2018; for gender agreement, see Foucart & Frenck-Mestre, 2011;
for tense marking, see Tokowicz & MacWhinney, 2005; for reviews, see Tolentino & Tokowicz,
2011 and Sabourin & Manning, this volume). A unique L2 feature, on the other hand, either evokes
no robust brain reaction, indicating insensitivity towards that feature, or evokes an N400 that indexes
lexical-semantic processing.
In TLA, there is a scarcity of empirical studies that applied a neural methodology to evaluate the
effects of L1–and L2-sourced CLI, and consequently we have limited reference to make sense of the
observed comparable or contrastive behavioral outcomes caused by CLI from difference sources.
One available EEG study that examined morphological transfer from L1/L2 to L3 was conducted
by González Alonso et al. (2020). This study adopted an artificial language (AL) learning paradigm
and trained L1-Spanish, L2-English speakers with either mini-English or mini-Spanish (i.e., artificial
languages with, respectively, English or Spanish lexical items). The target grammar was determiner-
noun gender agreement that exists in L1-Spanish but is absent in L2-English, and both ALs have the
gender agreement feature. Although ERP results did not reveal a typical N400/P600 pattern in either
AL, gender violation elicited a positive deflection in the P600 window in mini-Spanish learners,
indicating a facilitative transfer from L1-Spanish to L3-mini-Spanish, and a negative deflection in
318
the N400 window in mini-English learners that was considered as the typical non-native response
towards morphosyntactic processing, hinting an absent or limited transfer effect. These findings
provided empirical corroboration that L1-sourced and L2-sourced morphosyntactic transfer have
different effects on L3 processing, and that L1-L3 similarity may induce a native-like L3 morphosyn-
tactic processing. To sum up these electrophysiological findings, similarity between L1 and L2/L3/
Ln invokes a facilitative CLI from L1 to the recipient language that contributes to the accelerated and
efficient grammaticalization of L1-shared structural features, as indicated by the early-on P600. The
neurocognitive effect of L2-sourced CLI on the acquisition of a L3 is hitherto uncertain and needs
to be examined systematically in L3/Ln learners. It is worth noting that, although (morpho)syntactic
processing normally elicits a LAN/P600 continuum response in native speakers on a group level,
inspection of individual waveforms revealed that some speakers rely more heavily on word-level or
meaning-dependent information and hence show a N400 response instead (Tanner & Van Hell, 2014).
When these speakers become L2/L3 learners, their structural processing will maintain the depend-
ence on non-structural information (Qi et al., 2017). In addition, other than grammaticality manipu-
lation, the phonological cues’ distribution (Beatty-Martínez et al., 2021) or deterioration (Bambini
et al., 2021) of a specific morphosyntactic feature could also lead to atypical processing responses.
In Ullman’s (2020) discussion of the declarative/procedural memory systems and their functions
in L2 learning, he suggested that the meaning-oriented N400 possibly denotes the recruitment
of the declarative memory system where explicit language knowledge (e.g., meaningful units) is
stored. Although the discussion did not connect the P600 component and the procedural memory
system, the P600 is assumed to reflect the processing of rule-governed information that is typically
accessed implicitly. The relationship between the P600 and recruitment of procedural memory is fur-
ther supported by empirical findings on implicit Ln grammatical knowledge. CLI studies that tested
learners’ implicit grammatical knowledge of L2 (Marsden et al., 2018; Roberts & Liszka, 2013)
showed that only L1-shared L2 forms benefited from facilitative CLI on implicit knowledge consoli-
dation, which encouraged the educated conjecture that P600 indexes the recruitment of the procedural
memory system in language processing. That being said, Morgan-Short et al. (2022) found a correl-
ation between the P600 component and explicit language knowledge that is supposedly subserved
by the declarative memory system, indicating that despite the possible correlation between the P600
and the procedural memory engagement, the mapping is likely not exclusive. Future research should
further explore this topic and provide more evidence for the association between the recruitment of
memory systems and online language processing.
In sum, empirical findings suggest that structural similarity leads to facilitative CLI that results in
common neural processing of L1 and L2, instantiated as comparable brain activation and response.
In addition, the shared brain activation pattern induced by L1-Chinese and L2-English processing
indicates that psychotypological distance may not restrain facilitative crosslinguistic interaction.
Chinese and English are quite far away from each other on the typological map, yet the enhan-
cing effect of L1-Chinese on L2-English processing was observed, which reminds us to reconsider
or discuss with caution the determining power of (psycho)typological proximity promoted by the
Typological Primacy Model (TPM). That being said, the TPM was built upon initial-stage learners’
language processing while the fMRI studies (Jeong, Sugiura, Sassa, Haji, et al., 2007; Jeong, Sugiura,
Sassa, Yokoyama, et al., 2007) tested learners with high proficiency, and this might explain the
different effects of psychotypological closeness. The L3 EEG study’s (González Alonso et al., 2020)
result implied that both L1 and L2 have an influence, though potentially different, on L3/Ln grammar
acquisition and thus compromise CLI models that postulate single transfer source. Nevertheless, the
scarcity of neurocognitive studies in TLA has restricted our understanding of how L1 and L2 CLI
modulates the acquisition of L3/Ln structures and hence cautiousness is appreciated when interpreting
the effect of CLI observed in TLA.
319
Neurocognitive Evidence for Inhibitory Crosslinguistic Influence

The number of studies that investigated crosslinguistic difference is notably smaller than that of
crosslinguistic similarity studies, yet a comprehensive understanding of crosslinguistic influence
(CLI) cannot be achieved without knowing how confliction is dealt with during language acqui-
sition. Moreover, studies that aimed at settling whether native-like processing is attainable by Ln
learners revealed that, as crosslinguistic similarity promotes native-like proficiency, crosslinguistic
confliction makes native-like processing unfeasible even for advanced learners (Caffarra et al., 2015;
Foucart & Frenck-Mestre, 2011), and such confliction-induced fossilization in Ln grammar develop-
ment obstructs pedagogical improvement and complicates the theorization of ultimate Ln attainment.
Regarding the limited neurocognitive evidence of confliction-induced CLI, fMRI results from
the studies where similarity-induced CLI was tested also attested to the laborious, non-native pro-
cessing of the L1-conflict word-order (Jeong, Sugiura, Sassa, Haji, et al., 2007; Jeong, Sugiura, Sassa,
Yokoyama, et al., 2007). In contrast to the overlapping brain response for L1-shared structures, more
extensive activation with stronger magnitude was observed for L1-conflict L2 grammars. Some of the
brain areas that showed increased activation by L1–L2 incongruence were known to regulate inhibi-
tory control, which is a critical executive function served by working memory. This indicates that
learning a L1-dissimilar/conflict structure requires more cognitive effort and thus recruits a broader
cortical area or induces stronger activation. On the other hand, the comparable cortical activation
during the processing of L1–L2 congruent forms serves as evidence for reduced cognitive demands
with less involvement of inhibitory control. In other words, the facilitative effect of CLI may essen-
tially be a more economic deployment of neurocognitive resources when the to-be-learnt linguistic
form coincides with a known form, whereas the inhibitory effect of CLI indicates a laborious cognitive
maneuver in coping with L1–L2 incongruency. Notwithstanding, caution is needed when inspecting
activation differences caused by crosslinguistic similarity versus dissimilarity, as activation of one
brain region can be attributed to the mere status of a language being non-native while activation of
another may indicate deployment of memory-dependent executive function.
Evidence from ERP components in response to non-facilitative CLI effect revealed a postponed
transition from N400 to P600 during learners’ processing of L2-unique syntactic structures, with a
smaller P600 amplitude or a delayed latency at high proficiency (Osterhout et al., 2006), yet a direct
study of L1-conflict condition is rare. Moreover, a delayed emergence or reduced P600 magnitude is
not definite evidence for non-facilitative CLI, as the uniqueness of a structure alone can lead to the
same observation (without the presence of a CLI effect). One attempt to provide direct evidence for
the effect of crosslinguistic confliction was provided by Mickan and Lemhöfer (2020). They tested
L1-German L2-Dutch learners from three proficiency levels (i.e., low, intermediate, and high) with
L1-congruent subordinate clause word order and L1-conflict modal auxiliary word order. Despite
comparable behavioral performance of the intermediate and advanced learners for L1-conflict and
L1-congruent conditions, congruent sentences induced a native-like P600, whereas conflict sentences
elicited an attenuated P600 with a smaller amplitude and a delayed latency. The result indicate
that conflict-induced neural response is instantiated as a delayed and unconsolidated grammatical-
ization of the incongruent structure and, hence, corroborates the interfering effect of crosslinguistic
confliction in syntactic acquisition. The delayed P600 indicates either a higher demand of cognitive
effort in processing the L1-conflict L2 feature or unsteady automatization of it, and supports the
argument that learners adopt different neuronal mechanisms to process the structure that is absent
from or conflicts with their prior linguistic knowledge, even when behavioral outcomes show no
robust difference. This study is among the first to address the neurocognition of the inhibitory effect
of crosslinguistic interference and thus provides an insightful foundation for future research. So far,
the EEG literature is short of a concurrent inspection of the three most crucial CLI cases, namely the
facilitative CLI in a L1-Ln congruent condition, the inhibitory CLI in a L1-Ln incongruent condition,
320
and a Ln-unique condition where CLI is not expected. A simultaneous test of these three cases is crit-
ical to better understand how facilitative and inhibitory CLI modulate (morpho)syntactic learning.
As important as acknowledging the inhibitory effect of CLI is the need to identify possible
modulators of its impact. One factor that has been found to modulate CLS inhibition is working
memory capacity (WMC). As discussed earlier, L1-conflict structures activates wider brain regions
than L1-congruent structures (Jeong, Sugiura, Sassa, Haji, et al., 2007; Jeong, Sugiura, Sassa,
Yokoyama, et al., 2007), and some of these activated regions were found to be recruited in inhibitory
control served by working memory. This indicates that learners exert less inhibitory control when
processing and producing grammars that are similar to their prior linguistic knowledge. Furthermore,
behavioral findings illustrated that learners with higher levels of executive control (i.e., better WMC)
are more successful in inhibiting negative transfer from the L1 (Jarvis et al., 2013). The effect of
working memory on modulating CLI inhibition is further consolidated in a meta-analysis (Linck
et al., 2014) that reported strong predictive power of WMC on learners’ performance when conflict
resolution is required. However, the predictive power of WMC on Ln attainment is more robust under
an explicit than an implicit learning condition (Tagarelli et al., 2015), calling for a careful consider-
ation of learning conditions in designing future studies.
Taken together, the findings on the inhibition effect of crosslinguistic interference revealed a heavy
involvement of working memory’s inhibitory control in the learning of a L1-incongruent structure,
which is instantiated by the recruitment of inhibition-related cortical regions seen in fMRI images
(Jeong, Sugiura, Sassa, Haji, et al., 2007; Jeong, Sugiura, Sassa, Yokoyama, et al., 2007) and by
WMC’s influence on a learner’s Ln learning outcome in the case of L1-Ln incongruency (Linck et al.,
2014). Consequently, the grammaticalization of L1-Ln incongruent structures requires extensive cog-
nitive effort and appears to be more time consuming, as indicated by a delayed and/or reduced P600
effect in coping with structural violation (Mickan & Lemhöfer, 2020) and compromised performance
in metalinguistic tasks (Tagarelli et al., 2015). There is to date a lack of study on inhibitory CLI with
TLA learners to show how L1 or L2 interacts with L3 learning when L1–L3 or L2–L3 incongruency
is expected, and, to make the situation more complicated, what will happen if L1 and L2 conflict with
each other while one (L1 or L2) agrees with L3 for certain morphosyntactic parameters.
Crosslinguistic Influence in L3/Ln Acquisition

The scarcity of neurocognitive examination of CLI in TLA leaves numerous questions unanswered
regarding how L1 and L2 facilitate or inhibit the learning of a sequential L3/Ln. Nevertheless,
educated hypotheses can be made based on the available L2 neural studies and the transfer models of
L3 (morpho)syntactic acquisition.
L3 models that assume a single source of CLI expect L3 acquisition to be influenced only by
one prior language. If the sole CLI source is L1, it is reasonable to assume the same effect of L1’s
CLI on L3 as on L2, i.e., L1-L3 congruency leads to facilitative CLI that promotes native-like L3
processing while incongruency causes inhibitory CLI, which is modulated by WMC, that prevents
native-like grammaticalization of L3. If the sole CLI source is L2, then L2 proficiency needs to be
taken into consideration as higher proficiency is expected to result in a stronger CLI effect, with L2-
L3 similarity motivating learning and difference inhibiting learning. Regarding working memory’s
role in modulating L2–L3 interaction, Trude and Tokowicz (2011), studying phonological CLI in
TLA, revealed that individuals with higher WMC were worse at inhibiting L2 interference with L3
learning, externalized as more L2-like error for the higher WMC group than the lower WMC group.
Findings on the effect of WMC on L2–L3 interaction in the (morpho)syntactic domain are not yet
available to make predictions about how working memory affects L3 development, and if higher
WMC leads to better L1 suppression but compromised L2 inhibition during L3 grammar learning.
321
That being said, considering the domain-general characteristic of the WMC, we would expect a
similar effect of WMC on the learning of L3 morphosyntax.
For TLA models that assume cumulative CLI, it is yet too early to provide an explicit prediction
on the interaction pattern between L1, L2, and L3, especially when L2 is in itself a subject of L1’s
influence which may leave residual effects that can be further passed down to the acquisition of L3/
Ln. The factors that need to be taken into consideration when piecing up the puzzle include, but are
not limited to, the similarity and difference between the L1 and L2, the similarity and difference
between L1/L2 and L3, L2 proficiency, and the distribution of cognitive control (if possible) over L1
and L2 inhibition.
Future Research Directions and Pedagogical Implications

In this chapter, we discussed (morpho)syntactic CLI models and the mechanism and effect of CLI
in Ln learning from a neurocognitive perspective. A comprehensive understanding of the facilita-
tive and inhibitory effects of CLI is the key not only to account for the observed inconsistency in
learners’ development and ultimate attainment of L3/Ln grammar, but also to develop pedagogical
solutions that maximize CLI facilitation and suppress its interference. Neurocognitive findings
discussed in this chapter shed light on how native and non-native languages are stored in the brain,
how languages interact with each other neurologically and how cognitive mechanisms modulate
language interactions, which are otherwise obscure from behavioral findings. By understanding the
details of neurocognitive mechanisms beyond language interactions, we can fit the contributing cog-
nitive factors into the acquisition equation to better theorize language acquisition and make accurate
predictions about language development in learners with distinctive linguistic background and under
different learning conditions.
Despite groundbreaking developments in CLI research, there remain research gaps that require
immediate attendance. First, the available number of neural studies of inhibitory CLI is too small to
generate a theory that accounts for its cause and mechanism. Second, neurocognitive evidence for CLI
in L3/Ln acquisition is still lacking to settle the disputes over L1 and L2 effect on L3/Ln learning as
argued in current TLA models. Moreover, current TLA models mostly make predictions about initial
stage learner’s L3 knowledge, leaving L3 development at later stages unaccounted for. As language
acquisition is a dynamic process with constant progress, theories that take language development
into consideration are therefore fundamental and necessary. Additionally, research is lacking that
investigates how WMC affects L3/Ln learning. For instance, does domain-general working memory
capacity predict L3/Ln learning outcome? If not, which component of working memory is the critical
factor in modulating L3/Ln learning? To reach a comprehensive understanding of CLI that allows for
better theorization of Ln acquisition, we need studies that address the aforementioned issues.
As crosslinguistic similarity and difference cause distinctive outcomes in Ln development, we
encourage to take advantage of CLI’s facilitative function during language education while minim-
izing its inhibition power. Specifically, when learning a grammatical system or feature that is different
from the learner’s existing linguistic knowledge, language educators can spend more effort in empha-
sizing the differences to draw constant attention to avoiding making conflict-induced overgeneraliza-
tion errors. In addition, different methods of language instruction or training often have significant
influence on the outcome of language learning (Antoniou et al., 2016; Antoniou & Wong, 2015, 2016;
Ettlinger et al., 2014; Ingvalson, Barr & Wong, 2013; Ingvalson & Dhar et al., 2015; Ingvalson,
Young & Wong, 2014;) and on the neurological mechanisms of speech processing (Deng et al., 2018).
Furthermore, as WMC plays an important role in learning a new language, especially under the inter-
ference of CLI, pedagogical plans may add in a few memory-training tasks that help boost a learner’s
WMC or integrate language learning with memory enhancement techniques (Ullman & Lovelett,
2018). Last but not least, considering the stronger influence of WMC on language learning in an
322
explicit rule-based context, teachers may include more implicit learning tasks in the syllabus, espe-
cially in situations where crosslinguistic confliction is expected.
Further Readings
State-of-the-art review of theoretical models and empirical studies, with specific focus on language transfer at
the syntactic level:
Angelovska, T., & Hahn, A. (2017). L3 syntactic transfer: Models, new developments and implications (Vol. 5).
John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/bpa.5
Volume that provides theoretical background and empirical review of working memory and SLA:
Wen, Z., Mota, M. & McNeill, A. (2015). Working Memory in Second Language Acquisition and Processing.
Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783093595
Latest empirical investigations of other factors that influence L3 acquisition:
Kang, X., Mathews, S., Yip, V.C.Y., & Wong, P.C.M. (2021). Language and non-language factors in foreign lan-
guage learning: Evidence for the learning condition hypothesis. NPJ Science of Learning, 6(1), 28. https://
doi.org/10.1038/s41539-021-00104-9
Wong, P.C.M., Kang, X., So, H.C., and Choy, K.W. (2022). Contributions of common genetic variants to spe-
cific languages and to when a language is learned. Scientific Reports, 12, 580. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41
598-021-04163-1
Kang, X., Yip, V., Matthews, S., Wong, P.C.M. (2023). A large-scale repository of spoken narratives in French,
German and Spanish from Cantonese- speaking learners. Scientific Data. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41
597-023-02090-6
References
Alemán Bañón, J., Fiorentino, R., & Gabriele, A. (2018). Using event-related potentials to track morphosyntactic
development in second language learners: The processing of number and gender agreement in Spanish. PloS
One, 13(7), e0200791. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200791
Antoniou, M., Ettlinger, M., & Wong, P.C.M. (2016). Complexity, training paradigm design, and the contribution
of memory subsystems to grammar learning. PloS ONE, 11(7), e0158812. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.
pone.0158812
Antoniou, M. & Wong, P.C.M. (2015). Poor phonetic perceivers are affected by cognitive load when resolving
talker variability. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 138(2), 571–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/
1.4923362
Antoniou, M., & Wong, P.C.M. (2016). Varying irrelevant phonetic features hinders learning of the feature being
trained. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 139(1), 271–278. http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.4939736
Bambini, V., Canal, P., Breimaier, F., Meo, D., Pescarini, D., & Loporcaro, M. (2021). Capturing language
change through EEG: Weaker P600 for a fading gender value in a southern Italo-Romance dialect. Journal of
Bardel, C., & Sánchez, L. (2017). The L2 Status Factor hypothesis revisited: The role of metalinguistic know-
ledge, working memory, attention and noticing in third language learning. In T. Angelovska & A. Hahn
(Eds.), L3 syntactic transfer: Models, new developments and implications (pp. 85–102). John Benjamins.
https://doi.org/10.1075/bpa.5.05bar
Beatty-Martínez, A.L., Bruni, M.R., Bajo, M.T., & Dussias, P.E. (2021). Brain potentials reveal differential pro-
cessing of masculine and feminine grammatical gender in native Spanish speakers. Psychophysiology, 58(3).
e13737. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.13737
323
Cawalho, A.M., & Silva, A.J.B. (2006). Cross-linguistic influence in third language acquisition: The case of
Spanish-English bilinguals’ acquisition of Portuguese. Foreign Language Annals, 39(2), 185–202. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2006.tb02261.x
De Angelis, G. (2007). Third or additional language acquisition. Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/
9781847690050
Deng, Z., Chandrasekaran, B., Wang, S., & Wong, P.C.M. (2018). Training-induced brain activation and func-
tional connectivity differentiate multi-talker and single-talker speech training. Neurobiology of Learning and
Memory, 151, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nlm.2018.03.009
Ettlinger, M., Bradlow, A., & Wong, P.C.M. (2014). Variability in the learning of complex morphophonology.
Applied Psycholinguistics, 35(4), 807–831. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0142716412000586
Falk, Y., & Bardel, C. (2011). Object pronouns in German third language syntax: Evidence for the second lan-
guage status factor. Second Language Research, 27(1), 59–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658310386647
Fernández-Berkes, É., & Flynn, S. (2021). Vindicating the need for a principled theory of language acquisition.
Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 11(1), 30–36. https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.20095.fer
Flynn, S., Foley, C., & Vinnitskaya, I. (2004). The cumulative-enhancement model for language acquisi-
tion: Comparing adults’ and children’s patterns of development in first, second and third language acquisition
of relative clauses. International Journal of Multilingualism, 1(1), 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/1479071040
8668175
of the effect of L1–L2 syntactic similarity. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 14(3), 379–399. https://
doi.org/10.1017/S1366728911000137
González Alonso, J., Alemán Bañón, J., DeLuca, V., Miller, D., Soares, S. M. P., Puig-Mayenco, E., Slaats, S.,
& Rothman, J. (2020). Event related potentials at initial exposure in third language acquisition: Implications
from an artificial mini-grammar study. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 56, 100939. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jne
uroling.2020.100939
Hermas, A. (2010). Language acquisition as computational resetting: Verb movement in L3 initial state.
International Journal of Multilingualism, 7(4), 343–362. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2010.487941
Ingvalson, E.M., Barr, A.M., & Wong, P.C.M. (2013). Poorer phonetic perceivers show greater benefit in
phonetic-phonological speech learning. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 56, 1045–50.
https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2012/12-0024)
Ingvalson, E., Dhar, S., Wong, P.C.M., Liu, H. (2015). Working memory training to improve speech perception
in noise across languages. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 137(6), 3477–3486. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1121/1.4921601
Ingvalson, E.M., Young, N., Wong, P.C.M. (2014). Auditory-cognitive training improves language performance
in prelingually deafened cochlear implant recipients. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology,
78(10), 1624–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2014.07.009
Jarvis, S., & Pavlenko, A. (2008). Crosslinguistic influence in language and cognition. Routledge. https://doi.
org/10.4324/9780203935927
Jarvis, S., O’Malley, M., Jing, L., Zhang, J., Hill, J., Chan, C., & Sevostyanova, N. (2013). Cognitive foundations
of crosslinguistic influence. In J.W. Schwieter (Ed.), Innovative research and practices in second language
acquisition and bilingualism (pp. 287–308). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.38.17jar
Jeong, H., Sugiura, M., Sassa, Y., Haji, T., Usui, N., Taira, M., Horie, K., Sato, S., & Kawashima, R. (2007).
Effect of syntactic similarity on cortical activation during second language processing: A comparison of
English and Japanese among native Korean trilinguals. Human Brain Mapping, 28(3), 194–204. https://doi.
org/10.1002/hbm.20269
Jeong, H., Sugiura, M., Sassa, Y., Yokoyama, S., Horie, K., Sato, S., Taira, M., & Kawashima, R. (2007).
Cross-linguistic influence on brain activation during second language processing: An fMRI study.
Kellerman, E. (1983). Now you see it, now you don’t. In S. Gass, & L. Selinker (Eds.), Language transfer in
language learning (pp. 112–134). Newbury House.
324
Lago, S., Mosca, M., & Stutter Garcia, A. (2021). The role of crosslinguistic influence in multilingual pro-
cessing: Lexicon versus syntax. Language Learning, 71(S1), 163–192. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12412
Linck, J.A., Osthus, P., Koeth, J.T., & Bunting, M.F. (2014). Working memory and second language compre-
hension and production: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21(4), 861–883. https://doi.org/
10.3758/s13423-013-0565-2
Lozano, C. (2003). Focus, pronouns and word order in the acquisition of L2 and L3 Spanish [Unpublished doc-
toral dissertation]. University of Essex.
Marsden, E., Thompson, S., & Plonsky, L. (2018). A methodological synthesis of self-paced reading in second
language research. Applied Psycholinguistics, 39(5), 861–904. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716418000036
sition: A cross-sectional event-related potential study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 32(5), 822–846.
Morgan-Short, K., Finestrat, I., Luque, A. and Abugaber, D. (2022). Exploring new insights into explicit and
Learning, 72, 365–411. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12492
processing. Language Learning, 56(s1), 199–230. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2006.00361.x
Paradis, M. (2009). Declarative and procedural determinants of second languages. John Benjamins. https://doi.
org/10.1075/sibil.40
Puig-Mayenco, E., González Alonso, J., & Rothman, J. (2020). A systematic review of transfer studies in third
language acquisition. Second Language Research, 36(1), 31–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658318809147
Qi, Z., Beach, S.D., Finn, A.S., Minas, J., Goetz, C., Chan, B., & Gabrieli, J.D. (2017). Native-language N400
and P600 predict dissociable language-learning abilities in adults. Neuropsychologia, 98, 177–191. https://
Roberts, L., & Liszka, S.A. (2013). Processing tense/aspect-agreement violations on-line in the second lan-
guage: A self-paced reading study with French and German L2 learners of English. Second Language
Research, 29(4), 413–439. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658313503171
Rothman, J. (2011). L3 syntactic transfer selectivity and typological determinacy: The typological primacy
model. Second Language Research, 27(1), 107–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658310386439
Tagarelli, K., Mota, M. & Rebuschat, P. (2015). Working memory, learning conditions and the acquisition of L2
syntax. In Z. Wen, M. Borges Mota & A. McNeill (Eds.), Working memory in second language acquisition
and processing (pp. 224–247). Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783093595-017
prehension. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17 (02), 277–293. https://doi.org/10.1017/S136672891
3000370
language grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 173–204. https://doi.org/10.1017/S02722
63105050102
Tolentino, L.C., & Tokowicz, N. (2011). Across languages, space, and time: A review of the role of cross-
language similarity in L2 (morpho) syntactic processing as revealed by fMRI and ERP methods. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 33(1), 91–125. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1017/S0272263110000549
Trude, A.M., & Tokowicz, N. (2011). Negative transfer from Spanish and English to Portuguese pronunci-
ation: The roles of inhibition and working memory. Language Learning, 61(1), 259–280. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00611.x
(pp. 128–161). Routledge.
Ullman, M.T., & Lovelett, J.T. (2018). Implications of the declarative/procedural model for improving second
language learning: The role of memory enhancement techniques. Second Language Research, 34(1), 39–65.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658316675195
Routledge.
325
PART VI
The Neurocognition of Second

Language Learning
Mechanisms and Contexts
24
THE NEUROCOGNITION
OF PREDICTION IN SECOND
LANGUAGE PROCESSING AND
LEARNING
Edith Kaan

It is intuitively clear that language processing can be predictive. For instance, one can often guess
correctly how somebody will complete a sentence (e.g., one expects the word sugar after hearing
I take my coffee with cream and…). Some consider predictive processing an important part of lan-
guage processing, since it can make processing more efficient and robust in noisy circumstances by
pre-activation of expected information. In addition, the difference between what is predicted and the
actual input (“prediction error”) is highly informative and can be used to adjust the system to reduce
future prediction errors. This adjustment can be considered a form of learning. However, when and
how we predict during language processing is still unclear, as is the role of prediction in (second-)
language learning.
In this chapter I will discuss what is known about predictive processing in first and second lan-
guage with a focus on what is known from research using event-related brain potentials (ERPs, see
Dickson & Pelzl, this volume). Unless noted otherwise, I will use the term “first language” (L1) to
refer to the language that somebody learned first as a child and which is still their dominant language;
the term “second language” (L2) refers to a language which is learned at a later age, and which is not
the speaker’s dominant language. I acknowledge that data available thus far are limited and do not do
justice to the wealth of variation in language use and experience among humans.
Part of the reason why the role of prediction in language processing is unclear is because the
term “predictive processing” has been interpreted in different ways (for discussion, see Kuperberg &
Jaeger, 2016). In the minimal sense, prediction implies “that context changes the state of the language
processing system before new input becomes available” (Kuperberg & Jaeger, 2016, p. 34). Under
this definition, modulations of reading times or brain responses at a particular word can be interpreted
in terms of prediction if such responses are affected by the properties of the preceding context (e.g.,
strongly or weakly constraining towards that word). A more narrow definition is that of pre-activation
of certain features of the upcoming input, or pre-activation of specific lexical items. Assuming this
definition, the only strong evidence in favor of prediction are effects observed before the critical
(predicted) word appears in the input. This is because effects seen at the critical word itself can also
DOI: 10.4324/9781003190912-31 329

Edith Kaan
reflect (bottom-up) integration of the word into the context and are not necessarily evidence of (top-
down) prediction (but see, e.g., Ferreira & Chantavarin, 2018).
Regardless of which definition one assumes, it has become clear that predictive language pro-
cessing is variable, even in L1, and is modulated by participant-specific factors such as literacy (e.g.,
Favier et al., 2021) or processing speed (Huettig & Janse, 2016); external factors such as working
memory load (Ito, Corley, et al., 2018) or the participant’s task (Brothers et al., 2017); or stimulus
properties such as accent (Romero-Rivas et al., 2016). The issue is therefore not whether language
users predict, but under which conditions they predict what to what extent, thus explaining differences
within and between people. Many modulating factors are shared between L1 and L2 processing,
however L2 speakers tend to be more variable, due to differences in proficiency, resources needed
for L2 processing, and cross-language influence. L2 speakers therefore provide further insight into
the mechanisms and factors underlying prediction and their boundary conditions. A second reason
why investigating L2 speakers is important is the putative relation between language processing
and learning. If we can show that predictive processing is important in L2 learning, this may have
implications for pedagogical practices.
Prediction in L1 and L2 Language Processing: A Historical Perspective

Until the turn of the century, most approaches to language processing stressed bottom-up pro-
cessing: incoming words are first processed in terms of orthography, sounds, and meaning, and only
later integrated with the preceding context. The role and timing of higher level (discourse, world
knowledge) information was heavily debated. Predictive processing was dismissed especially with
respect to sentence processing. Since sentences can continue in an infinite number of ways, predictive
processing would lead to many errors and would be very inefficient (see for an historical overview
e.g., Ferreira & Chantavarin, 2018).
This changed in the early 2000s, mainly due to developments in cognitive neuroscience, and to
new techniques that convincingly showed that readers and listeners predict information that they
have not yet heard or read. One influential study was by Altmann and Kamide (1999). In this study
participants looked at scenes and listened to sentences while their eye movements were recorded
(visual world eye-tracking). For instance, a scene contained a cake, a ball and a toy train, and the sen-
tence could be either The boy will move the cake or The boy will eat the cake. Upon hearing eat (as
compared to move) participants already started looking at the edible object in the scene even before
the word cake was mentioned, suggesting they anticipated the mention of cake. A drawback of using
such visual world paradigms is that the set of potential referents is given and is restricted to a few
objects, which could artificially elicit predictive behavior. However, results from studies using elec-
trophysiology without visual displays also supported the view that aspects of upcoming words are
anticipated (e.g., DeLong et al., 2005; Wicha et al., 2004).
Following mainstream psycholinguistics, prediction also became a topic of L2 processing research.
Initially, studies failed to find evidence for predictive processing in L2 when this involved morpho-
syntactic or phonological information (Grüter et al., 2012; Lew-Williams & Fernald, 2010; Martin
et al., 2013). This led to the hypothesis that L2 speakers have a reduced ability to predict during lan-
guage processing (Grüter et al., 2014; Kaan et al., 2010). However, it soon became clear that some L2
speakers can use morpho-syntactic information predictively (Dussias et al., 2013; Hopp, 2013), and
that L2 and L1 processing may therefore not be qualitatively different in this respect (Kaan, 2014).
What is still being debated are what mechanisms underlie prediction, what information is used under
what circumstances to predict, and what the relation is between predictive processing and language
learning (Kaan & Grüter, 2021).
330
Neurocognition of Prediction in Second Language Processing

Several models and theoretical perspectives have been proposed in relation to prediction in language
processing and learning. I will discuss a few below; for a summary of more approaches see e.g.,
Huettig (2015).
Computational Models
Computational models of language processing provide insight in language processing and learning
by training a computer model on language data and testing how closely this mimics human lan-
guage processing and learning (e.g., Rabovsky & McRae, 2014). Many of these models incorporate
aspects of predictive processing. For instance, the Dual-Path model (Chang et al., 2006) includes a
simple recurrent network that predicts the upcoming word in the sentence on the basis of words pre-
viously encountered. When the word that actually occurs is different from the predicted word, the
model’s connection weights are changed to minimize future errors. The Dual-Path model can account
for patterns observed in adult sentence processing, language development, and language disorders.
A bilingual version of the model has successfully simulated pro-drop errors in Spanish L2 learners of
English (Tsoukala et al., 2017).
Bayesian Approaches
Bayesian approaches include computational models but also more conceptual models, such as
the hierarchical generative framework proposed by Kuperberg (e.g., Kuperberg et al., 2020). The
assumption of this framework is that language comprehenders generate probabilistic hypotheses as to
the message being communicated (beliefs), which are continuously updated on the basis of incoming
information. Several layers of representation can be distinguished, including a level of semantics,
a higher, more abstract level of events, and an even higher level of the situation model. At each
level, predictions are generated based on prior experience and fed down to the lower layer. Top-
down predictive pre-activation occurs when information is activated at a lower level before incoming
(bottom-up) information arrives at that level. Deviations between the prediction and the bottom-up
input at each layer (the “prediction error,” which is not explained away by predictions) is fed forward
to the higher levels, and is used to adjust the system and make future predictions (belief updating).
The extent of the update is modulated by the size of the error and how certain the comprehender is
about the other interlocutor’s or agent’s goals. For an application of a Bayesian framework to cross-
language influence and L2/n language learning, see Pajak et al. (2016).
Cognitive Approaches
Cognitive approaches aim to specify the cognitive systems underlying prediction and how predictions
are generated. One example is the Prediction-by-Production model (Pickering & Garrod, 2013).
According to this model, predictions are made in two ways. The first is through automatic asso-
ciations, e.g., the word sugar is associated with the word cream and hence is activated in contexts
where cream is mentioned. The second way is through the production system.
Ito and Pickering (2021) apply the Prediction-by-Production model to L2 processing. Prediction-
by-production requires more resources than prediction-by-association. Since L2 processing in gen-
eral is more resource-demanding than L1 processing, it follows that L2 speakers may experience
difficulty especially in prediction-by-production. This approach can account for the observation that
331
Edith Kaan
L2 speakers pre-activate syntactic and phonological information to a lesser extent than semantic
information (Ito et al., 2017b; Ito, Pickering, et al., 2018). Note that prediction-by-association is
not completely effortless either, and that differences in the spread of activation through the lexical-
semantic network may lead to differences in prediction-by-association between L2 and L1 speakers
(Dijkgraaf et al., 2019).
All approaches above would need to account for the observation that prediction is variable within
and across individuals. Following Kuperberg and Jaeger (2016), Kaan and Grüter (2021) stress the role
of utility. Making predictions (in the sense of top-down pre-activation) can be assumed to be metabol-
ically costly (Kuperberg & Jaeger, 2016) and time-consuming, or can be costly if the prediction is not
borne out. However, not making predictions can be costly too, since processing the incoming word
will be less efficient. The comprehender therefore makes a tradeoff to minimize cost and maximize
efficiency. What is predicted and when can therefore be modulated by factors such as goals and task
demands, but also by the properties of the language and subjective reliability and certainty of informa-
tion. For instance, L2 speakers may rely more on information that is a reliable cue in their L1 (e.g., word
order rather than case for L1 English speakers, Bates & MacWhinney, 1981). L2 speakers may there-
fore make different predictions than L1 speakers or predict to a lesser extent (e.g., Grüter et al., 2020).

Most research on prediction in language processing, in L2 in particular, has used visual world eye-
tracking paradigms (for an overview, see Dussias, 2010). Below, I will focus on evidence from ERPs.
Predictive processing has also been studied using EEG oscillations (see for an overview, Prystauka &
Lewis, 2019) and fMRI (e.g., Shain et al., 2020), but to my knowledge, not with L2 speakers. I will
also restrict myself to studies concerning meaning-based predictions (for syntax, see Alemán Bañón
et al., this volume, and Ferreira & Qiu, 2021). In these studies, the predictability of a target word is
manipulated, typically by presenting the word in a sentence context that is constraining towards the
target word to a varying degree. For instance the target word sugar can be presented in a high con-
straint context such as I like coffee with cream and… or a low constraint context such as I mentioned
I do not like… . The degree of constraint can be measured by cloze probability, that is, the propor-
tion of people that produce the same word when asked to complete that sentence fragment. I will
first discuss L1 and L2 studies looking at ERP responses to the target word (N400 and post-N400
positivities). Next, I will discuss L1 and L2 studies looking at brain responses to prediction violations
before the target word is presented.
N400 at the Target Word

The N400 component is a negative going brain potential peaking around 300–500 ms after word
onset (see Dickson & Pelzl, this volume). Its amplitude is modulated by lexical properties such as
frequency, but also by properties of the preceding context. Words that are more expected given the
context (that have a higher cloze probability) elicit a smaller N400 amplitude (e.g., DeLong et al.,
2005; Kutas & Hillyard, 1984). In a predictive processing framework, the N400 amplitude can then
be seen as an index of prediction error, in particular, as reflecting the access of (semantic) features
not already activated by context (e.g., Kuperberg et al., 2020; but see Federmeier, 2021, for a more
nuanced view). Typically, L2 speakers show a larger N400 for words that are implausible compared
with plausible continuations of the sentence, like L1 speakers do, but this N400 plausibility effect
may be smaller and occur later in L2 speakers than L1 speakers, especially for low-proficiency or
late L2 learners (for overviews, see e.g., Frenck-Mestre et al., 2014; Newman et al., 2012; see also
Fromont, this volume). In addition, the N400 for semantically congruent continuations is often larger
in L2 compared to L1 speakers (e.g., Martin et al., 2013; Rossi et al., 2006). Newman et al. (2012)
332
relate the latter effect to proficiency rather than processing an L2, as also less-proficient L1 speakers
show a larger N400 in their L1. Assuming that the N400 reflects activation of information that is not
pre-activated, these data suggest that low-proficient speakers pre-activate semantic and other word-
related information to a lesser extent or more slowly. In addition, less proficient speakers may have a
lower baseline activation for lexical items, since they may have had less exposure to words compared
to proficient speakers.
The N400 can also be used to study what features are pre-activated. This can be done by con-
tinuing the sentence with a word that overlaps with the expected word in certain (semantic, ortho-
graphic) features (Federmeier & Kutas, 1999; Laszlo & Federmeier, 2009). For instance, Ito, Corley,
et al. (2016) had L1 English speakers read texts such as The student went to the library to borrow a
…. The fragment could continue either with the expected word (book), an unexpected word that over-
lapped with the expected word in meaning (page) or form (hook), or with a word that was unrelated
to the expected word (sofa). The N400 was smallest for the expected ending, largest for the unrelated
word, and in between for the semantically related word and the form-related word (the latter only
in high-cloze sentences). These findings suggest that semantic and form features were pre-activated
by the context. Furthermore, the N400 to both types of related words was modulated by the cloze
probability of the expected word. This suggests that the more likely it is that a specific word will
occur, the stronger the activation of its features. Ito et al. (2017b) tested L2 English speakers in the
same paradigm. As in L1 speakers, the N400 was smallest for the expected words, intermediate for
semantically related words and largest for unrelated words. However, there was no N400 difference
between the unrelated and form-related words. Furthermore, the N400 amplitude of the semantically
related words was not modulated by the (L2) cloze probability of the expected word. Results of this
study and the other studies above suggest that L2 speakers can pre-activate semantic information on
the basis of the context to some extent (as they show N400 anomaly effects), but that even relatively
proficient L2 speakers may not pre-activate form features, or fine-grained semantic features in the
way L1 speakers do.
Post-N400 Positivities
The N400 can be followed by positive components (600–1000 ms), which have been related to
processes in response to prediction violations. In highly constraining contexts such as The lifeguards
received a report of sharks right near the beach. Their immediate concern was to prevent any
incidents in the sea. Hence, they cautioned the… (from Kuperberg et al., 2020), unexpected but
plausible continuations (such as trainees) may elicit a frontal positivity compared with expected
words (swimmers). Assuming a hierarchical predictive framework, Kuperberg et al. (2020) interpret
this frontal positivity as reflecting an update (shift) at the level of the situation model (higher level
discourse representation) in response to the prediction error. This may also imply that the predicted
representations or situation model entertained up to that point need to be inhibited (see Zirnstein et al.,
2018 for evidence supporting this). On the other hand, anomalous continuations (such as drawer as
a continuation of the example above), elicit a positivity that is more posteriorly distributed. This
posterior positivity occurs when the input cannot be incorporated into the situation model. It may be
associated with reanalysis and repair processes and has been equated to the P600 component found
for syntactic difficulties (see Dickson & Pelzl, this volume; Kuperberg et al., 2020).
L2 studies differ as to whether post-N400 positivities are observed. Some report frontal positivities
for unexpected words, suggesting that L2 speakers experienced a prediction violation (Foucart et al.,
2014), but some studies do not (Frenck-Mestre et al., 2010; Martin et al., 2013). Zirnstein et al. (2018)
report a frontal positivity in L2 speakers with good L1 verbal fluency (interpreted as better language
regulation), which was smaller in those with better cognitive control. Some studies do not find a
333
Edith Kaan
posterior positivity for anomalous continuations in L2 (Frenck-Mestre et al., 2014; Ito et al., 2017a;
Zheng & Lemhöfer, 2019), or only with a slow presentation rate, which makes it hard to interpret this
effect in terms of predictive processing (Ito et al., 2017b). In contrast, Newman et al. (2012) report a
posterior positivity for semantic anomalies in L2 but not L1 speakers when participants were asked
to make acceptability judgements.
The variation among L2 studies is not surprising given that post-N400 positivities show substan-
tial variation among L1 speakers as well. The determinants of this variation are still being explored
(e.g., Zirnstein et al., 2018). One factor that may play a role is the comprehender’s task and goals.
Post-N400 positivities typically occur when the words are presented in a globally coherent and
informative discourse with a large communicative value to the reader (Brothers et al., 2020). One
account of the differences in post-N400 positivities between L1 and L2 speakers may therefore be in
terms of differences in goals and utility. For instance, in a reading task, L2 speakers may not much
engage in updating and revision (resulting in smaller or no positivities), even if they notice that a
word or feature is unexpected; this so as to save resources and be most efficient given the task, espe-
cially since revision may be difficult for L2 speakers (Pozzan & Trueswell, 2016). On the other hand,
in a judgment task, L2 speakers may be less confident in determining whether an unexpected word
is indeed anomalous in the L2, leading to more revision attempts (larger posterior positivity) than L1
speakers (Newman et al., 2012).
Pre-target Violations of Predictions

Another way to study predictive processing is to look at electrophysiological responses before the
target word appears in the input. Some languages mark properties of upcoming nouns (e.g., gender) on
function words or inflections preceding the noun. When the sentence context heavily biases towards
a certain upcoming noun, one can test what information about this word is pre-activated by using the
incorrect pre-nominal function word or affixation. For example, Wicha et al. (2004) presented Spanish
speakers with contexts such as La historia de Excalibur dice que el joven rey Arturo sacó de una gran
roca una /un… . (“The story of Excalibur says that the young King Arthur removed from a large stone
a [fem]/a [masc]…”). This context biases towards the word sword. In Spanish, this word has fem-
inine gender (espada). Hence, the masculine determiner (un) rather than the feminine (una) violates
the gender features of the predicted noun. Wicha et al. (2004) showed a difference in the ERPs in L1
Spanish speakers to unexpected vs. expected gender marked determiners, that is, before the predicted
noun was presented. This is evidence that readers/listeners already activated some features (gender
in this case) of the upcoming information (see also, e.g., Foucart et al., 2015; Van Berkum et al.,
2005). Studies using such pre-target violation paradigms suggest that also phonological features of
upcoming words can be pre-activated, among other things. As an example of the latter, DeLong et al.
(2005) used the English indefinite determiner a/an whose form signals that the next word starts with
a consonant or a vowel. They presented contexts that were constraining towards a particular word
and manipulated whether the determiner matched or mismatched the onset of the expected word. An
example is The day was breezy so the boy went outside to fly a/an… . Here the word kite is expected,
hence an is incongruent with that expectation. DeLong et al. reported an N400 at the mismatching
determiner, which varied with the cloze probability of the upcoming noun. Outcomes of studies using
pre-target violations have been much debated, however, with some researchers finding small effects
if any, even in large-scale studies (Nieuwland et al., 2020; Nieuwland et al., 2018), and some finding
support for the original interpretation (Nicenboim et al., 2020).
In spite of the controversy regarding the L1 data, pre-target violation paradigms have been used
to study predictive processing in L2. Martin et al. (2013) used an a/an-paradigm similar to that in
DeLong et al. (2005). Intermediate-proficiency Spanish L2 English learners in the study did not show
334
any effects at the pre-target determiner, even though they were familiar with the rules regarding
a(n) and had similar cloze probabilities to the items as L1 English speakers. Foucart and colleagues
(Foucart et al., 2014; Foucart et al., 2016), on the other hand, did find evidence for pre-target pre-
diction of gender by French L2 leaners of Spanish in a paradigm like the one used by Wicha et al.
(2004). The contrast with the findings from Martin et al. (2013) suggests that featural overlap between
languages (grammatical gender in this case) may make it easier for L2 speakers to pre-activate that
information during reading and listening. Alemán Bañón and Martin (2021) provide more direct
evidence that cross-linguistic influence plays a role. Alemán Bañón and Martin (2021) cite a prior
study using English cleft constructions in which specific nouns could be predicted on the basis of the
preceding context. These expected nouns started either with a vowel or a consonant, as in DeLong
et al. (2005). L1 English speakers showed an N400 at the determiner a(n) when its form mismatched
the expected noun. However, Swedish L2 English speakers showed a later negativity, and Spanish
L2 English speakers showed a late anterior positivity. The difference between the L2 groups may be
due to the differences in word order between Spanish on the one hand, and Swedish and English on
the other. Alemán Bañón and Martin (2021) tested participants from the same three populations in
a study on possessive pronouns. Swedish and English are similar in that the gender of a possessive
pronoun is that of the possessor (e.g., Tom’s mother is referred to as his mother), whereas in Spanish,
the pronoun has the gender of the possessee (e.g., two boys refer to their mother as nuestra madre
“our-F EM mother”). When the gender of the pronoun did not match that of the predicted noun (e.g.,
a reference to Tom’s (his) mother was expected, but the possessive pronoun was her), L1 English
speakers and Swedish L2 English speakers showed an N400 effect, whereas the Spanish L2 English
speakers showed a P600. Since these effects occurred before the target noun, this is evidence that
both groups of L2 speakers predicted the upcoming word, but recruited different processes when the
possessive pronoun violated the expectations.
Taken together, these results suggest that L2 speakers can use the semantic context to predict
formal (phonological, gender) features of upcoming nouns, but that this is a function of overlap
between the languages. This matches findings from studies using the visual world paradigm, showing
that L2 speakers can use formal features (e.g., gender) to predict upcoming information, especially
when the L2 and L1 overlap in terms of the use and realization of these features (Hopp & Lemmerth,
2018; Schlenter & Felser, 2021).
Prediction and Learning: Pedagogical Implications

Predictive processing has been proposed as a mechanism underlying learning. The difference between
what is predicted and the actual input can be used to adjust the system and reduce future prediction
errors. While this mechanism has proven to be very successful in computational models of language
learning (e.g., Chang et al., 2006), it is still debated to what extent prediction and prediction errors are
used in human language leaning, and whether such a mechanism can lead to long-term, generalizable
knowledge (e.g., Kaan & Chun, 2018; Phillips & Ehrenhofer, 2015). First, prediction is not the only
mechanism through which learning may occur. There are phenomena that are hard to learn through
forward prediction, and L2 speakers may know certain aspects of L2 that they cannot use predict-
ively (Huettig & Mani, 2016; Kaan, 2015). Furthermore, given the evidence discussed above that L2
speakers may not make predictions or make the same predictions to the same extent as L1 speakers, it
is not straightforward how prediction could lead to L2 learning (Hopp, 2021). Third, even among L1
speakers, adaptation of processing in response to errors has not been systematically observed (Kaan
& Chun, 2018).
However, there is evidence suggesting that prediction errors can help word learning and memor-
ization, at least in adults (Federmeier et al., 2007; Gambi et al., 2021). Furthermore, several studies
335
Edith Kaan
have shown better learning when learners actively predict (guess) and check their predictions (e.g.,
Potts et al., 2019). Learning may therefore be facilitated by attentional and reward systems, rather
than by predictive processing itself (Gambi, 2021).
Especially the latter findings have obvious pedagogical applications. Guessing exercises could
be easily implemented in language learning apps or classroom practices. As motivation and reward
appears to play a great role, gamification of such apps may encourage learning as well (Schremm
et al., 2017).

Cognitive neuroscience research on predictive language processing in L2 learners and other bilinguals
is still scarce. What is clear is that predictive language processing is highly variable across and within
individuals. Current research is aimed at identifying the modulating factors, such as individual
differences in cognitive control (Zirnstein et al., 2018). Another trend is to investigate how cognitive
control and other processes are dynamically adjusted depending on the current context and demands
within individuals (Salig et al., 2021). Along these lines, studies on prediction could manipulate the
relative reliability or task-relevance of particular cues across the experiment (e.g., Henry et al., 2017;
Henry et al., 2020), so as to determine how L2-speakers trade off such cues to predict or learn from
prediction errors. Alternatively, neuromodulation (see Pandža, this volume) could be used to deter-
mine what aspects of prediction or learning from prediction errors would be affected by modulating,
e.g., the inhibition or attention system. Future research would also need to include people with many
different language backgrounds and language experiences. This will help us further identify what
factors affect prediction during processing and learning from prediction errors.
Further Readings
For an overview of the different interpretations of prediction and an explanation of a Bayesian approach, see:
Kuperberg, G.R., & Jaeger, T.F. (2016). What do we mean by prediction in language comprehension? Language,
Cognition and Neuroscience, 31(1), 32–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2015.1102299
For an alternative take on prediction and its role in language processing and learning, see:
Huettig, F., & Mani, N. (2016). Is prediction necessary to understand language? Probably not. Language,
For an overview of the role of prediction in L2 processing and learning, see e.g.:
Kaan, E. (2014). Predictive sentence processing in L2 and L1: What is different? Linguistic Approaches to
Bilingualism, 4(2), 257–282. https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.4.2.05kaa
Kaan, E., & Grüter, T. (2021b). Prediction in second language processing and learning: Advances and directions.
In E. Kaan & T. Grüter (Eds.), Prediction in second language processing and learning (pp. 1–24). John
Benjamins.
Acknowledgments
The author likes to thank Kristin Lemhöfer, an anonymous reviewer, and the editors of this volume for comments
and suggestions. EK is supported by NSF BCS-2017251.
References
336
Alemán Bañón, J., & Martin, C. (2021). The role of crosslinguistic differences in second language anticipa-
tory processing: An event-related potentials study. Neuropsychologia, 155, 107797. https://doi.org/10.1016/
Altmann, G.T.M., & Kamide, Y. (1999). Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subse-
quent reference. Cognition, 73(3), 247–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00059-1
Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1981). Second language acquisition from a functionalist perspective: Pragmatic,
semantic and perceptual strategies. In H. Winitz (Ed.), Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences confer-
ence on native and foreign language acquisition (pp. 190–214). New York Academy of Sciences.
Brothers, T., Swaab, T.Y., & Traxler, M.J. (2017). Goals and strategies influence lexical prediction during sentence
comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 93, 203–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2016.10.002
Brothers, T., Wlotko, E.W., Warnke, L., & Kuperberg, G.R. (2020). Going the extra mile: Effects of discourse
context on two late positivities during language comprehension. Neurobiology of Language, 1(1), 135–160.
https://doi.org/10.1162/nol_a_00006
Chang, F., Dell, G.S., & Bock, K. (2006). Becoming syntactic. Psychological Review, 113(2), 234–272. https://
doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.113.2.234
DeLong, K.A., Urbach, T.P., & Kutas, M. (2005). Probabilistic word pre-activation during language comprehen-
sion inferred from electrical brain activity. Nature Neuroscience, 8(8), 1117–1121. https://doi.org/10.1038/
nn1504
Dijkgraaf, A., Hartsuiker, R.J., & Duyck, W. (2019). Prediction and integration of semantics during L2 and
L1 listening. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 34(7), 881–900. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273
798.2019.1591469
Dussias, P.E. (2010). Uses of eye-tracking data in second language sentence processing research. Annual Review
of Applied Linguistics, 30, 149–166. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026719051000005X
Dussias, P.E., Valdés Kroff, J.R., Guzzardo Tamargo, R.E., & Gerfen, C. (2013). When gender and looking go
hand in hand. Grammatical gender processing in L2 Spanish. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35,
353–387. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263112000915
Favier, S., Meyer, A.S., & Huettig, F. (2021). Literacy can enhance syntactic prediction in spoken language
processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 150, 2167–2174. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge
0001042
Psychophysiology, 59, e13940. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.13940
Federmeier, K.D., & Kutas, M. (1999). A rose by any other name: Long-term memory structure and sentence
processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 41(4), 469–495. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/
jmla.1999.2660
Federmeier, K.D., Wlotko, E.W., De Ochoa-Dewald, E., & Kutas, M. (2007). Multiple effects of sentential
constraint on word processing. Brain Research, 1146, 75–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2006.06.101
Ferreira, F., & Chantavarin, S. (2018). Integration and prediction in language processing: A synthesis of old
and new. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27(6), 443–448. https://doi.org/10.1177/096372141
8794491
Ferreira, F., & Qiu, Z. (2021). Predicting syntactic structure. Brain Research, 1770, 147632. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.brainres.2021.147632
Foucart, A., Martin, C.D., Moreno, E.M., & Costa, A. (2014). Can bilinguals see it coming? Word anticipation in
L2 sentence reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(5), 4161–
1469. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036756
Foucart, A., Ruiz-Tada, E., & Costa, A. (2015). How do you know I was about to say “book”? Anticipation
processes affect speech processing and lexical recognition. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience. https://
doi.org///dx.doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2015.1016047
Foucart, A., Ruiz-Tada, E., & Costa, A. (2016). Anticipation processes in L2 speech comprehension: Evidence
from ERPs and lexical recognition task. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19(1), 213–219. https://doi.
org/10.1017/S1366728915000486
Frenck-Mestre, C., Carrasco-Ortiz, H., McLaughlin, J., Osterhout, L., & Foucart, A. (2010). Linguistic input
factors in native and L2 processing of inflectional morphology: Evidence from ERPs and behavioral studies.
Language, Interaction and Acquisition, 1(2), 206–228. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1075/lia.1.2.04fre
337
Edith Kaan
Frenck-Mestre, C., German, E.S., & Foucart, A. (2014). Qualitative differences in native and nonnative semantic
processing as revealed by ERPs. In R.R. Heredia & J. Altarriba (Eds.), Foundations of bilingual memory (pp.
237–255). Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-9218-4_12
Gambi, C. (2021). The role of prediction in second language vocabulary learning. In E. Kaan & T. Grüter (Eds.),
Prediction in second language processing and learning (pp. 187–206). John Benjamins.
Gambi, C., Pickering, M.J., & Rabagliati, H. (2021). Prediction error boosts retention of novel words in adults
but not in children. Cognition, 211, 104650. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104650
Grüter, T., Lau, E., & Ling, W. (2020). How classifiers facilitate predictive processing in L1 and L2 Chinese: the
role of semantic and grammatical cues. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 35(2), 221–234. https://doi.
org/10.1080/23273798.2019.1648840
Grüter, T., Lew-Williams, C., & Fernald, A. (2012). Grammatical gender in L2: A production or a real-time pro-
cessing problem? Second Language Research, 28(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658312437990
Grüter, T., Rohde, H., & Shafer, A.J. (2014). The role of discourse-level expectations in non-native speakers’
referential choices. In W. Orman & M.J. Valleau (Eds.), Proceedings of the 38th Annual Boston University
Conference on Language Development (pp. 179–191). Cascadilla Press.
Henry, N., Hopp, H., & Jackson, C.N. (2017). Cue additivity and adaptivity in predictive processing. Language,
Henry, N., Jackson, C.N., & Hopp, H. (2020). Cue coalitions and additivity in predictive processing: The inter-
action between case and prosody in L2 German. Second Language Research, 0267658320963151. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0267658320963151
Hopp, H. (2013). Grammatical gender in adult L2 acquisition: Relations between lexical and syntactic vari-
ability. Second Language Research, 29(1), 33–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658312461803
Hopp, H. (2021). Prediction and grammatical learning in second language sentence processing. In E. Kaan & T.
Grüter (Eds.), Prediction in second language processing and learning (pp. 167–185). John Benjamins.
Hopp, H., & Lemmerth, N. (2018). Lexical and syntactic congruency in L2 predictive gender processing. Studies
in Second Language Acquisition, 40(1), 171–199. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263116000437
Huettig, F. (2015). Four central questions about prediction in language processing. Brain Research, 1626, 118–
135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2015.02.014
Huettig, F., & Janse, E. (2016). Individual differences in working memory and processing speed predict antici-
patory spoken language processing in the visual world. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31, 80–93.
https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2015.1047459
Huettig, F., & Mani, N. (2016). Is prediction necessary to understand language? Probably not. Language,
Ito, A., Corley, M., & Pickering, M.J. (2018). A cognitive load delays predictive eye movements similarly during
L1 and L2 comprehension. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 21(2), 251–264. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S1366728917000050
Ito, A., Corley, M., Pickering, M.J., Martin, A.E., & Nieuwland, M.S. (2016). Predicting form and
meaning: Evidence from brain potentials. Journal of Memory and Language, 86, 157–171. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jml.2015.10.007
Ito, A., Martin, A.E., & Nieuwland, M.S. (2017a). How robust are prediction effects in language comprehen-
sion? Failure to replicate article-elicited N400 effects. Language, Cognition & Neuroscience, 32, 954–965.
doi:10.1080/23273798.2016.1242761
Ito, A., Martin, A.E., & Nieuwland, M.S. (2017b). On predicting form and meaning in a second language.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43(4), 635–652. https://doi.org/
10.1037/xlm0000315
Ito, A., & Pickering, M.J. (2021). Automaticity and prediction in non-native language comprehension. In E. Kaan
& T. Grüter (Eds.), Prediction in second language processing and learning (pp. 25–46). John Benjamins.
Ito, A., Pickering, M. J., & Corley, M. (2018). Investigating the time-course of phonological prediction in native
and non-native speakers of English: A visual world eye-tracking study. Journal of Memory and Language, 98,
1–11. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2017.09.002
Kaan, E. (2014). Predictive sentence processing in L2 and L1: What is different? Linguistic Approaches to
Bilingualism, 4(2), 257–282. https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.4.2.05kaa
Kaan, E. (2015). Knowing without predicting, predicting without learning. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism,
5(4), 482–486. https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.5.4.07kaa
Kaan, E., & Chun, E. (2018). Syntactic Adaptation. In K.D. Federmeier & D.G. Watson (Eds.), Psychology of
Learning and Motivation (Vol. 68, pp. 85–116). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.plm.2018.08.003
338
Kaan, E., Dallas, A.C., & Wijnen, F. (2010). Syntactic predictions in second-language sentence processing. In
J.-W. Zwart & M. de Vries (Eds.), Structure preserved. Festschrift in the honor of Jan Koster (pp. 207–213).
John Benjamins.
Kaan, E., & Grüter, T. (2021). Prediction in second language processing and learning: Advances and directions.
In E. Kaan & T. Grüter (Eds.), Prediction in second language processing and learning (pp. 1–24). John
Benjamins.
Kuperberg, G.R., Brothers, T., & Wlotko, E.W. (2020). A tale of two positivities and the N400: Distinct neural
signatures are evoked by confirmed and violated predictions at different levels of representation. Journal of
Cognitive Neuroscience, 32(1), 12–35. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_01465
Kuperberg, G.R., & Jaeger, T.F. (2016). What do we mean by prediction in language comprehension? Language,
Cognition & Neuroscience, 31(1), 32–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2015.1102299
Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S.A. (1984). Brain potentials during reading reflect word expectancy and semantic asso-
ciation. Nature, 307(5947), 161–163. https://doi.org/10.1038/307161a0
Laszlo, S., & Federmeier, K.D. (2009). A beautiful day in the neighborhood: An event-related potential study of
lexical relationships and prediction in context. Journal of Memory and Language, 61(3), 326–338. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2009.06.004
Lew-Williams, C., & Fernald, A. (2010). Real-time processing of gender-marked articles by native and non-
native Spanish speakers. Journal of Memory and Language, 63(4), 447–464. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jml.2010.07.003
Martin, C., Thierry, G., Kuipers, J.-R., Boutonnet, B., Foucart, A., & Costa, A. (2013). Bilinguals reading in their
second language do not predict upcoming words as native readers do. Journal of Memory and Language,
69(4), 574–588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2013.08.001
Newman, A.J., Tremblay, A., Nichols, E.S., Neville, H.J., & Ullman, M.T. (2012). The influence of language
proficiency on lexical semantic processing in native and late learners of English. Journal of Cognitive
Nicenboim, B., Vasishth, S., & Rösler, F. (2020). Are words pre-activated probabilistically during sentence com-
prehension? Evidence from new data and a Bayesian random-effects meta-analysis using publicly available
data. Neuropsychologia, 142, 107427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2020.107427
Nieuwland, M.S., Arkhipova, Y., & Rodríguez-Gómez, P. (2020). Anticipating words during spoken discourse
comprehension: A large-scale, pre-registered replication study using brain potentials. Cortex, 133, 1–36.
Nieuwland, M.S., Politzer-Ahles, S., Heyselaar, E., Segaert, K., Darley, E., Kazanina, N., Von Grebmer Zu
Wolfsthurn, S., Bartolozzi, F., Kogan, V., Ito, A., Mézière, D., Barr, D.J., Rousselet, G.A., Ferguson, H.J.,
Busch-Moreno, S., Fu, X., Tuomainen, J., Kulakova, E., Husband, E.M., Donaldson, D.I., Kohút, Z.,
Rueschemeyer, S.A., & Huettig, F. (2018). Large-scale replication study reveals a limit on probabilistic pre-
diction in language comprehension. Elife, 7. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.33468
Pajak, B., Fine, A.B., Kleinschmidt, D.F., & Jaeger, T.F. (2016). Learning additional languages as hierarchical
probabilistic inference: insights from L1 processing. Language Learning, 66(4), 900–944. https://doi.org/
10.1111/lang.12168
Phillips, C., & Ehrenhofer, L. (2015). The role of language processing in language acquisition. Linguistic
Approaches to Bilingualism, 5(4), 409–453. https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.5.4.01phi
Pickering, M.J., & Garrod, S. (2013). An integrated theory of language production and comprehension.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(4), 329–347. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X12001495
Potts, R., Davies, G., & Shanks, D.R. (2019). The benefit of generating errors during learning: What is the locus
of the effect? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 45(6), 1023–1041.
https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000637
Pozzan, L., & Trueswell, J.C. (2016). Second language processing and revision of garden-path sentences: a
visual word study. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19(3), 636–643. https://doi.org/10.1017/S13667
28915000838
Prystauka, Y., & Lewis, A.G. (2019). The power of neural oscillations to inform sentence comprehension: A
linguistic perspective. Language and Linguistics Compass, 13, e12347. https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12347
Rabovsky, M., & McRae, K. (2014). Simulating the N400 ERP component as semantic network error: Insights
from a feature-based connectionist attractor model of word meaning. Cognition, 132(1), 68–89. https://doi.
org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.03.010
Romero-Rivas, C., Martin, C.D., & Costa, A. (2016). Foreign-accented speech modulates linguistic anticipatory
processes. Neuropsychologia, 85, 245–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2016.03.022
339
Edith Kaan
language processing of German and Italian: evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of Cognitive
Neuroscience, 18, 2030–2048. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2006.18.12.2030
Salig, L.K., Valdés Kroff, J.R., Slevc, L.R., & Novick, J.M. (2021). Moving from bilingual traits to
states: Understanding cognition and language processing through moment-to-moment variation. Neurobiology
of Language, 2, 487–512. https://doi.org/10.1162/nol_a_00046
Schlenter, J., & Felser, C. (2021). Second language prediction ability across different linguistic domains: Evidence
from German. In E. Kaan & T. Grüter (Eds.), Prediction in second language processing and learning (pp.
47–68). John Benjamins.
Schremm, A., Hed, A., Horne, M., & Roll, M. (2017). Training predictive L2 processing with a digital
game: Prototype promotes acquisition of anticipatory use of tone-suffix associations. Computers & Education,
114, 206–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.07.006
Shain, C., Blank, I.A., van Schijndel, M., Schuler, W., & Fedorenko, E. (2020). fMRI reveals language-specific
predictive coding during naturalistic sentence comprehension. Neuropsychologia, 138, 107307. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2019.107307
Tsoukala, C., Frank, S.L., & Broersma, M. (2017). “He’s pregnant”: simulating the confusing case of gender
pronoun errors in L2 English. Proceedings of the 39th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society
(CogSci 2017) (pp. 3392–3397). Cognitive Science Society, Austin, TX.
Van Berkum, J.J.A., Brown, C.M., Zwitserlood, P., Kooijman, V., & Hagoort, P. (2005). Anticipating upcoming
words in discourse: Evidence from ERPs and reading times. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
Memory, and Cognition, 31, 443–467. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.31.3.443
Wicha, N.Y.Y., Moreno, E.M., & Kutas, M. (2004). Anticipating words and their gender: An event-related
brain potential study of semantic integration, gender expectancy, and gender agreement in Spanish sentence
reading. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16(7), 1272–1288. https://doi.org/10.1162/0898929041920487
Zheng, X., & Lemhöfer, K. (2019). The “semantic P600” in second language processing: When syntax conflicts
with semantics. Neuropsychologia, 127, 131–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2019.02.010
monolinguals and bilinguals. Cognition, 176, 87–106. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognit
ion.2018.03.001
340
25
FEEDBACK IN SECOND
Sybrine Bultena
Introduction
Feedback is indispensable in the process of learning a second language (L2). Although the effect-
iveness of feedback has often been discussed (e.g., Karim & Nassaji, 2019; Li, 2010; Plonsky &
Brown, 2015; Truscott, 1996), all L2 learners rely on input and corrections from teachers, peers,
native speakers, computer programs, or apps to improve their level of proficiency. Feedback can
expose gaps in the learner’s knowledge, promote noticing of errors, provide correct forms, and, as
such, provide opportunities for L2 learning (Loewen, 2012).
The topic of feedback itself has received much attention from different perspectives and research
fields, including applied linguistics, the educational field more generally, and cognitive neurosci-
ence, all of which come with their own specific interests and terminology. Linguistic and educational
approaches to feedback have often focused on questions regarding the effectiveness of different
types of feedback, which have been studied both in the classroom and in the lab, predominantly
using behavioral techniques (e.g., Nassaji & Kartchava, 2021). Neurocognitive approaches, mostly
interested in subdomains other than language learning, investigate how feedback is processed in the
brain and which neural mechanisms underlie participants’ behavioral adaptations (i.e., changes in
performance) after receiving feedback (e.g., Ullsperger et al., 2014). Primarily relying on electro-
encephalography (EEG), which provides a measure of the brain’s electrical activity, studies in this
domain have identified several domain-general response-locked and feedback-locked event-related
potential (ERP) components (for more information about the ERP method, see Dickson & Pelzl, this
volume). These brain responses to specific events could also benefit investigations of L2 feedback,
because they can give more insight in feedback processing and feedback effectiveness. To date,
however, only few neurocognitive studies have approached feedback processing in the context of
L2 learning.
The current neurocognitive L2 literature has a strong focus on learning outcomes, with a pri-
mary interest in the extent to which L2 learners show native-like processing, typically examined
by means of language-related ERP components (Morgan-Short & Tanner, 2014; see also Dickson
& Pelzl, this volume). What makes the domain-general ERP components associated with feedback
interesting is that they allow for an online examination of processing right at the moment that
new knowledge is acquired. These components can reveal how the brain responds to feedback,
DOI: 10.4324/9781003190912-32 341

Sybrine Bultena
which may involve error evaluation, updating of representations, and prevention of future errors.
In other words, feedback-related EEG activity can give us insights into processing during learning.
This chapter aims to give an overview of neurocognitive findings available from the L2 learning
domain on feedback, and connect behavioral findings to insights and methods from cognitive
neuroscience. In doing so, it additionally aims to pave the way for future studies on L2 feedback
processing.
Critical Definitions and Overview of Feedback-Related ERPs

Feedback promotes learning, which can be defined as correct performance immediately on a subse-
quent experimental trial, on delayed post-tests, or in terms of long-term retention (see Soderstrom &
Bjork, 2015). This can result in declarative knowledge (such as memorized information) and proced-
ural knowledge (such as rule discovery; Rebuschat & Williams, 2012).
There are many different forms of feedback that can lead to learning. Traditionally, linguistics
has broadly distinguished between positive and negative evidence (White, 1991), both of which
can be thought of as feedback. Negative evidence is the information provided to a learner that a
produced utterance is not correct, which is typically an explicit form of feedback. The L2 feed-
back literature generally uses the term corrective feedback to refer to negative evidence. Such
corrective feedback may involve different types of information, which can be broadly categorized
on the basis of three characteristics: (a) the accuracy of the response or utterance (was it correct
or incorrect?); (b) the correct form proper; and (c) metalinguistic information elucidating why
something is wrong or how a rule should be applied correctly (Loewen, 2012). The term corrective
feedback is used to refer to all of these forms or a combination of any of the three. Positive evi-
dence, or exposure to correct input, can similarly provide feedback to L2 learners, albeit in a more
implicit form. Recasts, more or less subtle reformulations of a preceding erroneous production,
and input provided by natives are examples of positive evidence; such feedback allows learners
to detect errors in their own formulations, provided that these are noticed (see Loewen, 2012).
More recently, feedback has been categorized as either input-providing (e.g., recasts and metalin-
guistic information) or output-promoting (e.g., elicitations and prompts) (Loewen, 2012). These
categorizations indicate that linguistic approaches to feedback have been primarily concerned
with the errors that learners make (see Leeman, 2007), rather than with correct performance in a
learning situation.
As opposed to linguistic investigations, neurocognitive approaches typically distinguish
between effects of positive and negative feedback, i.e., indications that a preceding response was
correct or incorrect. Feedback is investigated as part of performance monitoring, a field that studies
how the brain detects and learns from mistakes by means of self-monitoring of one’s own errors,
observation of others’ errors, or feedback received from others (Ullsperger et al., 2014). This lit-
erature spans a variety of topics related to learning and memory, involving tasks based on execu-
tion of motor commands in response to a particular stimulus, such as eye movements or grasping
behavior (see Gehring et al., 2011), the memorization of names for novel objects (e.g., Arbel et al.,
2013), or visual perception, an example of which is the Flanker task where participants are asked
to make a decision on the direction of an arrow flanked by other arrows (e.g., Heldmann et al.,
2008). In such tasks, feedback is usually provided in response to binary choice decisions, and the
same stimuli are repeatedly presented to facilitate trial-and-error learning. This allows for the
examination of feedback processing, which can be defined as “the cognitive process [that] allows
[an] individual to monitor, detect, and pay attention to errors in order to learn from them and thus
improve performance, adapt behavior and regulate emotions, and update knowledge” (Dion &
Restrepo, 2016, p. 247).
342
Feedback in Second Language Neurocognition
How feedback provided by others is processed by the receiver can be inferred from feedback-
related ERP components that are visible in the EEG waveform time-locked to the onset of the feed-
back presentation. This typically elicits two components that vary according to whether the feedback
is positive or negative. The first of these components is known as the feedback-related negativity
(FRN), an early fronto-central negative-going waveform, usually quantified at electrode Fz or FCz,
that peaks roughly between 200 and 300 ms after feedback presentation (Miltner et al., 1997).
It is elicited for feedback in both the auditory (usually immediate) and visual (more likely to be
delayed) modality (San Martín, 2012), and is attested in adult, child (Arbel & Fox, 2021), and toddler
populations (Meyer et al., 2014). The FRN effect is typically measured as a difference between the
more negative waveform following negative feedback in comparison to positive feedback. In tasks
involving reliable (i.e., valid) feedback that is informative for behavioral adaptation,1 the FRN is
commonly thought to be an index of expectancy violations, irrespective of whether the feedback is
positive or negative (Ferdinand & Opitz, 2014; Oliveira et al., 2007). In other words, an FRN effect
can indicate that a learner is surprised both by feedback indicating that their response was incorrect
as well as by feedback that their response was correct. The FRN is thought to originate in the medial
prefrontal cortex (Alexander & Brown, 2011). More specifically, it is assumed to reflect the response
of the dorsal part of anterior cingulate cortex to expectancy violations (Miltner et al., 1997; Van Schie
et al., 2004).
The second ERP component associated with feedback processing, which co-occurs with typic-
ally the FRN, is the feedback-locked P300, a broad-ranging centro-parietal positive-going waveform
linked to the temporal parietal junction (TPJ) or locus coeruleus (a part of the brain stem associated
with responses to stress) that tends to peak roughly between 300 and 600 ms after feedback onset
(San Martín, 2012). In terms of its functional significance for feedback processing, the P300 has been
related to updating processes (Donchin & Coles, 1988), and encoding of new information (Donchin,
1981). Larger P300 amplitudes are found as the feedback stimulus is more infrequent or less expected.
The amplitude of the P300 has also been related to the probability of behavioral adaptation following
feedback (San Martín, 2012). In addition to the FRN and P300, several studies investigating declara-
tive learning (e.g., of name-object associations) also report an early frontal positivity (FCP or P3a)
in relation to corrective feedback, which is thought to reflect attentional orienting towards relevant
information (Butterfield & Mangels, 2003; Ernst & Steinhauser, 2012).
Apart from feedback-locked components elicited by external feedback provided by a computer
program, teacher, or interlocutor, studies on performance monitoring have also examined the internal
detection of errors, or self-monitoring, a process thought to result in what is more commonly known
as an “oops response” (Hajcak & Simons, 2008). The internal detection of errors can be visualized by
examining response-locked components. Committed errors yield an error-related negativity or ERN
once detected (Falkenstein et al., 1990; Gehring et al., 1993), a fronto-central sharp negative deflec-
tion, generally measured at Fz or FCz, that peaks within 100 ms after an error has been made. It is
usually followed by an error positivity (Pe) that peaks between 100–200 ms after error commission,
which has been linked to error awareness (see Wessel, 2012). Early accounts have shown that the
FRN and ERN components are related and share neural generators (Miltner et al., 1997). The internal
detection of errors is particularly interesting as an outcome measure of learning; once a new rule or
knowledge set has been acquired, learners should be able to monitor their own errors. As such, the
ERN can be used as a marker of learning.
So far, we have distinguished between positive vs. negative, and internal vs. external types of
feedback. In what follows, this chapter will give an overview of findings on feedback in L2 learning
from both behavioral and neurocognitive approaches. In doing so, it will address feedback effective-
ness, the neural correlates of feedback processing, and studies on L2 learning that have used these
measures.
343
Sybrine Bultena
Key Issues About L2 Feedback Effectiveness

A key question in the L2 literature concerns the long-term effectiveness of different types of feed-
back (e.g., Nassaji & Kartchava, 2021). Several research overviews point to an advantage of explicit
over implicit forms of feedback (Russell & Spada, 2006; but see Li, 2010), in line with the idea that
attention and noticing are crucial for L2 learning (Gass & Mackey, 2020; Schmidt, 2010). Other
aspects that affect feedback effectiveness relate to contextual factors, including the timing of the
feedback (immediate or delayed), characteristics of the interlocutor (their L1, gender, and age), who
the recipient is (the learner themselves or someone else), and how informative the feedback is (is the
correct form provided or not), as well as individual differences, including L2 proficiency, develop-
mental readiness, working memory and inhibitory control (see Loewen, 2012).
Despite a large number of behavioral studies on feedback effectiveness, several questions remain,
such as how we can tell that feedback is noticed, how the incidence of learning can be established (see
Lyster & Ranta, 1997 on uptake vs. intake), and whether it is possible to predict if feedback will be
effective. Although behavioral performance provides useful insights to establish the effectiveness of
different types of feedback, it cannot reveal how such feedback is processed, and how this can con-
tribute to changes in subsequent performance.
How Can Effectiveness Be Measured Using ERPs?

As a prediction error marker (Alexander & Brown, 2011), the occurrence of feedback-locked
components could serve as an indication of noticing when measured at the moment that feedback is
provided. These components can also show learning-related fluctuations and changes. As L2 learning
progresses and proficiency increases, instances of negative feedback decline, whereas positive feed-
back is likely to become more and more expected. So, as performance improves, the occurrence of
the FRN, and thereby also its amplitude in the averaged signal, decreases in the course of learning
(Van Der Helden et al., 2010). Importantly, such a relationship between the FRN effect and learning
is typically only observed for tasks that rely on rule-learning (Butterfield & Mangels, 2003; Ernst &
Steinhauser, 2012); when a rule is memorized, feedback becomes less informative, reducing the pre-
diction error (i.e., the difference between predicted and actual outcomes). For item-based learning,
however, feedback remains informative until all individual items have been learnt, meaning that the
FRN may not decrease in amplitude even though performance improves (e.g., Bultena et al., 2017).
By the same token, informativity of feedback depends on the number of response options; when
participants are asked to make a binary choice, negative feedback is as informative as positive feed-
back. In a multiple-choice design, however, negative feedback without being complemented by a
correct form leaves several options to choose from, which implies that ERP amplitudes in response to
positive feedback are a better indication of subsequent learning (Arbel et al., 2013).
The amplitude of feedback- locked components has also been used to predict behavioral
adjustments. Larger amplitudes for the FRN, FCP and P300 during learning have been associated
with correct performance on a subsequent occurrence of particular items or on a post-test (Arbel,
2013; Arbel &Wu, 2016; Ernst & Steinhauser, 2012). Whether or not feedback leads to behavioral
adjustment depends on a number of modulating factors. These include contextual effects, such as
the perceived relevance of feedback and how well it is understood (see Dion & Restrepo, 2016), and
how confident participants are about response accuracy (Frömer et al., 2021). Individual differences
regarding age have similarly been shown to affect the size of the FRN, because neural generators of
the FRN, such as the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex and other parts of the cognitive control network
344
have not yet fully developed in young children (Arbel et al., 2013; Arbel & Fox, 2021). Performance
monitoring thus improves as the brain matures, which implies that feedback may not be processed
optimally as long as inhibitory mechanisms have not fully developed.
A reduction of the FRN has furthermore been shown to be accompanied by an increase in the
response-locked ERN (Bellebaum & Daum, 2008; Heldmann et al., 2008), as learners can increas-
ingly monitor their own performance internally and rely less on explicit feedback. Note that such an
effect can only be reliably observed once learners are able to detect slips in their own performance.
As such, this effect is more likely to be observed for rule-learning. Finally, response-locked and
feedback-locked components can be used to monitor learning from observation. The observational
ERN (oERN) or FRN (oFRN) and subsequent positivities can be elicited in participants who observe
another participant making a mistake or receive feedback (Bellebaum et al., 2010; van Schie et al.,
2004; but see Burnside et al., 2019).

To date, only a handful of studies on L2 learning have used error-related and feedback-related
components to investigate learning. One of the first L2 studies to focus on processing during learning,
while simultaneously taking teaching methods into account, was conducted by Davidson and Indefrey
(2009). In a morpho-syntactic learning task, they examined the performance of Dutch learners of
German and compared their performance to that of native speakers of German. The L2 learners, all of
whom had some previous knowledge of German, were taught a declension rule relating to adjectives.
In German, the marking of case, gender, and number on individual lexical items that form part of the
noun phrase depends on the presence or absence of determiners. If a determiner is part of the noun
phrase, the adjective only takes a weak suffix, but in the absence of a determiner, the adjective has a
strong suffix. The Dutch learners in this study, who had intermediate levels of proficiency, were typ-
ically not aware of this subtle variation.
All participants were subjected to different rounds of testing as part of a learning study. On the
first day of testing, they took part in a pre-test in which they were asked to judge whether prepos-
itional phrases, part of which included declension and gender violations, were grammatically correct
or incorrect. While the morpho-syntactic feature was relatively complex, the nouns and adjectives
used in the study were all familiar to the Dutch learners, so that erroneous responses could not be
lexically driven. On the same day, the participants also received explicit instruction on the declension
rule involving pen-and-paper tasks that focused on gender and case marking. This was followed by
a training phase, in which participants were once again asked to judge the accuracy of a set of prep-
ositional phrases. This training phase included simple feedback on response accuracy; by means of a
color cue and an accompanying sound, learners were informed whether their judgement was correct
or not, but they were not told the correct response or the exact location of the error in violated phrases.
One week later, participants came back for a post-test that did not provide any feedback.
Participants’ EEG was measured during the pre-test, training phase, and post-test, both during
stimulus presentation and while they assessed the accuracy of the phrases. The training was shown to
be effective: the number of judgment errors for the declension manipulation decreased in the course
of learning. During processing, a stimulus-locked P600 effect was observed for the L2 learners in
both the training phase and the post-test, which was similar to the effect native speakers showed when
presented with the same morpho-syntactic violations. Although behavioral performance on gender
violations similarly increased between pre-test and post-test, this manipulation did not show P600
effects at any stage of learning.
Having demonstrated that grammatical learning occurred, the authors subsequently examined
ERP components as learners decided on the accuracy of the phrases presented during the pre-test,
345
Sybrine Bultena
training, and post-test. In line with the observed P600 effects, their data indicated a response-locked
ERN and error positivity (Pe) for declension violations in the training phase and post-test, which was
absent during the pre-test. A follow-up analysis furthermore demonstrated that a larger ERN ampli-
tude correlated with greater behavioral improvement from pre-test to post-test. No such effects were
evidenced for the gender violation. The results for the declension manipulation thus showed that the
explicit instruction had helped the learners to figure out the declension rule, which resulted in error
monitoring. On the basis of these findings, the learning of gender agreement, however, seems to
require item-based learning rather than rule-based learning. Assuming that item-based learning takes
longer to memorize, this may explain why P600 and error-related effects were absent for the gender
violation. Together these results indicate that domain-general learning mechanisms, as indexed by the
ERN, are relevant for language processing. Despite using a feedback-guided design, Davidson and
Indefrey (2009) did not examine feedback-related components (FRN and P300) separately. The study
gives no specifics on the timing of the feedback following the response, other than that feedback was
presented at very short intervals. This suggests that the ERN effect that was observed early on during
the training phase, which included feedback presentation, may have included feedback processing
rather than or in addition to internal monitoring of errors.
A subsequent study by Davidson and Indefrey (2011) did look into response-locked and feedback-
locked components separately. They repeated the same task employed in their earlier design, again
targeting a similar group of Dutch learners of German, but left out the explicit instructions. Similar
to the 2009 study, on the first day, participants took part in a pre-test and received a feedback-guided
training task that asked them to judge the accuracy of prepositional phrases. A week later, participants
came back for another two training sessions; in all cases, accuracy feedback was given in the form
of color cues. The feedback was presented 1000 ms after a response was given, and remained on the
screen for 250 ms followed by a 1000 ms blank screen, to allow for distinct analyses of ERN/Pe and
FRN/P300 effects. The behavioral data showed that performance on declension violations was close
to chance level in the pre-test, but improved in every round of training. A similar pattern was pre-
sent for gender violations, although the learning curve for this condition was less steep. Congruent
with behavioral performance, the stimulus-locked EEG data showed a P600 effect for declension
violations in every training round after the pre-test; such an effect was present for the gender vio-
lation only in the third training round. Feedback-locked components, irrespective of violation type,
showed an FRN effect that was larger in amplitude in the first two training rounds compared to the
third round of training. In all three rounds, the FRN was followed by a P300, which increased over
rounds. An analysis of response-locked components failed to produce clear evidence of internal error
monitoring; a small ERN effect emerged when the data of the last two training rounds were combined
to improve power, but a Pe effect was absent. This supported the authors’ suspicion that the response-
locked effects in the 2009 study, in fact, reflected feedback processing. This 2011 follow-up study
furthermore showed that simple color cues, which did not specify the type or location of an error, may
suffice as informative feedback. The combination of feedback-locked effects and P600 effects after
only a few rounds of simple feedback-guided learning highlights the fact that L2 learning can occur
rapidly and that its effects may be observed in the relatively short course of an experiment.
Similar findings have been obtained by Bultena et al. (2017) for L2 learning of grammatical gender.
Participants in this study were German learners of Dutch, who are known to struggle deciding on the
correct article for Dutch-German cognates (such as ‘auto’/‘Auto’) as a result of L1 interference,
especially when the grammatical gender of the two versions of the cognate differs (Lemhöfer et al.,
2010). In a feedback-driven gender decision task, learners were asked to make a binary gender deci-
sion for lexical items that were presented. The items, which included the incongruent gender cognates
(de[COMMON] auto/das[NEUTER] Auto), were repeated in three consecutive rounds to foster learning. For
every gender decision, participants were additionally asked to rate their response certainty on a
346
four-point scale ranging from ‘uncertain’ to ‘certain’. The EEG data showed robust FRN and P300
effects, which did not diminish in size as behavioral performance improved. This is in line with the
observation that learning-related changes in the FRN depend on the informativity of the feedback.
In contrast to rule-learning, negative feedback for individual trials continues to be relevant in the
case of vocabulary or other word-specific features. The data furthermore showed an emergent ERN
effect after two rounds of feedback, suggesting that the L2 learners were beginning to make accurate
predictions of response outcomes. Both ERN and FRN measures in the third round were shown to be
correlated with certainty ratings obtained in an immediate post-test: higher amplitudes for both error-
related components resulted in higher levels of response certainty (see also Bultena et al., 2020).
The use of response-locked and feedback-locked components is not limited to L2 learning of
morpho-syntactic features. In a recent study (Bujok et al., 2021), participants were presented with
an auditory lexical decision task comprising of L1 words that had undergone a vowel shift. Based
on corrective feedback after each trial, participants had to learn that monosyllabic words containing
one vowel had been replaced by another vowel. For example, /ɪ/ would consistently be pronounced
as /ʌ/, which could result in either a non-word (“strip” becoming “strup”) or another existing word
(“list” becoming “lust”). Erroneous responses to items presented in this novel accent showed almost
instant internal error monitoring, indexed by ERN effects, indicating quick phonological adaptation
in speech comprehension (see also Sebastian-Gallés et al., 2006). Other studies using response-locked
ERNs have examined internal monitoring of bilingual speech production, demonstrating that the ERP
effect can be isolated from motor artifacts—EEG signals reflecting the muscle movements involved
in speaking that can obscure ERP signals (Acheson & Hagoort, 2014). Vocabulary learning has simi-
larly been studied from the perspective of feedback processing, in tasks where participants are asked
to learn L1–L2 word pairings. A recent study focusing on the effect of lexical specificity for vocabu-
lary learning shows that the amplitude of feedback-locked components varies according to whether
L2 learners were presented with multiple-choice options that included target words combined with
form-similar distractors (demanding a high level of attention to form) compared to form-unrelated
distractors (demanding less attention; Weindorf et al., in prep.). These examples demonstrate that
domain-general components can similarly be employed in L2 learning studies for various linguistic
domains.
Some Remarks on Feedback-Locked and Response-Locked ERP Components

A few words of caution are in order for the use of feedback-locked and response-locked components.
At present, there does not seem to be a clear consensus on how to quantify the FRN. In some studies,
it is quantified as the difference between the most negative and the preceding most positive peak in
the 150–350 ms time window, known as a through-to-peak amplitude (e.g., Bultena et al., 2017).
Although this approach is sometimes argued to be a means to quantify the FRN independently from
the P300 (e.g., Ernst & Steinhauser, 2012), it is also commonly known to be highly susceptible to
noise, or signals not generated by the brain (San Martín, 2012). Alternatively, the FRN component
can be measured as a mean amplitude in the time window of 200–300 ms following feedback presen-
tation. Furthermore, the FRN can be hard to discern among other components, because it is embedded
between the first visual component, the N1, and the P300, both of which are much more pronounced
than the FRN. The quantification issue similarly applies to the ERN (e.g., Gehring et al., 2011).
Perhaps a more crucial issue is the fact that any error-related effect depends on response accuracy,
which implies that a critical mass of error observations is needed. Previous studies have shown that
the minimum number of trials needed for an ERN individual average to be attested is 6 or 7 (Olvet &
Hajcak, 2009; Pontifex et al., 2010). It is therefore important that the task at hand is difficult enough,
for example, comprising a complex rule to learn, involving a high memory load, or challenging task
347
Sybrine Bultena
demands, such as a short response deadline (see Özkan et al, 2021). As the occurrence of errors is
likely to diminish in the course of learning, the number of trials associated with the two conditions is
likely to be imbalanced throughout an experimental paradigm. A small number of negative feedback
trials is likely to cause problems particularly at the end of a learning task; some studies have therefore
combined different experimental rounds in their analysis to compensate for the low number of nega-
tive trials (e.g., Bultena et al., 2017; Davidson & Indefrey, 2011).
More recent EEG techniques offer one way to counter some of these issues, because they can
better capture the complexities of neural processing and therefore provide more solid answers to
questions regarding cognitive mechanisms (Cohen, 2014). As holds for any ERP component, the
FRN represents a combination of different frequency bands that originate from multiple generators
in a large-scale brain network. Brain regions involved in feedback processing, along the anterior
cingulate cortex, include the dorsolateral pre-frontal cortex as well as the dopamine system more
generally (San Martín, 2012). Time frequency analyses, which can reveal neural oscillations such
as alpha, beta, theta or gamma frequencies (Cohen, 2014; see also Mottarella & Prat, this volume),
can therefore complement current insights based on ERPs, because these are likely to offer a better
window on the different neural generators involved in feedback processing (see Watts et al., 2018)
and how they interact to facilitate learning (Luft, 2014). Time frequency analyses could also be
helpful in visualizing changes in connectivity that are assumed to be involved in learning (see San
Martín, 2012).

Current neurocognitive studies on feedback-driven learning in L2 have often focused on explicit
forms of learning, in which participants are asked to make explicit, often binary, decisions. Although
such a decision is necessary to examine response- locked components associated with internal
monitoring, feedback-locked components could also be studied in the absence of explicit decision
making. It has been shown repeatedly that individuals are susceptible to the linguistic behavior of
their interlocutor. They align, for example, in terms of pronunciation (Norris et al., 2003) and syn-
tactic structures (Branigan, 2007; Hartsuiker et al., 2004), and, importantly, this phenomenon has
also been observed in conversations between L2 learners and native speakers (Garrod & Pickering,
2009). The interlocutors’ input can therefore also be considered as a form of (implicit) feedback, or
positive evidence. Recently, several new techniques have been developed to study implicit learning
in interaction, which have the potential to be combined with neurocognitive measures. One such tech-
nique concerns the use of a “confederate” in a so-called ventriloquist paradigm (Felker et al., 2018),
in which L2 learners are exposed to pre-recorded speech, which provides native input regarding pro-
nunciation. Interaction with a confederate has furthermore been shown to facilitate L2 learning of
vocabulary (De Vos et al., 2019) and morphosyntactic features (Brandt et al., 2021). These designs
allow for measurement of feedback-locked components at the point in time the confederate utters
a correct form. If such implicit feedback is noticed by participants, they are likely to show atten-
tional or updating processes, which could help to predict whether or not participants make behavioral
adaptations in subsequent utterances.
Another path to be explored concerns the connection between neurocognitive insights and the
practical implications for L2 instruction, as currently discussed in the field of educational neuro-
science (see Dion & Restrepo, 2016). Despite the enormous interest in the topic of feedback from
an educational perspective, there are a few hurdles that prevent a one-to-one connection between
these two fields. Feedback that is provided in the classroom usually goes beyond that given in an
experimental setting, both in terms of the amount, as well as the detail provided. Nevertheless, the
studies reviewed above indicate that the effectiveness of different kinds of feedback can be examined
348
when manipulated carefully (Davidson & Indefrey, 2009, 2011). Besides feedback, there are also
studies pointing to the effectiveness of errors. Several studies on vocabulary learning suggest that
making errors in and of itself increases the chances of long-term retention (Huelser & Metcalfe, 2012;
Metcalfe, 2017), with several studies suggesting that the effect of error-prone conditions may only be
visible on delayed post-tests (Baxter et al., 2021; Weindorf et al., in prep.). Such error-based learning
could be investigated in more detail using response-locked components.
In conclusion, this chapter has aimed to highlight the relevance of studying feedback from a
neurocognitive perspective to allow for a better understanding of feedback effectiveness. L2
learning can occur quite rapidly, which is why the use of a method with a high temporal resolution
is well-suited. The FRN/P300 and ERN/Pe components in particular, allow for online examination
of feedback processing and emergent internal monitoring in many forms of error-based learning.
Furthermore, feedback-locked components provide an interesting tool to examine whether feedback
processing, and predictive processing more generally, differ between L1 and L2 processing, or how
feedback processing changes in the course of L2 development. Neurocognitive methods seem well-
suited to study the use of feedback and find answers to these questions.
Note
1 It must be noted that the FRN as an early processing component is also elicited in tasks that involve unreli-
able (sometimes valid, sometimes invalid) feedback, also known as probabilistic feedback. In these studies,
this early component is typically associated with feedback valence, the positive or negative effect that infor-
mation regarding response accuracy has on a learner (see Luft, 2014; San Martín, 2012). This is typically
the case in studies on gambling and reward processing, where positive feedback is associated with gains,
and negative feedback with losses. Within this research, which is traditionally referred to as Reinforcement
learning (Ullsperger et al., 2014), the FRN effect is generally relabelled Reward Positivity, where rewards
(positive outcomes) yield more positive amplitudes than losses. Because feedback provided in gambling
paradigms is at best probabilistic and usually not informative, it does not lead to actual learning and therefore
falls beyond the scope of this chapter.
Further Readings
A comprehensive account on the neurophysiology of performance monitoring and adaptive behavior can be
found in Ullsperger, Danielmeier and Jocham (2014)
Ullsperger, M., Danielmeier, C., & Jocham, G. (2014). Neurophysiology of performance monitoring and adaptive
behavior. Physiological Reviews, 94(1), 35–79. https://doi.org/10.1152/physrev.00041.2012
A useful overview of response-locked components is provided by Gehring et al. (2011).
Gehring, W.J., Liu, Y., Orr, J.M., & Carp, J. (2011). The error-related negativity (ERN/Ne). In S.J. Luck &
E.S. Kappenman (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of event-related potential components (pp. 231– 291).
University Press.
A good overview on feedback-locked components is given by San Martín (2012)
San Martín, R. (2012). Event-related potential studies of outcome processing and feedback-guided learning.
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00304
For more details on oscillations associated with feedback processing, see Luft (2014).
Luft, C.D.B. (2014). Learning from feedback: The neural mechanisms of feedback processing facilitating better
performance. Behavioral Brain Research, 261, 356–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2013.12.043
References
Acheson, D.J., & Hagoort, P. (2014). Twisting tongues to test for conflict-monitoring in speech production.
349
Sybrine Bultena
Alexander, W.H., & Brown, J.W. (2011). Medial prefrontal cortex as an action-outcome predictor. Nature
Neuroscience, 14(10), 1338–1344. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.2921
Arbel, Y., & Fox, A.B. (2021). Electrophysiological examination of feedback-based learning in 8–11-year-old
children. Frontiers in Psychology, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.640270
Arbel, Y., Goforth, K., & Donchin, E. (2013). The good, the bad, or the useful? The examination of the relation-
ship between the feedback-related negativity (FRN) and long-term learning outcomes. Journal of Cognitive
Neuroscience, 1249–1260. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn
Arbel, Y., & Wu, H. (2016). A neurophysiological examination of quality of learning in a feedback-based learning
task. Neuropsychologia, 93, 13–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2016.10.001
Baxter, P., Droop, M., Van den Hurk, M., Bekkering, H., Dijkstra, T., & Leoné, F. (2021). Contrasting similar
words facilitates second language vocabulary learning in children by sharpening lexical representations.
Frontiers in Psychology, 12(July), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.688160
Bellebaum, C., & Daum, I. (2008). Learning-related changes in reward expectancy are reflected in the
feedback-related negativity. European Journal of Neuroscience, 27, 1823–1835. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1460-9568.2008.06138.x
Bellebaum, C., Kobza, S., Thiele, S., & Daum, I. (2010). It was not my fault: Event-related brain potentials in
active and observational learning from feedback. Cerebral Cortex, 20(2006), 2874–2883. https://doi.org/
10.1093/cercor/bhq038
Brandt, A.C., Schriefers, H., & Lemhöfer, K. (2021). A laboratory study of naturalistic second language
learning: Acquiring grammatical gender from simple dialogue. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
Memory, and Cognition, 48 (5), 658–679. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0001068
Branigan, H. (2007). Syntactic priming. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1(1–2), 1–16. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1749-818x.2006.00001.x
Bujok, R., Bultena, S., McQueen, J., & Broersma, M. (2021). Accent adaptation through error-based learning.
In J.S. Nixon, E. Shafaei-Bajestan, & H. Baayen (Eds.), The International Conference on Error-Driven
Learning in Language. https://quantling.org/EDLL2021/docs/EDLL2021_timetable_book_of_abstra
cts.pdf
Bultena, S., Danielmeier, C., Bekkering, H., & Lemhöfer, K. (2017). Electrophysiological correlates of error
monitoring and feedback processing in second language learning. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience,
11(January), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2017.00029
Bultena, S., Danielmeier, C., Bekkering, H., & Lemhöfer, K. (2020). The role of conflicting representations and
uncertainty in internal error detection during L2 learning. Language Learning, 70(June), 75–103. https://doi.
org/10.1111/lang.12401
Burnside, R., Fischer, A.G., & Ullsperger, M. (2019). The feedback-related negativity indexes prediction error
in active but not observational learning. Psychophysiology, 56(9), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.13389
Butterfield, B., & Mangels, J.A. (2003). Neural correlates of error detection and correction in a semantic retrieval
task. Cognitive Brain Research, 17(3), 793–817. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0926-6410(03)00203-9
Cohen, M.X. (2014). Analyzing neural time series data. MIT Press.
Davidson, D.J., & Indefrey, P. (2009). An event-related potential study on changes of violation and error
responses during morphosyntactic learning. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21, 433–446. https://doi.org/
10.1162/jocn.2008.21031
Davidson, D.J., & Indefrey, P. (2011). Error-related activity and correlates of grammatical plasticity. Frontiers in
Psychology, 2. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00219
De Vos, J.F., Schriefers, H., ten Bosch, L., & Lemhöfer, K. (2019). Interactive L2 vocabulary acquisition in a lab-
based immersion setting. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 34(7), 916–935. https://doi.org/10.1080/
23273798.2019.1599127
and neurolinguistics. Routledge
Dion, J.S., & Restrepo, G. (2016). A systematic review of the literature linking neural correlates of feedback
processing to learning. Zeitschrift Fur Psychologie /Journal of Psychology, 224(4), 247–256. https://doi.org/
10.1027/2151-2604/a000260
Donchin, E. (1981). Surprise!…Surprise? In Psychophysiology (Vol. 18, pp. 493–513). https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1469-8986.1981.tb01815.x
Donchin, E., & Coles, M.G.H. (1988). Is the P300 component a manifestation of context updating? Behavioral
and Brain Sciences, 11, 357–374. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00058015
350
Ernst, B., & Steinhauser, M. (2012). Feedback-related brain activity predicts learning from feedback in multiple-
choice testing. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 12(2), 323–336. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13
415-012-0087-9
Falkenstein, M., Hohnsbein, J., Hoormann, J., & Blanke, L. (1990). Effects of errors in choice reaction tasks on
the ERP under focused and divided attention. Psychophysiological Brain Research, 1, 192–195.
Felker, E., Troncoso-Ruiz, A., Ernestus, M., & Broersma, M. (2018). The ventriloquist paradigm: Studying speech
processing in conversation with experimental control over phonetic input. The Journal of the Acoustical
Society of America, 144(4), EL304–EL309. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.5063809
Ferdinand, N.K., & Opitz, B. (2014). Different aspects of performance feedback engage different brain
areas: Disentangling valence and expectancy in feedback processing. Scientific Reports, 4, 1–8. https://doi.
org/10.1038/srep05986
Frömer, R., Nassar, M.R., Bruckner, R., Stürmer, B., Sommer, W., & Yeung, N. (2021). Response-based out-
come predictions and confidence regulate feedback processing and learning. ELife, 10, 1–29. https://doi.org/
10.7554/ELIFE.62825
Garrod, S., & Pickering, M.J. (2009). Joint action, interactive alignment, and dialog. Topics in Cognitive Science,
1(2), 292–304. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2009.01020.x
Gass, S.M., & Mackey, A. (2020). Input, interaction, and output in L2 acquisition. In B. VanPatten, G.D. Keating,
& S. Wulff (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 192–222). Routledge.
Gehring, W.J., Goss, B., Coles, M.G.H., Meyer, D.E., & Donchin, E. (1993). A neural system for error detection
and compensation. Psychological Science, 4, 385–390. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1993.tb00586.x
Gehring, W.J., Liu, Y., Orr, J.M., & Carp, J. (2011). The error-related negativity (ERN/Ne). In S.J. Luck &
E.S. Kappenman (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of event-related potential components (pp. 231– 291).
University Press.
Hajcak, G., & Simons, R.F. (2008). Oops!.I did it again: An ERP and behavioral study of double-errors. Brain
and Cognition, 68(1), 15–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2008.02.118
Hartsuiker, R.J., Pickering, M.J., & Veltkamp, E. (2004). Is syntax separate or shared between languages? Cross-
linguistic syntactic priming in Spanish-English bilinguals. Psychological Science, 15(6), 409–414. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00693.x
Heldmann, M., Rüsseler, J., & Münte, T.F. (2008). Internal and external information in error processing. BMC
Neuroscience, 9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2202-9-33
Huelser, B.J., & Metcalfe, J. (2012). Making related errors facilitates learning, but learners do not know it.
Memory and Cognition, 40(4), 514–527. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-011-0167-z
Karim, K., & Nassaji, H. (2019). The effects of written corrective feedback. Instructed Second Language
Acquisition, 3(1), 28–52. https://doi.org/10.1558/isla.37949
Leeman, J. (2007). Feedback in L2 learning: Responding to errors during practice. In R. DeKeyser (Ed.)
Practice in a second language: Perspectives from linguistics and psychology, (pp. 111–137). Cambridge
University Press.
Lemhöfer, K., Schriefers, H., & Hanique, I. (2010). Native language effects in learning second-language grammat-
ical gender: A training study. Acta Psychologica, 135, 150–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.06.001
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2),
309–365. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00561.x
Loewen, S. (2012). The role of feedback. In S.M. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second
language acquisition (pp. 24–40). Routledge.
Luft, C.D.B. (2014). Learning from feedback: The neural mechanisms of feedback processing facilitating better
performance. Behavioral Brain Research, 261, 356–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2013.12.043
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learning uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative
classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 37–66.
Metcalfe, J. (2017). Learning from Errors. Annual Review of Psychology, 68, 465–489. https://doi.org/10.1146/
annurev-psych-010416-044022
Meyer, M., Bekkering, H., Janssen, D.C., de Bruijn, E.R.A., & Hunnius, S. (2014). Neural correlates of feedback
processing in toddlers. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 26(7), 1519–1527. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn
Miltner, W.H.R., Braun, C.H., & Coles, M.G.H. (1997). Event-related brain potentials following incorrect
feedback in a time-estimation task: Evidence for a “generic” neural system for error detection. Journal of
Cognitive Neuroscience, 9(6), 788–798. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.1997.9.6.788
Morgan-Short, K., & Tanner, D. (2014). Event-related potentials (ERPs). In J. Jegerski & B. VanPatten (Eds.),
Research methods in second language psycholinguistics (pp. 127–152). Routledge.
351
Sybrine Bultena
Mottarella, M. & Prat, C. (this volume). Using quantitative electroencephalography (qEEG) to investigate second
language learning. In K. Morgan-Short and J.G. van Hell (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language
Nassaji, H., & Kartchava, E. (2021). The Cambridge handbook of corrective feedback in second language
learning and teaching. Cambridge University Press.
Norris, D., McQueen, J.M., & Cutler, A. (2003). Perceptual learning in speech. Cognitive Psychology, 47(2),
204–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0285(03)00006-9
Oliveira, F.T.P ., McDonald, J.J., & Goodman, D. (2007). Performance monitoring in the anterior cingulate is
not all error related: Expectancy deviation and the representation of action-outcome associations. Journal of
Cognitive Neuroscience, 19(12), 1994–2004. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2007.19.12.1994
Olvet, D.M., & Hajcak, G. (2009). The stability of error- related brain activity with increasing trials.
Psychophysiology, 46(5), 957–961. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2009.00848.x
Özkan, D.G., Broersma, M., Bekkering, H., & Bultena, S. (2021). Observed and performed error signals in audi-
tory lexical decisions. Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2021.02.001
Plonsky, L., & Brown, D. (2015). Domain definition and search techniques in meta-analyses of L2 research
(Or why 18 meta-analyses of feedback have different results). Second Language Research, 31(2), 267–278.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658314536436
Pontifex, M.B., Scudder, M.R., Brown, M.L., O’Leary, K.C., Wu, C.T., Themanson, J.R., & Hillman, C.H.
(2010). On the number of trials necessary for stabilization of error-related brain activity across the life span.
Rebuschat, P., & Williams, J.N. (2012). Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language acquisition. Applied
Psycholinguistics, 33(04), 829–856. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716411000580
Russell, J., & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar. In
J. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 133–164). John
Benjamins.
San Martín, R. (2012). Event-related potential studies of outcome processing and feedback-guided learning.
Schmidt, R. (2010). Attention, awareness, and individual differences in language learning. Proceedings of
CLaSIC 2010, 4, 721–737.
Sebastian-Gallés, N., Rodríguez-Fornells, A., de Diego-Balaguer, R., & Díaz, B. (2006). First- and second-
language phonological representations in the mental lexicon. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 1277–
1291. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2006.18.8.1277
Soderstrom, N.C., & Bjork, R.A. (2015). Learning versus performance: An integrative review. Perspectives on
Psychological Science, 10(2), 176–199. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691615569000
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327–
369. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01238.x
Ullsperger, M., Danielmeier, C., & Jocham, G. (2014). Neurophysiology of performance monitoring and adaptive
behavior. Physiological Reviews, 94(1), 35–79. https://doi.org/10.1152/physrev.00041.2012
Van Der Helden, J., Boksem, M.A.S., & Blom, J.H.G. (2010). The importance of failure: Feedback-related nega-
tivity predicts motor learning efficiency. Cerebral Cortex, 20(7), 1596–1603. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/
bhp224
Van Schie, H.T., Mars, R.B., Coles, M.G.H., & Bekkering, H. (2004). Modulation of activity in medial frontal
and motor cortices during error observation. Nature Neuroscience, 7(5), 549–554. https://doi.org/10.1038/
nn1239
Watts, A.T.M., Tootell, A.V., Fix, S.T., Aviyente, S., & Bernat, E.M. (2018). Utilizing time-frequency amplitude
and phase synchrony measure to assess feedback processing in a gambling task. International Journal of
Psychophysiology, 132(August), 203–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2018.04.013
Weindorf, L., Goertz, R., Baxter, P., Bultena, S., & Leoné, F. (in prep). The effect of contrasting response options
on feedback processing.
Wessel, J.R. (2012). Error awareness and the error-related negativity: Evaluating the first decade of evidence.
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00088
White, L. (1991). Adverb placement in second language acquisition: Some effects of positive and negative evi-
dence in the classroom. Second Language Research, 7(2), 133–161. https://doi.org/10.1177/02676583910
0700205
352
26
MEMORY CONSOLIDATION
IN SECOND LANGUAGE
NEUROCOGNITION

Imagine yourself talking with your colleagues over lunch and one of them says “I want a mushrim for
my birthday!”. You ask what a mushrim is and your colleague answers that it is a massage device to
relax your arm muscles after spending the whole day clicking with your mouse. Before the personal
computer era, the word mouse was solely used to refer to a small rodent. Now it has an additional
meaning. And if you happen to be learning Spanish then you will learn that the word for the animal
mouse in Spanish is ratón. We learn and remember new words and meanings throughout our lifetime,
but how do we do so?
Our memory consists of multiple subsystems. It can be divided into declarative and
non-declarative sub-systems (for glossary, see Box 26.1; Schacter, 1997; Squire & Knowlton,
1995). In the example above, the experience of you hearing the novel word “mushrim” over lunch
is initially encoded as an episodic memory. Over time, you might forget all the instances of experi-
encing that word in specific contexts but can still remember what it means and use it in different
situations. The declarative memory representation of such experience-independent knowledge can be
categorized as part of semantic memory (Tulving, 1972; Tulving et al., 2001).
Box 26.1 Glossary
Declarative memory: Memory that is explicit (i.e., is open to conscious recollection) and representa-
tional (i.e., it concerns knowledge about things and events). It includes episodic and semantic memory.
Non-declarative memory: Memory that is implicit (i.e., not open to conscious recollection) and
which tends to be expressed through performance (e.g., being able to ride a bike is expressed through
the act of riding). It includes procedural memory, priming, and conditioning.
Episodic memory: Memory for personal experiences. The memory is bound to a specific spatio-
temporal context in which the experience took place.
Semantic memory: Memory for facts and knowledge, such as the meaning of words, concepts,
symbols, etc. It is not bound to a specific time or place.
DOI: 10.4324/9781003190912-33 353

Memory consolidation: A process in which a memory trace becomes resistant to forgetting.

Consolidation can occur in the form of stabilization or strengthening of the original episodic memory
trace. The episodic trace can also change into another form of representation such as a semantic memory.
Lexicalization: When a newly learned word begins to interact with existing words, the word
representation is thought to have reached the state of lexicalization. This process is seen as a conse-
quence of consolidation of newly learned words, where the word representation shifts from an epi-
sodic memory trace to a semantic memory representation.
Procedural memory: Memory that supports skilled behavior and habits or that concerns implicit
knowledge of rules and sequences.
Lexical decision task: Task where participants indicate whether a string of letters (visual) or a
sound fragment (auditory) is an existing word or not.
Semantically primed lexical decision task: Lexical decision task where the target word is
preceded by a prime (pseudo-)word. If the prime and the target are related, it speeds up the reaction
time (this is known as the Priming effect) on the target word. In word learning experiments, novel
words are used both as primes and targets, to see if the newly learned words will influence/will be
influenced by the related existing words.
Pause detection task: Task where participants detect the (non-)existence of an artificially inserted
pause within a spoken word. Reaction time is affected by lexical neighborhood density (number of
words phonologically similar to the target word, with higher density words showing slower reaction
times than low density words).
N400: An event-related potential (ERP) component that is often investigated in word processing
and that can be taken as a marker of how related items are to preceding items. It is thought to reflect
more automatic aspects of semantic retrieval compared to the Late positive component (LPC).
LPC: A late positive ERP component which is thought to reflect more controlled aspects of
semantic retrieval compared to the N400.
Prime lexicality effect: When a masked prime and a target word are related orthographically, the
reaction time on lexical decision to the target is facilitated when the prime is a nonword but not when
it is a word. This has been found for L1, but not L2.
The hippocampus is the core structure for retaining episodic memories (Alvarez & Squire, 1994;
Eichenbaum et al., 2012; Nadel & Moscovitch, 1997). Patients with a hippocampal lesion cannot
remember contextual information (episodes), for instance, what they ate for breakfast 30 minutes ago
(Scoville & Milner, 1957). They also have difficulty learning new words. However, they can com-
municate verbally and do so fluently (Schmolck et al., 2002). This led memory researchers to assume
that memory representations are not static but dynamic and shift to different areas of the brain through
a process of consolidation (Dudai, 2012; Frankland & Bontempi, 2005; Gilboa & Moscovitch, 2021;
Winocur & Moscovitch, 2011). Several studies suggest that the left temporal cortex is where lexical
representations are stored after consolidation (Indefrey & Levelt, 2004; Price, 2012).
The memory traces that are consolidated are resistant to forgetting. How a memory representation
becomes stabilized over time, however, is still not fully understood. According to the complementary
learning systems (CLS) model (McClelland et al., 1995), a novel memory trace captured by the hippo-
campus is kept separate from the existing bulk of knowledge stored in the neocortex to prevent cata-
strophic interference (McCloskey & Cohen, 1989), but over time and through interleaved learning,
the quality of the memory representation can change (Davis & Gaskell, 2009; Gilboa & Moscovitch,
2021). One such change is integration into the existing semantic memory network. From this perspec-
tive, novel word representations can be of multiple types. A novel word bound in the learning context
354
Memory Consolidation in Second Language Neurocognition
is an episodic memory representation, supported by the hippocampal complex. Once a novel word
is lexicalized, however, the word begins to interact with neighboring words that share phonological,
orthographic, or semantic similarities or associations. This interaction only happens once the novel
word is integrated into the mental lexicon following consolidation (Gaskell & Dumay, 2003) and has
thus become a semantic memory representation.
Time, especially sleep, is known to promote memory consolidation (Rasch & Born, 2013; Sara,
2017; Schimke et al., 2021). When we are asleep, important or salient content is stabilized and
consolidated, whereas less strong memory traces reduce their synaptic strength (Tononi & Cirelli,
2006). During sleep, recent memory traces are reactivated, and this reactivation promotes consolida-
tion (e.g. Deuker et al., 2013). Furthermore, external stimulation of learned material presented during
subsequent sleep, such as presenting odor or sound related to the learned context as one is sleeping,
so-called targeted memory reactivation (TMR), has been shown to boost this consolidation process
(Oudiette & Paller, 2013; Rasch et al., 2007).
Another factor known to speed up the consolidation trajectory is the existence of prior know-
ledge (e.g., a schema). Schema-related learning was first studied in rodents, where the memory trace
was shown to become independent of the hippocampus at a faster time scale when the rodents were
presented with new information as an addition to a well-learned environment (Tse et al., 2007).
Knowledge assimilation, or adding new information to or altering existing knowledge, seems to
require less time to consolidate than when totally novel information is learned from scratch.
We focus in this chapter on the CLS model because it makes specific claims about the memory
consolidation process. There are however other, related theoretical perspectives which we summarize
in Box 26.2.
Box 26.2 Other theoretical perspectives
Building on knowledge about our memory system, Ullman has proposed the declarative/procedural model
to explain how we acquire and store linguistic information (Ullman, 2020). According to the model, we
begin to acquire our first language (L1) through uninstructed learning situations. Babies are exposed,
for instance, to object–name associations multiple times and gradually learn the names of objects. They
learn grammatical properties without being told the underlying rules. This type of learning is procedural
in nature and dominant in babies and young children whose hippocampal system is still under develop-
ment. In contrast, second language (L2) learning, especially in older children and adults, is often acquired
under instructed learning situations in classrooms and through textbooks. According to the model, this is
declarative learning, where the hippocampal complex is utilized for rapid and efficient learning. However,
once an L2 user is fluent, and hence their use of L2 words has become automated, L2 word processing can
become procedural in nature. The two systems interact and interfere with each other. The model offers
an important account of how declarative and procedural memory systems are involved across ages and
languages but it does not offer a specific account of the shift between episodic and semantic memory
systems within declarative memory that we argue underlies lexicalization.
Henke’s processing-based model (2010) considers memory from a processing perspective rather than
from the perspective of the classic conscious/non-conscious distinction (see glossary on declarative/non-
declarative memory). The model suggests that the rapid and flexible encoding that allows for one-shot
learning takes place in the hippocampal-neocortical network, whereas slow and rigid association learning
through repetition takes place in basal ganglia–cerebellum–neocortical circuits. With respect to language
acquisition, one could translate Ullman’s model to Henke’s model by assuming that declarative learning
355
utilizes the former processing areas, and that procedural learning utilizes the latter. Henke’s model is
broadly in line with the CLS account of consolidation.
Another view on the status of lexical items has been suggested by Leach and Samuel (2007). They
introduced the terms lexical configuration and lexical engagement. If a word evokes its definition, how it
is spelled, or how it is pronounced, this is lexical configuration. Once the novel word starts to interact with
other words in the lexicon, showing for instance priming effects, then the word is thought to be in a state
of lexical engagement. The latter is thus equivalent to lexicalization in the CLS model.
Historical Perspective: First Language Lexicalization

Research on second language (L2) memory consolidation has its historical roots in work on con-
solidation in first language (L1). As already outlined above, newly learned L1 words undergo con-
solidation. A substantial amount of research has sought to understand this L1 lexicalization process,
starting when Gaskell and colleagues (Davis & Gaskell, 2009; Gaskell & Dumay, 2003) applied the
CLS account of consolidation to word learning. In this account, words are initially represented in the
hippocampus, and these representations are gradually replaced by representations in the neocortex.
This account has been investigated using both behavioral and neurocognitive techniques.
Behavior
Behaviorally, one result of consolidation that is of specific interest to the process of word learning
is lexicalization. Lexicalization is thought to have occurred when the new word interacts with other
words in the existing lexicon. There are several ways to test whether a word has been lexicalized.
Commonly used tasks to assess L1 lexicalization are (semantically primed) lexical decision, pause
detection, and priming tasks (Davis et al., 2009; Gaskell & Dumay, 2003; Takashima et al., 2014;
Tamminen & Gaskell, 2013; Van der Ven et al., 2015). These tasks all measure whether a newly
learned word interacts with an existing word. The CLS account of word learning predicts that consoli-
dation is necessary for newly learned words to show signs of being lexicalized. For pause detection
tasks, evidence of lexicalization takes the form of slowed RTs to familiar words due to competition
with the newly learned words that share phonology/orthography. For example, when English-speaking
participants learned the new spoken word cathedruke, their response to the question of whether
the familiar word cathedral contains an artificial pause within the word or not is slower following
lexicalization (Gaskell & Dumay, 2003). Directly after learning and hence prior to lexicalization,
however, this phenomenon is not yet observed (Gaskell & Dumay, 2003). For semantically primed
lexical decision tasks, the RTs of the target words are faster when the prime and the target word pairs
are related to each other, but this is also found only after lexicalization (Bakker-Marshall et al., 2021;
Van der Ven et al., 2015).
Sleep
Sleep appears to support lexicalization (Dumay & Gaskell, 2007), but sleep is not an absolute pre-
condition to lexicalization as interleaved learning can lead to lexicalization without sleep (Lindsay &
Gaskell, 2013). There are also instances where neither sleep nor repetition is required for the learner
to acquire the memory for novel words (Kapnoula et al., 2015). One example of this phenomenon
is fast-mapping (Kan et al., 2014). When participants are presented with a novel word together with
356
a known object and an unknown object, they are likely to label the unknown object with the novel
word. People can thus learn the novel word with its associated meaning with one presentation, and
some hippocampally lesioned patients can also do this (Sharon et al., 2011).
EEG/MEG
In addition to the behavioral signatures of lexicalization, the electroencephalogram (EEG) has been
employed to detect lexicalization (for an overview of methodologies, see Dickson & Pelzl, this
volume, and Mottarella & Prat, this volume). The N400, one event-related potential (ERP) compo-
nent that is often investigated in word processing, can be taken as a marker of how related items are
to preceding items (Kutas & Federmeier, 2011). Several studies have investigated both the N400
and the late positive component (LPC) in word learning, with the N400 thought to reflect more
automatic and the LPC more controlled aspects of semantic retrieval (Bakker et al., 2015b; Liu &
Van Hell, 2020). Just like existing words, if the novel words are lexicalized, one would expect the
novel words to show similar ERP components to those shown by existing words, and therefore a
smaller N400 effect when the target word appears after a related word. Dutch-speaking participants
exhibited an N400 that did not differ between pseudowords learned 24 hours before the EEG task
(i.e., words learned remotely) and existing words, whereas recently learned pseudowords (learned
one hour before the EEG task) evoked a more negative N400 and LPC than the existing words
(Bakker et al., 2015b). In the same study, semantic priming of the newly learned words revealed
a difference between learned words and existing words, but there was no effect of consolidation.
That is, both the remote and recently learned words exhibited a smaller LPC when primed by a
semantically related word as compared to an unrelated word. In a conceptual replication study
with monolingual English-speaking participants, the LPC but not the N400 effect was observed
both one day and one week after learning (Liu & Van Hell, 2020). The authors discuss that the lack
of N400 effects in their sample may be related to their participants’ limited experience with for-
eign languages, compared to the participants tested by Bakker et al. (2015b). In a follow-up study,
monolingual English-speaking participants learned novel words paired not only with a definition,
as in Liu and Van Hell (2020), but also a picture (Lei et al., 2022). As predicted, words learned with
a picture and definition elicited an LPC one day and one week after learning. However, the expected
N400 effect was not seen at either time point, replicating the findings of Liu and Van Hell (2020).
No differences in consolidation were found between words learned with just a definition or a defin-
ition and a picture. The authors propose that one session of training may not be enough to evoke the
N400 lexicalization signature. Conversely, although Kaczer et al. (2018) report an N400 effect that
arises 48 hours after novel word learning, no difference arose in the LPC for remote and recently
learned words. The discrepancy between the studies investigating the N400 and LPC as measures
of lexicalization suggest that future studies are needed to clarify how these two ERP components
respond to lexicalization. Finally, in line with the behavioral results, EEG data suggest that sleep is
not a prerequisite for lexicalization to arise (Borovsky et al., 2012).
EEG oscillations also differ between lexicalized novel words and those that have not under-
gone lexicalization. Words that were learned 24 hours before EEG data was collected did not
exhibit power differences in theta or beta bands when compared to existing words (Bakker et al.,
2015a). This was in contrast to words that had been learned directly before the EEG data acquisi-
tion, for which oscillatory activity was more similar to that in response to unfamiliar words. In a
magnetoencephalography (MEG) study, this effect was localized to the left posterior middle tem-
poral gyrus (pMTG; Bakker-Marshall et al., 2018). Theta and beta oscillations may thus also pro-
vide evidence for lexicalization.
357
fMRI
Lexicalization of newly learned words has also been investigated using functional magnetic resonance
imaging (fMRI). As already discussed, the CLS account predicts that initially, newly learned words are
represented in the hippocampus and medial temporal structures as episodic memories, and following
consolidation, they are represented in a distributed neocortical network including the pMTG. The
hippocampus decreases in activation with successive presentations of new words (Breitenstein et al.,
2005). When directly testing consolidation, Davis et al. (2009) found that untrained words elicited
greater hippocampal responses than learned words, both recent and remote, but the CLS-predicted
increase of cortical involvement after sleep-related consolidation was not shown.
Several additional studies have specifically investigated the involvement of neural structures indi-
cative of lexicalization (Landi et al., 2018; Takashima et al., 2014, 2017). In one study, participants
learned words that were either accompanied by pictures or without any meaning attached (form
only) and fMRI data was acquired directly following learning, and again one day later (Takashima
et al., 2014). Both medial temporal regions and neocortical regions showed activity in response to
the learned words, directly after learning as well as one day later. In the pMTG, form-only words
evoked higher activity than picture-associated words directly after learning, whereas the picture-
associated words showed more activity in this region one day after learning. These findings suggest
that the time course of consolidation may differ depending on whether a word is taught with an
associated meaning. In another study, participants learned novel words accompanied by meaning in
the form of pictures or definitions or form-only words (Takashima et al., 2017). The fMRI data was
acquired directly after learning, and again after a delay of one week. Similarly to Takashima et al.
(2014), hippocampal activity was evoked both directly after learning, as well as one week later.
Furthermore, although cortical regions were recruited already directly after learning, this recruitment
was larger in magnitude one week later. Both studies provide support for the CLS account of word
learning only in part, as the recruitment of the neocortex directly after learning is not predicted by
the CLS account. The third fMRI study also lends evidence in partial support of the CLS account
(Landi et al., 2018). Here, participants learned novel words on two consecutive days, and fMRI data
was acquired after word learning on day 2. The words learned on day 1 and day 2 did not differ in
the hippocampal activity they evoked. However, words learned on day 1, for which sleep-dependent
consolidation could take place, exhibited greater activation in cortical areas than those words learned
directly before the scan. In sum, the fMRI studies that have been conducted to date all provide partial
support for the CLS account. The results suggest that the hippocampus does not disengage entirely
following a short period of consolidation, but rather may still be responsible in part for maintaining a
new word’s representation. It might take more than a week for the memory representation to become
independent of the hippocampus, but it is unclear to date at which point representation of the novel
word no longer recruits the hippocampus. Furthermore, the neocortex appears to be engaged earlier
than the CLS model predicts. Again, the conditions under which neocortical representation begins to
emerge remain to be determined.
The State of the Art on L2 Lexicalization

A rich body of evidence thus supports the view that novel word learning in the L1 entails processes
of memory consolidation. Although much still remains to be discovered about this L1 lexicalization
process, researchers have started to ask about L2 lexicalization. Is there a process by which
representations of newly learned L2 words change from episodic to semantic representations? If so,
are these L2 lexicalization processes the same or different from those in L1? Furthermore, what is
the role of sleep in the L2 process, and are the same hippocampal and neocortical networks engaged
across L1 and L2?
358
Extending the CLS account of word learning from L1 to L2 word learning, Lindsay and Gaskell
(2010) propose no difference in principle between L1 and L2 lexicalization. Learning new words in
an L2 entails similar aspects to L1 word learning, although being distinct in several ways. Whereas
learning a new word in L1 such as mushrim requires the learner to map a new word to a new object, as
well as learn the definition of mushrim, when a monolingual English speaker learns the Spanish word
ratón, they can integrate this into their lexical entry for mouse. In the case of L2 word learning, there-
fore, the learner often has prior knowledge about the object and its definition. However, the degree
of familiarity with the phonology/orthography of the L2 could lead to variation in how quickly a new
word is lexicalized (Lindsay & Gaskell, 2010).
Behavior
To date, only a handful of studies have investigated L2 lexicalization (see Table 26.1). Behaviorally,
we predict that L2 words that have undergone lexicalization should show a similar signature of
lexicalization to that found in L1 words. This prediction has been confirmed for newly learned L2
words using a pause detection task to assess whether lexicalization of novel word forms can be seen
through interference between novel and known words after a period of consolidation (Tartaro et al.,
2021). Sequential Italian–English bilinguals learned English pseudowords for objects of which they
did not know the English word. After learning, participants exhibited slower RTs during a pause
detection task in response to English words that were phonologically similar to pseudowords that had
been learned two days before the pause detection task, but not to English words that were phonolo-
gically similar to pseudowords learned directly before the task. This provides evidence that the words
that were learned two days before the test were lexicalized, whereas the words learned directly before
the test were not, which is in line with the CLS model prediction.
However, the evidence from semantic priming tasks involving word meaning is more mixed. In
one study employing a semantic priming task to assess lexicalization, two groups of participants were
taught Swahili words: English monolinguals and simultaneous Spanish–English bilinguals (Bakker-
Marshall et al., 2021). Neither group had prior experience with Swahili. Participants had to decide
whether a target word (the second word presented) was a real English word. Each target word was
preceded or primed by a learned Swahili word that was either semantically related or unrelated. If
the related Swahili word primed the English word, this would be evidence for lexicalization. The
English monolinguals exhibited a semantic priming effect in response to Swahili words learned one
day before, but not words learned directly before the test. The same pattern did not hold, however,
for the Spanish–English bilinguals who did not show evidence of priming at either testing moment.
Results from two studies that also assessed lexicalization with semantic priming or semantically
primed lexical decision tasks are also not straightforward (Havas et al., 2018; Tartaro et al., 2021).
Whereas a study with sequential Italian–English bilinguals found that both recently and remotely
learned words primed existing English words (Tartaro et al., 2021), Spanish monolinguals learning
Hungarian (a new language for them) did not show a semantic priming effect arising from Hungarian
prime words learned 12 hours earlier, neither those learned before sleep, one day before the test, nor
those learned on the same day as the test and thus without intervening sleep (Havas et al., 2018).
It is thus not yet clear whether lexicalization at the word-form level is fully parallel with (e.g., has
the same time course as) lexicalization at the word-meaning level. This may depend on whether the
newly learned words are in a new or an existing L2.
Findings from Qiao and Forster (2017) challenge the idea that there is no hard division between
L1 and L2 word learning. In an L1 study with printed words, Qiao and Forster (2013) took advan-
tage of the prime lexicality effect (PLE): masked primes that are orthographically similar to
target words have a different effect on responses to the targets as a function of their lexical status.
359
newgenrtpdf
Table 26.1 An Overview of the Studies Investigating Lexicalization in L2 Word Learning
Study Language of L2 words learned Timing Test DV Outcome

participants
Tartaro et al., Italian–English Novel English-like words 2 days before (remote) Pause detection RT Pause detection was slower
2021 (late) sequential for known objects OR same day (recent) for remote words, but
bilinguals (participants did not as test not recent words
know English label of Primed lexical RT New words primed
object); decision responses for both

L2 was known remote and recent
conditions
Recognition task BOLD Remote and recent
words evoke more
hippocampus activity
than untrained words.
No difference between
remote/recent words
360
and untrained words in

pMTG
Bakker-Marshall 1) English Swahili–English word 1 day before (remote) Primed lexical RT Monolinguals showed
et al., 2021 monolinguals pairs; L2 was unknown OR same day (recent) decision, priming effect for
2) early, mostly as test targets: English remote words
sequential words and pseudo-
Spanish-English English nonwords;
bilinguals primes: learned
Swahili words
Recognition task BOLD No difference in activity
between remote and
recent words
Havas et al., Spanish Hungarian; L2 was 12 hours before test: with Semantic priming RT No priming effect of L2
2018 monolinguals unknown overnight sleep (sleep + task words in sleep +or
group; sleep-associated sleep – groups
consolidation) or without
intervening overnight sleep
(sleep –group)
Nonword primes facilitate responses but word primes do not (and can sometimes have inhibitory
effects). Qiao and Forster (2013) showed that in L1 participants, following consolidation, newly
learned words behaved like existing English words (i.e., there was a PLE). When the experiment was
rerun with Chinese–English bilinguals, however, no PLE was found (i.e., even after consolidation the
newly learned words produced facilitatory priming, just like nonwords). Similarly, when Japanese–
English bilinguals learned new English words, they did not show a PLE (Nakayama & Lupker, 2018).
The latter authors proposed that this was related to the dissimilarity of the two languages: Japanese
being logographic (like Chinese) and English being alphabetic. These studies demonstrate that the
L1 that serves as the base upon which an L2 is being learned may play a very important role in how
words are learned and lexicalized.
Sleep
As we have already noted, sleep plays an important role in memory consolidation (Rasch & Born,
2013). This also appears to be true for L2 lexicalization. Cueing recently learned L2 words during
sleep led to significantly better memory for cued than uncued words (Schreiner & Rasch, 2015b).
A group that did not sleep but was cued showed no such difference between cued and uncued words
(see also Schreiner & Rasch, 2015a). The EEG data collected during sleep showed that if more nega-
tive amplitude and slow oscillations 800-1100 ms following presentation of the trained words were
observed, these words were remembered more than the words that did not show this effect. These
EEG signatures possibly reflect replay of the learned memory trace through effective TMR leading
to strengthening of consolidation.
EEG
Evidence exists that ERPs investigated in word learning, such as the N400, also emerge in L2 learning
(Havas et al., 2017; McLaughlin et al., 2004; Ojima et al., 2005; Soskey et al., 2016; Yum et al.,
2014). Following 14 hours of a French course, the N400 for pseudowords was larger than for French
words that had been studied, thus showing a similar pattern to what is expected in L1, though in the
word judgment task, participants’ accuracy was not yet above chance (McLaughlin et al., 2004).
Additionally, the N400 has been shown to increase with proficiency in L2 word learning (Yum et al.,
2014). Therefore, this ERP component may also be useful in EEG studies investigating lexicalization
in L2 word learning. However, to date, no study has directly investigated the effect of lexicalization
on the N400 and LPC ERP components elicited by newly learned L2 words, that is, to observe a diffe-
rence before and after a period of consolidation time.
fMRI
Neurally, the CLS account predicts that L2 words that have undergone consolidation recruit neo-
cortical regions whereas non-lexicalized words rely more heavily on the hippocampus and medial
temporal structures. A handful of studies have investigated lexicalization in L2 word learning using
fMRI. Thus far, these fMRI studies have not found clear evidence for the activation patterns that
would be expected according to the CLS model. One study reported increased activity in the hippo-
campus for both remote and recently learned words compared to untrained words, but no difference in
activation between remote or recently learned words and untrained words in the pMTG (Tartaro et al.,
2021). Similarly, participants who learned Swahili on two days, 24 hours apart did not show any
difference in the fMRI signal between recently and remotely learned words (Bakker-Marshall et al.,
2021). Finally, a developmental study that investigated L2 word learning in children and adolescents
361
found a trend for decreasing activation in the right hippocampus from immediately after learning to
one week after learning (Takashima et al., 2019).

We have argued that consolidation protects memories from being forgotten and that, following con-
solidation, a word is said to be lexicalized. Studies investigating L1 word learning have explored the
conditions under which words become lexicalized and how this can be assessed. These studies have
found broad support for the CLS account. This line of research has recently been extended to L2
lexicalization. Although our review of this literature has shown that there is increasing behavioral evi-
dence suggesting that L2 lexicalization follows a similar pattern to that proposed by the CLS account,
many aspects of lexicalization that have been probed in L1 remain to be tested in L2. Additionally,
further evidence is required from L2 studies on the involvement of brain regions implicated in the
CLS account of word learning.
Learning an L2 differs in several profound aspects from learning an L1. Some of these aspects
may affect lexicalization, in particular first the similarity of the L2 to the L1 and second the learning
setting. The orthographic similarity of an L2 to the existing L1 has been shown to play a role when
assessing lexicalization by means of the PLE (Nakayama & Lupker, 2018). It remains unclear
whether there are also effects of phonological similarity. The masked-priming paradigm, however,
can be used only with written stimuli, whereas many other tasks (e.g., lexical decision) can also be
administered using spoken stimuli. An interesting avenue for future studies to pursue would thus be
to assess further the role that similarity (or dissimilarity) of the L2 plays in lexicalization not only
in the orthographic domain but also in the phonological domain. The effect of modality is also an
understudied topic within L2 word lexicalization. For example, it is still not known whether novel
L2 words learned in one modality (e.g., as printed words) have influence on processing L2 words in
the other input modality (e.g., as spoken words), as appears to be the case across modalities in L1
(Bakker et al., 2014).
Learning settings are different for L1 and L2. L1 is typically learned implicitly, but L2 can be
learned in many ways. Two broad learning settings can be distinguished. On the one hand, in explicit
classroom-type settings, linguistic and metalinguistic information about the L2 is conveyed to the
learner. On the other hand, in implicit immersion-type settings, L2 learning takes place through
exposure (e.g., in daily activities carried out in that language). In a study comparing explicit and
implicit L2 training directly, differences in ERPs were reported between the two types of instruction
(Morgan-Short et al., 2012). Although the effect of learning setting has not directly been investigated
in L2 lexicalization, learning method differences (i.e., presenting participants either with the trans-
lation equivalent of a to-be-learned L2 word or a video depicting the L2 word) lead to differences
in lexicalization of L2 words (Boddaert et al., 2021). Because many people who learn an L2 in
adulthood are likely to learn in an explicit way, it would be of great interest to understand whether
the learning setting (see Bowden & Faretta-Stutenberg, this volume) also gives rise to differences in
lexicalization. The difference between instructed (explicit) and uninstructed (implicit) learning plays
a critical role in the declarative-procedural model (Ullman, 2020). Another important question that
needs to be asked, therefore, is how the evidence on consolidation and lexicalization (i.e., transfer
from episodic to semantic memory) might be added to that model.
Finally, we would like to propose a complementary approach to the study of L2 lexicalization.
Although group comparisons have been one approach to disentangle the effect of variables like L2
proficiency in L2 learning, recently the potential benefit of exploring individual variability has gained
more attention (e.g., see Luque & Covey, this volume). This is a promising avenue of future research
in L2 lexicalization. As discussed above, factors such as type of exposure to L2 may play a role in
362
lexicalization, and there is a large amount of variability in these factors that exists in the popula-
tion. L2 studies so far have had to try to control for such variability in order to create homogenous
experimental groups. A switch to focusing on individual differences overcomes this difficulty. It
comes, however, with the additional requirement of large sample sizes, without which studies of indi-
vidual differences in any domain are less meaningful. We expect, therefore, that future research on
L2 lexicalization will include continued work using group comparisons and new work on individual
differences.
In the last 20 years, the understanding of how newly learned words become integrated into the
lexicon has increased greatly. In L1 word learning, both on the behavioral and neural level, there is
convincing evidence that complementary learning systems interact in the process of lexicalization.
With regard to L2, while there is evidence for this lexicalization process on the behavioral level,
the evidence remains sparse on the neural level. A handful of studies have reported findings in
support of individual components of the CLS account. However, additional studies are required
to confirm the idea that lexicalization in L2 word learning undergoes similar neural processes as
L1 lexicalization. Furthermore, as discussed above, there are many other open questions about L2
lexicalization, about the effects of factors such as cross-linguistic similarity and learning setting,
about cross-modality effects, and about individual differences. Yet other factors concern both L1
and L2 lexicalization, including the precise role that sleep plays in consolidation, the effect(s) of
prior knowledge (i.e., memory schemata), and whether the time course of lexicalization is the same
at the level of word forms (orthographic and phonological) as at the level of word meanings. In
short, much remains to be discovered about how a novel L2 word, such as the Spanish word ratón,
is learned and remembered.
Further Readings
The first study to investigate behaviorally the lexicalization of newly learned words.
Gaskell, M.G., & Dumay, N. (2003). Lexical competition and the acquisition of novel words. Cognition, 89(2),
105–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(03)00070-2
A paper following Gaskell and Dumay (2003) extending the view on the neural level.
Davis, M.H., & Gaskell, M.G. (2009). A complementary systems account of word learning: Neural and behav-
ioural evidence. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364(1536), 3773–
3800. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2009.0111
A recent review of consolidation with a focus on the neuroscience and memory-consolidation literature.
Takashima, A., & Bakker, I. (2016). Memory Consolidation. In H.-J. Schmid (Ed.), Entrenchment and the psych-
ology of language learning: How we reorganize and adapt linguistic knowledge (pp. 177–200). De Gruyter
Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1037/15969-009
A recent review of the L1 lexicalization literature, with a focus on the effect of sleep.
Palma, P., & Titone, D. (2021). Something old, something new: A review of the literature on sleep-related
lexicalization of novel words in adults. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 28(1), 96–121. https://doi.org/
10.3758/s13423-020-01809-5
References
Alvarez, P., & Squire, L.R. (1994). Memory consolidation and the medial temporal lobe: A simple network
model. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 91(15), 7041–7045. https://doi.org/10.1073/
pnas.91.15.7041
Bakker, I., Takashima, A., Van Hell, J.G., Janzen, G., & McQueen, J.M. (2014). Competition from unseen or
unheard novel words: Lexical consolidation across modalities. Journal of Memory and Language, 73, 116–
130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2014.03.002
Bakker, I., Takashima, A., Van Hell, J.G., Janzen, G., & McQueen, J.M. (2015a). Changes in theta and beta
oscillations as signatures of novel word consolidation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 27(7), 1286–1297.
363
Bakker, I., Takashima, A., Van Hell, J.G., Janzen, G., & McQueen, J.M. (2015b). Tracking lexical consolida-
tion with ERPs: Lexical and semantic-priming effects on N400 and LPC responses to newly-learned words.
Bakker-Marshall, I., Takashima, A., Fernandez, C. B., Janzen, G., McQueen, J.M., & Van Hell, J.G. (2021).
Overlapping and distinct neural networks supporting novel word learning in bilinguals and monolinguals.
Bakker-Marshall, I., Takashima, A., Schoffelen, J.-M., Van Hell, J.G., Janzen, G., & McQueen, J.M. (2018).
Theta-band oscillations in the middle temporal gyrus reflect novel word consolidation. Journal of Cognitive
Boddaert, G., Cornut, C., & Casalis, S. (2021). Integration of newly learned L2 words into the mental lexicon
is modulated by vocabulary learning method. Acta Psychologica, 212, 103220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.act
psy.2020.103220
Borovsky, A., Elman, J.L., & Kutas, M. (2012). Once is enough: N400 indexes semantic integration of novel
word meanings from a single exposure in context. Language Learning and Development, 8(3), 278–302.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15475441.2011.614893
Bowden, H. & Faretta-Stutenberg, M. (this volume). Context of learning in second language neurocognition.
Breitenstein, C., Jansen, A., Deppe, M., Foerster, A.- F., Sommer, J., Wolbers, T., & Knecht, S. (2005).
Hippocampus activity differentiates good from poor learners of a novel lexicon. NeuroImage, 25(3), 958–
Davis, M.H., Di Betta, A.M., Macdonald, M.J.E., & Gaskell, M.G. (2009). Learning and consolidation of novel
spoken words. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21(4), 803–820. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2009.21059
Davis, M.H., & Gaskell, M.G. (2009). A complementary systems account of word learning: Neural and behav-
ioural evidence. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364(1536), 3773–
Deuker, L., Olligs, J., Fell, J., Kranz, T.A., Mormann, F., Montag, C., Reuter, M., Elger, C.E., & Axmacher,
N. (2013). Memory consolidation by replay of stimulus-specific neural activity. Journal of Neuroscience,
Dudai, Y. (2012). The restless engram: Consolidations never end. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 35(1), 227–
247. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-neuro-062111-150500
Dumay, N., & Gaskell, M.G. (2007). Sleep-associated changes in the mental representation of spoken words.
Psychological Science, 18(1), 35–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01845.x
Eichenbaum, H., Sauvage, M., Fortin, N., Komorowski, R., & Lipton, P. (2012). Towards a functional organiza-
tion of episodic memory in the medial temporal lobe. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 36(7), 1597–
1608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2011.07.006
Frankland, P.W., & Bontempi, B. (2005). The organization of recent and remote memories. Nature Reviews
Neuroscience, 6(2), 119–130. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn1607
Gaskell, M.G., & Dumay, N. (2003). Lexical competition and the acquisition of novel words. Cognition, 89(2),
105–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(03)00070-2
Gilboa, A., & Moscovitch, M. (2021). No consolidation without representation: Correspondence between neural
and psychological representations in recent and remote memory. Neuron, 109(14), 2239–2255. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.neuron.2021.04.025
Havas, V., Laine, M., & Rodríguez Fornells, A. (2017). Brain signatures of early lexical and morphological
learning of a new language. Neuropsychologia, 101, 47–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsycholo
gia.2017.04.005
Havas, V., Taylor, J., Vaquero, L., de Diego-Balaguer, R., Rodríguez-Fornells, A., & Davis, M.H. (2018).
Semantic and phonological schema influence spoken word learning and overnight consolidation. Quarterly
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71(6), 1469–1481. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2017.1329325
Henke, K. (2010). A model for memory systems based on processing modes rather than consciousness. Nature
Reviews Neuroscience, 11(7), 523–532. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2850
Indefrey, P., & Levelt, W.J.M. (2004). The spatial and temporal signatures of word production components.
Cognition, 92(1), 101–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2002.06.001
Kaczer, L., Bavassi, L., Petroni, A., Fernández, R.S., Laurino, J., Degiorgi, S., Hochman, E., Forcato, C., &
Pedreira, M.E. (2018). Contrasting dynamics of memory consolidation for novel word forms and meanings
364
revealed by behavioral and neurophysiological markers. Neuropsychologia, 117, 472–482. https://doi.org/

Kan, P.F., Sadagopan, N., Janich, L., & Andrade, M. (2014). Effects of speech practice on fast mapping in mono-
lingual and bilingual speakers. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 57(3), 929–941. https://
doi.org/10.1044/2013_JSLHR-L-13-0045
Kapnoula, E.C., Packard, S., Gupta, P., & McMurray, B. (2015). Immediate lexical integration of novel word
forms. Cognition, 134, 85–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.09.007
Kutas, M., & Federmeier, K.D. (2011). Thirty years and counting: Finding meaning in the N400 component
of the event-related brain potential (ERP). Annual Review of Psychology, 62(1), 621–647. https://doi.org/
10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.131123
Landi, N., Malins, J.G., Frost, S.J., Magnuson, J.S., Molfese, P., Ryherd, K., Rueckl, J.G., Mencl, W.E., &
Pugh, K.R. (2018). Neural representations for newly learned words are modulated by overnight consoli-
dation, reading skill, and age. Neuropsychologia, 111, 133–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsycholo
gia.2018.01.011
Lei, D., Liu, Y., & Van Hell, J.G. (2022). Novel word learning with verbal definitions and images: Tracking con-
solidation with behavioral and event-related potential measures. Language Learning, 72, 941–979. https://
doi.org/10.1111/lang.12502
Lindsay, S., & Gaskell, M.G. (2010). A complementary systems account of word learning in L1 and L2: Learning
words in L1 and L2. Language Learning, 60, 45–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00600.x
Lindsay, S., & Gaskell, M.G. (2013). Lexical integration of novel words without sleep. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(2), 608–622. https://doi.org/10.1037/
a0029243
Liu, Y., & Van Hell, J.G. (2020). Learning novel word meanings: An ERP study on lexical consolidation in
monolingual, inexperienced foreign language learners. Language Learning, 70(S2), 45–74. https://doi.org/
10.1111/lang.12403
neurocognition. In K. Morgan-Short and J.G. van Hell (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language
McClelland, J.L., McNaughton, B.L., & O’Reilly, R.C. (1995). Why there are complementary learning systems in
the hippocampus and neocortex: Insights from the successes and failures of connectionist models of learning
and memory. Psychological Review, 102(3), 419–457. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.102.3.419
McCloskey, M., & Cohen, N.J. (1989). Catastrophic interference in connectionist networks: The sequential
learning problem. In G.H. Bower (Ed.), Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 24, pp. 109–165).
Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60536-8
McLaughlin, J., Osterhout, L., & Kim, A. (2004). Neural correlates of second-language word learning: Minimal
Mottarella, M. & Prat, C.S. (this volume). Using quantitative electroencephalography (qEEG) to investigate
Nadel, L., & Moscovitch, M. (1997). Memory consolidation, retrograde amnesia and the hippocampal complex.
Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 7(2), 217–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4388(97)80010-4
Nakayama, M., & Lupker, S.J. (2018). Is there lexical competition in the recognition of L2 words for different-
script bilinguals? An examination using masked priming with Japanese-English bilinguals. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 44(8), 1168–1185. https://doi.org/10.1037/
xhp0000525
5002436
Oudiette, D., & Paller, K.A. (2013). Upgrading the sleeping brain with targeted memory reactivation. Trends in
Cognitive Sciences, 17(3), 142–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2013.01.006
Palma, P., & Titone, D. (2021). Something old, something new: A review of the literature on sleep-related
lexicalization of novel words in adults. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 28(1), 96–121. https://doi.org/
10.3758/s13423-020-01809-5
language and reading. NeuroImage, 62(2), 816–847. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.04.062
365
Qiao, X., & Forster, K.I. (2013). Novel word lexicalization and the prime lexicality effect. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(4), 1064–1074. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030528
Qiao, X., & Forster, K.I. (2017). Is the L2 lexicon different from the L1 lexicon? Evidence from novel word
lexicalization. Cognition, 158, 147–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.10.026
Rasch, B., & Born, J. (2013). About sleep’s role in memory. Physiological Reviews, 93(2), 681–766. https://doi.
org/10.1152/physrev.00032.2012
Rasch, B., Büchel, C., Gais, S., & Born, J. (2007). Odor cues during slow-wave sleep prompt declarative memory
consolidation. Science, 315(5817), 1426–1429.
Sara, S.J. (2017). Sleep to remember. Journal of Neuroscience, 37(3), 457–463. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEURO
SCI.0297-16.2017
Schacter, D.L. (1997). The cognitive neuroscience of memory: Perspectives from neuroimaging research.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 352(1362), 1689–
Schimke, E.A.E., Angwin, A.J., Cheng, B.B.Y., & Copland, D.A. (2021). The effect of sleep on novel word
learning in healthy adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 28,
1811–1838. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-021-01980-3
Schmolck, H., Kensinger, E.A., Corkin, S., & Squire, L.R. (2002). Semantic knowledge in patient H.M. and
other patients with bilateral medial and lateral temporal lobe lesions. Hippocampus, 12(4), 520–533. https://
doi.org/10.1002/hipo.10039
Schreiner, T., & Rasch, B. (2015a). Cueing vocabulary in awake subjects during the day has no effect on
memory. Somnologie– Schlafforschung Und Schlafmedizin, 19(2), 133–140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11
818-015-0005-9
Schreiner, T., & Rasch, B. (2015b). Boosting vocabulary learning by verbal cueing during sleep. Cerebral
Cortex, 25(11), 4169–4179. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhu139
Scoville, W.B., & Milner, B. (1957). Loss of recent memory after bilateral hippocampal lesions. Journal of
Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, 20(1), 11–21. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.20.1.11
Sharon, T., Moscovitch, M., & Gilboa, A. (2011). Rapid neocortical acquisition of long-term arbitrary associ-
ations independent of the hippocampus. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(3), 1146–
Soskey, L., Holcomb, P.J., & Midgley, K.J. (2016). Language effects in second-language learners: A longitu-
dinal electrophysiological study of Spanish classroom learning. Brain Research, 1646, 44–52. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.brainres.2016.05.028
Squire, L.R., & Knowlton, B.J. (1995). Memory, hippocampus, and brain systems. In M.S. Gazzaniga (Ed.), The
cognitive neurosciences (pp. 825–837). The MIT Press.
Takashima, A., & Bakker, I. (2016). Memory Consolidation. In H.-J. Schmid (Ed.), Entrenchment and the psych-
ology of language learning: How we reorganize and adapt linguistic knowledge (pp. 177–200). De Gruyter
Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1037/15969-009
Takashima, A., Bakker, I., Van Hell, J.G., Janzen, G., & McQueen, J.M. (2014). Richness of information
about novel words influences how episodic and semantic memory networks interact during lexicalization.
Takashima, A., Bakker, I., Van Hell, J.G., Janzen, G., & McQueen, J.M. (2017). Interaction between episodic and
semantic memory networks in the acquisition and consolidation of novel spoken words. Brain and Language,
Takashima, A., Bakker-Marshall, I., Van Hell, J.G., McQueen, J.M., & Janzen, G. (2019). Neural correlates
of word learning in children. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 37, 100649. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.dcn.2019.100649
Tamminen, J., & Gaskell, M.G. (2013). Novel word integration in the mental lexicon: Evidence from unmasked
and masked semantic priming. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66(5), 1001–1025. https://doi.
org/10.1080/17470218.2012.724694
Tartaro, G., Takashima, A., & McQueen, J.M. (2021). Consolidation as a mechanism for word learning in sequen-
tial bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 24(5), 864–878. https://doi.org/10.1017/S136672892
1000286
Tononi, G., & Cirelli, C. (2006). Sleep function and synaptic homeostasis. Sleep Medicine Reviews, 10(1), 49–
62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smrv.2005.05.002
Tse, D., Langston, R.F., Kakeyama, M., Bethus, I., Spooner, P.A., Wood, E.R., Witter, M.P., & Morris, R.G.M.
(2007). Schemas and memory consolidation. Science, 316(5821), 76–82. https://doi.org/10.1126/scie
nce.1135935
366
Tulving, E. (1972). 12. Episodic and semantic memory. In E. Tulving & W. Donaldson (Eds.), Organization of
memory (pp. 381–403). Academic Press.
Tulving, E., Conway, M., Aggleton, J., & Tulving, E. (2001). Episodic memory and common sense: How far
apart? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 356, 1505–
language. In B. VanPatten, G.D. Keating, & S. Wulff (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An
introduction (pp. 128–161). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429503986-7
Van der Ven, F., Takashima, A., Segers, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2015). Learning word meanings: Overnight integra-
tion and study modality effects. PLOS ONE, 10(5), e0124926. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0124926
Winocur, G., & Moscovitch, M. (2011). Memory transformation and systems consolidation. Journal of the
International Neuropsychological Society, 17(5), 766–780. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355617711000683
Yum, Y.N., Midgley, K.J., Holcomb, P.J., & Grainger, J. (2014). An ERP study on initial second language vocabu-
lary learning. Psychophysiology, 51(4), 364–373. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.12183
367
27
CONTEXT OF LEARNING
IN SECOND LANGUAGE
NEUROCOGNITION

In this chapter, we undertake a novel exploration of theoretical perspectives and empirical evi-
dence regarding how the context in which one learns a second language (L2)—e.g., a classroom, an
immersion setting, or virtual reality—may shape L2 neurocognition, that is, the neural representa-
tion and processing of language. To begin with, it is clear that one’s learning context can influence
both the type and amount of input to which a learner is exposed, with immersion settings generally
expected to offer a high quantity of input, but with little explicit instruction or information about
the language, whereas a classroom setting will often offer much more explicit information, but per-
haps little authentic input and interaction. Such differences in quantity and quality of input with
which the learner engages can, in turn, be expected to impact the learner’s representation and pro-
cessing of the L2. Beyond differences in input, different L2 learning contexts vary in terms of social
support as well as motivation, such that particular settings are more likely to engender a virtuous
cycle, driving further engagement with the L2. Different learning contexts may also tend to activate
different brain networks for L2 neurocognition, due to any combination of these context-dependent
factors. However, these relationships are not yet well understood. Hence, our aims for this chapter are
to explore theoretical perspectives on L2 context and neurocognition and to examine extant evidence,
in order to draw conclusions that can inform the field of Second Language Acquisition (SLA) and
suggest fruitful avenues for future research.
We consider here the five theoretical perspectives addressed in this volume: the Declarative/
Procedural Model (Ullman & Morgan-Short, this volume), Generative Perspectives (Miller et al., this
volume), the Dynamic Restructuring Model (Korenar & Pliatsikas, this volume), Linguistic Relativity
(Casaponsa & Thierry, this volume), and the Social L2 (Jeong & Li, this volume). For each perspec-
tive, we briefly describe its basic tenets and consider its explicit or implied predictions regarding the
impact of learning context on L2 neurocognition. We then present empirical findings from relevant
neurocognitive studies, where available. These studies vary in terms of learning context, and include
learners in laboratory-based settings (which may manipulate particular aspects of a learning context,
e.g., implicit vs. explicit or instructed vs. uninstructed learning conditions), classroom settings (which
are often, but not necessarily, more instructed/explicit in nature), study abroad contexts (which may
offer more implicit exposure, or a combination of implicit and explicit exposure), and immersion
contexts (which would generally be expected to supply large amounts of implicit exposure). Next, we
368 DOI: 10.4324/9781003190912-34

Context of Learning in Second Language Neurocognition
relate empirical findings to each theory, consider what conclusions can be drawn, and suggest future
directions for research under each perspective. To conclude, we broadly discuss trends and common-
alities in the perspectives and evidence, and discuss future directions for investigations of the role of
learning context in L2 neurocognition.
Theoretical Perspectives and Evidence
The Declarative/Procedural Model of L2
The Declarative/Procedural Model of L2 and L2 Learning Context: Theory

The Declarative/Procedural (DP) Model (e.g., Ullman & Morgan-Short, this volume; Morgan-Short
et al., 2022) claims that both first language (L1) and L2 learning and processing largely rely on two
memory systems in the brain—the declarative memory (DM) and procedural memory (PM) systems.
Reliance on these systems for language processing is influenced by the nature of the systems and by
other factors, including learning context. In general, DM is the only memory system that subserves
explicit knowledge—knowledge that is available to conscious awareness—and is very adept at
quickly learning associations between pieces of information. PM, on the other hand, subserves
implicit knowledge—knowledge that is unavailable to conscious awareness—and learns more grad-
ually. Turning to language, it is posited that some types of linguistic knowledge can be learned by
only one system (e.g., idiosyncratic lexical knowledge depends on DM exclusively). However, for
linguistic knowledge that can rely on either system (e.g., grammatical knowledge), this reliance
depends on several factors. In the case of adult L2 acquisition, two important factors are the amount
and type of input, both of which are likely to vary in different learning contexts (e.g., immersion vs.
classroom contexts). According to the DP model, less input often leads to (initial) learning in DM,
since DM can learn quickly, whereas more input may shift reliance to PM, and this system may
become increasingly relied upon due to automatization (Morgan-Short et al., 2022). In addition, the
DP model holds that the type of input as well as conscious attention matter:
Explicit instruction (e.g., of sequences), or conscious attention to input stimuli and an attempt
to understand underlying rules or patterns, can increase learning in declarative memory.
Conversely, a lack of explicit instruction, as well as manipulations that reduce attention to the
stimuli (e.g., in dual-task paradigms in which the learner’s attention is shifted toward another
task) or a high level of complexity of underlying patterns (thus decreasing the learner’s ability
to explicitly detect them), can shift learning toward procedural memory.
(Ullman, 2020, pp. 133–134)
Thus, different L2 learning contexts may tend to foster greater reliance on either DM or PM for L2
grammar. Specifically, to the extent that classroom instruction fosters less input, more explicit instruc-
tion, and more conscious attention, greater reliance on DM is predicted. Conversely, to the extent
that immersive contexts foster more input, less explicit instruction, and less conscious attention,
greater reliance on PM is expected (Ullman, 2020). (Note that we are not claiming that classroom
vs. immersion are neatly divided into explicit vs. implicit instruction or learning; rather, amount
and type of input may exist on a continuum within each context, even while generally, classroom
L2 settings may tend to foster conscious attention and have more explicit instruction as compared
to immersion contexts). In addition, greater reliance on PM for L2 grammar representation and
processing is expected as experience and proficiency develop, regardless of the learning context.
Moreover, individual differences in DM and PM ability may interact with L2 learning context, poten-
tially accounting for differences in behavioral performance (learning) and reliance on DM and PM.
369
Declarative/Procedural Model and L2 Learning Context: Evidence

Here we present three longitudinal studies undertaken from a DP perspective that elucidate how L2
learning context can influence neurocognition of aspects of L2 grammar (e.g., syntax, morphosyntax)
in adult learners. All three studies also assess learners’ DM and PM abilities. Generally, in these
studies, DM abilities are assessed using standardized measures of recall and recognition, such as the
(verbal) Modern Language Aptitude Test, Part V—Paired Associates (Carroll & Sapon, 1959) and the
(nonverbal) Continuous Visual Memory Task (Trahan & Larrabee, 1988). PM abilities are assessed
via measures of probabilistic learning, such as the Alternating Serial Response Time Task (Howard &
Howard, 1997) and the Weather Prediction Task (e.g., Knowlton et al., 1994).
Carpenter (2008) investigated the acquisition of an artificial language (Brocanto2) by learners who
were randomly assigned to either an explicit/instructed or implicit/uninstructed training condition.
Online processing of the L2 grammar (agreement, phrase structure, verb argument) was assessed via
event-related potentials (ERPs) recorded during a sentence judgment task at low and advanced stages
of proficiency. Analyses revealed that DM ability predicted behavioral performance at both early and
advanced proficiency for learners receiving explicit training. PM ability, conversely, predicted both
performance and ERP signatures of procedural processing (early anterior negativities) at advanced
proficiency for learners receiving implicit training.
Morgan-Short et al. (2015) exposed participants to the same implicit training for Brocanto2, and
neurocognitive processing of syntax (word order) was assessed at early and later stages of acquisition
via fMRI. At early stages, better DM ability and higher behavioral performance were each associated
with increased neural activation in areas related to L1 grammar and PM (e.g., left inferior frontal
gyrus, Brodmann’s area 6, basal ganglia, thalamus). At later stages of learning, poorer PM abilities
and poorer behavioral performance were associated with increased neural activation in areas not tied
to grammar or PM (e.g., right middle frontal gyrus, insula, left lingual gyrus), taken to reflect “more
effortful neural processing” (p. 412). Thus, DM and PM abilities correlated with neural representa-
tion of grammar at early and late stages of learning, respectively. These results indicate that neural
representation of L2 grammar can vary for adult learners in an uninstructed condition, with some
learners relying on neural circuits related to PM and L1 grammar at early stages, and others relying
on circuits related to control mechanisms at more advanced stages of L2 learning.
Faretta-Stutenberg and Morgan-Short (2018) took this line of research to natural settings, exam-
ining L2 learners of Spanish in at-home (classroom) and study-abroad (immersion plus classroom)
contexts. Intermediate-level learners’ ability to detect phrase structure violations was assessed at
the beginning and end of the semester, and ERPs were used to explore online processing of the
L2 (including group-level effects and individual-level response magnitude [size] and dominance
[type]. The researchers were interested in exploring whether DM and PM abilities would account for
changes in behavioral performance and online processing. At-home learners evidenced improvements
in behavioral performance and changes in neurocognitive processing (group-level effects), but indi-
vidual differences in DM and PM abilities did not account for these changes. For study-abroad
learners, similar improvements in behavioral performance were exhibited, and PM was a unique,
positive predictor of these gains. Moreover, they evidenced changes in neurocognitive processing,
both in group-level effects and individual response size and type. For study-abroad learners, PM
(along with working memory) predicted an increase in ERP response magnitude, suggesting that
higher-PM learners had a larger processing response to phrase structure violations, regardless of
response type.
Taken together, these studies offer preliminary insight into how individual differences in cogni-
tive abilities may contribute to neurocognition for learners in different contexts. Interestingly, PM
abilities were related to L2 grammar neurocognition in immersion-like contexts in all three studies,
though in different ways. The fact that each of these studies found relationships between PM abilities
370
and learning in immersion-like contexts is striking, suggesting that in these contexts, PM ability
modulates learning, particularly at later stages of proficiency.
Declarative/Procedural Model and L2 Learning Context: Future Directions

Empirical evidence supports the perspective that the relative role of DM and PM in L2 neurocognition
may be mediated by context of learning. To date, however, a limited number of grammatical structures
have been examined, and additional research is needed to fully understand these relationships. We
note here that laboratory settings are particularly well-suited to examining relationships between DM
and PM abilities and learning context, given that natural settings are much more difficult to control
experimentally and often include a mixture of implicit and explicit exposure. Nonetheless, conver-
ging evidence from naturalistic settings is ideal to support strong conclusions regarding relationships
among DM/PM, L2 neurocognition, and context of learning. Finally, note that a recent systematic
review of evidence on DM and PM abilities (Morgan-Short et al., 2022) supports this general pic-
ture, but also underscores the need to investigate both instructed/explicit and uninstructed/implicit
contexts in the same study in order to elucidate possible interactions between DM/PM abilities and
context of learning.
Generative Perspectives on the Neurolinguistics of L2
Generative Perspectives and L2 Learning Context: Theory

Generative perspectives within the field of SLA aim to describe and explain the L2 know-
ledge system, “especially how it comes to be represented in the mind and brain of the learner”
(Rothman & Slabakova, 2018, p. 419). In particular, Rothman and Slabakova (2018) state that
much of SLA research from a generative perspective has aimed to elucidate the interplay among
three knowledge systems: Universal Grammar, L1 knowledge, and knowledge that comes from
L2 exposure or input. As compared to other perspectives, most generative perspectives in SLA
“maintain that input factors have more limited effects” (Rothman & Slabakova, 2018), but none-
theless they do hold that input is crucial to L2 acquisition, as it provides the data that is taken to
drive parameter resetting in the L2 (White, 1989, 2003, as cited by Rothman & Slabakova, 2018).
Moreover, Rothman and colleagues (2019) highlight the “increasingly central position that input
quantity and quality is assuming in generative SLA studies in recent times” (p. 19). Similarly,
Miller et al. (this volume) state that the expanded scope of questions of interest to generative
SLA research includes “better modeling of external factors such as quality and quantity of input”
(among others).
Recognition of the crucial role of input leads some generative researchers to also address
learning context as important for L2 acquisition. Rothman and Slabakova state that “context is
a partial proxy for quantity and quality of input as well as a delimiter of potential language use”
(Rothman & Slabakova, 2018, p. 429). In particular, they state: “[i]‌n the typical case, naturalistic
exposure, especially study abroad, would furnish richer and more varied language experience”
(Rothman & Slabakova, 2018, p. 429). Thus, it seems that generative perspectives would gener-
ally predict better or more native-like processing for more naturalistic, study-abroad L2 learning
environments, to the extent that the learner engages fully with the environment and interacts with
lots of native input, as compared to classroom learning contexts—though we reiterate our caveat
that classroom vs. immersion contexts do not guarantee these prototypical conditions or engage-
ment. Although we have not found such claims made explicitly by generative theorists, this general
pattern of predictions and caveats was affirmed via personal communication with Rothman (March
4, 2022).
371
Generative Perspectives and L2 Learning Context: Evidence

At present, we are not aware of any neurocognitive research from a generative perspective that is dir-
ectly relevant to predictions about how learning context is expected to influence L2 neurocognition.
Despite the absence of specific predictions or research on these issues, generative SLA researchers
have made advances in using neurocognitive methods to help address questions that are more trad-
itionally central from a generative perspective, such as whether a structure that is unique to the L2
can be acquired by late learners, and moreover, processed in a nativelike way (see Miller et al., this
volume, for details).
Generative Perspectives and L2 Learning Context: Future Directions

Neurolinguistic methods hold promise for more directly assessing whether or not L2 processing
(as teased apart from performance issues) is indeed native-like (for overviews, see e.g., Perani &
Abutalebi, 2005; Sabourin, 2014) or whether such fundamental concepts as “traces” show evidence
of processing by L1 and L2 speakers alike (see Miller et al., this volume). However, what constitutes
native-likeness is not always clear in some neurocognitive research methods (for example, in ERP
research, there is debate on whether the left anterior negativity should be considered a hallmark of
native-like syntactic processing—e.g., Freunberger et al., 2022); moreover, there appears to be con-
siderable processing variability (as reflected in ERP patterns) even among L1 speakers (e.g., Tanner
& van Hell, 2014). Importantly, given that Generative SLA theorists are increasingly recognizing the
roles of input quantity and quality (and hence learning context) in L2 acquisition, it seems likely that
more explicit predictions as well as theoretical work on learning contexts from this perspective will
be forthcoming. Indeed, it behooves any theorist to attempt to account for research findings, including
those showing L2 neurocognitive differences that are associated with different contexts of learning.
The Dynamic Restructuring Model and L2
Dynamic Restructuring Model and L2 Learning Context: Theory

The Dynamic Restructuring Model (see Korenar & Pliatsikas, this volume) aims to explain how and
why neural function and structure change as an effect of bilingualism. Based on evidence from neuro-
linguistic studies of various groups of bilinguals (e.g., simultaneous/sequential, early/later learners,
immersed/non-immersed), Pliatsikas (2020) developed a model that views bilingualism as a “long-
term dynamic experience” (p. 461). The Dynamic Restructuring Model describes a non-linear tra-
jectory of experience-based neuroplasticity resulting from the cognitively demanding experience of
acquiring a new language. More specifically, Pliatsikas (2020) proposes a three-stage continuum of
bilingual development (initial exposure, consolidation, peak efficiency) and associated brain restruc-
turing (expansion, selection, renormalization) that is closely tied to language experiences, including
the quality and quantity of exposure to bilingual settings. In terms of context of L2 learning, fun-
damental to this model is the notion that structural brain adaptations will depend on the “ways
bilinguals use their languages, the contexts in which they operate, and… the timing of their language
experiences” (this volume). Although a number of factors are tied to neural restructuring (overall pro-
ficiency, simultaneous vs. sequential acquisition, age of onset, amount of time spent using the L2),
the experienced-based perspective is foundational to this model, and Pliatsikas (2020) highlights a
number of neural adaptations, across all three stages, that appear to be related to context of learning.
First, during initial exposure, new L2 learners typically evidence increases in cortical grey matter
volume, regardless of learning context. Based on comparisons across numerous studies, Pliatsikas
372
(2020) notes additional neural effects that are evidenced among learners with particular initial
exposure experiences: among newly immersed bilinguals, adaptations of subcortical structures (cere-
bellum and caudate nucleus) are interpreted as reflecting “better control between languages as a result
of newly applied linguistic immersion, with the sudden and increased learning and controlling needs
it introduces” (p. 465); white matter adaptations evidenced among learners with intensive language
training are interpreted as related to the intensity of language learning and amount of switching
experience between languages. As L2 proficiency and experience increase, bilinguals enter consoli-
dation, where they undergo grey and white matter adaptations taken to reflect a shift from vocabulary
acquisition to language control and more efficient L2 processing. Although many of these effects are
evidenced in highly experienced bilinguals regardless of learning context, specific adaptations are
predicted by type and amount of immersion(-like) experiences. For example, amount of immersion
predicts adaptations in motor control and language production areas, posited to be related to motor
skills needed to produce the L2 (Pliatsikas, 2020). Available data for brain adaptations during peak
efficiency are more limited, as this stage is observed only in the most experienced groups of bilinguals
(e.g., professional interpreters), and thus, examination of structural adaptations at this stage requires
longitudinal examination of bilinguals over an extended period of time.
Dynamic Restructuring Model and L2 Learning Context: Evidence

In terms of empirical evidence, Pliatsikas’ (2020) review of studies whose participants have different
types of linguistic exposure suggests that learning context may impact the type of brain restructuring
evidenced across the bilingualism continuum (identified in the Dynamic Restructuring Model as ini-
tial exposure, consolidation, and peak efficiency) Here, we present two studies that elucidate the
relevance of L2 learning context in neural restructuring.
DeLuca and colleagues (2019) report a longitudinal study testing the effects of continued
immersion, in the absence of proficiency changes, for adult sequential bilinguals who were already
highly proficient in the L2. Participants underwent two structural MRI scans, with three years between
scans. Importantly, between testing sessions, participants continued to live in the L2 immersion envir-
onment, did not undergo language training, and did not evidence proficiency changes. Nonetheless,
results revealed significant structural differences between the two scans: increases in grey matter
volume, changes in white matter diffusivity, and reshaping of specific structures suggest that
neurological changes continue to take place among proficient adult bilinguals who continue to be
immersed. Further, participants’ total length of immersion and age of initial L2 acquisition predicted
some of these changes, although, as is often the case in L2 research, these effects could not be entirely
separated from L2 proficiency (see also Fromont, this volume). To help tease apart the relevance
of age of acquisition, L2 proficiency, and length of immersion in accounting for changes in brain
structures, Pliatsikas and colleagues (2017) report two cross-sectional experiments. The researchers
examined relationships between reshaping of subcortical structures and amount of L2 immersion for
(adult) sequential bilinguals. In Experiment 1, MRI scans were conducted on a group of L2 English
learners with high proficiency and a wide range of immersion experience (13 months–31 years), and
on a group of monolingual English controls. Results revealed significant reshaping of subcortical
structures for immersed learners (as compared to monolinguals) and further, showed that some of
these brain restructuring effects were predicted by amount of L2 immersion (but not proficiency or
age of acquisition). To further disentangle proficiency level and immersion experience, Experiment
2 was conducted with a group of sequential bilinguals whose proficiency and age of acquisition
matched those of Experiment 1, but who had more limited immersion (1–13 months). A lack of evi-
dence of neural restructuring for these proficiency-matched learners suggested that the immersive
context, rather than proficiency or bilingualism itself, was responsible for brain reshaping.
373
Dynamic Restructuring Model and L2 Learning Context: Future Directions

The Dynamic Restructuring Model provides a number of testable predictions for researchers interested
in examining the relationships between learning context and L2 neurocognition. In terms of study
design, given the dynamic nature of structural brain adaptations, it is important to acknowledge that
pre-post experimental designs are unlikely to capture non-linear changes in brain structure. Korenar
and Pliatsikas (this volume) instead call for “complex longitudinal designs” to provide insight into
the neural changes that accompany bilingual development. The authors note that level of similarity
between languages can be a modulating factor (due to its relationship with cognitive control), but also
that cultural differences may have an impact on neurocognitive effects. Study abroad programs and
other immersion experiences are particularly well-suited to explore the effects of different language
and cultural pairings on dynamic restructuring.
Linguistic Relativity and L2
Linguistic Relativity and L2 Learning Context: Theory

Building on the ideas of Sapir and Whorf (e.g., Whorf, 1956) that language use shapes thought,
linguistic relativity is the idea that linguistic experience can shape perception and (non-verbal) cog-
nition (Casaponsa & Thierry, this volume). Casaponsa and Thierry (this volume) connect linguistic
relativity to embodiment theory (Lakoff & Johnson, 1999; Zappa & Frenck-Mestre, this volume),
which holds that our biophysiological and perceptual experiences of the world shape our mind and
(neuro)cognition. From the perspective of linguistic relativity, because different languages encode
such properties as object categories, color, motion events, and time in different ways, it stands to
reason that our mental representations reflect these differences. Research has supported these notions
in L1 (e.g., Athanasopoulos, 2009 for color; Boroditsky, 2001 for time), with differences in mental
representations reflecting the languages’ ways of encoding these concepts. Casaponsa and Thierry (this
volume) extend linguistic relativity to L2, proposing that not only L1 experience but also L2 experi-
ence can shape speakers’ cognition and neurocognition, including non-verbal neurocognition. Again,
evidence suggests this is indeed the case (e.g., Athanasopoulos et al., 2010 for color). Moreover, with
regard to learning context, Casaponsa and Thierry (this volume) theorize that neuroplasticity from L2
learning likely depends on a number of factors including learning context—in particular, differences
in “method, duration and rate of exposure.” In addition, they suggest that (a) a combination of explicit
and implicit approaches may be useful for L2 learners, in drawing their attention to features that are
salient to native speakers to facilitate grammatical and lexical consolidation, and (b) multimodal
teaching tools may boost neural restructuring and L2 learning.
Linguistic Relativity and L2 Learning Context: Evidence

Importantly, by design, neurocognitive studies of Linguistic Relativity in L2 focus on non-verbal
neurocognitive processing, to avoid the potential problem of circularity; thus, they do not examine
whether the L2 is processed according to L2 distinctions, but rather whether non-verbal processing
(e.g., of color) shows effects of L2 experience (see Athanasopoulos & Casaponsa, 2020). At least
some empirical evidence indeed suggests that L2 learning context may influence neurocognition
along these lines. For example, Athanasopoulos and colleagues (2010) found differences in ERP
patterns related to color processing between groups with different lengths of immersion (those with
an average of 3.5 years of immersion showed brain changes in color processing, whereas those with
an average of 7 months did not). The authors attributed these changes to “the fact that living in the
L2-speaking country provides a physical context in which linguistic and perceptual experience are
374
grounded” (p. 441). Thus the authors suggest that not only the amount of time but also the particular
learning context can be important, although in this study there was no proficiency-matched com-
parison group from a non-immersive learning context. Thus, some evidence suggests that learning
context may indeed influence linguistic relativity effects, but it is far from conclusive. To our know-
ledge, there is no neurocognitive research on Linguistic Relativity that teases apart the roles of profi-
ciency and length of immersion/exposure.
Linguistic Relativity and L2 Learning Context: Future Directions

As mentioned above, we are aware of no empirical research that teases apart L2 learning context as
related to neural Linguistic Relativity effects. Thus, this is an area ripe for investigation, and moreover
one that the suggestions made by theorists would seem to call for. In particular, future research could
examine linguistic relativity effects as a function of immersion contexts, non-immersion contexts,
and blended experience profiles in matched proficiency groups. It could additionally examine effects
of multimodal teaching tools on such neural changes, including amount of exposure necessary to
show brain changes in different learning contexts and indeed whether these are possible in non-
immersion settings.
The Social L2
Social L2 and L2 Learning Context: Theory

Li and Jeong (2020) take an approach to L2 neurocognition that they call “Social L2 Learning” (SL2).
This approach is informed by the “New Science of Learning” transdisciplinary framework (Meltzoff
et al., 2009), which takes language learning to be “a social-based process, supported by computa-
tional mechanisms and a neural circuit that links cognition, perception, and action” (Jeong & Li, this
volume). Moreover, this notion of the socially embedded nature of language learning is consistent
with many theoretical approaches to SLA, including sociocultural theory, usage-based learning, inter-
action hypotheses, and neuroemergentism (as pointed out by Jeong & Li, this volume). SL2, although
L2 and L1 appear to largely recruit the same neural substrates for language, the L1 typically relies
on a more integrated network—linking language areas with sensorimotor and semantic integration
areas—whereas these linkages are weak or nonexistent in even highly proficient L2 learners. Li and
Jeong, assert that children’s L1 learning experiences are more multimodal and embodied as compared
to L2 classroom experiences, which may be partly responsible for these differences. Critically, how-
ever, the SL2 hypothesis holds that, like children, adults can be supported in learning language
through social, multimodal, and embodied learning contexts, which may be real- life or simulated.
Such contexts are claimed to lead to richer semantic and neural encoding (which is more L1-like), as
well as to more robust L2 learning.
Social L2 and L2 Learning Context: Evidence

Broadly speaking, the relevant evidence reviewed by Li and Jeong (2020; Jeong & Li, this volume)
supports the SL2 hypothesis, in that more socially mediated and embodied contexts of L2 vocabulary
learning have been shown to lead to (a) more L1-like and more integrated L2 brain circuitry, espe-
cially in the right hemisphere, including the right temporo-parietal junction and adjacent areas (see
their Figure 1; we will refer to all of the implicated areas as SL2 areas without distinguishing between
them here), as well as (b) better L2 retention. This evidence comes largely from fMRI studies of L2
word learning in different contexts that are more or less social, multimodal, or embodied. In these
studies, brain activation is compared across different learning contexts (with fMRI data collected
375
during either target word learning/encoding or subsequent retrieval). In an early study, Jeong
et al. (2010) examined fMRI data collected during word retrieval, after learning via translation vs.
simulated social interaction (watching a video with social interaction). A later follow-up study (Jeong
et al., 2021) examined fMRI data collected during encoding under these same contexts. Both studies
showed greater activation in SL2 areas (for retrieval or encoding, respectively) for social learning;
moreover, in the 2021 study, participants with greater activation of SL2 areas during learning also
performed better on a delayed vocabulary test that required application of target words to novel
situations.
Similarly, Verga and Kotz (2019) found greater activation in SL2 areas during a learning task
when the task was preceded by a cover story that made the task seem partner-based (i.e., social)
vs. when the exact same task was not preceded by this social pre-task. Moreover, within the social
learning condition, learners with higher activation in particular SL2 regions had better learning
outcomes. Along similar lines, Mayer et al. (2015) found that vocabulary learning accompanied by
gestures (vs. learning with pictures or with no enrichment) led to more fMRI activation in SL2 areas,
as well as correlations between this activation and behavioral performance. Using structural MRI
scans, Legault and colleagues (2019) examined neural changes for learners trained on L2 vocabulary
with or without a virtual environment (in which learners were able to interactively view and play
with the objects whose names they learned). They reported that cortical thickness was enhanced
in particular SL2 structures, and this thickness correlated with better delayed retention test scores,
for learners trained in the virtual reality-based condition. Thus, Li and Jeong (2020; Jeong & Li,
this volume) and Jeong et al. (2021) suggest that social-based L2 learning leads to distinct patterns
of neural engagement, in particular linking language processing with brain networks that underlie
visual and spatial processing; this richer representation and engagement may in turn support both L2
learning and retrieval. This evidence does, broadly, seem consistent with the SL2 perspective, and
indeed suggests that learning context has a demonstrable effect on L2 neurocognition, in particular
involving right hemisphere networks in and near the temporoparietal junction, as well as integrating
these more strongly with L2 representations.
Social L2 and L2 Learning Context: Future Directions

To date, there are relatively few neurocognitive SL2 studies, and existing research has focused
exclusively on vocabulary or lexical learning, processing, and representation. As Jeong and Li (this
volume) point out, research on other language domains (phonology, morphology, syntax, discourse,
and pragmatics) is needed to better understand the neurocognition of L2. In addition, some research
supporting social learning seems to in fact be more “embodied” than social (for example, virtual
reality learning or learning with gestures); thus perhaps the social aspect is something of a misnomer,
or rather one of several ways in which learning can be enhanced via activation of SL2 networks as
part of L2 processing. Finally, somewhat like our caveats about the varying nature of contexts more
generally, there seems to be an assumption that the L2 classroom is often not a social space; surely
this varies by classroom and culture, but we hope that many if not most modern language classrooms
are social in nature. It would be fruitful in the future to compare, for example, different classroom and
real-world contexts in this research.
Concluding Remarks
The five theoretical perspectives presented here seem to converge on the notion that L2 learning
context impacts neural representation and processing. In fact, all expect that more naturalistic and
376
immersive (input-rich, embodied, and socially engaged) learning will tend to produce more L1-like
or interconnected neurocognition as well as more robust learning outcomes. Empirical findings gen-
erally support these broad predictions.
The Declarative/Procedural (DP) Model, Dynamic Restructuring Model, Linguistic Relativity,
and Social L2 (SL2) all make explicit predictions regarding neurocognitive changes that are expected
to result from more immersion-like experiences (again, in general terms, to the extent that these
indeed are input-rich, highly immersive learning environments). The models differ, however, both
with regard to the specific brain structures posited to be involved as well as in how learning context
is predicted to affect L2 neurocognition. For example, the DP model predicts a shift in reliance on
memory systems (from declarative-based to procedural-based) for grammatical aspects of L2 pro-
cessing and representation, and predicts that immersive contexts will facilitate reliance on PM. In
contrast, SL2 does not predict a shift in reliance on memory systems, but rather richer connections
between L2 and particular non-linguistic networks, including those responsible for perception and
action—especially in the right hemisphere—which are facilitated by social and multimodal engage-
ment with the L2. The Dynamic Restructuring Model, on the other hand, addresses structural changes
in the bilingual brain that differ for bilinguals as a result of L2 experiences, including immersion.
Again, the limited evidence to date seems to be in line with the models, and some studies have
been argued to offer empirical support for more than one model (e.g., Legault et al., 2019, which
provides compelling evidence for a role for learning context in neural changes, is cited as evidence
for both the Dynamic Restructuring Model and SL2). It is important to note that these models are
often informed by different aspects of neurocognitive evidence, and much more research is clearly
needed.
Future Directions
We see several directions that future research can take in order to better elucidate the role of learning
context in L2 neurocognition. In terms of connections with theoretical predictions, given the dif-
ferential foci of the models presented, it may not yet be possible (or desirable) to obtain evidence
to distinguish between models. It may, however, be fruitful for researchers to consider the neural
networks identified by various models in order to determine whether empirical evidence can address
claims made by more than one perspective. This practice may also aid in the convergence of models
of L2 neurocognition and the refining of predictions regarding the role of context of learning on L2
neurocognition.
In terms of study design, we suggest three considerations to guide future research. First, bilin-
gualism is a dynamic process and thus, longitudinal work is needed. Although difficult to carry out,
it is critical that L2 neurocognition be examined within populations of learners in a longitudinal
fashion to advance our understanding of how L2 processing and representation change across time,
and to ensure that differences seen in cross-sectional research are also borne out in longitudinal
studies. Longitudinal work will also allow for more holistic examinations of language learners’
experiences: Most learners who reach advanced stages of proficiency in their L2 will experience a
variety of learning contexts, including both instructed and uninstructed settings. Longitudinal work
can provide insights into relationships between learning context and L2 neurocognition at different
stages of learning.
Second, individual differences should be considered and accounted for. The extant litera-
ture suggests that cognitive abilities play a differential role in different contexts of learning (e.g.,
Carpenter, 2008; Faretta-Stutenberg & Morgan-Short, 2018; Legault et al., 2019; see also Fromont,
this volume; Luque & Covey, this volume). Future research that employs methods and analyses that
can account for individual differences in cognitive abilities will aid in distinguishing between the
377
effects of the L2 learning context vs. the effects of individual differences in cognitive abilities on
neurocognition, and moreover, will contribute to our understanding of the interactions between cog-
nitive abilities and context of learning.
Third, laboratory-based research should be replicated in naturalistic settings. Laboratory research
provides a critical starting point to investigate the relationship between L2 learning context and L2
neurocognition, allowing researchers to control factors of interest (e.g., learning condition, amount
and type of input, prior exposure to the target language, L2 use) and pinpoint analyses targeting
these factors. However, in order to connect research outcomes with applied questions and to make
ecologically valid claims about learning contexts, it is important to investigate learning of natural
languages in a wide variety of settings. As researchers, we must acknowledge the diverse and dynamic
characteristics of such natural L2 learning settings (e.g., domestic/foreign language classrooms, study
abroad contexts, uninstructed immersion settings) and recognize that such settings inherently lack
control. Tools are available, however, to better understand features of the learning context such as
quality and quantity of L2 contact: for example, some investigators have made use of social network
analysis to capture richer information about learners’ study-abroad experiences (see e.g., Paradowski
et al., 2022). Robust sample sizes, diverse populations, longitudinal investigations, and experimental
designs that include measures of learner interaction with L2 input will all be important in disentan-
gling contributions of context (as opposed to other variables) in order to advance our understanding
of how different real-world learning contexts influence L2 neurocognition.
Such research endeavors are worthwhile, as deeper understanding of the influence that L2 learning
context may have on L2 neurocognition can provide important insights into questions about language
processing and representation, as well as about L2 acquisition.
Further Readings
For a review of language neurocognition broadly, a meta-analysis that synthesizes the extant literature on func-
tional neuroimaging of adult language learning:
Tagarelli, K.M., Shattuck, K.F., Turkeltaub, P.E., Ullman, M.T. (2019) Language learning in the adult brain: A
org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.02.061
An article that is relevant to several studies and theoretical perspectives on the role of context in L2
neurocognition:
Legault, J., Fang, S.Y., Lan, Y.J., & Li, P. (2019). Structural brain changes as a function of second language
j.bandc.2018.09.004
References
Athanasopoulos, P. (2009). Cognitive representation of colour in bilinguals: The case of Greek blues.
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12(1), 83–95. https://doi.org/10.1017/S136672890800388X
Athanasopoulos, P. & Casaponsa, A. (2020) The Whorfian brain: Neuroscientific approaches to linguistic rela-
tivity. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 37(5–6), 393–412, https://doi.org/10.1080/02643294.2020.1769050
Athanasopoulos, P., Dering, B., Wiggett, A., Kuipers, J.R., & Thierry, G. (2010). Perceptual shift in bilin-
gualism: Brain potentials reveal plasticity in pre-attentive colour perception. Cognition, 116(3), 437–443.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.05.016
Boroditsky, L. (2001). Does language shape thought? Mandarin and English speakers’ conceptions of time.
Cognitive Psychology, 43(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.2001.074
Carpenter, H.S. (2008). A Behavioral and Electrophysiological Investigation of Different Aptitudes for L2
Grammar in Learners Equated for Proficiency Level [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Georgetown
University. www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/behavioral-electrophysiological-investigation/docview/
304184923/se-2
Carroll, J.B., & Sapon, S.M. (1959). Modern language aptitude test. Psychological Corporation.
378
Casaponsa, A., & Thierry, G. (this volume). Linguistic relativity and second language: How learning a second
language may reshape cognition. In K. Morgan-Short & J.G. van Hell (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of
DeLuca, V., Rothman, J., & Pliatsikas, C. (2019). Linguistic immersion and structural effects on the bilin-
gual brain: A longitudinal study. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 22(5), 1160–1175. https://doi.org/
10.1017/S1366728918000883
Faretta-Stutenberg, M., & Morgan-Short, K. (2018). The interplay of individual differences and context of
learning in behavioral and neurocognitive second language development. Second Language Research, 34(1),
67–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658316684903
amab058
Fromont, L.A. (this volume). Age and proficiency in second language neurocognition. In K. Morgan-Short & J.G.
Howard, J.H., & Howard, D.V. (1997). Age differences in implicit learning of higher order dependencies in serial
patterns. Psychology and Aging, 12(4) 634–636. https://doi.org/10.1037//0882-7974.12.4.634
Jeong, H., & Li, P. (this volume). Neurocognition of social learning of second language: How can second lan-
guage be learned as first language? In K. Morgan-Short & J.G. van Hell (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of
Jeong, H., Li, P., Suzuki, W., Sugiura, M., & Kawashima, R. (2021). Neural mechanisms of language learning
from social contexts. Brain and Language, 212(2021), 104874. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2020.104874
language vocabulary: Neural dissociation of situation-based learning and text-based learning. NeuroImage
Knowlton, B., Squire, L.R., & Gluck, M.A. (1994). Probabilistic classification in amnesia. Learning and
Memory, 1(2), 106–120.
Korenar, M., & Pliatsikas, C. (this volume). Second language acquisition and neuroplasticity: Insights from the
dynamic restructuring model. In K. Morgan-Short & J.G. van Hell (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western
thought. Basic Books.
j.bandc.2018.09.004
Li, P., & Jeong, H. (2020). The social brain of language: grounding second language learning in social inter-
action. Npj Science of Learning, 5, 8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-020-0068-7
Miller, D., DeLuca, V., Swanson, K., & Rothman, J. (this volume). Neurolinguistics methods and generative
approaches to second language acquisition. In K. Morgan-Short & J.G. van Hell (Eds.), The Routledge hand-
book of second language acquisition and neurolinguistics. Routledge.
Mayer, K.M., Yildiz, I.B., Macedonia, M., & von Kriegstein, K. (2015). Visual and motor cortices differentially
j.cub.2014.11.068
Meltzoff, A., Kuhl, P., Movellan, J., & Sejnowski, T. (2009). Foundations for a new science of learning. Science,
325(5938), 284–288. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1175626
Morgan-Short, K., Deng, Z., Brill-Schuetz, K.A., Faretta-Stutenberg, M., Wong, P.C.M., & Wong, F.C.K. (2015).
implicit conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37(2), 383–419. https://doi.org/10.1017/S02722
63115000030
Morgan-Short, K., Hamrick, P., & Ullman, M.T. (2022). Individual differences in declarative and procedural
memory predict second language abilities: A systematic review of the evidence. In S. Li, P. Hiver, & M. Papi
(Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and individual differences (pp. 67–81).
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003270546
379
Paradowski, M.B., Cierpich–Kozieł, A., Chen, C., & Ochab, J.K. (2022). How output outweighs input and
interlocutors matter for study-abroad SLA: Computational social network analysis of learner interactions.
The Modern Language Journal, 106(4), 694–725. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12811
Neurobiology, 15(2), 202–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2005.03.007
9000130
Rothman, J., Bayram, F., Cunnings, I., & Gonzalez Alonso, J. (2019). Formal linguistics approaches to adult
second language acquisition and processing. In J.W. Schwieter & A. Benati (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook
of language learning (pp. 13–40). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108333603
Rothman, J., & Slabakova, R. (2018). The generative approach to SLA and its place in modern second lan-
guage studies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40(2), 417–442. https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226311
7000134
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190514000038
Trahan, D.E. & Larrabee, G.J. (1988). Continuous visual memory test. Psychological Assessment Resources.
Ullman, M.T. (2020). The Declarative/Procedural Model: A neurobiologically-motivated theory of first and
(pp. 128–161). Routledge.
Routledge.
Verga, L., & Kotz, S.A. (2019). Spatial attention underpins social word learning in the right fronto-parietal net-
work. NeuroImage, 195, 165–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.03.071
White, L. (1989). Universal Grammar and Second Language Acquisition. John Benjamins.
White, L. (2003). Second Language Acquisition and Universal Grammar. Cambridge University Press.
Whorf, B. L. (1956). Language, Thought, and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf (J. B. Carroll,
Ed.). MIT Press.
380
28
EMBODIED SECOND LANGUAGE
PROCESSING AND LEARNING
FROM A NEUROCOGNITIVE
PERSPECTIVE
Embodied Semantics
Finding the key to how we associate concepts to linguistic labels is fundamental for our understanding
of how we acquire a first language and, later in life, learn a second one (see also Tokowicz &
Tkacikova, this volume). Despite decades of research there is still little consensus on how the human
brain associates the acoustic signal (e.g., [gɪˈtɑː]) to a specific concept (e.g., GUITAR) (Saussure,
1916; Shapiro, 2011). There are currently two opposing views, which differ in relation to the type of
representation that is constructed for conceptual information. According to classic amodal theories,
cognition is a computational process that creates meaning from perception and for action through the
manipulation of mental symbols (Fodor, 1998; Landauer & Dumais, 1997). This has been described
via the “sandwich model” metaphor: sensorimotor systems simply perceive information (input) and
subsequently produce action (output) (Hurley, 1998). Cognition is sandwiched between the two in
order to 1) transform perceived input into amodal symbols and link them to relevant information in
our semantic memory, and 2) perform operations on these symbols for output. In essence, know-
ledge is stored in an isolated semantic memory system, independent from sensorimotor processes.
Classical amodal theories do not, however, provide an explanation for how we understand the real-
world meaning of these symbols, themselves defined by other symbols.
Challenging some of the fundamental beliefs of traditional cognitive research, embodied theories
stipulate that conceptual symbols must, at some point, relate to the real world and be grounded in sen-
sorimotor experience (Hauk & Tschentscher, 2013). According to embodied semantics, conceptual
representations are highly influenced by or even dependent on sensorimotor processes, and linguistic
forms are grounded in our body’s system of perception and action planning (Barsalou, 1999; see also
Casaponsa & Thierry, this volume). A key concept behind this is the “correlational learning prin-
ciple”, according to which the co-occurrence of action-perception and meaning results in the common
firing of neurons, forming neural connections, or distributed neural networks, that subserve semantic
processing (Pulvermüller, 1999; 2013). In short, “What fires together, wires together” (Hebb, 1949).
So, for instance, if a child often hears the word “kick” while kicking a ball, lexico-semantic networks
responsible for processing the word “kick” and those responsible for preparing and executing the
movement necessary to kick a ball, will become a shared network over time. This could also apply
to more abstract concepts such as freedom, which are, at least initially, tied to personal experience
DOI: 10.4324/9781003190912-35 381

(e.g., a child extracting herself from a playpen and hearing “You’re free!”). This idea stands in stark
contrast to amodal theories, which claim that representations used for conceptual knowledge and
language are independent from the body and its experiences. Whereas the embodied vs. disembodied
debate was originally quite black and white, recent research in this area has become more nuanced
and focused on when and how language is embodied, as illustrated by many of the studies described
in this chapter.
Embodied Learning
The role of the body in encoding new linguistic information has been examined from an embodied
semantics point of view. Similar to the above-described Hebbian theory of associative learning,
Zwaan and Madden’s (2005) theory of experiential traces posits that when linguistic labels co-occur
with our interactions with the environment, “experiential traces” are formed and associated with these
labels. Later, when we encounter the same linguistic labels, these experiential traces are automatic-
ally reactivated. Supporting these theories, behavioral studies conducted in the last 40 odd years have
amply demonstrated that when new linguistic content is learned with congruent physical movement,
retention is improved. This is often referred to as the “enactment effect” (Engelkamp & Krumnacker,
1980; Engelkamp & Zimmer, 1984). As early as 1980, Engelkamp and Krumnacker showed that
verb phrases (e.g., “shuffle the cards”) were better memorized when representative gestures were
performed during learning, as opposed to watching someone else perform the action, imagining the
action, or just listening to the sentence. Encoding new information with action has more recently
been termed “embodied learning.” Truly embodied learning is thought to involve “self-performed” or
“self-generated” action that is congruent with learned content (James & Bose, 2011; James & Swain,
2011; Johnson-Glenberg & Megowan-Romanowicz, 2017). In line with studies showing that math-
ematical (Kontra et al., 2015) and scientific (Johnson-Glenberg & Megowan-Romanowicz, 2017)
principles are better integrated with physical activity compared to just verbally, language learning has
also been shown to be enhanced by action and gestures, as we will discuss in sections “Behavioral
evidence of embodied language learning” and “Neurocognitive evidence of embodied language
learning.” But first we will review empirical research on embodied semantics more generally, in first
(L1) and second (L2) language processing.
Embodied Semantics in the L1 and L2
Behavioral Evidence of Embodied Language Processing

With the goal of putting embodied semantics to the test, several behavioral studies have manipulated
both the timing and compatibility of semantic and motor processes to examine motor-semantic
interactions. L1 studies combining these two processes have found effects of both facilitation, as
shown by facilitated movement primed by compatible meaning (Boulenger et al., 2006; de Vega et al.,
2013; Diefenbach et al., 2013; Kaschak & Borreggine, 2008; Zwaan & Taylor, 2006), and inhibition,
as illustrated by hindered movement when motor and linguistic processes overlap (Buccino et al.,
2005; Boulenger et al., 2006). These interactions have generally been interpreted as evidencing that
motor and semantic processes share resources. While the inhibition resulting from motor-semantic
interactions may seem counterintuitive, the Hand-Action-Network Dynamic Language Embodiment
(HANDLE) model (García & Ibáñez, 2016) holds that when motor and linguistic processes occur
simultaneously, competition for shared neural resources causes interference.
A few behavioral studies have reported a similar pattern of effects in L2 learners (see Kogan
et al., 2020 for a review). One such study, reported by Buccino and colleagues (2017), assessed
382
Embodied Second Language Processing and Learning
the modulation of motor responses in proficient bilinguals during the processing of both auditory
nouns and visual images as a function of the properties of these stimuli. As has been found in L1
speakers (Marino et al., 2014), L2 speakers’ motor responses (i.e., the time needed to manually indi-
cate whether the stimuli represented real objects) was delayed for graspable objects, whether depicted
by images or auditory words. Similarly, in line with L1 studies showing that detecting a target is
facilitated if the location of the target matches the location of a word’s referent (Kaup et al., 2012),
words referring to a known location (e.g., “star”) facilitated congruent motor responses (upward
response for “star”) in the L2 (Dudschig et al., 2014). These results imply that physical experiences
are reactivated during language processing in an L2, as in an L1.
However, embodied effects in an L2 are sometimes attenuated compared to L1 effects and may be
at least partially contingent on language proficiency. Vukovic (2013) showed that the time needed to
identify L2 verbs as the correct translation of L1 verb primes was significantly affected by the overlap
of parts of the body between the L2 verb and the response mode. Manual responses were inhibited
by L2 verbs involving the hand (e.g., “write”) but not by L2 verbs involving the mouth (e.g., “bite”);
conversely, L2 verbs involving the mouth but not those involving the hand inhibited oral responses.
This pattern of inhibition was only found, however, for participants with high L2 proficiency. In line
with the Hebbian theory of associative learning, the authors suggested that the difference between
their L2 participants stemmed from the amount of “real-life” usage of the L2, which becomes more
situated over time, due to being used in varied contexts, and hence leads to the co-activation of extra-
linguistic neural substrates, including the motor cortex. Despite possible differences between L1
and L2 embodiment as a function of L2 proficiency, motor-semantic effects in both the L1 and the
L2 have been interpreted as evidencing shared neural resources for motor and semantic processes.
Nevertheless, behavioral studies are limited in revealing the underlying neurocognitive mechanisms
that govern embodied processes in language comprehension.
Neurocognitive Evidence of Embodied Language Processing

Neurocognitive studies have provided further support for the concept of embodied semantics by
showing motor-semantic interactions during native language processing. These studies suggest that
linguistic processes may employ the same neural substrates as those used in perception and action.
Given its high spatial resolution, functional magnetic resonance (fMRI; see Kousaie & Klein, this
volume) can reveal cerebral cortical networks and their organization, which can be key in embodied
studies, allowing for the observation of networks that underlie semantic and motor processes, and
their possible overlap. Indeed, in their seminal fMRI study, Hauk and colleagues (2004) showed that,
during passive reading, action verbs referring to actions performed with the mouth, hand/arm or foot/
leg (e.g., lick, pick or kick) specifically activated overlapping or adjacent areas to those responsible
for planning and executing actions involving those specific areas of the body. Several other fMRI
studies have since shown similar somatotopical activation along the motor strip during action verb
processing (Boulenger et al., 2009; Esopenko et al., 2012; Raposo et al., 2009). These activations
would suggest that sensory and action language automatically triggers the areas involved in sensorial
processes or action execution.
A handful of fMRI studies have since compared the neural correlates of L1 and L2 processing.
Native Dutch speakers and German learners of Dutch performed a lexical decision task in which
they saw Dutch action and non-action verbs (De Grauwe et al., 2014). Both groups showed greater
motor and somatosensory area activation for action verbs, independent of cognate status, indicating
that L2 semantic representations are embodied and cause motor activations. In contrast to this study,
Zhang and colleagues (2020) found smaller effects in the L1 compared to the L2. L1 and L2 speakers
of English performed a semantic judgment task while being scanned. L1 speakers outperformed L2
383
speakers behaviorally when it came to both accuracy and speed of response. Importantly, L1 speakers
recruited a larger cortical network during the task and showed more strongly engaged connections
between the “semantic integration hub” (see Patterson & Ralph, 2016, for an explanation of the “hub-
and-spoke” model) and sensorimotor regions than L2 speakers. The authors concluded that weaker
connections between the semantic integration hub and sensorimotor regions during L2 processing
indicated that embodiment in the L2 differs from that of the L1.
Despite its spatial accuracy, fMRI is limited as concerns temporal precision (see Kousaie & Klein,
this volume), making it difficult to pinpoint the processing stage at which these activations occur
(Hauk & Tschentscher, 2013). Indeed, classical models of language processing often argue that the
activations described above are post-lexical and do not play a causal role in understanding language
(Mahon & Caramazza, 2008). Electroencephalography (EEG; see Dickson & Pelzl, this volume) on
the other hand, offers much higher temporal resolution and can better identify cortical activity that
contributes to earlier semantic processes, beginning around 150–200 msec after word onset (Amsel
et al., 2013; Moseley et al., 2013, Pulvermüller et al., 2009). EEG has proven well-suited for meas-
uring early occurring motor-semantic interactions that could be interpreted as showing that motor
processes influence semantic processes or vice versa, as opposed to motor resonance indexing post-
lexical effects. For example, Boulenger et al. (2008) presented action verbs and nouns sublimin-
ally as participants performed a grasping movement. EEG analyses showed that very early motor
planning, as shown by the “readiness potential” (indexing motor preparation 200 msec prior to actual
movement) was disrupted by linguistic processing as a function of word type (reduced motor prep-
aration for action verbs as compared to nouns). This was interpreted as showing interference due to
motor and semantic processes occurring simultaneously. Similarly, Aravena and colleagues (2010)
manipulated action and language compatibility to examine the brain markers of the bidirectional
impact between linguistic and motor processes. Participants processed sentences describing hand
actions while performing hand actions using a congruent or incongruent hand position (fist or open
hand). As predicted, not only was motor preparation facilitated by compatible meaning, incompatible
language/action pairs produced semantic interference, as shown by an N400-like effect. These results
were interpreted as revealing clear bidirectional impact between language and motor processes, and
hence shared resources for these processes.
Ibáñez and colleagues (2010) showed that linguistic embodied processes were affected by L2
proficiency, as illustrated by a difference in semantic effects as a function of motor-semantic con-
gruency. While watching videos combining literal and metaphorical expressions with congruent and
incongruent gestures, high and low proficiency L2 speakers showed an N400 effect for metaphor-
ical vs. literal sentences. More importantly, this effect was present for congruent vs. incongruent
gestures, though only for advanced L2 speakers, indicating shared resources between visual and
linguistic processing in an L2 for high-, but not for low-proficiency speakers. Similarly, Birba and
colleagues (2020) examined the effect of age of acquisition and proficiency on the recruitment of
embodied processes during reading. They measured functional connectivity (temporal coincidence)
using EEG during naturalistic reading of action vs. neutral texts and were particularly interested in
observing motor-related connectivity across central electrodes and source-space activity modulations
in motor regions. In the L1, action texts produced greater motor connectivity, which the authors
associated with participants reenacting sensorimotor experiences described by language. Although
no effects emerged for L2 speakers (i.e., differences between action and neutral texts), a positive cor-
relation was found between enhanced motor-related connectivity and L2 proficiency during action
text reading. Similarly, a negative correlation was found between motor-related connectivity and age
of L2 acquisition. Both studies described above indicate that although non-native speakers can show
embodied effects in L2 processing, proficiency in the L2 is likely what drives robust and reliable
effects (Kogan et al., 2020).
384
Time-frequency analysis has often been used to measure motor activation during language
processing. Suppression, or desynchronization, of the μ (8-13Hz) and β (13-30Hz) rhythms (see
Pfurtscheller & Lopes da Silva, 1999 for an explanation) reflects activity in the sensorimotor cortex,
associated with performing and observing movement (Caetano et al., 2007; Niccolai et al., 2014;
Pfurtscheller & Lopes da Silva, 1999) as well as motor imagery (Matsumoto et al., 2010). In the L1,
action-related sentences produced early μ and β Event-Related Desynchronization (ERD), suggesting
that motor resonance occurs during the retrieval of lexical-semantic information, as opposed to post-
lexical imagery (van Elk et al., 2010). Other L1 studies have contrasted action and abstract lan-
guage and shown greater motor activation for action language (Alemanno et al., 2012; Moreno et al,
2015). In order to go beyond language comprehension and observe motor-language interactions using
real action, we combined virtual reality (VR) and EEG in a novel paradigm (Zappa et al., 2019).
Participants heard action verbs prior to manipulating virtual objects using real and varied actions,
in an immersive virtual environment. We found μ and β ERD during verb processing, and prior
to movement proper, for both Go and Nogo trials; μ ERD was greater for Go trials, suggesting an
involvement of motor processes in language comprehension. Finally, a study comparing bilinguals’
L1 and L2 processing during a silent reading task showed significantly greater μ ERD over the left
hemisphere for action compared to abstract words, around 150 msec post-stimulus, for both languages
(Vukovic & Shtyrov, 2014). Once again, the early onset of motor activation was interpreted as indi-
cating that it was involved in lexico-semantic access as opposed to post-lexical processes, such as
mental imagery. Interestingly, in the right hemisphere, effects were greater for the L1 in comparison
to the L2. While verb-processing induced motor activation in both languages, these results confirm
that such effects are weaker in the L2 than in the L1.
Generally, both behavioral and neurocognitive studies have found similar embodied effects in
the L2 and the L1. However, these effects are often attenuated in the L2, and L2 proficiency seems
to have a significant impact on the extent to which they resemble L1 embodiment. Furthermore,
a consensus has yet to be reached as to why these differences exist. Numerous possibilities have
been put forward, such as L2 speakers relying on mechanisms like lexical association or shallow
translation instead of embodied mechanisms, or less experience leading to a poorer representational
system in the L2 compared to the L1. The studies above point to the importance of taking profi-
ciency and possibly age of acquisition into account when examining embodied effects in the L2.
Indeed, similarities between effects across the L1 and the L2 seem to be contingent on these factors,
which could have important implications for both embodied semantics and the L2 processing lit-
erature (see also Fromont, this volume). As we will further discuss below, one way of gaining
understanding as regards the relationship between language proficiency and embodied effects (i.e.,
how early on these effects emerge) is to examine these effects from the very beginning of new word
encoding.
Behavioral Evidence of Embodied Language Learning

Studies using gestures to teach artificial languages and novel vocabulary in the L1 and the L2 have
provided behavioral evidence that enacted or embodied learning enhances memory performance, in
line with embodied semantics (Macedonia & Knösche, 2011; Mayer et al., 2015; de Nooijer et al.,
2013; Tellier, 2008). Associations between sensorimotor experiences (e.g., the location of an object)
during novel word-learning have been shown to be reactivated during retrieval (Öttl et al., 2017).
Along similar lines, gesture studies have investigated the influence of learning new vocabulary with
concurrent gestures as a form of embodied learning. Children showed improved semantic encoding
of L2 words when these were learned with iconic gestures, as compared to images (Tellier, 2008),
and imitating gestures during encoding and retrieval helped children to learn novel verbs describing
385
object manipulation (but not abstract words or words describing locomotion; de Nooijer et al., 2013).
As for adults, performing a gesture congruent to word meaning (or “enactment”) supports learning an
artificial language or novel words as evidenced by short-and long-term retention, as well as accessi-
bility in memory (Macedonia, 2003; Macedonia & Knösche, 2011).
But is improved encoding for words learned with action simply a result of motor activation, inde-
pendent of their meaning, during learning? A handful of studies have suggested that words learned
with iconic gestures are better retained, both short-and long-term, compared to those learned with
meaningless gestures (devoid of any symbolic image related to the word’s semantics; Macedonia
et al., 2011) or no gestures (García-Gámez & Macizo, 2019). This indicates that the learning advan-
tage associated with iconic gestures does not rely merely on motor processes but also on their semantic
content, or their motor image. Another frequent question is whether the learning advantage is a result
of performing gestures or simply seeing them be performed (Macedonia & Knösche, 2011). Indeed,
it has been argued that inducing a mental simulation of performing an action, or motor imagery, is
enough to benefit recall (Kormi-Nouri, 2000). Sweller and colleagues (2020) taught participants L2
verbs verbally compared to a condition where they also saw iconic gestures and one where they saw
and performed iconic gestures. Short-and long-term recollection was improved for both gesture
conditions compared to the verbal condition. Interestingly, no differences in learning were found
between these two gesture conditions, suggesting that observing gestures may sufficiently activate
the sensorimotor system to benefit learning.
On the other hand, Morett et al. (2018) found that, although viewing gestures did not enhance
learning, retention was significantly improved when gestures were spontaneously produced, possibly
due to a more direct involvement of the motor system. This implies that encoding new L2 words
with action links motor traces to meaning, in line with the Hebbian and experiential trace theories
(Hebb, 1949; Pulvermüller, 1999; Zwaan & Madden, 2005). The discrepancies between the results
from Morett et al. (2018) and Sweller et al. (2020) may be due to Sweller et al. asking participants
to imitate gestures versus Morett et al. observing the effect of spontaneously produced gestures on
learning. Sweller and colleagues suggested that conscious imitation may have minimized embodied
benefits. That said, most of the gesture studies showing a learning advantage for performing gestures
also involved conscious imitation of iconic gestures. Further investigation is necessary to better
understand whether and in which cases self-performance is a pre-requisite for benefitting from an
embodied advantage in language learning.
Neurocognitive Evidence of Embodied Language Learning

As is the case with embodied language processing, cortical measures allow for a deeper examin-
ation of the neural correlates of embodied language learning. All in all, there is no clear answer as to
whether words learned with action directly reactivate sensorimotor information, nor whether a correl-
ation exists between motor activation after e mbodied word learning and improved learning outcomes.
Both Fargier et al. (2012) and Bechtold et al. (2018) taught participants novel words in association
with self-performed actions and then measured motor activation as participants processed these novel
words post-training. Neither study clearly indicated that learning with actions lead to greater motor
activation post-training. Recently, Garagnani and colleagues (2021) explored the neural correlates of
teaching participants to associate images of objects and actions to novel spoken words. Post-training,
fMRI results showed that listening to novel object words associated with objects activated the pri-
mary visual cortex and secondary and higher visual areas, indicating that associative semantic links
had been established between the word forms and concepts, and that the meaning of these newly
learned object words was localized to the primary visual cortex. On the other hand, contrary to the
authors’ hypothesis, listening to action words did not yield significant activation in the extrastriate
386
body area, possibly because action words were not as successfully learned as object words, as shown
by behavioral results.
fMRI studies that focused on using iconic gestures during novel word encoding resulted in more
reliable neural evidence of how embodied processes support word encoding. Mayer and colleagues
(2015) showed that learning novel words was better supported when accompanied by self-performed
congruent gestures compared to more traditional learning using images, which were more effi-
cient than verbal content alone. Most significantly, fMRI results showed a positive correlation
between activity in specialized visual and motor brain areas and improved behavioral performance,
suggesting that learning new linguistic content with accompanying gestures enhances learning by
creating embodied representations of those words. Along similar lines, Macedonia and colleagues
(2019) used fMRI to compare the effects of learning new L2 words through written translations of
either printed or auditory words accompanied or not by the visualization of semantically related
gestures. As expected, behavioral results showed improved learning for L2 words learned in con-
junction with visualizing gestures. Imaging results revealed more distributed sensorimotor networks
contingent on the number of modalities to which the participants were exposed during learning;
this was interpreted as showing deeper encoding. As in Sweller and colleagues’ (2020) behavioral
study, these results seem to indicate that an embodied learning advantage can result from action
observation alone. Finally, Macedonia and Mueller (2016) analyzed the BOLD response during the
recognition of words learned with self-performed iconic gestures in order to identify the networks
that subserve learning these words. Results showed activation not only of the core language net-
work, but of several premotor, motor and sensorimotor areas during word recognition. Importantly,
as participants heard and read the novel words, a significant portion of the left premotor cortex,
which is involved in movement preparation and simulation, became engaged. These activations
were attributed to the embodied encoding of novel words engaging a complex sensorimotor network
and improving retention.
In line with Macedonia et al. (2011), Krönke and colleagues (2013) aimed to identify the neural
correlates of novel object words learned with meaningful gestures, meaningless gestures and without
gestures (purely verbally). Although no behavioral differences were found between conditions, BOLD
fMRI data showed deeper semantic encoding for words learned with meaningful gestures (greater
activation of a semantic network including the left inferior frontal and inferior temporal gyri). This
supports the idea that semantic meaning of novel object names is grounded in brain networks respon-
sible for processing experiences with such objects. Finally, using event-related potentials (ERPs),
Kelly and colleagues (2009) examined the impact of gesture on learning L2 verbs. Words learned
with iconic gestures were better learned compared to observing meaningless gestures, as evidenced
by a larger late positive complex in bilateral parietal regions, an index of recollection. However,
no differences were found as concerns the N400 component. This was interpreted as showing that
embodied learning contributes to recollection of new L2 words, due to deeper memory traces, but not
to their familiarity, as shown by the lack of differences in the N400 component (associated with famil-
iarity, among other processes). The authors further speculated that rather than facilitating memory for
newly learned words and making them “superficially familiar”, gestures contribute to a later stage in
learning that involves meaning retrieval.
Overall, the above-described studies provide evidence that embodied learning, mostly through
performing or observing iconic gestures, improved retention of novel words. Learning with gestures
or action also resulted in greater activations in motor, pre-motor and sensorimotor areas while pro-
cessing learned words compared to control conditions. Importantly, embodied learning can rap-
idly engage embodied mechanisms, sometimes even before behavioral effects can be seen (Krönke
et al., 2013). These results seem to evidence a rapid, robust and lasting implication of sensorimotor
networks during action verb learning.
387
Current Trends and Future Directions: Virtual Reality to Investigate

Embodied Word Learning
A major challenge faced by embodied language learning studies is that of attaining ecological validity
while maintaining strict experimental control. According to embodied semantics, physical contexts
are essential for language processing and learning. Hence the need for experimental protocols that
are multimodal and as close to real life as possible (Tromp et al., 2018; Peeters, 2019). VR has been
thought to eliminate the spatial divide between stimulus and participant, which is particularly relevant
for investigating embodied semantics (Peeters, 2019). L2 learning research has become increasingly
invested in providing participants with more ecologically valid, multimodal environments where
they can engage in semi-natural actions, leading to results that can generalize to everyday situations
(Peeters, 2019; see also Jeong & Li, this volume). The rationale behind this is that the more real-
world and situated a language processing environment is, the more physically involved and natural
participants will feel and the more similar their behavior will be to real-life processing. VR envir-
onments are both interactive and immersive, making them better suited to engage the sensorimotor
system, compared to traditional experiments, and elicit real-life responses (Bohil et al., 2011).
In order to explore the neural correlates of L2 learning in virtual environments (VE), Legault
and colleagues (2019) examined structural brain changes during L2 processing, as a function of L2
learning context. Participants who learned in a VE condition showed increased structural changes
in the right inferior parietal lobe (IPL) compared to those who learned via word-word association.
Furthermore, two positive correlations emerged for the VE group: one between cortical thickness
of the right IPL and learning performance across training sessions and the other between cortical
thickness in the right supramarginal gyrus and accuracy in the delayed retention test. Given the
IPL’s association with embodied cognition networks, VE learning was thought to stimulate the IPL’s
involvement in interactive learning, which simulates real-life learning (Li & Jeong, 2020). Another
study used transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) to examine the involvement of motor processes
in L2 encoding more directly. Vukovic and Shtyrov (2019) tested whether inhibiting the primary
motor cortex (M1) would hamper action verb learning (see Pandža, this volume, for more details
about TMS). Participants learned novel labels for object nouns and action verbs via an interactive VR
computer game where they manually manipulated virtual objects. In line with embodied semantics,
the authors hypothesized that applying theta-burst TMS to the M1 prior to learning would prevent
a motor trace from forming for the verb labels, impinging on learning. Indeed, stimulating the hand
area of the left M1 lead to less successful encoding of novel verbs compared to nouns. This was not
the case for the two control groups, indicating that motor cortex activity could be involved in the
early stage of word encoding. Finally, Legault and colleagues (2019) used immersive VR (iVR) (i.e.,
encountering kitchen items in a kitchen) to teach participants Mandarin words and compared this
to word-word paired association. Only less successful learners showed improved accuracy imme-
diately post-training for words learned in iVR, suggesting these learners might reap more benefits
from embodied learning in iVR environments than successful learners. iVR allows for a fine-grained
examination of embodied language learning through the manipulation of naturalistic movement and
learning environments. In the future, the combination of iVR and neural data would provide a novel
and highly precise measure of the neural correlates of embodied word learning.
Applications
The above evidence that embodied processes can be involved in both L2 processing and learning
supports pedagogical approaches that teach semantic content using physical action. For instance, the
Total Physical Response (TPR) method has children “act out” the meaning of L1 new vocabulary
388
words using gestures, facial expressions and props. Along similar lines, the Accelerative Integrative
Method (AIM) uses drama, singing, dance and creative writing to help children to learn an L2.
Children embody different characters in plays and sing and act out stories in the L2. Meanwhile,
iconic gestures are associated to lexical items and syntactic content, building a repertoire of gesture-
verbal couples over time. Methods such these are thought to decrease learners’ inhibition and increase
their confidence, while engaging and motivating children both physically and emotionally during lan-
guage learning. Examining the neurocognitive effect of embodied L2 learning using these methods
would likely add to the ecological validity of embodied L2 learning research.
Further Readings
For an in-depth review of both behavioral and neurocognitive L2 studies that consider embodiment:
Monaco, E., Jost, L.B., Gygax, P.M., & Annoni, J.-M. (2019). Embodied Semantics in a Second Language: Critical
Review and Clinical Implications. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 13. www.frontiersin.org/articles/
10.3389/fnhum.2019.00110
Consensus paper that covers a wide range of neurobiological studies that address the role of motor and perceptual
processes in language representation as indexed by language comprehension and learning:
Bechtold, L., Cosper, S., Malyshevskaya, A., Montefinese, M., Morucci, P., Niccolai, V., Repetto, C., Zappa, A.,
& Shtyrov, Y. (in press). Brain signatures of embodied semantics and language: A consensus paper. Journal
of Cognition.
Review on the neural correlates of social L2 learning from a social cognitive perspective that also discusses the
contribution of virtual environments:
action. npj Science of Learning, 5, 8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-020-0068-7
Acknowledgments
This work, carried out within the Institut Convergence ILCB (ANR-16-CONV-0002), has benefited from
support from the French government, managed by the French National Agency for Research (ANR) and
the Excellence Initiative of Aix-Marseille University (A*MIDEX) as well as the European Union’s H2021-
MSCA-IF-2021 (project: BraSILL, No. 101062671).
References
Alemanno, F., Houdayer, E., Cursi, M., Velikova, S., Tettamanti, M., Comi, G., Cappa, S.F., & Leocani, L.
(2012). Action- related semantic content and negation polarity modulate motor areas during sentence
reading: An event-related desynchronization study. Brain Research, 1484, 39–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.brainres.2012.09.030
Amsel, B.D., Urbach, T.P., & Kutas, M. (2013). Alive and grasping: stable and rapid semantic access to an object
category but not object graspability. NeuroImage, 77, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.03.058
Aravena, P., Hurtado, E., Riveros, R., Cardona, J.F., Manes, F., & Ibáñez, A. (2010). Applauding with closed
hands: Neural signature of action-sentence compatibility effects. PloS One, 5(7), e11751. https://doi.org/
10.1371/journal.pone.0011751
Barsalou, L.W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(4), 577–660. https://doi.
org/10.1017/S0140525X99002149
Bechtold, L., Cosper, S., Malyshevskaya, A., Maria Montefinese, M., Morucci, P., Niccolai, V., Repetto, C.,
Zappa, A., & Shtyrov, Y. (in press). Brain signatures of embodied semantics and language: a consensus paper.
Journal of Cognition.
Bechtold, L., Ghio, M., Lange, J., & Bellebaum, C. (2018). Event-related desynchronization of mu and beta
oscillations during the processing of novel tool names. Brain and Language, 177–178, 44–55. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.bandl.2018.01.004
Birba, A., Beltrán, D., Caro, M. M., Trevisan, P., Kogan, B., Sedeño, L., Ibáñez, A., & García, A.M. (2020). Motor-
system dynamics during naturalistic reading of action narratives in first and second language. NeuroImage,
216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.116820
389
Bohil, C.J., Alicea, B., & Biocca, F.A. (2011). Virtual reality in neuroscience research and therapy. Nature
Reviews Neuroscience, 12(12), Article 12. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3122
Boulenger, V., Silber, B.Y., Roy, A.C., Paulignan, Y., Jeannerod, M., & Nazir, T.A. (2008). Subliminal display of
action words interferes with motor planning: A combined EEG and kinematic study. Journal of Physiology-
Paris, 102, 130–136. https://doi:10.1016/j.jphysparis.2008.03.015
Boulenger, V., Hauk, O, Pulvermüller, F. (2009) Grasping ideas with the motor system: semantic somatotopy in
idiom comprehension. Cerebral Cortex, 19, 1905–1914. https://doi:10.1093/cercor/bhn217
Boulenger, V., Roy, A., Paulignan, Y., Deprez, V., Jeannerod, M., & Nazir, T. (2006). Cross-talk between language
processes and overt motor behavior in the first 200 msec of processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.
https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2006.18.10.1607
Buccino, G., Marino, B. ., Bulgarelli, C., & Mezzadri, M. (2017). Fluent speakers of a second language process
graspable nouns expressed in L2 like in their native language. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1306. https://doi.
org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01306
Buccino, G., Riggio, L., Melli, G., Binkofski, F., Gallese, V., & Rizzolatti, G. (2005). Listening to action-related
sentences modulates the activity of the motor system: A combined TMS and behavioral study. Cognitive
Brain Research, 24(3), 355–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2005.02.020
Caetano, G., Jousmäki, V., & Hari, R. (2007). Actor’s and observer’s primary motor cortices stabilize similarly
after seen or heard motor actions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America, 104(21), 9058–9062. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0702453104
Casaponsa, A., & Thierry, G. (this volume). Linguistic relativity and second language: How learning a second
language may reshape cognition. In K. Morgan-Short and J.G. van Hell (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of
De Grauwe, S., Willems, R.M., Rueschemeyer, S.-A., Lemhöfer, K., & Schriefers, H. (2014). Embodied language
in first–and second-language speakers: Neural correlates of processing motor verbs. Neuropsychologia, 56,
De Nooijer, J.A., Van Gog, T., Paas, F., & Zwaan, R.A. (2013). Effects of imitating gestures during encoding or
during retrieval of novel verbs on children’s test performance. Acta Psychologica, 144(1), 173–179. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2013.05.013
De Vega, M., Moreno, V., & Castillo, D. (2013). The comprehension of action-related sentences may cause inter-
ference rather than facilitation on matching actions. Psychological Research, 77(1), 20–30. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s00426-011-0356-1
Diefenbach, C., Rieger, M., Massen, C., & Prinz, W. (2013). Action-Sentence Compatibility: The role of action
effects and timing. Frontiers in Psychology, 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00272
Dudschig, C., De la Vega, I., & Kaup, B. (2014). Embodiment and second-language: Automatic activation of
motor responses during processing spatially associated L2 words and emotion L2 words in a vertical Stroop
paradigm. Brain and Language, 132, 14–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2014.02.002
Engelkamp, J., & Krumnacker, H. (1980). Image–and motor-processes in the retention of verbal materials.
Zeitschrift Für Experimentelle Und Angewandte Psychologie, 27(4), 511–533.
Engelkamp, J., & Zimmer, H.D. (1984). Motor programme information as a separable memory unit. Psychological
Research, 46(3), 283–299. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00308889
Esopenko, C., Gould, L., Cummine, J., Sarty, G.E., Kuhlmann, N., & Borowsky, R. (2012). A neuroanatom-
ical examination of embodied cognition: Semantic generation to action-related stimuli. Frontiers in Human
Neuroscience, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00084
Fargier, R., Paulignan, Y., Boulenger, V., Monaghan, P., Reboul, A., & Nazir, T. A. (2012). Learning to associate
novel words with motor actions: Language-induced motor activity following short training. Cortex, 48(7),
888–899. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2011.07.003
Fodor, J.A. (1998). Concepts: Where Cognitive Science Went Wrong. Oxford University
Garagnani, M., Kirilina, E., & Pulvermüller, F. (2021). Semantic grounding of novel spoken words in the primary
visual cortex. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 15, 66. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2021.581847
García, A.M., & Ibáñez, A. (2016). A touch with words: Dynamic synergies between manual actions and lan-
guage. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 68, 59–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.04.022
García-Gámez, A.B., & Macizo, P. (2019). Learning nouns and verbs in a foreign language: The role of gestures.
Applied Psycholinguistics, 40(2), 473–507. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716418000656
390
Hauk, O., Johnsrude, I., & Pulvermüller, F. (2004). Somatotopic representation of action words in human motor
and premotor cortex. Neuron, 41(2), 301–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0896-6273(03)00838-9
Hauk, O., & Tschentscher, N. (2013). The body of evidence: What can neuroscience tell us about embodied
semantics? Frontiers in Psychology, 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00050
Hebb, D.O. (1949). The organization of behavior; a neuropsychological theory. Wiley.
Hurley, S.L. (1998). Consciousness in Action. Harvard University Press.
Ibáñez, A., Manes, F., Escobar, M., Trujillo, N., Andreucci, P., & Hurtado, E. (2010). Gesture influences the
processing of figurative language in non-native speakers: ERP evidence. Neuroscience Letters, 471, 48–52.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2010.01.009
James, K.H., & Bose, P. (2011). Self-generated actions during learning objects and sounds create sensori-motor
systems in the developing brain. Cognition, Brain, Behavior: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 15(4), 485–503.
James, K.H., & Swain, S.N. (2011). Only self-generated actions create sensori-motor systems in the developing
brain. Developmental Science, 14(4), 673–678. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2010.01011.x
guage be learned as first language? In K. Morgan-Short and J.G. van Hell (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of
Johnson-Glenberg, M.C., & Megowan-Romanowicz, C. (2017). Embodied science and mixed reality: How ges-
ture and motion capture affect physics education. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 2(1), 24.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-017-0060-9
Kontra, C., Lyons, D.J., Fischer, S.M., & Beilock, S.L. (2015). Physical experience enhances science
learning: Psychological Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615569355
Kaschak, M.P., & Borreggine, K.L. (2008). Temporal dynamics of the action-sentence compatibility effect.
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology (2006), 61(6), 883–895. https://doi.org/10.1080/1747021070
1623852
Kaup B., De Filippis, M., Lachmair, M., De la Vega I., & Dudschig, C. (2012). When up-words meet down-
sentences: evidence for word–or sentence-based compatibility effects? Cognitive Processing, 13, S203–207.
https://doi:10.1007/s10339-012-0453-0
Kelly, S.D., McDevitt, T., & Esch, M. (2009). Brief training with co-speech gesture lends a hand to word learning
in a foreign language. Language and Cognitive Processes, 24(2), 313–334. https://doi.org/10.1080/016909
60802365567
Kogan, B., Muñoz, E., Ibáñez, A., & García, A.M. (2020). Too late to be grounded? Motor resonance for
action words acquired after middle childhood. Brain and Cognition, 138, 105509. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.bandc.2019.105509
Kormi-Nouri, R. (2000). The role of movement and object in action memory: A comparative study between
blind, blindfolded and sighted subjects. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 41(1), 71–76. https://doi.org/
10.1111/1467-9450.00173
tion.. In K. Morgan-Short & J.G. van Hell (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition
Krönke, K.-M., Mueller, K., Friederici, A.D., & Obrig, H. (2013). Learning by doing? The effect of gestures
on implicit retrieval of newly acquired words. Cortex, 49(9), 2553–2568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor
tex.2012.11.016
Landauer, T.K., & Dumais, S.T. (1997). A solution to Plato’s problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of
acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104(2), 211–240. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0033-295X.104.2.211
Legault, J., Zhao, J., Chi, Y.-A., Chen, W., Klippel, A., & Li, P. (2019). Immersive virtual reality as an
effective tool for second language vocabulary learning. Languages, 4(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.3390/
languages4010013
Legault, J., Fang, S.-Y., Lan, Y.-J., & Li, P. (2019). Structural brain changes as a function of second language
j.bandc.2018.09.004
action. npj Science of Learning, 5, 8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-020-0068-7
Macedonia, M. (2003). Sensorimotor Enhancing of Verbal Memory Through “Voice Movement Icons” During
Encoding of Foreign Language. PhD thesis, University of Salzburg.
Macedonia, M., & Knösche, T.R. (2011). Body in Mind: How gestures empower foreign language learning.
Mind, Brain, and Education, 5(4), 196–211. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-228X.2011.01129.x
391
Macedonia, M., Müller, K., & Friederici, A.D. (2011). The impact of iconic gestures on foreign language word
learning and its neural substrate. Human Brain Mapping, 32(6), 982–998. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.21084
Macedonia, M., & Mueller, K. (2016). Exploring the neural representation of novel words learned through enact-
ment in a word recognition task. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 953. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00953
Macedonia, M., Repetto, C., Ischebeck, A., & Mueller, K. (2019). Depth of encoding through observed gestures
in foreign language word learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 33. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00033
Mahon, B.Z., & Caramazza, A. (2008). A critical look at the embodied cognition hypothesis and a new proposal
for grounding conceptual content. Journal of Physiology-Paris, 102(1), 59–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jph
ysparis.2008.03.004
Marino, B.F.M., Sirianni, M., Volta, R.D., Magliocco, F., Silipo, F., Quattrone, A., & Buccino, G. (2014).
Viewing photos and reading nouns of natural graspable objects similarly modulate motor responses. Frontiers
in Human Neuroscience, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00968
Matsumoto, J., Fujiwara, T., Takahashi, O., Liu, M., Kimura, A., & Ushiba, J. (2010). Modulation of mu
rhythm desynchronization during motor imagery by transcranial direct current stimulation. Journal of
Neuroengineering and Rehabilitation, 7, 27. https://doi.org/10.1186/1743-0003-7-27
Mayer, K.M., Yildiz, I.B., Macedonia, M., & Von Kriegstein, K. (2015). Visual and motor cortices differentially
j.cub.2014.11.068
Monaco, E., Jost, L.B., Gygax, P.M., & Annoni, J.-M. (2019). Embodied semantics in a second Language: Critical
review and clinical implications. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 13. www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/
fnhum.2019.00110
Moreno, I., De Vega, M., León, I., Bastiaansen, M., Lewis, A.G., & Magyari, L. (2015). Brain dynamics in the
comprehension of action-related language. A time-frequency analysis of mu rhythms. NeuroImage, 109, 50–
Morett, L.M. (2018). In hand and in mind: Effects of gesture production and viewing on second language word
learning. Applied Psycholinguistics, 39(2), 355–381. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716417000388
Moseley, R.L., Mohr, B., Lombardo, M.V., Baron-Cohen, S., Hauk, O., & Pulvermüller, F. (2013). Brain and
behavioral correlates of action semantic deficits in autism. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7. https://doi.
org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00725
Niccolai, V., Klepp, A., Weissler, H., Hoogenboom, N., Schnitzler, A., & Biermann-Ruben, K. (2014). Grasping
hand verbs: Oscillatory beta and alpha correlates of action-word processing. PloS One, 9(9), e108059. https://
Ottle, B., Dudschig, C., & Kaup., B. (2017). Forming associations between language and sensorimotor traces
during novel word learning. Language and Cognition, 9(1),156–171. http://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2016.5
Routledge.
Patterson, K., & Ralph, M. (2016). The Hub-and-Spoke hypothesis of semantic memory. In G. Hickok and S.L.
Small (Eds.), Neurobiology of language (pp. 765–775). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-407794-2.00061-4
Peeters, D. (2019). Virtual reality: A game-changing method for the language sciences. Psychonomic Bulletin &
Review, 26(3), 894–900. http://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-019-01571-3
Pfurtscheller, G., & Lopes da Silva, F.H. (1999). Event- related EEG/ MEG synchronization and desyn-
chronization: Basic principles. Clinical Neurophysiology, 110(11), 1842–1857. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S1388-2457(99)00141-8
Pulvermüller, F. (1999). Words in the brain’s language. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(2), 253–336. https://
doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X9900182X
Pulvermüller, F. (2013). How neurons make meaning: Brain mechanisms for embodied and abstract-symbolic
semantics. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(9), 458–470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2013.06.004
Pulvermüller, F., Shtyrov, Y., & Hauk, O. (2009). Understanding in an instant: Neurophysiological evidence
for mechanistic language circuits in the brain. Brain and Language, 110(2), 81–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.bandl.2008.12.001
Raposo, A., Moss, H.E., Stamatakis, E.A., & Tyler, L.K. (2009). Modulation of motor and premotor cortices
by actions, action words and action sentences. Neuropsychologia, 47(2), 388–396. https://doi.org/10.1016/
Saussure, F. de. (1916). Cours de linguistique générale. Lausanne & Paris.
Shapiro, L. (2011). Embodied cognition. Routledge.
Sweller, N., Shinooka-Phelan, A., & Austin, E. (2020). The effects of observing and producing gestures on
Japanese word learning. Acta Psychologica, 207, 103079. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2020.103079
392
Tellier, M. (2008). The effect of gestures on second language memorisation by young children. Gesture, 8(2),
219–235. https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.8.2.06tel
system. In K. Morgan-Short and J.G. van Hell (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisi-
tion and neurolinguistics. Routledge.
Tromp, J., Peeters, D., Meyer, A.S., & Hagoort, P. (2018). The combined use of virtual reality and EEG to study
language processing in naturalistic environments. Behavior Research Methods, 50(2), 862–869. https://doi.
org/10.3758/s13428-017-0911-9
Van Elk, M., Van Schie, H.T., Zwaan, R.A., & Bekkering, H. (2010). The functional role of motor activation in
language processing: Motor cortical oscillations support lexical-semantic retrieval. NeuroImage, 50(2), 665–
Vukovic, N. (2013). When words get physical: Evidence for proficiency-modulated somatotopic motor interfer-
ence during second language comprehension. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science
Society, 35(35). https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0jb6s58t
Vukovic, N., & Shtyrov, Y. (2014). Cortical motor systems are involved in second-language comprehen-
sion: Evidence from rapid mu- rhythm desynchronisation. NeuroImage, 102, 695–703. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.08.039
Vukovic, N., & Shtyrov, Y. (2019). Learning with the wave of the hand: Kinematic and TMS evidence of primary
motor cortex role in category-specific encoding of word meaning. NeuroImage, 202, 116179. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.116179
Zappa, A., Bolger, D., Pergandi, J.-M., Mallet, P., Dubarry, A.-S., Mestre, D., & Frenck-Mestre, C. (2019).
Motor resonance during linguistic processing as shown by EEG in a naturalistic VR environment. Brain and
Cognition, 134, 44–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2019.05.003
23273798.2020.1738509
Zwaan, R.A., & Madden, C.J.D. (2005). Embodied sentence comprehension. In D. Pecher & R.A. Zwaan (Eds.),
Grounding cognition: The role of perception and action in memory, language, and thinking. Cambridge
University Press.
Zwaan, R.A., & Taylor, L.J. (2006). Seeing, acting, understanding: Motor resonance in language comprehension.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.135.1.1
393
PART VII
Selective Topics in the Neurocognition

of Second Language
29
THE NEUROCOGNITION
OF FOREIGN ACCENT
PERCEPTION

In our modern interconnected society, cross-cultural and cross-linguistic interactions are increasing.
Due to this relatively new reality, the globalized population is exposed to foreign-accented speech
on a near day-to-day basis. Foreign-accented speech is generally defined as linguistic output which
possesses acoustic features that deviate from the native pronunciation of a given language. This type
of speech is mainly produced by non-native speakers,1 who face the challenge of learning a new
language and do not always reach native-like levels of proficiency. As a result, their non-native lan-
guage production may contain imprecisions/errors at various linguistic levels: the way the sounds
are pronounced (phonology), the words that are chosen (semantics) and the manner in which these
words are combined into full sentences (syntax). Hence, interacting with foreign-accented speakers
may lead to challenging conversational settings (e.g., Van Engen et al., 2010), wherein the features
of the accented speech differ from the expected properties of standard native accent, and processing
is therefore complexified.
The increasing number of interactions between people from different language backgrounds
has led the scientific community to investigate the ways in which native listeners manage foreign-
accented errors in order to achieve successful mutual understanding. Some of the current research
questions examining this topic are the following: How is second-language production different from
native production? Does the human brain treat linguistic information differently depending on the
speaker’s linguistic background? Are distinct neural mechanisms needed to analyze native and non-
native speech input? Is the interpretation of a sentence impacted by the identity of the speaker (native
or non-native) who produced it?
The majority of the classical sentence analysis research on this topic has been accomplished from
the perspective of the non-native speaker.2 That is, a body of work has asked several questions about
how second language learners can achieve levels of language proficiency that approximate those of
native speakers. A more recent set of studies has (mostly) considered the point of view of the native
listener during cross-linguistic interactions. As this listener will likely be confronted with foreign-
accented speech deviations, they may need to overcome a number of communication challenges, as
detailed below:
(1) Phonological challenges. The listener must correctly detect and identify the series of sounds that
are part of a foreign-accented spoken word. Depending on the speakers’ proficiency, this may
DOI: 10.4324/9781003190912-37 397

be difficult because of the potential gap between the acoustic properties of the foreign-accented
pronunciations and those of native speakers. This means that listeners must adapt and/or adjust
their perception to these relatively novel sounds to achieve efficient spoken word recognition of
the accented input.
(2) Lexical-semantic challenges. The listener must combine words together and derive the intended
semantic representation of the content produced by the foreign-accented speaker. This can prove
to be challenging as the foreign-accented speaker might not always choose the most fitting word
to convey the intended message. Hence, the listener must access multiple meanings, hypothesize
a range of potential interpretations, and select the intended representation for a given foreign-
accented sentence.
(3) Syntactic/Morphosyntactic challenges. The listener must keep track of the grammatical depend-
encies within an utterance, and build a coherent and connective syntactic structure. Once again,
the foreign-accented speaker may be inaccurate in selecting the grammatical features of the
learned language, resulting in the production of syntactic/morphosyntactic imprecisions. This
requires the listener to repair the grammatical errors in order to recover the foreign-accented
speaker’s original message.
This chapter will focus on the last two challenges that listeners may face while interacting with
foreign-accented speakers: semantic and syntactic imprecisions (for an overview on phonological
challenges with foreign-accented speech see Flege, 1981; Major, 2001). We first offer a general over-
view of the current theoretical perspectives that account for the differences between the cognitive
processing of foreign-accented speech and of native-accented speech. We then describe the main
neuroscientific research findings related to foreign-accented speech perception by considering behav-
ioral, electrophysiological and neuroimaging methods.

The recent foreign-accented speech literature has mainly referred to three major (non-mutually exclu-
sive) theoretical frameworks in order to explain the manner in which non-native acoustic features
may impact listeners’ sentence analysis. One theoretical account focuses on cognitive load and
postulates related differences between foreign-and native-accented speech perception. The second
theoretical framework highlights the probabilistic/stereotypical knowledge associated with foreign
speakers and their speech production. Lastly, the final major framework centralizes the cascading
effects of foreign-accented phonological analysis on higher levels of language processing.
Cognitive Load
Cognitive load refers to the amount of cognitive demands placed on the working memory system
to perform a cognitive task (Pichora-Fuller et al., 2016). Relatedly, cognitive effort refers to the
amount of cognitive resources one allocates to perform a task (De Jong, 2010). Cognitive Load
Theory (Paas et al., 2003) operates on the premise that cognitive resources are limited and that the
execution of every cognitive task requires different amounts of one’s total cognitive capacities. As the
required effort increases, the cognitive load of the task is said to be greater. Traditionally, proponents
of cognitive load theory argue that cognitively demanding tasks with a higher cognitive load will be
associated with decreases in task performance and information retention.
Although the Cognitive Load Theory is broadly applied in the fields of education and memory,
it has also been used to explain the decreases in performance associated to foreign-accented speech
comprehension and retention; the idea is that the analysis of foreign-accented input may require the
398
The Neurocognition of Foreign Accent Perception
allocation of additional cognitive resources. This hypothesis thus predicts longer response times and
more error-prone answers for non-native as compared to native input, with concomitant differences
in neural correlates associated with speech perception.
Note that the competing Cognitive Effort Theory (Mayer et al., 2003; Tyler et al.,
1979) hypothesizes that increased cognitive effort associated with higher cognitive load may,
in fact, lead to amelioration in task performance and information retention. This means that the
proposed higher cognitive load of foreign-accented speech processing would boost retention and/
or task performance, as a result of the reallocation of attentional resources that are associated with
cognitive effort.
Probabilistic and Stereotypical Knowledge Associated with Speaker Accent

Early research indicates that listeners quickly incorporate stereotypes about speaker identity (e.g.,
gender, socioeconomic status, education) during real-time language processing (Van Berkum et al.,
2008). Speech accent is one aspect of speaker identity that can trigger different types of expectations
about the interlocutor (e.g., Vaughn, 2019). This means that listeners may form stereotypes about
foreign-accented speech characteristics, and adapt their speech perception and sentence analysis
accordingly.
Where does this accent-related stereotypical knowledge originate from? According to the the-
oretical framework of probabilistic knowledge, this information is learned by listeners, who come
to identify the recurring patterns within the foreign-accented input. Such probabilistic knowledge
can be learned as non-native speech often presents non-arbitrary phonological deviations; listeners
may eventually adapt to these consistent acoustic distortions (Clayards et al., 2008; Kleinschmidt &
Jaeger, 2015; Theodore & Monto, 2019). Moreover, such probabilistic learning is not restricted to
the level of phonology; regularities within foreign-accented speech also emerge from higher levels
of language analysis, such as semantics and syntax. For instance, some morphosyntactic/semantic
errors are more typical than others in foreign-accented speech (e.g., Franceschina, 2001; Gosselin
et al., 2021) and thus follow a learnable distribution. Altogether, this framework posits that listeners
can detect and learn the distribution of characteristics within accented speech, leading to the eventual
development of probabilistic/stereotypical ideas about such input. This higher-level knowledge can
later be exploited during cross-linguistic interactions.
One prediction this theoretical model brings forth is the potential modulating role of accent famil-
iarity. If foreign-accented processing is influenced by listeners’ own probabilistic knowledge about
accented speech, the degree of exposure to a certain accent should influence behavioral and neural
correlates of utterance analysis. A second prediction is that of error typicality. If listeners base their
processing of foreign-accented speech on learned frequency distributions, behavioral, and neural
correlates of foreign accent perception should differ between typical and atypical foreign-accented
speech productions. This is because typical imprecisions would adhere to the learned probabil-
istic knowledge, while outlier (atypical) imprecisions would not (see Section Electrophysiological
findings: Syntax for further discussion).
Cascading Effects of Phonological Analysis

One final key theoretical perspective mainly focuses on the phonological challenges associated to
foreign-accented speech processing. Concretely, what we perceive as a foreign accent is merely
a series of physical acoustic divergences relative to “standard” native phonological categories.
This means that native listeners attending to non-native utterances must manage the consistent
gap between their underlying phonological representations and the foreign-accented input being
399
perceived. Such phonological challenges presumably impair single-word recognition, which, in

turn, may cascade towards issues affecting higher levels of language comprehension (e.g., semantics
and syntax).
It has been hypothesized that the pre-lexical phase of spoken word recognition involves a nor-
malization process designed to “filter out” speaker-specific acoustic divergences (i.e., accent of the
speaker; Goslin et al., 2012). For foreign-accented speech processing, the normalization process aims
to minimize the gap between the native listener’s underlying phonological representations and the
acoustic distortions produced by the non-native speaker (Goslin et al., 2012; Sumner & Tilsen, 2011).
Although experimental evidence is still scarce, the degree of normalization seems to vary as a
function of the sentential context and the type of accent. For instance, listeners appear to be more
successful in normalizing familiar and/or native-like accents, at least in the case of single-word recog-
nition (Goslin et al., 2012; Thomas et al., 2022). However, for the comprehension of full utterances,
most studies show that foreign-accented sentence processing is accompanied by a minimal (or even
absent) normalization phase. Consequently, cascading accent-related processing issues are observed
during later stages of word analysis and sentence comprehension (semantics and syntax; Goslin et al.,
2012; Gosselin et al., 2021). Hence, in most natural conversational contexts (that typically consist of
full sentences, not isolated words), foreign-accented speech characteristics cannot be easily filtered
out during an early phase of phonological analysis; cascading effects are thus detected within higher
order cognitive processes.

In this section, we provide a brief overview of the behavioral, electrophysiological and neuroimaging
findings regarding potential accent-related differences in speech perception, specifically focusing on
listeners’ semantic and syntactic analysis of foreign-accented speech.
Nearly all studies reviewed here have adopted a violation paradigm, wherein two main conditions
are compared: a (semantically, grammatically) incorrect condition and a condition that is the canon-
ical (semantically, grammatically correct) version of the violated sentence. The logic behind this
approach is the following: behavioral/neural changes observed for the incorrect compared to correct
input reflects how the brain processes the specific linguistic feature that was violated. Researchers
have utilized the violation paradigm in foreign-accented studies to examine whether listeners change
the way they process (and/or repair) linguistic information depending on the speaker’s accent. These
experimental designs also allow researchers to test the predictions of the three accented-speech the-
oretical frameworks described above.
Behavioral Findings
Accuracy and reaction time measures have been collected to estimate the degree of difficulty listeners
encounter when processing native-and foreign-accented sentences.
Behavioral Findings: Semantics

A body of work has indicated that native listeners’ comprehension may be impeded by the presence of
a foreign accent: accented input typically elicits longer reaction times during semantic tasks, such as
truth evaluation judgements (Adank, Davis, et al., 2012; Adank et al., 2009; Munro & Derwing, 1995).
Nonetheless, comprehension accuracy is generally equivalent for native and non-native accents (Grey
& van Hell, 2017; Foucart & Hartsuiker, 2021). Thus, despite requiring longer processing times,
listeners appear to reach accurate semantic comprehension of foreign-accented speech. The presence
400
of an informative or semantically constraining sentential context (i.e., top-down information) appears

to be particularly helpful during foreign-accented semantic processing (Behrman & Akhund, 2013;
Dijkgraaf et al., 2017; Schmid & Yeni-Komshian, 1999), possibly since it supplements the bottom-up
information (i.e., potentially deviated acoustic input) that must be assimilated to the intended phono-
logical target by the listener (Goslin et al., 2012).
Foreign accents can also impact metalinguistic levels of semantic processing, such as feelings of
truthfulness or credibility according to speaker identity. In general, non-native speech is rated as less
credible by native listeners and non-native listeners alike (Hanzlíková & Skarnitzl, 2017; Podlipský
et al., 2016). However, foreign-accented speakers are less likely to be penalized for doubtful vocal
tones (Jiang et al., 2020), speech disfluencies (Bosker et al., 2014), or content omissions (Fairchild
& Papafragou, 2018).
Behavioral Findings: Syntax

Sentence studies show that native listeners can accurately identify grammatical errors that are foreign-
accented, though they are slightly less successful in explicit error detection tasks for foreign-accented
compared to native-accented input (Caffarra & Martin, 2019; Hanulíková et al., 2012). Nonetheless,
listeners show excellent comprehension of native-and foreign-accented sentences, also when subtler
morphosyntactic errors are examined (Caffarra & Martin, 2019; Grey & van Hell, 2017; Hanulíková
et al., 2012). These errors do not seem to hinder the overall comprehension of the speaker’s intended
message, as listeners can accurately respond to comprehension questions for content produced in both
types of accents.
Overall, accent-related differences have occasionally been reported at the behavioral level, for
both syntactic and semantic processing. The direction of these effects is consistent with the Cognitive
Load Theory (e.g., reduced accuracy/longer response times for foreign-accented compared to native-
accented speech), rather than the Cognitive Effort Theory. However, it must be noted that behavioral
accent effects are usually small, and native listeners generally attain excellent levels of non-native
speech perception (assuming that speech intelligibility is medium-to-high). Overall, the behavioral
literature suggests that native listeners can accurately understand speech in both native and foreign
accents.
Electrophysiological Findings
Electrophysiology enables researchers to isolate and examine the neural correlates associated with
the processing of a single word, even when it is presented in a complex sequence of constituents. For
this reason, electroencephalography (EEG) is a valuable tool and has been widely used to study how
the brain reacts to different types of sentential constituents. EEG records the continuous fluctuations
in neural electrophysiological activity, via electrodes placed on the surface of the participant’s scalp.
The EEG signal, time-locked to the presentation of a critical linguistic event (e.g., the onset of a
spoken word produced in an utterance), is segmented and averaged, resulting in interpretable event-
related potentials (ERPs; see Dickson and Pelzl, this volume, for details). Table 29.1 lists the ERP
correlates of language processing that will be discussed in the next sections.
Electrophysiological Findings: Semantics

Table 29.2 evinces the wide variation in findings for the interface of semantics. Indeed, the current
literature indicates that 1) speaker accent has no influence on semantic processing (accent-independent
N400s, Grey et al., 2019; Hanulíková et al., 2012; Holt et al., 2018); 2) semantic errors are not
401
Table 29.1
Electrophysiological Correlates of Spoken Sentence Analysis Relevant for Accented Speech
Literature
ERPs Time window Polarity Distribution Interpretation and study design
N400 300–500 Negative Centro-posterior The N400 has been related to aspects
of lexical-semantic access and
analysis, and was initially observed
in response to semantic violations.
The N400 effect typically entails
a greater negative amplitude for
violations compared to correct
controls (Kutas & Federmeier, 2011).
Nref >300 Negative Frontal The Nref has been related to pronoun
resolution and referential processing
difficulty when it comes to retrieving
the proper antecedent (Nieuwland
& Van Berkum, 2006). It shows
an increased negativity in case of
pronoun error.
P600 500–800 Positive Centro-posterior The P600 has been observed in
response to a wide range of syntactic
and semantic violations (e.g., word
order violations, grammatical
agreement violations, but also
prediction errors). It is thought to
be related to controlled processes of
repair and analysis, usually carried
out to overcome errors and achieve
a broad comprehension of sentence
meaning. The P600 effect consists of
an increased positive amplitude for
the violated condition as compared
to the correct one (Osterhout &
Mobley, 1995).
processed as errors in non-native speech (absent/reduced N400 for the foreign accent, Abdollahi
et al., 2021; Foucart & Hartsuiker, 2021; Goslin et al., 2012; Xu et al., 2020); or 3) semantic errors
incur increased lexical-semantic integration demands (increased N400 for the foreign accent, Jiang
et al., 2020; Romero-Rivas et al., 2015; Strauber et al., 2021). Interestingly, findings 2) and 3) are
not necessarily oppositional: both may be driven by cognitively more effortful processing of foreign-
accented than of native-accented utterances. That is, while an increased N400 response can indicate
that semantic processing was costly, the lack of an N400 may indicate that processing was so costly
that the listener did not have sufficient cognitive resources to complete the semantic analysis.
It must be noted that the literature contains several methodological divergences, particularly
regarding the types of semantic manipulations. In some cases, the critical manipulation may result
in an outright semantic violation, wherein a target word from a canonical sentence is replaced with a
word that is ostensibly nonsensical for the context (e.g., “Kaitlyn traveled across the ocean in a plane/
*cactus to attend the conference.”; Grey & van Hell, 2017). In other cases, the target word is replaced
with a semantically plausible but less expected (i.e., anomalous: SA) counterpart (e.g., “During the
argument Paul was furious so he hit below the belt/stomach and told the truth.”; Kędzierska, 2019).
402
newgenrtpdf
Table 29.2 ERP Findings on Foreign-accented Semantic Processing
Paper Language studied Accents Manipulation N vs. F error effect
Abdollahi et al., English N: American English OSV (lexical N400 for N but not for F
2021 (older adults tested) F: Chinese replacement)
Foucart & Dutch N: Flemish Dutch UI, WKV N400 for N but not for F
Hartsuiker, 2021* F: Czech
Goslin et al., 2012 English N: English (South-West England) SA (low-cloze) Reduced N400 for F compared to N and
R: English (South Wales, Yorkshire) R; similar N400 for N and R
F: Italian, Polish

Gosselin et al., 2021 Spanish N: Spanish (Spain) SSV (single phoneme Similar early N400 for F and N; late
F: Chinese replacement) N400 for F but not N
Grey & van Hell, English N: American English OSV (lexical Long-lasting N400 for N and late N400
2017 F: Chinese replacement) for F
Grey et al., English (Dutch–English N: American English OSV (lexical Similar delayed N400 for N and F
2019 bilinguals tested) F: Chinese replacement)
Grey et al., 2020* English N: American English OSV (lexical Long-lasting N400 for N and late N400
403
F: Chinese replacement) for F

Hanulíková et al., Dutch N: Dutch OSV (lexical Similar N400 for F and N
2012 F: Turkish replacement)
Holt et al., English N: Australian English OSV (lexical Similar N400 for F and N; larger N400
2018 F: Chinese replacement) for accent-familiar participants
Jiang et al., 2020 English N: Canadian English Vocal confidence Doubtful tone generates N400 and late
R: Australian English (confident vs. negativity for F and R but not N
F: French (Québec) doubtful tone)
Kędzierska, 2019 Polish N: Polish SA (low-cloze) N400-like response for N but not F
F: Ukrainian
Romero-Rivas et al., Spanish N: Spanish (Catalonia) OSV (lexical Larger and more widely-spread N400
2015 F: French, Greek, Italian, Japanese replacement) for F than N
Strauber et al., 2021 English N: American English SA (low-cloze) Larger N400 for N than for F
F: Indian (Hindi)
Xu et al., 2020* German N: German SSV (slips of the N400 for N but not for F
F: Chinese tongue)
Notes: N: native accent; R: regional accent; F: foreign accent; OSV: outright semantic violations; SSV: subtle semantic violations; SA: semantic anomaly; UI: unknown
information (e.g., “Usually the number of strings of a harp is forty-six.); WKV: world knowledge violations (e.g., “Usually the number of strings of a guitar is forty-
six.”). *participants see a face cue according to accent.
Other violations are more subtle. For example, a semantic anomaly may be engendered by a single-
phoneme substitution (e.g., Se escapó el perro/*pelo de tu tía. “Your aunt’s dog/*hair escaped.”;
Gosselin et al., 2021); the error thus resembles the contextually appropriate word. It is important to
consider these methodological differences, as there is reason to believe that outright violations, subtle
violations, and semantic abnormalities trigger quantitatively and qualitatively distinct ERP effects in
foreign-accented speech, just like in native-accented speech (Kutas & Hillyard, 1980).
These stimuli-related differences are also meaningful under the guise of theoretical frameworks
for accented-speech processing, such as the Cognitive Load Theory. Crucially, the various types
of semantic manipulations also likely differ in terms of required cognitive effort, with outright
semantic violations being more effortful than semantic anomalies or subtle semantic violations.
This point is critical, as cognitive resources are limited. If a listener has depleted their resources
while processing an outright semantic violation, they may fail to exhibit accent-related differences
(Abdollahi et al., 2021; Grey et al., 2019; Holt et al., 2018; Romero-Rivas et al., 2015) or only show
a delayed effort for foreign-accented speech (Grey et al., 2020; Grey & van Hell, 2017). However,
when the semantic manipulation requires less resources, listeners may exhibit accent effects in
favor of foreign-accented speech (possibly in line with Cognitive Effort Theory: Goslin et al., 2012;
Kędzierska, 2019; Strauber et al., 2021; Xu et al., 2020; though see Gosselin et al., 2021). In any
case, that results vary with semantic manipulations used in experiments aligns with the Cognitive
Load framework.
The variety of results in the accented-speech literature may also support the theoretical framework
of probabilistic and stereotypical knowledge. Importantly, the different types of errors/manipulations
used in semantic processing studies presumably vary in terms of frequency of attestation in foreign-
accented speech. Violations resulting from slips of the tongue or phonemic mispronunciations are
likely more frequent than violations resulting from whole-word substitutions. As such, while a
listener may grasp the probabilistic distribution of specific slips-of-the-tongue in a given accent,
foreign-accented outright semantic violations might not follow any learnable distribution; this may
partially explain why studies utilizing outright semantic violations tend to show delayed or absent
accent effects, while experiments utilizing more frequent manipulations often exhibit effects in favor
of accented speech (i.e., reduced N400 for foreign-accented speech). Curiously, however, at least one
study shows that native listeners with more exposure to the accent under study (i.e., accent-familiar
participants) exhibited the largest accent effects (Holt et al., 2018). This finding does not support
the probabilistic knowledge framework; though accent-familiar participants presumably possess
the most robust probabilistic knowledge, they exhibit the largest N400 effects for foreign-accented
semantic violations.
Altogether, the current literature does not allow us to settle on a particular theoretical framework
for foreign-accented semantic processing. Both the Cognitive Load and probabilistic knowledge
perspectives are at least partially bolstered. The literature also shows cascading effects of phono-
logical analysis on higher-levels of foreign-accented speech processing: the accent-related N400
modulation observed in most studies indicates quite clearly that the level of phonology can spill
over to the semantic interface. Future studies should “embrace the complexity of the results” (Bak,
2016: 752) to highlight potential patterns and develop testable hypotheses.
Electrophysiological Findings: Syntax

Table 29.3 consistently shows that listeners can change how they analyze grammatical violations
depending on speaker identity (i.e., the accent; Caffarra & Martin, 2019; Gosselin et al., 2021; Grey
et al., 2019, 2020; Hanulíková et al., 2012; Xu et al., 2020). This seems particularly true for grammat-
ical errors that are frequently produced by foreign-accented speakers (Caffarra & Martin, 2019;
404
Table 29.3 ERP Findings on Foreign-accented Syntactic Processing
Paper Language Accents Error types N vs F error effect

studied
Abdollahi et al., English (older N: American English S (pronoun Similar P600 for
2021 adults tested) F: Chinese violations) F and N
Caffarra & Spanish N: Spanish Typical and Reduced P600 for
Martin, 2019 F: English atypical MF F in typical MF
(gender and
number errors)
Gosselin et al. in Spanish N: Spanish Typical and Similar P600 for
revision (English– F: English atypical MF F and N
Spanish (gender and
bilinguals number errors)
tested)
Grey & van English N: American English S (pronoun Nref for N and
Hell, 2017 F: Chinese violations) N400-like for
F (only for
listeners that
recognized F)
Grey et al., 2019 English N: American English S (pronoun Nref for N and
(Dutch-English F: Chinese violations) no clear effect
bilinguals for F
tested)
Grey et al., English N: American English S (pronoun Nref-P600 for N
2020* F: Chinese violations) and P600 for F
Hanulíková Dutch N: Dutch MF (gender Reduced P600
et al., 2012 F: Turkish errors) for F
Xu et al., 2020* German N: German MF (gender, P600 for N but
F: Chinese number, and not for F
case errors)
Note: N: native accent; F: foreign accent; MF: morphosyntactic errors; S: syntactic errors; *participants see a
face cue according to accent.
Hanulíková et al., 2012): native listeners can show a tolerance to typical foreign-accented errors, and
therefore withhold from repairing such violations.
Overall, these findings support the theory that listeners exploit stereotypical/probabilistic know-
ledge associated with speaker identity in order to parse non-native input. For instance, while speaking
Spanish, native speakers of English are more likely to produce gender errors than other morpho-
logical slips (e.g., Franceschina, 2001), given that their L1 is devoid of grammatical gender. This
is known by native Spanish participants (either through direct exposure or stereotypical knowledge
about the accent), who believe they are most likely to encounter gender errors from English-accented
Spanish speakers (Caffarra & Martin, 2019). As a consequence of such learned awareness, listeners
appear to adjust the way they process foreign-accented errors (e.g., by reducing their attempts to
repair typical, expected errors and thus generating diminished P600 effects for such violations). In
brief, the literature supports the idea that listeners’ higher-level knowledge related to speaker identity
impacts their real-time (morpho)syntactic analysis.
Moreover, the most consistently reported accent-related effects in the syntactic domain consist of
a reduction (instead of an increase) of syntactic violation ERP effects (e.g. P600) in foreign-accented
405
speech (Caffarra & Martin, 2019; Grey et al., 2019, 2020; Hanulíková et al., 2012; Xu et al., 2020).
This frequently observed ERP finding has, at times, been accompanied by a slight decrease of behav-
ioral performances for the foreign as compared to the native accent (e.g., reduction of grammatical
error detection accuracy: Caffarra & Martin, 2019; Hanulíková et al., 2012). This trend is compat-
ible with the Cognitive Load Theory, which predicts that native listeners expend more cognitive
resources when processing foreign-accented speech, as reflected via modulations of brain responses
and decreases in task performance. However, the definite source of increased cognitive load is still
unclear when it comes to foreign-accented speech parsing. One possible explanation, in line with
the framework of cascading phonological effects, is that listeners experience difficulties in the early
stages of foreign-accented phonological mapping, and that these issues bear consequences on higher
levels of sentence analysis.
Finally, recent studies highlight the relevance of other demographic and language features that
might affect how listeners manage foreign-accented grammatical errors. Some novel explorations
include examining the impact of the native listeners’ age (i.e., older adults, Abdollahi et al., 2021) or
shared language background (i.e., non-native listeners attending to non-native input, Grey et al., 2019;
Gosselin et al., 2022). Additional research is needed to better understand the aspects of listeners’ and
speakers’ profiles that hold a primary role in spoken sentence parsing.
Neuroimaging Findings
A relatively recent tool that has allowed neuroscientists to spatially localize brain activity is func-
tional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI; for see Kousaie & Klein, this volume, for details). Up
to this point, very few studies have utilized neuroimaging techniques to investigate potential cog-
nitive differences between native-and foreign-accented speech processing. Instead of adopting a
violation paradigm, most of these studies simply examined overall accent effects by comparing
participants’ neuroimages while they listened to different types of accented speech (see Table 29.4).
Overall, these studies report greater brain activity for foreign-accented utterances, specifically in
brain regions associated with speech perception (i.e. temporal areas), and controlled cognitive
processes (i.e., frontal areas, Adank, Davis, et al., 2012; Adank, Noordzij, et al., 2012; Yi et al.,
2014; see also Blanco-Elorrieta et al., 2021 for further evidence on single word presentation).
Such findings, together with concomitant lower performances for foreign accents (Adank et al.,
2012), support the Cognitive Load Theory by demonstrating that foreign-accented speech requires
greater cognitive resources during auditory processing and increased reliance on cognitive control
mechanisms.
Table 29.4 fMRI Findings on Foreign-accented Speech Processing
Paper Language Accents N vs F

studied
Adank, Davis, et al., 2012 Dutch N: Dutch Higher activity for F in

F: unfamiliar/novel left STC
Adank, Noordzij, et al., Dutch N: Dutch Higher activity for F in left
2012 F: unfamiliar/novel STC, PT, IFG
Yi et al., 2014 English N: English Higher activity for F in
F: Korean primary auditory cortex
and IFG
Note: N: Native, F: Foreign. IFG: inferior frontal gyri; STC: superior temporal cortex; PT: planum temporale;
IFG: inferior frontal gyrus.
406
Pedagogical and/or Clinical Implications

The study of foreign-accented speech perception carries several positive real-world applications and
can improve the quality of intercultural exchanges in our highly globalized lives. Below, we discuss
potential implications for education, social services, and technological advancements.
First, characterizing how interlocutors manage and understand non-native productions may serve
as an educational tool for second-language speakers and native listeners alike. On one hand, empir-
ical studies may help identify foreign-accented errors/imprecisions that negatively impact mutual
understanding. This knowledge is particularly valuable for second-language teaching programs. If
mutual understanding is taken as the ultimate goal, instructors can emphasize the aspects of second-
language speaking that are most crucial to efficient communication. That is, second-language training
programs can use science-based evidence to increase learners’ awareness of common pitfalls in cross-
cultural conversations, thus focusing on avoiding those errors that are less likely to be “forgiven”
by listeners. Foreign-accented perception research can also benefit people that often interact with
second language learners by identifying the most common imprecisions produced by non-native
speakers with a given accent. Sharing these findings with the globalized population may result in
native listeners’ increased awareness about frequent second-language errors, thereby bolstering more
efficient cross-cultural communication.
Next, knowledge about foreign-accent perception is extremely useful in situations involving
fundamental social services, wherein it is crucial that the intended meaning of a foreign-accented
utterance is recovered prior to decision-making. For instance, awareness about second-language lin-
guistic imprecisions is essential in legal cases that require a reliable and efficient examination of
foreigners’ deposition. This type of knowledge is also extremely valuable to public servants, who
may need to quickly interpret foreign-accented utterances in potentially urgent or high-stakes situ-
ations (e.g., job interviews, hospitals, police reports; Lippi-Green, 1994, 2012).
Finally, the knowledge generated by this research is also valuable for a range of technological
applications. Given that many individuals chose to live and work in their non-native language, day-
to-day and industry-related technological devices should be fit to manage foreign-accented speech.
For instance, automatic speech recognition systems can be more precise if they include accent-
dependent speech distributions among their priors. Technological devices that predict speech or text
might improve their accuracy if they are programmed to automatically correct the most common
errors produced by certain groups of speakers. This critical information is yielded by studies exam-
ining foreign-accented speech processing.

Foreign-accented speech perception/processing has appreciated an upsurge of scientific interest and
concomitant publications, but there are still many questions that are still relatively unexplored and
merit further investigation:
- Can accent exposure reduce the processing gap between foreign-accented and native-accented
sentence analysis?
- How is the processing of outright syntactic violation (e.g., word category violations, word order
errors) affected by accent? Are there different accent-dependent effects for morphosyntactic errors
and outright syntactic violations?
- Are there foreign-accented errors that cannot be overlooked by native listeners even after inten-
sive exposure?
- Are there conversational settings in which the predictions of the Cognitive Effort Theory hold true?
407
- During semantic and syntactic analysis, do foreign and native accents recruit different brain areas?
Or do they recruit similar brain areas but elicit quantitatively different brain responses?
- How is functional connectivity between brain regions affected by speech accent? Are there accent-
dependent functional neural networks?
To conclude, cross-linguistic social interactions represent a challenging conversational setting

wherein listeners must put in place several adaptive brain responses in order to reach an accurate
understanding of the conveyed message. During interactions with a foreign-accented speaker, the
human brain can 1) flexibly change the amount of cognitive resources allocated to utterance compre-
hension; 2) rapidly adapt its processing according to stereotypical and probabilistic information about
the interlocutor’s identity; and 3) deal with phonological challenges that might result into cascading
effects on higher levels of language analysis.
Notes
1 Note that our definition of foreign-accented speech does not include regional variations of native accent
(i.e., regional-accented speech). For a discussion about the possible relationship between regional and for-
eign accent perception and related theoretical accounts, see Clarke and Garrett (2004) and Floccia et al.
(2006).
2 However, the literature that focused on the phonological analysis of speech has widely taken into account the
perspective of native listeners (Baese-Berk et al., 2020; Bent & Baese-Berk, 2021).
Further Readings
A paper describing possible sources of a strong foreign accent:
Piske, T., MacKay, I.R.A., & Flege, J.E. (2001). Factors affecting degree of foreign accent in an L2: a review.
Journal of Phonetics, 29(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1006/jpho.2001.0134
A paper on the social consequences of having a foreign accent:
Gluszek, A., & Dovidio, J.F. (2010). The way they speak: a social psychological perspective on the stigma of
nonnative accents in communication. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14(2), 214–237. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1088868309359288
A paper that relates foreign-accented speech research to the topic of replicability in science:
Strauber, C.B., Ali, L.R., Fujioka, T., Thille, C., & McCandliss, B.D. (2021). Replicability of neural responses to
speech accent is driven by study design and analytical parameters. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 4777. htps://doi.
org/10.1038/s41598-021-82782-4
Acknowledgments
SC was funded by the Programma Giovani Ricercatori “Rita Levi Montalcini”, FARDIPARTIMENTO2022,
and FAR Mission Oriented (FAR2022INTERM_O_UNIM) granted by the Italian Ministry of University and
Research (MUR). CM was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness [PID2020-
113926GB-I00] and the Basque Government [PIBA18-29] and funding from the European Research Council
(ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (Grant Agreement
No: 819093).
References
Abdollahi, F., Grey, S., & Van Hell, J.G. (2021). Foreign-accented sentence comprehension is challenging for
older adults: ERP evidence from semantic and grammar processing. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 60, 101023.
Adank, P., Davis, M.H., & Hagoort, P. (2012). Neural dissociation in processing noise and accent in spoken
language comprehension. Neuropsychologia, 50(1), 77–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsycholo
gia.2011.10.024
408
Adank, P., Evans, B.G., Stuart-Smith, J., & Scott, S.K. (2009). Comprehension of familiar and unfamiliar native
accents under adverse listening conditions. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and
Performance, 35(2), 520–529. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013552
Adank, P., Noordzij, M.L., & Hagoort, P. (2012). The role of planum temporale in processing accent vari-
ation in spoken language comprehension. Human Brain Mapping, 33(2), 360–372. https://doi.org/10.1002/
hbm.21218
Baese-Berk, M.M., McLaughlin, D.J., & McGowan, K.B. (2020). Perception of non-native speech. Linguistics
Compass, 14(7), e12375. https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12375
Bak, T.H. (2016). Cooking pasta in La Paz: Bilingualism, bias and the replication crisis. Linguistic Approaches
to Bilingualism, 6(5), 699–717. https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.57.06bak
Behrman, A., & Akhund, A. (2013). The influence of semantic context on the perception of Spanish-accented
American English. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 56(5), 1567–1578. https://doi.org/
10.1044/1092-4388(2013/12-0192)
Bent, T., & Baese-Berk, M.M. (2021). Perceptual learning of accented speech. In J.S. Pardo, L.C. Nygaard, R.E.
Remez, & D.B. Pisoni (Eds.), The handbook of speech perception (pp. 428–464). John Wiley & Sons.
Blanco-Elorrieta, E., Gwilliams, L., Marantz, A., & Pylkkänen, L. (2021). Adaptation to mis-pronounced
speech: evidence for a prefrontal-cortex repair mechanism. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 97. https://doi.org/
10.1038/s41598-020-79640-0
Bosker, H.R., Quené, H., Sanders, T., & De Jong, N.H. (2014). Native “um”s elicit prediction of low-frequency
referents, but non-native “um”s do not. Journal of Memory and Language, 75, 104–116. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jml.2014.05.004
Caffarra, S., & Martin, C.D. (2019). Not all errors are the same: ERP sensitivity to error typicality in foreign
accented speech perception. Cortex, 116, 308–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2018.03.007
Clarke, C.M., & Garrett, M.F. (2004). Rapid adaptation to foreign-accented English. The Journal of the Acoustical
Society of America, 116(6), 3647–3658. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1815131
Clayards, M., Tanenhaus, M.K., Aslin, R.N., & Jacobs, R.A. (2008). Perception of speech reflects optimal use of
probabilistic speech cues. Cognition, 108(3), 804–809. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.04.004
De Jong, T. (2010). Cognitive load theory, educational research, and instructional design: Some food for thought.
Instructional Science, 38(2), 105–134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-009-9110-0
Dijkgraaf, A., Hartsuiker, R.J., & Duyck, W. (2017). Predicting upcoming information in native-language and
non-native-language auditory word recognition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 20(5), 917–930.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728916000547
Fairchild, S., & Papafragou, A. (2018). Sins of omission are more likely to be forgiven in non-native speakers.
Flege, J.E. (1981). The phonological basis of foreign accent: A hypothesis. TESOL Quarterly, 15(4), 443. https://
doi.org/10.2307/3586485
Floccia, C., Goslin, J., Girard, F., & Konopczynski, G. (2006). Does a regional accent perturb speech processing?
Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 32(5), 1276–1293. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0096-1523.32.5.1276
Foucart, A., & Hartsuiker, R.J. (2021). Are foreign-accented speakers that “incredible”? The impact of the
speaker’s indexical properties on sentence processing. Neuropsychologia, 158, 107902. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2021.107902
Franceschina, F. (2001). Morphological or syntactic deficits in near-native speakers? An assessment of some
current proposals. Second Language Research, 17(3), 213–247. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658301017003
Goslin, J., Duffy, H., & Floccia, C. (2012). An ERP investigation of regional and foreign accent processing.
Brain and Language, 122(2), 92–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2012.04.017
Gosselin, L., Martin, C.D., Navarra-Barindelli, E., & Caffarra, S. (2021). The presence of a foreign accent
introduces lexical integration difficulties during late semantic processing. Language, Cognition and
Gosselin, L., Martin, C.D., González Martin, A., & Caffarra, S. (2022). When a non-native accent lets you
spot all the errors: Examining the syntactic interlanguage benefit. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 34,
1650–1669. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_01886.
Grey, S., Cosgrove, A.L., & Van Hell, J.G. (2020). Faces with foreign accents: An event-related potential study
of accented sentence comprehension. Neuropsychologia, 147, 107575. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsyc
hologia.2020.107575
409
Grey, S., Schubel, L.C., McQueen, J.M., & Van Hell, J.G. (2019). Processing foreign-accented speech in a
second language: Evidence from ERPs during sentence comprehension in bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language
Grey, S., & Van Hell, J.G. (2017). Foreign-accented speaker identity affects neural correlates of language com-
prehension. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 42, 93–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2016.12.001
Hanulíková, A., Van Alphen, P.M., Van Goch, M.M., & Weber, A. (2012). When one person’s mistake is another’s
standard usage: the effect of foreign accent on syntactic processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,
24(4), 878–887. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00103
Hanzlíková, D., & Skarnitzl, R. (2017). Credibility of native and non-native speakers of English revisited: Do non-
native listeners feel the same? Research in Language, 15(3), 285–298. https://doi.org/10.1515/rela-2017-0016
Holt, R., Kung, C., & Demuth, K. (2018). Listener characteristics modulate the semantic processing of native
vs. foreign-accented speech. PloS One, 13(12), e0207452. k https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0207452
Jiang, X., Gossack-Keenan, K., & Pell, M.D. (2020). To believe or not to believe? How voice and accent infor-
mation in speech alter listener impressions of trust. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 73(1),
55–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021819865833
Kędzierska, H. (2019). How does foreign accent affect template matching mechanisms? ERP evidence from
Polish. Linguistics Beyond and Within (LingBaW), 5(5), 61–74. https://doi.org/10.31743/lingbaw.5380
Kleinschmidt, D.F., & Jaeger, T.F. (2015). Robust speech perception: recognize the familiar, generalize to the
similar, and adapt to the novel. Psychological Review, 122(2), 148–203. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038695
Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S.A. (1980). Reading senseless sentences: brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity.
Science, 207(4427), 203–205. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7350657
Lippi-Green, R. (1994). Accent, standard language ideology, and discriminatory pretext in the courts. Language
In Society, 23(2), 163–198. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500017826
Lippi-Green, R. (2012). English with an accent: Language, ideology, and discrimination in the United States.
Routledge.
Major, R. C. (2001). Foreign Accent: The Ontogeny and Phylogeny of Second Language Phonology. Routledge.
Mayer, R.E., Sobko, K., & Mautone, P.D. (2003). Social cues in multimedia learning: Role of speaker’s voice.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), 419–425. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.2.419
Munro, M.J., & Derwing, T.M. (1995). Processing time, accent, and comprehensibility in the perception of
native and foreign-accented speech. Language and Speech, 38 (3), 289–306. https://doi.org/10.1177/00238
30995038003
Nieuwland, M.S., & Van Berkum, J.J.A. (2006). When peanuts fall in love: N400 evidence for the power of dis-
course. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(7), 1098–1111. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2006.18.7.1098
Osterhout, L., & Mobley, L.A. (1995). Event-related brain potentials elicited by failure to agree. Journal of
Memory and Language, 34(6), 739–773. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1995.1033
Paas, F., Tuovinen, J.E., Tabbers, H., & Van Gerven, P.W.M. (2003). Cognitive load measurement as a means to
advance cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 63–71. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985E
P3801_8
Pichora-Fuller, M.K., Kramer, S.E., Eckert, M.A., Edwards, B., Hornsby, B.W.Y., Humes, L.E., Lemke, U.,
Lunner, T., Matthen, M., Mackersie, C.L., Naylor, G., Phillips, N.A., Richter, M., Rudner, M., Sommers,
M.S., Tremblay, K.L., & Wingfield, A. (2016). Hearing impairment and cognitive energy: the framework
for understanding effortful listening (FUEL). Ear and Hearing, 37 Suppl 1, 5S–27S. https://doi.org/10.1097/
AUD.0000000000000312
Podlipský, V.J., Šimáčková, Š., & Petráž, D. (2016). Is there an interlanguage speech credibility benefit? Topics
in Linguistics, 17(1), 30–44. https://doi.org/10.1515/topling-2016-0003
Romero-Rivas, C., Martin, C.D., & Costa, A. (2015). Processing changes when listening to foreign-accented
speech. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9, 167. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00167
Schmid, P.M., & Yeni-Komshian, G.H. (1999). The effects of speaker accent and target predictability on percep-
tion of mispronunciations. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 42(1), 56–64. https://doi.
org/10.1044/jslhr.4201.56
410
Strauber, C.B., Ali, L.R., Fujioka, T., Thille, C., & McCandliss, B.D. (2021). Replicability of neural responses
to speech accent is driven by study design and analytical parameters. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 4777. https://
doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-82782-4
Sumner, M., & Tilsen, S. (2011). Low-level adjustments to gross-categorical mismatches in the perception
of accented speech. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 130(4), 2571–2571. https://doi.org/
10.1121/1.3655300
Theodore, R.M., & Monto, N.R. (2019). Distributional learning for speech reflects cumulative exposure to a
talker’s phonetic distributions. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 26(3), 985–992. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13
423-018-1551-5
Thomas, T., Martin, C.D., Caffarra, S. (2022). An ERP investigation of accented isolated single word processing.
Neuropsychologia, 175, 108349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2022.108349.
Tyler, S.W., Hertel, P.T., McCallum, M.C., & Ellis, H.C. (1979). Cognitive effort and memory. Journal
of Experimental Psychology. Human Learning and Memory, 5(6), 607–617. https://doi.org/10.1037/
0278-7393.5.6.607
Van Berkum, J.J.A., Van den Brink, D., Tesink, C.M.J.Y., Kos, M., & Hagoort, P. (2008). The neural integra-
tion of speaker and message. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20(4), 580–591. https://doi.org/10.1162/
jocn.2008.20054
Van Engen, K.J., Baese-Berk, M.M., Baker, R.E., Choi, A., Kim, M., & Bradlow, A.R. (2010). The Wildcat
corpus of native-and foreign-accented English: Communicative efficiency across conversational dyads with
varying language alignment profiles. Language and Speech, 53(4), 510–540. https://doi.org/10.1177/00238
30910372495
Vaughn, C.R. (2019). Expectations about the source of a speaker’s accent affect accent adaptation. The Journal
of the Acoustical Society of America, 145(5), 3218. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.5108831
Xu, J., Abdel Rahman, R., & Sommer, W. (2020). Perceived language competence modulates criteria for speech
error processing: evidence from event-related potentials. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 35(6),
752–765. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2018.1562558
Yi, H.-G., Smiljanic, R., & Chandrasekaran, B. (2014). The neural processing of foreign-accented speech
and its relationship to listener bias. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 768. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fnhum.2014.00768
411
30
DECISION MAKING AND SECOND
Alice Foucart

A or B? Wrong or right? We constantly make decisions, some more important than others, but we are
continuously faced with choices. Although we are barely aware of it, our decisions can be affected
by various factors that should, in principle, be irrelevant, such as the mood we are in (Hockey et al.,
2010) or the time of the day (Correa et al., 2016). Language is one such factor. You may have learned
a foreign language at some point and have reached a good enough level of proficiency to under-
stand a situation in which you have to make a decision. For instance, when booking a trip abroad,
you may have to choose whether to A) buy your ticket now or B) wait for a month to get a better
price. You would think, however, that whether you choose A or B will not change depending on
whether you are exposed to this situation in the foreign language or in your native language, although
empirical evidence suggests it probably will. Indeed, recent studies have demonstrated that using a
foreign language can modulate our economic decisions (Costa, Foucart, Arnon et al., 2014; Keysar
et al., 2012) and our moral judgments (Costa, Foucart, Hayakawa et al., 2014; Geipel et al., 2015a),
among others. This phenomenon is referred to as the Foreign Language effect (FLe) (for a review,
see Hadjichristidis et al., 2019). In this chapter I will first describe the FLe and its (potential) origin,
then I will review behavioral and neurophysiological studies that have examined the factors under-
lying it, and finally I will propose future directions and further readings. To be consistent with the FLe
literature, the terms native and foreign language will be used. However, the terms second language
(L2, as opposed to first language, L1), will also be employed. Both foreign language and L2 refer to
a language that has been learned later in life (after the age of 10) unless stated otherwise.
Critical Issues and Topics: The FLe and Its (Potential) Origin
The FLe was first reported in a study by Keysar and collaborators (2012) in which they investigated
the effect of language on heuristics, which are simple strategies that humans use to make fast
decisions. These strategies are beneficial because they allow one to make quick decisions while
evaluating the most relevant aspects of a problem, but they can also lead to biases. In this study,
the authors demonstrated that the cognitive bias that makes people risk averse for gains and risk
seeking for losses, depending on whether a problem is framed positively or negatively, disappeared
when decisions were made in a foreign language. More precisely, they presented participants with
412 DOI: 10.4324/9781003190912-38

Decision Making and Second Language Neurocognition
the “Asian disease” problem (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979) either in their native language or a for-
eign language they had learned mainly in a classroom. This problem describes a situation in which a
dangerous new disease has been going around and without medicine, 600,000 people will die from
it. In order to save these people, two types of medicine are being made. The choices are framed
either in “gain” or “loss.” In the gain frame, if you choose Medicine A, 200,000 people will be
saved. If you choose Medicine B, there is a 33.3% chance that 600,000 people will be saved and a
66.6% chance that no one will be saved. In the loss frame, if you choose Medicine A, 400,000 people
will die, and if you choose Medicine B, there is a 33.3% chance that no one will die and a 66.6%
chance that 600,000 people will die. Participants were randomly assigned to the gain or loss version
and had to choose a medicine. Usually, results for this problem reveal an asymmetric pattern with
people being risk-averse in the gain frame but risk-seeking in the loss frame (Kahneman & Tversky,
1979). Keysar and colleagues also reported this asymmetric pattern; participants who performed the
task in their native language chose the sure option (Medicine A) significantly more often in the gain
frame than in the loss frame. However, when participants performed the task in a foreign language,
this gain-loss asymmetry was significantly reduced, suggesting that they were not as biased by the
framing of the problem as participants in the native condition were. This reduction of heuristic
bias in decision-making was later replicated in relation to loss aversion and extended to decisions
related to accounting, risk aversion and gambling (e.g., Costa et al., 2017; Costa, Foucart, Arnon
et al., 2014; Hayakawa et al., 2017, 2019; but see Vives et al., 2018 for some limits of the FLe).
The FLe is not limited to decisions in the economic domain; the use of a foreign language has
also been shown to affect decisions that have a more personal aspect such as moral judgments (e.g.,
Costa, Foucart, Hayakawa et al., 2014; Geipel et al., 2015b), honesty (e.g., Yang et al., 2021), the
self-bias effect, which refers to the fact that self-related stimuli, compared to unrelated ones, increase
performance by enhancing speed, accuracy and memory (e.g., Ivaz et al., 2016), superstitious beliefs
(Hadjichristidis et al., 2019), or the disgust provoked by the idea of consuming sustainable products
like recycled water or insect-based food (Geipel et al., 2018). Using a foreign language also seems to
reduce biases such as the repetition truth bias, which leads people to perceive a statement as truer if it
has been repeated (Nadarevic et al., 2018) or the causality bias, which refers to the illusion that two
events are causally related when they are not (Díaz-Lago & Matute, 2019). The impact of language on
moral decisions was first reported by Costa and collaborators (Costa, Foucart, Hayakawa et al., 2014)
who observed that the language context (native versus foreign) modulates our decisions of whether
to kill one person to save five others. They presented participants with the Footbridge dilemma (Foot,
1978; Thomson, 1985) in which a train has a problem and cannot stop. It is going to kill five people
who are on the track if it is not stopped. The only way to stop the train is to drop a heavy weight on
the track. You happen to be on a bridge next to a heavy man. You can decide whether to push the man
onto the track, killing him but saving five people, or not to interfere with the outcome. Participants
in the foreign language condition decided to push the man significantly more often than participants
in the native language condition, suggesting that a foreign language context promotes utilitarian
choices (the greater good) over deontological choices (essential rights of a person). In contrast, when
presented with the Trolley dilemma (Foot, 1978), in which the option to save the five people is to
divert the train onto another track in which a man is working, participants’ decisions were not distinct
across the language conditions. The different results for the two dilemmas have been explained by
their level of emotionality (Greene et al., 2001), which plays a role in the decision-making process,
as further explained later in this chapter. This effect of language on moral judgments is referred to as
the moral FLe (for a review, see Hayakawa et al., 2016) and has been replicated with different foreign
languages (e.g., Brouwer, 2020; Cipolletti et al., 2016; Corey et al., 2017; Dylman & Champoux-
Larsson, 2020; Geipel et al., 2015a; Shin & Kim, 2017).
413
Alice Foucart
Hence, the FLe has been observed with various types of decisions and its robustness has been
confirmed through many replication studies and in three recent meta-analyses (Circi et al., 2021; Del
Maschio et al., 2022; Stankovic et al., 2022). However, the origin of this phenomenon is still unclear.
The FLe has been explained in the framework of dual-process accounts according to which (moral)
decision making is driven by the interaction of two systems. System 1 involves fast, intuitive, auto-
matic, and essentially emotionally based processes, whereas System 2 involves slow, rational, con-
trolled, and effortful processes (Greene et al., 2001; Kahneman, 2003). According to these accounts, a
cognitively demanding task would favor the implementation of System 2 and/or reduce that of System
1. Given that comprehending a foreign language is usually a cognitively costlier and slower process
than comprehending a native language (e.g., see Tokowicz & Tkacikova, this volume), the FLe has
been associated with a promotion of System 2 over System 1. The original explanation proposed that
the use of a foreign language increased cognitively controlled processes (System 2) that led to more
rational decisions and utilitarian judgments (Cipolletti et al., 2016; Costa, Foucart, Arnon et al., 2014;
Costa, Foucart, Hayakawa et al., 2014; Keysar et al., 2012). But later findings have suggested that
the use of a foreign language does not increase utilitarian judgments but rather reduces deontological
ones (Hayakawa et al., 2017). To reach this conclusion, the authors presented moral dilemmas to
their participants in a native or foreign language and asked them whether the action was appropriate
and whether they would be willing to perform it. They used a process dissociation task, which allows
the separation of deontological and utilitarian responses, and observed that using a foreign language
does not increase utilitarian responses but rather blocks deontological responses associated with the
violation of moral rules. Using a similar process, other authors concluded that both deontological
and utilitarian responses are reduced when using a foreign language (Muda et al., 2018, see also
Hennig & Hütter, 2021 for no evidence of a promotion of System 2). Hence, it is not clear whether
a foreign language promotes System 2, supresses System 1, or affects both. Note that the variation
across studies may also originate from the tasks and methodologies employed (see Hennig & Hütter,
2021, for a discussion). Other studies have also reported no reduction of biases in tasks that did not
have an emotional component, such as the cognitive reflection task (Costa, Foucart, Hayakawa et al.,
2014; Mækelæ & Pfuhl, 2019) or the Moses illusion (Geipel et al., 2015a; in this illusion, participants
tend to answer “two” when asked “How many animals of each kind did Moses take on to the ark?,”
when they should not be able to provide an answer because the biblical character is Noah). Finally, a
reversed effect has also been shown (Białek et al., 2020).
The emotional component of the decision is important as it has also been proposed as one of the
factors underlying the FLe. Indeed, Greene and collaborators have demonstrated that personal moral
dilemmas (e.g., the Footbridge) are more emotional than impersonal dilemmas (e.g., the Trolley) in
native speakers. They used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), a technique that allows
measuring brain activity by detecting changes associated with blood flow (for more about fMRI, see
Kousaie & Klein, this volume) and observed that brain areas associated with emotion (i.e., medial
frontal gyrus, posterior cingulate gyrus, and angular gyrus, bilateral) were significantly more active
for personal than impersonal dilemmas. In relation to emotion in L2, it has often been claimed in
the literature that the emotionality in a foreign language is reduced compared to a native language
(Pavlenko, 2012, 2017). Indeed, while a native language is acquired through everyday life experi-
ence, a foreign language is often acquired in a classroom environment where the association between
emotion and language is less natural and embodied.
The few neurophysiological studies that have examined emotion processing in L1 and L2 have
reported differences. For instance, Chen and collaborators (Chen et al., 2015) used fMRI and event-
related brain potentials (ERPs), a technique that allows recording the brain activity to identify the
nature and timing of cognitive processes (for more on ERPs, see Dickson & Pelzl, this volume) to
investigate emotional words processing in L2. They observed reduced activation for L1 emotional
414
words in the left middle occipital gyrus and the left cerebellum but increased activation in the left
cerebellum for L2 emotional words. The ERP data also revealed different patterns, i.e., compared to
neutral words, positive words triggered a larger early posterior negativity and a smaller late positive
component in L1, but no significant effect in L2. Another fMRI study (Hsu et al., 2015) examined
emotional response to literary reading in L1 and L2. They compared responses to short passages of
Harry Potter books characterised as negative, positive, or neutral. Among other observations, they
reported stronger hemodynamic responses to positive than to neutral passages in bilateral amygdala
and the left precentral cortex in L1 but not in L2. Moreover, in an ERP study, Optiz and Degner (2012)
reported that (un)pleasant words triggered a larger early posterior negativity than neutral words in
both languages, but this effect occurred later in L2, reflecting delayed lexical access. Thus, going
back to moral dilemmas, although the neural response to personal and impersonal dilemmas has not
been directly investigated in L2 yet, it is possible that the mechanisms responsible for the outcomes
in the Footbridge and Trolley dilemmas in L1 might be differently implicated in L2. Hence, another
explanation for the FLe is that the emotionality provoked by a situation is reduced when presented
in a foreign language, which, consequently, decreases the implication of System 1 in the decision-
making process (Costa, Foucart, Hayakawa et al., 2014; Hayakawa et al., 2016; Keysar et al., 2012).
The idea that the environment in which a language is learned (natural vs. classroom) affects the
perception of the emotions in this language has been extended to other aspects that are also encoded
through language, for instance, social and moral norms (e.g., do not kill/steal). And indeed, studies
have shown that using a foreign language reduces sensitivity to norms (Białek et al., 2019; Geipel
et al., 2015b).
In sum, the FLe has been explained mainly by an increase of cognitive load and a reduction of
emotionality when using a foreign language, which modulate the implication of the Systems 1 and
2 in the decision-making process. The former is due to the difficulty to process the language and the
latter to the context of acquisition. Hence, these factors may vary according to variables like language
proficiency, language experience, or language similarity, which indeed have been shown to modulate
the FLe (Čavar & Tytus, 2018, but see Białek & Fugelsang, 2019; Dylman & Champoux-Larsson,
2020). In the next section, I will review behavioral and neurophysiological studies that have tested
the role of these factors in the FLe.
FLe: Emotional Response and Cognitive Load

As mentioned, many behavioral and (neuro-)physiological studies in the L2 literature have reported a
reduced emotional reaction in an L2 compared to an L1. For instance, swear words and taboo words
in an L2 are evaluated as less powerful (Dewaele, 2004), provoke reduced autonomic reaction (Harris
et al., 2003), and require more effortful processing that engages additional brain areas (anterior cin-
gulate cortex, insula; Sulpizio et al., 2019). To our knowledge, only four neurophysiological studies
have investigated the impact this reduction can have on our decisions.
One of the first studies to directly examined the role of language and emotion in the decision-
making process is an fMRI study by Zheng and colleagues (2020). The authors investigated the neural
correlates linked with risk-taking in bilinguals’ native and foreign language. They used a gambling
task in which Chinese–English bilinguals were asked to choose whether to play or leave gambles with
a 50% chance of winning. Each gamble was followed by feedback consisting of emotional words
(e.g., “great” or “damn”) presented either in their native or foreign language. The behavioral results
showed similar patterns in the two language conditions that revealed that losing a gamble led to more
betting than winning a gamble. The neural data showed an exaggerated response to positive feedback
415
Alice Foucart
in the brain network related to reward (i.e., higher activation in bilateral caudate and bilateral amyg-
dala), suggesting that foreign language processing enhanced neural responses to rewards. In contrast,
no differences were observed across language conditions with negative feedback.
Following up on this study, He and colleagues (2021) further investigated the neural mechanisms
underlying the interaction between language and emotion in decision making. They evaluated the
possibility of the coexistence of two mechanisms in foreign language processing, one that would
facilitate access to positive emotions and the other that would suppress access to negative ones. They
conducted an fMRI study with Chinese–English bilinguals using a similar gambling task as Zhen et al.
(2020), except that when participants gambled, they received positive or negative feedback (in their
foreign or native language), but when they chose not to gamble, they were presented with the word
“safe.” The authors reported different access to emotions in the two language contexts, as reflected by
the activation in distinct brain areas. In the foreign language, greater activity in the dorsolateral pre-
frontal cortex was associated with loss aversion and suggested the existence of an avoidance mech-
anism for negative stimuli. The authors also observed greater activation of the hippocampus after
positive versus neutral feedback, only in the foreign language condition. They concluded that emo-
tional stimuli were processed differently in the two language contexts, and that the different access
mechanisms to emotion eventually influenced participants’ decisions by both regulating emotional
response to negative stimuli and enhancing emotional response to positive stimuli.
To further understand the mechanisms underlying the FLe, the same authors conducted two
other studies, one using fMRI (Liu et al., 2021) and the other using ERPs (Liu et al., 2022). They
investigated the interaction of emotion and cognitive load in the decision-making process in foreign
and native language. In both studies, Chinese–English bilinguals performed a lexico-semantic task
in which they indicated whether the stimuli were real words or pseudowords. Stimuli consisted of
neutral or negative (pseudo-)words presented either in participants’ native language (Chinese) or
foreign language (English). Cognitive load was manipulated by using traditional characters instead
of simplified ones in Chinese, and words with capital letters instead of lowercase letters in English.
Each trial was followed by a gambling game in which participants had to decide whether to make
a risky decision. Both studies revealed different neural patterns in the two language contexts. The
fMRI data showed increased activity (left amygdala and right insula) after processing negative words
compared to neutral words, but only in the native language condition. In the same condition, cogni-
tive load increased functional connectivity between the reward-related striatum and right insula. The
ERP data showed that, under high-cognitive load, negative words triggered a larger P3 (component
associated with feedback processing; see Bultena, this volume) than neutral words in the native con-
dition, whereas the reverse pattern was found in the foreign condition. The authors concluded from
the overall findings that cognitive load facilitates access to emotion in a native language, which can
promote impulsive decisions. On the other hand, in a foreign language, cognitive load limits access
to emotion, resulting in more rational decisions.
FLe: Language Proficiency, Language Experience, and Language Similarity

The FLe has been explained by an increase of cognitive load and a reduction of emotionality in a
foreign language compared with a native language. These factors very much depend on variables
like language proficiency, language experience, and language similarity. The few studies that have
investigated the influence of these variables on the FLe led to mixed results.
Costa and colleagues (Costa, Foucart, Hayakawa et al., 2014) who first demonstrated the FLe on
moral judgment examined the potential impact of proficiency on the effect. All their participants had
a moderate level in their foreign language. Based on their self-rated proficiency scores, the authors
split them as either above-average or below-average. For the Footbridge dilemma, they observed that
416
both groups had higher utilitarian responses in the foreign condition than in the native condition, but
the effect was larger in the below-average group. A similar correlation was reported by Geipel and
collaborators (2015b). Corey et al. (2017) who examined the role of proficiency in moral judgments
in nine experiments confirmed the observation made by Costa, Foucart, Hayakawa et al.—that the
magnitude of the FLe reduces as proficiency increases. However, they also showed that self-reported
proficiency in foreign language was not a significant predictor of utilitarian choices and argued that
even though proficiency does contribute to the FLe, it does not account for a large part of it. Note that
most studies examining the FLe have used different measures of proficiency (e.g., self-rating, transla-
tion), which renders complex the evaluation of the implication of proficiency in the effect.
To further investigate the role of proficiency in the FLe, studies tested high-proficient bilinguals.
For instance, Winskel and Bhatt (2019) examined the impact of proficiency and language immersion
on moral decision-making in Hindi–English high-proficient bilinguals compared with English
monolinguals in Australia. They presented moral dilemmas in English and found no differences in
the responses of the two language groups. Similarly, Čavar & Tytus (2018) tested Croatian–German
high-proficient successive bilinguals and reported no differences across foreign and native language
conditions for the same type of dilemmas (but see, Białek & Fugelsang, 2019; Krautz & Čavar, 2019
for commentaries). In contrast, Wong and Ng (2018) presented early high-proficient English-Chinese
bilinguals from Singapore with personal and impersonal moral dilemmas. They observed a signifi-
cant relationship between the responses and language dominance. The more dominant (and therefore,
more proficient) participants were in the language in which they were tested, the larger the difference
between their choice in personal and impersonal dilemmas. Given that the FLe is usually observed
in response to personal dilemmas, these results suggest that language dominance may contribute to
this effect. Similarly, Huang and Rau (2018) reported an FLe with Chinese–English early bilinguals
who had learned both languages before the age of six. They presented their participants with the
financial crisis problem originally used in Costa, Foucart, Arnon et al. (2014), which is similar to
the Asian disease problem (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979; Keysar et al., 2012) described above but
adapted to finance. The authors reported a similar asymmetric pattern as that observed by Keysar
et al. (2012), that is, early bilinguals who were equally high-proficient in both languages were risk-
averse for gains and risk-seeking for losses when the problem was presented in Chinese, but this
asymmetry disappeared when the problem was presented in English. This reduction of the framing
effect in balanced bilingual suggests that proficiency may not be the only linguistic variable influen-
cing the FLe.
Indeed, the mixed results regarding proficiency imply that other variables, such as language simi-
larity and culture, may also play a role. To test the hypothesis of cultural influence, Dylman and
Champoux-Larsson (2020) presented the Asian Disease problem and the Footbridge dilemma to
Swedish-English bilinguals (strong influence of English in Sweden) and Swedish-French bilinguals
(weak influence of French). They observed an FLe when participants were tested in French but not
when they were tested in English, suggesting that close cultural links reduce the effect. To test the
language similarity hypothesis, they presented the Footbridge dilemma in linguistically similar
languages, Swedish and Norwegian, and observed no increase of utilitarian choices in foreign lan-
guage. Brouwer (2019) also reported no significant differences in Dutch (native) and English (for-
eign), two linguistically close languages in written modality (but refer to the article for a discussion
about the role of presentation modality). Finally, Miozzo et al. (2020) observed an FLe (i.e., less
bias in the Asian Disease problem and more utilitarian decisions in the Footbridge dilemma) when
native bilinguals made choices in an Italian dialect (Venetian or Bergamasque) they spoke fluently
at home or in informal contexts, compared to when then made choices in Italian, which they also
used in formal contexts. The authors concluded that the language context, rather than emotionality,
modulates decisions in the case of these bilinguals.
417
Alice Foucart
Finally, three recent meta-analysis have confirmed the robustness of the FLe but failed to converge
on the influence of linguistic variables on the effect. Whereas Stankovic et al. (2022) claimed that low
self-reported reading proficiency modulates the effect, Circi et al. (2021) argued that language simi-
larity and not proficiency moderates it, and Del Maschio et al. (2022) observed no influence of such
variables. Hence, although their role in the FLe is not entirely clear, it seems that language variables
somehow modulate the effect.
FLe: Implications and Future Directions

The impact language has on our decisions in everyday life can be beneficial, for instance, in clinical
trials to talk about traumatic events or phobia (García-Palacios et al., 2018; Pavlenko, 2012), but can
also lead to disadvantages for foreign speakers, like in the case of police interviews or court trials
(Pavlenko, 2017). Furthermore, we have seen that when dealing with moral dilemmas and financial
scenarios in a foreign language, individuals are less concerned about negative consequences and less
averse to risk, which is highly relevant given that politicians usually make crucial decisions with
significant consequences for our world in a foreign language. Hence, the implications of the FLe are
irrefutable, and although the exact role emotionality, cognitive load, and linguistic variables play in
this effect still needs to be determined, the implications that learning a new language can have on our
behavior cannot be ignored.
As mentioned above, while a native language is acquired through everyday life experience, a for-
eign language is often acquired in a classroom environment where the association between emotion
and language is less natural and embodied. It has been shown that individuals can reach native-like
sensitivity on various linguistic levels in their L2 with enough experience, even when the language
was learned late in life (e.g., syntax, Foucart & Frenck-Mestre, 2011; emotion, Conrad et al., 2011).
The learning process seems to benefit greatly from a multimodal learning environment that represents
human experience (Barsalou, 2008). According to the social L2 learning approach proposed by Li
and Jeong (2020; see also, Jeong & Li, this volume), experiencing language is based on social inter-
action. For instance, the simple presence of a social partner results in facilitated word learning and
higher learning outcomes, as reflected by greater neural activity (right supramarginal gyrus and right
inferior frontal gyrus) compared to individual learning (Verga & Kotz, 2019). Similarly, L2 words
learned through real-life situations (videos) compared to written translation generate activation in a
brain area (supramarginal gyrus) also activated by words acquired through childhood in a native lan-
guage (Jeong et al., 2010). One new technique that is useful to recreate a real-world, richer learning
environment than a classroom or a laboratory is virtual reality (Peeters, 2019; see also Zappa &
Frenck-Mestre, this volume). Legault et al. (2019) contrasted neural changes (cortical thickness and
grey matter volume) related to vocabulary learned with paired picture-word association or virtual
environments in which learners could interact with the objects. The data revealed changes in the
brain structure after training in both conditions, which varied based on the learning context. Virtual
environments stimulate brain regions related to sensorimotor perception that would not be stimulated
otherwise in a typical classroom environment, which facilitates word encoding and retrieval from
memory (Jeong et al., 2021; Li & Jeong, 2020). Based on these results, we can hypothesize that L2
emotional stimuli learned in virtual environment may stimulate the same brain areas as L1 stimuli,
which would generate a similar physiological reaction in L2 than in L1 speakers, and consequently,
would reduce the modulation of our behavior by the use of a foreign language.
In relation to the neuro-mechanisms of the FLe, it would be interesting to investigate whether the
brain areas activated by personal dilemmas in L2 are the areas associated with emotion, like in L1
(Greene et al., 2001), and whether they are more active than for impersonal dilemmas. The fMRI
results would indicate whether the mechanisms responsible for the outcomes in the Footbridge and
418
Trolley dilemmas in L1 are differently implicated in L2, which would partly explain the FLe. Also,
it is still not clear whether using a foreign language modulates the evaluation of the consequences of
an action (e.g., pushing a man to save five lives), norm-endorsement (e.g., do not kill), or passivity
in front of a situation (e.g., not pushing the man). Using ERPs, it would be possible to compare the
emotional response (early and late positive components) to each of the situation in L1 and in L2 and
better understand the underlying mechanisms of the FLe. ERPs would also allow examining indi-
vidual differences in (non)emotional responses in different tasks, which may explain converging
findings in the FLe literature.
Let’s now turn to the extension of the FLe to other linguistic aspects. Until now most of the studies
investigating this phenomenon have focused on the influence of a foreign language on our decisions
from the point of view of the foreign language user. However, conversations in our multilingual soci-
eties usually imply that native speakers interact with individuals who speak with a foreign accent.
Interestingly, processing foreign-accented speech has been shown to modulate emotionality and
increase cognitive load because of the speech disfluency provoked by the unfamiliarity of the accent
(e.g., Foucart et al., 2020; Hatzidaki et al., 2015; Munro & Derwing, 1995). Given that these factors
have been proposed to contribute to the FLe, Foucart and Brouwer (2021) recently tested whether a
similar effect would be observed when processing a dilemma in one’s own language but spoken by
a foreign-accented speaker. Indeed, they observed that when participants were presented with the
Trolley and the Footbridge dilemmas, there was an increase in utilitarian decisions when they were
spoken in a foreign accent compared with a native accent. This study was the first demonstration of
a Foreign Accent effect on moral judgments, which suggests that a foreign accent, like a foreign lan-
guage, is a linguistic context that modulates (neuro)cognitive mechanisms and, consequently, impacts
our behavior.
To conclude, since the first demonstration of the FLe, studies have mainly focused on the situ-
ations in which a foreign linguistic context (language or accent) affects our decisions, but the
mechanisms underlying this effect are still unclear. Neurophysiological research could help under-
stand the involvement of factors such as emotion reduction, cognitive load, and language experience
in the FLe. Moreover, longitudinal studies could inform us on the neural development of L2 acqui-
sition and the evolution of its impact on our behavior throughout the development process. Finally,
techniques like virtual reality should be used to test 1) whether the FLe stands in real-life situations,
and 2) the benefit of embodied learning for L2 processing.
Further Readings
This article reviews the impact of using a foreign language on risk, inference, and morality, and discuss potential
explanations.
Hayakawa, S., Costa, A., Foucart, A., & Keysar, B. (2016). Using a foreign language changes our choices. Trends
This article reviews previous studies in affective and cognitive neuroscience an provides new insights to study
the social brain of language and L2 learning.
action. npj Science of Learning, 5(1), 8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-020-0068-7
This article reviews recent developments in the study of multilingualism and emotion.
Pavlenko, A. (2017). Do you wish to waive your rights? Affect and decision-making in multilingual speakers.
Current Opinion in Psychology, 17, 74–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COPSYC.2017.06.005
References
Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59(1), 617–645. https://doi.org/
10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093639
419
Alice Foucart
Białek, M., & Fugelsang, J. (2019). No evidence for decreased foreign language effect in highly proficient and
acculturated bilinguals: a commentary on Čavar and Tytus (2018). Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural
Development, 40(8), 679–686. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2018.1547072
Białek, M., Muda, R., Stewart, K., Niszczota, P., & Pieńkosz, D. (2020). Thinking in a foreign language distorts
allocation of cognitive effort: Evidence from reasoning. Cognition, 205, 104420. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.cognition.2020.104420
Białek, M., Paruzel-Czachura, M., & Gawronski, B. (2019). Foreign language effects on moral dilemma
judgments: An analysis using the CNI model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 85, 103855.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2019.103855
Brouwer, S. (2019). The auditory foreign-language effect of moral decision making in highly proficient
bilinguals. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 40(10), 865–878. https://doi.org/10.1080/
01434632.2019.1585863
Brouwer, S. (2020). The interplay between emotion and modality in the Foreign-Language effect on moral deci-
sion making. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 24(2), 223–230. https://doi.org/10.1017/S136672892
000022X
Bultena, S. (this volume). Feedback in second language neurocognition. In K. Morgan-Short & J.G. van Hell
Čavar, F., & Tytus, A.E. (2018). Moral judgment and foreign language effect: When the foreign language
becomes the second language. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 39(1), 17–28. https://
doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2017.1304397
Cipolletti, H., McFarlane, S., & Weissglass, C. (2016). The moral foreign-language effect. Philosophical
Psychology, 29(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2014.993063
Chen, P., Lin, J., Chen, B., Lu, C., & Guo, T. (2015). Processing emotional words in two languages with one
brain: ERP and fMRI evidence from Chinese–English bilinguals. Cortex, 71, 34–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/
J.CORTEX.2015.06.002
Circi, R., Gatti, D., Russo, V., & Vecchi, T. (2021). The foreign language effect on decision-making: A meta-
analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 28(4), 1131–1141. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-020-01871-z
Conrad, M., Recio, G., & Jacobs, A.M. (2011). The time course of emotion effects in first and second language
processing: A cross cultural ERP Study with German-Spanish bilinguals. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 351.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00351
Corey, J.D., Hayakawa, S., Foucart, A., Aparici, M., Botella, J., Costa, A., & Keysar, B. (2017). Our moral
choices are foreign to us. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 43(7),
1109. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000356
Correa, A., Ruiz-Herrera, N., Ruz, M., Tonetti, L., Martoni, M., Fabbri, M., & Natale, V. (2016). Economic
decision-making in morning/evening-type people as a function of time of day. Chronobiology International,
34(2), 139–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/07420528.2016.1246455
Costa, A., Foucart, A., Arnon, I., Aparici, M., & Apesteguia, J. (2014). “Piensa” twice: On the foreign language
effect in decision making. Cognition, 130, 236–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.11.010
Costa, A., Foucart, A., Hayakawa, S., Aparici, M., Apesteguia, J., Heafner, J., & Keysar, B. (2014). Your morals
depend on language. PLoS ONE, 9(4), e94842. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0094842
Costa, A., Vives, M., & Corey, J.D. (2017). On language processing shaping decision making. Current Directions
in Psychological Science, 26(2), 146–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721416680263
Del Maschio, N., Crespi, F., Peressotti, F., Abutalebi, J., & Sulpizio, S. (2022). Decision-making depends on
language: A meta-analysis of the Foreign Language Effect. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 25(4),
617–630. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728921001012
Dewaele, J.M. (2004). The emotional force of swearwords and taboo words in the speech of multilinguals.
Journal of Multilingual & Multicultural Development, 25, 204–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/0143463040
8666529.
Díaz-Lago, M., & Matute, H. (2019). Thinking in a foreign language reduces the causality bias. Quarterly
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72(1), 41–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021818755326
Dylman, A.S., & Champoux-Larsson, M.F. (2020). It’s (not) all Greek to me: Boundaries of the foreign language
effect. Cognition, 196, 104148. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COGNITION.2019.104148
Foot, P. (1978). The problem of abortion and the doctrine of the double effect in virtues and vices. Basil Blackwell.
Foucart, A., & Brouwer, S. (2021). Is there a foreign accent effect on moral judgment? Brain Sciences, 11(12),
1631. https://doi.org/10.3390/BRAINSCI11121631
420
Foucart, A., Costa, A., Morís-Fernández, L., & Hartsuiker, R.J. (2020). Foreignness or processing fluency? On
understanding the negative bias toward foreign-accented speakers. Language Learning, 70(4), 974–1016.
https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12413
of the effect of L1–L2 syntactic similarity. Bilingualism, 14(3), 379–399. https://doi.org/10.1017/S13667
2891000012X
García-Palacios, A., Costa, A., Castilla, D., del Río, E., Casaponsa, A., & Duñabeitia, J. (2018). The effect
of foreign language in fear acquisition. Scientific Reports, 8(1), 1157. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41
598-018-19352-8
Geipel, J., Hadjichristidis, C., & Klesse, A.K. (2018). Barriers to sustainable consumption attenuated by foreign
language use. Nature Sustainability, 1(1), 31–33. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-017-0005-9
Geipel, J., Hadjichristidis, C., & Surian, L. (2015a). How foreign language shapes moral judgment. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 59, 8–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.02.001
Geipel, J., Hadjichristidis, C., & Surian, L. (2015b). The foreign language effect on moral judgment: The role of
emotions and norms. PloS One, 10(7), e0131529. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0131529
Greene, J.D., Sommerville, R.B., Nystrom, L.E., Darley, J.M., & Cohen, J.D. (2001). An fMRI investigation
of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science, 293(5537), 2105–2108. https://doi.org/10.1126/scie
nce.1062872
Hadjichristidis, C., Geipel, J., & Keysar, B. (2019). The influence of native language in shaping judgment and
choice. Progress in Brain Research, 247, 253–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.pbr.2019.02.003
Hadjichristidis, C., Geipel, J., & Surian, L. (2019). Breaking magic: Foreign language suppresses super-
stition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72(1), 18–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470
218.2017.1371780
Harris, C., Aycicegi, A., & Gleason, J.B. (2003). Taboo words and reprimands elicit greater autonomic reactivity
in a first than in a second language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24, 561–578. https://doi.org/10.1017.S01427
16403000286
Hatzidaki, A., Baus, C., & Costa, A. (2015). The way you say it, the way I feel it: Emotional word processing in
accented speech. Frontiers in Psychology, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00351
Hayakawa, S., Costa, A., Foucart, A., & Keysar, B. (2016). Using a foreign language changes our choices. Trends
Hayakawa, S., Lau, B.K.Y., Holtzmann, S., Costa, A., & Keysar, B. (2019). On the reliability of the foreign
language effect on risk-taking. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72(1), 29–40. https://doi.org/
10.1177/1747021817742242
Hayakawa, S., Tannenbaum, D., Costa, A., Corey, J.D., & Keysar, B. (2017). Thinking more or feeling less?
Explaining the foreign-language effect on moral judgment. Psychological Science, 28(10), 1387–1397.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617720944
He, Y., Margoni, F., Wu, Y., & Liu, H. (2021). fMRI evidence reveals emotional biases in bilingual decision
making. Brain Structure & Function, 226(5), 1405–1421. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00429-021-02246-3
Hennig, M., & Hütter, M. (2021). Consequences, norms, or willingness to interfere: A procni model analysis
of the foreign language effect in moral dilemma judgment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 95,
104148. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JESP.2021.104148
Hockey, G.R.J., Maule, A.J., Clough, P.J., & Bdzola, L. (2010). Effects of negative mood states on risk in
everyday decision making. Cognition and Emotion, 14(6), 823–855. https://doi.org/10.1080/0269993005
0156654
Hsu, C.T., Jacobs, A.M., & Conrad, M. (2015). Can Harry Potter still put a spell on us in a second language?
An fMRI study on reading emotion-laden literature in late bilinguals. Cortex, 63, 282–295. https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.CORTEX.2014.09.002
Huang, H., & Rau, P.L.P. (2018). The first–second language influence on framing effects and loss aversion of
balanced bilinguals. International Journal of Bilingualism, 24(2), 129–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/13670
06918813646
Ivaz, L., Costa, A., & Duñabeitia, J. (2016). The emotional impact of being myself: Emotions and foreign-
language processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42(3), 489–
496. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000179
guage be learned as first language? In K. Morgan-Short & J. G. van Hell (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of
Jeong, H., Li, P., Suzuki, W., Sugiura, M., & Kawashima, R. (2021). Neural mechanisms of language learning
from social contexts. Brain and Language, 212, 104874. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BANDL.2020.104874
421
Alice Foucart
language vocabulary: Neural dissociation of situation-based learning and text-based learning. NeuroImage,
50(2), 802–809. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.NEUROIMAGE.2009.12.038
Kahneman, D. (2003). A perspective on judgment and choice: Mapping bounded rationality. The American
Psychologist, 58(9), 697–720. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.58.9.697
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2),
263. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185
Keysar, B., Hayakawa, S., & An, S.G. (2012). The foreign-language effect: Thinking in a foreign tongue reduces
decision biases. Psychological Science, 23(6), 661–668. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611432178
Krautz, A.E., & Čavar, F. (2019). “Moral foreign language effect–claims we have never made” (response to com-
mentary by Białek and Fugelsang, in press). Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 40(8),
687–690. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2018.1547074
J.BANDC.2018.09.004
action. npj Science of Learning, 5(1), 8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-020-0068-7
Liu, L., Margoni, F., He, Y., & Liu, H. (2021). Neural substrates of the interplay between cognitive load and emo-
tional involvement in bilingual decision making. Neuropsychologia, 151, 107721. https://doi.org/10.1016/
Liu, L., Schwieter, J.W., Wang, F., & Liu, H. (2022). First and second languages differentially affect ration-
ality when making decisions: An ERP study. Biological Psychology, 169, 108265. https://doi.org/10.1016/
J.BIOPSYCHO.2022.108265
Mækelæ, M.J., & Pfuhl, G. (2019). Deliberate reasoning is not affected by language. PLoS One, 14(1), e0211428.
Miozzo, M., Navarrete, E., Ongis, M., Mello, E., Girotto, V., & Peressotti, F. (2020). Foreign language
effect in decision-making: How foreign is it? Cognition, 199, 104245. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COGNIT
ION.2020.104245
Muda, R., Niszczota, P., Bialek, M., & Conway, P. (2018). Reading dilemmas in a foreign language reduces both
deontological and utilitarian response tendencies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory
and Cognition, 44(2), 321–326. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000447
Munro, M.J., & Derwing, T.M. (1995). Processing time, accent, and comprehensibility in the perception of native
and foreign-accented speech. Language and Speech, 38(3), 289–306. https://doi.org/10.1177/00238309950
3800305
Nadarevic, L., Plier, S., Thielmann, I., & Darancó, S. (2018). Foreign language reduces the longevity of
the repetition- based truth effect. Acta Psychologica, 191, 149–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ACT
PSY.2018.08.019
Opitz, B., & Degner, J. (2012). Emotionality in a second language: It’s a matter of time. Neuropsychologia,
50(8), 1961–1967. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2012.04.021
Pavlenko, A. (2012). Affective processing in bilingual speakers: Disembodied cognition? International Journal
of Psychology, 47(6), 405–428. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207594.2012.743665
Pavlenko, A. (2017). Do you wish to waive your rights? Affect and decision-making in multilingual speakers.
Current Opinion in Psychology, 17, 74–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COPSYC.2017.06.005
Peeters, D. (2019). Virtual reality: A game-changing method for the language sciences. Psychonomic Bulletin
and Review, 26(3), 894–900. https://doi.org/10.3758/S13423-019-01571-3
Shin, H.I., & Kim, J. (2017). Foreign language effect and psychological distance. Journal of Psycholinguistic
Research, 46(6), 1339–1352. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-017-9498-7
Stankovic, M., Biedermann, B., & Hamamura, T. (2022). Not all bilinguals are the same: A meta-analysis
of the moral foreign language effect. Brain and Language, 227, 105082. https://doi.org/10.1016/
J.BANDL.2022.105082
Sulpizio, S., Toti, M., Del Maschio, N., Costa, A., Fedeli, D., Job, R., & Abutalebi, J. (2019). Are you really
cursing? Neural processing of taboo words in native and foreign language. Brain and Language, 194, 84–92.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BANDL.2019.05.003
422
Thomson, J. (1985). The trolley problem. Yale Law Journal, 94, 1395–1415. https://doi.org/10.2307/796133
Verga, L., & Kotz, S.A. (2019). Putting language back into ecological communication contexts. Language,
Vives, M., Aparici, M., & Costa, A. (2018). The limits of the foreign language effect on decision-making: The
case of the outcome bias and the representativeness heuristic. PLOS ONE, 13(9), e0203528. https://doi.org/
10.1371/journal.pone.0203528
Winskel, H., & Bhatt, D. (2019). The role of culture and language in moral decision-making. Culture and Brain,
8(2), 207–225. https://doi.org/10.1007/S40167-019-00085-Y
Wong, G., & Ng, B.C. (2018). Moral judgment in early bilinguals: Language dominance influences responses
to moral dilemmas. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1070. https://doi.org/10.3389/FPSYG.2018.01070/BIBTEX
Yang, X., Li, L., & Li, R. (2021). Foreign language effect on dishonesty. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 4871.
https://doi.org/10.3389/FPSYG.2021.633016/BIBTEX
Zappa, A., & Frenck-Mestre, C. (this volume). Neurocognition of social learning of second language: How can
second language be learned as first language? Embodied second language processing and learning from a
Zheng, L., Mobbs, D., & Yu, R. (2020). The behavioral and neural basis of foreign language effect on risk-taking.
Neuropsychologia, 136, 107290. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.NEUROPSYCHOLOGIA.2019.107290
423
31
COGNITIVE CONTROL
IN SECOND LANGUAGE
NEUROCOGNITION
Introduction to Cognitive Control in L2

In today’s world, more and more people have become bilinguals. As bilinguals, they are able to
switch between their two languages at will, including selecting the intended language for production.
Bilingualism has been widely regarded as a continuum described based on a range of factors, such as
age of acquisition of the second language (L2), proficiency of L2, and language immersion (in first
language, L1, or L2). The current chapter focuses on L2 learners who acquired L2 at a much later
stage of life than their L1. They constitute an important sub-population of bilinguals and sometimes
referred to as late bilinguals. Previous research in the past decades has shown that when L2 learners
intend to speak the L2, words in L1 are activated in parallel, leading to interference from L1 (e.g.,
Costa et al., 2000; Guo & Peng, 2006; Kroll et al., 2008). Then, an important question arises: How
do L2 learners select words in L2? Prevailing evidence has suggested that cognitive control plays
a crucial role in L2 language production. The current literature has also revealed some key aspects
of the cognitive neural mechanisms of bilingual language control during production. In this chapter,
we first briefly introduce the cognitive mechanisms of language control. Next, we discuss the rela-
tionship between bilingual language control and domain-general cognitive control, as informed by
behavioral and neurocognitive empirical data. Lastly, we discuss the (neuro)plasticity of bilingual
language control revealed by a more recent, dynamic approach, and point out some directions for
future research.
The Cognitive Mechanisms of Bilingual Language Control

In the past decades, substantial theoretical and experimental progress has been made to characterize
bilingual language control (see for example, Calabria et al., 2022 and Declerck & Philipp, 2015,
for reviews). In this section, we briefly introduce two influential models and some evidence for the
modulation of several factors. In this process, we also introduce the key terms that are critical to the
current discussion.
In the bilingual language control literature, one influential model is the inhibitory control model
(IC; Green,1998). According to this model, bilinguals need to inhibit the language schema and lex-
ical items in the native language to guarantee selection of the target word in L2. This happens at
two stages: The language schema phase and the lexical selection phase. During the first stage, both
L1 and L2 schemas compete with each other. Typically, the intended L2 schema wins by achieving
424 DOI: 10.4324/9781003190912-39

Cognitive Control in Second Language Neurocognition
a relatively higher activation. In the second phase, the L2 schema inhibits the lexical items in L1,
reducing its activation level. It is noteworthy that the two stages could be related with two types of
bilingual language control: Proactive and reactive control (see also Ma et al., 2016). Proactive control
refers to the adjustment of activation levels of two languages before the activation of specific target
lexical items. Reactive control, on the other hand, is the regulation to resolve interference after acti-
vation of lexical items. These two types of language control have been examined in many empirical
studies reviewed in the current chapter.
Additionally, the IC model assumes that relative language proficiency between bilinguals’ two
languages determines the amount of inhibition required: The stronger language needs to be inhibited
more than the weaker language. Relative language proficiency has been tested as a modulating factor
for bilingual language control during speech production. Indeed, evidence has suggested comparable
inhibition between languages in simultaneous balanced bilinguals (e.g., Costa & Santesteban, 2004,
Experiment 2, Experiment 3; Costa et al., 2006) and stronger inhibition of the dominant language
in sequential unbalanced bilinguals (e.g., Costa & Santesteban, 2004; Linck et al., 2012; Meuter &
Allport, 1999, Experiment 1). In addition, bilinguals may switch to a language control mechanism
that does not necessarily involve inhibition with increasing proficiency of L2. In other words, profi-
cient L2 learners may adopt a language-specific selection mechanism, in which lexical items in the
non-target language do not compete with those in the target language during word production (Costa
et al., 2006). It is noteworthy that the two factors of relative language proficiency and age of acquisi-
tion are often confounded, such that early bilinguals tend to achieve a high proficiency level in their
L2 (see also Fromont, this volume).
The context of language use has been identified as another modulating factor of bilingual lan-
guage control. That is, bilinguals may adjust language control with 此处和下一个句子里内容重
复。 the specific contexts of language use, a main claim of the adaptive control hypothesis (ACH,
Green & Abutalebi, 2013), which proposes a range of cognitive mechanisms of bilingual language
control. The demands of each mechanism are contingent on the specific contexts of language use to
achieve successful communication goals. For example, in a dense code-switching context, where
speakers frequently incorporate elements (morphemes, words, or phrases) from one language into a
sentence in the other language, it was hypothesized that opportunistic planning (i.e., planning to use
any resources available at the moment of interaction) plays a critical role, whereas other processes,
such as goal maintenance, interference control, response inhibition, disengagement (e.g., from a pre-
vious target language), and engagement (e.g., of a new target language) would not be so important.
In contrast, in dual language contexts, where participants need to use two languages with different
speakers, all the cognitive processes except for opportunistic planning would be more engaged. These
assumptions have received support from empirical data (e.g., Green & Wei, 2014; Green, 2011; Wu
et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2021). For example, Wu et al. (2020) examined how language control would
be modulated by language contexts, i.e., the L1 single-language context with relatively low language
conflict, the L2 single-language context with relatively high language conflict, and the dual-language
context with the strongest language conflict. They found that in the high-conflict L2-single context,
extra adjustments of the brain network were needed, including improving the global efficiency and
relying on clearer core-periphery structures, as compared to the low-conflict L1-single context. (For
more on the role of context in L2 neurocognition, see Bowden & Faretta-Stutenberg, this volume.)
Bilingual Language Control and Domain-General Cognitive Control

One critical issue that has been the focus of research is the relationship between bilingual language
control and domain-general cognitive control mechanisms. It has been widely held that bilingual lan-
guage control originated from cognitive control outside of the language system (Green, 1998; Meuter
425
& Allport, 1999; Timmer et al., 2018), which enables the management, coordination, and organiza-
tion of thoughts and behavior (Braver, 2012; Miller, 2000).
A number of studies have examined the behavioral performance and brain activities associated
with linguistic and non-linguistic tasks to reveal the relationship between bilingual language control
and domain-general cognitive control (e.g., Blanco-Elorrieta & Pylkkanen, 2016; Branzi et al., 2015;
Branzi et al., 2016; de Bruin et al., 2014). Relevant to the current discussion of control in production,
in an magnetoencephalography study (see Kousaie & Klein, this volume for information about this
method), Blanco-Elorrieta and Pylkkanen (2016) found that bilinguals relied on the prefrontal cortex
(PFC) to perform both language switching and task (i.e., semantic category) switching production
tasks. An interesting difference was also observed: Language switching relied more on the left PFC,
whereas task switching relied more on the right PFC.
Other studies have utilized correlation analyses between bilinguals’ behavioral performance in
language control tasks and non-linguistic control tasks to examine the relationship between bilingual
language control and domain-general cognitive control (Branzi et al., 2016; Calabria et al., 2013; de
Bruin et al., 2014; Declerck et al., 2017; Jylkkä, Lehtonen, Lindholm et al., 2018; Linck et al., 2008;
Linck et al., 2012; Liu et al., 2016; Pivneva et al., 2014; Timmer et al., 2018; Woumans et al., 2015).
The underlying logic is that if bilingual language control (partially) overlaps with domain-general
cognitive control, performances on the two types of tasks should correlate with each other. If they
do not overlap, there should be no correlations observed. Indeed, some studies found that bilinguals
who performed better in non-linguistic control tasks also showed better performance in the language
control tasks, suggesting that the bilingual language control relies on the domain-general cognitive
control (de Bruin et al., 2014; Declerck et al., 2017; Linck et al., 2008; Linck et al., 2012; Liu et al.,
2016; Pivneva et al., 2014; Timmer et al., 2018; Woumans et al., 2015).
Among different domain-general cognitive abilities examined through this correlational approach,
inhibitory control (e.g., Linck et al., 2012) and cognitive flexibility (e.g., Liu et al., 2013) have
received considerable scholarly attention in both cross-sectional studies comparing two sub-groups
of participants and longitudinal studies comparing the same group’s performance before and after
training. For example, in a cross-sectional study, Linck et al. (2012) first examined the modulation
of domain-general inhibitory control, one important type of executive control, on bilingual language
control. They reported that the Simon effect (i.e., the differences in reaction times and accuracy
rates between the congruent condition, where the stimulus and response were on the same side,
and the incongruent condition, where the stimulus and response were on opposite sides) indexing
inhibitory control correlated with the L1 switching cost: the smaller the Simon effect, the smaller
the L1 switching cost. The researchers concluded that participants with higher inhibitory control
abilities exert language control more effectively. Further, in a longitudinal training study, Liu et al.
(2016) documented that participants with low inhibitory control ability (measured by a Simon task)
exhibited asymmetrical language switching costs at first, but they showed symmetrical language
switching costs behaviorally after inhibitory control training with the Simon task. In addition, event-
related potential (ERP) data, reflecting neural activity (see Dickson & Pelzl, this volume), in these
participants revealed a more positive late positive complex (i.e., a positive-going brainwave peaking
at around 450–600 ms after stimulus onset, here associated with releasing inhibition of lexical items
that were previously suppressed) in the L2 switch trials than L1 switch trials only after training.
These results indicate that inhibition training improves the efficiency of exerting bilingual language
control.
The studies reviewed above mainly examined whether one aspect of domain-general executive
control impacts bilingual language control. However, executive functions (also referred to as execu-
tive control or cognitive control) include a range of high-level cognitive processes responsible for
regulating control, consisting of inhibiting, shifting, and updating (e.g., Huizinga et al., 2006; Lehto
426
et al., 2003; Miyake et al., 2000). Miyake et al. (2000) proposed that inhibition is exerted over the
prepotent response for bilingual language control. Other scholars have further distinguished two
types of inhibition: interference suppression (i.e., inhibition of irrelevant information to guarantee
making the correct response) and response inhibition (i.e., inhibition over the dominant response)
(e.g., Friedman & Miyake, 2004; Nigg, 2000; Van Boxtel et al., 2001). Shifting (also referred to as
“cognitive flexibility”) refers to switching between multiple tasks or mental sets (i.e., inhibiting the
previous task or mental set to meet the current response demand) (Miyake et al., 2000). Updating
is defined as updating and monitoring working memory representations. It involves monitoring the
information of the upcoming task, searching for the information available, and replacing the old,
irrelevant information with updated information of the current task (Miyake et al., 2000). To gain
a deeper understanding of the relationship between bilingual language control and domain-general
executive control, it is necessary to detail whether different high-level cognitive processes of domain-
general control modulate bilingual language control.
So far, only a few recent studies have made such attempts (e.g., Jylkkä et al., 2017; Kang et al.,
2020; Li et al., 2021). For example, in Kang et al. (2020), the flanker task, the task switching task,
and the 3-back task were used to measure unbalanced bilinguals’ inhibition, shifting, and updating
capabilities, respectively. Also, a cued language switching paradigm (cue presented prior to stimulus)
was used to investigate bilingual language control. The paradigm examined cue-locked ERPs at a
task schema phase and stimulus-locked ERPs at a lemma selection phase proposed in the IC model
(Green, 1998). In both phases, switching was indexed by an N2 effect (i.e., a centro-frontal negative-
going ERP component peaking at around 200–300 ms after stimulus onset, widely associated with
cognitive abilities, particularly inhibition). Results showed that a smaller flanker effect was correlated
with a larger N2 switch effect in stimulus-locked ERPs. These results suggest that bilinguals with
stronger domain-general interference inhibition ability exert stronger language inhibitory control
over lexical items in the non-target language during the lemma selection phase.
The Neural Mechanisms of Language Control and Domain-General Control

Over the past decades, neuroimaging studies have provided important insights into the neural
mechanisms of language control (e.g., Guo et al., 2011; Yuan, Ma, et al., 2021; Yuan, Wu, et al.,
2021; see Kousaie & Klein, this volume, for an overview to neuroimaging methods to examine
neural activation). For example, Yuan, Ma, et al. (2021) used multivoxel pattern analysis (MVPA)
to examine patterns of neural activity in bilingual language switching. Results showed that switch
and non-switch conditions elicited different neural activities in frontal brain regions, including the
left dorsolateral PFC, left inferior frontal gyrus, left supplementary motor area, anterior cingulate
cortex, bilateral precentral gyri, and the left cerebellum, suggesting their roles in language control.
Furthermore, these regions interacted with each other to form a frontal and fronto-cerebellar lan-
guage control network.
A number of studies have documented that the brain regions involved in bilingual language control
have also been reported to be activated in studies on domain-general cognitive control (Iannaccone
et al., 2015; Kerns, 2006; Kim et al., 2012; Liu et al., 2004; Nee, et al., 2007; Zhu et al., 2010),
which leads to the conclusion that bilingual language control (at least partially) relies on the domain-
general cognitive control mechanisms (de Bruin et al., 2014; Hernandez et al., 2001; Wang et al.,
2007; Xue et al., 2008). More recent research (Anderson et al., 2018; Blanco-Elorrieta & Pylkkanen,
2016; De Baene et al., 2015; Wu et al., 2018) has compared the brain activities when the same bilin-
gual populations performed linguistic and domain-general control tasks to investigate the potential
overlap between the neural mechanisms of the bilingual language control and the domain-general
cognitive control. For example, De Baene et al. (2015) found that a language-switching task and
427
a task-switching task activated largely shared areas in trilinguals, including the left inferior frontal
junction (extending into the inferior frontal gyrus), the medial PFC, comprising the dorsal anterior
singular cortex (dACC) and pre-supplementary motor area (preSMA), and the parietal lobe (including
inferior and superior parietal lobules).
Other studies showed that the degree of activation differed in the commonly activated regions in
linguistic and domain-general control tasks (Blanco-Elorrieta & Pylkkanen, 2016; Branzi et al., 2015;
Magezi et al., 2012). More specifically, researchers have attempted to identify neural mechanisms that are
specific for bilingual language control, but the reported divergent activation patterns between linguistic
and non-linguistic control tasks are not considered as typical brain regions responsible for domain-
general cognitive control. As discussed earlier, Blanco-Elorrieta and Pylkkanen (2016) reported that lan-
guage switching relied more on the left PFC, whereas task switching relied more on the right PFC. In
addition, some researchers hold that the left caudate may be a language-specific control region (Abutalebi
et al., 2008; Abutalebi et al., 2013; Abutalebi & Green, 2008, 2016; Cattaneo et al., 2015; Cattaneo et al.,
2019; Kang, Fu, et al., 2017). However, other researchers disagree on the role that the left caudate plays
in language-specific control (Hervais-Adelman et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2013; Zou et al., 2012), as the
activation of this region has been reported in some non-linguistic control studies (Grahn et al., 2008; Kim
et al., 2012; Wang et al., 2013). Nonetheless, the left caudate may play a unique coordinating role in exer-
cising language and non-linguistic control. To our knowledge, few related studies have explored whether
there are any specific brain areas associated with language control coordination.
To sum up, current evidence suggests that bilingual language control and non-linguistic control
largely share neural correlates, but it is debated whether there are specific brain regions for language
control. In addition, few studies have examined the relationship between the two types of control from
the perspective of brain connectivity among brain regions. In an exploratory study on of the brain net-
work (or subnetwork) supporting bilinguals’ domain-general and language-specific control, Wu et al.
(2019) showed that bilingual language control relied on a highly cooperative network, including the
frontal lobe, the parietal cortex, subcortical areas, and the cerebellum. Moreover, this network exerted
control over linguistic and non-linguistic representations by means of reconfiguration. Specifically,
language control needed to depend more on the connections from frontal to subcortical areas and
those inside the subcortical nucleus than the domain general cognitive control, indicating the recon-
figurable nature of the brain network. The brain networks of bilingual language control and domain
general cognitive control exhibited similar connectivity patterns and strengths in the PFC, with the
dACC/pre-SMA and the right thalamus serving as hubs. These represented the relatively stable aspects
during brain network reconfiguration. This study provided the first piece of empirical evidence for the
connectivity patterns in the bilingual language control brain network and shed light on the relation-
ship between language control and general cognitive control from the perspective of neural network
reconfiguration.
Current Trends: Dynamic Adaptations of Domain-General and Language-Specific

Control During Bilingual Language Production
The studies discussed above mainly examined the domain-general cognitive functions and language-
specific control during bilingual language production in an indirect and static manner by comparing
the behavioral performance and brain activities when bilinguals completed linguistic and non-
linguistic control tasks. In the past few years, however, an emerging trend is to investigate this issue
using a direct and dynamic approach (Li, et al., 2018; Liu et al., 2016; Prior & Gollan, 2013).
One line of studies has examined bilingual domain-general and language-specific control during
language production from the perspective of the functional changes in certain brain regions in a short
experimental session (Cattaneo et al., 2015; Cattaneo et al., 2019; Li et al., 2018). For example, Li
428
et al. (2018) used transcranial direct current stimulation to change the activity of the right dorsolateral
PFC, a typical region involved in domain-general cognitive control. Results showed that compared
with the control condition, cathodal stimulation caused (a) more symmetrical switching costs in reac-
tion times and accuracy rates, and (b) a late positive component effect (i.e., larger magnitude when
switching into L2 than when switching into L1, associated with inhibition of lexical items in the
non-target language) in ERP data from a subsequent language switching task. The authors concluded
that the right dorsolateral PFC was critical in inhibiting the non-target language during language
switching after cathodal stimulation.
Another line of studies has examined the plasticity of domain-general and language-specific con-
trol during bilingual production using training paradigms (Chen et al., 2020, 2021; Kang, Fu, et al.,
2017; Liu et al., 2016; Prior & Gollan, 2013; Wu et al., 2018, 2022; Yuan et al., 2021; Zhang et al.,
2015). First of all, a few studies investigated how language training affects domain-general con-
trol. For example, Kang, Ma, and Guo (2017) provided Chinese–English bilinguals with intensive,
short-term language control training and found that the N2 latency was shortened after training. As
the N2 has been believed to reflect domain-general conflict monitoring and interference inhibition
(Jackson et al., 1999; Nieuwenhuis et al., 2004), this result may suggest that short-term language
control training improves the efficiency of domain-general control during bilingual language pro-
duction. Considering that the N2 component originates from the dACC (Nieuwenhuis et al., 2003;
Veen & Carter, 2002), Kang, Fu, et al. (2017) examined whether the modulation could be reflected
in the dACC, which is associated with domain-general cognitive control. They found that language
switching training reduced the activation level of this region, which further indicates that language
switching training improves domain-general ability. From a cross-task adaption perspective, Yuan
et al. (2021) examined whether bilingual language switching would modulate the immediate adap-
tation of the cognitive control network. Results showed that a language switching task induced
effective connectivity changes in the following domain-general task switching task, as reflected in
the nodal degrees and connectivity strength of the dACC/pre-SMA and the right thalamus. The results
further highlight the crucial, leading roles of the dACC/pre-SMA responsible for conflict monitoring
and the right thalamus responsible for control execution in the overlap between language control and
domain-general control.
Looking in the opposite direction, Wu et al. (2021) examined whether cognitive control training
affects the neural mechanisms of bilingual language control and observed a negative correlation
between changes in activation levels in the left dorsolateral PFC and changes in the switching cost
magnitude in the language-switching task in the training group but not in the control group, suggesting
that the dorsolateral PFC plays a critical role in the transfer effect from domain-general executive
functions to language control.
Researchers are also interested in what changes language switching training induces for the bilin-
gual language control mechanisms. As expected, there has been new neuroimaging and ERP evi-
dence showing that language switching training enhances proactive and reactive language control
mechanisms (Chen et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2015). Chen and colleagues (2020) reported that lan-
guage switching training reduced the activation of brain regions of reactive control, and this training
effect could be transferred to proactive control, particularly in low-proficiency bilinguals. Also, Zhang
et al. (2015) found ERP evidence (enlarged N2) indicating that dual language training enhanced pro-
active control over L1.
Together, more recent evidence from a dynamic perspective converges with previous findings,
providing more direct evidence suggesting causal relations between the bilingual language con-
trol and domain-general language control, and thus more support for the notion of adaptive
and dynamic nature of bilingual language control proposed by the ACH hypothesis (Green &
Abutalebi, 2013).
429

In conclusion, early studies mainly examined the bilingual language control mechanisms during lan-
guage production from a static perspective to test the IC model (e.g., Green, 1998); whereas more
recent studies have investigated the adaptive nature of the bilingual language control dynamically,
focusing on its changes over time proposed by the ACH hypothesis (e.g., Green & Abutalebi, 2013).
Functional changes in the brain regions subserving domain-general and language-specific control
impact bilingual language control. At the same time, training in linguistic or non-linguistic con-
trol induces adaptive changes of bilinguals’ brain regions involved in domain-general and language-
specific control. The latest research on the brain network in L2 learners shows that the neural
networks of the domain-general and language-specific control overlap largely but differ in certain
aspects. Furthermore, this network shows both temporary changes depending on the specific lan-
guage contexts and relatively long-lasting changes according to experience. These adaptive changes
provide novel evidence and new perspectives for the investigations of the neural mechanisms of bilin-
gual language control. They also offer valuable insights into the debate on bilingual cognitive benefits
(e.g., Bialystok & Craik, 2022).
Further novel insights can be brought about through the use of non-invasive brain stimulation
techniques (e.g., transcranial magnetic stimulation and transcranial direct current stimulation) to
examine neural mechanisms of cognitive processing. To further explore the relationship between lan-
guage control and cognitive control in L2 learners, it would be interesting to apply these techniques
to interfere with the activities of one or several brain regions during language control and cogni-
tive control tasks. In addition, L2 learner patients with lesions of certain brain structures could also
provide valuable data to elucidate the neural networks subserving language and cognitive control.
Additionally, the potential combination of non-invasive brain stimulation with functional magnetic
resonance imaging techniques (e.g., Jung & Lambon Ralph, 2016; Tang et al., 2021) will allow more
direct investigations of how brain stimulations potentially modulate neural activities and correlate
with behavioral data.
Finally, in the future, regardless of the method, it would be important to further examine how
different cognitive components of the domain-general cognitive control, including inhibition and
other aspects of attentional control, are related to bilingual language control (see also Bialystok &
Craik, 2022). Additionally, based on the multifaceted bilingual experience, a number of factors, such
as sociolinguistic contexts (Titone & Tiv, 2023), should be considered and systematically investigated
to determine their potential roles in bilingual language control. Bilingualism is a complex phenom-
enon, which brings both challenges and opportunities for researchers to proceed in the process of
unveiling more fascinating and significant facets of human brain and cognition that could not be
revealed by examining monolinguals only.
Further Readings
This paper proposes an attentional control account that includes a range of processing operations in bilinguals,
which are not constrained to inhibition, and discusses how this framework could explain the evidence available
on bilingual cognitive benefits across the lifespan.
Bialystok, E., & Craik, F.I. (2022). How does bilingualism modify cognitive function? Attention to the mech-
anism. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-022-02057-5
Grounded in neuroimaging findings reported in both healthy individuals and brain-damaged patients, these
authors discuss the neural network subserving various processes during bilingual language control, highlighting
its adaptive nature and neural effects.
Calabria, M., Costa, A., Green, D.W., & Abutalebi, J. (2018). Neural basis of bilingual language control. Annals
of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1426(1), 221–235. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.13879
430
In this paper, a systems framework of bilingualism is proposed to characterize different layers of sociolinguistic
contexts. The framework embraces the complex social contexts of bilingual speakers and invites further studies
on how factors of each layer would potentially modulate bilingual language control.
Titone, D.A., & Tiv, M. (2023). Rethinking multilingual experience through a Systems Framework of Bilingualism.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (31871097 to T.G.).
References
Abutalebi, J., Annoni, J.M., Zimine, I., Pegna, A.J., Seghier, M.L., Lee-Jahnke, H., Lazeyras, F., Cappa, S.F.,
& Khateb, A. (2008). Language control and lexical competition in bilinguals: An event-related fMRI study.
Cerebral Cortex, 18(7), 1496–1505. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhm182
Abutalebi, J., Della Rosa, P.A., Ding, G., Weekes, B., Costa, A., & Green, D.W. (2013). Language proficiency
modulates the engagement of cognitive control areas in multilinguals. Cortex, 49(3), 905–911. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cortex.2012.08.018
Abutalebi, J., & Green, D.W. (2008). Control mechanisms in bilingual language production: Neural evidence
from language switching studies. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23(4), 557–582. https://doi.org/
10.1080/01690960801920602
Abutalebi, J., & Green, D.W. (2016). Neuroimaging of language control in bilinguals: Neural adaptation and
reserve. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19(4), 689–698. https://doi.org/10.1017/S136672891
6000225
Anderson, J.A.E., Chung-Fat-Yim, A., Bellana, B., Luk, G., & Bialystok, E. (2018). Language and cognitive
control networks in bilinguals and monolinguals. Neuropsychologia, 117, 352–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/
Bialystok, E., & Craik, F.I. (2022). How does bilingualism modify cognitive function? Attention to the mech-
anism. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 29(4), 1246–1269. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-022-02057-5
Blanco-Elorrieta, E., & Pylkkanen, L. (2016). Bilingual language control in perception versus action: MEG
reveals comprehension control mechanisms in anterior cingulate cortex and domain-general control of pro-
duction in dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Journal of Neuroscience, 36(2), 290–301. https://doi.org/10.1523/
Bobb, S. C., & Wodniecka, Z. (2013). Language switching in picture naming: What asymmetric switching costs
(do not) tell us about inhibition in bilingual speech planning. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25(5), 568–
585. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2013.792822
Branzi, F.M., Calabria, M., Boscarino, M.L., & Costa, A. (2016). On the overlap between bilingual language
control and domain-general executive control. Acta Psychologica, 166, 21–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.act
psy.2016.03.001
Branzi, F.M., Della Rosa, P.A., Canini, M., Costa, A., & Abutalebi, J. (2015). Language control in
bilinguals: Monitoring and response selection. Cerebral Cortex, 26(6), 2367–2380. https://doi.org/10.1093/
cercor/bhv052
Braver, T.S. (2012). The variable nature of cognitive control: A dual mechanisms framework. Trends in Cognitive
Calabria, M., Branzi, F.M., Marne, P., Hernández, M., & Costa, A. (2013). Age-related effects over bilingual lan-
guage control and executive control. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 18(1), 65–78. https://doi.org/
10.1017/s1366728913000138
Calabria, M., Costa, A., Green, D.W., & Abutalebi, J. (2018). Neural basis of bilingual language control. Annals
of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1426(1), 221–235. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.13879
Cattaneo, G., Calabria, M., Marne, P., Gironell, A., Abutalebi, J., & Costa, A. (2015). The role of executive con-
trol in bilingual language production: A study with Parkinson’s disease individuals. Neuropsychologia, 66,
Cattaneo, G., Costa, A., Gironell, A., & Calabria, M. (2019). On the specificity of bilingual language control: A
study with Parkinson’s disease patients. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 23(3), 570–578. https://doi.
org/10.1017/s136672891900004x
431
Chen, M., Ma, F., Wu, J., Li, S., Zhang, Z., Fu, Y., Lu, C., & Guo, T. (2020). Individual differences in lan-
guage proficiency shape the neural plasticity of language control in bilingual language production. Journal of
Neurolinguistics, 54, Article 100887. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2020.100887
Chen, M., Ma, F., Zhang, Z., Li, S., Zhang, M., Yuan, Q., Wu, J., Lu, C., & Guo, T. (2021). Language switching
training modulates the neural network of non- linguistic cognitive control. PLoS ONE, 16(4), Article
e0247100. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247100
Costa, A., Caramazza, A., & Sebastian-Galles, N. (2000). The cognate facilitation effect: implications for models
of lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(5), 1283.
https://doi.org/10.1037//0278-7393.26.5.1283
Costa, A., & Santesteban, M. (2004). Lexical access in bilingual speech production: Evidence from language
switching in highly proficient bilinguals and L2 learners. Journal of Memory and Language, 50(4), 491–511.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2004.02.002
Costa, A., Santesteban, M., & Ivanova, I. (2006). How do highly proficient bilinguals control their lexicalization
process? Inhibitory and language-specific selection mechanisms are both functional. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32(5), 1057. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.32.5.1057
De Baene, W., Duyck, W., Brass, M., & Carreiras, M. (2015). Brain circuit for cognitive control is shared by
task and language switching. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 27(9), 1752–1765. https://doi.org/10.1162/
jocn_a_00817
de Bruin, A., Roelofs, A., Dijkstra, T., & Fitzpatrick, I. (2014). Domain-general inhibition areas of the brain are
involved in language switching: fMRI evidence from trilingual speakers. Neuroimage, 90, 348–359. https://
Declerck, M., Grainger, J., Koch, I., & Philipp, A.M. (2017). Is language control just a form of executive con-
trol? Evidence for overlapping processes in language switching and task switching. Journal of Memory and
Language, 95, 138–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2017.03.005
Declerck, M., & Philipp, A.M. (2015). A review of control processes and their locus in language switching.
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22(6), 1630–1645. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0836-1
Dickson, D., & Pelzl, E. (this volume). Using time-based electro encephalography to investigate second language
organization. In K. Morgan-Short & J.G. van Hell (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acqui-
sition and neurolinguistics. Routledge.
Friedman, N.P., & Miyake, A. (2004). The relations among inhibition and interference control functions: a
latent-variable analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133(1), 101. https://doi.org/10.1037/
0096-3445.133.1.101
Garbin, G., Costa, A., Sanjuan, A., Forn, C., Rodriguez-Pujadas, A., Ventura, N., Belloch, V., Hernandez, M.,
& Ávila, C. (2011). Neural bases of language switching in high and early proficient bilinguals. Brain and
Language, 119(3), 129–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2011.03.011
Grahn, J.A., Parkinson, J.A., & Owen, A.M. (2008). The cognitive functions of the caudate nucleus. Progress in
Neurobiology, 86(3), 141–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pneurobio.2008.09.004
Green, D.W. (1998). Mental control of the bilingual lexico-semantic system. Bilingualism: Language and
Green, D.W. (2011). Language control in different contexts: The behavioral ecology of bilingual speakers.
Frontiers in Psychology, 2, Article103. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00103
Green, D.W., & Wei, L. (2014). A control process model of codeswitching. Language, Cognition and
Guo, T., & Peng, D. (2006). Event-related potential evidence for parallel activation of two languages in bilingual
speech production. Neuroreport, 17(17), 1757–1760. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.wnr.0000246327.89308.a5
Hernandez, A.E., Dapretto, M., Mazziotta, J., & Bookheimer, S. (2001). Language switching and language
representation in Spanish-English bilinguals: An fMRI study. Neuroimage, 14(2), 510–520. https://doi.org/
10.1006/nimg.2001.0810
Hervais-Adelman, A., Moser-Mercer, B., & Golestani, N. (2015). Brain functional plasticity associated with the
emergence of expertise in extreme language control. Neuroimage, 114, 264–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.neuroimage.2015.03.072
Huizinga, M., Dolan, C.V., & Van der Molen, M.W. (2006).Age-related change in executive function: Developmental
trends and a latent variable analysis. Neuropsychologia, 44(11), 2017–2036. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuro
432
Iannaccone, R., Hauser, T.U., Staempfli, P., Walitza, S., Brandeis, D., & Brem, S. (2015). Conflict monitoring
and error processing: new insights from simultaneous EEG-fMRI. Neuroimage, 105, 395–407. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.10.028
Jung, J., & Lambon Ralph, M.A. (2016). Mapping the dynamic network interactions underpinning cognition: A
cTBS-fMRI study of the flexible adaptive neural system for semantics. Cerebral Cortex, 26(8), 3580–3590.
https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhw149
Jylkkä, J., Lehtonen, M., Lindholm, F., Kuusakoski, A., & Laine, M. (2018). The relationship between general
executive functions and bilingual switching and monitoring in language production. Bilingualism: Language
Kang, C., Fu, Y., Wu, J., Ma, F., Lu, C., & Guo, T. (2017). Short-term language switching training tunes the
neural correlates of cognitive control in bilingual language production. Human Brain Mapping, 38(12),
5859–5870. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.23765
Kang, C., Ma, F., & Guo, T. (2017). The plasticity of lexical selection mechanism in word produc-
tion: ERP evidence from short-term language switching training in unbalanced Chinese–English bilinguals.
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 21(2), 296–313. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1366728917000037
Kang, C., Ma, F., Li, S., Kroll, J.F., & Guo, T. (2020). Domain-general inhibition ability predicts the intensity of
inhibition on non-target language in bilingual word production: An ERP study. Bilingualism: Language and
Kerns, J.G. (2006). Anterior cingulate and prefrontal cortex activity in an FMRI study of trial-to-trial adjustments
on the Simon task. Neuroimage, 33(1), 399–405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.06.012
Kim, C., Cilles, S.E., Johnson, N.F., & Gold, B.T. (2012). Domain general and domain preferential brain regions
associated with different types of task switching: A meta-analysis. Human Brain Mapping, 33(1), 130–142.
Lehto, J.E., Juujärvi, P., Kooistra, L., & Pulkkinen, L. (2003). Dimensions of executive functioning: Evidence
from children. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 21(1), 59–80. https://doi.org/10.1348/0261510
03321164627
Li, B., Liu, H., Perez, A., & Xie, N. (2018). Cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation over right dorsolat-
eral prefrontal cortex improves language control during language switching. Behavioural Brain Research,
351, 34–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2018.05.026
Linck, J.A., Hoshino, N., & Kroll, J.F. (2008). Cross-language lexical processes and inhibitory control. Mental
Lexicon, 3(3), 349–374. https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.3.3.06lin
Linck, J.A., Schwieter, J.W., & Sunderman, G. (2012). Inhibitory control predicts language switching perform-
ance in trilingual speech production. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15(03), 651–662. https://doi.
org/10.1017/S136672891100054X
Liu, H., Liang, L., Dunlap, S., Fan, N., & Chen, B. (2016). The effect of domain-general inhibition-related
training on language switching: An ERP study. Cognition, 146, 264–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognit
ion.2015.10.004
Liu, X., Banich, M.T., Jacobson, B.L., & Tanabe, J.L. (2004). Common and distinct neural substrates of atten-
tional control in an integrated Simon and spatial Stroop task as assessed by event-related fMRI. Neuroimage,
Ma, F.Y., Li, S. C., & Guo, T.M. (2016). Reactive and proactive control in bilingual word production: An
investigation of influential factors. Journal of Memory and Language, 86, 35–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jml.2015.08.004
Magezi, D.A., Khateb, A., Mouthon, M., Spierer, L., & Annoni, J.M. (2012). Cognitive control of language pro-
duction in bilinguals involves a partly independent process within the domain-general cognitive control net-
work: evidence from task-switching and electrical brain activity. Brain and Language, 122(1), 55–63. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2012.04.008
Meuter, R.F.I., & Allport, A. (1999). Bilingual language switching in naming: Asymmetrical costs of language
selection. Journal of Memory and Language, 40(1), 25–40. https://doi.org/DOI 10.1006/jmla.1998.2602
Miller, E.K. (2000). The prefontral cortex and cognitive control. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 1(1), 59–65.
https://doi.org/10.1038/35036228
433
Miyake, A., Friedman, N.P., Emerson, M.J., Witzki, A.H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T.D. (2000). The unity and
diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “frontal lobe” tasks: A latent variable ana-
lysis. Cognitive Psychology, 41(1), 49–100. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1999.0734
Nee, D.E., Wager, T.D., & Jonides, J. (2007). Interference resolution: Insights from a meta- analysis of
neuroimaging tasks. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 7(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3758/
cabn.7.1.1
Nieuwenhuis, S., Yeung, N., & Cohen, J.D. (2004). Stimulus modality, perceptual overlap, and the go/no-go N2.
Nigg, J.T. (2000). On inhibition/disinhibition in developmental psychopathology: views from cognitive and per-
sonality psychology and a working inhibition taxonomy. Psychological Bulletin, 126(2), 220–246. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0033-2909.126.2.220
Philipp, A.M., & Koch, I. (2009). Inhibition in language switching: what is inhibited when switching between
languages in naming tasks? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35(5),
1187–1195. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016376
Pivneva, I., Mercier, J., & Titone, D. (2014). Executive control modulates cross-language lexical activation
during L2 reading: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory,
and Cognition, 40(3), 787–796. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035583
Prior, A., & Gollan, T.H. (2013). The elusive link between language control and executive control: A case of limited
transfer. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25(5), 622–645. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2013.821993
Reverberi, C., Kuhlen, A.K., Seyed-Allaei, S., Greulich, R.S., Costa, A., Abutalebi, J., & Haynes, J.D. (2018).
The neural basis of free language choice in bilingual speakers: Disentangling language choice and language
execution. Neuroimage, 177, 108–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.05.025
Schwieter, J.W., & Sunderman, G. (2008). Language switching in bilingual speech production: In search of
the language-specific selection mechanism. The Mental Lexicon, 3(2), 214–238. https://doi.org/10.1075/
ml.3.2.06sch
Timmer, K., Calabria, M., Branzi, F.M., Baus, C., & Costa, A. (2018). On the reliability of switching costs across
time and domains. Frontier in Psychology, 9, Article 1032. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01032
Titone, D.A., & Tiv, M. (2023). Rethinking multilingual experience through a Systems Framework of Bilingualism.
Van Boxtel, G.J., Van der Molen, M.W., Jennings, J.R., & Brunia, C.H. (2001). A psychophysiological analysis
of inhibitory motor control in the stop-signal paradigm. Biological Psychology, 58(3), 229–262. https://doi.
org/10.1016/s0301-0511(01)00117-x
Verhoef, K., Roelofs, A., & Chwilla, D.J. (2009). Role of inhibition in language switching: evidence from event-
related brain potentials in overt picture naming. Cognition, 110(1), 84–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognit
ion.2008.10.013
Wang, X., Wang, Y.Y., Jiang, T., Wang, Y.Z., & Wu, C.-X. (2013). Direct evidence of the left caudate’s role in
bilingual control: an intra-operative electrical stimulation study. Neurocase, 19(5), 462–469. https://doi.org/
10.1080/13554794.2012.701635
Wang, Y., Xue, G., Chen, C., Xue, F., & Dong, Q. (2007). Neural bases of asymmetric language switching
in second-language learners: an ER-fMRI study. Neuroimage, 35(2), 862–870. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neu
roimage.2006.09.054
Woumans, E., Ceuleers, E., Van der Linden, L., Szmalec, A., & Duyck, W. (2015). Verbal and nonverbal cog-
nitive control in bilinguals and interpreters. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and
Cognition, 41(5), 1579–1586. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000107
Wu, J., Kang, C., Ma, F., Gao, X., & Guo, T. (2018). The influence of short-term language-switching training
on the plasticity of the cognitive control mechanism in bilingual word production. Quarterly Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 71(10), 2115–2128. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021817737520
Wu, J., Yang, J., Chen, M., Li, S., Zhang, Z., Kang, C., Ding, G., & Guo, T. (2019). Brain network reconfiguration
for language and domain-general cognitive control in bilinguals. Neuroimage, 199, 454–465. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.06.022
Wu, J., Zhang, Z., Chen, M., Yuan, Q., Zhang, M., Yang, J., Lu, C., & Guo, T. (2020). Language context tunes
brain network for language control in bilingual language production. Neuropsychologia, 147, Article 107592.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2020.107592
Xue, G., Aron, A.R., & Poldrack, R.A. (2008). Common neural substrates for inhibition of spoken and manual
responses. Cerebral Cortex, 18(8), 1923–1932. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhm220
Yuan, Q., Ma, F., Zhang, M., Chen, M., Zhang, Z., Wu, J., Lu, C., & Guo, T. (2021). Neural interaction between
language control and cognitive control: Evidence from cross-task adaptation. Behavioural Brain Research,
401, Article 113086. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2020.113086
434
Yuan, Q., Wu, J., Zhang, M., Zhang, Z., Chen, M., Ding, G., Lu, C., & Guo, T. (2021). Patterns and networks of
language control in bilingual language production. Brain Structure and Function, 226(4), 963–977. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s00429-021-02218-7
Zhang H., Diaz M. T., Guo T., Kroll J. F. (2021). Language immersion and language training: Two paths to
enhanced language regulation and cognitive control. Brain and Language, 223, 105043. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.bandl.2021.105043
Zhang, H., Kang, C., Wu, Y., Ma, F., & Guo, T. (2015). Improving proactive control with training on language
switching in bilinguals. Neuroreport, 26(6), 354–359. https://doi.org/10.1097/WNR.0000000000000353
Zhu, D.C., Zacks, R.T., & Slade, J.M. (2010). Brain activation during interference resolution in young and older
adults: An fMRI study. Neuroimage, 50(2), 810–817. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.12.087
Zou, L., Ding, G., Abutalebi, J., Shu, H., & Peng, D. (2012). Structural plasticity of the left caudate in bimodal
bilinguals. Cortex, 48(9), 1197–1206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2011.05.022
435
32
THE NEUROCOGNITION OF
CHILD SECOND LANGUAGE
DEVELOPMENT

For young children, exposure to a new or additional language often comes at a time when their lan-
guage systems, and the neural mechanisms that support them, are undergoing an active process of
development. Neurodevelopmental evidence on language suggests that until adolescence, children
and adults differ at the neural level in how they process language, with some changes continuing into
and during adult years (Perani et al., 1998; Skeide & Friederici, 2016). Specifically, language devel-
opment is supported by a prolonged period of neurodevelopmental plasticity that can coincide with
major changes in a child’s life. For instance, kindergarteners may start with a primary Language A and
a secondary Language B, but these patterns of language use may become completely reversed by the
end of elementary school. We examine the neurodevelopmental processes that support dual language
acquisition, with a particular focus on what child second language (L2) learning experiences in this
context tell us about the plasticity of the human mind and brain development.
Two types of childhood bilinguals are generally examined in neuroscience research: world lan-
guage and dual language learners. World language learners are exposed to a new language as an L2
in a formal classroom environment. These children exhibit clear and stable first language (L1) and
L2 distinctions in their patterns of dual language proficiency and use (Gass & Glew, 2011). Dual lan-
guage, or bilingual L1 learners, acquire two languages in immersive contexts. The category includes
heritage language learners as well as children growing up in communities with more than one official
language (Tominey et al., 2018). Child heritage language learners are exposed to a home language,
generally, from birth, that is distinct from the wider speech community’s language, such as minority
language Spanish speakers in the United States (Valdés, 2000). Dual language learners may shift
patterns of language dominance and use multiple times throughout childhood as a result of changes in
their family or schooling environments. Studies may use the age of acquisition (AoA) to dichotomize
childhood dual language learners into those who are “early (simultaneous)” and “late (successive),”
with a cut-off of approximately age five as suggested by some researchers (e.g., Weber-Fox & Neville,
2001). Importantly, however, the prolonged brain development for language function coincides with
changes in children’s sociolinguistic environments (e.g., family, school, neighborhood); thus, AoA is
best considered on a continuum and in the context of children’s past and current language experiences
(Bedore et al., 2012). In order to best contextualize the research, we provide detailed information on
the age of exposure, age at testing, as well as past and current patterns of language proficiency and
use, for each study population described in our review of child L2 acquisition.
436 DOI: 10.4324/9781003190912-40

The Neurocognition of Child Second Language Development

Distinct domains of linguistic competence take precedence at different developmental stages. We
begin with a brief overview of each domain, starting with phonology, followed by the lexicon and
semantics, and concluding with sentence-level morpho-syntax and semantics. Throughout the chapter,
we discuss key issues such as AoA effects, proficiency, patterns of language use, and crosslinguistic
interactions in language processing (for more on age and proficiency, see Fromont, this volume; for
more on crosslinguistic interactions, see Sabourin & Manning, this volume; Xu & Wong, this volume)
Since nearly all the reviewed research was published in English, our survey reflects both limitations
in access to non-English language and the limitation of the field in general. Indeed, although bilin-
gualism is one of the most common states in children’s language learning experience remarkably
little is known about bilingual brain development.
Phonology
At a theoretical level, psychology researchers consider sensitive periods in brain development as
periods during which certain neural mechanisms exhibit heightened responsiveness to a given input
or stimulation thereby promoting (accelerated) development (Werker & Hensch, 2015). In early
phonological development, sensitive periods refer to the restricted window of time during which
the neural system involved in phonological processing is responsive to (re)structuring through
environmental input. A question of interest for bilingualism has been whether early dual-language
experiences alter (e.g., extend) the sensitive periods for phonological development (e.g., Petitto et al.,
2012; Reh et al., 2021).
Phonological discrimination is the ability to distinguish phonemes (e.g., /b/and /d/), and is gen-
erally posited to tap into children’s emerging representations of language sounds. To uncover the
effects of bilingualism on children’s developing phonological discrimination abilities, García-Sierra
et al. (2011) studied Spanish–English bilingual infants, ages 6–9 months and 10–12 months, in each
of their two languages. Researchers used event-related potential (ERP) methods, which reflect elec-
trophysiological neural activity (see Dickson & Pelzl, this volume, for a description of ERPs), to
capture the mismatch negativity (MMN) response. This response is considered to be a neural index
of an individual’s ability to distinguish phonemic contrasts (e.g., /ba/vs /da/). Yet, because the ERP
response can be positive in infants and young children, some have also termed it a mismatch response
(MMR). When participants are presented with multiple repetitions of one “standard” syllable (e.g.,
/ba/) and infrequently occurring “deviant” or “odd-ball” syllable (e.g., [da]), ERP analyses typically
reveal an MMR for the “deviant” syllable. In contrast to the group’s earlier studies with monolinguals
(Rivera-Gaxiola et al., 2005), bilingual infants at 6–9 months failed to produce an MMR response
to the phonemic contrasts. Rather, the MMR response was detected in both languages at the ages of
10–12 months. Notably, the strength of bilinguals’ MMR response in each language was associated
with the amount of exposure the infants had received in the respective languages. According to
García-Sierra et al. (2011), the outcome suggests that the more versatile phonological experience
in bilingualism extends infants’ neurodevelopmental window of sensitivity and plasticity for the
development of phonological representations. (See Dickson & Pelzl, this volume, and Kappenman &
Luck, 2011, for more on specific ERP effects mentioned in this review, e.g., N400, P600, N2, P300,
among others.)
Phonological Discrimination as a Language-Switching Tool

Phonological cues help bilinguals not only detect a change in words, but also a shift in language input,
or code-switching. An ERP study examining monolingual and Welsh-English toddlers’ response to
437
word-level switching during a picture-word pairing paradigm found that the bilinguals’ response
to a language switch fell into an earlier time window (within 200 ms of spoken word onset) than
that of the monolinguals (closer to 300 ms; Kuipers & Thierry, 2012). Researchers concluded that
bilinguals’ faster neural response was indicative of more advanced language monitoring capabilities
that support efficient dual language processing. In contrast, an electroencephalogram (EEG) study
by Nacar-García et al. (2018) examining infants’ phonological discrimination at sentence-leveling
switching at 4–5 months revealed that only monolinguals showed a neural discrimination index
(P200) within the early time window, whereas bilinguals showed a neural discrimination index (theta
band range) within a later time-frame (400–1800 ms). The authors interpreted these neural findings
as evidence for bilinguals’ stronger attention to the speech signal (Nacar-García et al., 2018). The
few studies examining phonological discrimination in the context of language switching advance the
notion of neurodevelopmental changes that help children adjust their perceptual, linguistic, and cog-
nitive processes for dual-language input.
Phonology Summary
With respect to bilingual infants’ phonological development, existing neuroimaging evidence
points to two directions of analysis. The first concerns sensitive periods, or extended windows of
neuroplasticity drawn upon in the bilingual development of language. The second is the increased
engagement of attentional resources during phonological tasks as a likely precursor to emerging
dual-language switching capabilities. The first set of findings relates to the field’s persistent question
of whether dual-language experiences delay language development, in this case for early-life phono-
logical acquisition (Werker & Hensch, 2015). On the one hand, neuroimaging evidence supports
a more protracted developmental trajectory in the formation of neural specificity in language pro-
cessing in bilinguals (García-Sierra et al., 2011; Nacar-García et al., 2018). On the other hand, there
is also evidence to suggest that bilinguals develop heightened attention to language input, potentially
to help support language discrimination and other dual language processing capabilities (Kuipers &
Thierry, 2012; see also Ferjan-Ramírez et al., 2017). Critically, more replication of studies is needed,
since neuroimaging investigations on phonological development in young bilinguals are at once
sparse yet also highly heterogeneous in terms of language populations, ages, experimental protocols,
and imaging methods.
Lexicon and Semantics

Cognitive models of word meaning typically specify three levels of processing: words, sublexical
units (phonemes and bound morphemes), and conceptual representations. Theoretical perspectives
on bilingualism word processing such as the bilingual interaction model (Dijkstra & Van Heuven,
2002) and the revised hierarchical model (Kroll & Stewart, 1994) are described in detail in Tokowicz
and Tkacikova (this volume). These models have been largely developed based on adult data.
Nevertheless, they are conceptually commensurate with developmental models such as processing
rich information from multidimensional interactive representations (PRIMIR) model, which have
been built to better address perceptual, cognitive, and neuro-developmental changes that accompany
child word acquisition (Curtin et al., 2011).
Neuroanatomical Location for a Dual Lexicon

PRIMR and adult-level models posit that among the different levels of lexical processing, word-
level processes should be most language-specific. From a neurobiological standpoint, then, what
does “language-specificity” look like? Does it imply that lexical items in different languages are
438
processed across distinct locations in the brain? To answer these questions, researchers often employ
functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) methods, which track changes in blood oxygenation
(hemodynamic response) across the brain and help identify active brain regions during a given task
(for more detail see Kousaie & Klein, this volume). Xue et al. (2004) examined Chinese-speaking
children aged 10–12 who were taking L2 English classes for two hours per week. The children were
asked to judge semantic relatedness within word pairs in Chinese (L1) or English (L2). Although
children performed better in Chinese than in English, the task engaged similar parts of the brain,
including the left inferior frontal gyrus, which was the loci of strongest task-related activity in both
languages. Additionally, English L2 incurred stronger activation in the cingulate and left inferior par-
ietal regions than in Chinese L1. No single region incurred stronger activation for Chinese L1. These
findings are generally consistent with those obtained with adult bilinguals (Abutalebi et al., 2007;
Perani et al., 2003) and are often thought to reflect shared neural bases for dual-language lexical pro-
cessing, with added activations for L2 reflecting the added processing demands of recognizing words
in a less familiar language.
The question of whether bilinguals engage in similar processes to access words in each of their
languages has also received attention in ERP methods. Conboy and Mills (2006) measured 19–22-
month-old Spanish-English bilingual children’s ERP responses to known and unknown words in
each of their languages. All children were exposed to both languages before the age of 6 months, and
at the time of testing exhibited either Spanish or English language dominance as measured through
vocabulary and parental reports. Whereas the children exhibited similar components in each of their
languages (P100, N200–400), the differential between “known versus unknown” word response
amplitudes was stronger in their dominant language relative to the nondominant. Similarly, Ojima
et al. (2011) uncovered a positive association between N400 amplitude and hours of L2 English
exposure in Japanese children, ages 6–9 at the onset of the study who were followed longitudinally
over the course of three years.
More detailed observations were obtained by Sirri and Rämä (2019) who presented 2–4-year-
old French–Spanish bilingual toddlers with related or unrelated within-language word pairs. In
both languages, the children exhibited a similar N2 component that was interpreted as a semantic
relatedness effect. The neural responses diverged across the two languages during the 400–750 ms
period. French, the dominant language, elicited an N400 semantic priming response over the right
parietal regions, whereas Spanish, the non-dominant language, elicited left anterior negativity (LAN)
semantic integration and attention responses over the left frontal regions. This line of lexical research
with bilingual children suggests both convergent and divergent word-processing mechanisms support
word recognition across bilinguals’ two languages, with dual-language experience and proficiency
playing a key role in influencing these processes.
Insofar as childhood bilingual experiences yield balanced dual-language proficiency in adulthood,
such balanced adults may develop similar neural processes in each language. Duñabetia et al. (2010)
asked balanced early Basque–Spanish bilingual adults to complete a masked priming task that
included both within and between language conditions. Within-language conditions elicited N250
and N400 priming effects that were similar in both of the bilinguals’ languages. Between-language
priming also elicited a similar response limited to the N400 component. The outcomes suggest that
balanced-proficiency speakers with early or simultaneous dual-language exposure develop similar
neural processing mechanisms for each language. Moreover, cross-linguistic word exposure also
results in an N400 lexical priming effect but skips the sublexical analyses reflected in components
detected prior to N400. Duñabetia et al.’s (2010) findings of qualitatively similar within and between
language responses in balanced young adult bilinguals stand in contrast to those described above
(e.g., Sirri & Rämä, 2019; Xue et al., 2004) for the less balanced bilinguals, and serve as an indicator
of plasticity in the developing human brain as it accommodates multiple languages.
439
Finally, the temporal precision of ERP methods has also been leveraged to flesh out when and
how childhood bilinguals recognize word language membership. Hoversten et al. (2015) asked early
(~4.2 years) Spanish–English balanced bilingual adults to either categorize visually presented words
as living/non-living (semantic decision) or as belonging to Spanish/English (language membership).
Results showed that neural response to language membership (300 ms, P300) preceded the semantic
category response (400ms, P400), across both languages.
Taken together, the ERP findings address questions advanced by frameworks such as PRIMIR,
asking when and how bilingual infants and young children’s lexical and sublexical processes become
language-specific. ERP findings suggest that between the ages of 2–4 years, bilingual word processing
can already be predicted by bilingual adult-based models such as the bilingual interaction model. At
the initial bottom-up driven phases of word recognition, around the time that N2 is detected, the pro-
cess appears to be language-neutral. Yet, by the time N400 is observed, a period of lexico-semantic
analyses and retrieval, the process becomes more language-specific. Moreover, the nature of these
processes, as reflected in the amplitude of the N400 response, can differ across the bilinguals’ two
languages as a function of dual-language experiences and proficiency.
Lexicon and Semantics Summary

The ease with which young bilinguals acquire lexical items in different languages and use them
appropriately in unilingual and multilingual contexts is a long-standing topic in the field. Language
proficiency, dominance, and patterns of daily language use appear to be key factors in how words
and meanings are processed across the two languages. In balanced bilinguals, evidence shows that
language-specificity may be achieved through selective patterns of activation/inhibition of language-
specific neural networks within the shared brain regions (e.g., Duñabetia et al., 2010). In non-
balanced bilinguals, the two languages may also engage different brain regions/networks in a more
automated manner for the dominant language and a more attention/effort-demanding manner for the
non-dominant language (e.g., Sirri & Rämä, 2019; Xue et al., 2004). Finally, there is a critical need
for additional research on the underlying nature of early bilingual word learning and emergent lexical
organization (see also Beatty-Martínez & Titone, this volume).
Sentence-Level Syntax and Semantics

Research with monolinguals suggests a cascade of substantial neurodevelopmental changes that
take place within the first 7–10 years of life and support children’s emerging morpho-syntactic
competences (Skeide & Friederici, 2016). These changes include a progression in functional special-
ization for language comprehension from posterior left superior and middle temporal gyrus (STG/
MTG) to anterior (left inferior frontal gyrus, IFG) brain regions, which is thought to reflect the pro-
gression in the development of bottom-up mechanisms for recognizing commonly occurring regular-
ities to the development of top-down mechanisms for complex linguistic analyses (Enge et al., 2020).
ERP research commonly shows early emerging N400s that reflect the fundamental role of semantic
processes in bootstrapping, not only the emergence of language meaning, but also that of struc-
ture. Later emerging P600 and (early) LAN responses are associated solely with syntactic processes
(Skeide & Friederici, 2016). Compared to early childhood bilinguals, then, do child learners who
acquire a new language after 7–10 years have less efficient neural machinery for mastering linguistic
regularities in the L2 grammar?
At the core of this neurodevelopmental question lies the ongoing discussion of whether bilinguals’
neural specialization for language resembles that of monolinguals, and how this specialization may
vary for the bilinguals’ respective languages, in relation to language experiences and proficiency.
440
Additional issues that must be taken into account include cognitive cross-linguistic interaction and
transfer in childhood bilinguals’ sentence-level competence and processes.
Does Bilingual (Overall) Neural Specialization for Language

Resemble that of Monolinguals?
Jasinska and Petitto (2013) explored this question by comparing performance-matched bilingual
Spanish–English children with a range of ages of exposure, early-exposed bilingual adults, and mono-
lingual English children and adults. During functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS), a method
in which brain hemodynamics are imagined using near-infrared light, neuroimaging participants
listened to sentences of varied syntactic complexity. Prior research with English monolinguals
indicates that in English, adults show stronger left IFG activation in response to more analytically
complex subject–object sentence structure, relative to the easier-to-process object-subject sentences
(Caplan, 2001; Kovelman et al., 2008). Consistent with previous findings suggesting temporo-frontal
trajectory for brain development (Skeide & Friederici, 2016), bilingual and monolingual children
exhibited a stronger response to subject–object vs. object–subject sentences in the temporal lobe,
whereas adults showed a stronger response in the left IFG. Both bilingual and monolingual children
appear to share a temporo-frontal trajectory in neural specialization for language function.
Bilingual children and adults in Jasinska and Petitto (2013) also showed an overall stronger
engagement of the left hemisphere regions classically associated with language processing and
their right hemisphere homologues than monolinguals. The researchers interpreted this finding as
reflecting neurodevelopmental plasticity that makes it possible for childhood bilinguals to acquire
and efficiently process the two languages (Kovelman et al., 2008). Finally, the authors found AoA
effects, with later-exposed bilingual children showing stronger engagement of bilateral temporal
and frontal regions associated with both basic and analytically complex demands of processing L2
information. These findings are generally consistent with recent meta-analyses on bilingualism that
point to stronger activation patterns during language processing. The activation occurs primarily in
the frontal lobes and most notably in later learners of the language (Cargnelutti et al., 2019). The
frontal hyperactivation in bilinguals is often attributed to dual language monitoring and switching
needs, which may develop more efficiently in children exposed to two languages during the early key
periods of neurodevelopmental plasticity for language function.
Arredondo et al. (2019) focused on the idea of bilingual children being “on time” or “delayed” in
the neural patterns of organization for language function. During fNIRS neuroimaging, performance-
matched Spanish–English bilingual and monolingual English children listened to sentences that
presented the correct or incorrect use of earlier and later-acquired verbal morphemes (e.g., bake+ing;
bake+ed/s, respectively). Bilingual children displayed stronger and more adult-like patterns of neural
activity than monolingual children (Enge et al., 2020). Bilinguals, in particular, showed more focal
activation in left IFG relative to monolinguals, whereas monolinguals showed a more distributed
and bilateral pattern of frontal lobe activation. Therefore, dual-language experience may advance
or otherwise enhance the functionality of the traditional Broca’s area (left IFG) to support increased
diversity in linguistic input and language learning demands.
Effects of Dual-Language Use

To examine the effect of bilinguals’ dual-language experience and use, Bice and Kroll’s ERP (2021)
study focused on bilingual Spanish-English adults who learned their two languages during childhood.
Participants completed sentence judgment tasks that included either syntactic or lexico-semantic
violations. First and foremost, there were no differences in N400 and P600 responses between
441
bilinguals and monolinguals in English. However, the strength of the neural responses correlated
with monolinguals’ verbal working memory abilities; whereas, in bilinguals, neural responses were
associated with English language proficiency. The group’s findings suggest that in bilinguals, lan-
guage processing at the neural level is closely related to linguistic proficiency and the use of a given
language, rather than to general and stable cognitive factors. Finally, a direct comparison between
bilinguals’ two languages revealed a dominance effect such that the participants’ neural responses in
English, their dominant language of daily use, were stronger than in their heritage language, Spanish.
For the totality of studies comparing the nature of neural specificity for language function
across childhood bilinguals and monolinguals, outcomes suggest that bilingual children undergo
a monolingual-like pattern of neural development that proceeds along the temporo-frontal trajec-
tory, resulting in specialized neural pathways for syntactic and semantic processing in each of their
languages. The quality of these neural mechanisms may further reflect AoA (Jasinska & Petitto, 2013)
and patterns of language use/dominance (Bice & Kroll, 2021) in relation to the two languages.
Effects of AoA and Proficiency

As noted, much of the speaker’s morphosyntactic knowledge is established during the first 7–10 years
of life. How might the age of bilingual exposure during or after this period influence the neural organ-
ization for language function? Wartenburger et al. (2003) employed fMRI to examine effects of AoA
and proficiency on neural correlates of grammatical and semantic processing in early and late Italian-
German bilingual adults. All early learners had high dual-language proficiency, whereas late bilingual
learners included those with either high L2 or low L2 proficiency. Participants completed a sen-
tence judgment task with syntactic and semantic violations. Syntax-related findings revealed an inter-
action between proficiency and AoA: among high-proficiency bilinguals, late but not early bilinguals
showed a bilateral IFG activation in their L2. Moreover, high-proficiency bilinguals showed stronger
activation in the left parietal region than low-proficiency bilinguals. Conversely for semantic pro-
cessing, proficiency effects, but not AoA, was reported: there were no differences between early and
late high proficiency bilinguals, whereas late low proficiency bilinguals showed greater activation in
the left IFG and right middle frontal gyrus than late high proficiency bilinguals. These findings are
similar to those reported by Weber-Fox and Neville (2001), who observed that as AoA increased, so
did the participants’ N280 response latency for grammatical closed-class words (e.g., prepositions,
pronouns, etc.), especially when passing the AoA age 7 mark. In contrast, neural responses to lexico-
semantic open-class words (e.g., nouns, verbs) were less affected by AoA. Taken together, these
studies advance the hypothesis that neural organization for syntactic processing is impacted both by
age and proficiency, with neural correlates of semantic processing being more susceptible to profi-
ciency and use than AoA.
Cross-Linguistic Influences
To study language-specific effects of bilingualism researchers often focus on the influences of cross-
linguistic transfer. A notable example is that of Erdocia and Laka (2018), who examined early-exposed
Spanish–Basque bilinguals who were either balanced speakers of the two languages or Spanish-
dominant. The participants were asked to read sentences in Basque that included conditions of cross-
linguistic similarity (object–verb–subject word order) and differences (subject–verb–object word
order) during ERP neuroimaging. During the cross-linguistic similarity condition, the late anterior
negativity neural response was similar across the two groups. During the cross-linguistic difference
condition, Spanish-dominant bilinguals exhibited a P600 response typical of processing syntactic
violations even though the sentences were grammatical, though of a lower frequency/non-canonical
442
type for Basque. The researchers explain this outcome as Spanish language transfer into Basque,
which then interferes with the efficacy of Basque language processing in Spanish-dominant bilinguals.
Researchers also find evidence of cross-linguistic transfer in individuals with substantial co-
dominance in their dual language proficiency. Sanoudaki and Thierry (2015) examined two groups
of Welsh–English bilingual adults who were exposed to their two languages as infants (on average
at age 1) and were matched in having high English language proficiency, but either high or low
Welsh language proficiency. The study included a monolingual English control group. During ERP
neuroimaging, participants saw an image of a colored object and read a sentence that either matched
or mismatched the object and its color (e.g., an image of a red box appearing with a sentence either
about a red box (match) or a blue box or red pen (mismatches). The word order for adjective–noun
pairings was either adjective-noun (red box) or noun-adjective (box red). The latter structure is gen-
erally ungrammatical in English but grammatical in Welsh. The findings revealed that during the
adjective-first condition all participants showed an N2 (260–360 ms) response for the mismatching
adjectives. However, for the noun-first conditions, a higher negative N2 response was only present
in highly fluent Welsh bilinguals, suggesting a transfer effect. In other words, participants’ high
proficiency with Welsh grammar supported or otherwise optimized the bilinguals’ ability to also
extract meaning from ungrammatical English sentences. The researchers attribute the findings to
cross-language syntactic activation in the early-exposed bilinguals that is in turn constrained by dual
language proficiency. In sum, childhood bilinguals’ two languages can have a bi-directional influence
on the language faculty, fostering the efficacy of processing linguistically similar but requiring add-
itional resources for the processing of linguistically dissimilar structures.
Sentence-Level Syntax and Semantics Summary

A key finding from the bilingual literature is that the general neurodevelopmental pattern is similar
across bilingual and monolingual children (Jasinska & Petitto, 2013; but see also Arredondo
et al., 2019 who suggest a more accelerated neurodevelopment in bilinguals). Second, bilinguals’
neurodevelopmental trajectory for sentence comprehension and its outcomes in early-exposed bilin-
gual adults is jointly influenced by factors of AoA, proficiency, and the type of linguistic construct
under consideration (e.g., syntax vs. semantics; Bice & Kroll, 2021; Wartenburger et al., 2003;
Weber-Fox & Neville, 2001). Language-specific effects are also found as bilinguals’ two languages
interact, yielding cross-linguistic transfer effects across both balanced and unbalanced proficiency
bilinguals (Erdocia & Laka, 2018; Sanoudaki & Thierry, 2015; for additional evidence, see Diaz
et al., 2016; Kotz et al., 2008). The developmental evidence as it pertains to sentence processing
generally suggests that although both semantic and syntactic domains are susceptible to profi-
ciency effects, the syntactic domain might be more susceptible to the effects of AoA (Wartenburger
et al., 2003).
Clinical Implications
Deficits in sentence production and comprehension are often diagnosed in children with lan-
guage impairments, and we would be remiss if we did not address certain ramifications in the
literature regarding “at-risk learners.” Due to long-standing concerns that dual language acqui-
sition has negative effects that impede or disadvantage language development, “at-risk” is often
an umbrella term encompassing both bilingual children with language impairments and those
who are typically developing. Clinicians have been known to encourage a maximally “monolin-
gual” approach to foster “improved” skills in bilingual learners, using the rationale that acquiring
two languages doubly taxes the developing brain, and therefore should be avoided in “at-risk”
443
learners. We could attribute these reductive strategies to the paucity of bilingual therapists, but the
limited understanding of bilingual learners stems more directly from a lack of neurodevelopmental
research. The current chapter presents the available empirical evidence demonstrating that young
children’s dual-language processing is not “inefficient,” in and of itself (e.g., Arredondo et al., 2019;
Sanoudaki & Thierry, 2015). Rather, we have aimed to present our readers with evidence that any
differences between bilinguals and monolinguals often reflect children’s varied experiences with
the given languages, including proficiency, AoA, learning contexts, and cross-linguistic reciprocity
between the two languages.

In this chapter, we reviewed works on the neurobiology of dual language acquisition and processing
in infants and children as well as adults who learned their two languages during childhood. We
discussed at length how the brain makes efficient parallel processing and multisystem synthesis pos-
sible within one or more languages (e.g., phonology and semantics at a word level, or morpho-
syntax and semantics at the sentence level; Bastiaansen & Hagoort, 2015). Advancing the field’s
understanding of exactly how the bilingual brain makes processing possible in multiple different
languages (that are likely to be co-active even during single-language contexts) will require the use
of multimodal neuroimaging approaches that consider both neuroanatomical and temporal properties
of the brain signal. The current overview suggests that differences in processing lie at the intersec-
tion of bilingual children’s language characteristics (differences/similarities) and patterns of dual
language use. Taken together, the evidence on neural processing demonstrates the plasticity of the
developing human brain along with its efficacy in organizing input to optimize underlying dual-
language representations and processing mechanisms (Satterfield, 2021).
Further Readings
This video article provides a visualization of the use of fNIRS in the study of infants and children.
Shalinsky, M.H., Kovelman, I., Berens, M.S., & Petitto, L.A. (2009). Exploring cognitive functions in babies,
children & adults with near-infrared spectroscopy. Journal of Visualized Experiments, 29, Article e1268.
https://doi.org/10.3791/1268
This video article provides a visualization of the use of fMRI in the study of children’s language and literacy.
Raschle, N.M., Lee, M., Buechler, R., Christodoulou, J.A., Chang, M., Vakil, M., Stering, P.L., & Gaab, N.
(2009). Making MR imaging child’s play-pediatric neuroimaging protocol, guidelines and procedure. Journal
of Visualized Experiments, 29, Article e1309. https://doi.org/10.3791/1309
This video article provides a visualization of the use of ERP technologies to study children’s auditory processing,
which is often similar to how researchers study early infants’ early phonological development.
Musacchia, G., Ortiz-Mantilla, S., Realpe-Bonilla, T., Roesler, C.P., & Benasich, A.A. (2015). Infant auditory
processing and event-related brain oscillations. Journal of Visualized Experiments, 101, Article e52420.
https://doi.org/10.3791/52420
This chapter offers more detailed descriptions of neuroimaging methods used to study childhood bilingualism.
Nickerson, N., & Kovelman, I. (2022). Brain imaging methods. In Y. Goto Butler & B. Huang (Eds), Research
methods for understanding child second language development (pp. 144–163). Routledge.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the editors, Drs. Morgan- Short and Van Hell for the opportunity to showcase
advancements in neurodevelopmental bilingualism research. We also thank the National Institutes of Health
(R01HD092498) for funding our work.
444
References
Abutalebi, J., Brambati, S.M., Annoni, J.-M., Moro, A., Cappa, S.F., & Perani, D. (2007). The neural cost of
the auditory perception of language switches: An event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging
study in bilinguals. Journal of Neuroscience, 27(50), 13762–13769. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEURO
SCI.3294-07.2007
Arredondo, M.M., Hu, X.-S., Seifert, E., Satterfield, T., & Kovelman, I. (2019). Bilingual exposure enhances left
IFG specialization for language in children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 22(04), 783–801. https://
doi.org/10.1017/S1366728918000512
Bastiaansen, M., & Hagoort, P. (2015). Frequency-based segregation of syntactic and semantic unification during
online sentence level language comprehension. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 27(11), 2095–2107.
Beatty-Martínez, A.L., & Titone, D.A. (this volume). De-generacy as an organizing principle of bilingual lan-
guage processing. In K. Morgan-Short & J.G. van Hell (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language
Bedore, L.M., Peña, E.D., Summers, C.L., Boerger, K.M., Resendiz, M.D., Greene, K., Bohman, T.M., & Gillam,
R.B. (2012). The measure matters: Language dominance profiles across measures in Spanish–English bilin-
gual children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15(3), 616–629. https://doi.org/10.1017/S136672891
2000090
Bice, K., & Kroll, J.F. (2021). Grammatical processing in two languages: How individual differences in language
experience and cognitive abilities shape comprehension in heritage bilinguals. Journal of Neurolinguistics,
58, Article 100963. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2020.100963
Caplan, D. (2001). Functional neuroimaging studies of syntactic processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic
Research, 30, 297–320. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010495018484
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 13, Article 154. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2019.00154
Conboy, B.T., & Mills, D.L. (2006). Two languages, one developing brain: Event- related potentials
to words in bilingual toddlers. Developmental Science, 9(1), F1–F12. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1467-7687.2005.00453.x
Curtin, S., Byers-Heinlein, K., & Werker, J.F. (2011). Bilingual beginnings as a lens for theory develop-
ment: PRIMIR in focus. Journal of Phonetics, 39(4), 492–504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2010.12.002
Díaz, B., Erdocia, K., de Menezes, R. ., Mueller, J.L., Sebastián-Gallés, N., & Laka, I. (2016). Electrophysiological
less of age of acquisition. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, Article 133. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00133
Dijkstra, T., & Van Heuven, W.J. (2002). The architecture of the bilingual word recognition system: From iden-
tification to decision. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 5(3), 175–197. https://doi.org/10.1017/S13667
28902003012
Duñabeitia, J.A., Dimitropoulou, M., Uribe-Etxebarria, O., Laka, I., & Carreiras, M. (2010). Electrophysiological
correlates of the masked translation priming effect with highly proficient simultaneous bilinguals. Brain
Research, 1359, 142–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2010.08.066
Enge, A., Friederici, A.D., & Skeide, M.A. (2020). A meta-analysis of fMRI studies of language comprehension
in children. NeuroImage, 215, Article 116858. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.116858
Erdocia, K., & Laka, I. (2018). Negative transfer effects on L2 word order processing. Frontiers in Psychology,
9, 337. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00337
Ferjan Ramírez, N., Ramírez, R.R., Clarke, M., Taulu, S., & Kuhl, P.K. (2017). Speech discrimination in 11-
month-old bilingual and monolingual infants: A magnetoencephalography study. Developmental Science, 20,
Article e12427. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12427
Garcia-Sierra, A., Rivera-Gaxiola, M., Percaccio, C.R., Conboy, B.T., Romo, H., Klarman, L., Ortiz, S., &
Kuhl, P.K. (2011). Bilingual language learning: An ERP study relating early brain responses to speech,
language input, and later word production. Journal of Phonetics, 39(4), 546–557. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.wocn.2011.07.002
445
Gass, S., & Glew, M. (2011). Second language acquisition and bilingualism. In J. Altarriba & R.R. Heredia
(Eds.), An introduction to bilingualism (2nd ed., pp. 285–314). Psychology Press.
Hoversten, L.J., Brothers, T., Swaab, T.Y., & Traxler, M.J. (2015). Language membership identification precedes
semantic access: suppression during bilingual word recognition. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 27(11),
2108–2116. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00844
Jasinska, K.K., & Petitto, L.A. (2013). How age of bilingual exposure can change the neural systems for lan-
guage in the developing brain: A functional near infrared spectroscopy investigation of syntactic processing
in monolingual and bilingual children. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 6, 87–101. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.dcn.2013.06.005
Kappenman, E.S., & Luck, S.J. (2011). The Oxford handbook of event-related potential components. Oxford
University Press.
Kotz, S.A., Holcomb, P.J., & Osterhout, L. (2008). ERPs reveal comparable syntactic sentence processing in
native and non-native readers of English. Acta Psychologica, 128(3), 514–527. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.act
psy.2007.10.003
Kovelman, I., Baker, S.A., & Petitto, L.A. (2008). Bilingual and monolingual brains compared: a functional
magnetic resonance imaging investigation of syntactic processing and a possible “neural signature” of bilin-
gualism. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20(1), 153–169. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2008.20011
Kuipers, J.R., & Thierry, G. (2012). Event-related potential correlates of language change detection in bilingual
toddlers. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 2(1), 97–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2011.08.002
Musacchia, G., Ortiz-Mantilla, S., Realpe-Bonilla, T., Roesler, C.P., & Benasich, A.A. (2015). Infant auditory
processing and event-related brain oscillations. Journal of Visualized Experiments, 101, Article e52420.
https://doi.org/10.3791/52420
Nacar Garcia, L., Guerrero-Mosquera, C., Colomer, M., & Sebastian-Galles, N. (2018). Evoked and oscillatory
EEG activity differentiates language discrimination in young monolingual and bilingual infants. Scientific
Reports, 8(1), 2770. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-20824-0
Nickerson, N., & Kovelman, I. (2022). Brain imaging methods. In Y. Goto Butler & B. Huang (Eds), Research
methods for understanding child second language development (pp. 144–163). Routledge.
Ojima, S., Matsuba-Kurita, H., Nakamura, N., Hoshino, T., & Hagiwara, H. (2011). Age and amount of exposure
to a foreign language during childhood: Behavioral and ERP data on the semantic comprehension of
spoken English by Japanese children. Neuroscience Research, 70(2), 197–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neu
res.2011.01.018
Perani, D., Paulesu, E., Galles, N.S., Dupoux, E., Dehaene, S., Cappa, S.F., Fazio, F. & Mehler, J. (1998).
The bilingual brain. Proficiency and age of acquisition of the second language. Brain, 121(10), 1841–1852.
https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/121.10.1841
Perani, D., Abutalebi, J., Paulesu, E., Brambati, S., Scifo, P., Cappa, S. F., & Fazio, F. (2003). The role of age
of acquisition and language usage in early, high-proficient bilinguals: An fMRI study during verbal fluency.
Petitto, L.A., Berens, M.S., Kovelman, I., Dubins, M.H., Jasinska, K., & Shalinsky, M. (2012). The “Perceptual
Wedge Hypothesis” as the basis for bilingual babies’ phonetic processing advantage: New insights from
fNIRS brain imaging. Brain and Language, 121(2), 130–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2011.05.003
Raschle, N.M., Lee, M., Buechler, R., Christodoulou, J.A., Chang, M., Vakil, M., Stering, P.L., & Gaab, N.
(2009). Making MR imaging child’s play-pediatric neuroimaging protocol, guidelines and procedure. Journal
of Visualized Experiments, 29, Article e1309. https://doi.org/10.3791/1309
Reh, R.K., Hensch, T.K., & Werker, J.F. (2021). Distributional learning of speech sound categories is gated by
sensitive periods. Cognition, 213, Article 104653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104653
Rivera-Gaxiola, M., Silva-Pereyra, J., & Kuhl, P.K. (2005). Brain potentials to native and non-native speech
contrasts in 7-and 11-month-old American infants. Developmental Science, 8(2), 162–172. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1467-7687.2005.00403.x
K. Morgan-Short & J.G. van Hell (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and
446
Sanoudaki, E., & Thierry, G. (2015). Language non-selective syntactic activation in early bilinguals: The role of
verbal fluency. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 18(5), 548–560. https://doi.
org/10.1080/13670050.2015.1027143
Satterfield, T. (2021). Dual competence in dual language learners: Gradience and variability of object clitics in
Spanish heritage language learners. In T. Gupton & E. Gieslau (Eds.), Festschrift for Paula Kempchinsky
(pp. 189–213). John Benjamins.
Shalinsky, M.H., Kovelman, I., Berens, M.S., & Petitto, L.A. (2009). Exploring cognitive functions in babies,
children & adults with near-infrared spectroscopy. Journal of Visualized Experiments, 29, Article e1268.
https://doi.org/10.3791/1268
Skeide, M.A., & Friederici, A.D. (2016). The ontogeny of the cortical language network. Nature Reviews
Neuroscience, 17(5), 323–332. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn.2016.23
Sirri, L., & Rämä, P. (2019). Similar and distinct neural mechanisms underlying semantic priming in the
languages of the French–Spanish bilingual children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 22(1), 93–102.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728917000578
Tominey, S., O’Bryon, E.C., & Díaz, G. (2018). 45 strategies that support young dual language learners. Paul
H. Brookes Publishing Company.
Valdés, G. (2000). Spanish for native speakers: AATSP professional development series handbook for teachers
K-16 (Vol. 1). New York.
S0896-6273(02)01150-9
Weber-Fox, C., & Neville, H.J. (2001). Sensitive periods differentiate processing of open–and closed-class
words: An ERP study of bilinguals. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 44(6), 1338–1353.
https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2001/104)
Xu, E.S., & Wong, P.C.M. (this volume). First language/second language cross-linguistic influence on third
language acquisition via neurocognitive memory systems. In K. Morgan-Short & J.G. van Hell (Eds.), The
Xue, G., Dong, Q., Jin, Z., Zhang, L., & Wang, Y. (2004). An fMRI study with semantic access in low profi-
ciency second language learners. NeuroReport, 15(5), 791–796. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001756-200404
090-00010
447
33
THE NEUROCOGNITION
OF LEARNING A SECOND
LANGUAGE IN THE VISUAL-
MANUAL MODALITY
Gabriela Meade

A comprehensive account of the neurocognition of second language (L2) acquisition requires con-
sideration of languages in all modalities, where modality refers to the channel in which linguistic
information is exchanged. Spoken languages use the vocal tract and oral structures as articulators to
produce language, and information is received through the auditory system. Signed languages use
the hands as the primary articulators, and the visual system is responsible for receiving that informa-
tion.1 Someone who knows two languages in the same modality is referred to as a unimodal bilingual.
Examples would be a native speaker of English learning Dutch or a native signer of American Sign
Language (ASL) learning British Sign Language (BSL).With respect to acquisition, someone who
is learning a second language in the same modality as their first is an M1L2 learner (Chen Pichler &
Koulidobrova, 2015). The overwhelming majority of the existing research on the neurocognition of
L2 acquisition pertains to spoken language M1L2 acquisition.
The contribution of this chapter is a review of the literature pertaining to acquisition of a signed
language by hearing adults who have a spoken native language. How the brain accommodates L2
acquisition in a modality that differs from the native language (L1), or M2L2 learning (Chen Pichler
& Koulidobrova, 2015), is largely uncharted territory with theoretical and practical implications.
Empirical characterization of M2L2 learning and bimodal bilingualism is critical for understanding
both language universals and the modality-specific aspects of language. It also has the potential to
guide instructional practice as the number of M2L2 learners skyrockets around the world. Although
spoken language users can draw on their experience with co-speech gesture, which also occurs in the
visual-manual modality, learning a signed language requires tuning of their visual system to recog-
nize manual linguistic units and learning to articulate those units with their hands, faces, and bodies.
Before reviewing specific aspects of this learning process in detail, I briefly situate M2L2 acquisition
in a broader cultural and neurolinguistic landscape.
Historically, signed languages were misunderstood as gestural systems and perceived as inferior
to spoken languages. These misconceptions reflected the negative stigma associated with deafness
and were perpetuated through a long history of audism and oralism that continues to influence M2L2
classrooms (e.g., Quinto-Pozos, 2011). Although the medical model in which deafness is viewed
as a hearing impairment that requires fixing persists in certain circles to this day, there is a growing
448 DOI: 10.4324/9781003190912-41

Learning a Second Language in the Visual-Manual Modality
appreciation for the cultural perspective that embraces deafness and the rich linguistic traditions
in the Deaf community.2 The recognition of ASL as a complete and independent language in its
own right (Stokoe, 1960) was pivotal in initiating this transformation. Since the initial recognition,
linguists have documented the structure of signed languages, including representations at the levels
of phonology, morphology, semantics, syntax, and pragmatics (for reviews, see Emmorey, 2002;
Sandler & Lillo-Martin, 2006). A complete review of the linguistics of signed languages is beyond
the scope of this chapter, but pertinent aspects thereof will be introduced as they relate to the studies
of M2L2 acquisition reviewed here.
In recent years, neurocognitive research with bimodal bilinguals has further validated the status
of signed languages as natural languages by revealing similarities in how the brain processes both
spoken and signed languages (see Emmorey, 2021 for a review). For example, the event-related
potential (ERP) waveform reflects the electrical activity in the brain and shows similar sensitivity
to variables such as frequency, concreteness, and semantic similarity independent of modality (e.g.,
Emmorey et al., 2020; Meade et al., 2018; for details on ERPs, see Dickson & Pelzl, this volume).
Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) has revealed a distinction between neural regions
that process modality-specific perceptual information and those that process language irrespective
of modality (for details on the fMRI technique, see Kousaie & Klein, this volume). For example,
Emmorey (2021) highlights the supramarginal gyrus (SMG) as a region that is activated during both
spoken and signed language processing and could be involved in amodal phonological computations.
Taken together, the linguistic characterization of signed languages and investigations into how they
are processed in native signers and proficient L2 signers set the stage for an in-depth consideration
of M2L2 learning.

The following sections outline the state of the literature pertaining to signed language learning at
various levels of representation. Although the emphasis is on what sets M2L2 learning apart from
M1L2 learning, parallels are drawn with the M1L2 literature where appropriate to illustrate the uni-
versality of many of the principles of L2 acquisition. Following general theories of bilingualism, the
assumption is that the semantic store is largely shared between languages in bimodal bilinguals (e.g.,
Morford et al., 2017). Thus, the emphasis is on acquisition of phonology and spatial grammar as two
of the aspects of language that are unique to the visual-manual modality.
Sublexical Phonology in the Visual-Manual Modality

Signs, like words, are systematic combinations of sublexical units. Just as words are made up of
sounds, or phonemes, signs combine the phonological parameters of handshapes, movements, and
locations (orientation is another parameter, but is often analyzed as a subfeature of handshape;
Brentari, 1998). Just as changing one sound in a word can yield a minimal pair in English (e.g., care
and cake), modifying one of these parameters often yields a different sign. For example, the ASL
signs for MOTHER and FINE are considered the sign equivalent of a minimal pair (see Figure 33.1).
Both of these signs are produced with an open-palm 5 handshape with a double tapping motion, but
MOTHER is produced on the chin whereas FINE is produced on the chest, so they differ in location.
M2L2 learners must attend to, and retain, each of these parameters in order to grow their vocabulary
and recognize contrasts in meaning between signs. They must also learn to produce the parameters
accurately with their hands.
Studies with non-signers indicate that they are able to reliably perceive the differences between
sign pairs that are phonologically (and thus visually) similar without any exposure to the target
449
Gabriela Meade
Figure 33.1 Example Signs in ASL to Illustrate Phonological Overlap.

Note: The ASL signs for MOTHER (left) and FINE (right) are considered the sign equivalent of minimal pairs; they have
the same “5” handshape and movement, but differ in location. These exemplars, as well as those in Figures 2 and 3, were
extracted from the videos available through the ASL-LEX 2.0 database (Sehyr et al., 2021).
signed language (Bochner et al., 2011; Meade et al., 2022). For example, non-signers could identify
sign repetitions when they were embedded in lists of ASL sign pairs that overlapped in location
only, handshape only, location and handshape, or were unrelated. They did so with similar accuracy
and speed as a group of deaf signers, although differences in the ERP waveforms between groups
indicated that sign knowledge modulated processing in this task (Meade et al., 2022). Target signs
in related pairs generally elicited smaller negativities (i.e., facilitated processing) than those in unre-
lated pairs in both groups. In signers, the priming effect onset in the N400 window associated with
lexico-semantic processing and was especially prominent for sign pairs that overlapped in handshape.
In non-signers, the priming effect onset in a post-N400 window and was strongest for pairs that
overlapped in location. These results could be interpreted to reflect modulation of lexicosemantic
processing in the deaf signers as compared to modulation of later attentional processes in non-signers
who identified the perceptual overlap in a more explicit fashion. Hildebrandt and Corina (2002) asked
non-signers to choose which of four alternative pseudosigns was most similar to a target pseudosign.
Pseudosign stimuli were phonologically plausible productions that do not exist in ASL. Three of the
options formed a minimal pair with the target and the fourth was a randomly selected pseudosign
that acted as a control. Non-signers rated the pseudosign that shared movement and location with the
target as most similar. In a follow-up study where the target pseudosigns shared only one parameter
with the target, they rated the pseudosigns that shared movement or location as most similar. Thus,
learners are likely able to perceive differences between similar signs with little to no exposure to the
language.
While being able to identify differences between signs is a start, it can be accomplished solely
based on perceptual differences and does not imply that the parameters are being represented lin-
guistically. Longitudinal fMRI studies suggest that processing signs as phonological units takes
450
time in M2L2 learners (e.g., Banaszkiewicz et al., 2020; Newman-Norlund et al., 2006; Williams
et al., 2016b). For example, Williams and colleagues asked university classroom learners of ASL
to do a phonetic categorization task based on location (i.e., identify whether signs were produced
near the head or elsewhere), a task that can presumably be done with no knowledge of the language.
During the first week of instruction, neural activity elicited by signs was largely limited to regions
associated with general motion processing, perception of human actions, and spatial-motor behavior.
After one semester, activation of the bilateral SMG during this task increased; as discussed above,
this region is associated with amodal phonological processing. In addition to functional plasticity
in the SMG, Banaszkiewicz and colleagues found an increase in activation of the left superior par-
ietal lobe (SPL) following just over 30 hours of instruction in Polish Sign Language. Both studies
illustrate that learners begin to develop a phonological system in the visual-manual modality after
relatively little instruction. Whereas the SMG is implicated in domain-general phonological pro-
cessing, SPL seems to be more specific to signed languages (see Emmorey, 2021, for a review);
what determines which of these regions comes online in learners (or the relative timing of them)
remains to be investigated.
Examining the errors in the learners’ productions of the signs may be an alternative indicator of
their sensitivity to the phonological structure in the visual-manual modality (e.g., Ebling et al., 2021;
Hilger et al., 2015; Mirus et al., 2000; Rosen, 2004; Schlehofer & Tyler, 2016). When they make
mistakes, are they producing well-formed signs that differ from the target production by a single
parameter or are their mistakes unsystematic? The answer to that question is unknown, but there is
some evidence to suggest that movement is the most difficult parameter for learners to master, both
in comprehension (Williams & Newman, 2016) and production (e.g., Ebling et al., 2021; Schlehofer
& Tyler, 2016). The caveat to using sign productions as an index of phonological knowledge is
that it introduces the confound of motor planning and execution in the new modality. For example,
Mirus and colleagues (2000) found that hearing learners tend to “proximalize” their sign productions
by making the movement with joints closer to their torso. The authors stipulate that that pattern is
consistent with other motor learning activities and simplifies motor planning and execution by elim-
inating more distal articulators. Because the pattern was not observed for deaf signers who were
imitating L2 signs, they argued that the proximalization is a strategy to counteract the overwhelming
motor planning demands associated with the new linguistic modality. M2L2 learners of different
proficiency levels were also less consistent than deaf signers across successive productions of the
same sign (e.g., Hilger et al., 2015), potentially further evidence of an underdeveloped motor system.
Interestingly, even though L2 signers make fewer production errors as they become more proficient
and develop a more refined motor system, a similar pattern of relative parameter difficulty persists
(Schlehofer & Tyler, 2016). In sum, M2L2 learners are able to develop a phonological system in the
visual-manual modality, but learning to perceive the individual parameters as linguistic units and to
produce them accurately is a prolonged process.
Leveraging World Knowledge to Map Form to Meaning

Beyond learning the individual phonological parameters, the M2L2 learner must recognize combin-
ations of those parameters as lexical items that can then be associated with meaning. In this section,
I review how learners’ knowledge of the visual world provides an entry point into the new linguistic
modality for them. Much of this research has revolved around iconicity, which reflects how closely a
lexical form resembles its meaning. Spoken languages can be iconic (e.g., onomatopoeias), but to a
lesser extent than signed languages given the constraints of a one-dimensional phonological system.
In signed languages, highly iconic signs closely resemble their referent, whereas non-iconic signs do
not (see Figure 33.2).
451
Gabriela Meade
Figure 33.2 Example Signs in ASL to Illustrate Iconicity.

Note: The ASL sign for UNICORN (left) reflects the horn of the animal and therefore has a high iconicity rating, whereas
the form of the ASL sign for COMMUTE (right) does not have a clear connection with its meaning for non-signers, and
therefore has a low iconicity rating.
Ortega (2017) proposed that iconicity bolsters activation of semantics for learners during sign
comprehension, but has a negative influence on acquisition of the precise phonological form that
is required during production. In support of this argument, there is evidence to suggest that M2L2
learners retrieve the translations of iconic signs faster and more accurately than non-iconic signs (e.g.,
Baus et al., 2013; Mott et al., 2020) and retain the meanings of iconic signs longer (Morett, 2015).
For example, Mott and colleagues found that non-signers who learned 80 ASL signs in the laboratory
were faster and more accurate for iconic signs compared to non-iconic signs in a forced-choice
translation task. The size of the effect disappeared over the three iterations of the task, but was also
reflected in ERPs elicited during a cross-modal translation task during the final session. During the
ERP task, participants saw English word primes followed by ASL signs that were either the transla-
tion of the English prime or unrelated. They were faster to identify signs that were preceded by
their translations, but only if the signs were iconic. In the ERP waveform, the priming effect (i.e.,
smaller amplitude negativities when signs were preceded by their translations compared to an unre-
lated prime word) started earlier for iconic signs than for non-iconic signs, suggesting that the resem-
blance between form and meaning accelerated semantic access. This contrasted with deaf native
signers, who only showed iconicity effects long after lexico-semantic access had occurred, reflecting
the general finding in the literature that iconicity has a special facilitatory status for M2L2 learners,
but not for more proficient signers.
In contrast, in studies that focus on production in the new modality, iconicity tends to have a
negative effect on learning. Ortega and Morgan (2015) found that learners produced iconic signs less
accurately than non-iconic signs after 22 hours of BSL instruction. They speculated that the overlap
between iconic signs and related co-speech gestures distracted the learners from attending to the pre-
cise phonological structure of the signs, thereby decreasing the accuracy of their productions. Ortega
452
Figure 33.3 An Example Sign in ASL to Illustrate Manual Cognates.

Note: The ASL sign for DRINK is an iconic sign that could be considered a manual cognate given that it is similar to the
gesture that is commonly used among non-signers for sthe same concept.
and colleagues have since systematically studied the influence of the repertoire of co-speech gestures
on L2 acquisition of a signed language, coining the term “manual cognates” for signs that overlap
in form with the corresponding gesture. For example, the ASL sign for DRINK (see Figure 33.3) is
almost identical to the gesture that many non-signers use to refer to the same concept. Learners cap-
italize on their gesture repertoire to guess the meanings of unfamiliar signs (e.g., Ortega et al., 2019).
Comparing the ERP waveforms elicited by iconic signs from the Sign Language of the Netherlands
(NGT) that either had high or low overlap with the corresponding gestures, Ortega et al. (2020)
concluded that learners use their knowledge of gesture to generate predictions about the form of
the to-be-learned sign. Before and after learning the meaning of the signs, learners saw printed
Dutch word primes followed by the corresponding NGT sign. Before learning, signs with low gesture
overlap elicited larger late positivities than those with high gesture overlap, an effect that the
authors associated with stimulus novelty. Signs with high gesture overlap were perceived as relatively
less novel because they could be predicted based on the learners’ gesture repertoire. After learning,
signs in both conditions were predictable and the difference between conditions disappeared. Thus, it
seems that M2L2 learners draw on their gesture repertoire while learning a signed language and that
this facilitates a gestalt representation that does not contain the same fine-grained information about
phonological form.3
Taken together, this work on iconicity and gesture illustrates how world knowledge can scaffold
the development of lexico- semantic representations in M2L2 learning. How those individual
representations are organized into a network remains largely unexplored except for one behavioral
study that suggests that phonological neighborhood effects differ between native signers and M2L2
learners (Williams & Newman, 2017).
453
Gabriela Meade
Constructing Sentences and Narratives in Space

Beyond learning individual signs, M2L2 learners must learn how to combine signs in the correct
order. They have a tendency to transfer syntax from their L1 spoken language and translate each word
consecutively into the signed language (see, e.g., Stokoe, 1960), which often differs from the order
preferred by native signers and does not make full use of movement and space to represent syntax
and discourse entities. By no means an extensive review of the syntax of signed languages, the focus
here is on two key aspects of syntactic elements that have been explored in M2L2 learners. The first
is assigning a referent to a specific location in signing space, which allows the signer to point to
that space anaphorically and to direct the movement trajectories of agreement verbs, among other
functions. The second is non-manual markers, or using body parts other than the hands to portray
linguistic information.
Spatial Referents
One way that signers use space linguistically is by assigning people or places to locations in signing
space that can subsequently be referenced. For example, in the retell of a story that involves a teacher,
the signer might associate that teacher with an arbitrary location to their right. Each time that they
want to refer to the teacher, they can point back to that space rather than repeating the sign for
teacher. These same space assignments can also be used for agreement of directional verbs. If the
signer telling the story had given something to that teacher, then the movement trajectory of the verb
TO GIVE would originate at the signer’s body and move toward the location that had previously
been assigned to the teacher. That is, the English sentence “I gave it to him.” could be conveyed
with a single sign in ASL, making use of spatial assignments and directional movement to establish
the argument structure.4 If the teacher had given something to the signer (i.e., “He gave it to me.”),
then the movement would be in the reverse direction (i.e., originate at the location associated with
the teacher and move toward the signer’s body). Thus, M2L2 learners must learn to explicitly assign
referents to specific locations and keep track of the assignments to reference them later in the dis-
course. Neuroimaging and lesion studies suggest that the right parietal lobe supports production and,
perhaps to a lesser extent, comprehension of these depicting signs, or classifier constructions, in pro-
ficient signers (see Emmorey, 2021 for a review), but the neural changes that support learning of these
structures are unknown at present.
The behavioral literature indicates that M2L2 learners are able to draw on their gesture rep-
ertoire to bootstrap early acquisition of agreement for specific verbs, but systematic use of space
requires prolonged development (e.g., Boers-Visker & Van den Bogaerde, 2019; Boers-Visker &
Pfau, 2020; Ferrara & Nilsson, 2017; Marshall & Morgan, 2015). For example, Marshall and Morgan
demonstrated that non-signers who had had no exposure to BSL were able to understand these visu-
ally salient classifier structures, presumably by capitalizing on their gestures and the iconic mappings
to real world spatial relations. M2L2 learners further leveraged their linguistic understanding of the
structures to outperform the non-signers, performing at near ceiling in the comprehension task, even
though they continued to make errors when producing the structures themselves. In a longitudinal
study reported by Boers-Visker and Pfau, 15 M2L2 learners of NGT completed an elicitation task
several times over their first year of instruction and a separate group of L1 signers and teachers served
as a comparison group. Participants were asked to sign agreement verbs (e.g., GIVE, SEND, HELP,
CALL-BY-PHONE) with either a picture, a drawing, or a Dutch sentence as a prompt. Whereas the
proficient comparison group produced >99% of the verbs with agreement, learners produced approxi-
mately 50% of the verbs in the unmodified “standard” version with no modulation of the direction of
the movement to specify arguments (see also Ferrara & Nilsson, 2017). Interestingly, they found that
learners frequently established spatial loci for the referents in the prompt, but then failed to use those
454
locations to anchor the movement trajectories for their verbs. In a closer analysis of two case studies,
Boers-Visker and Van den Bogaerde reported that M2L2 learners can spatially modify verbs after
only 16 weeks of instruction, but during the first year or so of instruction, their spatial modification
is limited to verbs that have a gestural counterpart with salient spatial information (e.g., PUT-IN-
BAG). Reminiscent of the evidence related to iconicity that was reviewed previously, these findings
further support the facilitatory role of the gesture repertoire during early learning. These authors also
measured emergence of referential pointing, where the signer points to the assigned location after
the initial reference assignment, similar to the use of pronouns in spoken language. After about 200
hours of instruction, there was a dramatic increase in their use of referential pointing (i.e., pointing
to the location of a previously established person or place). However, their application was far from
native-like; they often “stacked,” meaning that they (incorrectly) used the same location in space for
more than one referent. The explanation for these differences in syntactic and discourse complexity
is multifactorial and not well understood. Similar to M1L2 acquisition, the cognitive load required
to process complex structures in the L2 likely exceeds the resources that the learner has available.
Unique to M2L2 acquisition, learners must also learn to use space efficiently and effectively when
retelling a narrative.
Non-manual Markers
To add further complexity, signed languages also convey critical syntactic information through so-
called non-manual markers that involve body parts other than the hands (e.g., facial expressions, eye
gaze, torso orientation). This requires that M2L2 learners attend to those signals during comprehen-
sion and utilize them during production. Ferrara (2019) has suggested that coordinating articulators
in these ways may take a while to develop in M2L2 learners. Beginning signers focus first on pro-
ducing lexicalized signs and simple classifier constructions before they acquire the ability to coord-
inate those productions with other articulators to produce a cohesive scene description. One of the
non-manual markers that learners tend to use more often than L1 signers is mouthings (Mesch &
Schönström, 2021). The mouth plays a number of linguistic roles in signed languages, one of them
is the visual production of the word from the corresponding spoken language, particularly to dif-
ferentiate ambiguous signs. For example, the signer in the left panel of Figure 33.2 is mouthing the
initial sound of the English word “unicorn.” In the context of M2L2 acquisition, the overuse of these
mouthings can be considered one way that learners are transferring knowledge of their L1 during
the learning process. Overall then, the cognitive demands required to acquire more complex spatial
structures and inhibit excessive L1 transfer place unique demands on M2L2 learners.
Individual Differences
The emphasis thus far has been on average performance among groups of M2L2 learners at
various proficiency levels, but the field of the neurocognition of L2 acquisition has moved beyond
that to identify the factors that make individual learners more successful than others. The list of
factors to consider is extensive (see Fromont, this volume; Luque & Covey, this volume); here,
I limit the discussion to the association between working memory and L2 vocabulary acquisi-
tion. Individuals who have strong phonological working memory excel at learning L2 vocabulary,
which bootstraps more complex aspects of L2 learning (e.g., Linck et al., 2014; Meade, 2020,
for reviews). By testing whether this association generalizes to a phonological system in another
modality, investigating sign learning has the potential to elucidate how phonological skills boot-
strap L2 acquisition.
Evidence to date suggests that select L1 skills contribute to individual differences in M2L2 vocabu-
lary acquisition, but that these relationships might be mitigated by L2 skills. For example, Williams
455
Gabriela Meade
et al. (2017) demonstrated that baseline L1 English vocabulary knowledge and phonetic categor-
ization (i.e., is the initial sound visible on the lips?) predicted ASL vocabulary knowledge after one
semester of learning, as measured by translation performance. However, the authors acknowledged
that baseline L1 English and L2 ASL phonetic categorization abilities were correlated and that phono-
logical processing relies on similar neural substrates irrespective of modality. The same group of
researchers had previously demonstrated that left inferior frontal gyrus, SPL, and precuneus were
activated for L2 learners of both ASL and Spanish when they did a phonetic categorization task
(Williams et al., 2015a). Thus, the ability to segment linguistic information might be a key predictor
of L2 learning, irrespective of modality.
There is also evidence to suggest that M2L2 learning requires the development of unique skills
in the visuospatial modality and that these skills contribute to increased proficiency. For example,
Williams et al. (2015b) asked L1 speakers who were classroom learners of either ASL or Spanish
to complete an L2 listening span task in which they saw or heard a series of recorded sentences and
had to report the last word or sign at the end of each sentence. This L2 listening span test served as a
proxy for phonological memory. L1 short term memory, as measured by a digit span task, correlated
with the L2 listening span for Spanish learners, but not for ASL learners. Moreover, there was a trend
toward a correlation between L2 listening span and overall L2 proficiency in the ASL learners, but not
the Spanish learners. Perhaps the most parsimonious account of these results is that Spanish learners
could complete the L2 listening span task by using the same verbal phonological loop that they had
mastered in their L1, whereas the M2L2 learners were relying on a separate, more visual encoding
system. Encoding language visually is a skill set that is unique to M2L2 learning, and those who were
more successful at acquiring that skill tended to be more proficient in the language.
Martinez and Singleton (2018; 2019) found similar correlations between short term memory and
associative learning performance in sign-naïve participants who had no visual-manual phonology,
leading them to propose that these relationships emphasize the role of perceptual-motor skills, rather
than phonological processing per se. Thus, further research is needed to disentangle the factors that
mediate the relationship between M2L2 learning and L1 phonological skills versus modality-specific
M2 skills. Neuroimaging might be beneficial in differentiating between these alternatives.
Future Directions
Much of the research described here has been conducted in the last decade; this field is in its infancy
and many open questions remain. Most studies have focused on L2 acquisition of a signed language
in hearing adults who have a spoken L1. Moving forward, developing a comprehensive examination
of L2 acquisition in the visual-manual modality will require investigation of other modality combin-
ations. For example, L1 signers who have an established phonological system in the visual-manual
modality have the potential to help us dissociate which of the effects described above can be attributed
to learning a new phonological system versus learning new lexical representations (e.g., Mirus et al.,
2000). They also offer the intriguing possibility of investigating how L1 transfer manifests itself in
the visual-manual modality. Are sign cognates easier to acquire than signs with distinct L2 forms
or do they lead to more production errors as has been documented for co-speech gesture transfer?
More generally, direct comparisons of M1L2 and M2L2 acquisition of signed languages would be
beneficial to delineate which components of learning are modality-specific (e.g., Schönström &
Holmström, 2022). This would ideally be done within the same group of learners to control for
potential contributions of individual differences among learners, with neuroimaging to further our
understanding of modality specificity in the brain. Emphasizing written language instead of spoken
language would allow for these studies to include deaf L1 signers.
456
Another intriguing avenue to pursue would be how learning of a(nother) signed language
influences L1 processing. Numerous studies in the M1L2 spoken language acquisition literature have
used differences in L1 processing to index L2 learning (e.g., Gaskell & Dumay, 2003; Takashima
et al., 2017; see also Ekerdt et al., this volume). There is some suggestion in the literature that learning
a signed language impacts co-speech gesture during spoken language production (e.g., Casey et al.,
2012) and audiovisual speech perception (Williams et al., 2016a). There is also growing evidence that
translations are co-activated across modalities in more proficient bimodal bilinguals (e.g., Lee et al.,
2019; Meade et al., 2018; Morford et al., 2017). Thus, it seems feasible that learning an L2 signed
language would impact L1 processing, but the presence and boundaries of such influences still need
to be established. Detecting these effects may well require sensitive electrophysiological methods
that can measure more subtle changes in processing over time.
These are but a few examples of how further investigation of M2L2 acquisition could enrich our
general understanding of the neurocognition of L2 acquisition. The possibilities are limitless; the-
oretically, any general principle of L2 acquisition should hold for M2L2 learners, but this remains
to be systematically investigated. The opposite is also true; extending what we know about the
neurocognition of L2 acquisition to M2L2 learning would benefit learners and teachers of signed
languages. Only recently have there been efforts to bring the empirical and pedagogical literatures
into conversation with one another (e.g., Haug et al., 2020), but the opportunities to do so will increase
as knowledge grows in the respective areas.
Notes
1 Language can also be conveyed in the written modality, but literacy is considered secondary here given that
it is a learned representation of the corresponding spoken language.
2 I follow the convention of using a lowercase deaf to refer specifically to hearing status and uppercase Deaf to
refer to the community of people who use a signed language and identify with Deaf culture.
3 The study of cognates in the M1L2 literature is heavily weighted toward cognate facilitation effects (e.g.,
De Groot & Keijzer, 2000; Van Hell & Tanner, 2012). However, reminiscent of the manual cognate effect,
acoustic analyses suggest that L2 words that are cognates are produced less accurately than those that are
not. For example, voice onset time (VOT) tends to be longer in English relative to Spanish. Native English
speakers have longer, more native-like VOTs for L2 Spanish cognates compared to otherwise similar L2
Spanish control words, but only at lower levels of proficiency (Amengual, 2011; Jacobs et al., 2016).
4 The handshape that is used for these partially lexicalized signs can also be modified to add further semantic
information. For example, someone walking toward the teacher would be signed with an upright index finger
(to signify the body) moving toward the location assigned to the teacher, whereas someone driving toward the
teacher would be signed using the same movement trajectory with the 3 handshape that is conventionally used
to represent vehicles. Additional information about speed and manner of movement can also be depicted.
Further Readings
An investigation into changes in task-based BOLD signal, connectivity, and neural structure as adults learned
Polish Sign Language over the course of eight months:
late learners of sign language. Human Brain Mapping, 42, 384–397. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.25229
Description of the acquisition of spatial grammar in two adults who were learning Sign Language of the
Netherlands over the course of four years:
Boers-Visker, E., & Van den Bogaerde, B. (2019). Learning to use space in the L2 acquisition of a signed lan-
guage. Sign Language Studies, 19(3), 410–452. https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2019.0003
Hearing adult learners of Swiss German Sign Language were found to make more errors on movement than
on the other parameters when producing signs, which the authors attribute to the complexity of that parameter:
457
Gabriela Meade
Ebling, S., Tissi, K., Sidler-Miserez, S., Schlumpf, C., & Boyes Braem, P. (2021). Single-parameter and param-
eter combination errors in L2 productions of Swiss German Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics,
24(2), 143–181. https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.19002.ebl
Important review regarding what sets instruction of L2 signed languages apart from instruction of L2 spoken
languages, with emphasis on consideration of the larger socio-political history of the Deaf community:
Quinto-Pozos, D. (2011). Teaching American Sign Language to hearing adult learners. Annual Review of Applied
Acknowledgments
This chapter is dedicated to my Aunt Theresa, who always made it a point to support my learning endeavors,
including agreeing to accompany to my first community ASL classes. I am also grateful to Karen Emmorey and
colleagues at the SDSU Laboratory for Language and Cognitive Neuroscience for fostering my curiosity for how
signed languages are represented in the brain. Finally, immense gratitude to Brittany Lee and Mathieu Declerck
for their unwavering support over the years, including reading previous drafts of this chapter.
References
Amengual, M. (2011). Interlingual influence in bilingual speech: Cognate status effect in a continuum of bilin-
gualism. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15(3), 517–530. https://doi.org/10.1017/S136672891
1000460
late learners of sign language. Human Brain Mapping, 42, 384–397. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.25229
Baus, C., Carreiras, M., & Emmorey, K. (2013). When does iconicity in sign language matter? Language and
Cognitive Processes, 28(3), 261–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2011.620374
Bochner, J.H., Christie, K., Hauser, P.C., & Searls, J.M. (2011). When is a difference really different? Learners’
discrimination of linguistic contrasts in American Sign Language. Language Learning, 61(4), 1302–1327.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00671.x
Boers-Visker, E., & Pfau, R. (2020). Space oddidities: The acquisition of agreement verbs by L2 learners of
Sign Language of the Netherlands. The Modern Language Journal, 104(4), 757–780. https://doi.org/10.1111/
modl.12676
Boers-Visker, E., & Van den Bogaerde, B. (2019). Learning to use space in the L2 acquisition of a signed lan-
guage. Sign Language Studies, 19(3), 410–452. https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2019.0003
Brentari, D. (1998). A prosodic model of sign language phonology. The MIT Press.
Casey, S., Emmorey, K., & Larrabee, H. (2012). The effects of learning American Sign Language on co-speech
gesture. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15(4), 677–686. https://doi.org/10.1017/S136672891
1000575
Chen Pichler, D., & Koulidobrova, E. (2015). Acquisition of sign language as a second language. In M.
Marschark & P. E. Spencer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of deaf studies in language (pp. 218–230). Oxford
University Press.
De Groot, A.M.B., & Keijzer, R. (2000). What is hard to learn is easy to forget: The roles of word concrete-
ness, cognate status, and word frequency in foreign-language vocabulary learning and forgetting. Language
Learning, 50(1), 1–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00110
Ebling, S., Tissi, K., Sidler-Miserez, S., Schlumpf, C., & Boyes Braem, P. (2021). Single-parameter and param-
eter combination errors in L2 productions of Swiss German Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics,
24(2), 143–181. https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.19002.ebl
Ekerdt, C., Takashima, A., & McQueen, J.M. (this volume). Memory consolidation in second language
Emmorey, K. (2002). Language, Cognition, and the Brain: Insights from Sign Language Research. Lawrence
Erlbaum and Associates.
Emmorey, K. (2021). New perspectives on the neurobiology of sign languages. Frontiers in Communication,
6(748430), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2021.748430
458
Emmorey, K., Winsler, K., Midgley, K.J., Grainger, J., & Holcomb, P.J. (2020). Neurophysiological correlates
of frequency, concreteness, and iconicity in American Sign Language. Neurobiology of Language, 1(2), 249–
267. https://doi.org/10.1162.nol_a_00012
Ferrara, L. (2019). Coordinating signs and eye gaze in the depiction of directions and spatial scenes by fluent and
L2 signers of Norwegian Sign Language. Spatial Cognition and Computation, 19(3), 220–251. https://doi.
org/10.1080/13875868.2019.1572151
Ferrara, L., & Nilsson, A.-L. (2017). Describing spatial layouts as an L2M2 signed language learner. Sign
Language & Linguistics, 20(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.20.1.01fer
Gaskell, M.G., & Dumay, N. (2003). Lexical competition and the acquisition of novel words. Cognition, 89,
105–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(03)00070-2
Haug, T., Boers-Visker, E., Van den Bogaerde, B. (2020). Testing sign language learns. In P. Winke & T. Brunfaut
(Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and language testing (pp. 432–442).
Routledge.
Hildebrandt, U., & Corina, D. (2002). Phonological similarity in American Sign Language. Language and
Cognitive Processes, 17(6), 593–612. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960143000371
Hilger, A.I., Loucks, T.M.J., Quinto-Pozos, D., & Dye, M.W.G. (2015). Second language acquisition across
modalities: Production variability in adult L2 learners of American Sign Language. Second Language
Research, 31(3), 375–388. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658315570648
Jacobs, A., Fricke, M., & Kroll, J.F. (2016). Cross-language activation begins during speech planning and extends
into second language speech. Language Learning, 66(2), 324–353. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12148
Lee, B., Meade, G., Midgley, K.J., Holcomb, P.J., & Emmorey, K. (2019). ERP evidence for co-activation of
English words during recognition of American Sign Language signs. Brain Sciences, 9(148), 1–17. https://
doi.org/10.3390/brainsci9060148
Linck, J.A., Osthus, P., Koeth, J.T., & Bunting, M.F. (2014). Working memory and second language comprehen-
sion and production: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21, 861–883. https://doi.org/10.3758/
s13423-013-0565-2
Marshall, C.R. & Morgan, G. (2015). From gesture to sign language: Conventionalization of classifier
constructions by adult hearing learners of British Sign Language. Topics in Cognitive Science, 7(1), 61–80.
https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12118
Martinez, D., & Singleton, J.L. (2018). Predicting sign learning in hearing adults: The role of perceptual-motor
(and phonological?) processes. Applied Psycholinguistics, 39, 905–931. https://doi.org/10.1017/S014271641
8000048
Martinez, D., & Singleton, J.L. (2019). Individual differences in lexical learning across two language modal-
ities: Sign learning, word learning, and their relationship in hearing non-signing adults. Acta Psychologica,
198(102892). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2019.102892
Meade, G. (2020). The role of phonological recoding during visual word learning in adults: An integrative
review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 27(1), 15–23. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-019-01647-0
Meade, G., Lee, B., Massa, N., Holcomb, P.J., Midgley, K.J., & Emmorey, K. (2022). Are form priming effects
phonological or perceptual? Electrophysiological evidence from American Sign Language. Cognition,
220(104979), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104979
Meade, G., Lee, B., Midgley, K.J., Holcomb, P.J., & Emmorey, K. (2018). Phonological and semantic priming
in American Sign Language: N300 and N400 effects. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 33(9), 1092–
1106. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2018.1446543
Mesch, J., & Schönström, K. (2021). Use and acquisition of mouth actions in sign language learners. Sign
Language & Linguistics, 24(1), 36–62. https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.19003.mes
Mirus, G., Rathmann, C.G., & Meier, R.P. (2000). Proximalization and distalization of sign movement in adult
learners. In V. Dively, M. Metzger, S. Taub, & A.M. Baer (Eds.), Signed languages: Discoveries from inter-
national research (pp. 103–119). Gallaudet University Press.
Morett, L.M. (2015). Lending a hand to signed language acquisition: Enactment and iconicity enhance sign recall
in hearing adult American Sign Language learners. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 27(3), 251–276. https://
doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2014.999684
459
Gabriela Meade
Morford, J.P., Occhibo-Kehoe, C., Piñar, P., Wilkinson, E., & Kroll, J.F. (2017). The time course of cross-
language activation in deaf ASL-English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 20(2), 337–350.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S136672891500067X
Mott, M., Midgley, K.J., Holcomb, P.J., & Emmorey, K. (2020). Cross-modal translation priming and icon-
icity effects in deaf signers and hearing learners of American Sign Language. Bilingualism: Language and
Cognition, 23, 1032–1044. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728919000889
Newman-Norlund, R.D., Frey, S.H., Petitto, L.-A., & Grafton, S.T. (2006). Anatomical substrates of visual and
auditory miniature second-language learning. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(12), 1984–1997. https://
doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2006.18.12.1984
Ortega, G. (2017). Iconicity and sign lexical acquisition: A review. Frontiers in Psychology, 8(1280), 1–14.
https://doi.org/doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01280
Ortega, G., & Morgan, G. (2015). Phonological development in hearing learners of a sign language: The influ-
ence of phonological parameters, sign complexity, and iconicity. Language Learning, 65(3), 660–668. https://
doi.org/10.1111/lang.12123
Ortega, G., Özyürek, A., & Peeters, D. (2020). Iconic gestures serve as manual cognates in hearing second lan-
guage learners of a sign language: An ERP study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory,
and Cognition, 46(3), 403–415. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000729
Ortega, G., Schiefner, A., & Özyürek, A. (2019). Hearing non-signers use their gestures to predict iconic form-
meaning mappings at first exposure to signs. Cognition, 191(103996). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognit
ion.2019.06.008
Quinto-Pozos, D. (2011). Teaching American Sign Language to hearing adult learners. Annual Review of Applied
Rosen, R.S. (2004). Beginning L2 production errors in ASL lexical phonology: A cognitive phonology model.
Sign Language & Linguistics, 7(1), 31–61. https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.7.1.04beg
Sandler, W., & Lillo-Martin, D. (2006). Sign Language and Linguistic Universals. Cambridge University Press.
Schlehofer, D.A., & Tyler, I.J. (2016). Errors in second language learners’ production of phonological contrasts
in American Sign Language. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 3(2), 30–38.
Sehyr, Z.S., Caselli, N.K., Cohen-Goldberg, A.M., & Emmorey, K. (2021). The ASL-LEX 2.0 Project: A data-
base of lexical and phonological properties for 2,723 signs in American Sign Language. Journal of Deaf
Studies and Deaf Education. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enaa038
Stokoe, W. (1960). Sign language structure: An outline of the visual communication systems of the American
deaf. In Studies in Linguistics: Occasional Papers. University of Buffalo.
Takashima, A., Bakker, I., van Hell, J.G., Janzen, G., & McQueen, J.M. (2017). Interaction between episodic and
semantic memory networks in the acquisition and consolidation of novel spoken words. Brain and Language,
Van Hell, J.G., & Tanner, D. (2012). Second language proficiency and cross-language lexical activation.
Language Learning, 62(Suppl 2), 148–171. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00710.x
Williams, J., Darcy, I., Newman, S. (2015a). Modality-independent neural mechanisms for novel phonetic pro-
cessing. Brain Research, 16(1620), 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2015.05.014
Williams, J., Darcy, I., & Newman, S. (2015b). Second language working memory deficits and plasticity in
hearing bimodal learners of sign language. Psychology of Language and Communication, 19(2), 128–148.
https://doi.org/10.1515/plc-2015-0008
Williams, J., Darcy, I., & Newman, S. (2016a). Bimodal bilingualism as multisensory training?: Evidence for
improved audiovisual speech perception after sign language exposure. Brain Research, 1633, 101–110.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2015.12.046
Williams, J., Darcy, I., & Newman, S. (2016b). Modality-specific processing precedes amodal linguistic pro-
cessing during L2 sign language acquisition: A longitudinal study. Cortex, 75, 56–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.cortex.2015.11.015
Williams, J., Darcy, I., & Newman, S. (2017). The beneficial role of L1 spoken language skills on initial L2 sign
language learning: Cognitive and linguistic predictors of M2L2 acquisition. Studies in Second Language
Williams, J., & Newman, S. (2016). Phonological substitution errors in L2 ASL sentence processing by hearing
M2L2 learners. Second Language Research, 32(3), 347–366. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658315626211
Williams, J., & Newman, S. (2017). Spoken language activation alters subsequent sign language activation in
L2 learners of American Sign Language. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 46, 211–225. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10936-016-9432-4
460
34
APHASIA, REHABILITATION,
AND SECOND LANGUAGE
NEUROCOGNITION
Introduction and Clinical Definitions

Aphasia is a language disorder, commonly observed following stroke or other acquired-brain injury
(ABI) that arises from damage to regions involved in language processing. Nearly all individuals with
aphasia will experience anomia, or deficits in naming, in addition to a variety of difficulties producing
and comprehending language across spoken and written modalities. Classifying language impair-
ment for monolingual patients with aphasia (MPWA) entails administering a battery of language
assessments aimed at measuring deficits in language abilities across modalities as they compare
to a normative sample of data. Evaluating language impairments in bilingual patients with aphasia
(BPWA), however, is a much more complex task. It is well accepted that bilingual individuals cannot
simply be considered “two monolinguals in one person” (Grosjean, 1989) and as a result, language
impairments cannot be quantified in the same manner as MPWA. Indeed, bilinguals present as a
heterogeneous population with varying combinations of language profiles and proficiency (Fabbro,
2001; Paradis, 2004). Therefore, bilingual aphasia presents as varying degrees of language impair-
ment in production and/or comprehension abilities in at least one of a bilingual’s two languages. In
order to determine the presence of aphasia in bilingual individuals, premorbid language abilities
in both first language (L1) and second language (L2) must be considered as they relate to post-
ABI language impairment. This information is critical to determine the difference between aspects of
language that may not have been fully acquired or mastered pre-ABI as they relate to aspects of lan-
guage that were impaired post-ABI. Consequently, characterizing L1 and L2 language loss in BPWA
constitutes an important first step in designing assessment and intervention tools to support language
recovery processes.
L1 and L2 Language Impairment in Bilingual Aphasia

Although it is well known that assessing damage to the bilingual language system—which is multi-
dimensional and shaped by personal experience—requires careful consideration of a variety of pre-
morbid proficiency and injury-related factors, the literature remains divided about how to approach
this endeavor. Historical perspectives on language loss in bilingual aphasia have emerged from
the classic debate between Pitres and Ribot, who each postulated that linguistic deficits occurred
DOI: 10.4324/9781003190912-42 461

asymmetrically, with one language more spared than the other. According to Ribot’s law (1887),
earlier acquired linguistic information should be better preserved following acquired brain injury,
whereas Pitres’s law (1895) suggested that the pre-morbid dominant language—which may not be
L1—emerges less affected.
Strict adherence to these frameworks, however, is complicated by repeated observations of par-
allel patterns of language impairment in many BPWA (Gray & Kiran, 2013; Paradis, 2004; Peñaloza,
Barrett, & Kiran, 2020). Such parallel deficits can be explained under the assumption that brain
damage occurs in regions that share language representations for L1 and L2. Indeed, Green (2003),
Perani and Abutalebi (2005), and others have argued that cognitive-linguistic representations for L1
and L2 in healthy bilinguals are supported by similar neural substrates and this organization may be
modulated by language exposure, use, and age of acquisition (Abutalebi et al., 2008; Fromont, this
volume). Similarly, researchers have proposed that various levels of linguistic representation are
arranged in a common network regardless of linguistic similarity (Costa, 2005; Kuzmina et al., 2019;
Miozzo et al., 2010).
Patterns of Language Impairment in Bilingual Aphasia

In his seminal work, Paradis (2004) reviewed the different patterns of impairment observed in bilin-
gual aphasia that have been identified through empirical evidence, including parallel, differential, and
selective impairment. These patterns of impairment can be understood as deficits in each language
relative to an individual’s premorbid proficiency. As such, a crucial first step in identifying these
patterns is determining pre-ABI language abilities in both languages, typically measured via language
use questionnaires. Here, parallel impairment represents a similar reduction in L1 and L2 relative to
premorbid language abilities. For example, if an individual’s L1 was the more dominant language
pre-ABI, it would remain the dominant language post-ABI; likewise, if an individual demonstrated
similar proficiency in each language pre-ABI, deficits in L1 and L2 would be comparable post-ABI.
Differential impairment occurs when one language is impacted to a greater extent than the other.
Finally, selective impairment is characterized by deficits in one language with no measurable deficits
in the other language. There is much debate on how and why different patterns of impairment arise
in bilingual patients with aphasia. One such hypothesis, discussed by Paradis (2004), is that some of
these patterns of impairment, specifically differential and selective impairment, arise from inappro-
priate inhibition of one or both languages.
Contemporary Perspectives of Bilingual Aphasia
Language Impairment in L1 and L2 in Bilingual Aphasia

In contrast to historical views of bilingual aphasia, more contemporary approaches emphasize the
importance of quantifying pre-morbid language abilities to better understand post-ABI language
impairment, especially for communication deficits in L2. The complex interaction between pre-morbid
proficiency and impairment remains a central focus, as it is also critical to consider proficiency versus
impairment to develop appropriate rehabilitation plans. To quantify patterns of impairment, it is first
necessary to measure L1 and L2 language abilities prior to aphasia onset. It should be noted, how-
ever, that factors underlying language abilities such as proficiency and dominance may shift over the
lifespan (Heredia, 1997). Indeed, L2 does not always remain the less proficient language throughout
a bilingual’s lifetime, and therefore, understanding dominance requires a more in-depth analysis of
language experiences beyond just collecting age of acquisition (AoA) information. For example,
when an individual immigrates to an almost exclusively L2 environment, increased exposure to and
use of L2 over time may lead to this language becoming more dominant. Such dynamic changes in
462
Aphasia, Rehabilitation, and Second Language Neurocognition
pre-morbid language proficiency and dominance must be captured to accurately determine the nature
and extent of post-morbid impairment.
Various frameworks have also been developed to examine changes in language processing post-
ABI. Based on clinical evaluation, Gray and Kiran (2013) introduced a highly interactive model
of post-ABI processing that included strong connections between non-linguistic semantics, lexical-
semantics, comprehension, word recognition, word translation, and expression in both languages.
Further, they noted that when one domain was impaired, it negatively affected performance in other
domains. Additionally, they found that pre-ABI language ability ratings (LAR) were predictive of
post-ABI performance on standardized assessments, highlighting the importance of understanding
pre-morbid language proficiency as it relates to post-ABI language impairment. Similarly, Peñaloza,
Barrett, & Kiran (2020) found that pre-ABI L1 and L2 proficiency (as measured by language his-
tory metrics) were predictive of post-ABI performance on standardized assessments for BPWA, with
a larger effect for L2 compared to L1. This study also highlighted that language use questionnaire
(Kastenbaum et al., 2019) data combined with post-ABI language assessment data were useful in
identifying patterns of impairment in bilingual aphasia. Consistent with prior research (see Paradis,
2004 for a review), the authors found that parallel impairment was the most common pattern of
impairment identified in a large cohort (N =27) of BPWA, with differential impairment being much
less common. Although standardized assessments cannot be used to determine pre-morbid language
proficiency following ABI, since post-ABI language impairment confounds pre-morbid language
abilities, these studies suggest that collecting bilingual language experience metrics may serve as a
reliable proxy for quantifying pre-morbid proficiency and relative dominance in each language (Gray
& Kiran, 2013; Peñaloza, Barrett, & Kiran, 2020).
In a recent systematic review, Kuzmina and colleagues (2019) also demonstrated that pre-morbid
proficiency metrics were associated with post-ABI language abilities in analyses that included a large
cohort of BPWA across studies (N = 119). First, they found an effect of AoA, such that individuals
who learned their L2 later generally demonstrated better performance in L1 relative to L2 post-
ABI, whereas early bilinguals showed comparable performance between languages post-ABI. When
looking at pre-ABI proficiency in comparison to post-ABI language performance, they found that
individuals who reported either higher L1 proficiency or balanced proficiency pre-ABI performed
better in L1 post-ABI, whereas individuals who reported higher proficiency in L2 pre-ABI remained
better in L2 post-ABI. Results for language use indicated that individuals who reported greater use
of L1 demonstrated better performance in L1 post-ABI, whereas those who reported greater use of
L2 demonstrated comparable performance across both languages. These studies highlight the import-
ance of considering how premorbid language abilities interact with post-ABI language impairment in
order to accurately quantify aphasia in BPWA.
Finally, understanding pre-morbid language abilities and language impairment in bilingual aphasia
is also critical when considering rehabilitation outcomes for BPWA. A case study by Gil and Goral
(2004) showed that language recovery can vary as a function of pre-ABI proficiency. Their patient, who
was a late sequential bilingual who had attained high proficiency in L2 prior to aphasia onset, recovered
to a greater extent in L1 when receiving treatment in L2 even though both languages were equally
impaired upon initial evaluation. These findings underscore the importance of considering pre-ABI
language proficiency, use, and preference when selecting the language for intervention and suggest that
this information may be useful in ultimately predicting treatment-induced recovery in both languages.
Language Control in Bilingual Aphasia

In recent years, new evidence has distinguished deficits in language control from overt language loss
in BPWA. In healthy bilinguals, language control is implemented in order to produce the intended
463
language in a contextually appropriate manner (Green, 1998; Green & Abutalebi, 2013). This
dependence on language control for bilingual individuals has implications for aphasia as language
impairments following ABI may reflect, at least to some extent, deficits in language control abilities
rather than language loss. In the context of bilingual aphasia, language control deficits may mani-
fest as pathological switching and mixing of languages (Abutalebi et al., 2000; Fabbro et al., 2000).
Evidence for these clinical presentations comes from case studies that have revealed that lesions
to areas implicated in domain-general cognitive control (i.e., frontal regions and subcortical areas
including the caudate nucleus of the basal ganglia), resulted in an inability to remain in one language
exclusively (e.g., pathological switching and mixing) as well as inappropriate language use (e.g.,
using their L2 with an interlocutor who solely speaks their L1). These observations have suggested
that language loss may represent altered “access” to lexical representations in one or both languages,
whereas impairments in language control prevent appropriate activation of the intended language and
inhibition of the unintended language. Support for this view is available from a number of clinical
studies. For example, Keane and Kiran (2015) observed an increase in cross-linguistic intrusions
during naming for a trilingual individual with aphasia following treatment-induced recovery in
the individual’s L1. Given the presence of domain-general cognitive control impairments in this
patient’s profile, the authors argued that the naming impairments were a result of underlying control
impairments, which resulted in pathological mixing. In a second study, Goral et al. (2019) found
severity-modulated patterns of language switching and mixing among a group of BPWA. Results
revealed that patients with more severe impairment switched and mixed more frequently than patients
with milder impairment. Furthermore, patients tended to switch languages more when being tested
in their weaker language, underscoring that aphasia severity and language proficiency are also key
factors to consider when characterizing language control deficits.
Theoretical Accounts of Lexical-Semantic Impairment

and Language Control in Bilingual Aphasia
Lexical-Semantic Impairment in L1 and L2 (Error Analyses)

Another area of focus in current bilingual aphasia work is the relative impairment of L2 versus L1.
Numerous models of bilingual word-retrieval have been proposed to identify and describe the patterns
of lexical-semantic deficits frequently seen in aphasia post-ABI. In healthy bilinguals, most models
agree that the process of lexical-retrieval begins at a semantic-conceptual system shared between the
two languages. Under the revised hierarchical model (RHM; Kroll & Stewart, 1994) for example,
activation from the semantic system proceeds along proficiency-mediated connections to separate
lexical maps for L1 and L2 (Tokowicz & Tkacikova, this volume). Similarly, the distributed feature
model (De Groot, 1992; Van Hell & De Groot, 1998) upholds the framework for a shared semantic
system and separate L1 and L2 lexical maps, but posits that the degree of overlap (i.e., connections)
between the two lexical systems is mediated by a) psycholinguistic factors, such as word frequency,
and b) semantic-syntactic distinctions, such as word class (Kroll & Tokowicz, 2005).
In 2014, Kiran et al. used these bilingual word-retrieval frameworks to organize and describe
errors elicited from Spanish–English BPWA during a standardized picture-naming task. Participants
displayed a variety of error types that were grouped based on four hypothesized loci of damage
during lexical-semantic processing: a) no-responses, neologisms, and perseverations signaled diffi-
culty accessing the semantic system in general; b) unrelated words, circumlocutions, and semantic
paraphasias arose from incomplete activation in the semantic system; c) mixed errors (including some
combination of semantic and phonological difficulties) reflected damage to connections between the
semantic and L1/L2 lexical maps; and d) phonological paraphasias, dysarthric/apractic errors, and
accent-influenced productions emerged following word-retrieval in a specific lexicon. It is important
464
to note that all error types could have occurred in the target language or non-target language during
the naming task; furthermore, any responses that were correct in the non-target language were still
counted as errors.
In L2 English, after no response in the target language, circumlocutions and correct responses in
the non-target language emerged as the most common error types. These latter response types suggest
that participants attempted to use L1 lexical information to compensate for weaker word-retrieval
during L2 naming. In L1 Spanish, however, no response, circumlocutions, semantic paraphasias, and
neologisms in the target language constituted the most frequent error types. These response patterns
suggest that performance in L1 was fundamentally different than in L2 as participants were far less
likely to a) switch languages and use L2-lexical information during the L1 naming task, and b) pro-
vide the correct picture name in the non-target language (English). Overall, error analyses in bilingual
aphasia may improve our understanding of individual variation in lexical-retrieval abilities post-ABI
and suggest that patterns of behavior may differ according to relative frequency and type of error in
L1 and L2.
Recent work has begun to examine naming errors over time for Spanish-English BPWA under-
going semantic-feature based treatment for word-retrieval deficits to determine if specific patterns
of errors will predict treatment gains and generalization effects in a treated and untreated language.
Preliminary evidence for some BPWA, reported in Peñaloza et al. (2021), suggests that as participants
show more improvement on trained items in a treated language, they produce fewer semantically-
severe errors (no response, neologisms, etc.) and more semantic-based errors (i.e., unrelated words,
circumlocutions, etc.) for a) semantically-related targets in the treated language as well as b) direct
translations of the trained and semantically-related items in the untreated language. Additionally,
these effects may be magnified if the individual is treated in their L1 given that bilingual models
of lexical access generally predict stronger connections between the semantic-conceptual system
and the L1 lexicon (Kroll & Stewart, 1994). Thus, the increased frequency of semantic-based errors
in both languages may reflect rehabilitation and strengthening of the semantic system following
treatment in L1 or L2 and further suggests that despite incorrect word production, semantic-feature
based treatment may increase communicative content in bilingual aphasia.
Inhibitory Control and Its Application to Bilingual Aphasia

The inhibitory control model (Green, 1998) has been used to describe the control mechanisms
implicated in bilingual language production as they relate to relative proficiencies in L1 and L2 and
has important implications for understanding bilingual aphasia. The inhibitory control model outlines
language control in bilingual speakers, which explains how bilingual individuals retrieve lexical
candidates in one language while managing competing alternatives from both languages. In this
model, language task schemas compete to control output of the lexical-semantic system by altering
their levels of activation, and lexical representations of the non-target language are expected to be
inhibited after all associated concepts have been activated. This model follows other frameworks
of bilingual language processing, including the bilingual interactive activation models (Dijkstra &
Van Heuven, 1998; 2002), in assuming that lexical selection is language non-specific, such that an
activated representation will not only activate associated concepts in the same language, but will also
activate associated concepts in the other language (e.g., dog activates cat in English, as well as perro
and gato in Spanish) (Bialystok et al., 2009; Colomé, 2001; Costa et al., 2000; Kroll et al., 2006).
Since multiple candidates are activated in tandem, control processes are required to manage the acti-
vation and inhibition of targets and non-targets (Green, 1998). It is postulated that increased language
control is required to inhibit the dominant language in favor of the weaker language during retrieval
in L2 as proficiency modulates the resting level activation of lexical candidates (Paradis, 1993).
465
However, increased proficiency in L2 can lead to a shift from highly controlled to more automatic
and less effortful language processing (Abutalebi & Green, 2007).
Unlike monolingual speakers, bilingual speakers employ language control and semantic execu-
tive control (i.e., the control mechanisms that direct and control lexical activation in a contextually
appropriate manner) to manage the language-non-specific nature of lexical activation (Jefferies et al.,
2008). Since numerous lexical representations are activated in tandem, language control designates
the intended language of use at the level of task schemas while semantic executive control is required
to manage activation of specific lexical candidates and inhibition of unintended representations
(Jefferies et al., 2008). Figure 34.1 aims to explain the complex dynamic between language control
and semantic executive control in bilingual speakers. Figure 34.1 represents a dual-language context
(Green & Abutalebi, 2013), where inhibition arises from the level of language task schemas to inhibit
lexical representations from the unintended language (in this case L2). Additionally, semantic execu-
tive control is implemented to inhibit semantically-related lexical representations in the intended
language as well as to inhibit previously activated lexical representations in the now unintended lan-
guage. Recent work suggests that this linguistic context proves to be the most challenging for BPWA
and leads to communicative breakdowns (Carpenter et al., 2020; Carpenter et al., 2021), underscoring
how BPWA have difficulty effectively managing competition between two levels of control.
Recent empirical work has shed light on the interaction between language control, semantic execu-
tive control, and domain-general cognitive control, in healthy bilinguals and BPWA using verbal flu-
ency tasks. Before discussing the outcomes of these studies, it is important to first operationalize these
different levels of control. Language control and semantic executive control, described above, direct
activation and inhibition across different levels of the bilingual language system (see Figure 34.1),
while domain-general cognitive control, consists of mental processes (e.g., response selection and
inhibition, response monitoring, planning, etc.) that regulate functions across different domains,
including language (Braver, 2012; Hammond & Summers, 1972; Miyake et al., 2000; see Guo & Ma,
this volume). Several studies examining healthy bilinguals have linked performance on verbal flu-
ency tasks, a well-known measure of lexical retrieval, to tasks examining domain-general cognitive
control, such as operation span (O-Span) tasks (Shao et al., 2014) and Stroop tasks (Patra et al., 2020).
These results suggest domain-general cognitive control plays a role in lexical retrieval in neurotypical
bilinguals. However, studies involving BPWA have been much more variable, suggesting potential
differences in the interaction between control levels in this population. For example, some studies
have found no link between verbal fluency performance and Stroop performance in BPWA (Faroqi-
Shah et al., 2018), whereas others have found that altering the language control demands of the task
revealed a clear interaction between language control and cognitive control, with increasing control
demands leading to poorer performance for BPWA (Carpenter et al., 2020). Furthermore, although
automatic spreading activation of lexical candidates within the bilingual lexico-semantic system
(Dell, 1986; Dell & O’Seaghdha, 1992) does not appear to be impacted by increased language con-
trol demands, semantic executive control is susceptible to these increased demands (Carpenter et al.,
2021). Importantly, these authors found that for BPWA only, performance was predicted by language
experience metrics. These findings suggest that increased language demands hinder semantic execu-
tive control in BPWA and reveal a relationship between language experience and control abilities
in BPWA.
Other work has also used non-linguistic control tasks to explain interactions between the three
levels of cognitive control and distinguish them in healthy bilinguals and BPWA. For example, prior
work has demonstrated that healthy bilinguals and BPWA display different patterns of results across
control tasks (e.g., language control tasks vs. semantic executive control tasks vs. domain-general
cognitive control tasks)(Gray, 2020; Gray & Kiran, 2016), which may be more informative than verbal
fluency tasks alone given the nature of language impairment in aphasia (see section above). Some
466
newgenrtpdf
467
Figure 34.1 Levels of Representation and Control in a Dual-Language Context.

Notes: Language control and semantic executive control schema in a dual-language context, where bilingual speakers switch between languages in response
to external environmental cues. Inhibition is represented with subtraction signs. Automatic activation is represented with arrows; forward activation is shown
using a solid line and backward activation is shown using a dashed line. Activation for the intended word, dog, is represented with addition signs. Degree
of activation is represented by different shades of blue with darker shades representing larger degrees of activation and lighter shades representing smaller
degrees of activation.
studies have revealed dissociations between language control and domain-general cognitive control
in BPWA (Dash & Kar, 2014; Gray & Kiran, 2019), which appears to be modulated by language pro-
ficiency (Dash & Kar, 2014). These findings suggest that BPWA may present with impairments in a
specific type of control, and control impairments post-ABI may be influenced by bilingual language
experience. Furthermore, Gray (2020) found that healthy bilinguals were better able to implement
language control, which may be intrinsic to everyday bilingual language experiences, as compared
to semantic executive control, suggesting that language control is less effortful for healthy bilinguals
as compared to managing semantic interference. In the same study, BPWA showed no differences
between language control and semantic executive control performance, suggesting that BPWA
either had a) specific deficits in language control, or b) the interaction between language control and
semantic control in these patients caused reduced performance across both tasks. Given that language
control impairments are observed infrequently in bilingual aphasia and usually result from subcor-
tical lesions, the authors suggested that semantic executive control deficits may have led to reduced
performance on the two tasks given the use of linguistic stimuli in both. Overall, these studies pro-
vide initial support for a dissociation between levels of control in BPWA that diverges from healthy
bilinguals. This work also emphasizes the need for future research to a) investigate different levels of
control in BPWA using tasks specifically designed to measure these constructs, b) demonstrate how
these levels interact to cause communicative breakdowns, and c) account for control elements when
designing rehabilitation plans in bilingual aphasia.
Clinical Intervention in Bilingual Aphasia
Treatment-Induced Recovery
Despite a growing research interest in bilingual aphasia, literature in the field remains skewed towards
describing linguistic impairment post-ABI rather than investigating treatment-induced recovery
(Peñaloza & Kiran, 2019). Thus far, most treatment studies have consisted of single case studies or
case series that have varied according to the target language selected for intervention, the type of
therapy administered, and the type of stimuli and general procedures used to evaluate cross-language
generalization (Lorenzen & Murray, 2008). Overall, small sample sizes and variation between studies
have complicated the development of comprehensive guidelines for intervention in bilingual aphasia
(Roberts & Kiran, 2007).
Despite these limitations, treatment studies have generally shown that therapy in L1 or L2 leads to
direct improvement in that language (Edmonds & Kiran, 2006; Faroqi-shah et al., 2010; Gil & Goral,
2004; Kiran & Roberts, 2010; Kiran, Sandberg, et al., 2013; Kohnert, 2004; Li et al., 2020). Indeed, a
recent systematic review of bilingual treatment by Faroqi-Shah et al. (2010) concluded that treatment
gains in L2 were equivalent to those reported in studies that administered therapy in L1. Furthermore,
treatment gains following therapy in L2 were not systematically predicted by age of acquisition nor
proficiency characteristics, which may suggest that L2 be considered alongside L1 as the language of
intervention in future clinical interventions.
Other measures of treatment efficacy such as different patterns of generalization to untrained items
have been reported in many studies. For example, lexical-semantic based treatments for anomia have
revealed within-language generalization to untrained cognate/non-cognate word pairs (Kohnert, 2004)
and semantically-related items (e.g. apple→orange; Edmonds & Kiran, 2006; Kiran & Roberts, 2010;
Kiran, Sandberg et al., 2013). Verb-retrieval therapy for grammatical impairments has also revealed
within-language patterns of generalization (Li et al., 2020). Additionally, cross-language generaliza-
tion to untrained items (e.g., translation equivalents) in the untreated language has been noted across
broad receptive and expressive intervention types. Significant improvement in the untreated language
has been documented following therapy in a) the weaker language, or L2 (Edmonds & Kiran, 2006;
468
Gil & Goral, 2004; Kiran & Roberts, 2010), as well as b) the stronger language, or L1 (Edmonds
& Kiran, 2006; Gil & Goral, 2004; Kohnert, 2004). However, not all studies find evidence of cross-
language generalization (Faroqi-Shah et al., 2010), which suggests that additional factors such as
pre- and post-morbid language proficiency, language similarity, and intervention type (Ansaldo &
Saidi, 2014) may be useful in differentiating outcomes in the untreated L1 or L2.
Neural Correlates of Treatment-Induced Recovery

Neuroimaging work has shed light on the neural mechanisms behind language recovery in bilingual
aphasia. In a longitudinal, dynamic causal modeling (DCM) study, Radman and colleagues (2016)
revealed that language recovery was linked to alterations in connections between language and con-
trol regions in five BPWA. Specifically, patients who recovered in only one language demonstrated
increased connections between language and control regions when naming in that language, whereas
recovery in both languages was related to a redistribution of connections over time, such that compar-
able connections between both languages and control regions were observed in the chronic phase. In
line with this work, Abutalebi and colleagues (2009) investigated treatment-induced neural changes
and found global increases in connections for trained L2 and decreases in connections for untrained
L1 from pre-treatment to post-treatment. These neural changes paralleled the patient’s behavioral
changes, in which L2 language abilities returned to premorbid function, whereas L1 experienced a
worsening or “inhibitory effect,” where the patient produced more cross-linguistic errors in L1 at
post-treatment. Overall, these findings add to the growing body of literature supporting a “dynamic”
view of language recovery in which language-control plays a critical role in both spontaneous and
treatment-induced language recovery in bilingual aphasia (Abutalebi et al., 2009; Abutalebi & Green,
2007; Green & Abutalebi, 2008).
Computational Approaches to Treatment

Historically, optimizing treatment recommendations in bilingual aphasia has been difficult given
the neurological, linguistic, and sociocultural factors that affect individual response to therapy.
Recently, computational modeling has been used to overcome this problem by simulating many
more treatment styles based on various combinations of clinical factors than would be possible
or practical in real-world scenarios (Grasemman et al., 2011). The foundation for this work was
established with the creation of DISLEX, a computational account of healthy bilingual lexical
access whose architecture incorporated aspects of the RHM (Kroll & Stewart, 1994), including
the semantic/conceptual system, the two language maps, and the associative connections between
them (Grasemman et al., 2011).
By varying L2 age of acquisition, pre-stroke language proficiency, and post-stroke naming impair-
ment, Grasemman et al. (2011) demonstrated that individual bilingual models of lexical access
could be trained, lesioned, and retrained to successfully (>80% accuracy) simulate word-retrieval.
In a follow-up study, Kiran, Grasemann, et al. (2013) administered therapy to a group of BPWA
in accordance with simulation parameters from individual models. Overall, the models accurately
simulated improvement in the treated language for the majority of participants for whom treatment
data was already collected; additionally, they showed efficacy in simulating a) cross-language
improvement for patients who showed this pattern of generalization after treatment, and b) no
improvement for patients who did not show these cross-language effects.
In addition to simulating treatment outcomes, computational methods may also be used to pre-
dict treatment results based on a bilingual individual’s specific pre-and post-stroke language profile.
Under this approach, a computational model can operationalize the large degree of variation in the
bilingual experience as a set of learning parameters, simulate individual language profiles pre- and
469
post-ABI (Grasemann et al., 2011; Peñaloza et al., 2019), and generate personalized treatment
recommendations, including the appropriate target language for intervention (Peñaloza, Dekhtyar
et al., 2020).
Perhaps the true value of an individualized approach to treatment planning is best illustrated in
clinical-decision making scenarios where speech-language providers can discuss options with clients
and their families. For example, let’s consider the case of Ruben, a bilingual adult who grew up in
Mexico, immigrated to the U.S. for college, lived in the country after graduation, and experienced a
stroke when he was 65. Just before the stroke, Ruben reported using both Spanish and English in his
daily life. A model for Ruben might predict that the optimal language for intervention is L1 Spanish
based on pre-and post-ABI language proficiency and clinical assessment scores. However, Ruben and
his family believe that treatment in his L2, English, would be more functional given that his language
use and exposure patterns have shifted to favor English post-ABI following greater impairment in his
L1. In these cases, computational approaches empower clients and their families to remain involved
in clinical decision-making and allow speech-language providers to structure a course of treatment
that considers best practices and individual preferences.
Progressive Aphasia and Dementia

A newer area of bilingual aphasia research concerns impairments associated with neurodegenerative
disorders resulting in dementias such as primary progressive aphasia (PPA) and Alzheimer’s Disease
(AD). Language deficits in dementia are common though they differ from focal aphasias given their
progressive nature and relationship with other cognitive impairments (Kempler & Goral, 2008).
Thus far, the majority of studies that have analyzed bilingual language impairments and dementia
have focused on individuals with AD. These studies have demonstrated mixed findings: some have
suggested that the non-dominant language emerges as the more impaired language in bilingual AD
(Mendez et al., 1999), whereas others have found parallel language impairments (Costa et al., 2012).
PPA diagnoses are considerably rarer and despite international consensus criteria (Gorno-Tempini
et al., 2011) that have identified three variants of the disorder, the ways in which these subtypes
interact with bilingualism remain poorly understood. Nevertheless, the primacy of language difficul-
ties in PPA relative to other cognitive impairments has generated clinical interest in assessment and
treatment opportunities for bilingual individuals. For example, recent evidence from Grasso et al.
(2021) demonstrated that language decline may be slowed or partially ameliorated after a group of
bilinguals with PPA showed significant gains in word-retrieval following lexical-semantic therapy.
Although these preliminary results suggest that clinical intervention may enhance communication
and quality of life following neurodegeneration, further evidence is needed to determine to what
extent language improvement may be expected in bilingual PPA.
Author’s Note
Michael Scimeca and Erin Carpenter are co-first authors.
Further Readings
This paper provides a comprehensive overview of language impairment in bilingual aphasia and discusses
various proficiency-related factors that may account for individual-level differences.
Kuzmina, E., Goral, M., Norvik, M., & Weekes, B.S. (2019). What influences language impairment in bilingual
aphasia? A meta-analytic review. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 445. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00445
470
This book chapter discusses various elements of language recovery in bilingual aphasia and presents neuroimaging
and clinical evidence for a variety of treatment paradigms.
Peñaloza, C., & Kiran, S. (2019). Recovery patterns in multilingual aphasia. In J.W. Schwieter (Ed.), The hand-
book of the neuroscience of multilingualism (pp. 553–571). Wiley-Blackwell.
This paper examines executive control across studies in bilingual aphasia and may be considered a companion
to the control topics in this chapter.
Mooijman, S., Schoonen, R., Roelofs, A., & Ruiter, M. (2022). Executive control in bilingual aphasia: A sys-
tematic review. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 25(1), 13–28. https://doi.org/10.1017/S136672892
100047X
References
Abutalebi, J., Annoni, J.-M., Zimine, I., Pegna, A.J., Seghier, M. L., Lee-Jahnke, H., Lazeyras, F., Cappa, S.F.,
& Khateb, A. (2008). Language control and lexical competition in bilinguals: An event-related fMRI study.
Cerebral Cortex, 18(7), 1496–1505. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhm182
Abutalebi, J., Della Rosa, P.A., Tettamanti, M., Green, D.W., & Cappa, S.F. (2009). Bilingual aphasia and lan-
guage control: A follow-up fMRI and intrinsic connectivity study. Brain and Language, 109(2–3), 141–156.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2009.03.003
Abutalebi, J., Miozzo, A., & Cappa, S.F. (2000). Do subcortical structures control “language selection” in
polyglots? Evidence from pathological language mixing. Neurocase, 6(1), 51–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13554790008402757
Ansaldo, A.I., & Saidi, L.G. (2014). Aphasia therapy in the age of globalization: Cross-linguistic therapy effects
in bilingual aphasia. Behavioural Neurology, 2014, 603085. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/603085
Bialystok, E., Craik, F.I., Green, D.W., & Gollan, T.H. (2009). Bilingual minds. Psychological Science in the
Public Interest, 10(3), 89–129. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1529100610387084
Braver, T.S. (2012). The variable nature of cognitive control: A dual mechanisms framework. Trends in Cognitive
Carpenter, E., Peñaloza, C., Rao, L., & Kiran, S. (2021). Clustering and switching in verbal fluency across
varying degrees of cognitive control demands: Evidence from healthy bilinguals and bilingual patients with
aphasia. Neurobiology of Language, 1–66. https://doi.org/10.1162/nol_a_00053
Carpenter, E., Rao, L., Peñaloza, C., & Kiran, S. (2020). Verbal fluency as a measure of lexical access and cog-
nitive control in bilingual persons with aphasia. Aphasiology, 34(11), 1341–1362. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02687038.2020.1759774
Colomé, À. (2001). Lexical activation in bilinguals’ speech production: Language-specific or language-
independent? Journal of Memory and Language, 45(4), 721–736. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2001.2793
Costa, A. (2005). Lexical access in bilingual production. In J. Kroll & A.M.B. de Groot (Eds.), Handbook of
bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches (pp. 308–325). Oxford University Press.
Costa, A., Calabria, M., Marne, P., Hernández, M., Juncadella, M., Gascón-Bayarri, J., Lleó, A., Ortiz-Gil, J.,
Ugas, L., Blesa, R., & Reñé, R. (2012). On the parallel deterioration of lexico-semantic processes in the
bilinguals’ two languages: Evidence from Alzheimer’s Disease. Neuropsychologia, 50(5), 740–753. https://
Costa, A., Caramazza, A., & Sebastian-Galles, N. (2000). The cognate facilitation effect: Implications for models
of lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(5), 1283.
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0278-7393.26.5.1283
Dash, T., & Kar, B.R. (2014). Bilingual language control and general purpose cognitive control among individ-
uals with bilingual aphasia: Evidence based on negative priming and flanker tasks. Behavioural Neurology,
e679706. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/679706
De Groot, A.M.B. (1992). Determinants of word translation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
Memory, and Cognition, 18, 1001–1018. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0278-7393.18.5.1001
Dell, G.S. (1986). A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review,
93(3), 283. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0033-295X.93.3.283
Dell, G.S., & O’Seaghdha, P.G. (1992). Stages of lexical access in language production. Cognition, 42(1–3),
287–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(92)90046-K
471
Dijkstra, T., & Van Heuven, W.J. (1998). The BIA model and bilingual word recognition. In J. Grainger & A.M.
Jacobs (Eds.), Localist connectionist approaches to human cognition, 189–225.
Dijkstra, T., & Van Hueven, W.J. (2002). The architecture of the bilingual word recognition system: From iden-
tification to decision. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 5(3), 175–197. https://doi.org/10.1017/S13667
28902003012
Edmonds, L.A., & Kiran, S. (2006). Effect of semantic naming treatment on crosslinguistic generalization in
bilingual aphasia. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49(4), 729–748. https://doi.org/
10.1044/1092-4388(2006/053)
Fabbro, F. (2001). The bilingual brain: Bilingual aphasia. Brain and Language, 79(2), 201–210. https://doi.org/
10.1006/brln.2001.2480
Fabbro, F., Skrap, M., & Aglioti, S. (2000). Pathological switching between languages after frontal lesions in
a bilingual patient. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, 68(5), 650–652. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1136/jnnp.68.5.650
Faroqi-Shah, Y., Frymark, T., Mullen, R., & Wang, B. (2010). Effect of treatment for bilingual individuals with
aphasia: A systematic review of the evidence. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 23, 319–341. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jneuroling.2010.01.002
Faroqi-Shah, Y., Sampson, M., Pranger, M., & Baughman, S. (2018). Cognitive control, word retrieval and bilin-
gual aphasia: Is there a relationship? Journal of Neurolinguistics, 45, 95–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jne
uroling.2016.07.001
Gil, M., & Goral, M. (2004). Nonparallel recovery in bilingual aphasia: Effects of language choice, language
proficiency, and treatment. International Journal of Bilingualism, 8(2), 191–219. https://doi.org/10.1177/
13670069040080020501
Goral, M., Norvik, M., & Jensen, B.U. (2019). Variation in language mixing in multilingual aphasia. Clinical
Linguistics & Phonetics, 33(10–11), 915–929. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699206.2019.1584646
Gorno-Tempini, M.L., Hillis, A.E., Weintraub, S., Kertesz, A., Mendez, M., Cappa, S.F., Ogar, J.M., Rohrer, J.D.,
Black, S., Boeve, B.F., Manes, F., Dronkers, N.F., Vandenberghe, R., Rascovsky, K., Patterson, K., Miller,
B.L., Knopman, D.S., Hodges, J.R., Mesulam, M. M., & Grossman, M. (2011). Classification of primary pro-
gressive aphasia and its variants. Neurology, 76(11), 1006–1014. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0b013e318
21103e6
Grasemann, U., Sandberg, C., Kiran, S., & Miikkulainen, R. (2011). Impairment and rehabilitation in bilingual
aphasia: A SOM-based model. In J. Laaksonen & T. Honkela (Eds.), Advances in self-organizing mapsa (Vol.
6731). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21566-7_21
Grasso, S.M., Peña, E.D., Kazemi, N., Mirzapour, H., Neupane, R., Bonakdarpour, B., Gorno-Tempini, M.L., &
Henry, M.L. (2021). Treatment for anomia in bilingual speakers with progressive aphasia. Brain Sciences,
11(11), 1371. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci11111371
Gray, T. (2020). The relationship between language control, semantic control and nonverbal control. Behavioral
Sciences, 10(11), 169. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs10110169
Gray, T., & Kiran, S. (2013). A theoretical account of lexical and semantic naming deficits in bilingual aphasia.
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 56. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2012/12-0091)
Gray, T., & Kiran, S. (2016). The relationship between language control and cognitive control in bilingual aphasia.
Gray, T., & Kiran, S. (2019). The effect of task complexity on linguistic and non-linguistic control mechanisms
in bilingual aphasia. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 22(2), 266–284. https://doi.org/10.1017/S13667
28917000712
Green, D.W. (1998). Mental control of the bilingual lexico-semantic system. Bilingualism: Language and
Green, D.W. (2003). Neural basis of lexicon and grammar in L2 acquisition: The convergence hypothesis. In R.
van Hout, A. Hulk, F. Kuiken, & R. Towell (Eds.), The lexicon–syntax interface in second language acquisi-
tion (pp. 197–218). John Benjamins.
Green, D.W., & Abutalebi, J. (2008). Understanding the link between bilingual aphasia and language control.
Journal of Neurolinguistics, 21(6), 558–576. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2008.01.002
Grosjean, F. (1989). Neurolinguists, beware! The bilingual is not two monolinguals in one person. Brain and
Language, 36(1), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/0093-934X(89)90048-5
472
Guo, T., & Ma, F. (this volume). Cognitive control in second language neurocognition. In K. Morgan-Short
Routledge.
Hammond, K.R., & Summers, D.A. (1972). Cognitive control. Psychological Review, 79(1), 58. https://psycnet.
apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0031851
Heredia, R.R. (1997). Bilingual memory and hierarchical models: A case for language dominance. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 6(2), 34–39.
Jefferies, E., Patterson, K., & Ralph, M.A.L. (2008). Deficits of knowledge versus executive control in semantic
cognition: Insights from cued naming. Neuropsychologia, 46(2), 649–658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuro
Kastenbaum, J.G., Bedore, L.M., Peña, E.D., Sheng, L., Mavis, I., Sebastian-Vaytadden, R., Rangamani, G.,
Vallila-Rohter, S., & Kiran, S. (2019). The influence of proficiency and language combination on bilingual
lexical access. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 22(2), 300–330. https://doi.org/10.1017/S136672891
8000366
Keane, C., & Kiran, S. (2015). The nature of facilitation and interference in the multilingual language
system: Insights from treatment in a case of trilingual aphasia. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 32(3–4), 169–
194. https://doi.org/10.1080/02643294.2015.1061982
Kempler, D., & Goral, M. (2008). Language and dementia: Neuropsychological aspects. Annual Review of
Applied Linguistics, 28, 73–90. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190508080045
Kiran, S., Balachandran, I., & Lucas, J. (2014). The nature of lexical-semantic access in bilingual aphasia.
Behavioural Neurology, 389565. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/389565
Kiran, S., Grasemann, U., Sandberg, C., & Miikkulainen, R. (2013). A computational account of bilingual aphasia
rehabilitation. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16(2), 325–342. https://doi.org/10.1017/S136672891
2000533
Kiran, S., & Roberts, P.M. (2010). Semantic feature analysis treatment in Spanish–English and French–English
bilingual aphasia. Aphasiology, 24(2), 231–261. https://doi.org/10.1080/02687030902958365
Kiran, S., Sandberg, C., Gray, T., Ascenso, E., & Kester, E. (2013). Rehabilitation in bilingual aphasia: Evidence
for within–and between-language generalization. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 22(2),
S298–309. https://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360(2013/12-0085)
Kohnert, K. (2004). Cognitive and cognate-based treatments for bilingual aphasia: A case study. Brain and
Language, 91(3), 294–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2004.04.001
Kroll, J.F., Bobb, S.C., & Wodniecka, Z. (2006). Language selectivity is the exception, not the rule: Arguments
against a fixed locus of language selection in bilingual speech. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 9(2),
119–135. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728906002483
metric connection between bilingual memory representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 33(2), 149–
174. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1994.1008
Kroll, J.F., & Tokowicz, N. (2005). Models of bilingual representation and processing: Looking back and to the
future. In J.F. Kroll & A.M.B. de Groot (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches (pp.
531–553). Oxford University Press.
Kuzmina, E., Goral, M., Norvik, M., & Weekes, B.S. (2019). What influences language impairment in bilingual
aphasia? A meta-analytic review. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 445. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00445
Li, R., Li, W., & Kiran, S. (2020). Effect of Mandarin Verb Network Strengthening Treatment (VNeST) in
Mandarin- English bilinguals with aphasia: A single- case experimental design. Neuropsychological
Rehabilitation, 31, 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/09602011.2020.1773278
Lorenzen, B., & Murray, L.L. (2008). Bilingual aphasia: A theoretical and clinical review. American Journal of
Speech-Language Pathology, 17(3), 299–317. https://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360(2008/026)
Mendez, M.F., Perryman, K.M., Pontón, M.O., & Cummings, J.L. (1999). Bilingualism and dementia. The
Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 11(3), 411–412. https://doi.org/10.1176/jnp.11.3.411
Miozzo, M., Costa, A., Hernández, M., & Rapp, B. (2010). Lexical processing in the bilingual brain: Evidence
from grammatical/morphological deficits. Aphasiology, 24(2), 262–287. https://doi.org/10.1080/0268703090
2958381
Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M.J., Witzki, A.H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T.D. (2000). The unity and
diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “frontal lobe” tasks: A latent variable ana-
lysis. Cognitive Psychology, 41(1), 49–100. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1999.0734
Mooijman, S., Schoonen, R., Roelofs, A., & Ruiter, M. (2022). Executive control in bilingual aphasia: A sys-
tematic review. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 25(1), 13–28. https://doi.org/10.1017/S136672892
100047X
473
Paradis, M. (1993). Linguistic, psycholinguistic, and neurolinguistic aspects of “interference” in bilingual

speakers: The activation threshold hypothesis. International Journal of Psycholinguistics, 9(2), 133–145.
Paradis, M. (2004). Bilingual aphasia. In M. Paradis (Ed.), A neurolinguistic theory of bilingualism (pp. 63–95).
John Benjamins Publishing.
Patra, A., Bose, A., & Marinis, T. (2020). Performance difference in verbal fluency in bilingual and monolin-
gual speakers. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 23(1), 204–218. https://doi.org/10.1017/S136672891
8001098
Peñaloza, C., Barrett, K., & Kiran, S. (2020). The influence of prestroke proficiency on poststroke lexical-
semantic performance in bilingual aphasia. Aphasiology, 34(10), 1223–1240. https://doi.org/10.1080/02687
038.2019.1666082
Peñaloza, C., Dekhtyar, M., Scimeca, M., Carpenter, E., Mukadam, N., & Kiran, S. (2020). Predicting treatment
outcomes for bilinguals with aphasia using computational modeling: Study protocol for the PROCoM
randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open, 10(11), e040495. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-040495
Peñaloza, C., Grasemann, U., Dekhtyar, M., Miikkulainen, R., & Kiran, S. (2019). BiLex: A computational
approach to the effects of age of acquisition and language exposure on bilingual lexical access. Brain and
Language, 195, 104643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2019.104643
Peñaloza, C., & Kiran, S. (2019). Recovery patterns in multilingual aphasia. In J.W. Schwieter (Ed.), The hand-
book of the neuroscience of multilingualism (pp. 553–571). Wiley-Blackwell.
Peñaloza, C., Scimeca, M., Gaona, A., Carpenter, E., Mukadam, N., Gray, T., Shamapant, S., & Kiran, S.
(2021). Telerehabilitation for word retrieval deficits in bilinguals with aphasia: Effectiveness and reliability
as compared to in-person language therapy. Frontiers in Neurology, 12, 598330. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fneur.2021.589330
Neurobiology, 15(2), 202–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2005.03.007
Pitres, A. (1895). Aphasia in polyglots. In M. Paradis (Ed.), Readings on aphasia in bilinguals and polyglots.
Marcel Didier.
Radman, N., Mouthon, M., Di Pietro, M., Gaytanidis, C., Leemann, B., Abutalebi, J., & Annoni, J.M. (2016). The
role of the cognitive control system in recovery from bilingual aphasia: A multiple single-case fMRI study.
Neural Plasticity, 8797086. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/8797086
Ribot, T. (1887). Diseases of memory: An essay in the positive psychology. Appleton.
Roberts, P.M., & Kiran, S. (2007). Assessment and treatment of bilingual aphasia and bilingual anomia. In
A.A.E. Ramos (Ed.), Speech and language disorders in bilinguals (pp. 109–131). Nova Science.
Shao, Z., Janse, E., Visser, K., & Meyer, A.S. (2014). What do verbal fluency tasks measure? Predictors of
verbal fluency performance in older adults. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 772. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fpsyg.2014.00772
Van Hell, J.G., & De Groot, A.M.B. (1998). Conceptual representation in bilingual memory: Effects of concrete-
ness and cognate status in word association. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1(3), 193–211. https://
doi.org/10.1017/S1366728998000352
474
INDEX
Note: “L1” and “L2” are used for “first language” and “second language” respectively. Figures are indicated
by italics and tables by bold type. Endnotes are indicated by the page number followed by “n” and the note
number e.g., 408n1 refers to note 1 on page 408.
A1 allele 236, 237, 238–239, 240 adulthood: declarative memory 167, 169; dual
ABI (acquired-brain injury) 461, 462, 463, 464, 465, language proficiency 439; L2 acquisition 177; L2
468, 470 learning 35, 37, 238, 362; L2 phonetic perception
abstract concepts 152, 381–382 223; language reversion in older 305–306;
ACC see anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) perceptual system malleability 95; speech sounds
Accelerative Integrative Method (AIM) 389 87–88, 89, 91
accent: and Footbridge dilemma 419; foreign 10, AF (arcuate fasciculus) 198
397–408, 402, 403, 405, 406; mimicking an 277; affective engagement 157
native 397, 403, 405, 406, 408n1, 419; as stimulus affective processing 6–7, 88, 225
property 330; and Trolley dilemma 419 AG (artificial grammar) learning 37, 39–40, 76
accent familiarity 399 age of acquisition (AoA) 5, 36, 46, 65–66, 116,
accented speech 87, 402; foreign-397, 398–399, 118, 122, 123, 125, 126, 168, 211, 247, 248,
400, 404, 406, 406, 407–408, 408n1, 408, 419; 249, 255n5, 275, 373, 436, 443; and child L2
native-10, 398, 404; theoretical frameworks for development 442; and proficiency 90, 91, 93, 95n2,
processing 404 111, 137, 248–249, 254–255, 442; theories on
ACH (adaptive control hypothesis) 425, 429, 430 249–253
acoustic features 87, 88, 397, 398 age in L2 neurocognition 247–255
acoustic noise 53 age of English acquisition 236, 237, 239
acquired-brain injury (ABI) 461, 462, 463, 464, 465, agreement verbs 454–455
468, 470 AI (artificial intelligence) 225
acquisition: dual language 11, 436, 443, 444; L1 7, AI/FO (anterior insula/frontal operculum) 50
177, 207, 217, 219, 223, 224, 249, 250, 255n2, AIM (Accelerative Integrative Method) 389
290; L2 see L2 acquisition alpha frequency band 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42n1,
action conceptualization 206 276, 277, 348
action verbs 383, 384, 385, 388 Alzheimer’s disease (AD) 68, 108, 172, 470;
Activation Threshold Hypothesis (ATH) 306 cerebrospinal fluid (CSF-AD) 68
active gap prediction 139, 141 American Sign Language (ASL) 134, 197, 448,
AD (Alzheimer’s disease) 68, 108, 172, 470; 449, 450, 450, 451, 452, 452, 453, 453, 454,
cerebrospinal fluid (CSF-AD) 68 456, 458
adaptive control hypothesis (ACH) 425, 429, 430 amygdala 64, 106, 157, 415, 416
additional language learning, in young adulthood 177 angular gyrus 102, 156, 222, 222, 223, 414
adolescence 87, 167, 168, 436 anisotropy 61, 64; fractional (FA) 64–65, 66, 173,
adult L2 learning 217, 219, 274, 280 198, 199
adult language plasticity 95 ANKK1 TaqIA polymorphism 236, 239, 240, 240
475
Index
anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (atDCS) beta frequency band 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42,
75, 76, 77, 78 42n1, 277, 348, 357
anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) 50, 68, 153, 157, biases 25, 87, 152, 157, 263, 334, 412, 413, 414, 417
195, 196, 197, 198, 239, 240, 240, 268, 278, 343, bilateral anterior insula 157
344–345, 348, 415, 427 bilateral precentral gyri 427
anterior insula/frontal operculum (AI/FO) 50 bilingual advantage 6, 239, 240
anterior neostriatum 167, 169, 171 bilingual aphasia 4, 11, 62, 107, 461–471, 467
anterior temporal gyrus (ATG) 195 bilingual brain 4, 5, 39, 47, 48, 49, 54, 60, 196, 307,
anterior temporal lobe (ATL) 106–107, 195 377, 437, 444
anterior thalamic radiation (ATR) 196 bilingual engagement 8, 63
anticipatory affective processing 6–7 bilingual interaction model 438, 440
AoA see age of acquisition (AoA) bilingual language control 10, 41, 194, 236, 427–428,
aperiodic component, of the signal 42 430, 431; and cognitive control 238–241, 240, 429;
aphasia 4, 62, 73, 107, 109; bilingual 4, 11, 62, 107, cognitive mechanisms of 424–425; and domain-
461–471, 467; bilingual patients with (BPWA) 461, general cognitive control 425–427; and dopamine-
462, 463, 464, 465, 466, 468, 469; Broca’s 74; and related genetic variants 238–241, 240
L2 neurocognition 461–471, 467; L2 proficiency bilingual language impairment 11, 470
pre-108; language selective 212; monolingual bilingual language processing, and de-generacy 6, 9,
patients with (MPWA) 461; primary progressive 260–269, 261, 262, 266, 268
(PPA) 470; progressive 470; recovery from 77, bilingual language production 428–429, 465
110; treatment for 75, 469–470 bilingual mind 4, 9
aptitude: L2 34, 35–39, 36, 37, 39–40, 41, 42, 224; bilingual patients with aphasia (BPWA) 461, 462,
language 5, 89, 94, 276–277; verbal 182 463, 464, 465, 466, 468, 469
arcuate fasciculus (AF) 198 bilingual proficiency 108, 236, 237, 237, 238
artificial grammar (AG) learning 37, 39–40, 76 bilingual word production 109
artificial intelligence (AI) 225 bilingual word recognition 8
artificial language learning 38, 253, 280–281, 296, bilingual word translation 109
297, 318, 385 bilingualism: and the brain 194; brain changes in 62,
Asian disease problem 413, 417 63, 194, 200, 221; childhood 11, 436, 439, 440,
ASL see American Sign Language (ASL) 441, 442, 443, 444; definition of 205; sequential
atDCS (anodal transcranial direct current stimulation) 49, 51, 65–66, 195, 205, 360, 372, 373, 463;
75, 76, 77, 78 simultaneous 49, 51, 65–66, 124, 195, 359, 372,
ATG (anterior temporal gyrus) 195 425, 436, 439
ATH (Activation Threshold Hypothesis) 306 Binding Theory 142
ATL (anterior temporal lobe) 106–107, 195 Blood-Oxygenation Level Dependant (BOLD) signal
ATR (anterior thalamic radiation) 196 BPWA (bilingual patients with aphasia) 461, 462,
at-risk learners 443–444 463, 464, 465, 466, 468, 469
attention 47, 74, 76, 81, 90, 148, 150, 170, 204, 207, brain activity 17, 18, 19, 25, 46, 47, 53–54, 73, 74,
208, 211, 218, 219, 226, 266, 292, 344; conscious 102, 110, 134–135, 149, 157, 170, 222, 239, 248,
369; control of 279, 430; joint 218; resources for 250, 276, 406, 414–415
266, 278, 399, 438 brain change 54, 59, 105, 106, 111, 200; bilingualism-
attrition: L1 5–6, 10, 289, 302–309 related 194, 200, 221; developmental 65; in early
auditory brainstem response 92 color processing 374–375; functional 60, 277;
axial diffusivity 64 structural 9, 60, 63, 67, 68, 191, 192, 194, 195,
axons 59, 60, 192, 192, 198 197, 199, 223, 308, 378; volumetric 126
brain injury 4, 191, 461, 462
basal ganglia 5, 48, 106, 108, 123, 124, 153, 167, brain restructuring, and L2 acquisition 196–199
170, 171, 172, 173, 195, 234–235, 235, 304, 355, brain signatures 181, 389
370, 464 brain structures: for native-language speech perception
Basque 118, 120–121, 295, 439, 442–443 91–93; for non-native sound acquisition 93–94
Bayesian approaches, in relation to prediction 331 brain-derived neurotropic factor (BDNF) 74, 75, 166
BDNF (brain-derived neurotropic factor) 74, 75, brainstem 73, 74, 75, 77, 79, 91, 92
166 Brazilian Portuguese 316
behavioral performance 41, 193, 219, 317, 320, 344, British Sign Language (BSL) 448, 452, 454
345, 346, 347, 369, 370, 376, 387, 426, 428 Broca’s aphasia 74
behavioral research 6, 38, 291 Broca’s area 42, 74, 92, 102, 134, 166, 441 see also
behavioral techniques 291, 341 left inferior frontal gyrus
Bengali 307 BSL (British Sign Language) 448, 452, 454
476
Index
candidate gene study 234 Cognitive Effort Theory 399, 401, 404, 407
cascading effects, of phonological analysis 398, cognitive flexibility 238–9, 296, 426, 427
399–400, 404, 408 cognitive functions 5, 33, 34, 62, 74, 81, 150, 151,
catastrophic interference 306, 354 154, 171, 428
Catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT) enzyme cognitive load 134, 297n3, 398–399, 455; and
234–235, 235, 236, 237 Foreign Language effect 415–416, 418, 419
categorical perception 208 Cognitive Load Theory 401, 404, 406
category fusion 208, 209, 211–212 cognitive processing 4, 6, 20, 22–23, 49, 110, 222,
category refinement 208, 212 398, 430
cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation cognitively demanding tasks 22, 51, 59, 239, 398, 414
(ctDCS) 75, 76, 77 coherence: phase 32, 33, 39, 40, 41; right hemisphere
caudate nucleus 48, 64, 66, 106–107, 124, 125, 153, 38, 39; spectral 32, 33, 38, 39, 41; theta 38, 40
167, 195, 196, 198, 221, 222, 223, 278, 373, 464 color 206, 207–208, 211–212
causal inferences 74, 81, 154 competition: language 39, 59–60, 108, 109, 303,
causal relatedness 154 305, 306; between language-specific and
CC (corpus callosum) 196, 198 domain-general learning mechanisms 95n2;
CDR (continuous-time deconvolutional regression) lexical 356, 363; phonetic 92
52 Competition Model 116, 220, 291
CEM (Cumulative Enhancement Model) 316–317 complementary learning systems (CLS) model 10,
cerebellum 49, 63, 64, 124, 196, 373, 428; left 415, 321, 354, 355, 356, 358, 359, 361, 362, 363
427; right 106 comprehension: discourse 8, 150–151, 154–156;
cerebrospinal fluid-Alzheimer’s disease (CSF-AD) 68 humor 157; idiom 151–152; of meaning in
changes associated with proficiency 104–107, 110 context see pragmatics; metaphor 152–153, 155;
child second language development, neurocognition naturalistic 52; naturalistic language 52; sentence
of 436–444 110, 116, 117, 155, 157, 318, 400, 443; speech act
childhood bilingualism 11, 436, 439, 440, 441, 442, 156; text 154
443, 444 computational models, of language learning and
Chinese 106–107, 120, 121, 122, 124, 140, 142, 197, processing 331, 335
209, 211, 223, 252, 277, 278, 307–308, 318, 319, computations 124, 136, 183, 185, 221, 449; and
403, 405, 439 functions 33
Chinese–English bilinguals 209, 236, 240, 361, 415, COMT (Catechol-O-methyltransferase): enzyme
416, 417, 429 234–235, 235, 236, 237; genotype 236, 237,
Chomsky, Noam 142, 177, 179, 180, 218, 249, 290 238, 240
circuit of Papez 166 conceptual gender 209, 210
CLI see cross-linguistic influence (CLI) conceptual mappings 152–153
CLIL (content and language integrated learning) 308 conceptual representations 107, 196, 205, 206, 207,
clinical implications of research: child L2 381, 438
development 443–444; foreign accent perception conceptualization: action 206; and grammar 209;
407; phonology 94–95 by language 205, 206; of language attrition 306;
clinical/case studies 102 of linguistic architecture 178; motion 210–211;
CLS see complementary learning systems (CLS) object 209–210; of the world 6, 9, 204–205
model conditional routing model 235
codeswitching 261, 262, 265–266 Configuration Hypotheses 152
cognates 108, 109, 211, 293, 346, 453, 453, 456, conflict monitoring 135, 429
457n3 connectivity: effective 51, 429; functional 49, 51,
cognition: embodied 205, 206, 219, 388; non-verbal 304, 384, 408, 416; intrinsic functional 49, 51;
9, 374; reshaping of 204–212 resting-state functional (RSFC) 49–51; structural
cognitive approaches, in relation to prediction 39, 65, 67, 196, 198
331–332 connectometry 67
cognitive control: domain-general 10, 124, 424, conscious attention 369
425–427, 429, 430, 464, 466, 468; and dopamine- consonants 87, 88, 95n1
related genetic variants 238–241, 240; in L2 content and language integrated learning (CLIL) 308
neurocognition 424–430; see also executive context of learning, in L2 neurocognition 368–378
functions continuous theta burst stimulation (cTBS) 75, 76
cognitive demands 33, 59, 60, 72, 192, 195, 196, 221, continuous-time deconvolutional regression (CDR)
260, 265, 320, 398, 455 52
cognitive effort 78, 110, 293, 308, 320, 321, 398, 399, contrastive analysis 290
404 conventional metaphors 152, 153
477
Index
conventionalized expressions 152, 153 and generative approaches 186; prediction 336;
convergence hypothesis 108, 109, 110, 249, 250–253, proficiency 254–255
254, 255
conversation 95, 149–150, 154, 238, 267, 296, 397, dACC (dorsal anterior cingulate cortex) 50, 344–345,
400, 407, 408 428, 429
Cooperative Principle 149 DARPP-32 (Dopamine-and-cAMP-regulated
cooptation 165 neuronal phosphoprotein) 234–235, 235
corpus callosum (CC) 196, 198 DAT1 (dopamine transporter) 234, 235
corrective feedback 342, 343, 347 data collection paradigms 35
correlational learning principle 381–382 DCM (dynamic causal modeling) 469
cortex: dorsal anterior cingulate (dACC) 50, deaf signers 450, 451
344–345, 428, 429; dorsolateral prefrontal 49, decision making: foreign language effect in 7, 10;
77, 416; inferior frontal 47, 48, 166; left inferior and L2 neurocognition 412–419
frontal 47, 48; middle temporal 166, 170; motor declarative learning 8–9, 40, 165, 166–168, 343,
107, 206, 383, 388; neo-74, 166, 354, 356, 358; 355–356
parahippocampal 166; parietal 106, 166, 428; declarative memory (DM) 40, 107, 108, 136, 165,
perirhinal 166; prefrontal (PFC) see prefrontal 166–167, 167–168, 169, 170, 251, 280–281, 316,
cortex (PFC); pregenual anterior cingulate 157; 317, 319, 353, 355, 369–370, 371
premotor 219, 387; sensorimotor 156, 206, 385 Declarative/Procedural (DP) Model 8–9, 107–108,
cortical organization, of L1 and L2 syntax 134 110, 116, 136, 137, 165, 170, 171–172, 172–173,
cortical thickness (CT) 8, 61, 63–64, 65–66, 68, 94, 173–174, 235–236, 250, 316, 317, 368, 369, 370,
173, 197, 223, 376, 388, 418 377; and L2 learning context 369–371; predictions
Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH) 4, 89, 116, 177, for L2 of 168–169
186, 217, 249–250, 251–252, 253, 255 default mode network 49, 50, 51
critical/sensitive periods, in the brain 89–91 de-generacy: and bilingual language processing
Croatian 417 6, 9, 260–269, 261, 262, 266, 268; in language
cross-language generalization 108, 468 experience 266–269, 268; in language processing
cross-language interaction 8, 9, 116 264–266, 266; in language use 262–264; in
cross-language interference 10 predictive processing 264; and reading speed 265
cross-linguistic influence (CLI) 297n1, 297, 335; and dementia 107, 470
child L2 development 442–443; effects of 317; dendrites 59, 60, 192, 192
facilitative 318–319; inhibitory 320–321; in L3/ developmental brain change 65
ln acquisition 321–322; models of 315–317; and developmental stages, hierarchy of 136, 137, 437
negative transfer 294–295; and positive transfer diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) 7, 8, 61, 64, 65, 66, 68
293–294 diffusivity 64, 65, 66, 173, 196, 198, 199, 373
crosslinguistic interaction 4, 6, 315, 319, 437 digital language learning (DLL) 224, 225–226
cross-linguistic similarity 125, 136, 363, 442 discourse comprehension 8, 150–151, 154–156
cross-linguistic social interaction 408 DISLEX 469
cross-linguistic transfer, in L2 neurocognition 289–297 distractor verbs 267
CSF-AD (cerebrospinal fluid-Alzheimer’s disease) 68 DLL (digital language learning) 224, 225–226
CT (cortical thickness) 8, 61, 63–64, 65–66, 68, 94, DM see declarative memory (DM)
173, 197, 223, 376, 388, 418 domain general multiple demand network 52
cTBS (continuous theta burst stimulation) 75, 76 domain-general cognitive control 10, 124, 424,
ctDCS (cathodal transcranial direct current 425–427, 429, 430, 464, 466, 468
stimulation) 75, 76, 77 dopamine levels 234–235, 236, 241–2
Cumulative Enhancement Model (CEM) 316–317 dopamine system 234–235, 236, 237, 241, 348
current trends: age in L2 neurocognition 254–255; dopamine transporter (DAT1) 234, 235
attrition 308–309; child L2 development, Dopamine-and-cAMP-regulated neuronal
neurocognition of 444; cross-linguistic transfer phosphoprotein (DARPP-32) 234–235, 235
296–297; embodied L2 processing and learning dopamine-related genes 234, 235, 240
388–389; feedback 348–349; foreign accent dopamine-related genetic variants 234, 236, 242;
perception 407–408; genetic factors 241–242; and bilingual language control 238–241, 240; and
individual difference factors 281–282; L2 lexico- cognitive control 238–241, 240; and proficiency
semantic system 110–111; L2 morphological 236–238, 237
system 126–127; L2 phonology 95; L2 dopaminergic-neostriatal projections, from midbrain
pragmatic system 157; L2 syntactic system structures 167
141–143; linguistic relativity 211–212; memory dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (dACC) 50, 344–345,
consolidation 362–363; neurolinguistic methods 428, 429
478
Index
dorsolateral prefrontal cortex 49, 77, 416 emotional processing 206, 220, 224
DP model see Declarative/Procedural (DP) Model emotional response: and the Foreign Language effect
DRD2 genotype 237, 237, 238, 240 415–416, 419; to literary reading 415
DRD2/ANKK1 TaqIA polymorphism 239, 240 empathy 157
DRD2/ANKK1 TaqIA SNP 238, 240 empty slots 179
DRM (dynamic restructuring model) 9, 191, enactment effect 382
194–195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200 encoding 78, 82, 92, 197, 220, 222, 223, 279,
DTI (diffusion tensor imaging) 7, 8, 61, 64, 65, 66, 68 343, 355, 374–376, 382, 385–386, 387, 388,
dual coding theory 220 418, 456
dual language acquisition 11, 436, 443, 444 enriched exposure 9, 217, 223–224
dual language childhood bilinguals 436, 440, 441, episodic memory 353, 354, 355, 358
442, 443 ERD (Event-Related Desynchronization) 385
dual language proficiency 436, 439, 442, 443 ERN (error-related negativity) 22, 23, 343, 345, 346,
dual learning system 93 347–348, 349
dual lexicon, neuroanatomical location for 438–440 ERP see event-related potentials (ERP)
dual-language experience 437, 438, 439, 441 error detection 135, 401, 406
dual-language use, effects of 441–442 error monitoring 346, 347
Dual-Path model 331 error-related negativity (ERN) 22, 23, 343, 345, 346,
Dutch 36, 37, 121, 138, 198, 276, 292–293, 320, 347–348, 349
345, 346–347, 357, 383, 403, 405, 406, 417, 448, Event-Related Desynchronization (ERD) 385
453, 454 event-related potential (ERP) studies 20, 104, 110,
dynamic causal modeling (DCM) 469 116, 117–119, 125, 126, 128, 136, 137, 138, 141,
dynamic restructuring model (DRM) 9, 191, 142, 252, 263, 281; on violations 118, 120–121
194–195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200 event-related potentials (ERP) 18–20, 18, 19–24,
26, 135, 153, 170, 249, 275, 304, 370; definition
early left anterior negativity (ELAN) 135, 136, of 205; feedback-related 342–343; and foreign-
143n1, 252, 253 accented semantic processing 403; and foreign-
ECoG (electrocorticography) 92 accented syntactic processing 405; methods 24–26;
economic decisions 7, 10, 412 oddball paradigm 208, 209; from stalemate to
economy of effort 151–152 180–183, 182, 183; studies see event-related
effective connectivity 51, 429 potential (ERP) studies; see also N400; P600
elaborative processing 220 executive control 52, 148, 153, 195, 321, 426–427,
ELAN (early left anterior negativity) 135, 136, 429, 466, 467, 468, 471; semantic 466, 467, 468
143n1, 252, 253 executive functions see executive control
electrocorticography (ECoG) 92 expansion-renormalization model 193–194, 193,
electroencephalography (EEG): for naturalistic 195–196, 199, 200, 372
speech 26; quantitative (qEEG) 31–42, 32, 33, experience-based neuroplasticity 191–194, 192, 193
36, 37; signal 17, 18, 32, 34–35, 42, 117, 401; experience-dependent neuroplasticity 9, 192, 193,
time-based 17–26, 18, 21 194
electrophysiology 212, 249, 330, 401–406, 402, 403, experience-related factors, pertaining to a speaker’s
405 L2 history 116; see also age of acquisition (AoA);
ELN (extended language network) 153, 157 immersion; proficiency
embedded verbs 184, 185 experiential traces 382
embodied cognition 205, 206, 219, 388 exposure 90–91, 93, 95, 95n1
embodied L2 processing and learning 381–389 extended language network (ELN) 153, 157
embodied language learning 10, 382, 385–387, 388 eye gaze 218, 455
embodied language processing 7, 386; behavioral eye-movement 25, 149, 152, 265
evidence of 382–383; neurocognitive evidence of eye-tracking 178, 263, 297n3, 306, 330
383–385
embodied learning 10, 375, 381–389, 419 FA (Fractional Anisotropy) 64–65, 66, 173, 198, 199
embodied processing 10, 381–389 facilitative crosslinguistic influence 318–319
embodied semantics 10, 381–382, 382–387, 388, 389 false friends 109, 211
embodiment 9, 206, 219, 315, 374, 383, 384, 385, familiarity: with a new language 111; with two
389; definition of 205 languages 111n1
emergentism: language learning 220–221; metaphor feedback: corrective 342, 343, 347; negative 342,
152–153 343, 344, 347, 348, 349n1, 416; positive 342,
emotional component, of decisions 414 343, 344, 349n1, 415–416; in L2 neurocognition
emotional engagement 157 341–349
479
Index
feedback effectiveness 341, 343, 344, 349 functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) 102,
feedback learning 10 120–123, 358, 361–362, 406; resting-state
feedback processing 341, 342, 343, 346, 347, 348, (rs-fMRI) 49, 50, 51, 268
349, 416 functional near infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) 296,
feedback-locked ERP components 341, 343, 344, 297, 441, 444
346, 347, 348, 349 functional networks 8, 49, 51, 52, 77
feedback-related event-related potentials 342–343 functional neuroimaging 8, 46–54, 47, 50
feedback-related negativity (FRN) 343, 344–345, functional plasticity 9, 451
346, 347, 348, 349, 349n1 functionalism 291
FEs (formulaic expressions) 151–152, 153 functions, and computations 33
figurative language 157, 158 future directions see current trends
filler-gaps 139–141, 178, 179, 184, 185
first language see L1 (first language) GABA (gamma-aminobutyric acid) 73, 75, 90
first language/second language crosslinguistic gamma frequency band 34, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41, 277,
influence, on third language acquisition 314–323 348
fixed-order rules 40 gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) 73, 75, 90
FLe (Foreign Language effect), in decision making GAMMs (Generalized Additive Mixed Models) 309
412–419 gender: conceptual 209, 210; grammatical see
flexible-order rules 40 grammatical gender; in L2 Spanish 180–183, 182,
fluids 61, 63, 64, 68 183; semantic 210
fMRI see functional magnetic resonance imaging gender agreement 118, 179, 180, 181, 182, 254, 279,
(fMRI) 293, 294, 295, 318, 346
fNIRS (functional near infrared spectroscopy) 296, gender assignment 178, 179, 180–181, 264
297, 441, 444 gender congruency 210, 294
Fodor, Jerry 179, 218, 381 gender-decision tasks 126
Footbridge dilemma 413, 414, 415, 416–417, general cognitive processes 22–23, 292–293; and
418–419 quantitative electroencephalography 34–41, 36, 37
foreign accent perception, neurocognition of 10, Generalized Additive Mixed Models (GAMMs) 309
397–408, 402, 403, 405, 406 generalized additive models 252, 309
foreign language classroom 308 generative approaches, to L2 acquisition 177–186,
Foreign Language effect (FLe), in decision making 182, 183
412–419 Generative Perspectives, on L2 neurolinguistics 368,
foreign-accented semantic processing 401–402, 403, 371–372
404 generative second language acquisition (GenSLA) 9,
foreign-accented speech 6, 397, 398–400, 404, 406, 177–178, 180
406, 407–408, 419 genetic differences 9, 233, 237, 239; see also genetic
foreign-accented syntactic processing, ERP findings variants
on 405 genetic factors, in L2 neurocognition 5, 9, 233–242,
formulaic expressions (FEs) 151–152, 153 235, 237, 240
formulaic language 150 genetic variants 233, 234, 236–241, 237, 240,
FOXP2 gene 167, 234 241–242, 323; see also genetic differences
FPH (Full Transfer/Full Access/Full Parse genome-wide research 9, 234, 241
Hypothesis) 183, 184, 185 genotype 233–234, 237, 239; COMT 236, 237, 238,
Fractional Anisotropy (FA) 64–65, 66, 173, 198, 199 240; DRD2 237, 237, 238, 240; Met/Met 236, 240
fraternal twins 233 GenSLA (generative second language acquisition) 9,
frequency bands 32, 33, 34–35, 38, 39, 42, 276, 277, 177–178, 180
281, 348 German 36, 37, 48, 184, 253, 254, 307, 345, 346,
FRN (feedback-related negativity) 343, 344–345, 383, 403, 405, 417, 442, 457–458; cross-linguistic
346, 347, 348, 349, 349n1 transfer 292–293, 294, 295; individual differences
frontal lobe 42, 102, 109, 238, 428, 441 275, 276, 277, 279; L2 lexico-semantic system
frontal regions 5, 92, 94, 110, 124, 167, 439, 441, 103–104, 105, 106; L2 morphological system
464 118, 120, 122, 124, 125; L2 syntactic system 118,
frontal-striatal circuits 93 120, 122, 124, 125; L3 acquisition 316, 320, 323;
Full Accessibility 181 linguistic relativity 207, 209, 210, 211
Full Transfer/Full Access/Full Parse Hypothesis global efficiency 51, 425
(FPH) 183, 184, 185 globus pallidus 66, 106, 195
functional brain change 60, 277 goal maintenance 268, 425
functional connectivity 49, 51, 304, 384, 408, 416 Government and Binding approach 179
480
Index
grammar: and conceptualization 209–211; processing IFOF (inferior fronto-occipital fasciculus) 196
of 5 IH (Interpretability Hypothesis) 180
grammar-related factors, and L2 morphological imaging: diffusion tensor (DTI) 7, 8, 61, 64, 65, 66,
system 8, 115–118, 119, 120–123, 124–125, 68; functional magnetic resonance (fMRI) see
126–128 functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI);
grammatical aspect, and motion conceptualization functional neuro-8, 46–54, 47, 50; magnetic
207, 210–211, 377 resonance (MRI) see magnetic resonance imaging
grammatical competence 186, 290 (MRI); neuro-see neuroimaging; non-invasive 61;
grammatical errors 117–118, 172, 290, 398, 401, resting-state functional magnetic resonance
404–405, 406 (rs-fMRI) 49, 50, 51, 268; structural neuro-8,
grammatical gender 23, 178, 295, 335, 346–347, 405; 59–68, 63
and de-generacy 263; and number 178–179, 180; immersion 61, 116, 117, 118, 119, 126, 267, 268, 417,
and object conceptualization 209–210; violations 424
of 260, 264, 275, 307 immersive virtual reality (iVR) 388
grammatical gender–semantic representation implicatures 149, 150–151, 155
interactions 210 implied meaning 148, 149
grammatical learning 5, 170–171, 174, 345–346, 378 incongruency 155, 157, 320, 321
grammatical sensitivity 117, 276 indirect object wh-dependencies 140
grammaticality judgment task 119, 138 individual differences: between M2L2 learners
grand average event-related potentials, of number 455–456; in L2 neurocognition 274–282
conditions 182 individualized alpha frequency (IAF) 32, 34, 35
graph-theoretical analysis 51 inferior frontal cortex 47, 48, 166
grey matter 94, 105–106, 173, 372–373, 418; and inferior frontal gyrus (IFG) 65–66, 68, 78, 134, 153,
dynamic restructuring model 192, 193, 193, 195, 239, 240, 240, 277, 370, 406, 418, 427, 428, 456;
196–198, 199; and structural neuroimaging 59, 60, child L2 development 439, 440, 441, 442; dynamic
61, 62, 63–64, 65, 67–68 restructuring model 195, 196, 197, 198; functional
neuroimaging 47, 49, 50; L2 lexico-semantic
HANDLE (Hand-Action-Network Dynamic system 102, 105, 106, 109; L2 morphological
Language Embodiment) model 382 system 122, 123, 124–125, 127–128; L2
Hebbian learning 166, 167, 206, 207, 382, 383, 386 phonology 91, 92, 93; L2 social learning 222, 222,
hemispheric processing, visual half-field approach 223; see also Broca’s area
to 26 inferior frontal sulcus 105
hemodynamic response 52, 126, 415, 439 inferior fronto-occipital fasciculus (IFOF) 196
hemodynamic studies 127, 128 inferior parietal lobe (IPL) 122, 123, 195, 197, 388
heritability, of traits 94, 233, 242 inferior parietal lobule 49, 108, 123, 222, 223
Heschl’s gyrus (HG) 94, 195 inflection errors 117
heuristic bias 413 inflectional morphemes 115
HG (Heschl’s gyrus) 94, 195 inheritance 234
higher frequency words 109 inhibitory control 31, 41, 108, 197, 296, 320, 321,
hippocampus 64, 65, 76, 166, 168, 173, 193, 195, 344, 426, 427; and bilingual aphasia 465–468,
197, 223, 354, 355, 356, 358, 360, 361, 362, 416 467
historical perspectives: age 249; aphasia 461–462; inhibitory control model (IC) 424–425, 427, 430, 465
attrition 303–304; cross-linguistic transfer inhibitory cross-linguistic influence 320–321
290–291; functional neuroimaging 47–48; genetic initial exposure 195, 372–373
factors 233–234; L2 pragmatic system 149–151; insula 50, 51, 94, 106, 157, 370, 415, 416
non-invasive brain stimulation 74–75, 75; intercultural pragmatics 148–149, 156, 158
proficiency 249; structural neuroimaging 62 Interface Hypothesis 177, 178
hubs 51, 384, 428 interference suppression 427
humor 157 interindividual variability 249, 253, 254, 255
hydrogen 61, 102 interlanguage 151, 291, 318
hyperscanning 95, 225 interlingual homographs 104, 109, 211
intermittent theta burst stimulation (iTBS) 75, 76
IAF (individualized alpha frequency) 32, 34, 35 internal monitoring 346, 347, 348, 349
IC (inhibitory control model) 424–425, 427, 430, 465 interpersonal language dynamics 268–269
identical twins 233 Interpretability Hypothesis (IH) 180
idiom comprehension 151–152 intrinsic functional connectivity 49, 51
idiom principle 151–152 inverse problem 25
IFG see inferior frontal gyrus (IFG) IPL (inferior parietal lobe) 122, 123, 195, 197, 388
481
Index
Italian 36, 121, 122, 124, 125, 148, 253, 307, 359, speech sounds 8, 89, 91, 93–94, 290, 293,
360, 403, 417, 442 294–295; Status Factor 315–316, 317; syntactic
iTBS (intermittent theta burst stimulation) 75, 76 system 8, 133–143; verbs 383, 386, 387; vocabulary
iVR (immersive virtual reality) 388 see L2 vocabulary; word-to-sound learning 51
L2 experience 68, 127, 138, 250, 374; and
Japanese 48, 88, 122, 124, 134, 222, 223, 293, 297n4, quantitative electroencephalography 39, 41–42
317, 318, 361, 403, 439 L2 learning context: and Declarative/Procedural
joint attention 218 Model 369–371; and Dynamic Restructuring
Model 372–374; and Generative Perspectives
Korean 91, 222, 277, 293, 297n4, 307, 318, 406 371–372; and Linguistic Relativity 374–375; and
Social L2 375–376
L1 (first language): acquisition 7, 177, 207, 217, L2 neurocognition: age 247–255; and aphasia
219, 223, 224, 249, 250, 255n2, 290; attainment 461–470, 467; cognitive control 424–430; context
248–249, 253–254; attrition 5–6, 10, 289, of learning 368–378; cross-linguistic transfer
302–309; brain networks for 221; embodied 289–297; decision making 412–419; feedback
semantics in 382–387; interference 103, 124, 341–349; genetic factors 5, 9, 233–242, 235,
267; language impairment 461–463; language 237, 240; individual differences 274–282; and L1
processing 41, 330–332, 382; learning 9, 169, 217, attrition 302–309; memory consolidation 353–363,
375; lexical processing 102; lexicalization 360; proficiency 247–255; and rehabilitation
356–358; lexico-semantic processing 5, 101–102, 461–471, 467
111, 155, 278; sentence processing 184; speech L2 processing: age of acquisition and proficiency in
sounds 87, 295; syntactic processing 134–135; 254–255; of word order constraints 137–138
syntax 134; translation 51, 107, 108, 220, 222, 223 L2 proficiency: and task-base quantitative
L1-dominant hypothesis 315–316 electroencephalography 40–41, 42; theories on
L1–L2 crosslinguistic influences, on L3 acquisition 249–251
314–323 L2 vocabulary 10, 21, 36; learning 101, 104, 109,
L1–L2 similarity 115, 116, 118, 124, 125, 126, 127, 110, 111, 195, 196, 208, 219, 223, 233, 248, 347,
136, 137, 138, 254 348, 349, 375–376, 455–456; training 199, 252,
L2 (second language): acquisition 177–186, 182, 378
183; aptitude 34, 35–39, 36, 37, 39–40, 41, L3 acquisition, L1–L2 crosslinguistic influence on
42, 224; attainment 50, 116; brain networks 314–323
for 221; development 110, 305, 318, 349; lab-based studies, bridging the gap with real-world
embodied semantics in 382–387; experience see language learning 93
L2 experience; exposure 41, 66, 90, 111, 127, label feedback hypothesis 207, 209
219, 267, 276, 305, 371; feedback effectiveness LAD (Language Acquisition Device) 218, 290
344–345; Generative Perspectives on the LAN see left anterior negativity (LAN)
neurolinguistics of 371–372; grammar 117, 169, language, definition of 205
170, 171, 172, 173, 209, 247, 316, 318, 320, 369, language acquisition: dual 11, 436, 443, 444;
370–371, 440; language impairment 461–463; generative second (GenSLA) 9, 177–178, 180;
language processing 41, 330–332, 382; learning non-native 177; third (TLA) 314–323
3, 4–7, 7–8, 9, 10–11, 34, 35–39, 36, 37; learning Language Acquisition Device (LAD) 218, 290
context see L2 learning context; learning outcomes language aptitude 37, 39–40, 276, 370; see also L2
38, 49–50, 267, 277; lexical processing 104, 105, aptitude
278; lexical retrieval 50; lexicalization 358–362, language background 54, 66, 88, 239–240, 277, 406
360; lexico-semantic processing 5, 101–102, 106, language competition 39, 59–60, 108, 109, 303, 305,
107, 110, 111, 155; lexico-semantic system 8, 306
101–111, 102; lexico-semantics 8, 101, language comprehension 52, 95, 156, 198, 261, 296,
102–103, 106, 107–109, 110, 111; listening 336, 383, 385, 389, 400, 440
span task 456; morphological processing 8, language control: in bilingual aphasia 463–468, 467;
116, 117, 119, 122–123, 124, 125, 126, 127, neural mechanisms of 427–428
128; morphological system 115–128, 120–123; language deficits 108, 109, 110, 470
morphology 118, 125, 126; morphosyntactic language experience 39, 66, 194–195, 208, 221,
knowledge 117, 119; neurocognition see L2 239, 255, 260, 265, 276, 317, 336, 436, 440;
neurocognition; phonology 21, 87–95, 248; and aphasia 462–463, 466, 468; and context of
pragmatics 8, 148–157, 158; prediction 329–336; learning 371, 372; and decision making 415, 419;
processing see L2 processing; proficiency see L2 de-generacy in 262, 266–269, 268; dual-437, 438,
proficiency; sentence processing 10, 143; Spanish 439, 441; and Foreign Language effect 416–418;
180–183, 182, 183; speech perception 19–20; and functional neuroimaging 47, 49, 51, 52, 54
482
Index
language exposure 255, 275, 276, 308, 439, 462 8, 88, 93, 94, 95; in the visual-manual modality 11,
language immersion 61, 267, 268, 417, 424 448–457, 450, 452, 453
language impairment 11, 461–463, 466, 470 learning process 77, 218, 247, 250, 418, 448, 455;
language learning: additional 177; artificial 38, social-based 218–221; see also Social L2 learning
280–281, 296, 297; computational models of (SL2)
331, 335; digital language (DLL) 224, 225–226; left amygdala 106, 157, 416
embodied 10, 382, 385–387, 388; emergentist left anterior insula 50, 94
perspectives of; learning about 308; motivation left anterior insula/frontal operculum 50
for 5, 219, 224, 225, 248, 254, 255, 281, 336, 368; left anterior negativity (LAN) 22, 117, 118, 119, 120,
real-world 93; risk factors for 220; social-based 123, 135, 137, 138, 140, 184, 210, 251, 252, 253,
218–221 254–255, 260, 263, 264, 318, 319, 372, 439
language loss 4, 10, 302, 461, 463–464 left basal ganglia 48, 172
language modality 197, 277 left caudate nucleus 48, 124, 125
language monitoring 438, 441 left cerebellum 415, 427
language network 10, 49, 50, 51, 52, 153, 157, 208, left dorsolateral PFC 427, 429
387 left hemisphere 26, 38, 48, 51, 66, 94, 107, 108, 169,
language processing: bilingual 6, 9, 260–269, 261, 171, 196–197, 221, 222, 277, 385, 441
262, 266, 268; de-generacy in 264; embodied 7, left IFG see left inferior frontal gyrus
382–383, 383–385, 386; L1 41, 330–332, 382; L2 left inferior frontal cortex 47, 48
41, 330–332, 382 left inferior frontal gyrus 47, 49, 50, 65–66, 78, 105,
language proficiency 41, 46, 48, 91, 107, 155, 194, 106, 109, 122, 124–125, 127–128, 134, 153, 198,
197–198, 241, 383, 385, 397, 415, 416, 464, 468; 222, 277, 370, 427, 439, 440, 441, 442, 456;
dual 436, 439, 442, 443; and Foreign Language see also Broca’s area
effect 416; native 93; pre-ABI 463, 470; pre- left inferior frontal junction 428
morbid 11, 463, 469; pre-stroke 469; post-ABI left middle frontal gyrus 65
470; post-morbid 469; relative 425 left posterior cingulate 106
language reversion 305–306 left posterior superior temporal gyrus (pSTG) 50
language selective aphasia 212 left putamen 48, 195
language similarity 297, 415, 469; and Foreign left superior temporal gyrus 65, 153
Language effect 416–418 left supplementary motor area 105, 427
language training 5, 111, 196, 197, 198, 199, 267, left thalamus 106
373, 407, 429 lesion method 9, 47, 169, 171–173, 454
language transfer see cross-linguistic influence lexical configuration 356
language-switching network 153 lexical decision task 23, 24, 104, 125, 347, 354, 383;
language-switching tool, phonological discrimination primed 104; semantically primed 354, 356, 359
as a 437–438 lexical engagement 356
late positive component (LPC) 22, 153, 155, 263, lexical memory 168
354, 357, 361 lexical recognition 78
LC (locus coeruleus) 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 343 lexicalization 354, 355, 363; L1 356–358; L2
LC-NE (locus coeruleusnorepinephrine) system 74, 358–362, 360
75, 78 lexical-semantic challenges, for native listeners of
learning: additional language 177; adult L2 217, foreign-accented speech 398
219, 274, 280; aptitude for language see aptitude; lexical-semantic impairment, in bilingual aphasia
artificial grammar (AG) 37, 39–40, 76; artificial 464–468, 467
language 38, 280–281, 296, 297; content and lexical-semantic violations 252, 441–442
language integrated (CLIL) 308; context of lexicon, of child L2 development 438–440
368–378; correlational learning 381–382; lexico-semantic processing 103; L1 5, 101–102, 111,
declarative 8–9, 40, 165, 166–168, 343, 155, 278; L2 5, 101–102, 106, 107, 110, 111, 155;
355–356; embodied 10, 375, 382, 385, 387, in signers 450
388, 419; embodied language 10, 382, 385–387, lexico-semantic system 101–111, 102
388; feedback 10; grammatical 5, 170–171, 174, lexico-semantics 5, 102, 110; see also L2
345–346, 378; Hebbian 166, 167, 206, 207, 382, lexico-semantics
383, 386; L1 9, 169, 217, 375; about language life experiences 59, 219, 220
learning 308; motor 59, 75, 451; multimodal 220, linguistic determinism 208
418; phonemic contrast 87–96; principles of 217; linguistic diversity 205–206
procedural 5, 8–9, 165, 166–168, 169, 171, 173, linguistic factors, explaining variability in L2
234, 235, 356; process of see learning process; performance 275–278
social see Social L2 learning (SL2); speech sound linguistic overlap, of syntactic systems 293
483
Index
linguistic processing 52, 124, 181, 277, 289, 291, procedural (PM) 165–174; semantic 220, 353,
294, 296, 384; vs. non-linguistic processing 354–355, 362, 381; visual 59, 370; working 34, 40,
292–293 279, 317, 321–322, 322–323, 330
Linguistic Relativity 9, 204–212, 368, 377; definition memory consolidation, in L2 neurocognition
of 205; effect of 207–211, 212, 375; and L2 353–363, 360
learning context 374–375 memory representation 353, 354–355, 358, 427
linguistic similarity 277, 462; cross-125, 136, 363, memory retrieval 152, 220, 305
442 memory traces 224, 354, 355, 387
listening 23–24, 48, 52, 66, 91, 106, 148, 155, 224, mental representation 154, 205, 206, 208, 219, 220,
249, 307, 308, 335, 382, 386–387, 456 374
literacy 330, 444, 457n1 meta-analyses 5, 48, 76–77, 80, 81–82, 106, 116, 118,
literal language 151, 153, 157 119, 134, 150, 169, 170–171, 174, 242, 254,
LLAMA aptitude test 276–277 280–281, 321, 378, 414, 418, 441
localizer task 52 metabolites 68, 304
locus coeruleus (LC) 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 343 metaphor: comprehension of 152–153, 155;
locus coeruleusnorepinephrine (LC-NE) system 74, conventional 152, 153; Emergentist Account of
75, 78 152–153; novel 152–153
long-distance syntactic dependencies 136 Met/Met genotype 236, 240
longitudinal relaxation 61 MFG (medial frontal gyrus) 195, 196, 197, 414
longitudinal research 24, 41, 49, 61, 65, 67, 68, 106, middle temporal cortex 166, 170
111, 191, 197, 199, 212, 242, 249, 277, 278, 279, middle temporal gyrus (MTG) 106–107, 196, 222,
370, 373, 374, 377, 378, 419, 426, 439, 450–451, 223, 278, 440
454, 469 Minimal Brain Adaptation for Representational
long-term potentiation (LTP) 74, 75, 76, 79 Prioritization (MBARP) hypothesis 185
LPC (late positive component) 22, 153, 155, 263, mismatch negativity (MMN) 19–20, 23–24, 292, 293,
354, 357, 361 295, 437; visual (vMMN) 207–208, 209, 212
LTP (long-term potentiation) 74, 75, 76, 79 mispronunciation 87, 404
mixed-effects regression 25–26
M1L2 learners 448 MLAT (Modern Language Aptitude Test) 276, 277,
M2L2 learners 448, 449, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 370
456, 457 MMN see mismatch negativity (MMN)
machine learning 225, 255 Modern Language Aptitude Test (MLAT) 276, 277,
magnetic field 46, 53, 61, 72, 73, 110 370
magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) 59, 72, 102; modularity hypothesis 218
functional (fMRI) see functional magnetic monitoring 48, 124, 194, 267, 268, 427; conflict 135,
resonance imaging (fMRI); resting-state functional 429; error 346, 347; internal 346, 347, 348, 349;
(rs-fMRI) 49, 50, 51; scanners for 46, 47, 52, 53, language 438, 441; performance 342, 343, 345,
61, 222; structural (sMRI) 46, 73, 79, 80, 102, 373, 349; self-342, 343
376 monolingual patients with aphasia (MPWA) 461
magnetic resonance spectroscopy 68 moral judgments 10, 412, 413, 417, 419; Foreign
magnetoencephalography (MEG) 25, 26, 27, 53, 110, Language effect on 416
135, 156, 173, 212, 223–224, 309, 357, 426 morphemes 115, 168, 264, 425, 438, 441
Mandarin Chinese 78, 82, 93, 142, 185, 197, 252, morphological knowledge 115, 116, 119
265, 267, 278, 296, 307–308, 388 morphological processing 8, 116, 117, 119, 122–123,
masked priming 178, 362, 439 124, 125, 126, 127, 128
MBARP (Minimal Brain Adaptation for morphology 5, 8, 18, 79, 118, 119, 124–125, 126,
Representational Prioritization) hypothesis 185 127, 168, 169, 172, 182, 248, 250, 314, 376, 449
mean diffusivity 64, 65, 66, 173 morphometry: surface-based 67; voxel-based (VBM)
meaning: implied 148, 149; mapping form to 8, 63, 64, 65, 67, 68, 101, 102, 105–106
451–453, 452, 453 morphosyntactic relations 116, 119, 122–123, 127
medial frontal gyrus (MFG) 195, 196, 197, 414 morphosyntactic violations 120, 125, 251, 277, 279,
medial prefrontal cortex 428 318, 345
medial temporal lobe (MTL) 107, 166, 168, 170, morphosyntax 127, 135, 138, 142, 181, 279, 322, 444
171, 172, 173 motion conceptualization, and grammatical aspect
MEG see magnetoencephalography (MEG) 210–211
memory: declarative see declarative memory motivation, for language learning 5, 219, 224, 225,
(DM); episodic 353, 354, 355, 358; lexical 168; 248, 254, 255, 281, 336, 368
neurocognitive 314–323; non-declarative 353; motor cortex 107, 206, 383, 388
484
Index
motor learning 59, 75, 451 neural change 8, 11, 61, 90, 111, 236, 238, 277,
motor processes 10, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 282, 374, 375, 376, 377, 400, 418, 454, 469; and
388 structural designs 67
motor traces 386, 388 neural mechanisms 6, 10, 11, 31, 35, 78, 241, 289,
MPWA (monolingual patients with aphasia) 461 292, 341, 349, 397, 416, 424, 430, 436, 437, 442,
MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) see magnetic 469; of language control and domain-general
resonance imaging (MRI) control 427–429
MTG (middle temporal gyrus) 106–107, 196, 222, neural network underlying social L2 learning 222
223, 278, 440 neural pathways 59, 106, 108, 110, 442
MTL (medial temporal lobe) 107, 166, 168, 170, 171, neural plasticity 67, 68, 87–88, 90, 223, 282, 304
172, 173 neural sensitivity 88, 224, 276
multimodal learning 418; and elaborative processing neural structures 4, 5, 6, 157, 293, 358
220 neural substrates 6, 48, 52, 108, 109, 170, 221, 238,
myelin 60, 64, 192, 198 375, 383, 456, 462
neural traces 90–91, 307
N2 22, 23 neurocognition: of child L2 development 436–444; of
N400: effect 21, 21, 104, 111, 117, 138, 139, 140, foreign accent perception 10, 397–408, 402, 403,
141, 155, 276, 278, 279, 294, 307, 335, 357, 405, 406; L2 see L2 neurocognition; of learning a
384, 402; and lexical learning 24; at target word second language in the visual-manual modality 11,
332–333 448–457, 450, 452, 453; of prediction 329–336; of
naming 19, 106, 156, 267, 308, 461, 464, 465, 469; social learning of second language 217–225, 222
picture 73, 92, 106, 108, 109, 127, 172, 464 neurocognitive memory systems 314–323
native language: categories 87, 92; definition of neurodevelopmental processes, that support dual
205; neural commitment 89; processing 92, 124, language acquisition 10–11, 436
127–128, 133–134, 383; proficiency 93; speech neuroimaging: foreign-accented speech processing
perception 91–93; syntax 134 406; functional 8, 46–54, 47, 50; methods for see
native listeners 94, 397, 399–400, 400–401, 404, 405, neuroimaging methods; structural 8, 59–68, 63;
406, 407, 408n2 studies on 46, 47, 48, 115, 125, 126, 157, 170–171,
native processing 124, 126–127, 134 221, 427
native speakers: speech act comprehension in 156; neuroimaging methods 8, 35, 47, 53, 59, 60, 61,
syntactic processing in 133–134 109, 178, 305, 309, 398, 427, 444; and non-local
native syntactic processing 133–134, 372 dependencies 183–186; structural 63–66
native-language magnet model 89 neurolinguistics: of L2 lexico-semantic system
native-language speech perception, brain structures 101–111, 102; of L2 morphological system
for 91–93 115–128, 120–123; of L2 phonology 87–95; of L2
native-like attainment, theories on 249–251 pragmatic system 148–157; of L2 syntactic system
native-likeness 115, 116, 118, 125, 126, 127, 128, 133–143; methods 7, 8, 101, 102–103, 134, 149,
247, 248, 372 153, 177–186, 182, 183, 279, 372; research 3, 4–7,
naturalistic comprehension paradigms 52 8, 110, 111, 141, 149, 151, 154–5, 156, 254, 281
naturalistic language comprehension paradigms 52 neuromodulation 79, 336
naturalistic stimuli 52 neuronavigation 80
naturalistic speech, electroencephalography for 26 neurons 18, 32, 33, 59, 60, 73, 192, 192, 206, 235,
NE (norepinephrine) 74, 75, 76, 78, 79 252, 381
negative feedback 342, 343, 344, 347, 348, 349n1, neuroplasticity 9, 59, 89, 95n2, 191–200, 192, 193,
416 211, 224, 372, 374, 438; experience-based
negative transfer, cross-linguistic influence resulting 191–194, 192, 193; experience-dependent 9, 192,
in 294–295 193, 194
neocortex 74, 166, 354, 356, 358 neuropragmatics 148–158
neocortical temporal lobe 166, 171 neurostimulation 46, 72–73, 74, 78, 80–81
nerve cells 18, 32, 33, 59, 60, 73, 192, 206, 235, New Science of Learning 218, 375
381 new skills, learning of 192, 304, 305
networks: analysis of 268, 378; configuration of newly learned words 109–110, 354, 356, 357, 358,
38, 41, 221; default mode 49, 50, 51; domain 359, 361, 363, 387
general multiple demand 52; extended language NGT (Sign Language of the Netherlands) 453, 454,
(ELN) 153, 157; functional 8, 49, 51, 52, 77; 457
language 10, 49, 50, 51, 52, 153, 157, 208, 387; NIBS (non-invasive brain stimulation) 8, 72–81, 75
language-switching 153; resting-state 49, 50, 51; non-action verbs 383
sensorimotor 7, 387; task-positive 49, 50, 51 non-declarative memory 353
485
Index
non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) 8, 72–81, 75 peak efficiency 196, 199, 372, 373
non-invasive imaging 61 pedagogical implications, of L2 research: attrition
non-linguistic processing 291, 296; vs. linguistic 308; cross-linguistic influence 322–323; foreign
processing 292–293 accent perception 407; genetic factors 241;
non-local dependencies 179–180, 183–186 phonology 94–95; prediction 335–336
non-manual markers 454, 455 perception: categorical 208; color 206, 207, 208,
non-native language acquisition 177 211–212; foreign accent 10, 397–408, 402, 403,
non-native sound acquisition 91–94 405, 406; L2 speech 19–20; native-language
non-native phonetic contrasts 49 speech 91–93
non-native processing 124, 126–127, 320 Perceptual Assimilation Model 95n1, 290
non-native sound acquisition, brain structure for perceptual warping 89
93–94 performance monitoring 342, 343, 345, 349
non-native speech categories 88 peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) 8, 72, 73–74, 75,
non-native speech contrasts 88, 293 75, 76, 77, 78–79, 79–80, 81
non-native speech sound acquisition 89 perirhinal cortex 166
non-native speech sound learning 88, 93, 94, 95 peristimulus stimulation 76, 79
non-signers 449–450, 452, 453, 453, 454 personal factors, explaining variability in L2
non-verbal cognition 9, 154, 374 performance 275–278
norepinephrine (NE) 74, 75, 76, 78, 79 personalized learning 225, 241, 242
normalization 400 PET see positron emission tomography (PET)
noun phrases 139, 140, 142, 345 PFC see prefrontal cortex (PFC)
novel metaphors 152–153 phase coherence 32, 33, 39, 40, 41
novel verbs 385–386, 388 phenotypes 233, 262, 264
novel word learning 49, 357, 358, 385 phonemic contrast learning 87–96, 437
number conditions, grand average event-related phonetic categories 20, 93, 95n3
potentials of 182 phonetic competition 92
number in L2 Spanish 180–183, 182, 183 phonological abilities 277
number processing 181 phonological analysis, cascading effects of 399–400
phonological challenges, for native listeners of
object categories 206, 208–209, 212, 374 foreign-accented speech 397–398, 399, 400, 408
object conceptualization, and grammatical gender phonological discrimination 437–438
209–210 phonological processing 5, 90, 92, 197, 198, 437,
object–verb–subject (OVS) word order 295, 442 451, 456
oddball paradigm 207, 208, 209, 211, 212, 223–224, phonology 5, 8, 25, 87, 103, 169, 172, 199, 250,
293 277, 356, 359, 376, 397, 399, 404, 449; of child
online processing 139, 152, 153, 158, 178, 182, 317, L2 development 437–438; L2 21, 88, 90–91, 248;
370 sublexical 449–451, 450; visual-manual 456
online punchline incongruency processing 157 phrasal verbs 152
optimal period, for language acquisition see Critical phrase structure 8, 135, 136, 137, 370
Period Hypothesis (CPH) picture naming 73, 92, 106, 108, 109, 127, 172, 464
orthography 20, 78, 105, 207, 293, 330, 333, 354, Pitres’s (1895) law 4
355, 356, 359, 361, 362, 363 plasticity: adult language 95; functional 9, 451; neural
OVS (object–verb–subject) word order 295, 442 67, 68, 87–88, 90, 223, 282, 304; neuro-9, 59, 89,
95n2, 191–200, 192, 193, 211, 224, 372, 374, 438
P300 22, 23, 26n1; effects 346, 347 plausibility rating task 155
P600 22, 120, 123, 135, 136, 139–140, 170, 252, 253, PLE (prime lexicality effect) 354, 359, 361, 362
254, 263; effects 117, 118, 119, 137, 138, 181, 182, PM (procedural memory) 165–174
182, 251, 260, 264, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 281, pMTG (posterior middle temporal gyrus) 223, 357
292, 295, 307, 318, 321, 345, 346, 402, 405 PNS (transcutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation) 8,
paradoxical translation behavior 107 72, 73–74, 75, 75, 76, 77, 78–80, 81
parahippocampal cortex 166 politeness 149, 150
parietal areas 78, 104, 106, 134 polyglots 52
parietal cortex 106, 166, 428 polymorphism: ANKK1 TaqIA 236, 239, 240, 240;
participant contraindications 53 DRD2/ANKK1 TaqIA 239, 240; Val158Met 236
participant recruitment 53 portable EEG systems 110–111
participant-specific language network localization 52 positive feedback 342, 343, 344, 349n1, 415–416
passage of time 206 positive transfer, cross-linguistic influence resulting
pause detection task 354, 356, 359 in 293–294
486
Index
positron emission tomography (PET) 8, 46, 47, 47, proficiency: and age of acquisition (AoA) 90, 91, 93,
48, 53, 62, 101, 102, 102, 106, 134, 170, 242 95n2, 111, 137, 248–249, 254–255, 442; bilingual
post-acquired-brain injury 470 108, 236, 237, 237, 238; changes associated with
posterior hippocampus 193 104–107, 110; and child L2 development 442; and
posterior middle temporal gyrus (pMTG) 223, 357 dopamine-related genetic variants 236–241, 237,
posterior superior temporal gyrus (pSTG) 50 240; L2 see L2 proficiency; language see language
posterior superior temporal sulcus 219, 223 proficiency; pre-morbid language 11, 463; relative
post-morbid language proficiency 469 language 425; in L2 neurocognition 247–255
post-N400 positivities 332, 333–334 proficient non-native acquisition 91–94
PPA (primary progressive aphasia) 470 progressive aphasia 470
PPI (psychophysiological interaction) 51–52 progressive form 207, 210
pragmatic incongruencies 154, 155 pronouns 142, 180, 185, 402, 455; object 316;
pragmatic routines 8, 151–153 possessive 142, 294, 295, 335; reflexive 178;
pragmatics: conversational 149–150, 154; violations of 405
intercultural 148–149, 156, 158; neuro- pronunciation 90, 94–95, 348, 397, 398; mis-87, 404
148–158 pSTG (posterior superior temporal gyrus) 50
pre-acquired-brain injury 463, 470 psycholinguistics literature 142
prediction: in L1 and L2 language processing psychophysiological interaction (PPI) 51–52
330–335; neurocognition of 329–336; structural puberty 135–136, 177, 247, 250, 255n3
137, 142; violations of 334–335 putamen 48, 64, 66, 167, 195, 268, 281
prediction error 265, 329, 331, 332, 333, 335–336,
344, 402 quantitative electroencephalography (qEEG) 7–8,
Prediction-by-Production model 331–332 31–42, 32, 33, 36, 37
predictive processing 6, 10, 21, 141, 294, 295, 329,
330, 331, 332, 334–335, 336, 349; de-generacy in Radial Diffusivity (RD) 64, 198, 199
264–265 radio frequency (RF) pulse 61
prefrontal cortex (PFC) 49, 50, 77, 81, 106, 108, 110, radioactive tracers 46, 47, 53, 102, 102
153, 157, 234, 235, 235, 278, 343, 416, 426, 427, Rapid Serial Visual Presentation (RSVP) 20, 185
428, 429 RD (Radial Diffusivity) 64, 198, 199
pregenual anterior cingulate cortex 157 readiness potential 384
pre-morbid language proficiency 11, 463 reading speed 265
premotor cortex 219, 387 real-world language learning 93
pre-stroke language proficiency 469 reasoning 206; social 219, 222, 223
pre-supplementary motor area (preSMA) 428 recognition: bilingual word 8; L1 and L2 interactions
pre-target violations of predictions 334–335 during 103–104; lexical 78; word 8, 81, 107, 109,
primary progressive aphasia (PPA) 470 111, 309, 387, 398, 400, 439, 440, 463
prime lexicality effect (PLE) 354, 359, 361, 362 recovery patterns 4, 47
primed lexical decision task 104; semantically 354, redundancy 261, 261
356, 359 referential semantic retrieval 156
priming stimulation 77, 78, 79 region-of-interest analysis 234, 241
priming tasks 20, 356, 359, 360, 439 rehabilitation, and L2 neurocognition 461–471, 467
PRIMIR (processing rich information from relative language proficiency 425
multidimensional interactive representations) Relevance Theory 150
model 438, 440 repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS)
probabilistic knowledge, associated with speaker 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 81
accent 399, 404, 405 representation: conceptual 107, 196, 205, 206, 207,
procedural learning 5, 8–9, 165, 166–168, 169, 171, 381, 438; in dual-language context 467; memory
173, 234, 235, 356 353, 354–355, 358, 427; mental 154, 205, 206,
procedural memory (PM) 165–174 208, 219, 220, 374; semantic see semantic
processing mechanisms 10, 20, 39, 88, 124, 152, 181, representation; text-base 154; verbatim 154
250, 252, 317, 439, 444 reprimands 157
processing rich information from multidimensional requests 150, 151, 156
interactive representations (PRIMIR) model 438, research methods 7, 291, 303, 317, 372, 444
440 response accuracy 344, 345, 347–348, 349n1
processing speed 330 response inhibition 268, 425, 427
processing stages 138, 149, 150, 154, 384 response-locked event-related potential components
processing-based model, of memory 355–356 341, 343, 345, 346, 347–348, 349
processing-facing theories 178 resting-state functional connectivity (RSFC) 49–51
487
Index
resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging semantically primed lexical decision task 354, 356,
(rs-fMRI) 49, 50, 51, 268 359
resting-state networks 49, 50, 51 semantics: of child L2 development 438, 440, 443;
retrieval induced forgetting paradigms 305 embodied 10, 381–382, 382–387, 388, 389; L2
revised hierarchical model (RHM) 107–108, 109, lexico-8, 101, 102–103, 106, 107–109, 110, 111;
110, 438, 464, 469 lexico-5, 102, 110; native listeners’ comprehension
RF (radio frequency) pulse 61 of a foreign accent 400, 401
RHM (revised hierarchical model) 107–108, 109, sensitive period, for language acquisition see Critical
110, 438, 464, 469 Period Hypothesis (CPH)
Ribot’s (1887) law 4, 461–462 sensorimotor cortex 156, 206, 385
right caudate nucleus 106, 223 sensorimotor hypothesis 235, 237, 237, 238
right cerebellum 106 sensorimotor networks 7, 387
right hemisphere 26, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 47, sentence comprehension 110, 116, 117, 155, 157,
49, 93, 153, 198, 277, 375, 376, 377, 385, 441; 318, 400, 443
coherence of 38, 39; role of 221–224, 222 sentence processing 6, 20, 21, 52, 112, 179, 254, 265,
right hippocampus 65, 223, 362 443; and critical period and convergence models
right inferior frontal gyrus (right IFG) 49, 66, 68, 93, 250–251; and Dual-Path model 331; foreign-
105, 197, 223, 418 accented 400; L1 184; L2 10, 143; and predictive
right inferior parietal lobule 49, 222, 223 processing 330, 331, 336; syntax-first model of
risk factors, for adult language learning 220 136, 252
routines 126, 150–151, 291; pragmatic 8, 151–153 sentence-level syntax 440–441, 443
RSFC (resting-state functional connectivity) 49–51 sequential bilingualism 49, 51, 65–66, 195, 205, 360,
rs-fMRI (resting-state functional magnetic resonance 372, 373, 463
imaging) 49, 50, 51, 268 Shallow Structure Hypothesis (SSH) 136, 142, 178,
RSVP (Rapid Serial Visual Presentation) 20, 185 181, 183, 184, 185
rTMS (repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation) shared neural substrate framework 108, 110
73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 81 shifting 296, 426, 427
rule learning 37, 39, 40, 344, 345, 347 Sign Language of the Netherlands (NGT) 453, 454,
457
sandwich model 381 signal properties 33, 33, 34, 35
Sapir, Edward 204, 374 signed languages 11, 448–457, 450, 452, 453
Sapir-Whorf hypothesis 205 simulated social interaction 376
savings paradigm 306 simultaneous bilinguals 49, 51, 65–66, 124, 195, 359,
scalar implicatures 155 372, 425, 436, 439
second language see L2 (second language) single-word production studies 126
seed-to-voxel approach 49, 50 situation model 154, 331, 333
seesaw effect 168 SL2 see Social L2 learning (SL2)
self-monitoring 342, 343 sleep 95, 355, 356–357, 358, 359, 360, 361, 363
self-referential thinking 51 SLF (superior longitudinal fasciculus) 196, 198, 199
semantic executive control 466, 467, 468 SMG (supramarginal gyrus) 196, 197, 198, 221, 222,
semantic gender 210 222, 223, 388, 418, 449, 451
semantic integration 140, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, sMRI (structural magnetic resonance imaging) 46, 73,
221, 292, 375, 384, 439 79, 80, 102, 373, 376
semantic memory 220, 353, 354–355, 362, 381 social context 8, 218, 268, 431
semantic processing: and age of acquisition 442; and social interaction 9, 217, 218–219, 221, 223, 224,
aphasia 464; and correlational learning principle 225, 226, 389, 418; cross-linguistic 408; simulated
381; elaborative 220; foreign-accented 401–402, 376
403, 404; L1 lexico-5, 155, 278; L2 lexico-5, 10, Social L2 learning (SL2) 9, 217, 220; future
101, 103, 105, 106, 107, 110, 111, 155, 222, 250, directions for 225, 377; and L2 learning context
251; and N400 21–22, 21, 101–102, 251, 252, 375–376; neural representations of 221–224, 222;
282n1, 318, 450 neurocognition of 217–225, 222; technology-
semantic representation 82, 106, 107, 109, 133, 139, enhanced 224–225
153, 196–197, 210, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, social reasoning 219, 222, 223
224, 358, 383, 398, 453 social-based language learning 218–221
semantic retrieval 110, 156, 354, 357 Socio-Cognitive Approach, to intercultural
semantic search tasks 48 pragmatics 148
semantic violations 101, 155–156, 275, 402, 403, sound category 87, 92
404, 442 SOV (subject–object–verb) word order 295, 318
488
Index
Spanish–English bilinguals 66, 91, 209, 210, 236, strong external magnetic field 61
239, 241, 359, 360 structural brain change 9, 60, 67, 68, 191, 192, 194,
spatial referents 454–455 195, 197, 199, 223, 308, 378
spatial resolution 53, 61, 73, 79, 80–81, 110, 119, structural connectivity 39, 65, 67, 196, 198
126, 134, 156, 170, 276, 292, 383 structural imaging methods 134; see also structural
spatial topography, of quantitative neuroimaging
electroencephalography predictors 42 structural magnetic resonance imaging (sMRI) 46, 73,
speaker accent, probabilistic and stereotypical 79, 80, 102, 373, 376
knowledge associated with 399 structural neuroimaging 8, 59–68, 63
speaker-related factors, and L2 morphological system structural prediction 137, 142
8, 115–118, 118–124, 120–123, 125–128 study abroad 6, 10, 220, 224, 281, 368, 370, 371, 374,
speaker’s intention 8, 156 378
specialization 89–90, 125, 135, 440; bilingual subcortical areas 106, 221, 428, 464
(overall) neural 441 subcortical structures 60, 61, 63, 64, 66, 67, 195, 373
specific brain regions, shift of focus from identifying subject–object–verb (SOV) word order 295, 318
function of 8 subject–verb–object (SVO) word order 137, 293, 295,
spectral coherence 32, 33, 38, 39, 41 318, 442
spectrograms 32, 32, 42 sublexical phonology, in the visual-manual modality
speech acts 150, 156 449–451, 450
speech processing 5, 10, 322, 399, 400, 404, 406, sublexical units 438, 449
406, 407 substantia nigra pars compacta 167
speech production 49, 88, 91, 92, 94, 315, 347, 398, superior longitudinal fasciculus (SLF) 196, 198,
399, 425 199
speech sound superior parietal lobe (SPL) 66, 195, 451, 456
speech sounds 304; L1 87, 295; L2 8, 89, 91, 93–94, superior temporal gyri (STG) 50, 51, 65, 91, 92, 94,
290, 293, 294–295; learning of 8, 88, 93, 94, 95; 106–107, 122, 123, 153, 184, 196, 197, 198, 440
native language 91 superior temporal sulcus 91, 92, 219, 223
spines, dendritic 59, 192 supplementary motor area 105, 106–107, 427, 428
SPL (superior parietal lobe) 66, 195, 451, 456 supramarginal gyrus (SMG) 196, 197, 198, 221, 222,
spoken languages 448–449, 451, 458 222, 223, 388, 418, 449, 451
spontaneous conversation 95 surface structure 154
SSH (Shallow Structure Hypothesis) 136, 142, 178, surface-based morphometry 67
181, 183, 184, 185 SVO (subject–verb–object) word order 137, 293, 295,
stalemate, to event-related potentials 180–183, 182, 318, 442
183 Swahili 359, 360, 361
stereotypical knowledge, associated with speaker Swedish 121, 122, 124, 137–138, 141, 294, 295, 296,
accent 399 335, 417
STG see superior temporal gyri (STG) switching: code 261, 262, 265, 266; language see
stimulation: cathodal transcranial direct current language switching; task 238, 239, 240, 268, 426,
(ctDCS) 75, 76, 77; concurrent 79; continuous 427, 428, 429
theta burst (cTBS) 75, 76; intermittent theta burst synapses 60, 192, 193, 235
(iTBS) 75, 76; neuro 46, 72–73, 74, 78, 80–81; synaptic pruning 194
non-invasive brain (NIBS) 8, 72–81, 75; peripheral syntactic binding 142, 185
nerve (PNS) 8, 72, 73–74, 75, 75, 76, 77, 78–79, syntactic category violations 251–252, 253–254,
79–80, 81; peristimulus 76, 79; priming 77, 78, 79; 255
repetitive transcranial magnetic (rTMS) 73, 74, 75, syntactic dependencies 134, 136, 137, 181
76, 77, 81; theta burst (TBS) 75, 76; transcranial syntactic development 135–136, 138
alternating current (tACS) 73, 75, 76, 77, 78, 81; syntactic processing 10, 22, 52, 136, 179–180, 282n1,
transcranial direct current see transcranial direct 442; foreign-accented 405; L1 134–135; L2 8, 133,
current stimulation (tDCS); transcranial electrical 134–135, 136; native 133–134, 372
see transcranial electrical stimulation (tES); syntactic systems: cortical organization of 133, 134;
transcranial focused ultrasound (tFUS) 80–81; linguistic overlap of 293
transcranial magnetic see transcranial magnetic syntactic violations 135, 181, 251, 252, 254–255,
stimulation (TMS); transcranial random noise 294, 407, 441–442, 442–443
(tRNS) 73, 75, 76, 77, 78, 81; transcutaneous syntactic-category processing, event-related potential
vagus nerve (tVNS) 74, 75, 77, 80, 81; vagus nerve work on 251–252
see vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) syntactic/morphosyntactic challenges, for native
stroke 4, 74, 108, 302, 461, 469–470 listeners of foreign-accented speech 398
489
Index
syntax: L1 134; L2 134, 135, 136; morpho-127, 135, TMR (targeted memory reactivation) 355, 361
138, 142, 181, 279, 322, 444; native language 134; TMS see transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS)
native listeners’ comprehension of a foreign accent ToM (theory of mind) 148, 156, 157, 219, 222
401, 404; sentence-level 440–441, 443 topography 38, 39, 42, 104, 117, 185, 251, 292, 293
syntax-first model, of sentence processing 136, 252 Total Physical Response (TPR) 388–389
TPJ (temporal-parietal junction) 221–224, 222
T1 relaxation 61 TPM (Typological Primacy Model) 316, 319
T2 relaxation 61 TPR (Total Physical Response) 388–389
taboo words 157, 415 traces 178, 179, 372; experiential 382; memory 224,
tACS (transcranial alternating current stimulation) 73, 354, 355, 387; motor 386; neural 90–91, 307
75, 76, 77, 78, 81 tractography 65, 67
targeted memory reactivation (TMR) 355, 361 traits, heritability of 242
task demands 59, 101, 102, 266, 332 transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) 73,
task performance 46, 49, 51, 52, 238, 239, 242, 398, 75, 76, 77, 78, 81
399, 406 transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) 73, 74,
task switching 238, 239, 240, 268, 426, 427, 428, 429 75, 75, 76, 77, 81, 127, 173, 429, 430; cathodal
task-base quantitative electroencephalography 7–8, tDCS (ctDCS) 75, 76, 77
35, 37; and L2 aptitude 39–40; and L2 proficiency transcranial electrical stimulation (tES) 8, 72, 73, 74,
40–41 75, 75, 76–77, 78, 79–80, 80–81, 81–82, 173
task-free beta power 38, 39, 42 transcranial focused ultrasound stimulation (tFUS)
task-positive network 49, 50, 51 80–81
taVNS (transcutaneous auricular VNS) 74, 75, 77, 78, transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) 7, 8, 72,
79, 81, 82 74, 75, 75, 76, 77, 79–80, 127, 173, 388, 430;
TBS (theta burst stimulation) 75, 76; continuous repetitive (rTMS) 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 81
(cTBS) 75, 76; intermittent (iTBS) 75, 76 transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS) 73, 75,
tcVNS (transcutaneous cervical VNS) 74, 75, 79, 81 76, 77, 78, 81
tDCS see transcranial direct current stimulation transcutaneous auricular VNS (taVNS) 74, 75, 77, 78,
(tDCS) 79, 81, 82
technology-enhanced social L2 learning 224–225 transcutaneous cervical VNS (tcVNS) 74, 75,
temporal areas 94, 106, 125, 134, 406 79, 81
temporal gyrus: anterior (ATG) 195; left superior 65, transcutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) 8,
153; middle temporal (MTG) 106–107, 196, 222, 72, 73–74, 75, 75, 76, 77, 78–80, 81
223, 278, 440; posterior middle temporal (pMTG) transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation (tVNS) 74,
223, 357; posterior superior (pSTG) 50 75, 77, 80, 81
temporal lobe 93, 102, 127–128, 170, 171, 172, 173, transitive verbs 179
441; anterior 106–107, 195; medial 107, 166, 168, translation 48, 77, 107–108, 109; L1 51, 107, 108,
170, 171, 172, 173 220, 222, 223
temporal resolution 24, 53, 62, 76, 117, 119, transverse relaxation 61
250–251, 275, 292, 349, 384 trauma 107, 108, 109, 302, 303, 308, 418
temporal unfolding 156 treatment-induced recovery, from bilingual aphasia
temporal-parietal junction (TPJ) 221–224, 222 468–469
tES see transcranial electrical stimulation (tES) trilingualism 427–428, 464
text comprehension 154 tRNS (transcranial random noise stimulation) 73, 75,
text-base representation 154 76, 77, 78, 81
tFUS (transcranial focused ultrasound stimulation) Trolley dilemma 413, 414, 415, 419
80–81 tVNS (transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation) 74,
thalamus 64, 66, 106, 166, 167, 195, 370, 428, 75, 77, 80, 81
429 twins 233
theory of mind (ToM) 148, 156, 157, 219, 222 Typological Primacy Model (TPM) 316, 319
theta burst stimulation (TBS) 75, 76; continuous
(cTBS) 75, 76; intermittent (iTBS) 75, 76 UG (Universal Grammar) 177, 180, 185, 218, 290,
theta frequency band 34, 36, 37, 38, 40, 41, 276, 277, 291, 371
348, 357, 438 ultimate L1 attainment 253–254
third language acquisition (TLA) 314–323 Unified Competition Model 291
time frequency analysis 35, 348, 385 Universal Grammar (UG) 177, 180, 185, 218, 290,
time-based electroencephalography 17–26, 291, 371
18, 21 upcoming words 52, 330, 334
TLA (third language acquisition) 314–323 updating 331, 334, 342, 343, 348, 427
490
Index
vagus nerve 74, 75, 77, 79, 80 vMMN (visual mismatch negativity) 207–208, 209,
vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) 74, 75, 75, 76, 77, 212
78, 79; transcutaneous (tVNS) 74, 75, 77, 80, 81; VNS see vagus nerve stimulation (VNS)
transcutaneous auricular (taVNS) 74, 75, 77, 78, vocabulary, L2 10, 21, 36
79, 81, 82; transcutaneous cervical (tcVNS) 74, 75, vocabulary learning 73, 77, 104; L2 104, 109, 195,
79, 81 208, 219, 347, 349, 375; SL2 376; virtual reality
Val158Met polymorphism 236 223
VBA (vertex-based analysis) 8, 64, 66 vocabulary training 199, 252, 378
VBM (voxel-based morphometry) 8, 63, 64, 65, 67, volumetric brain change 126
68, 101, 102, 105–106 vowels 20, 23, 24, 87, 92, 95n1, 95n3, 334, 335, 347
ventriloquist paradigm 348 voxel-based morphometry (VBM) 8, 63, 64, 65, 67,
verbal aptitude 182 68, 101, 102, 105–106
verbal communication 149 VR (virtual reality) 223, 224–225, 368, 376, 385,
verbatim representation 154 388, 418, 419
verbs 106–107, 125, 127–128, 134, 221; action 383, VWFA (visual word form area) 50
384, 385, 388; agreement 454–455; distractor 267;
embedded 184, 185; L2 383, 386, 387; non-action water diffusivity 64, 198
383; novel 385–386, 388; phrasal 152; transitive Welsh 437–438, 443
179 wh-dependencies 8, 137, 178, 179, 180, 184; indirect
vertex-based analysis (VBA) 8, 64, 66 object 140; processing of 139–141, 142, 278
violation paradigm 142, 334–335, 400, 406 white matter 59, 60, 61, 63–64, 64–65, 66, 67, 68
violations: lexical-semantic 252, 441–442; Whorf, Benjamin Lee 204–205, 208, 212, 374
morphosyntactic 120, 125, 251, 277, 279, 318, wh-questions 139, 179, 185
345; phrase structure 136, 137, 370; of predictions WMC (working memory capacity) 34, 279, 317,
334–335; pronoun 405; semantic 101, 155–156, 321–322, 322–323
275, 402, 403, 404, 442; syntactic 135, 181, 251, word order 8, 133, 141, 206, 263, 276, 293, 294, 295,
252, 254–255, 294, 407, 441–442, 442–443; 315, 316, 320, 335, 370, 442, 443; constraints
syntactic category 251–252, 253–254, 255; word 137–138; violations 138, 253, 402, 407
order 138, 253, 402, 407 word processing 20, 21, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 127,
virtual lesion effect 73, 74 354, 355, 357, 438, 439, 440
virtual reality (VR) 223, 224–225, 368, 376, 385, word production 8, 109, 111, 126, 425, 465
418, 419; and embodied word learning 388; word recognition 8, 81, 107, 109, 111, 309, 387, 398,
immersive (iVR) 388 400, 439, 440, 463
visual half-field approach, to hemispheric processing working memory: capacity (WMC) 34, 279, 317,
26 321–322, 322–323; load 34, 40, 330
visual memory 59, 370 world knowledge 154, 155, 251, 330, 403; and
visual mismatch negativity (vMMN) 207–208, 209, mapping form to meaning 451–453, 452, 453
212 world language childhood bilinguals 436
visual word form area (VWFA) 50
visual-manual modality 11, 448–457, 450, 452, x-ray computed tomography 62
453
visual-manual phonology 456 zooming into, an L2 103, 104
491

Kara Morgan Short The Routledge Handbook of Second

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kara Morgan Short The Routledge Handbook of Second

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kara Morgan Short The Routledge Handbook of Second

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition and Neurolinguistics is a useful resource

THE ROUTLEDGE HANDBOOK OF SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

THE ROUTLEDGE HANDBOOK OF SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

THE ROUTLEDGE HANDBOOK OF SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

THE ROUTLEDGE HANDBOOK OF SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

THE ROUTLEDGE HANDBOOK OF SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

THE ROUTLEDGE HANDBOOK OF SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

For more information about this series, please visit: www.routle​dge.com/​The-​Routle​dge-​Handbo​oks-​

Edited by Kara Morgan-​Short and Janet G. van Hell

1 Second Language Acquisition and Neurolinguistics: A Synthesis of Perspectives 3

2 Using Time-​Based Electroencephalography to Investigate Second Language 17

3 Using Quantitative Electroencephalography (qEEG) to Investigate

4 Using Functional Neuroimaging to Investigate Second Language Organization 46

5 Using Structural Neuroimaging to Investigate Second Language 59

6 Using Non-​Invasive Brain Stimulation to Investigate Second Language 72

7 The Neurolinguistics of Second Language Phonology: A View of Phonemic

8 The Neurolinguistics of the Second Language Lexico-​Semantic System 101

9 The Neurolinguistics of the Second Language Morphological System: The

10 The Neurolinguistics of the Second Language Syntactic System 133

11 The Neurolinguistics of the Second Language Pragmatic System 148

12 How the Declarative and Procedural Memory Brain Circuits Support

13 Neurolinguistic Methods and Generative Approaches to Second Language

14 Second Language Acquisition and Neuroplasticity: Insights from the

15 Linguistic Relativity and Second Language: How Learning a Second

16 Neurocognition of Social Learning of Second Language: How Can Second

17 Genetic Factors in Second Language Neurocognition 233

18 Age and Proficiency in Second Language Neurocognition 247

19 De-​generacy as an Organizing Principle of Bilingual Language

20 Factors Accounting for Individual Differences in Second Language

21 Cross-​Linguistic Transfer in Second Language Neurocognition 289

22 Second Language Neurocognition and First Language Attrition 302

23 First Language/​Second Language Crosslinguistic Influence on Third

24 The Neurocognition of Prediction in Second Language Processing and Learning 329

25 Feedback in Second Language Neurocognition 341

26 Memory Consolidation in Second Language Neurocognition 353

27 Context of Learning in Second Language Neurocognition 368

28 Embodied Second Language Processing and Learning from a

29 The Neurocognition of Foreign Accent Perception 397

30 Decision Making and Second Language Neurocognition 412

31 Cognitive Control in Second Language Neurocognition 424

32 The Neurocognition of Child Second Language Development 436

33 The Neurocognition of Learning a Second Language in the Visual-​Manual

34 Aphasia, Rehabilitation, and Second Language Neurocognition 461

Anne L. Beatty-​Martínez is Assistant Professor in the Department of Cognitive Science at the

Francesca M. M. Citron is Senior Lecturer in the Department of Psychology, Lancaster University

Vincent DeLuca is Associate Professor of the Neurocognition of Bilingualism in the Department of

Clara Ekerdt studied psychology at American University as well as Maastricht University

Mandy Faretta-​Stutenberg (PhD, University of Illinois at Chicago) is Associate Professor of

Pamela Fuhrmeister is currently a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Potsdam (Germany).

Arturo E. Hernandez is currently Professor in the Department of Psychology at the University of

Ioulia Kovelman is Professor of Psychology at the University of Michigan. As a developmental

Fengyang Ma is Associate Professor–​Educator in the School of Education at the University of

Malayka Mottarella is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Cognitive Psychology at the

Christos Pliatsikas is Associate Professor in Psycholinguistics in Bi-​/​Multilinguals at the School of

Teresa Satterfield is Professor of Romance Linguistics, Linguistics and Combined Program of

research leverages generative approaches to language alongside psycholinguistic and neurolinguistic

Guillaume Thierry is Professor of Cognitive Neuroscience in the School of Human and

Michael T. Ullman is Professor in the Department of Neuroscience at Georgetown University (USA),

Emily Shimeng Xu is a postdoctoral associate of the Division of Pediatric Otolaryngology at Ann

For more information about this series, please visit: www.routledge.com/The-Routledge-Handbooks-

Edited by Kara Morgan-Short and Janet G. van Hell

2 Using Time-Based Electroencephalography to Investigate Second Language 17

6 Using Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation to Investigate Second Language 72

8 The Neurolinguistics of the Second Language Lexico-Semantic System 101

19 De-generacy as an Organizing Principle of Bilingual Language

21 Cross-Linguistic Transfer in Second Language Neurocognition 289

23 First Language/Second Language Crosslinguistic Influence on Third

33 The Neurocognition of Learning a Second Language in the Visual-Manual

Anne L. Beatty-Martínez is Assistant Professor in the Department of Cognitive Science at the

Mandy Faretta-Stutenberg (PhD, University of Illinois at Chicago) is Associate Professor of

Fengyang Ma is Associate Professor–Educator in the School of Education at the University of

Christos Pliatsikas is Associate Professor in Psycholinguistics in Bi-/Multilinguals at the School of

Janet G. van Hell and Kara Morgan-Short

Figure 2.1 Steps in EEG Data Acquisition and Processing.

Figure 2.2 The N400 Effect.

The Error-Related Negativity (ERN)

Pros and Cons/Limitations of the ERP Method

Visual Half-field Approach to Hemispheric Processing

Figure 3.1 Schematic of qEEG Method.

Figure 3.2 Schematic Depicting Signal Properties of a Wave.

What Can Task-Free qEEG Tell Us About L2 Aptitude?

Table 3.1 Summary of Studies Relating Task-free qEEG to L2 Learning

Study Population (N) L1 /L2 Frequency band L2 Outcome Direction

Table 3.2 Summary of Studies Relating Task-based qEEG to L2 Learning

Study—Task Population L1 /L2 Frequency band L2 Outcome Direction

What Can Task-Based qEEG Tell Us About L2 Aptitude?

What Can Task-Based qEEG Tell Us About L2 Proficiency?

Figure 4.1 Sample Images from PET and fMRI.

Figure 4.2 Spatial Pattern of Selected Resting-State Networks.

Another approach to analyzing RSFC data takes advantage of data-driven graph-theoretical

Pros and Cons/Limitations of Functional Neuroimaging

repetitive TMS (rTMS) high frequency rTMS (HF-rTMS)

Perceptual Warping as an Obstacle to Non-Native Speech Sound Acquisition