188宝金博页面版

Processingsyntacticviolationsinthenon-nativelanguage: different behavioural and neuralcorrelatesasafunctionoftypologicalsimilarity?*Sarah Von Grebmer Zu Wolfsthurn 1,2,3 , Leticia Pablos 1,2 andNiels O. Schiller 1,2,31 Leiden University Centre for Linguistics, Leiden University, Leiden, Zuid Holland, Netherlands; 2 Leiden Institute forBrain and Cognition, Leiden University, Leiden, Zuid Holland, Netherlands and3 City University of Hong Kong, HongKong, ChinaAbstractDespiteoftenfeaturingintheoreticalaccounts,theexactimpactoftypologicalsimilarityonnon-native language comprehension and its corresponding neural correlates remains unclear. Weexamined the modulatory role of typological similarity in syntactic violation processing in thenon-nativelanguageSpanish,for example[el volcán]versus[*lavolcán], andin cross-linguisticinfluence. Participants were Italian late learners of Spanish (similar language pair) or Germanlate learners of Spanish (less similar language pair). We measured P600 amplitudes, accuracyand response times. In line with our predictions, we found a larger P600 effect and differentialCLI effects for Italian-Spanish speakers compared to German-Spanish speakers. Behaviourally,Italian-Spanish speakers responded slower compared to German-Spanish speakers. Together,theseresultsindicatetypologicalsimilarityeffectsinnon-nativecomprehensionasreflectedinaprocessing advantage for typologically similar languages, but only at the neural level. Thesefindings have critical implications for the interplay of different languages in the multilingualbrain.Highlights• Typological similarity effect traceable at the behavioural and neural level• Small behavioural processing advantage for speakers of less similar languages• P600 effect found in highly similar and less similar language combinations• Larger P600 effect for speakers of highly similar versus less similar languages• Asymmetry of typological similarity effect for behavioural versus neural patterns1. IntroductionA fundamental characteristic of multilingual language comprehension is cross-linguisticinfluence (CLI) between the native language (L1) and the non-native language (Kroll et al.,2015; Lago et al., 2021; Lemhöfer et al., 2008). In this study, we considered individuals whowere able to communicate in two or more languages as multilinguals (Cenoz, 2013). Inlanguage comprehension, CLI is often conceptualised as the parallel activation of both the L1and the non-native language (Hamers & Lambert, 1972; Lago et al., 2021), even when thecircumstances only require the use of one language (Blumenfeld & Marian, 2013; Lago et al.,2021; Marian & Spivey, 2003; Nozari & Pinet, 2020). CLI was demonstrated at the level of(morpho)syntax (Grüter et al., 2012; Lemhöfer et al., 2008; Tolentino & Tokowicz, 2011;Zawiszewski et al., 2011), for grammatical gender (Lemhöfer et al., 2008; Paolieri et al., 2020)and for cognate processing (Midgley et al., 2011; Peeters et al., 2013). Moreover, CLI wasreported for different ages of non-native acquisition (AoA), with some evidence suggestingthat CLI may be more pronounced in early acquisition stages (Gillon-Dowens et al., 2010;Ringbom, 1987; Sunderman & Kroll, 2006). One important question is whether CLI ismodulated by typological similarity, that is, the structural similarities between the L1 andthe non-native language (Foote, 2009; Putnam et al., 2018; Tolentino & Tokowicz, 2011). Inother words, does similarity at the level of, for example, grammatical gender or orthographicand phonological form overlap have an impact on non-native language processing? This is acritical issue because it is intimately linked to the functional organisation 1 of multilinguals’Bilingualism: Language andCognitioncambridge.org/bilResearch ArticleCite this article: Von Grebmer Zu Wolfsthurn,S., Pablos, L. and Schiller, N.O. (2026).Processing syntactic violations in the non-native language: different behavioural andneural correlates as a function of typologicalsimilarity?. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition29, 14–36. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728924001068Received: 26 May 2023Revised: 8 August 2024Accepted: 30 October 2024First published online: 28 February 2025Keywords:typological similarity; non-nativecomprehension; cross-linguistic influence;syntactic violations; gender congruency;cognates; EEG; P600 effect; generalisedadditive mixed modelsCorresponding author:Sarah Von Grebmer Zu Wolfsthurn;Email: s.von.grebmer.zu.wolfsthurn@hum.leidenuniv.nlThisresearcharticlewasawardedOpenDatabadge for transparent practices (see the DataAvailability Statement for details).*This article was originally published witherrors in the author contribution statement.The errors have been corrected and the onlineHTML and PDF versions updated.©TheAuthor(s), 2025.Published byCambridgeUniversity Press. This is an Open Access article,distributed under the terms of the CreativeCommons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), whichpermits unrestricted re-use, distribution andreproduction, provided the original article isproperly cited.1 Aspointedoutbyoneofouranonymousreviewers,itisimportanttonotethattherehasbeenarecentshiftawayfrom the view of lemmas as those lexical items which store information about meaning, syntax as well as form, asdescribed in standard models of language comprehension and production. Traditionally, this notion is reflected inthelexicalistviewoflanguageprocessing. Instead,newemergingresearchpreliminarilyproposesthatattherootofhttps://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728924001068 Published online by Cambridge University Press