Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-2pp2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T07:13:07.292Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Second language sensitivity to agreement errors: Evidence from eye movements during comprehension and translation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 July 2014

JUNG HYUN LIM  and
KIEL CHRISTIANSON
JUNG HYUN LIM*
Affiliation:
Konkuk University
KIEL CHRISTIANSON
Affiliation:
University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Jung Hyun Lim, Konkuk University, 1 Hwayang-dong, Gwangjin-gu, Seoul, Korea. E-mail: junghlim@konkuk.ac.kr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The present study addresses the questions of (a) whether Korean learners of English show sensitivity to subject–verb agreement violations in an eye-tracking paradigm, and (b) how reading goals (reading for comprehension vs. translation) and second language (L2) proficiency modulate depth of morphological agreement processing. Thirty-six Korean speakers of L2 English and 32 native English speakers read 40 stimulus sentences, half of which contained subject–verb agreement violations in English. The factors were whether a head and a local intervening noun matched in number and whether a sentence was grammatical or not. In linear mixed models analyses, both agreement violations and noun phrase match/mismatch were found to be disruptive in processing for native speakers at the critical regions (verb and following word), and locally distracting number-marked nouns yielded an asymmetric pattern depending on grammaticality. When L2 speakers were asked to produce offline oral translations of the English sentences into Korean, they became more sensitive to agreement violations. In addition, higher L2 proficiency predicted greater sensitivity to morphological violations. The results indicate that L2 speakers are not necessarily insensitive to morphological violations and that L2 proficiency and task modulate the depth of L2 morphological processing.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 36 , Issue 6 , November 2015 , pp. 1283 - 1315
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 390–412.Google Scholar
Bock, K., & Cutting, J. C. (1992). Regulating mental energy: Performance units in language production. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 99–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bock, K., & Eberhard, K. M. (1993). Meaning, sound and syntax in English number agreement. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 57–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bock, K., & Miller, C. A. (1991). Broken agreement. Cognitive Psychology, 23, 45–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bock, K., Nicol, J., & Cutting, J. (1999). The ties that bind: Creating number agreement in speech. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 330–346.Google Scholar
Campbell, S. (1998). Translation into the second language. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Christianson, K., Hollingworth, A., Halliwell, J. F., & Ferreira, F. (2001). Thematic roles assigned along the garden path linger. Cognitive Psychology, 42, 368–407.Google Scholar
Christianson, K., & Luke, S. G. (2011). Context strengthens initial misinterpretations of text. Scientific Studies of Reading, 15, 136–166.Google Scholar
Christianson, K., Luke, S. G., & Ferreira, F. (2010). Effects of plausibility on structural priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 36, 538–544.Google Scholar
Coughlin, C., & Tremblay, A. (2012). Proficiency and working memory based explanations for nonnative speakers’ sensitivity to agreement in sentence processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 34, 615–646.Google Scholar
Danks, J. H., & Griffin, J. (1997). Reading and translation. In Danks, J. H., Shreve, G. M., Fountain, S. B., & McBeath, M. K. (Eds.), Cognitive processes in translation and interpretating (pp. 161–175). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Eberhard, K. M., Cutting, J.C., & Bock, J. K. (2005). Making syntax of sense: Number agreement in sentence production. Psychological Review, 112, 531–559.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ellis, R. (1988). The effects of linguistic environment on the second language acquisition of grammatical rules. Applied Linguistics, 9, 257–274.Google Scholar
Ferreira, F. (2003). The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 47, 164–20.Google Scholar
Ferreira, F., Bailey, K., & Ferraro, V. (2002). Good enough representations in language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 11–15.Google Scholar
Ferreira, F., Christianson, K., & Hollingworth, A. (2001). Misinterpretations of garden-path sentences: Implications for models of sentence processing and reanalysis. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 30, 3–20.Google Scholar
Ferreira, F., & Patson, N. D. (2007). The ‘good-enough’ approach to language comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1/1–2, 71–83.Google Scholar
Foote, R. (2011). Integrated knowledge of agreement in early and late English-Spanish bilinguals. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32, 187–220.Google Scholar
Frenck-Mestere, C. (2005). An on-line look at sentence processing in the second language. In Heredia, R. & Altarriba, J. (Eds.), Bilingual sentence processing (pp. 217–236). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Gerver, D. (1976). Empirical studies of simultaneous interpretation: A review and a model. In Brislin, R. W. (Ed.), Translation: Application and research (pp. 165–207). New York: Gardiner.Google Scholar
Havik, E., Roberts, L., van Hout, R., Schreuder, R., & Haverkort, M. (2009). Processing subject-object ambiguities in the L2: A self-paced reading study with German L2 learners of Dutch. Language Learning, 59, 73–112.Google Scholar
Hopp, H. (2006). Syntactic features and reanalysis in near-native processing. Second Language Research, 22, 369–397.Google Scholar
Jackson, C. (2008). Proficiency level and the interaction of lexical and morphosyntactic information during L2 sentence processing. Language Learning, 58, 875–909.Google Scholar
Jackson, C., & Bobb, S. C. (2009). The processing and comprehension of wh-questions among second language speakers of German. Applied Psycholinguistics, 30, 603–636.Google Scholar
Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 434–446.Google Scholar
Jiang, N. (2004). Morphological insensitivity in second language processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25, 603–634.Google Scholar
Jiang, N. (2007). Selective integration of linguistic knowledge in adult second language learning. Language Learning, 57, 1–33.Google Scholar
Johnson, J.S., Shenkman, K. D., Newport, E. L., & Medin, D. (1996). Indeterminacy in the grammar of adult language learners. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 335–352.Google Scholar
Keating, G. D. (2009). Sensitivity to violations of gender agreement in native and nonnative Spanish: An eye-movement investigation. Language Learning, 59, 503–535.Google Scholar
Kim, J.-H., & Christianson, K. (2012). Sentence complexity and working memory effects in ambiguity resolution. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. Advance online publication.Google Scholar
Lardiere, D. (1998). Case and tense in the “fossilized” steady state. Second Language Research, 14, 1–26.Google Scholar
Leeser, M. J., Brandl, A., & Whiteglass, C. (2011). Task effects in second language processing research. In Tromovich, P. & McDonough, K. (Eds.), Applied priming methods to L2 learning, teaching and research: Insights from psycholinguistics (pp. 179–198). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Levy, R., Bicknell, K., Slattery, T., & Rayner, K. (2009). Eye movement evidence that readers maintain and act on uncertainty about past linguistic input. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106, 21086–21090.Google Scholar
Lim, J-H. (2011). Second language processing in reading and translation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign.Google Scholar
Lim, J-H., & Christianson, K. (2013a). Integrating meaning and structure in L1–L2 and L2–L1 translations. Second Language Research, 29, 233–256.Google Scholar
Lim, J-H., & Christianson, K. (2013b). Second language processing in reading for comprehension and translation. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16, 518–537.Google Scholar
Macizo, P., & Bajo, M. T. (2004). When translation makes the difference: Sentence processing in reading and translation. Psicologica, 25, 181–205.Google Scholar
Macizo, P., & Bajo, M. T. (2006). Reading for repetition and reading for translation: Do they involve the same process? Cognition, 99, 1–34.Google Scholar
McDonald, J. L. (2000) Grammaticality judgments in a second language: Influences of age of acquisition and native language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 21, 395–423.Google Scholar
McDonald, J. L. (2006). Beyond the critical period: Processing-based explanations for poor grammaticality judgment performance by late second language learners. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 381–401.Google Scholar
Nicol, J., Forster, K., & Veres, C. (1997). Subject-verb agreement processes in comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 569–587.Google Scholar
Pearlmutter, N. J., Garnsey, S. M., & Bock, K. (1999). Agreement processes in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 427–456.Google Scholar
Posner, M. I., & Snyder, C. R. R. (1974). Attention and cognitive control. In Solso, R. L. (Ed.), Information processing and cognition: The Loyola Symposium. Hilsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 372–422.Google Scholar
Sachs, J. S. (1967) Recognition memory for syntactic and semantic aspects of connected discourse. Perception & Psychophysics, 2, 437–442.Google Scholar
Sagarra, N., & Herschensohn, J. (2010). The role of proficiency and working memory in gender and number agreement processing in L1 and L2 Spanish. Lingua, 120, 2022–2039.Google Scholar
Sato, M., & Felser, C. (2007). Sensitivity to semantic and morphosyntactic violations in L2 sentence processing: Evidence from speeded grammaticality judgments. Master's dissertation. University of Essex.Google Scholar
Slattery, T., Stuart, P., Christianson, K., Yoshida, M., & Ferreira, F. (2013). Lingering misinterpretations of garden path sentences arise from flawed semantic processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 69, 104–120.Google Scholar
Staub, A. (2009). On the interpretation of the number attraction effect: Response time evidence. Cognition, 60, 308–327.Google Scholar
Swets, B., Desmet, T., Clifton, C., & Ferreira, F. (2008). Underspecification of syntactic ambiguities: Evidence from self-paced reading. Memory & Cognition, 36, 201–216.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tokowicz, N., & Warren, T. (2010). Beginning adult L2 learners’ sensitivity to morphosyntactic violations: A self-paced reading study. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 22, 1092–1106.Google Scholar
Wagers, M. W., Lau, E. F., & Phillips, C. (2009). Agreement attraction in comprehension: Representations and processes. Journal of Memory and Language, 61, 206–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warren, T., McConnell, K., & Rayner, K. (2008). Effects of context on eye movements when reading about possible and impossible events. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 34, 1001–1010.Google Scholar
Wei, L. (2000). Unequal election of morphemes in adult second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 21, 106–140.Google Scholar
Williams, J. (2006). Incremental interpretation in second language sentence processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 9, 71–81.Google Scholar