Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T11:32:01.420Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

L1 word order and sensitivity to verb bias in L2 processing*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 February 2013

EUN-KYUNG LEE ,
DORA HSIN-YI LU  and
SUSAN M. GARNSEY
EUN-KYUNG LEE*
Affiliation:
University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign & Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology
DORA HSIN-YI LU
Affiliation:
National Taipei University of Education
SUSAN M. GARNSEY
Affiliation:
University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign & Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology
*
Address for correspondence: Eun-Kyung Lee, Department of Psychology, University of Illinois, 603 E. Daniel St., Champaign, IL 61820, USAeklee1@illinois.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Using a self-paced reading task, this study examines whether second language (L2) learners are flexible enough to learn L2 parsing strategies that are not useful in their first language (L1). Native Korean-speaking learners of English were compared with native English speakers on resolving a temporary ambiguity about the relationship between a verb and the noun following it (e.g., The student read [that] the article . . .). Consistent with previous studies, native English reading times showed the usual interaction between the optional complementizer that and the particular verb's bias about the structures that can follow it. Lower proficiency L1-Korean learners of L2-English did not show a similar interaction, but higher proficiency learners did. Thus, despite native language word order differences (English: SVO; Korean: SOV) that determine the availability of verbs early enough in sentences to generate predictions about upcoming sentence structure, higher proficiency L1-Korean learners were able to learn to optimally combine verb bias and complementizer cues on-line during sentence comprehension just as native English speakers did, while lower proficiency learners had not yet learned to do so. Optimal interactive cue combination during L2 sentence comprehension can probably be achieved only after sufficient experience with the target language.

Keywords

second language processingword orderverb biaspredictive cue useproficiency
Type
Research Article
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 16 , Issue 4 , October 2013 , pp. 761 - 775
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

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.)

Footnotes

*

We would like to thank three anonymous reviewers and Annie Tremblay for valuable suggestions about the work, and undergraduate assistants in the Language and Brain Lab for help with data collection.

References

Altmann, G. T. M., & Kamide, Y. (1999). Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition, 73, 247–264.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006a). Continuity and shallow structures in language processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 107–126.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006b). How native-like is non-native language processing? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 564–570.Google Scholar
Dussias, P. E., & Cramer Scaltz, T. R. (2008). Spanish–English L2 speakers' use of subcategorization bias information in the resolution of temporary ambiguity during second language reading. Acta Psychologica, 128, 501–513.Google Scholar
Dussias, P. E., Marful, A., Gerfen, C., & Bajo Molina, M. T. (2010). Usage frequencies of complement-taking verbs in Spanish and English: Data from Spanish monolinguals and Spanish–English bilinguals. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 1004–1011.Google Scholar
Felser, C., & Roberts, L. (2007). Processing wh-dependencies in a second language: A cross-modal priming study. Second Language Research, 23, 9–36.Google Scholar
Felser, C., Roberts, L., & Marinis, T. (2003). The processing of ambiguous sentences by first and second language learners of English. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24, 453–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, F., & CliftonC., Jr. C., Jr. (1986). The independence of syntactic processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 348–368.Google Scholar
Ferreira, F., & Henderson, J. M. (1990). Use of verb information in syntactic parsing: Evidence from eye movements and word-by-word self-paced reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 555–568.Google ScholarPubMed
Francis, W. N., & Kucera, H. (1982). Frequency and analysis of English usage: Lexicon and grammar. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Frenck-Mestre, C. (2002). An on-line look at sentence processing in the second language. In Heredia, R. & Altarriba, J. (eds.), Bilingual sentence processing, pp. 217–236. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Frenck-Mestre, C., & Pynte, J. (1997). Syntactic ambiguity resolution while reading in second and native languages. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 50A, 119–148.Google Scholar
Garnsey, S. M., Pearlmutter, N. J., Myers, E., & Lotocky, M. A. (1997). The contributions of verb bias and plausibility to the comprehension of temporarily ambiguous sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 58–93.Google Scholar
Hahne, A. (2001). What's different in second-language processing? Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 30, 251–266.Google Scholar
Hare, M. L., McRae, K., & Elman, J. L. (2003). Sense and structure: Meaning as determinant of verb subcategorization preferences. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 281–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hare, M. L., McRae, K., & Elman, J. L. (2004). Admitting that admitting sense into corpus analyses makes sense. Language and Cognitive Processes, 19, 181–224.Google Scholar
Hopp, H. (2006). Syntactic features and reanalysis in near-native processing. Second Language Research, 22, 369–397.Google Scholar
Hopp, H. (2010). Ultimate attainment in L2 inflection: Performance similarities between non-native and native speakers. Lingua, 120, 901–931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inoue, A., & Fodor, J. D. (1995). Information-paced parsing of Japanese. In Mazuka, R. & Nagai, N. (eds.), Japanese sentence processing, pp. 9–63. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Jackson, C. N. (2008). Proficiency level and the interaction of lexical and morphosyntactic information during L2 sentence processing. Language Learning, 58, 875–909.Google Scholar
Jackson, C. N., & Bobb, S. C. (2009). The processing and comprehension of wh-questions among second language speakers of German. Applied Psycholinguistics, 30, 603–636.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jackson, C. N., & Dussias, P. E. (2009). Cross-linguistic differences and their impact on L2 sentence processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12, 69–82.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
Jennings, F., Randall, B., & Tyler, L. K. (1997). Graded effects of verb subcategory preferences on parsing: Support for constraint-satisfaction models. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12, 485–504.Google Scholar
Juliano, C., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1993). Contingent frequency effects in syntactic ambiguity resolution. In Proceedings of the 15th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 593–598. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kamide, Y. (2008). Anticipatory processes in sentence processing. Language and Linguistics Compass, 2, 647–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kamide, Y., Altmann, G. T. M., & Haywood, S. L. (2003). The time-course of prediction in incremental sentence processing: Evidence from anticipatory eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 133–156.Google Scholar
Kamide, Y., & Mitchell, D. C. (1999). Incremental pre-head attachment in Japanese parsing. Language and Cognitive Processing, 14, 631–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennison, S. (2001). Limitations on the use of verb information during sentence comprehension. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 132–138.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marinis, T., Roberts, L., Felser, C., & Clahsen, H. (2005). Gaps in second language processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 53–78.Google Scholar
Mazuka, R., & Itoh, K. (1995). Can Japanese speakers be led down the garden path? In Mazuka, R. & Nagai, N. (eds.), Japanese sentence processing, pp. 295–329. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Novais-Santos, S., Gee, J., Shah, M., Troiani, V., Work, M., & Grossman, M. (2007). Resolving sentence ambiguity with planning and working memory resources: Evidence from fMRI. NeuroImage, 37, 361–378.Google Scholar
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 Experiment Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 786–803.Google Scholar
Papadopoulou, D. (2005). Reading-time studies of second language ambiguity resolution. Second Language Research, 21, 98–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papadopoulou, D., & Clahsen, H. (2003). Parsing strategies in L1 and L2 sentence processing: A study of relative clause attachment in Greek. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 501–528.Google Scholar
Pickering, M. J., Traxler, M. J., & Crocker, M. W. (2000). Ambiguity resolution in sentence processing: Evidence against frequency-based accounts. Journal of Memory and Language, 43, 447–475.Google Scholar
Pliatsikas, C., & Marinis, T.Processing of regular and irregular past tense morphology in highly proficient second language learners of English: A self-paced reading study. Applied Psycholinguistics, doi:10.1017/S0142716412000082. Published online by Cambridge University Press, March 14, 2012.Google Scholar
Pritchett, B. L. (1991). Head position and parsing ambiguity. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 20, 251–270.Google Scholar
Roberts, L., & Felser, C. (2011). Plausibility and recovery from garden paths in L2 sentence processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32, 299–331.Google Scholar
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.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
Sagarra, N., & Herschensohn, J. (2011). Proficiency and animacy effects on L2 Gender agreement processes during comprehension. Language Learning, 61, 80–116.Google Scholar
Trueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Kello, C. (1993). Verb-specific constraints in sentence-processing: Separating effects of lexical preference from garden-paths. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 528–553.Google Scholar
Wilson, M. P., & Garnsey, S. M. (2009). Making simple sentence hard: Verb bias effects in simple direct object sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 60, 368–392.Google Scholar