Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-v2bm5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-13T11:25:19.990Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ONLINE PRONOUN RESOLUTION IN L2 DISCOURSE: L1 Influence and General Learner Effects

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 July 2008

Leah Roberts ,
Marianne Gullberg  and
Peter Indefrey
Leah Roberts*
Affiliation:
Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics
Marianne Gullberg
Affiliation:
Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics
Peter Indefrey
Affiliation:
Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics
*
Leah Roberts, Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, PO Box 310, 6500 AH Nijmegen, The Netherlands; e-mail: leah.roberts@mpi.nl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study investigates whether advanced second language (L2) learners of a nonnull subject language (Dutch) are influenced by their null subject first language (L1) (Turkish) in their offline and online resolution of subject pronouns in L2 discourse. To tease apart potential L1 effects from possible general L2 processing effects, we also tested a group of German L2 learners of Dutch who were predicted to perform like the native Dutch speakers. The two L2 groups differed in their offline interpretations of subject pronouns. The Turkish L2 learners exhibited a L1 influence, because approximately half the time they interpreted Dutch subject pronouns as they would overt pronouns in Turkish, whereas the German L2 learners performed like the Dutch controls, interpreting pronouns as coreferential with the current discourse topic. This L1 effect was not in evidence in eye-tracking data, however. Instead, the L2 learners patterned together, showing an online processing disadvantage when two potential antecedents for the pronoun were grammatically available in the discourse. This processing disadvantage was in evidence irrespective of the properties of the learners' L1 or their final interpretation of the pronoun. Therefore, the results of this study indicate both an effect of the L1 on the L2 in offline resolution and a general L2 processing effect in online subject pronoun resolution.

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 30 , Issue 3 , September 2008 , pp. 333 - 357
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Alonso-Ovalle, L., Fernández-Solera, S., Frazier, L., & Clifton, C.J. (2002). Null vs. overt pronouns and the topic-focus articulation in Spanish. Rivista di Linguistica, 14, 1–100.Google Scholar
Altarriba, J., Kambe, G., Pollatsek, A., & Rayner, K. (2001). Semantic codes are not used in integrating information across eye fixations in reading: Evidence from fluent Spanish-English bilinguals. Perception and Psychophysics, 63, 875–890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, A.S.C., Garrod, S., & Sanford, A.J. (1983). The accessibility of pronominal antecedents as a function of episode shifts in narrative texts. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 34, 427–440.Google Scholar
Ariel, M. (1990). Accessing noun-phrase antecedents. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ariel, M. (2001). Accessibility theory: An overview. In Sanders, T., Schilperoord, J., & Spooren, W. (Eds.), Text representation: Linguistic and psycholinguistic aspects (pp. 29–87). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnold, J.E., Eisenband, J.G., Brown-Schmidt, S., & Trueswell, J.C. (2000). The rapid use of gender information: Evidence of the time course of pronoun resolution from eyetracking. Cognition, 76, B13–B26.Google Scholar
Bini, M. (1993). La adquisicíon del italiano: Mas allá de las propiedades sintácticas del parámetro pro-drop [The acquisition of Italian: Beyond the syntactic properties of the pro-drop parameter]. In Liceras, J. M. (Ed.), La linguistica y el analisis de los sistemas no nativos (pp. 126–139). Ottawa, Canada: Doverhouse.Google Scholar
Bosch, P., Katz, G., & Umbach, C. (2007). The non-subject bias of German demonstrative pronouns. In Schwarz-Friesel, M., Consten, M., & Knees, M. (Eds.), Anaphors in texts (pp. 145–164). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caramazza, A., Grober, E., Garvey, C., & Yates, J. (1977). Comprehension of anaphoric pronouns. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16, 601–609.Google Scholar
Carminati, M.N. (2002). The processing of Italian subject pronouns. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Carminati, M.N. (2005). Processing reflexes of the feature hierarchy (person > number > gender) and implications for linguistic theory. Lingua, 115, 259–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chafe, W.L. (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and points of view. In Li, C. N. (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 23–56). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Chafe, W.L. (1994). Discourse, consciousness and time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chambers, G.C. & Smyth, R.H. (1998). Structural parallelism and discourse coherence: A test of the centering theory. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 593–608.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Christianson, K., Williams, C.C., Zacks, R.T., & Ferreira, F. (2006). Misrepresentations of garden-path sentences by older and younger adults. Discourse Processes, 42, 205–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, H. & Felser, C. (2006). Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 3–42.Google Scholar
Diaconescu, R. & Goodluck, H. (2004). The pronoun attraction effect for d(iscourse)-linked phrases: Evidence from speakers of a null subject language. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 33, 303–319.Google Scholar
Dussias, P. (2001). Sentence parsing in fluent Spanish-English bilinguals. In Nicol, J. (Ed.), One mind, two languages: Bilingual sentence processing (pp. 159–176). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Dussias, P. (2003). Syntactic ambiguity resolution in L2 learners: Some effects of bilinguality on L1 and L2 processing strategies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 529–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felser, C. & Roberts, L. (2007). Processing wh-dependencies in English as a second language: A cross-modal priming study. Second Language Research, 23, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felser, C., Roberts, L., Gross, R., & Marinis, T. (2003). The processing of ambiguous sentences by first and second language learners of English. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24, 453–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernández, E.M. (1999). Processing strategies in second language acquisition: Some preliminary results. In Klein, E. C. & Martohardjono, G. (Eds.), The development of second language grammars: A generative approach (pp. 217–239). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frazier, L. & Clifton, C.J. (2002). Processing ‘d-linked’ phrases. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 31, 633–659.Google Scholar
Frenck-Mestre, C. (1997). Examining second language reading: An online look. In Sorace, A., Heycock, C., & Shillcock, R. (Eds.), Language acquisition: Knowledge, representation and processing—Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition 1997 (pp. 444–448). Edinburgh: HCRC.Google Scholar
Frenck-Mestre, C. (2002). An online look at sentence processing in the second language. In Heredia, R. & Altarriba, J. (Eds.), Bilingual sentence processing (pp. 217–236). Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garrod, S. (1994). Resolving pronouns and other anaphoric devices: The case for diversity in discourse processing. In Clifton, C. J., Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (Eds.), Perspectives on sentence processing (pp. 339–357). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Garrod, S., Freudenthal, D., & Boyle, E. (1994). The role of different types of anaphor in the online resolution of sentences in a discourse. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 39–68.Google Scholar
Gernsbacher, M.A. (1989). Mechanisms that improve referential access. Cognition, 32, 99–156.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gernsbacher, M.A. & Hargreaves, D. (1988). Accessing sentence participants: The advantage of first mention. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 699–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gernsbacher, M.A., Hargreaves, D., & Beeman, M. (1989). Building and accessing clausal representations: The advantage of first mention versus the advantage of clause recency. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 735–755.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Givón, T. (1983). Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative crosslanguage study. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, P.C., Grosz, B.J., & Gilliom, L.A. (1993). Pronouns, names and the centering of attention in discourse. Cognitive Science, 17, 311–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, P.C. & Scearce, K.A. (1995). Pronominalization and discourse coherence, discourse structure and pronoun interpretation. Memory and Cognition, 23, 131–323.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greene, S., McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (1992). Pronoun resolution and discourse models. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 182, 266–283.Google Scholar
Grosz, B.J., Joshi, A.K., & Weinstein, S. (1995). Centering: A framework for modelling the local coherence of discourse. Computational Linguistics, 21, 203–226.Google Scholar
Gürel, A. (2003). Is the overt pronoun constraint universal? Evidence from L2 Turkish. In Liceras, J. M., Zobl, H., & Goodluck, H. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (pp. 130–139). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Gürel, A. (2004). Selectivity in L2-induced attrition: A psycholinguistic account. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 17, 53–78.Google Scholar
Hudson, S.B., Tanenhaus, M.K., & Dell, G.S. (1986). The effect of discourse center on the local coherence of a discourse. In Clifton, C. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Cognitive Science Society Meetings (pp. 96–101). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Juffs, A. (1998). Main verb vs. reduced relative clause ambiguity resolution in second language sentence processing. Language Learning, 48, 107–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Juffs, A. & Harrington, M. (1995). Parsing effects in second language sentence processing: Subject and object asymmetries in wh-extraction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 483–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaiser, E. & Trueswell, J.C. (2004). The referential properties of Dutch pronouns and demonstratives: Is salience enough? In Meier, C. & Weisgerber, M. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Conference “sub8 - Sinn und Bedeutung” (pp. 137–149). Konstanz, Germany: Fachbereich Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Konstanz.Google Scholar
Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1980). Psychological processes underlying pronominalisation and non-pronominalisation in children's connected discourse. In Kreiman, J. & Ojeda, A. E. (Eds.), Papers from the parasession on pronouns and anaphora (pp. 231–250). Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Kim, J.-H. & Montrul, S. (2003, November). Binding interpretations in Korean heritage speakers. Paper presented at the 28th Boston University Conference on Language Development, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
Lujàn, M. (1985). Binding properties of overt pronouns in null pronominal languages. In Eilfort, W., Kroeber, P., & Peterson, K. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 424–438). Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Lujàn, M. (1986). Stress and binding of pronouns. In Farley, A., Farley, P., & McCullough, K.-E. (Eds.), Papers from the parasession on pragmatics and grammatical theory (pp. 248–262). Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Marinis, T., Roberts, L., Felser, C., & Clahsen, H. (2005). Gaps in second language sentence processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 53–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, W., Levey, E., & Tyler, L.K. (1982). Producing interpretable discourse: The establishment and maintenance of reference. In Jarvella, R. J. & Klein, W. (Eds.), Speech, place and action (pp. 339–378). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, W., Tyler, L.K., & Koster, C. (1993). Integrative processes in utterance resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 647–666.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. (2004). Subject and object expression in Spanish heritage speakers: A case of morpho-syntactic convergence. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7, 125–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicol, J. (1988). Coreference processing during sentence comprehension. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Nicol, J. & Swinney, D. (2002). The psycholinguistics of anaphora. In Barss, T. (Ed.), Anaphora (pp. 72–104). Oxford: Blackwell.Google 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
Phinney, M. (1987). The pro-drop parameter in second language acquisition. In Roeper, T. & Williams, E. (Eds.), Parameter setting (pp. 221–238). Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rayner, K. & Pollatsek, A. (1989). The psychology of reading. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google ScholarPubMed
Rizzi, L. (1990). Relativized minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sanford, A.J. & Garrod, S. (1981). Understanding written language. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Sanford, A.J., Moar, K., & Garrod, S. (1988). Proper names and the control of focus. Language and Speech, 31, 43–56.Google Scholar
Serratrice, L. & Sorace, A. (2003). Overt and null subjects in monolingual and bilingual Italian acquisition. In Beachley, B., Brown, A., & Conlin, F. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 739–750). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Serratrice, L., Sorace, A., & Paoli, S. (2004). Crosslinguistic influence at the syntax-pragmatics interface: Subjects and objects in English-Italian bilingual and monolingual acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7, 183–205.Google Scholar
Shillcock, R. (1982). The online resolution of pronominal anaphora. Language and Speech, 25, 385–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorace, A. (2000). Differential effects of attrition in the L1 syntax of near native L2 speakers. In Howell, S. C., Fish, S. A., & Keith-Lucas, T. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 24th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 719–725). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Sorace, A. (2005). Selective optionality in language development. In Cornips, L. & Corrigan, K. P. (Eds.), Syntax and variation: Reconciling the biological and the social (pp. 46–111). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sorace, A. & Filiaci, F. (2006). Anaphor resolution in near-native speakers of Italian. Second Language Research, 22, 339–368, on p. 337.Google Scholar
Stewart, A.J., Pickering, M.J., & Sanford, A.J. (2000). The role of implicit causality in language comprehension: Focus versus integration accounts. Journal of Memory and Language, 42, 423–443.Google Scholar
Sturt, P. (2003). The time-course of the application of binding constraints in reference resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 542–562.Google Scholar
Tsimpli, I., Sorace, A., Heycock, C., Filiaci, F., & Bouba, M. (2003). Subjects in L1 attrition: Evidence from Greek and Italian near-native speakers of English. In Beachley, B., Brown, A., & Conlin, F. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 787–797). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
White, L. (1985). The pro-drop parameter in adult second language acquisition. Language Learning, 35, 47–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L. (1986). Implications of parametric variation for adult second language acquisition: An investigation of the pro-drop parameter. In Cook, V. (Ed.), Experimental approaches to second language learning (pp. 55–72). Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Williams, J., Möbius, P., & Kim, C. (2001). Native and non-native processing of English wh-questions: Parsing strategies and plausibility constraints. Applied Psycholinguistics, 22, 509–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar