Using the maze task to measure lexical processing during sentence processing

2006 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth I. Forster
Keyword(s):  
Sentence Processing ◽  
Lexical Processing ◽  
Maze Task

Limits on semantic prediction in the processing of extraction from adjunct clauses

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dustin Alfonso Chacón
Keyword(s):  
Real Time ◽  
Sentence Processing ◽  
Judgment Task ◽  
Main Clause ◽  
Top Down ◽  
Maze Task ◽  
Serial Search ◽  
Conceptual Semantic ◽  
Syntactic Islands ◽  
Acceptability Judgment

Processing filler-gap dependencies (‘extraction’) depends on complex top-down predictions. This is observed in comprehenders’ ability to avoid resolving filler-gap dependencies in syntactic island contexts, and in the immediate sensitivity to the plausibility of the resulting interpretation. How complex can these predictions be? In this paper, we examine the processing of extraction from adjunct clauses. Adjunct clauses are argued to be syntactic islands, however, extraction is permitted if the adjunct clause and main clause satisfy specific compositional and conceptual semantic criteria. In an acceptability judgment task, we found that this generalization is robust. Additionally, our results show that this is a property specific to adjunct clauses by comparing adjunct clauses to conjunct VPs, which are similarly argued to permit extraction depending on semantic factors. However, in an A-Maze task, we found no evidence that this knowledge is deployed in real-time sentence processing. Instead, we found that comprehenders attempted to resolve a filler-gap dependency in an adjunct clause regardless of its island status. We propose that this is because deploying this linguistic constraint depends on a second-order serial search over event schemata, which is likely costly and time-consuming. Thus, comprehenders opt for a riskier strategy and attempt resolution into adjunct clauses categorically.

Can the maze task be even more amazing?

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 366-383
Author(s):  
Jordan Gallant ◽  
Gary Libben
Keyword(s):  
Sentence Processing ◽  
Target Sentence ◽  
Sentence Context ◽  
Maze Task ◽  
Sentence Reading ◽  
Lexical Effects ◽  
Processing Effects

Abstract The maze task (Forster, Guererra & Elliot, 2009; Forster, 2010) is designed to measure focal lexical and sentence processing effects in a highly controlled manner. We discuss how this task can be modified and extended to provide a unique opportunity for the investigation of lexical effects in sentence context. We present results that demonstrate how the maze task can be used to examine both facilitation and inhibition effects. Most importantly, it can do this while leaving the target sentence unchanged across conditions. This is an advantage that is not available with other paradigms. We also present new versions of the maze task that allow for the isolation of specific lexical effects and that enhance the measurement of lexical recognition through visual animation. Finally, we discuss how the maze task brings to the foreground the extent to which complex multi-layered priming and inhibition are intrinsic to sentence reading and how the maze task can tap this complexity.

scholarly journals Parsing preferences and individual differences in nonnative sentence processing: Evidence from eye movements

2021 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. 129-151
Author(s):  
Yesi Cheng ◽  
Jason Rothman ◽  
Ian Cunnings
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Sentence Processing ◽  
Lexical Processing ◽  
English Studies ◽  
Processing Efficiency ◽  
L2 Processing ◽  
Attachment Preference ◽  
Ambiguity Advantage ◽  
L1 And L2 ◽  
Processing Mechanisms

AbstractUsing both offline and online measures, the present study investigates attachment resolution in relative clauses in English natives (L1) and nonnatives (L2). We test how relative clause resolution interacts with linguistic factors and participant-level individual differences. Previous L1 English studies have demonstrated a low attachment preference and also an “ambiguity advantage” suggesting that L1ers may not have as strong a low attachment preference as is sometimes claimed. We employ a similar design to examine this effect in L1 and L2 comprehension. Offline results indicate that both groups exhibit a low attachment preference, positively correlated with reading span scores and with proficiency in the L2 group. Online results also suggest a low attachment preference in both groups. However, our data show that individual differences influence online attachment resolution for both native and nonnatives; higher lexical processing efficiency correlates with quicker resolution of linguistic conflicts. We argue that the current findings suggest that attachment resolution during L1 and L2 processing share the same processing mechanisms and are modulated by similar individual differences.

scholarly journals Electrophysiological Signatures of Visual Lexical Processing: Open-and Closed-Class Words

1999 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 261-281 ◽  
Author(s):  
Colin M. Brown ◽  
Peter Hagoort ◽  
Mariken ter Keurs
Keyword(s):  
Word Frequency ◽  
Sentence Processing ◽  
Word Length ◽  
Lexical Processing ◽  
Brain Potentials ◽  
Closed Class ◽  
Categorical Information ◽  
On Line ◽  
The Brain ◽  
Class Distinction

n This paper presents evidence of the disputed existence of an electrophysiological marker for the lexical-categorical distinction between open-and closed-class words. Event-related brain potentials were recorded from the scalp while subjects read a story. Separate waveforms were computed for open-and closed-class words. Two aspects of the waveforms could be reliably related to vocabulary class. The first was an early negativity in the 230-to 350-msec epoch, with a bilateral anterior predominance. This negativity was elicited by open-and closed-class words alike, was not affected by word frequency or word length, and had an earlier peak latency for closed-class words. The second was a frontal slow negative shift in the 350-to 500-msec epoch, largest over the left side of the scalp. This late negativity was only elicited by closed-class words. Although the early negativity cannot serve as a qualitative marker of the open-and closed-class distinction, it does reflect the earliest electrophysiological manifestation of the availability of categorical information from the mental lexicon. These results suggest that the brain honors the distinction between open-and closed-class words, in relation to the different roles that they play in on-line sentence processing.

Using a maze task to track lexical and sentence processing

2010 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 347-357 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth I. Forster
Keyword(s):  
Sentence Processing ◽  
Simple Technique ◽  
The Other ◽  
Decision Task ◽  
Maze Task ◽  
Successive Frame ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Trial Basis ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Two Alternatives

A word maze consists of a sequence of frames, each containing two alternatives. Subjects are required to select one of those alternatives according to some criterion defined by the experimenter. This simple technique can be used to investigate a wide range of issues. For example, if one alternative is a word and the other is a nonword, the subject may be required to press a key to indicate where the word is. This provides an interesting variant of the lexical decision task, since the difficulty of the lexical discrimination can be manipulated on a trial-by-trial basis by varying the properties of the nonword alternative. On the other hand, a version of a self-paced reading task is created if each successive frame contains a word that can continue a sentence, and the subject is required to identify which word that is. Once again, by manipulating the properties of the incorrect alternative one may be able to control the mode of processing adopted by the subject. Although this is a highly artificial form of reading, it does allow one to study the sentence processing under more tightly controlled conditions.

The timing of lexical and syntactic processes in second language sentence comprehension

2015 ◽  
Vol 37 (5) ◽  
pp. 1253-1280 ◽  
Author(s):  
HOLGER HOPP
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Sentence Processing ◽  
Sentence Comprehension ◽  
Lexical Processing ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
First Language ◽  
Syntactic Processing ◽  
Complex Object ◽  
Reading Experiment ◽  
Processing Differences

ABSTRACTThis paper investigates how lexical processing difficulty affects second language (L2) syntactic processing. In a self-paced reading experiment with 36 monolingual and 62 first language German speakers of English, we test how differences in lexical frequency moderate structural processing differences between subject and object clefts. For the L2 group, the results show linear relations between verb frequency and the location of the reading difficulty resulting from the structurally more complex object clefts. Native speakers evince comparable effects only in lower word frequency ranges. The findings indicate that greater demands on lexical processing may cause non-native-like syntactic processing in that they attenuate and delay effects of structure building in L2 sentence processing. We discuss implications for current models of L2 sentence processing.

How language learners comprehend and produce language in real time

2006 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 72-74
Author(s):  
Gary Libben
Keyword(s):  
Real Time ◽  
Language Learners ◽  
Language Processing ◽  
Sentence Processing ◽  
Lexical Processing ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
Real Time Processing ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Show Evidence ◽  
Dual Mechanism

This paper does a fine job of advancing discussion concerning a question that is indeed quite underrepresented in the literature, that is, how language learners comprehend and produce language in real time. The paper is firmly rooted in the dual mechanism approach to language processing and takes as its starting point the assumption that normal adult processing is characterized by two systems, one that is lexically based and one that is essentially combinatorial. The authors cite evidence that both first language (L1) learners and adult native speakers show evidence of dual mechanism processing and that, in particular, children's sentence processing shows early reliance on structure-based interpretation and less ability to employ lexical/pragmatic information in the resolution of language ambiguity. One way to view this preference is that L1 learners might know, broadly speaking, considerably more about their language than they do about the world in which they live. Adult second language (L2) learners might be said to be in exactly the opposite situation. It is therefore hardly surprising that adult L2 speakers rely strongly on lexical/pragmatic cues in sentence processing. In the early stages of adult L2 acquisition, the demands of real-time processing make use of such nonsyntactic inference crucial. The question that strikes me as key is whether, as L2 speakers become more proficient, they are weaned from this reliance such that their processing reflects the interaction between syntactic and lexical processing that is characteristic of adult native speakers. When and if they do, we could say that their L2 processing is, both internally and externally, nativelike.

The maze task: Measuring forced incremental sentence processing time

2009 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
pp. 163-171 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth I. Forster ◽  
Christine Guerrera ◽  
Lisa Elliot
Keyword(s):  
Sentence Processing ◽  
Processing Time ◽  
Maze Task

Cross-linguistic lexical and syntactic co-activation in L2 sentence processing

2016 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 96-130 ◽  
Author(s):  
Holger Hopp
Keyword(s):  
Sentence Processing ◽  
Word Order ◽  
Sentence Comprehension ◽  
Lexical Processing ◽  
First Language ◽  
Syntactic Processing ◽  
Lexical Activation ◽  
Co Activation ◽  
On Line ◽  
Embedded Clauses

Abstract This study investigates under which conditions the L1 syntax is activated in L2 on-line sentence comprehension. We study whether cross-linguistic syntactic activation of the L1 word order is affected by lexical activation of the first language (L1) by virtue of cognate words. In two eye-tracking experiments, German-English bilinguals and English natives read English sentences containing reduced relative clauses whose surface word order partially overlaps with German embedded clauses. The verbs used were either German-English cognates or matched control verbs. The results show lexical cognate facilitation and syntactic co-activation of L1 word order, with the latter being moderated by proficiency and cognate status. Critically, syntactic co-activation is found only with English control words. We argue that fleeting co-activation of the L1 syntax becomes measurable under higher demands of lexical processing, while cognate facilitation frees resources for inhibition of the L1 syntax and target-like syntactic processing.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document