scholarly journals Antecedent contained deletions in native and non-native sentence processing

2016 ◽  
Vol 7 (5) ◽  
pp. 554-582 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oliver Boxell ◽  
Claudia Felser ◽  
Ian Cunnings
Keyword(s):  
Eye Movement ◽  
Sentence Processing ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
English Speakers ◽  
Real Time Processing ◽  
Verb Phrase ◽  
Movement Data ◽  
German Speaking ◽  
Quantifier Raising ◽  
L1 And L2

Abstract We report the results from an eye-movement monitoring study investigating native (L1) and non-native (L2) speakers’ real-time processing of antecedent-contained deletion (ACD), a type of verb phrase ellipsis in which the ellipsis gap forms part of its own antecedent. The resulting interpretation problem is traditionally thought to be solved by quantifier raising, a covert scope-shifting operation that serves to remove the gap from within its antecedent. Our L2 group comprised advanced, native German-speaking L2 learners of English. The analysis of the eye-movement data showed that both L1 and L2 English speakers tried to recover the missing verb phrase after encountering the gap. Only the native speakers showed evidence of ellipsis resolution being affected by quantification, however. No effects of quantification following gap detection were found in the L2 group, by contrast, indicating that recovery of the elided material was accomplished independently from the object’s quantificational status in this group.

scholarly journals THE TIMING OF ISLAND EFFECTS IN NONNATIVE SENTENCE PROCESSING

2012 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-98 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claudia Felser ◽  
Ian Cunnings ◽  
Claire Batterham ◽  
Harald Clahsen
Keyword(s):  
Sentence Processing ◽  
Sentence Comprehension ◽  
Feature Matching ◽  
Memory Storage ◽  
English Speakers ◽  
L2 Processing ◽  
Sensitivity Pattern ◽  
German Speaking ◽  
Island Constraints ◽  
L1 And L2

Using the eye-movement monitoring technique in two reading comprehension experiments, this study investigated the timing of constraints on wh-dependencies (so-called island constraints) in first- and second-language (L1 and L2) sentence processing. The results show that both L1 and L2 speakers of English are sensitive to extraction islands during processing, suggesting that memory storage limitations affect L1 and L2 comprehenders in essentially the same way. Furthermore, these results show that the timing of island effects in L1 compared to L2 sentence comprehension is affected differently by the type of cue (semantic fit versus filled gaps) signaling whether dependency formation is possible at a potential gap site. Even though L1 English speakers showed immediate sensitivity to filled gaps but not to lack of semantic fit, proficient German-speaking learners of English as a L2 showed the opposite sensitivity pattern. This indicates that initial wh-dependency formation in L2 processing is based on semantic feature matching rather than being structurally mediated as in L1 comprehension.

Reanalysing object gaps during non-native sentence processing: Evidence from ERPs

2018 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. 285-300 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Jessen ◽  
Claudia Felser
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Experimental Design ◽  
Eye Movement ◽  
Sentence Processing ◽  
Event Related Potentials ◽  
Brain Responses ◽  
German Speaking ◽  
Related Potentials ◽  
Direct Objects ◽  
L1 And L2

The present study used event related potentials (ERPs) to investigate how native (L1) German-speaking second-language (L2) learners of English process sentences containing filler-gap dependencies such as Bill liked the house (women) that Bob built some ornaments for __ at his workplace. Using an experimental design which allowed us to dissociate filler integration from reanalysis effects, we found that fillers which were implausible as direct objects of the embedded verb (e.g. built the women) elicited similar brain responses (an N400) in L1 and L2 speakers when the verb was encountered. This confirms findings from behavioral and eye-movement studies indicating that both L1 and L2 speakers immediately try to integrate a filler with a potential lexical licensor. L1/L2 differences were observed when subsequent sentence material signaled that the direct-object analysis was in fact incorrect, however. We found reanalysis effects, in the shape of a P600 for sentences containing fillers that were plausible direct objects only for L2 speakers, but not for the L1 group. This supports previous findings suggesting that L2 comprehenders recover from an initially plausible first analysis less easily than L1 speakers.

scholarly journals The time course of morphological processing in a second language

2013 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 7-31 ◽  
Author(s):  
Harald Clahsen ◽  
Loay Balkhair ◽  
John-Sebastian Schutter ◽  
Ian Cunnings
Keyword(s):  
Eye Movement ◽  
Time Course ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
Masked Priming ◽  
Judgment Task ◽  
Morphological Processing ◽  
Online Processing ◽  
Movement Data ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
Complex Words

We report findings from psycholinguistic experiments investigating the detailed timing of processing morphologically complex words by proficient adult second (L2) language learners of English in comparison to adult native (L1) speakers of English. The first study employed the masked priming technique to investigate - ed forms with a group of advanced Arabic-speaking learners of English. The results replicate previously found L1/L2 differences in morphological priming, even though in the present experiment an extra temporal delay was offered after the presentation of the prime words. The second study examined the timing of constraints against inflected forms inside derived words in English using the eye-movement monitoring technique and an additional acceptability judgment task with highly advanced Dutch L2 learners of English in comparison to adult L1 English controls. Whilst offline the L2 learners performed native-like, the eye-movement data showed that their online processing was not affected by the morphological constraint against regular plurals inside derived words in the same way as in native speakers. Taken together, these findings indicate that L2 learners are not just slower than native speakers in processing morphologically complex words, but that the L2 comprehension system employs real-time grammatical analysis (in this case, morphological information) less than the L1 system.

PARSING STRATEGIES IN L1 AND L2 SENTENCE PROCESSING

2003 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 501-528 ◽  
Author(s):  
Despina Papadopoulou ◽  
Harald Clahsen
Keyword(s):  
Sentence Processing ◽  
Relative Clause ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Native Languages ◽  
Advanced Learners ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
On Line ◽  
L1 And L2 ◽  
Lexical Cues

To contribute to a better understanding of second language (L2) sentence processing, the present study examines how L2 learners parse temporarily ambiguous sentences containing relative clauses. Results are reported from both off-line and on-line experiments with three groups of advanced learners of Greek whose native languages (L1s) were Spanish, German, or Russian as well as from corresponding experiments with a control group of adult native speakers of Greek. We found that, despite their nativelike mastery of the construction under investigation, the L2 learners showed relative-clause attachment preferences that were different from those of the native speakers. Moreover, the L2 learners did not exhibit L1-based preferences in their L2 Greek, as might be expected if they were directly influenced by L1 attachment preferences. We suggest that L2 learners integrate information relevant for parsing differently from native speakers, with the L2 learners relying more on lexical cues than the native speakers and less on purely structurally based parsing strategies.

Development of sensitivity to phonological context in learning to spell in English

2010 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 99-117 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nadya Dich
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
Common Factor ◽  
Native English Speakers ◽  
English Word ◽  
Context Sensitivity ◽  
English Speakers ◽  
Russian Speakers ◽  
Word Spelling ◽  
L1 And L2

The study attempts to investigate factors underlying the development of spellers’ sensitivity to phonological context in English. Native English speakers and Russian speakers of English as a second language (ESL) were tested on their ability to use information about the coda to predict the spelling of vowels in English monosyllabic nonwords. In addition, the study assessed the participants’ spelling proficiency as their ability to correctly spell commonly misspelled words (Russian participants were assessed in both Russian and English). Both native and non-native English speakers were found to rely on the information about the coda when spelling vowels in nonwords. In both native and non-native speakers, context sensitivity was predicted by English word spelling; in Russian ESL speakers this relationship was mediated by English proficiency. L1 spelling proficiency did not facilitate L2 context sensitivity in Russian speakers. The results speak against a common factor underlying different aspects of spelling proficiency in L1 and L2 and in favor of the idea that spelling competence comprises different skills in different languages.

scholarly journals Processingwh-dependencies in a second language: a cross-modal priming study

2007 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 9-36 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claudia Felser ◽  
Leah Roberts
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Language Processing ◽  
Sentence Processing ◽  
Second Language Learners ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
Real Time Processing ◽  
Indirect Object ◽  
Gap Control ◽  
Native Speakers Of English ◽  
Antecedent Reactivation

This study investigates the real-time processing of wh-dependencies by advanced Greek-speaking learners of English using a cross-modal picture priming task. Participants were asked to respond to different types of picture target presented either at structurally defined gap positions, or at pre-gap control positions, while listening to sentences containing indirect-object relative clauses. Our results indicate that the learners processed the experimental sentences differently from both adult native speakers of English and monolingual English-speaking children. Contrary to what has been found for native speakers, the learners' response pattern was not influenced by individual working memory differences. Adult second language learners differed from native speakers with a relatively high reading or listening span in that they did not show any evidence of structurally based antecedent reactivation at the point of the indirect object gap. They also differed from low-span native speakers, however, in that they showed evidence of maintained antecedent activation during the processing of the experimental sentences. Whereas the localized priming effect observed in the high-span controls is indicative of trace-based antecedent reactivation in native sentence processing, the results from the Greek-speaking learners support the hypothesis that the mental representations built during non-native language processing lack abstract linguistic structure such as movement traces.

PREDICTIVE PROCESSING OF IMPLICIT CAUSALITY IN A SECOND LANGUAGE

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-22
Author(s):  
Hyunwoo Kim ◽  
Theres Grüter
Keyword(s):  
Native Speakers ◽  
Predictive Processing ◽  
Real Time Processing ◽  
Time Processing ◽  
Early Use ◽  
Implicit Causality ◽  
L1 And L2 ◽  
Korean Learners ◽  
Korean Learners Of English ◽  
Dependent Clause

Abstract Implicit causality (IC) is a well-known phenomenon whereby certain verbs appear to create biases to remention either their subject or object in a causal dependent clause. This study investigated to what extent Korean learners of English made use of IC information for predictive processing at a discourse level, and whether L2 proficiency played a modulating role in this process. Results from a visual-world eye-tracking experiment showed early use of IC information in both L1 and L2 listeners, yet the effect was weaker and emerged later in the L2 group. None of three independent and intercorrelated proficiency measures modulated L2 listeners’ processing behavior. The findings suggest that L2 listeners are able to engage in prediction during real-time processing at a discourse level, although they did so to a more limited extent than native speakers in this study. We discuss these findings in light of similar evidence from other recent work.

scholarly journals Processing similarities between native speakers and non-balanced bilinguals

2021 ◽  
pp. 136700692110336
Author(s):  
Marina Sokolova ◽  
Roumyana Slabakova
Keyword(s):  
Sentence Processing ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
Multiple Sources ◽  
Native Languages ◽  
Social Conventions ◽  
Syntactic Information ◽  
The Matrix ◽  
L1 And L2 ◽  
Syntactic Cues ◽  
Human Sentence Processing

Aims and objectives: The study investigates human sentence processing and argues that information from multiple sources is considered equally in native and non-native languages. Non-syntactic information does not overrule the parsing decisions prompted by syntactic cues. Methodology: The experiment used ambiguous relative clauses (RC) in a self-paced reading task with 20 native and 45 non-native adult speakers of English and Russian. The software Linger recorded participants’ answers to comprehension questions and the time they spent reading each word. Data and analysis: Mixed linear analysis performed in R checked for the effect of a matrix verb, RC length, social conventions, the native language and the language of testing on RC processing and interpretation. Findings: Both native and non-native speakers followed social conventions in deciding on the interpretation of the RC. However, this information never overruled the attachment decision prompted by the matrix predicate or by the length of the RC which entails certain sentence prosody. Originality: The study is innovative in investigating the extent to which each factor affected RC processing. It shows that social conventions enhance processing when they conspire with the structural parse prompted by linguistic cues. When they do not, syntactic information governs sentence parsing in both L1 and L2. Significance/implications: The study provides evidence that sentence processing uses linguistic structure as a first parsing hypothesis, which can then be adjusted to incorporate the incoming information from multiple sources. Limitations: The findings need further support from testing L2 learners of Russian in various socio-cultural contexts.

scholarly journals The impact of uninformative parafoveal masks on L1 and late L2 speakers

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
Leigh Breakell Fernandez ◽  
Christoph Scheepers ◽  
Shanley E.M. Allen
Keyword(s):  
Native Speakers ◽  
Movement Behavior ◽  
English Speakers ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Parafoveal Processing ◽  
Reading Research ◽  
Boundary Paradigm ◽  
L1 And L2 ◽  
The Impact ◽  
L1 English

Much reading research has found that informative parafoveal masks lead to a reading benefit for native speakers (see, Schotter et al., 2012). However, little reading research has tested the impact of uninformative parafoveal masks during reading. Additionally, parafoveal processing research is primarily restricted to native speakers. In the current study we manipulated the type of uninformative preview using a gaze contingent boundary paradigm with a group of L1 English speakers and a group of late L2 English speakers (L1 German). We were interested in how different types of uninformative masks impact on parafoveal processing, whether L1 and L2 speakers are similarly impacted, and whether they are sensitive to parafoveally viewed language-specific sub-lexical orthographic information. We manipulated six types of uninformative masks to test these objectives: an Identical, English pseudo-word, German pseudo-word, illegal string of letters, series of X’s, and a blank mask. We found that X masks affect reading the most with slight graded differences across the other masks, L1 and L2 speakers are impacted similarly, and neither group is sensitive to sub-lexical orthographic information. Overall these data show that not all previews are equal, and research should be aware of the way uninformative masks affect reading behavior. Additionally, we hope that future research starts to approach models of eye-movement behavior during reading from not only a monolingual but also from a multilingual perspective.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document