Continuity and shallow structures in language processing

2006 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 107-126 ◽  
Author(s):  
HARALD CLAHSEN ◽  
CLAUDIA FELSER
Keyword(s):  
Language Processing ◽  
Sentence Processing ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
First Language ◽  
Nonnative Speakers ◽  
Semantic Cues ◽  
Target Article ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
Shallow Structure Hypothesis ◽  
Core Idea

The core idea that we argued for in the target article was that grammatical processing in a second language (L2) is fundamentally different from grammatical processing in one's native (first) language (L1). Our major source of evidence for this claim comes from experimental psycholinguistic studies investigating morphological and syntactic processing in child and adult native speakers, and nonnative speakers who acquired their L2 after childhood and for whom their L1 is the dominant language. With respect to child L1 processing, we argued for acontinuity of parsing hypothesisclaiming that the child's structural parser is basically the same as that of mature speakers and does not change over time. Adult L2 learners, in contrast, were seen to underuse syntactic information during sentence processing and to rely more on lexical–semantic cues to interpretation. To account for the observed L1/L2 differences in processing, we proposed the shallow structure hypothesis (SSH) according to which the representations adult L2 learners compute during processing contain less syntactic detail than those of child and adult native speakers.

The shallow structure hypothesis of second language sentence processing: What is restricted and why?

2006 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 49-52
Author(s):  
Margaret Gillon Dowens ◽  
Manuel Carreiras
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Sentence Processing ◽  
Processing Speed ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
First Language ◽  
Direct Form ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
Shallow Structure Hypothesis ◽  
On Line ◽  
Shallow Structure

Clahsen and Felser (CF) analyze the performance of monolingual children and adult second language (L2) learners in off-line and on-line tasks and compare their performance with that of adult monolinguals. They conclude that child first language (L1) processing is basically the same as adult L1 processing (the contiguity assumption), with differences in performance being due to cognitive developmental limitations. They argue that differences in L2 performance, however, are more qualitative and not explained by shortage of working memory (WM) resources, differences in processing speed, transfer of L1 processing routines, or incomplete acquisition of the target grammar. They propose a shallow structure hypothesis (SSH) to explain the differences reported in sentence processing. According to this, the syntactic representations computed by L2 learners during comprehension are shallower and less detailed than those computed by native speakers and involve more direct form-function mappings.

Second language sentence processing in reading for comprehension and translation

2012 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 518-537 ◽  
Author(s):  
JUNG HYUN LIM ◽  
KIEL CHRISTIANSON
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Language Processing ◽  
Sentence Processing ◽  
Relative Clauses ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
First Language ◽  
Native English Speakers ◽  
L2 Processing ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
Native Speakers Of English

A self-paced reading and translation task was used with learners of English as a second language (L2) to explore what sorts of information L2 learners use during online comprehension compared to native speakers, and how task (reading for comprehension vs. translation) and proficiency affect L2 comprehension. Thirty-six Korean native speakers of English and 32 native English speakers read plausible and implausible subject relative clauses and object relative clauses. Reading times, comprehension accuracy, and translations were analyzed. Results showed that L2 learners were able to use syntactic information similarly to native speakers during comprehension, and that online L2 processing and offline comprehension were modulated by reading goals and proficiency. Results are interpreted as showing that L2 processing is quantitatively rather than qualitatively different from first language processing, i.e. strategically “good enough”.

Grammatical processing in language learners

2006 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-42 ◽  
Author(s):  
HARALD CLAHSEN ◽  
CLAUDIA FELSER
Keyword(s):  
Real Time ◽  
Language Learners ◽  
Language Processing ◽  
Sentence Processing ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
Working Memory Capacity ◽  
Lexical Retrieval ◽  
Continuity Hypothesis ◽  
Semantic Cues ◽  
L2 Learners

The ability to process the linguistic input in real time is crucial for successfully acquiring a language, and yet little is known about how language learners comprehend or produce language in real time. Against this background, we have conducted a detailed study of grammatical processing in language learners using experimental psycholinguistic techniques and comparing different populations (mature native speakers, child first language [L1] and adult second language [L2] learners) as well as different domains of language (morphology and syntax). This article presents an overview of the results from this project and of other previous studies, with the aim of explaining how grammatical processing in language learners differs from that of mature native speakers. For child L1 processing, we will argue for a continuity hypothesis claiming that the child's parsing mechanism is basically the same as that of mature speakers and does not change over time. Instead, empirical differences between child and mature speaker's processing can be explained by other factors such as the child's limited working memory capacity and by less efficient lexical retrieval. In nonnative (adult L2) language processing, some striking differences to native speakers were observed in the domain of sentence processing. Adult learners are guided by lexical–semantic cues during parsing in the same way as native speakers, but less so by syntactic information. We suggest that the observed L1/L2 differences can be explained by assuming that the syntactic representations adult L2 learners compute during comprehension are shallower and less detailed than those of native speakers.

Prediction and integration in native and second-language processing of elliptical structures

2014 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-18 ◽  
Author(s):  
EDITH KAAN ◽  
JOSEPH KIRKHAM ◽  
FRANK WIJNEN
Keyword(s):  
Language Processing ◽  
Sentence Processing ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
Event Related Potentials ◽  
Syntactic Analysis ◽  
Second Language Processing ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
Frontal Negativity ◽  
Related Potentials

According to recent views of L2-sentence processing, L2-speakers do not predict upcoming information to the same extent as do native speakers. To investigate L2-speakers’ predictive use and integration of syntactic information across clauses, we recorded event-related potentials (ERPs) from advanced L2-learners and native speakers while they read sentences in which the syntactic context did or did not allow noun-ellipsis (Lau, E., Stroud, C., Plesch, S., & Phillips, C. (2006). The role of structural prediction in rapid syntactic analysis. Brain and Language, 98, 74–88.) Both native and L2-speakers were sensitive to the context when integrating words after the potential ellipsis-site. However, native, but not L2-speakers, anticipated the ellipsis, as suggested by an ERP difference between elliptical and non-elliptical contexts preceding the potential ellipsis-site. In addition, L2-learners displayed a late frontal negativity for ungrammaticalities, suggesting differences in repair strategies or resources compared with native speakers.

Processing Chinese relative clauses: An investigation of second-language learners from different learning contexts

2016 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 155-186 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qin Yao ◽  
Claire Renaud
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Language Processing ◽  
Sentence Processing ◽  
Relative Clauses ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
Head Noun ◽  
Opposite Pattern ◽  
The Us ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
Matrix Subject

AbstractThe goal of this study is to examine the processing of Chinese relative clauses (RCs) through a self-paced reading task and to determine whether the learning environment plays a role in the second-language (L2) acquisition of RCs. We investigated two types of RCs (subject vs. object RCs) along with two positions in which a RC can occur (modifying a matrix subject noun phrase [NP] vs. a matrix object NP). Eighteen native speakers of Chinese and twenty-one L2 learners at an intermediate proficiency level participated in the study. Ten learners were students learning Chinese in the US (i. e., in a foreign-language context), whereas the other eleven learners were students studying Chinese in China (i. e., in a study-abroad context). The comprehension of sentences containing a RC and reading times (RTs) on the RC and the head noun (the segment immediately following the RC) were analyzed. The results show distinct patterns for the learners and the native speakers. The accuracy data reveals that the L2 learners in China performed better than the L2 learners in the US. Additionally, the L2 learners in China exhibited a processing speed advantage to the L2 learners in the US. The RT data highlighted important asymmetries in the L2 learners in the US and the native speakers, while the results were flat for the L2 learners in China. Specifically, L2 learners in the US took longer to read object RCs than subject RCs while the opposite pattern was obtained for the L1 speakers. Moreover, matrix-object-modifying RCs revealed shorter RTs than matrix-subject-modifying RCs for L2 learners in the US, whereas the opposite pattern was found for the L1 speakers. These findings are discussed in light of the Linear Distance Theory and the Structural Distance Theory (e. g., O’Grady 1997. Syntactic development. Chicago: University of Chicago Press). Overall, these results seem to provide support to the assumption that changes in syntactic processing happen as a result of exposure to the language environment (Cuetos et al. 1996. Parsing in different languages. In Manuel Carreias, Jose E. Garcia-Albea & Nuria Sebastien-Galles (eds.), Language processing in Spanish, 145–187. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; Frenck–Mestre 2002. An on-line look at sentence processing in the second language. In Roberto Heredia & Jeanette Altarriba (eds.), Bilingual sentence processing, 217–236. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers.).

Pervasiveness of shallow processing

2006 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 84-88
Author(s):  
Irina A. Sekerina ◽  
Patricia J. Brooks
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Language Processing ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
Syntactic Structure ◽  
First Language ◽  
Sources Of Information ◽  
Shallow Processing ◽  
L2 Learners

Clahsen and Felser (CF) offer a novel explanation for the qualitative differences in language processing often observed between adult first language (L1) speakers and second language (L2) learners. They argue that, although L2 learners are successful in drawing on lexical, morphological, and pragmatic sources of information, they underutilize syntactic structure, which results in shallower and less detailed processing than that of native speakers.

Shallow processing: a consequence of bilingualism or second language learning?

2006 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-56
Author(s):  
Susanne E. Carroll
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Language Learning ◽  
Language Processing ◽  
Semantic Representation ◽  
First Language ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Long Distance ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
Shallow Structure Hypothesis ◽  
The One

Clahsen and Felser (CF) review ground-breaking work comparing selected types of language processing in monolingual children and adults, on the one hand, and in monolingual first language (L1) adults and adult second language (L2) learners, on the other. They argue that children behave essentially like adults, but that adult L2 learners, even high-proficiency ones, do not. Thus, there is a principled difference to be made among types of learners; there is continuity of mechanism and process to be observed in monolingual development but L2 acquisition exhibits certain fundamental differences. In particular, L2 learners construct shallow syntactic structures (essentially failing to compute trace chains) when processing long-distance filler-gap dependencies. According to the shallow structure hypothesis (SSH), learners immediately interpret incoming words in a minimal semantic representation by assigning thematic roles to argument expressions and associating modifiers to their hosts. They are not mapping detailed and complete syntactic representations onto semantic representations.

scholarly journals Predictive processes during simultaneous interpreting from German into English

Interpreting ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-20 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ena Hodzik ◽  
John N. Williams
Keyword(s):  
Language Processing ◽  
English Language ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
Transitional Probability ◽  
Semantic Cues ◽  
Simultaneous Interpreting ◽  
Spoken Language Processing ◽  
Advanced Students ◽  
Native Speakers Of English ◽  
Predictive Processes

We report a study on prediction in shadowing and simultaneous interpreting (SI), both considered as forms of real-time, ‘online’ spoken language processing. The study comprised two experiments, focusing on: (i) shadowing of German head-final sentences by 20 advanced students of German, all native speakers of English; (ii) SI of the same sentences into English head-initial sentences by 22 advanced students of German, again native English speakers, and also by 11 trainee and practising interpreters. Latency times for input and production of the target verbs were measured. Drawing on studies of prediction in English-language reading production, we examined two cues to prediction in both experiments: contextual constraints (semantic cues in the context) and transitional probability (the statistical likelihood of words occurring together in the language concerned). While context affected prediction during both shadowing and SI, transitional probability appeared to favour prediction during shadowing but not during SI. This suggests that the two cues operate on different levels of language processing in SI.

Second language processing of English past tense morphology: The role of working memory

2020 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Filiz Rızaoğlu ◽  
Ayşe Gürel
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Second Language ◽  
Language Processing ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
Negative Relationship ◽  
Masked Priming ◽  
Morphological Processing ◽  
Target Language ◽  
Past Tense ◽  
L2 Learners

AbstractThis study examines, via a masked priming task, the processing of English regular and irregular past tense morphology in proficient second language (L2) learners and native speakers in relation to working memory capacity (WMC), as measured by the Automated Reading Span (ARSPAN) and Operation Span (AOSPAN) tasks. The findings revealed quantitative group differences in the form of slower reaction times (RTs) in the L2-English group. While no correlation was found between the morphological processing patterns and WMC in either group, there was a negative relationship between English and Turkish ARSPAN scores and the speed of word recognition in the L2 group. Overall, comparable decompositional processing patterns found in both groups suggest that, like native speakers, high-proficiency L2 learners are sensitive to the morphological structure of the target language.

scholarly journals L3 Sentence Processing: Language-Specific or Phenomenon-Sensitive?

Languages ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 54
Author(s):  
Sokolova ◽  
Slabakova
Keyword(s):  
Sentence Processing ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
Semantic Cues ◽  
Lexical Semantic ◽  
L2 Processing ◽  
Processing Strategies ◽  
Reading Experiment ◽  
Linguistic Decision Making ◽  
Matrix Verb ◽  
Processing Language

The article investigates non-native sentence processing and examines the existing scholarly approaches to L2 processing with a population of L3 learners of English, whose native language is Russian. In a self-paced reading experiment, native speakers of Russian and English, as well as (low) intermediate L3 learners of English, read ambiguous relative clauses (RC) and decided on their attachment interpretation: high attachment (HA) or low attachment (LA). In the two-by-two design, linguistic decision-making was prompted by lexical semantic cues vs. a structural change caused by a certain type of matrix verb. The results show that whenever a matrix verb caused a change of syntactic modification, which entailed HA, both native and non-native speakers abandoned the default English-like LA and chose HA. Lexical semantic cues did not have any significant effect in RC attachment resolution. The study provides experimental evidence in favor of the similarity of native and non-native processing strategies. Both native speakers and L3 learners of English apply structural processing strategies and show similar sensitivity to a linguistic prompt that shapes RC resolution. Native and non-native processing is found to be prediction-based; structure building is performed in a top-down manner.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document