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 Interference in Native and Non-Native Sentence Processing

2017 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 712-721 ◽  
Author(s):  
IAN CUNNINGS
Keyword(s):  
Sentence Processing ◽  
Language Comprehension ◽  
Memory Retrieval ◽  
Primary Source ◽  
Careful Consideration ◽  
L2 Processing ◽  
Target Article ◽  
Different Populations ◽  
Similarities And Differences ◽  
L1 And L2

The primary aim of my target article was to demonstrate how careful consideration of the working memory operations that underlie successful language comprehension is crucial to our understanding of the similarities and differences between native (L1) and non-native (L2) sentence processing. My central claims were that highly proficient L2 speakers construct similarly specified syntactic parses as L1 speakers, and that differences between L1 and L2 processing can be characterised in terms of L2 speakers being more prone to interference during memory retrieval operations. In explaining L1/L2 differences in this way, I argued a primary source of differences between L1 and L2 processing lies in how different populations of speakers weight cues that guide memory retrieval.

On the role of discourse-level information in second-language sentence processing

2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 698-699 ◽  
Author(s):  
ELSI KAISER
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Sentence Processing ◽  
Memory Retrieval ◽  
L2 Processing ◽  
Retrieval Processes ◽  
Shallow Structure Hypothesis ◽  
Level Information ◽  
L1 And L2 ◽  
Shallow Structure

Based on a detailed review of existing studies of high-proficiency second-language (L2) learners who acquired the L2 in adolescence/adulthood, Cunnings (Cunnings, 2016) argues that Sorace's (2011) Interface Hypothesis (IH) and Clahsen and Felser's (2006) Shallow Structure Hypothesis (SSH) do not explain the existing data as well as his memory-based approach which posits that memory-retrieval processes in the L1 and L2 do not pattern alike. Cunnings proposes that L1 and L2 processing differ in terms of comprehenders’ ability to retrieve from memory information constructed during sentence processing. He concludes that L2 processing is more susceptible to interference effects during retrieval, and, most relevantly for this commentary, that discourse-based cues to memory retrieval are more heavily weighted in L2 than L1 processing.

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.

L2 PROCESSING OF LINGUISTIC AND NONLINGUISTIC INFORMATION

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-29
Author(s):  
Hyunah Ahn
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Sentence Processing ◽  
Real World ◽  
First Language ◽  
World Knowledge ◽  
Linguistic Information ◽  
L2 Processing ◽  
L1 And L2

Abstract This study investigates how linguistic and nonlinguistic information interacts in second language (L2) sentence processing. Previous studies argued that L2 behaviors might stem from how L2 speakers rely more on one type of information over another. However, direct attempts have not been made to test the (dis)agreement of different information types. To fill this gap, the present study explored the integration of definiteness and real-world knowledge. Experiment 1 showed that both first language (L1) speakers (n = 34) and advanced L2 speakers (n = 49) could use definiteness to predict unmentioned referents, but intermediate L2 speakers could not (n = 35). After confirming that L1 and L2 speakers shared the same real-world knowledge, Experiment 2 (n (L1) = 36, n (L2) = 43) showed that the two groups’ behaviors differed when linguistic and nonlinguistic information had to be processed simultaneously. The findings suggest that L2 speakers can process linguistic information in a targetlike manner only in the absence of usable nonlinguistic information.

Individual differences and retrieval interference in L2 Processing

2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 704-705 ◽  
Author(s):  
SILVINA MONTRUL ◽  
DARREN S. TANNER
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Language Comprehension ◽  
Deficit Model ◽  
L2 Processing ◽  
Novel Approach ◽  
On Line ◽  
Bilingual Processing ◽  
Similarities And Differences ◽  
Retrieval Interference ◽  
L1 And L2

Cunnings’ keynote article outlines a novel approach to native/non-native differences in on-line language comprehension by proposing that L2 speakers are more susceptible to cue-based retrieval interference than natives. Cue-based, parallel access approaches to processing have been prominent in monolingual studies for around 15 years now, but have barely been applied to L2/bilingual processing. We are particularly excited about the possibilities that this approach offers for understanding L1, L2 and bilingual processing, as well as individual differences. In this commentary, we focus on two issues: 1) whether the existing evidence for cue-based retrial mechanisms in L2 processing support a deficit model, as Cunnings seems to claim, and 2) how individual differences may explain both similarities and differences in L1 and L2 processing.

scholarly journals Memory retrieval and sentence processing: Differences between native and non-native speakers

2017 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 657-658
Author(s):  
JUBIN ABUTALEBI ◽  
HARALD CLAHSEN
Keyword(s):  
Real Time ◽  
Language Processing ◽  
Sentence Processing ◽  
Sentence Comprehension ◽  
Experimental Studies ◽  
Sources Of Information ◽  
L2 Processing ◽  
Shallow Structure Hypothesis ◽  
Experimental Findings ◽  
L1 And L2

Efficient comprehension of sentences requires rapidly and continuously accessing and integrating different sources of information in real time. Psycholinguists have developed detailed models and theories to account for the processes involved in on-line sentence comprehension as well as a number of sophisticated experimental designs for studying these processes. But how about real-time sentence processing in bilinguals? The study of bilingual sentence processing has received considerable attention and has led to a remarkable growth of experimental studies over the last 10 years. The focus of these studies has been on late bilinguals, i.e., on second-language (L2) learners who learned a non-native language after early childhood, as adolescents or adults. These studies have revealed both similarities and differences between native (L1) and non-native (L2) sentence processing. Several proposals have been made to account for the experimental findings, but the significance and nature of native vs. non-native differences in sentence processing has remained controversial. Some researchers have claimed that L1 and L2 sentence processing are essentially the same and that observed performance differences between native and non-native sentence comprehension are due to peripheral factors, e.g., decoding problems, working memory limitations, slower processing speed, difficulties with lexical access and retrieval, or a reduced ability to predict during L2 processing (e.g., McDonald, 2006; Hopp, 2016; Kaan, 2014). Others have posited more substantial differences between L1 and L2 processing. One prominent proposal is Clahsen and Felser's (2006a, b) Shallow-Structure Hypothesis (SSH). Assuming multi-stream models of language processing (e.g., Ferreira & Patson, 2007) with two routes from form to meaning, a heuristic one that employs surface-form information, lexical and semantic cues, and an algorithmic route that relies on a full grammatical parse, the SSH holds that L2 processing relies less on grammatical and more on non-grammatical information sources, in comparison to L1 processing of syntactic (and morphological) phenomena.

Aiming at the same target: A masked priming study directly comparing derivation and inflection in the second language

2017 ◽  
Vol 22 (6) ◽  
pp. 619-637 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gunnar Jacob ◽  
Vera Heyer ◽  
João Veríssimo
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
First Language ◽  
Masked Priming ◽  
Priming Effects ◽  
L2 Processing ◽  
Morphological Priming ◽  
Complex Forms ◽  
L1 And L2 ◽  
Processing Mechanisms

Aims and objectives/purpose/research questions: We compared the processing of morphologically complex derived vs. inflected forms in native speakers of German and highly proficient native Russian second language (L2) learners of German. Design/methodology/approach: We measured morphological priming effects for derived and inflected German words. To ensure that priming effects were genuinely morphological, the design also contained semantic and orthographic control conditions. Data and analysis: 40 native speakers of German and 36 native Russian learners of L2 German participated in a masked-priming lexical-decision experiment. For both participant groups, priming effects for derived vs. inflected words were compared using linear mixed effects models. Findings/conclusions: While first language (L1) speakers showed similar facilitation effects for both derived and inflected primes, L2 speakers showed a difference between the two prime types, with robust priming effects only for derived, but not for inflected forms. Originality: Unlike in previous studies investigating derivation and inflection in L2 processing, priming effects for derived and inflected prime–target pairs were determined on the basis of the same target word, allowing for a direct comparison between the two morphological phenomena. In this respect, this is the first study to directly compare the processing of derived vs. inflected forms in L2 speakers. Significance/implications: The results are inconsistent with accounts predicting general L1/L2 differences for all types of morphologically complex forms as well as accounts assuming that L1 and L2 processing are based on the same mechanisms. We discuss theoretical implications for L2 processing mechanisms, and propose an explanation which can account for the data pattern.

The activation of grammaticalized meaning in L2 processing: Toward an explanation of the morphological congruency effect

2016 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 81-98 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nan Jiang ◽  
Guiling Hu ◽  
Anna Chrabaszcz ◽  
Lijuan Ye
Keyword(s):  
Sentence Processing ◽  
Positive Response ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
Reaction Times ◽  
Critical Conditions ◽  
Matching Task ◽  
English Sentence ◽  
L2 Processing ◽  
L1 And L2

Objectives: The study was intended to test the hypothesis that L2 speakers have difficulty in automatically activating a grammaticalized L2 meaning that is not morphologically marked in L1. Methodology: The study consisted of three experiments. A sentence–picture matching task was designed to assess the activation of grammaticalized meaning. The participants were asked to judge if a sentence correctly described the physical relationships of three objects in a picture. Hidden in the stimuli that required a positive response was a number agreement manipulation whereby a noun phrase in the sentence may agree or disagree with the number of objects in the picture. A number disagreement effect, as shown in a delay in producing a positive response on items of number disagreement was used to assess automatic activation of number meanings. Data and Analysis: The data constituted reaction times and accuracy rates from 32 English native speakers, 36 Chinese native speakers, 54 Chinese–English bilinguals, and 26 Russian–English bilinguals. Analyses of variance were performed in analyzing these data. Findings: The results showed a number disagreement effect in L1 and L2 among Russian English as a second language (ESL) speakers only. Chinese ESL speakers showed no difference between the two critical conditions in either language. A follow-up experiment showed that Chinese ESL speakers had no difficulty in automatically activating number meanings which were expressed lexically in English sentence processing. These findings provided support for the idea that the well documented difficulty L2 learners have in learning incongruent L2 inflectional morphemes may have to do with their difficulty in automatically activating a grammaticalized meaning that is not grammaticalized in their L1. Originality: The sentence–picture matching task represented a unique and effective approach to the study of the activation of grammaticalized meanings. Significance: The findings from the study represented some first psycholinguistic evidence regarding the activation of grammaticalized meanings among non-native speakers.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document