scholarly journals Second language processing and revision of garden-path sentences: a visual word study

2015 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 636-643 ◽  
Author(s):  
LUCIA POZZAN ◽  
JOHN C. TRUESWELL

We asked whether children's well-known difficulties revising initial sentence processing commitments characterize the immature or the learning parser. Adult L2 speakers of English acted out temporarily ambiguous and unambiguous instructions. While online processing patterns indicate that L2 adults experienced garden-paths and were sensitive to referential information to a similar degree as native adults, their act-out patterns indicate increased difficulties revising initial interpretations, at rates similar to those observed for 5-year-old native children (e.g., Trueswell, Sekerina, Hill & Logrip, 1999). We propose that L2 learners’ difficulties with revision stem from increased recruitment of cognitive control networks during processing of a not fully proficient language, resulting in the reduced availability of cognitive control for parsing revisions.

2011 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 299-331 ◽  
Author(s):  
LEAH ROBERTS ◽  
CLAUDIA FELSER

ABSTRACTIn this study, the influence of plausibility information on the real-time processing of locally ambiguous (“garden path”) sentences in a nonnative language is investigated. Using self-paced reading, we examined how advanced Greek-speaking learners of English and native speaker controls read sentences containing temporary subject–object ambiguities, with the ambiguous noun phrase being either semantically plausible or implausible as the direct object of the immediately preceding verb. Besides providing evidence for incremental interpretation in second language processing, our results indicate that the learners were more strongly influenced by plausibility information than the native speaker controls in their on-line processing of the experimental items. For the second language learners an initially plausible direct object interpretation lead to increased reanalysis difficulty in “weak” garden-path sentences where the required reanalysis did not interrupt the current thematic processing domain. No such evidence of on-line recovery was observed, in contrast, for “strong” garden-path sentences that required more substantial revisions of the representation built thus far, suggesting that comprehension breakdown was more likely here.


2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 702-703 ◽  
Author(s):  
ANTON MALKO ◽  
LARA EHRENHOFER ◽  
COLIN PHILLIPS

Analyzing L2 sentence processing in terms of cue-based memory retrieval is promising. But this useful general framework has yet to become a specific theory of L1-L2 differences.


Author(s):  
John Archibald

The distinction between representations and processes is central to most models of the cognitive science of language. Linguistic theory informs the types of representations assumed, and these representations are what are taken to be the targets of second language acquisition. Epistemologically, this is often taken to be knowledge, or knowledge-that. Techniques such as Grammaticality Judgment tasks are paradigmatic as we seek to gain insight into what a learner’s grammar looks like. Learners behave as if certain phonological, morphological, or syntactic strings (which may or may not be target-like) were well-formed. It is the task of the researcher to understand the nature of the knowledge that governs those well-formedness beliefs. Traditional accounts of processing, on the other hand, look to the real-time use of language, either in production or perception, and invoke discussions of skill or knowledge-how. A range of experimental psycholinguistic techniques have been used to assess these skills: self-paced reading, eye-tracking, ERPs, priming, lexical decision, AXB discrimination, and the like. Such online measures can show us how we “do” language when it comes to activities such as production or comprehension. There has long been a connection between linguistic theory and theories of processing as evidenced by the work of Berwick (The Grammatical Basis of Linguistic Performance). The task of the parser is to assign abstract structure to a phonological, morphological, or syntactic string; structure that does not come directly labeled in the acoustic input. Such processing studies as the Garden Path phenomenon have revealed that grammaticality and processability are distinct constructs. In some models, however, the distinction between grammar and processing is less distinct. Phillips says that “parsing is grammar,” while O’Grady builds an emergentist theory with no grammar, only processing. Bayesian models of acquisition, and indeed of knowledge, assume that the grammars we set up are governed by a principle of entropy, which governs other aspects of human behavior; knowledge and skill are combined. Exemplar models view the processing of the input as a storing of all phonetic detail that is in the environment, not storing abstract categories; the categories emerge via a process of comparing exemplars. Linguistic theory helps us to understand the processing of input to acquire new L2 representations, and the access of those representations in real time.


2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 694-695 ◽  
Author(s):  
ALAN JUFFS

Cunnings (2016) provides welcome insights into differences between native speaker (NS) sentence processing, adult non-native speaker processing (NNS), and working memory capacity (WMC) limitations. This commentary briefly raises three issues: construct operationalization; the role of first language (L1); and context.


2020 ◽  
Vol 42 (4) ◽  
pp. 825-847 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hyunwoo Kim ◽  
Gyu-Ho Shin ◽  
Haerim Hwang

AbstractThis study investigated the effects of construction types on Korean-L1 English-L2 learners’ verb–construction integration in online processing by presenting the ditransitive and prepositional dative constructions and manipulating the verb’s association strength within these constructions. Results of a self-paced reading experiment showed that the L2 group spent longer times in the verb–construction integration in the postverbal complement region when processing the ditransitive construction, which is less canonical and highly avoided in the learners’ L1, than when processing the prepositional dative construction, which is more canonical and shares similar structural features with the L1 counterpart. In the following spillover region, L2 learners showed faster reading times as proficiency increased when the verb was strongly associated with the prepositional dative construction. Our findings expand the scope of current models on L2 sentence processing by suggesting that construction types and L2 proficiency may affect the L2 integration of verbal and constructional information.


2013 ◽  
Vol 36 (3) ◽  
pp. 613-637 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. KATE MILLER

ABSTRACTThis study considers the effects of experimental task demands in research on second language sentence processing. Advanced learners and native speakers of French were presented with the same experimental sentences in two different tasks designed to probe for evidence of trace reactivation during processing: cross-modal priming (Nicol & Swinney, 1989) and probe classification during reading (Dekydtspotter, Miller, Schaefer, Chang, & Kim, 2010). Although the second language learners produced nontargetlike results on the cross-modal priming task, the probe classification during reading task revealed results suggestive of trace reactivation, which point to detailed structural representations during online sentence processing. The implications for current theories of second language sentence processing and for future research in this domain are discussed.


2005 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 152-174 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jutta L. Mueller

The aim of this article is to provide a selective review of event-related potential (ERP) research on second language processing. As ERPs have been used in the investigation of a variety of linguistic domains, the reported studies cover different paradigms assessing processing mechanisms in the second language at various levels, ranging from phoneme discrimination to complex sentence processing. Differences between ERP patterns of first language (L1) and second language (L2) speakers can help to specify and to test predictions derived from models of L2 processing or hypotheses concerning critical periods for some aspects of second language acquisition. The studies currently available suggest that ERPs are indeed sensitive to qualitative and quantitative differences in L2 speakers with regard to on-line processing.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sol Lago ◽  
Michela Mosca ◽  
Anna Stutter Garcia

Multilingual research could offer a unique perspective on how the languages already acquired by a person affect the online processing of a new language. But it is currently difficult to assess this issue because theoretical accounts of multilingualism have focused on acquisition rather than processing and most empirical research to date has gathered untimed (offline) evidence. To help bridge this gap, we formulate hypotheses that can help derive processing predictions from existing accounts of multilingualism. But crucially, and based on previous findings in second language processing, we identify ways in which assumptions about crosslinguistic influence may need to be revised to allow the separate treatment of lexical and syntactic processing, and to consider the role of variables such as language dominance and proficiency. In our view, the question of what’s special about multilingualism is worth studying, but more research is needed before we can begin answering it.


1998 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 406-424 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan Juffs

This article explores some effects of first language verb-argument structure on second language processing of English as a second language. Speakers of Chinese, Japanese or Korean, three Romance languages and native English speakers provided word-by-word reading times and grammaticality judgement data in a self-paced reading task. Results suggest that reliable differences in parsing are not restricted to cases where verb-argument structure differs crosslinguistically.


2018 ◽  
Vol 22 (5) ◽  
pp. 930-948 ◽  
Author(s):  
ANA PÉREZ ◽  
LAURA HANSEN ◽  
TERESA BAJO

Text comprehension relies on high-level cognitive processes as it is the ability to revise an erroneous inference. Recent models of language processing hold that native language processing is proactive in nature (highly predictive), whereas processing seems to be weaker in the second language. However, if a prediction fails because unexpected information is encountered, reactive processing is needed to revise previous information. Twenty-four highly proficient late bilinguals were presented with narratives in L1-English and L2-Spanish. Each text demanded the revision of an initial predictive inference. Reading times and N400 amplitude suggested inferential revision is less efficient in the L2 compared to the L1. Importantly, these effects were modulated by individual differences in cognitive control and L2 proficiency. More efficient L1 comprehension was related to a balance between proactive and reactive control and lower L2 proficiency, whereas more native-like L2 comprehension was associated with a strong proactive control and higher L2 proficiency.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document