Second Language Sentence Processing

2022 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 235-256
Author(s):  
Holger Hopp

Second language (L2) sentence processing research studies how adult L2 learners understand sentences in real time. I review how L2 sentence processing differs from monolingual first-language (L1) processing and outline major findings and approaches. Three interacting factors appear to mandate L1–L2 differences: ( a) capacity restrictions in the ability to integrate information in an L2; ( b) L1–L2 differences in the weighting of cues, the timing of their application, and the efficiency of their retrieval; and ( c) variation in the utility functions of predictive processing. Against this backdrop, I outline a novel paradigm of interlanguage processing, which examines bilingual features of L2 processing, such as bilingual language systems, nonselective access to all grammars, and processing to learn an L2. Interlanguage processing goes beyond the traditional framing of L2 sentence processing as an incomplete form of monolingual processing and reconnects the field with current approaches to grammar acquisition and the bilingual mental lexicon.

Author(s):  
Hyunah Ahn

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.


2012 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 518-537 ◽  
Author(s):  
JUNG HYUN LIM ◽  
KIEL CHRISTIANSON

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”.


2015 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 281-307 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jill Jegerski

This article reports a study that sought to determine whether non-native sentence comprehension can show sensitivity to two different types of Spanish case marking. Sensitivity to case violations was generally more robust with indirect objects in ditransitive constructions than with differential object marking of animate direct objects, even among native speakers of Spanish, which probably reflects linguistic differences in the two types of case. In addition, the overall outcome of two experiments shows that second language (L2) processing can integrate case information, but that, unlike with native processing, attention to a case marker may depend on the presence of a preverbal clitic as an additional cue to the types of postverbal arguments that might occur in a stimulus. Specifically, L2 readers showed no sensitivity to differential object marking with a in the absence of clitics in the first experiment, with stimuli such as Verónica visita al/el presidente todos los meses ‘Veronica visits the[ACC/NOM]president every month’, but the L2 readers in the second experiment showed native-like sensitivity to the same marker when the object it marked was doubled by the clitic lo, as in Verónica lo visita al/el presidente todos los meses. With indirect objects, on the other hand, sensitivity to case markers was native-like in both experiments, although indirect objects were also always doubled by the preverbal clitic le. The apparent first language / second language contrast suggests differences in processing strategy, whereby non-native processing of morphosyntax may rely more on the predictability of forms than does native processing.


2001 ◽  
Vol 21 ◽  
pp. 207-220 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan Juffs

This chapter reviews recent research that investigates second language performance from the perspective of sentence processing (on-line comprehension studies) and word recognition. It concentrates on describing methods that employ reaction time measures as correlates of processing difficulty or knowledge representation. This research suggests that second language learners employ much the same on-line processing strategies as native speakers, but that the L1 can also influence L2 processing. Reaction times in lexical decision experiments have been useful in exploring the relationship between the first and second language lexicons and automatic processes in lexical access. Finally, the chapter mentions some of the problems in this line of research, in particular the issue of individual differences in working memory and technological challenges.


2006 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 46-49
Author(s):  
David Birdsong

Clahsen and Felser (CF) deserve praise for their superlative synthesis of literature relating to grammatical processing, as well as for their original contributions to this area of research. CF “explore the idea that there might be fundamental differences between child L1 and adult L2 processing.” The researchers present evidence that adult second language (L2) processing is often less automatic and less efficient than first language (L1) processing. Qualitative differences are suggested as well. Adult L2 processing may be restricted to shallow computations, whereas L1 processing typically involves detailed representations. These conclusions are reached in large part by comparing highly proficient L2 learners with natives on various neurological and behavioral dimensions of processing. I propose that additional comparisons might be carried out that involve an understudied population: learners whose L2 is their dominant language.


1993 ◽  
Vol 36 (6) ◽  
pp. 1258-1270 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachel I. Mayberry

This study determined whether the long-range outcome of first-language acquisition, when the learning begins after early childhood, is similar to that of second-language acquisition. Subjects were 36 deaf adults who had contrasting histories of spoken and sign language acquisition. Twenty-seven subjects were born deaf and began to acquire American Sign Language (ASL) as a first language at ages ranging from infancy to late childhood. Nine other subjects were born with normal hearing, which they lost in late childhood; they subsequently acquired ASL as a second language (because they had acquired spoken English as a first language in early childhood). ASL sentence processing was measured by recall of long and complex sentences and short-term memory for signed digits. Subjects who acquired ASL as a second language after childhood outperformed those who acquired it as a first language at exactly the same age. In addition, the performance of the subjects who acquired ASL as a first language declined in association with increasing age of acquisition. Effects were most apparent for sentence processing skills related to lexical identification, grammatical acceptability, and memory for sentence meaning. No effects were found for skills related to fine-motor production and pattern segmentation.


2003 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 453-489 ◽  
Author(s):  
CLAUDIA FELSER ◽  
LEAH ROBERTS ◽  
THEODORE MARINIS ◽  
REBECCA GROSS

This study investigates the way adult second language (L2) learners of English resolve relative clause attachment ambiguities in sentences such as The dean liked the secretary of the professor who was reading a letter. Two groups of advanced L2 learners of English with Greek or German as their first language participated in a set of off-line and on-line tasks. The results indicate that the L2 learners do not process ambiguous sentences of this type in the same way as adult native speakers of English do. Although the learners' disambiguation preferences were influenced by lexical–semantic properties of the preposition linking the two potential antecedent noun phrases (of vs. with), there was no evidence that they applied any phrase structure–based ambiguity resolution strategies of the kind that have been claimed to influence sentence processing in monolingual adults. The L2 learners' performance also differs markedly from the results obtained from 6- to 7-year-old monolingual English children in a parallel auditory study, in that the children's attachment preferences were not affected by the type of preposition at all. We argue that children, monolingual adults, and adult L2 learners differ in the extent to which they are guided by phrase structure and lexical–semantic information during sentence processing.


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.


2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 681-682 ◽  
Author(s):  
PAOLA E. DUSSIAS ◽  
ANNE L. BEATTY-MARTÍNEZ ◽  
LAUREN PERROTTI

Memory is an integral part of language processing. Given this, a better understanding of how people learn, represent and process language requires considerations of the principles of memory that support language comprehension. Cunnings’ paper (Cunnings, 2016) does just this. The core of his proposal is that second language (L2) processing that is non-target like can be explained in terms of memory operations rather than by invoking a shallow processor (cf. Clahsen & Felser, 2006).


Author(s):  
Congmin Zhao

This paper gives insight into the translating process of second language learners in language use in light of the mechanism of bilingual mental lexicon. Structure and development of second language mental lexicon explains the existence of first language items and translation equivalents. Conversely translation can promote the construction of second language mental lexicon and ultimately second language acquisition.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document