Strength of garden-path effects in native and non-native speakers’ processing of object–subject ambiguities

2016 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 125-144 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sabrina Gerth ◽  
Constanze Otto ◽  
Claudia Felser ◽  
Yunju Nam
Keyword(s):  
Word Reading ◽  
Correct Interpretation ◽  
Native Languages ◽  
Advanced Learners ◽  
Garden Path ◽  
Online Processing ◽  
L2 Processing ◽  
L1 Influence ◽  
L1 And L2 ◽  
Reading Study

Aims and objectives: Our study addresses the following research questions: To what extent is L2 comprehenders’ online sensitivity to morphosyntactic disambiguation cues affected by L1 background? Does noticing the error signal trigger successful reanalysis in both L1 and L2 comprehension? Can previous findings suggesting that case is a better reanalysis cue than agreement be replicated and extended to L2 processing when using closely matched materials? Design/methodology/approach: We carried out a self-paced reading study using temporarily ambiguous object-initial sentences in German. These were disambiguated either by number marking on the verb or by nominative case marking on the subject. End-of-trial comprehension questions probed whether or not our participants ultimately succeeded in computing the correct interpretation. Data and analysis: We tested a total of 121 participants (25 Italian, 32 Russian, 32 Korean and 32 native German speakers), measuring their word-by-word reading times and comprehension accuracy. The data were analysed using linear mixed-effects and logistic regression modelling. Findings/conclusions: All three learner groups showed online sensitivity to both case and agreement disambiguation cues. Noticing case disambiguations did not necessarily lead to a correct interpretation, whereas noticing agreement disambiguations did. We conclude that intermediate to advanced learners are sensitive to morphosyntactic interpretation cues during online processing regardless of whether or not corresponding grammatical distinctions exist in their L1. Our results also suggest that case is not generally a better reanalysis cue than agreement. Originality: Our three L2 participant groups’ native languages were carefully chosen so as to create systematic typological contrasts. Our experimental materials and conditions were more closely matched compared to previous studies on German object-initial sentences, and our experimental design allowed us to link participants’ reading profiles to successful comprehension. Significance/implications: L1 influence on L2 processing is more limited than might be expected. Contra previous findings, even intermediate learners show sensitivity to both agreement and case information during processing.

PROCESSING OF THE REDUCED RELATIVE CLAUSE VERSUS MAIN VERB AMBIGUITY IN L2 LEARNERS AT DIFFERENT PROFICIENCY LEVELS

2010 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 79-109 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne Rah ◽  
Dany Adone
Keyword(s):  
Relative Clause ◽  
Native Speaker ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Garden Path ◽  
Online Processing ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
L1 Influence ◽  
Versus Main ◽  
Main Verb ◽  
L1 And L2

This article presents new evidence from offline and online processing of garden-path sentences that are ambiguous between reduced relative clause resolution and main verb resolution. The participants of this study are intermediate and advanced German learners of English who have learned the language in a nonimmersed context. The results show that for second language (L2) learners, there is a dissociation between parsing mechanisms and grammatical knowledge: The learners successfully process the structures in question offline, but the online self-paced reading task shows different patterns for the L2 learners and the native-speaker control group. The results are discussed with regard to shallow processing in L2 learners (Clahsen & Felser, 2006). Because the structures in question differ in English and German, first language (L1) influence is also discussed as an explanation for the findings. The comparison of the three participant groups’ results points to a gradual rather than a fundamental difference between L1 and L2 processing.

scholarly journals ONLINE PRONOUN RESOLUTION IN L2 DISCOURSE: L1 Influence and General Learner Effects

2008 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 333-357 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leah Roberts ◽  
Marianne Gullberg ◽  
Peter Indefrey
Keyword(s):  
First Language ◽  
Pronoun Resolution ◽  
Subject Pronouns ◽  
Online Processing ◽  
L2 Processing ◽  
Overt Pronouns ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
L1 Influence ◽  
Final Interpretation ◽  
Subject Pronoun

This study investigates whether advanced second language (L2) learners of a nonnull subject language (Dutch) are influenced by their null subject first language (L1) (Turkish) in their offline and online resolution of subject pronouns in L2 discourse. To tease apart potential L1 effects from possible general L2 processing effects, we also tested a group of German L2 learners of Dutch who were predicted to perform like the native Dutch speakers. The two L2 groups differed in their offline interpretations of subject pronouns. The Turkish L2 learners exhibited a L1 influence, because approximately half the time they interpreted Dutch subject pronouns as they would overt pronouns in Turkish, whereas the German L2 learners performed like the Dutch controls, interpreting pronouns as coreferential with the current discourse topic. This L1 effect was not in evidence in eye-tracking data, however. Instead, the L2 learners patterned together, showing an online processing disadvantage when two potential antecedents for the pronoun were grammatically available in the discourse. This processing disadvantage was in evidence irrespective of the properties of the learners' L1 or their final interpretation of the pronoun. Therefore, the results of this study indicate both an effect of the L1 on the L2 in offline resolution and a general L2 processing effect in online subject pronoun resolution.

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.

Commentary on Clahsen and Felser

2006 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 64-65
Author(s):  
Cheryl Frenck-Mestre
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Current Literature ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
Event Related Potential ◽  
Syntactic Processing ◽  
L2 Processing ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
L1 Influence ◽  
Behavioral Evidence ◽  
L1 And L2

Clahsen and Felser (CF) have written a fairly comprehensive review of the current literature on on-line second language (L2) processing, presenting data from eye movement, self-paced reading, and event-related potential (ERP) studies with the aim of evidencing possible differences between native language (L1) and L2 processing. The thrust of the article, in regard to adult L2 processing, is apparently an attempt to gather evidence to bolster their argument about “shallow processing” in adult L2 learners. Although the authors provide the reader with a generally good overview of the current literature, their argumentation seems to be flawed at times. Consider, first, the authors' presentation of recent ERP evidence. The authors claim that L2 adult learners may lack automaticity in comparison to native speakers in regard to syntactic processing. This is based upon a delayed N400 response, often found in L2 learners compared to native speakers, as well as by the pattern of anterior negativities to morphosyntactic violations. Later, however, this line of argumentation is seemingly undermined. First, as CF rightly underline, the range of variability in anterior negativities found in L2 learners falls within the range of variation observed in native speakers. As such, variability in this response cannot be taken as a marker of differential processing specific to (shallow) syntactic processing in the second language (see also Frenck-Mestre, 2005; Osterhout et al., 2004). Second, as CF later note, the N400 (as well as P600) is systematically observed in adult L2 learners, and is often highly similar to that found for native speakers. Consider, next, the behavioral evidence cited by CF on adult L2 syntactic processing. The authors cite work on various structures, notably relative clause attachment (which has received a great deal of attention in both monolingual and L2 studies). Concerning this structure, although CF cite studies, which show both clear L1 influence on L2 processing and differential effects as a result of experience with the L1, they favor studies that fail to show such effects and reject Mitchell et al.'s (2000) tuning hypothesis as an explanatory model. (Note Mitchell and colleagues have indeed produced evidence of their own showing limitations of their model.) It is also noteworthy that CF's argumentation about the sensitivity of the measure they used to test for immediate preferences for this structure is not as strong as it could be. Indeed, where they report L2 preferences (for low attachment following thematic prepositions), the literature shows the same systematic preference independent of the language tested (cf. Mitchell et al., 2000). As such, the sensitivity of their measure may not be adequately demonstrated. In sum, although CF provide the reader with an impressive collection of current L2 studies, the viewpoint that they espouse does not seem to be as substantiated as they wish to claim.

Discourse cohesion and Topic discontinuity in native and learner production

2010 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 92-118 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sandra Benazzo ◽  
Cecilia Andorno
Keyword(s):  
Perspective Taking ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
Target Language ◽  
Specific Information ◽  
Advanced Learners ◽  
Source Language ◽  
L1 Influence ◽  
Text Cohesion ◽  
Discourse Organization ◽  
L1 And L2

In order to realize text cohesion, speakers have to select specific information units and mark their informational status within the discourse; this results in specific, language-particular perspective-taking, linked to typological differences (Slobin 1996). A previous study on native speakers’ production in French, Italian, German and Dutch (Dimroth et al., in press) has highlighted a “Romance way” and a “Germanic way” of marking text cohesion in narrative segments involving topic discontinuity. In this paper we analyze how text cohesion is realized in the same contexts by advanced learners of L2 French (Italian and German L1) and L2 Italian (French and German L1). Our aim is to verify the hypothesis of an L2 advanced stage where learners manage the target language utterance grammar whereas their discourse organization still reflects L1 preferences. The results confirm the persistent presence of L1 influence, but they also show learner-specific tendencies (favouring lexical means over morphosyntactic ones), which are independent of their source language.

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.

The acquisition of requests by second language learners of Spanish

2005 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-27 ◽  
Author(s):  
Derrin Pinto
Keyword(s):  
Language Learning ◽  
Language Learners ◽  
Second Language Learners ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Advanced Learners ◽  
English Speaking ◽  
Request Strategies ◽  
Using Data ◽  
L1 And L2

This cross-sectional study in interlanguage pragmatics analyzes the requests employed by English-speaking learners of L2 Spanish, using data collected from university students at four different levels of language learning. The most common request strategies are first identified in a cross-linguistic analysis of Spanish and English and are then compared to the interlanguage data. The requests of lower-level students are found to be more idiosyncratic and pragmatically ambiguous than those of advanced learners, although not necessarily more direct. Advanced learners show signs of improvement, but still rely largely on L1 request behavior. Learners at all levels display more difficulties in areas in which there is cross-linguistic variation between the L1 and L2.

scholarly journals An investigation of Semantic Interlingual Errors in the Writing of Libyan English as Foreign Language Learners

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arab World English Journal ◽  
Abdalmonem S. Rajab ◽  
Saadiyah Darus ◽  
Ashinida Aladdin
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Language ◽  
Language Learners ◽  
First Language ◽  
English As Foreign Language ◽  
Lexical Choice ◽  
Foreign Language Learners ◽  
L1 Influence ◽  
Semantic Errors ◽  
L1 And L2 ◽  
Insufficient Knowledge

The aim of this paper is to investigate some semantic interlingual errors in the writing performance of Libyan English as Foreign Language Learners (LEFLLS). The study seeks to analyze these errorsthat appear in the learners’ written production. The data was gathered from 25 essays written by 25 Libyan postgraduates majoring in different fields. It was collected and organized according to the errors committed. Errors taxonomy adapted from James’ (1998) and Al-Shormani and Al-Sohbani’s (2012) was used in identifying and analyzing these errors. Semantic errors were classified into five categories namely formal mis-selection, formal mis-formation, lexical choice, collocation and lexico-grammatical choice. The semantic errors identified were 346. These errors were classified into four categories namely, formal misformation (46.7%), distortion due to spelling (32.4%), lexical choice (40.6%) and lexicogrammatical choice (2.4%). The results show that direct translation from the first language (L1), assumed synonym and misselection of letters sub-categories score the highest number of the errors, i.e.14.2%, 13.08% and 12.08% respectively. While the sub-category, both collocations incorrect error was the lowest (0.52%). The other errors take the form of paraphrase (11.5%) and Idiomacity (8.5%). Two main sources have been found to be the cause behind these errors namely, L1 influence and insufficient knowledge about the second language (L2). Moreover, cultural differences between L1 and L2 had its impact in the written products of Libyan students.

scholarly journals Similarity-based interference and relative clauses in second language processing

2021 ◽  
pp. 026765832110635
Author(s):  
Ian Cunnings ◽  
Hiroki Fujita
Keyword(s):  
Language Processing ◽  
Relative Clause ◽  
Relative Clauses ◽  
Large Body ◽  
Interference Effects ◽  
Second Language Processing ◽  
L2 Processing ◽  
Relative Disadvantage ◽  
L1 And L2 ◽  
Object Relative

Relative clauses have long been examined in research on first (L1) and second (L2) language acquisition and processing, and a large body of research has shown that object relative clauses (e.g. ‘The boy that the girl saw’) are more difficult to process than subject relative clauses (e.g. ‘The boy that saw the girl’). Although there are different accounts of this finding, memory-based factors have been argued to play a role in explaining the object relative disadvantage. Evidence of memory-based factors in relative clause processing comes from studies indicating that representational similarity influences the difficulty associated with object relatives as a result of a phenomenon known as similarity-based interference. Although similarity-based interference has been well studied in L1 processing, less is known about how it influences L2 processing. We report two studies – an eye-tracking experiment and a comprehension task – investigating interference in the comprehension of relative clauses in L1 and L2 readers. Our results indicated similarity-based interference in the processing of object relative clauses in both L1 and L2 readers, with no significant differences in the size of interference effects between the two groups. These results highlight the importance of considering memory-based factors when examining L2 processing.

Epicene pronouns in intermediate to advanced EFL writing

2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-22 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charlotte Stormbom
Keyword(s):  
Language Use ◽  
English Speakers ◽  
Student Writing ◽  
Traditional Practice ◽  
Efl Writing ◽  
Sexist Language ◽  
L1 Influence ◽  
Global Nature ◽  
L1 And L2 ◽  
Second Wave

Abstract Since the second wave of feminism, non-sexist language use has become an increasingly important topic. A key issue in English is the choice of epicene pronouns, i.e. pronouns that refer to both sexes. Despite the global nature of English, little research has addressed this topic in EFL contexts. This study examines the use of the epicene pronouns he, he or she, and they in two L1 and L2 corpora of student writing. The corpus analyses show that, overall, the L2 English speakers use he significantly more than the L1 speakers, whereas the L1 speakers use they more. Variation found in the L2 subcorpora seems to be partly related to L1 influence: The writers who use he the most are speakers of gendered L1s with a traditional practice of masculine generics. The study also shows that both L1 and L2 writers are affected by the antecedent type in their pronoun choice.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document