Second Language Sentence Processing

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.

Similarity-based interference and relative clauses in second language processing

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.

DOUBLE-NUMBER MARKING MATTERS FOR BOTH L1 AND L2 PROCESSING OF NONLOCAL AGREEMENT SIMILARLY

The present study uses event-related potentials (ERPs) to examine nonlocal agreement processing between native (L1) English speakers and Chinese–English second language (L2) learners, whose L1 lacks number agreement. We manipulated number marking with determiners (the vs. that/these) to see how determiner-specification influences both native and nonnative processing downstream for verbal number agreement. Behavioral and ERP results suggest both groups detected nonlocal agreement violations, indexed by a P600 effect. Moreover, the manipulation of determiner-number specification revealed a facilitation effect across the board in both grammaticality judgment and ERP responses for both groups: increased judgment accuracy and a larger P600 effect amplitude for sentences containing violations with demonstratives rather than bare determiners. Contrary to some claims regarding the potential for nonnative processing, the present data suggest that L1 and L2 speakers show similar ERP responses when processing agreement, even when the L1 lacks the relevant distinction.

PREDICTION AND ERROR-BASED LEARNING IN L2 PROCESSING AND ACQUISITION

There is currently much interest in the role of prediction in language processing, both in L1 and L2. For language acquisition researchers, this has prompted debate on the role that predictive processing may play in both L1 and L2 language learning, if any. In this conceptual review, we explore the role of prediction and prediction error as a potential learning aid. We examine different proposed prediction mechanisms and the empirical evidence for them, alongside the factors constraining prediction for both L1 and L2 speakers. We then review the evidence on the role of prediction in learning languages. We report computational modeling that underpins a number of proposals on the role of prediction in L1 and L2 learning, then lay out the empirical evidence supporting the predictions made by modeling, from research into priming and adaptation. Finally, we point out the limitations of these mechanisms in both L1 and L2 speakers.

An ERP Study on Attraction Effects in Advanced L2 Learners

In English, the rule of agreement is quite simple: verbs must agree with their subject head nouns in terms of number features. Despite this simplicity, agreement processing is always interrupted when the subject phrase of the sentence “The key to the cabinets is on the table,” contains two nouns with a mismatch in number features commonly known as attraction effects. This study used event-related potentials (ERPs) to examine whether late advanced second language (L2) learners can acquire native-like sensitivity of attraction effects. The results revealed that L2 learners showed ERP patterns qualitatively similar to native English speakers: ungrammatical verbs following singular attractors elicited a P600 effect relative to their grammatical counterparts, whereas this positivity was replaced by an N400 effect when plural attractors intervened between the subject head nouns and the verbs. Of particular interest, given that, compared to native speakers, the amplitude of the P600 effect elicited by L2 learners was smaller, there was a quantitative difference between native speakers and L2 learners. We proposed that these two ERP components represented the two processing routes of agreement: the P600 effect indexed a full, combinatorial process, which parsed morphosyntactic features between agreement controllers and targets, whereas the N400 effect indexed a shallow, heuristic process, which evaluated lexical associations between agreeing elements. Moreover, similar to native speakers, advanced L2 learners showed an asymmetrical pattern of attraction effects, in that plural attractors were interfered with ungrammaticality at disagreeing verbs, but they did not cause any difficulties in processing grammatical sentences at agreeing verbs. The overall results suggested that compared to native processing, L2 processing of complex agreement with attractor interference was shallower and therefore late advanced L2 learners could not achieve native-like attraction effects.

Being a Student or at Home: Does Topic Influence How Bilinguals Process Words in Each Language?

Research has assessed how language use differences between bilinguals (e.g., whether two languages are used approximately equally often or not) influence language processing. However, first (L1) and second (L2) language use might also differ within bilinguals, depending on the topic of conversation. For example, a Mandarin–English bilingual studying in North America or the UK might talk about exams in English but about their childhood in Mandarin. In this study, we therefore examined how topics associated with either the L1 or L2 can influence language processing. Twenty-nine Mandarin–English students in North America/the UK completed a lexical decision task in single-language contexts (all words/pseudowords in one language) and in dual-language contexts (alternating between Mandarin and English). Half of the words referred to L1-associated topics (childhood and family life) and half were L2-associated (studying and life at university). Topic influenced L2 processing, with L2-associated topics being processed faster than topics associated with the L1 in single- and dual-language contexts. In contrast, topic did not influence L1 processing. This suggests that L2 processing might not only be influenced by differences between bilinguals but also by differences within bilinguals. In contrast, L1 processing might be less susceptible to influences of topic-specific language use.

VISUAL WORD RECOGNITION IN BILINGUALS

A bilingual’s language system is highly interactive. When hearing a second language (L2), bilinguals access native-language (L1) words that share sounds across languages. In the present study, we examine whether input modality and L2 proficiency moderate the extent to which bilinguals activate L1 phonotactic constraints (i.e., rules for combining speech sounds) during L2 processing. Eye movements of English monolinguals and Spanish–English bilinguals were tracked as they searched for a target English word in a visual display. On critical trials, displays included a target that conflicted with the Spanish vowel-onset rule (e.g., spa), as well as a competitor containing the potentially activated “e” onset (e.g., egg). The rule violation was processed either in the visual modality (Experiment 1) or audio-visually (Experiment 2). In both experiments, bilinguals with lower L2 proficiency made more eye movements to competitors than fillers. Findings suggest that bilinguals who have lower L2 proficiency access L1 phonotactic constraints during L2 visual word processing with and without auditory input of the constraint-conflicting structure (e.g., spa). We conclude that the interactivity between a bilingual’s two languages is not limited to words that share form across languages, but also extends to sublexical, rule-based structures.

The status of conventional metaphorical meaning in the L2 lexicon

This paper investigates how L2 speakers of English process conventional metaphorical expressions. While much of the literature on L2 processing of figurative expressions focuses on idioms only, the aim of this paper is to investigate how L2 speakers process conventional metaphorical expressions. The results of a cross-modal semantic priming task show that conventional metaphors have a special status in comparison to literal language in the L2 lexicon. The differences in reaction times show that L2 speakers are aware of the connections between literal primes and targets, resulting in slower reaction times, while this effect is not found in the metaphorical condition. This demonstrates that even when metaphorical language is very conventional, it can cause difficulties for L2 speakers. Furthermore, these results show that conventional metaphorical expressions can pose a semantic and pragmatic challenge for language learners, thus creating a need for explicit teaching of metaphorical meanings of polysemous words.

Compensatory strategies adopted by Chinese EFL learners in virtual exchange with native speakers

Compensatory strategies play an important role in second language (L2) processing because of limited language knowledge and ensuing anxiety and could help assure understanding and void communication breakdown. Previous studies about compensatory strategies largely adopt laboratory settings and neglect the strategies in authentic oral communication. Accordingly, the present study investigated compensatory strategies used by Chinese university students in online videoconferences with their US peers during a five-week virtual exchange project. We interviewed 27 Chinese students twice, once after the first-week videoconference, the other after the last-week videoconference. The English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners in this study could adopt compensatory strategies of different levels. Their strategy use, however, was not flexible enough as several types of strategies were repeatedly used, while other types were rarely implemented. The virtual exchange could help the EFL learners employ compensatory strategies more often, of higher levels, and with increased immediacy. The results can help to establish more targeted English teaching and learning.