Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T03:18:45.112Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Native-like processing of prominence cues in L2 written discourse comprehension: Evidence from font emphasis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 December 2018

EUN-KYUNG LEE  and
SCOTT FRAUNDORF
EUN-KYUNG LEE*
Affiliation:
Yonsei University
SCOTT FRAUNDORF
Affiliation:
University of Pittsburgh
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Eun-Kyung Lee, Department of English Language and Literature, Yonsei University, 50 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul 03722, Korea. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Understanding alternatives to prominent information contributes to successful native language discourse comprehension. Several past studies have suggested that the way second language (L2) learners encode and represent an alternative set in L2 speech is not exactly native-like. However, because these studies involved contrastive pitch accents in running speech, these native language–second language differences may reflect the demands of comprehending running speech in L2 rather than intrinsic deficit in discourse processing per se. Here, we tested L2 learners’ discourse encoding and representation using a different cue to prominence: font emphasis in self-paced reading. We found that, in this temporally less demanding modality, L2 learners’ encoding of salient alternatives became native-like. Font emphasis facilitated L2 learners’ memory for the discourse by ruling out salient alternatives, just as how it facilitates native speakers’. L2 learners were also similar to native speakers in using the situation model to constrain an alternative set. The results suggest that L2 learners can show native-like processing of prominence and that previous underuse of contrastive accents in L2 comprehension could reflect cognitive demands of processing running speech in L2.

Keywords

alternative setsdiscoursefont emphasismemorysecond language processing
Type
Original Article
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 40 , Issue 2 , March 2019 , pp. 373 - 398
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Akker, E., & Cutler, A. (2003). Prosodic cues to semantic structure in native and nonnative listening. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 6, 81–96.Google Scholar
Almor, A., & Eimas, P. D. (2008). Focus and noun phrase anaphors in spoken language comprehension. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 201–225.Google Scholar
Archibald, J. (1997). The acquisition of second language phrasal stress: a pilot study. In S. J. Hannahs, & M. Young-Scholten (Eds.), Focus on phonological acquisition (pp. 263–289). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ardila, A. (2003). Language representation and working memory with bilinguals. Journal of Communication Disorders, 36, 233–240.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 390–412.Google Scholar
Baker, R. E. (2010). Non-native perception of native English prominence. Paper presented at the 5th International Conference on Speech Prosody, Chicago, IL, May 11–14, 2010.Google Scholar
Bates, D., Maechler, M., & Bolker, B. (2012). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 0.999999-0. Retrieved from http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4Google Scholar
Beckman, M. E., & Ayers, G. M. (1997). Guildlines for ToBI labelling, version 3.0. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Blok, P. I., & Eberle, K. (1999). What is the alternative? The computation of focus alternatives from lexical and sortal information. In P. Bosch & R. van der Sandt (Eds.), Focus: Linguistic, cognitive, and computational perspectives (pp. 105–119). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Braun, B., & Tagliapietra, L. (2010). The role of contrastive intonation contours in the retrieval of contextual alternatives. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25, 1024–1043.Google Scholar
Braun, B., & Tagliapietra, L. (2011). On-line interpretation of intonational meaning in L2. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26, 224–235.Google Scholar
Byram Washburn, M., Kaiser, E., & Zubizarreta, M. L. (2011). Focus facilitation and non-associative sets. In R. Artstein, M. Core, D. DeVault, K. Georgila, E. Kaiser, & A. Stent (Eds.), SemDial 2011: Proceedings of the 15th workshop on the semantics and pragmatics of dialogue (pp. 94–102). Los Angeles, CA: SemiDial.Google Scholar
Calhoun, S. (2009). What makes a word contrastive? Prosodic, semantic, and pragmatic perspectives. In D. Barth-Weingarten, N. Dehé, & A. Wichmann (Eds.), Studies in pragmatics: Where prosody meets pragmatics: Research at the interface (pp. 53–77). Bingley, UK: Emerald.Google Scholar
Caplan, D., DeDe, G., Waters, G., Michaud, J., & Tripodis, Y. (2011). Effects of age, speed of processing, and working memory on comprehension of sentences with relative clauses. Psychology and Aging, 26, 439–450.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. (1974). Language and consciousness. Language, 50, 111–133.Google Scholar
Christianson, K., & Luke, S. G. (2011). Context strengthens initial misinterpretations of text. Scientific Studies of Reading, 15, 136–166.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006a). Continuity and shallow structures in language processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 107–126.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006b). How native-like is non-native language processing? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 564–570.Google Scholar
Cowles, H. W. (2003). Processing information structure: Evidence from comprehension and production (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego).Google Scholar
Daneman, M., Lennertz, T., & Hannon, B. (2007). Shallow semantic processing of text: Evidence from eye movements. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22, 83–105.Google Scholar
Dekydtspotter, L., Donaldson, B., Edmonds, A. C., Fultz, A. L., & Petrusch, R. A. (2008). Syntactic and prosodic computations in the resolution of relative clause attachment ambiguity by English-French learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 453–480.Google Scholar
Dekydtspotter, L., Edmonds, A. C., Fultz, A. L., & Renaud, C. (2010). Modularity of L2 sentence processing: Prosody, context, and morphology in relative clause ambiguity in English-French interlanguage. In M. Iverson, I. Ivanov, T. Judy, J. Rothman, R. Slabakova, & M. Tryzna (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2009 Mind/Context Divide Workshop (pp. 13–27). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Donaldson, B. (2012). Syntax and discourse in near-native French: Clefts and focus. Language Learning, 62, 902–930.Google Scholar
Felser, C., & Cunnings, I. (2012). Processing reflexives in English as a second language: The role of structural and discourse-level constraints. Applied Psycholinguistics, 33, 571–603.Google Scholar
Felser, C., & Roberts, L. (2007). Processing wh-dependencies in a second language: A cross-modal priming study. Second Language Research, 23, 9–36.Google Scholar
Felser, C., Roberts, L., & Marinis, T. (2003). The processing of ambiguous sentences by first and second language learners of English. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24, 453–489.Google Scholar
Felser, C., Sato, M., & Bertenshaw, N. (2009). The on-line application of binding principle A in English as a second language. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12, 485–502.Google Scholar
Ferreira, F., & Clifton, C. Jr. (1986). The independence of syntactic processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 348–368.Google Scholar
Font (2011). Oxford English Dictionary. Retrieved November 8, 2011, from http://www.oed.com.proxy2.library.illinois.edu/view/Entry/73956Google Scholar
Fraundorf, S. H., Benjamin, A. S., & Watson, D. G. (2013). What happened (and what did not): Discourse constraints on encoding of plausible alternatives. Journal of Memory and Language, 69, 196–227.Google Scholar
Fraundorf, S. H., Watson, D. G., & Benjamin, A. S. (2010). Recognition memory reveals just how CONTRASTIVE contrastive accenting really is. Journal of Memory and Language, 63, 367–386.Google Scholar
Fraundorf, S. H., Watson, D. G., & Benjamin, A. S. (2012). The effects of age on the strategic use of pitch accents in memory for discourse: A processing-resource account. Psychology and Aging, 27, 88–98.Google Scholar
Frenck-Mestre, C. (2002). An on-line look at sentence processing in the second language. In R. Heredia & J. Altarriba (Eds.), Bilingual sentence processing (pp. 217– 236). New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Frenck-Mestre, C., & Pynte, J. (1997). Syntactic ambiguity resolution while reading in second and native languages. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 50A, 119–148.Google Scholar
Green, D. M., & Swets, J. A. (1966). Signal detection theory and psychophysics. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Harrington, M. (1992). Working memory capacity as a constraint on L2 development. In R. J. Harris (Ed.), Cognitive processing in bilinguals (pp. 123–136). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Hopp, H. (2006). Syntactic features and reanalysis in near-native processing. Second Language Research, 22, 369–397.Google Scholar
Hopp, H. (2009). The syntax-discourse interface in near-native L2 acquisition: Off-line and on-line. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12, 463–483.Google Scholar
Hopp, H. (2010). Ultimate attainment in L2 inflection: Performance similarities between non-native and native speakers. Lingua, 120, 901–931.Google Scholar
Husband, E. M., & Ferreira, F. (2016). The role of selection in the comprehension of focus alternatives. Language, Cognition, and Neuroscience, 31, 217–235.Google Scholar
Ito, K., & Speer, S. R. (2008). Anticipatory effects of intonation: Eye movements during instructed visual search. Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 541–573.Google Scholar
Jackson, C. N., & Bobb, S. C. (2009). The processing and comprehension of wh-questions among second language speakers of German. Applied Psycholinguistics, 30, 603–636.Google Scholar
Juffs, A., & Harrington, M. (1996). Garden path sentences and error data in second language processing. Language Learning, 46, 283–323.Google Scholar
Jun, S.-A. (1993). The phonetics and phonology of Korean prosody (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University).Google Scholar
Jun, S.-A. (2005). Prosodic typology. In S.-A. Jun (Ed.), Prosodic typology: The phonology of intonation and phrasing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kilborn, K. (1992). On-line integration of grammatical information in a second language. In R. Harris (Ed.), Cognitive processing in bilinguals (pp. 337–350). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Kluender, R., & Kutas, M. (1993). Bridging the gap: Evidence from ERPs on the processing of unbounded dependencies. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 5, 196–214.Google Scholar
Ladd, D. R. (2008). Intonational phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lee, E.-K., & Fraundorf, S. H. (2017). Effects of contrastive accents in memory for L2 discourse. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 20, 1063–1079.Google Scholar
Lee, E.-K., & Garnsey, S. M. (2015). An ERP study of plural attraction in attachment ambiguity resolution: Evidence for retrieval interference. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 36, 1–16.Google Scholar
Lee, E.-K., Lu, D. H., & Garnsey, S. M. (2013). L1 word order and sensitivity to verb bias in L2 processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16, 761–775.Google Scholar
Macmillan, N. A., & Creelman, C. D. (2005). Detection theory (2nd ed.). New York: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Marinis, T., Roberts, L., Felser, C., & Clahsen, H. (2005). Gaps in second language processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 53–78.Google Scholar
McDonald, J. L. (2006). Beyond the critical period: Processing-based explanations for poor grammaticality judgment performance by late second language learners. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 381–401.Google Scholar
Murayama, K., Sakaki, M., Yan, V. X., & Smith, G. M. (2014). Type I error inflation in the traditional by-participant analysis to metamemory accuracy: A generalized mixed effects model perspective. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40, 1287–1306.Google Scholar
Pan, H.-Y., & Felser, C. (2011). Referential context effects in L2 ambiguity resolution: Evidence from self-paced reading. Lingua, 121, 221–236.Google Scholar
Pan, H.-Y., Schimke, S., & Felser, C. (2015). Referential context effects in non-native relative clause ambiguity resolution. International Journal of Bilingualism, 19, 298–313.Google Scholar
Papadopoulou, D. (2005). Reading-time studies of second language ambiguity resolution. Second Language Research, 21, 98–120.Google Scholar
Papadopoulou, D., & Clahsen, H. (2003). Parsing strategies in L1 and L2 sentence processing: A study of relative clause attachment in Greek. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 501–528.Google Scholar
Patterson, C., Trompelt, H., & Felser, C. (2014). The online application of binding condition B in native and non-native pronoun resolution. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 147. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00147Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, J., & Hirschberg, J. (1990). The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse. In P. Coehn, J. Morgan, & M. Pollack (Eds.), Intentions in communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Prince, E. F. (1981). Toward a taxonomy of given/new information. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical pragmatics (pp. 223–255). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 372–422.Google Scholar
Reder, L. M., & Kusbit, G. W. (1991). Locus of the Moses illusion: Imperfect encoding, retrieval, or match? Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 385–406.Google Scholar
Reichle, R. V. (2010a). Near-nativelike processing of contrastive focus in L2 French. In B. Van Patten & J. Jegerski (Eds.), Research on second language processing and parsing (pp. 321–344). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Reichle, R. V. (2010b). Judgments of information structure in L2 French: Nativelike performance and the critical period hypothesis. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 48, 53–85.Google Scholar
Reichle, R. V., & Birdsong, D. (2014). Processing focus structure in L1 and L2 French: L2 proficiency effects on ERPs. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36, 535–564.Google Scholar
Reichle, E. D., Warren, T., & McConnell, K. (2009). Using E-Z Reader to model the effects of higher level language processing on eye movements during reading. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 1–21.Google Scholar
Reves, T., & Levine, A. (1988). The foreign language receptive skills: Same or different? System, 16, 327–336.Google Scholar
Roberts, L., & Felser, C. (2011). Plausibility and recovery from garden-paths in second-language sentence processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32, 299–331.Google Scholar
Roberts, L., Gullberg, M., & Indefrey, P. (2008). On-line pronoun resolution in L2 discourse: L1 influence and general learner effects. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 333–357.Google Scholar
Rossi, S., Gugler, M. F., Freiderici, A. D., & Hahne, A. (2006). The impact of proficiency on syntactic second-language processing of German and Italian: Evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 2030–2048.Google Scholar
Segalowitz, N. (2003). Automaticity and second languages. In C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 382–388). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sorace, A., & Serratrice, L. (2009). Internal and external interfaces in bilingual language development: Beyond structural overlap. International Journal of Bilingualism, 13, 1–16.Google Scholar
Van Berkum, J. J. A., Brown, C. M., & Hagoort, P. (1999). Early referential context effects in sentence processing: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 147–182.Google Scholar
Ward, P., & Sturt, P. (2007). Linguistic focus and memory: An eye movement study. Memory & Cognition, 35, 73–86.Google Scholar
Watson, D. G., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Gunlogson, C. A. (2008). Interpreting pitch accents in online comprehension: H∗ vs. L + H∗. Cognitive Science, 32, 1232–1244.Google Scholar
Weber, A., Braun, B., & Crocker, M. W. (2006). Finding referents in time: Eye-tracking evidence for the role of contrastive accents. Language and Speech, 49, 367–392.Google Scholar
White, L. (2011). Second language acquisition at the interfaces. Lingua, 121, 577–590.Google Scholar
Williams, J. (2006). Incremental interpretation in second language sentence processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 9, 71–88.Google Scholar
Wright, D. B., Horry, R., & Skagerberg, E. M. (2008). Functions for traditional and multilevel approaches to signal detection theory. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 257–267.Google Scholar
Zwaan, R. A., & Radvansky, G. A. (1998). Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 162–185.Google Scholar