Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T23:23:39.684Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Individual differences in the second language processing of object–subject ambiguities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 April 2013

HOLGER HOPP
HOLGER HOPP*
Affiliation:
University of Mannheim
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Holger Hopp, Department of English Linguistics, University of Mannheim, Schloss EW 266, 68131 Mannheim, Germany. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study investigates whether and how individual differences modulate the adult second language (L2) processing of syntactic ambiguities. In a linear mixed regression analysis, we test how proficiency, working memory, reading speed, automaticity in lexical access, and grammatical integration ability affect the resolution of temporary object–subject ambiguities in L2 English. The results from 75 first language German advanced learners attest that individual differences in syntactic integration ability modulate the reliance on morphosyntactic and plausibility information. Similar to native speakers, L2 learners are found to adopt two different routes in L2 processing. The findings highlight the role of individual differences and qualify previous generalizations about the relative use of morphosyntactic and other types of information in L2 processing.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 36 , Issue 2 , March 2015 , pp. 129 - 173
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

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

REFERENCES

Adams, B. C., Clifton, C. Jr., & Mitchell, D. C. (1998). Lexical guidance in sentence processing? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5, 265–270.Google Scholar
Allan, D. (1992). The Oxford Placement Test. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Alptekin, C., & Erçetin, G. (2010). The role of L1 and L2 working memory in literal and inferential comprehension in L2 reading. Journal of Research in Reading, 33, 206–219.Google Scholar
Ariji, K., Omaki, A., & Tatsuta, N. (2003). Working memory restricts the use of semantic information in ambiguity resolution. In Slezak, P. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Cognitive Science (pp. 19–25). Sydney: University of New South Wales.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
Bowden, H. W., Sanz, C., & Stafford, C. A. (2005). Individual differences: Age, sex, working memory, and prior knowledge. In Sanz, C. (Ed.), Mind and context in adult second language acquisition: Methods, theory, and practice (pp. 105–140). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.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). Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 3–42.Google Scholar
Clifton, C. Jr. (1993). Thematic roles in sentence parsing. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47, 222–246.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coderre, E., van Heuven, W. J. B., & Conklin, K. (2011.) Lexical processing is delayed by 100ms in a second language. Paper presented at the Workshop on Bilingualism: Neurolinguistic and Psycholinguistic Perspectives, Aix en Provence.Google Scholar
Conway, A. R. A., Kane, M. J., Bunting, M. F., Jambrick, D. Z., Wilhelm, O., & Engle, R. W. (2005). Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and a user's guide. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 12, 769–786.Google Scholar
DeDe, G. (2010). Utilization of prosodic information in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 39, 345–374.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dekydtspotter, L., Schwartz, B. D., & Sprouse, R. A. (2006). The comparative fallacy in L2 processing research. In Grantham, M. O'Brien, Shea, C., & Archibald, J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2006): The Banff Conference (pp. 33–40). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The psychology of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dörnyei, Z., and Skehan, P. (2003). Individual differences in second language learning. In Doughty, C. J. & Long, M. H. (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 589–630). Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dussias, P. E., & Cramer Scaltz, T. R. (2008). Spanish–English L2 speakers’ use of subcategorization bias information in the resolution of temporary ambiguity during second language reading. Acta Psychologica, 128, 501–513.Google Scholar
Dussias, P. E., & Pinar, P. (2010). Effects of reading span and plausibility in the reanalysis of wh-gaps by Chinese–English second language speakers. Second Language Research, 26, 443–472.Google Scholar
Farmer, T. A., Misyak, J. B., & Christiansen, M. H. (in press). Individual differences in sentence processing. In Spivey, M. J., McRae, K., & Joanisse, M. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of psycholinguistics. New York: Cambridge University Press.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., & Gross, R. (2003). The processing of ambiguous sentences by first and second language learners of English. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24, 453–489.Google Scholar
Ferreira, F. (2003). The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 47, 164–203.Google Scholar
Ferreira, F., Engelhardt, P. E., & Jones, M. W. (2009). Good enough language processing: A satisficing approach. In Taatgen, N., Rijn, H., Nerbonne, J., & Schomaker, L. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 413–418). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Ferreira, F., & Patson, N. D. (2007). The “good enough” approach to language comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1, 71–83.Google Scholar
Frazier, L., & Clifton, C. (1998). Sentence reanalysis and visibility. In Fodor, J. D. & Ferreira, F. (Eds.), Reanalysis in sentence processing. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Frenck-Mestre, C. (2002). An on-line look at sentence processing in the second language. In Heredia, R. R. & Altarriba, J. (Eds.), Bilingual sentence processing (pp. 217–236). Amsterdam: 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
Goethe Institut. (2010). German Placement Test. Retrieved October 2012 from http://www.goethe.de/cgi-bin/einstufungstest/einstufungstest.plGoogle Scholar
Hachmann, W., Konieczny, L., & Müller, D. (2009). Individual differences in the processing of complex sentences. In Taatgen, N. A. & van, H. Rijn (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 309–314). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Harrington, M. (2007). The coefficient of variance as an index of L2 lexical processing skill. University of Queensland Working Papers in Linguistics, 1, 2–43.Google Scholar
Havik, E., Roberts, L., van Hout, R., Schreuder, R., & Haverkort, M. (2009). Processing subject–object ambiguitities in the L2: A self-paced reading study with German L2 learners of Dutch. Language Learning, 59, 73–112.Google Scholar
Holmes, V., Stowe, L., & Cupples, L. (1989). Lexical expectations in parsing complement–verb sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 668–689.Google Scholar
Hopp, H. (2006). Syntactic features and reanalysis in near-native processing. Second Language Research, 22, 369–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopp, H. (2007). Ultimate attainment at the interfaces in second language acquisition: Grammar and processing. Groningen: Grodil Press.Google Scholar
Hopp, H. (2009). The syntax–discourse interface in near-native L2 acquisition: Off-line and on-line performance. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12, 463–483.Google Scholar
Hopp, H. (2010). Ultimate attainment in L2 inflectional morphology: Performance similarities between non-native and native speakers. Lingua, 120, 901–931.Google Scholar
Hoshino, N., Dussias, P. E., & Kroll, J. F. (2010). Processing subject–verb agreement in a second language depends on proficiency. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13, 87–98.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
Jackson, C. N., & Dussias, P. E. (2009). Cross-linguistic differences and their impact on L2 sentence processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12, 65–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jegerski, J. (2012). The processing of temporary subject–object ambiguities in native and near-native Mexican Spanish. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15, 721–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jiang, N. (2004). Morphological insensitivity in second language processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25, 603–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jiang, N. (2007). Selective integration of linguistic knowledge in adult second language learning. Language Learning, 57, 1–33.Google Scholar
Juffs, A. (2004). Representation, processing, and working memory in a second language. Transactions of the Philological Society, 102, 199–225.Google Scholar
Juffs, A., & Harrington, M. (1996). Garden path sentences and error data in second language processing research. Language Learning, 46, 286–324.Google Scholar
Keating, G. D. (2010). The effects of linear distance and working memory on the processing of gender agreement in Spanish. In Van Patten, B. and Jegerski, J. (Eds.), Research in second language processing and parsing (pp. 113–134). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kilborn, K. (1992). On-line integration of grammatical information in a second language. In Harris, R. (Ed.), Cognitive processing in bilinguals (pp. 337–350). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Liu, Y., & Perfetti, C. A. (2003). The time course of brain activity in reading English and Chinese: An ERP study of Chinese bilinguals. Journal of Human Brain Mapping, 18, 167–175.Google Scholar
Long, D. L., & Prat, C. S. (2008). Individual differences in syntactic ambiguity resolution: Readers vary in their use of plausibility information. Memory and Cognition, 36, 375–391.Google Scholar
Marinis, T., Roberts, L., Felser, C., & Clahsen, H. (2005). Gaps in second language sentence 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
McDonald, J. L., & Roussel, C. C. (2010). Past tense grammaticality judgment and production in non-native and stressed native English speakers. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13, 429–448.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, J., Tanner, D., Pitkänen, I, Frenck-Mestre, C., Inoue, K., Valentine, G., et al. (2010). Brain potentials reveal discrete stages of L2 grammatical learning. Language Learning, 60 (Suppl. 2), 123–150.Google Scholar
Michael, E., & Gollan, T. (2005). Being and becoming bilingual: Individual differences and consequences for language production. In Kroll, J. & de Groot, A. (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches (pp. 389–410). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mitchell, D. C. (1994). Sentence parsing. In Gernsbacher, M. A. (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 375–409). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Miyake, A., & Friedman, N. (1998). Individual differences in second language proficiency: Working memory as language aptitude. In Healy, A. F. & Bourne, L. E. (Eds.), Foreign language learning: Psycholinguistic studies on training and retention (pp. 339–364). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Novick, J. M., Trueswell, J. C., & Thompson-Schill, S. L. (2005). Cognitive control and parsing: Reexamining the role of Broca's area in sentence comprehension. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 5, 263–281.Google Scholar
Oliver, G., Gullberg, M., Hellwig, F., Mitterer, H., & Indefrey, P. (2012). Acquiring L2 sentence comprehension: A longitudinal study of word monitoring in noise. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15, 841–857.Google Scholar
Omaki, A., & Schulz, B. (2011). Filler-gap dependencies and island constraints in second language sentence processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33, 563–588.Google Scholar
Pickering, M. J., & Traxler, M. J. (1998). Plausibility and recovery from garden paths: An eye-tracking study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 940–961.Google Scholar
Pickering, M. J., Traxler, M. J., & Crocker, M. W. (2000). Ambiguity resolution in sentence processing: Evidence against frequency-based accounts. Journal of Memory and Language, 43, 447–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pliatsikas, C., & Marinis, T. (2013). Processing empty categories in a second language: When naturalistic exposure fills the (intermediate) gap. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16, 167–182.Google Scholar
Pritchett, B. L. (1992). Grammatical competence and parsing performance. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 372–422.Google Scholar
Reichle, E. D., Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (2003). The E-Z Reader model of eye-movement control in reading: Comparisons to other models. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 26, 445–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, L., & Felser, C. (2011). Plausibility and recovery from garden paths in second language sentence processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32, 299–331.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2005). Aptitude and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 46–73.Google Scholar
Rossi, S., Gugler, M. F., Friederici, 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
Sagarra, N., & Herschensohn, J. (2011) Proficiency and animacy effects on L2 gender agreement processes during comprehension. Language Learning, 61, 80–116.Google Scholar
Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-Prime reference guide. Pittsburgh, PA: Psychology Software Tools.Google Scholar
Segalowitz, N., & Hulstijn, J. (2005). Automaticity in bilingualism and second language learning. In Kroll, J. & de Groot, A. (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches (pp. 371–388). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Segalowitz, N., & Segalowitz, S. J. (1993). Skilled performance practice and differentiation of speed-up from automatization effects: Evidence from second language word recognition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 13, 369–385.Google Scholar
Segalowitz, N., Segalowitz, S. J., & Wood, A. G. (1998). Assessing the development of automaticity in second language word recognition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 19, 53–67.Google Scholar
Service, E., Simola, M., Metsänheimoi, O., & Maury, S. (2002). Bilingual working memory is affected by language skill. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 14, 383–408.Google Scholar
Sorace, A. (2005). Syntactic optionality at interfaces. In Cornips, L. & Corrigan, K. (Eds.), Syntax and variation: Reconciling the biological and the social (pp. 46–111). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sorace, A. (2011). Pinning down the concept of “interface” in bilingualism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1, 1–33.Google Scholar
Spivey, M. J., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1998). Syntactic ambiguity resolution in discourse: Modeling the effects of referential context and lexical frequency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 24, 1521–1543.Google Scholar
Staub, A. (2007). The parser doesn't ignore intransitivity, after all. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 550–569.Google Scholar
Staub, A., & Rayner, K. (2007). Eye movements and on-line comprehension processes. In Gaskell, G. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 327–342). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Steinhauer, K., White, E., & Drury, J. E. (2009). Temporal dynamics of late second language acquisition: Evidence from event-related potentials. Second Language Research, 25, 13–41.Google Scholar
Swets, B., Desmet, T., Clifton, C., & Ferreira, F. (2008). Underspecification of syntactic ambiguities: Evidence from self-paced reading. Memory and Cognition, 36, 201–216.Google Scholar
Swets, B., Desmet, T., Hambrick, D. Z., & Ferreira, F. (2007). The role of working memory in syntactic ambiguity resolution: A psychometric approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136, 64–81.Google Scholar
Tanner, D. (2011). Agreement mechanisms in native and nonnative language processing: Electrophysiological correlates of complexity and interference. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Washington.Google Scholar
Tanner, D., McLaughlin, J., Herschensohn, J., & Osterhout, L. (in press). Individual differences reveal stages of L2 acquisition: ERP evidence. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition.Google Scholar
Townsend, D. J., & Bever, T. G. (2001). Sentence comprehension: The integration of habits and rules. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Traxler, M. J. (2002). Plausibility and subcategorization preference in children's processing of temporarily ambiguous sentences: Evidence from self-paced reading. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55A, 75–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traxler, M. J., & Pickering, M. J. (1996). Case marking in the parsing of complement sentences: Evidence from eye movements. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49A, 991–1004.Google Scholar
Trueswell, J., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Kello, C. (1993). Verb specific constraints in sentence processing: Separating effects of lexical preference from garden-paths. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 528–533.Google Scholar
Ullman, M. T. (2005). A cognitive neuroscience perspective on second language acquisition: The declarative/procedural model. In Sanz, C. (Ed.), Mind and context in adult second language acquisition: Methods, theory, and practice (pp. 141–178). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
van Gompel, R. P. G., & Pickering, M. J. (2001). Lexical guidance in sentence processing: A note on Adams, Clifton, and Mitchell (1998). Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 851–857.Google Scholar
van Gompel, R. P. G., Pickering, M. J., Pearson, J., & Liversedge, S. P. (2005). Evidence against competition during syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 284–307.Google Scholar
Van Overschelde, J. P., Rawson, K. A., & Dunlosky, J. (2004). Category norms: An update and expanded version of the Battig and Montague (1969) norms. Journal of Memory and Language, 50, 289–335.Google Scholar
Vasishth, S., & Drenhaus, H. (2011). Locality in German. Dialogue and Discourse, 1, 59–82.Google Scholar
Williams, J. (2006). Incremental interpretation in second language sentence processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 9, 71–88.Google Scholar
Williams, J., Möbius, P., & Kim, C. (2001). Native and non-native processing of English wh-questions: Parsing strategies and plausibility constraints. Applied Psycholinguistics, 22, 509–540.Google Scholar
Wilson, M. P., & Garnsey, S. M. (2009). Making simple sentences hard: Verb bias effects in simple direct object sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 60, 368–392.Google Scholar
Wilson, F., Sorace, A., & Keller, F. (2009) Simulating L2 learners’ deficits at the syntax–discourse interface in native speakers. Talk presented at the International Symposium on Bilingualism 7, Utrecht.Google Scholar