Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T11:26:00.075Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Japanese EFL learners’ sentence processing of conceptual plurality: An analysis focusing on reciprocal verbs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 October 2018

YU TAMURA Open the ORCID record for YU TAMURA [Opens in a new window] ,
JUNYA FUKUTA ,
YOSHITO NISHIMURA ,
YUI HARADA ,
KAZUHISA HARA  and
DAIKI KATO
YU TAMURA*
Affiliation:
Kansai University
JUNYA FUKUTA
Affiliation:
Shizuoka University
YOSHITO NISHIMURA
Affiliation:
Nagoya University
YUI HARADA
Affiliation:
Meijo University Senior High School
KAZUHISA HARA
Affiliation:
Okazaki Women’s Junior College
DAIKI KATO
Affiliation:
Tokoname Senior High School
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Yu Tamura, Faculty of Foreign Language Studies, Kansai University, 3-3-35 Yamate-cho, Suita-shi, Osaka, 564-8680, Japan. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study aimed to investigate how Japanese learners of English as a foreign language, whose first language does not have obligatory morphological number marking, process conceptual plurality. The targeted structure was reciprocal verbs, which require conceptual plurality to interpret their meanings correctly. The results of a sentence completion task confirmed that participants could use reciprocal verbs reciprocally in English. In a self-paced reading experiment, participants read sentences with reciprocal verbs and those with optionally transitive verbs (e.g., while the king and the queen kissed/left the baby read the book in the bed). There was no reading time delay for reciprocal verbs but a delay for optionally transitive verbs. Therefore, the participants succeeded in processing second language conceptual plurality in the online sentence comprehension task.

Keywords

conceptual pluralityEnglishgarden-path effectJapanese EFL learnersreciprocal verbs
Type
Original Article
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 40 , Issue 1 , January 2019 , pp. 59 - 91
Check for updates
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

Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4 (R package version 1.1-12). Retrieved from https://cran.r-project.org/package=lme4 Google Scholar
Bock, K., & Eberhard, K. M. (1993). Meaning, sound and syntax in English number agreement. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 57–99. doi:10.1080/01690969308406949.Google Scholar
Bock, K., Eberhard, K. M., Cutting, J. C., Meyer, A. S., & Schriefers, H. (2001). Some attractions of verb agreement. Cognitive Psychology, 43, 83–128. doi:10.1006/cogp.2001.0753 Google Scholar
Bock, K., & Miller, C. A. (1991). Broken agreement. Cognitive Psychology, 23, 45–93. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(91)90003-7 Google Scholar
Bock, K., Nicol, J. L., & Cutting, J. C. (1999). The ties that bind: Creating number agreement in speech. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 330–346. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1998.2616 Google Scholar
Eberhard, K. M. (1997). The marked effect of number on subject–verb agreement. Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 147–164.Google Scholar
Eberhard, K. M. (1999). The accessibility of conceptual number to the processes of subject–verb agreement in English. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 560–578. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1999.2662 Google Scholar
Eberhard, K. M., Cutting, J. C., & Bock, K. (2005). Making syntax of sense: Number agreement in sentence production. Psychological Review, 112, 531–559. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.112.3.531 Google Scholar
Ferreira, F., & McClure, K. (1997). Parsing of garden-path sentences with reciprocal verbs. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12, 273–306. doi: 10.1080/016909697386862 Google Scholar
Fiengo, R., & Lasnik, H. (1973). The logical structure of reciprocal sentences in English. Foundations of Language, 9, 447–468.Google Scholar
Foote, R. (2010). Age of acquisition and proficiency as factors in language production: Agreement in bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13, 99–118. doi: 10.1017/S136672890999040X Google Scholar
Gleitman, L. R., Gleitman, H., Miller, C., & Ostrin, R. (1996). Similar, and similar concepts. Cognition, 58, 321–376. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(95)00686-9 Google Scholar
Hartsuiker, R. J., & Barkhuysen, P. N. (2006). Language production and working memory: The case of subject-verb agreement. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21, 181–204. doi:10.1080/01690960400002117 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. doi:10.1017/S1366728909990034 Google Scholar
Hoshino, N., Kroll, J. F., & Dussias, P. E. (2012). Psycholinguistic perspectives on second language speech production. In M. Sanz & J. M. Igoa (Eds.), Applying language science to language pedagogy: Contributions of linguistics and psycholinguistics to second language teaching (pp. 107–127). Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Humphreys, K. R., & Bock, K. (2005). Notional number agreement in English. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 689–695. doi:10.3758/BF03196759 Google Scholar
Jackson, C. N., Mormer, E., & Brehm, L. (2018). The production of subject-verb agreement among Swedish and Chinese second language speakers of English. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1017/S0272263118000025 Google Scholar
Jiang, N. (2007). Selective integration of linguistic knowledge in adult second language learning. Language Learning, 57, 1–33. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2007.00397.x Google Scholar
Juffs, A. (1998). Main verb versus reduced relative clause ambiguity resolution in L2 sentence processing. Language Learning, 48, 107–147. doi:10.1111/1467-9922.00034 Google Scholar
Juffs, A., & Harrington, M. (1996). Garden path sentences and error data in second language sentence processing. Language Learning, 46, 283–323. doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01237.x Google Scholar
Kaup, B., Kelter, S., & Habel, C. (2002). Representing referents of plural expressions and resolving plural anaphors. Language and Cognitive Processes, 17, 405–450. doi:10.1080/01690960143000272 Google Scholar
Kreiner, H., Garrod, S., & Sturt, P. (2013). Number agreement in sentence comprehension: The relationship between grammatical and conceptual factors. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28, 829–874. doi:10.1080/01690965.2012.667567 Google Scholar
Kusanagi, K., Tamura, Y., & Fukuta, J. (2015). The notional number attraction in English as a foreign language: A self-paced reading study. Journal of the Japan Society for Speech Sciences, 16, 77–96.Google Scholar
Lenth, R. (2016). lsmeans (R package version 2.25) Retrieved from https://cran.r-project.org/package=lsmeans Google Scholar
Linck, J. A., & Cunnings, I. (2015). The utility and application of mixed-effects models in second language research. Language Learning, 65, 185–207. doi:10.1111/lang.12117 Google Scholar
Lo, S., & Andrews, S. (2015). To transform or not to transform: Using generalized linear mixed models to analyse reaction time data. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1–16. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01171 Google Scholar
Nakanishi, K., & Tomioka, S. (2004). Japanese plurals are exceptional. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 13, 113–140. doi:10.1023/B:JEAL.0000019058.46668.c1 Google Scholar
Nicol, J. L., Forster, K. I., & Veres, C. (1997). Subject–verb agreement processes in comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 569–587. doi:10.1006/jmla.1996.2497 Google Scholar
Nicol, J. L., & Greth, D. (2003). Production of subject-verb agreement in Spanish as a second language. Experimental Psychology, 50, 196–203. doi:10.1026//1617-3169.50.3.196 Google Scholar
Nicol, J. L., Teller, M., & Greth, D. (2001). Production of verb agreement in monolingual, bilingual, and second-language speakers. In J. L. Nicol (Ed.), One mind, two languages: Bilingual sentence processing (pp. 117–133). Maiden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Patson, N. D. (2014). The processing of plural expressions. Linguistics and Language Compass, 8, 319–329. doi:10.1111/lnc3.12085 Google Scholar
Patson, N. D., & Ferreira, F. (2009). Conceptual plural information is used to guide early parsing decisions: Evidence from garden-path sentences with reciprocal verbs. Journal of Memory and Language, 60, 464–486. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2009.02.003 Google Scholar
Patson, N. D., George, G., & Warren, T. (2014). The conceptual representation of number. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67, 1349–1365. doi:10.1080/17470218.2013.863372 Google Scholar
Patson, N. D., & Warren, T. (2010). Evidence for distributivity effects in comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 782–789. doi:10.1037/a0018783 Google Scholar
Patson, N. D., & Warren, T. (2011). Building complex reference objects from dual sets. Journal of Memory and Language, 64, 443–459. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2011.01.005 Google Scholar
Pearlmutter, N. J., Garnsey, S. M., & Bock, K. (1999). Agreement processes in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 427–456. doi:10.1006/jmla.1999.2653 Google Scholar
R Core Team (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org/ Google Scholar
Shibuya, M., & Wakabayashi, S. (2008). Why are L2 learners not always sensitive to subject-verb agreement? EUROSLA Yearbook, 8, 235–258. doi:10.1075/eurosla.8.13shi Google Scholar
Wei, X., Chen, B., Liang, L., & Dunlap, S. (2015). Native language influence on the distributive effect in producing second language subject–verb agreement. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68, 2370–2383. doi:10.1080/17470218.2015.1014821 Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Tamura et al. supplementary material

Tamura et al. supplementary material 1

Download Tamura et al. supplementary material(File)
File 94.8 KB