Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T08:48:48.813Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The processing and comprehension of wh-questions among second language speakers of German

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 October 2009

CARRIE N. JACKSON  and
SUSAN C. BOBB
CARRIE N. JACKSON*
Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University
SUSAN C. BOBB
Affiliation:
Stanford University
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Carrie N. Jackson, Department of Germanic and Slavic Languages and Literatures, 427 Burrowes Building, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Using the self-paced reading paradigm, the present study examines whether highly proficient second language (L2) speakers of German (English first language) use case-marking information during the on-line comprehension of unambiguous wh-extractions, even when task demands do not draw explicit attention to this morphosyntactic feature in German. Results support previous findings, in that both the native and the L2 German speakers exhibited an immediate subject preference in the matrix clause, suggesting they were sensitive to case-marking information. However, only among the native speakers did this subject preference carry over to reading times in the complement clause. The results from the present study are discussed in light of current debates regarding the ability of L2 speakers to attain nativelike processing strategies in their L2.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 30 , Issue 4 , October 2009 , pp. 603 - 636
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

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

Bader, M., & Meng, M. (1999). Subject–object ambiguities in German embedded clauses: An across-the-board comparison. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 28, 121–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blattner, G. (2007). Processing verbal arguments in a first and second language: The role of immersion experience. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State University.Google Scholar
Carlson, G. N., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1988). Thematic roles and language comprehension. In Wilkins, W. (Ed.), Syntax and semantics (pp. 263–288). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006). Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 3–42.Google Scholar
Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 450–466.Google Scholar
Dekydtspotter, L., Schwartz, B., & Sprouse, R. (2006). The comparative fallacy in L2 processing research. In O'Brien, M. G., Shea, C., & Archibald, J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2006) (pp. 33–40). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
De Vincenzi, M. (2000). Cross-linguistic psycholinguistics. In Crocker, M., Pickering, M., & Clifton, C. Jr. (Eds.), Architectures and mechanisms for language processing (pp. 282–300). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dussias, P. E., & Pinar, P. (2009). Effects of reading span and plausibility in the reanalysis of wh-gaps by Chinese–English L2 speakers. Second Language Research.Google Scholar
Dussias, P. E., & Sagarra, N. (2007). The effect of exposure on syntactic parsing in Spanish–English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10, 101–116.Google Scholar
Fanselow, G., Kliegl, R., & Schlesewsky, M. (1999). Processing difficulty and principles of grammar. In Kemper, S. & Kliegl, R.. (Eds.), Constraints on language: Aging, grammar, and memory (pp. 171–202). Boston: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
Featherston, S. (2005). That-trace in German. Lingua, 115, 1277–1302.Google Scholar
Felser, C., Clahsen, H., & Münte, T. (2003). Storage and integration in the processing of filler–gap dependences: An ERP study of topicalization and wh-movement in German. Brain and Language, 87, 345–354.Google Scholar
Felser, C., & Roberts, L. (2004). Plausibility and recovery from garden paths in second language sentence processing. Poster presented at the 10th Annual Conference on Architectures and Mechanisms of Language Processing, Aix-en-Provence, France.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., Bailey, K. G. D., & Ferraro, V. (2002). Good-enough representations in language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 11–15.Google Scholar
Fiebach, C., Schlesewsky, M., & Friederici, A. (2002). Separating syntactic memory costs and syntactic integration costs during parsing: The processing of German wh-questions. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 250–272.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. D. (1993). Empty categories in sentence processing: A question of visibility. In Altmann, G. & Shillcock, R.. (Eds.), Cognitive models of speech processing (pp. 351–400). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Frazier, L. (1987). Syntactic processing: Evidence from Dutch. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 5, 519–559.Google Scholar
Frazier, L., Carminati, M. N., Cook, A. E., Majewski, H., & Rayner, K. (2006). Semantic evaluation of syntactic structure: Evidence from eye movements. Cognition, 99, B53–B62.Google Scholar
Frenck-Mestre, C. (2005). Ambiguities and anomalies: What can eye movements and event-related potentials reveal about second language processing? In Kroll, J. F. & de, A. M. B. Groot. (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism (pp. 268–281). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Frenck-Mestre, C. (1997). Examining second language reading: An on-line look. In Sorace, A., Heycock, C., & Shillcock, R.. (Eds.), Proceedings of the GALA 1997 Conference on Language Acquisition (pp. 474–478). Edinburgh: Human Communications Research Center.Google Scholar
Frenck-Mestre, C. (2002). An on-line look at sentence processing in the second language. In Heredia, R. & Altarriba, J.. (Eds.), Bilingual sentence processing (pp. 218–236). 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 A: Human Experimental Psychology, 50A, 119–148.Google Scholar
Gibson, E., Hickock, G., & Schütze, C. T. (1994). Processing empty categories: A parallel approach. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 23, 381–405.Google Scholar
Gibson, E., & Warren, T. (2004). Reading-time evidence for intermediate linguistic structure in long-distance dependencies. Syntax, 7, 55–78.Google Scholar
Gorrell, P. (2000). The subject-before-object preference in German clauses. In Hemforth, B. & Konieczny, L. (Eds.), German sentence processing (pp. 25–65). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
Havik, E., Roberts, L., van Hout, R., Schreuder, R., & Haverkort, M. (2009). Processing subject–object ambiguities in the L2: A self-paced reading study with German L2 learners of Dutch. Language Learning, 59, 73–112.Google Scholar
Hopp, H. (2006). Syntactic features and reanalysis in near-native processing. Second Language Research, 22, 369–397.Google Scholar
Hoover, M. L., & Dwivedi, V. D. (1998). Syntactic processing in skilled bilinguals. Language Learning, 48, 1–29.Google Scholar
Jackson, C. N. (2008). Proficiency level and the interaction of lexical and morphosyntactic information during L2 sentence processing. Language Learning, 58, 875–909.Google Scholar
Jackson, C. N., & Dussias, P. E. (2009). Cross-linguistic differences and their impact on L2 sentence processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12, 69–82.Google Scholar
Jiang, N. (2004). Morphological insensitivity in second language processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25, 603–634.Google Scholar
Jiang, N. (2007). Selective integration of linguistic knowledge in adult second language learning. Language Learning, 57, 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Juffs, A. (2005). The influence of first language on the processing of wh-movement in English as a second language. Second Language Research, 21, 121–151.Google Scholar
Juffs, A., & Harrington, M. (1995). Parsing effects in second language sentence processing: Subject and object asymmetries in wh-extraction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 482–516.Google Scholar
Just, M. A., Carpenter, P. A., & Woolley, J. D. (1982). Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 111, 228–238.Google Scholar
Kroll, J. F., Michael, E., Tokowicz, N., & Dufour, R. (2002). The development of lexical fluency in a second language. Second Language Research, 18, 137–171.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
Miyao, M., & Omaki, A. (2006). No ambiguity about it: Korean learners of Japanese have a clear attachment preference. In Bamman, D., Magnitskaia, T., & Zaller, C.. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (Suppl.). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.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, 25, 501–528.Google Scholar
Pearlmutter, N., Garnsey, S., & Bock, K. (1999). Agreement processes in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 427–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pickering, M., Clifton, Jr. C., & Crocker, M. (2000). Architectures and mechanisms in sentence comprehension. In Crocker, M., Pickering, M., & Clifton, C. Jr. (Eds.), Architectures and mechanisms for language processing (pp. 1–28). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.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
Pritchett, B. L. (1992). Grammatical competence and parsing performance. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Sanford, A. J., & Sturt, D. (2002). Depth of processing in language comprehension: Not noticing the evidence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 382–386.Google Scholar
Schneider, W., Eschmann, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-Prime v1.1 [Computer software]. Pittsburgh, PA: Psychology Software Tools.Google Scholar
Schriefers, H., Friederici, A. D., & Kühn, K. (1995). The processing of locally ambiguous relative clauses in German. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 499–520.Google Scholar
Trueswell, J., & Kim, A. (1998). How to prune a garden path by nipping it in the bud: Fast priming of verb argument structure. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 102–123.Google Scholar
Ullman, M. (2001). The neural basis of lexicon and grammar in first and second language: The declarative/procedural model. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4, 105–122.Google Scholar
Williams, J. (2006). Incremental interpretation in second language sentence processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 9, 71–81.Google Scholar
Williams, J. N., Möbius, P., & Kim, C. (2001). Native and nonnative processing of English wh-questions: Parsing strategies and plausibility constraints. Applied Psycholinguistics, 22, 509–540.Google Scholar