Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T04:12:24.808Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Second language sentence processing in reading for comprehension and translation*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 September 2012

JUNG HYUN LIM  and
KIEL CHRISTIANSON
JUNG HYUN LIM*
Affiliation:
University of California, San Diego
KIEL CHRISTIANSON
Affiliation:
University of Illinois, Urbana–Champaign & Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology
*
Address for correspondence: Jung Hyun Lim, Department of Educational Psychology, Education Building, MC-708 University of Illinois, 1310 S. 6th St., Champaign, IL 61820, USA[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A self-paced reading and translation task was used with learners of English as a second language (L2) to explore what sorts of information L2 learners use during online comprehension compared to native speakers, and how task (reading for comprehension vs. translation) and proficiency affect L2 comprehension. Thirty-six Korean native speakers of English and 32 native English speakers read plausible and implausible subject relative clauses and object relative clauses. Reading times, comprehension accuracy, and translations were analyzed. Results showed that L2 learners were able to use syntactic information similarly to native speakers during comprehension, and that online L2 processing and offline comprehension were modulated by reading goals and proficiency. Results are interpreted as showing that L2 processing is quantitatively rather than qualitatively different from first language processing, i.e. strategically “good enough”.

Keywords

L2 sentence processingproficiency and task effectsGood-Enough processingtranslationintegration of syntactic and semantic information
Type
Research Article
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 16 , Issue 3 , July 2013 , pp. 518 - 537
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012 

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.)

Footnotes

*

An earlier version of this research was presented at the Second Language Research Forum (University of Maryland, 2010). The authors thank the members of the Educational Psychology Psycholinguistics Lab for helping with data collection and Steve Luke for advice about data analysis. The authors also thank three anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments. This research was funded in part by a UIUC Campus Research Board grant, a summer GA support award from the UIUC Bureau of Educational Research, and NSF BCS-0847533 to Kiel Christianson and a Cognitive Science/Artificial Intelligence (CS/AI) award from the Beckman Institute to Jung Hyun Lim.

References

Agresti, A. (2007). An introduction to categorical data analysis (2nd edn.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.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 Langage, 59, 390–412.Google Scholar
Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1987). Competition, variation, and language learning. In MacWhinney, B. (ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition, pp. 157–193. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Buck, G. (1992). Translation as a language testing procedure: Does it work? Language Testing, 9 (2), 123–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, S. (1998). Translation into the second language. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Cho, S. (1999). The acquisition of relative clauses: Experimental studies on Korean. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Hawaii at Manoa.Google Scholar
Christianson, K., Hollingworth, A., Halliwell, J. F., & Ferreira, F. (2001). Thematic roles ssigned along the garden path linger. Cognitive Psychology, 42, 368–407.Google Scholar
Christianson, K., & Luke, S. G. (2011). Context strengthens initial misinterpretations of text. Scientific Studies of Reading, 15, 136–166.Google Scholar
Christianson, K., Luke, S. G., & Ferreira, F. (2010). Effects of plausibility on structural priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 36 (2), 538–544.Google Scholar
Christianson, K., Luke, S. G., & Wochna, K. (2012). Garden-path vs. local coherence structures: Similarities and differences in parsing and interpretation. Ms., University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign.Google Scholar
Christianson, K., Williams, C., Zacks, R., & Ferreira, F. (2006). Younger and older adults’ good enough interpretations of garden-path sentences. Discourse Processes, 42, 205–238.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006a). Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 3–42.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006b). Continuity and shallow structures in language processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 107–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clifton, C. Jr., & Frazier, L. (1989). Comprehending sentences with long distance dependencies. In Carlson, G. & Tanenhaus, M. (eds.), Linguistic structure in language processing, pp. 273–317. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conway, A. R. A., Kane, M. J., Bunting, M. F., Hambrick, D. Z., Wilhelm, O., & Engle, R. W. (2005). Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user's guide. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 769–786.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cordero, A. D. (1984). The role of translation in second language acquisition. The French Review, 57 (3), 350–355.Google Scholar
Danks, J. H., & Griffin, J. (1997). Reading and translation. In Danks, J. H., Shreve, G. M., Fountain, S. B. & McBeath, M. K. (eds.), Cognitive processes in translation and interpreting, pp. 161–175. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Dussias, P. E. (2001). Sentence parsing in fluent Spanish–English bilinguals. In Nicol, J. (ed.), One mind, two languages: Bilingual language processing, pp. 159–176. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Felser, C., & Roberts, L. (2007). Processing wh-dependencies in a second language: A cross-modal priming study. Second Language Research, 23 (1), 9–36.Google Scholar
Felser, C., Roberts, L., Gross, R., & Marinis, T. (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., Bailey, K., & Ferraro, V. (2002). Good enough representations in language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 11–15.Google Scholar
Ferreira, F., Christianson, K., & Hollingworth, A. (2001). Misinterpretations of garden-path sentences: Implications for models of sentence processing and reanalysis. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 30 (1), 3–20.Google Scholar
Ferreira, F., & Patson, N. D. (2007). The ‘good-enough’ approach to language comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1 (1–2), 71–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, C., Hall, D., Rakowitz, S., & Gleitman, L. (1994). When it is better to receive than to give: Syntactic and conceptual constraints on vocabulary growth. Lingua, 92, 333–375.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, 50A, 119–148.Google Scholar
Gerver, D. (1976). Empirical studies of simultaneous interpretation: A review and a model. In Brislin, R. W. (ed.), Translation: Application and research, pp. 165–207. New York: Gardiner.Google Scholar
Gibson, E., Hickok, G., & Schütze, C. T. (1994). Processing empty categories: A parallel approach. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 23, 381–405.Google Scholar
Gregg, K. (1996). The logical and developmental problems of second language acquisition. In William, C. R. & Bhatia, T. K. (eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition, pp. 50–84. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Holmes, V. M., & O'Regan, J. K. (1981). Eye fixation patterns during the reading of relative clause sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 417–430.Google Scholar
Hopp, H. (2006). Syntactic features and reanalysis in near-native processing. Second Language Research, 22, 369–397.Google Scholar
Jackson, C. (2008). Proficiency level and the interaction of lexical and morphosyntactic information during L2 sentence processing. Language Learning, 58 (4), 875–909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, C., & 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., & Dussias, P. E. (2009). Cross-linguistic differences and their impact on L2 sentence processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12 (1), 65–82.Google Scholar
Jackson, C., & Roberts, L. (2010). Animacy affects the processing of subject–object ambiguities in the second language: Evidence from self-paced reading with German and second language learners of Dutch. Applied Psycholinguistics, 31, 671–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 434–446.Google Scholar
Juffs, A. (1998). Main verb versus reduced relative clause ambiguity resolution in second language sentence processing. Language Learning, 48, 107–147.Google Scholar
Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory capacity. Psychological Review, 99, 122–149.Google Scholar
King, J., & Just, M. A. (1991). Individual differences in syntactic processing: The role of working memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 580–602.Google Scholar
Kim, J.-H. (2008). Working memory effects on bilingual sentence processing. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign.Google Scholar
Kuperberg, G. R. (2007). Neural mechanisms of language comprehension: Challenges to syntax. Brain Research (Special Issue), 1146, 23–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leeser, M. J., Brandl, A., & Whiteglass, C. (2011). Task effects in second language processing research. In Tromovich, P. & McDonough, K. (eds). Applied priming methods to L2 learning, teaching and research: Insights from psycholinguistics, pp. 179–198. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lim, J.-H., & Christianson, K. (2012). L2 morphological sensitivity in comprehension and translation: Evidence from eye-movements. Ms., University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign.Google Scholar
Luke, S. G., & Christianson, K. (2011). Stem and whole-word frequency effects in the processing of inflected verbs in and out of a sentence context. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26, 1173–1192.Google Scholar
Macizo, P., & Bajo, M. T. (2004). When translation makes the difference: Sentence processing in reading and translation. Psicologica, 25, 181–205.Google Scholar
Macizo, P., & Bajo, M. T. (2006). Reading for repetition and reading for translation: Do they involve the same process? Cognition, 99, 1–34.Google Scholar
Malakoff, M. E. (1992). Translation ability: A natural bilingual and metalinguistic skill. In Harris, R. J. (ed.), Cognitive processing in bilinguals (vol. 83). pp. 515–529. New York: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle 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
Nicol, J., & Pickering, M. J. (1993). Processing syntactically ambiguous sentences: Evidence from semantic priming. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 22, 207–237.Google Scholar
O'Grady, W., Lee, M., & Choo, M. (2003). A subject–object asymmetry in the acquisition of relative clauses in Korean as a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 433–448.CrossRefGoogle 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
Pinker, S. (1984). Language learnability and language development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Sachs, J. S. (1967). Recognition memory for syntactic and semantic aspects of connected discourse. Perception and Psychophysics, 2, 437–442.Google Scholar
Swets, B., Desmet, T., Clifton, C., & Ferreira, F. (2008). Undersepcification of syntactic ambiguities: Evidence from self-paced reading. Memory & Cognition, 36 (1), 201–216.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., Morris, R. K., & Seely, R. E. (2002). Processing subject and object relative clauses: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 69–90.Google Scholar
Williams, J. N. (2006). Incremental interpretation in second language sentence processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 9, 71–81.Google Scholar
Williams, J. N., Mobius, P., & Kim, C.-K. (2001). Native and non-native processing of English wh-questions: Parsing strategies and plausibility constraints. Applied Psycholinguistics, 22 (4), 509–540.Google Scholar