Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-mwx4w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-03T07:10:10.149Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The use of case marking for predictive processing in second language Japanese*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2015

SANAKO MITSUGI Open the ORCID record for SANAKO MITSUGI [Opens in a new window]  and
BRIAN MACWHINNEY
SANAKO MITSUGI*
Affiliation:
The University of Kansas
BRIAN MACWHINNEY
Affiliation:
Carnegie Mellon University
*
Address for correspondence: Sanako Mitsugi, Department of East Asian Languages and Cultures, 2108 Wescoe Hall, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66044. [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Research on processing in English has shown that verb information facilitates predictive processing. Because Japanese verbs occur at the ends of clauses, this information cannot be used to predict the roles of preceding nominals. Kamide, Altmann and Haywood (2003) showed that native Japanese speakers use case markers to predict forthcoming linguistic items. In the present study, we investigated whether second language learners of Japanese demonstrate such predictive effects when processing sentences containing either the monotransitive or ditransitive constructions. A visual-world paradigm experiment showed that, although native speakers generated predictions for syntactic outcomes, the learners did not. These findings underscore the usefulness of morphosyntactic information in processing Japanese and indicate that learners fail to make full use of case markers to generate expectations regarding syntactic outcomes during online processing. Learners may rely on nonlinguistic information to compensate for this deficit in syntactic processing.

Keywords

sentence processingJapanesecase-markersthe visual-world paradigm
Type
Research Article
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , January 2016 , pp. 19 - 35
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

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 paper was presented at the Second Language Research Forum 2012 at University of Pittsburgh and Carnegie Mellon University. We would like to thank the organizers of that conference and the audience for their helpful comments and discussion. We would like to thank the editor and three anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on earlier versions of this article. All errors are our own.

References

Allopenna, P. D., Magnuson, J. S., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1998). Tracking the time course of spoken word recognition using eye movements: Evidence for continuous mapping models. Journal of Memory and Language, 38, 419–439.Google Scholar
Altmann, G. T. M., & Kamide, Y. (1999). Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition, 73, 247–264.Google Scholar
Altmann, G. T. M., & Kamide, Y. (2007). The real-time mediation of visual attention by language and world knowledge: Linking anticipatory (and other) eye movements to linguistic processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 57, 502–518.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing Linguistic Data. 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
Bader, M. & Meng, M. (1999). Subject-object ambiguities in German embedded clauses: An across-the-board comparison. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 28, 121–143.Google Scholar
Barr, D. (2008). Analyzing “visual world” eyetracking data using multilevel logistic regression. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 457–474.Google Scholar
Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 255–278.Google Scholar
Bates, D. M., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2014). Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version 1.1–4, http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4.Google Scholar
Chambers, C. G., Tanenhaus, M. K., Eberhard, K. M., Filip, H., & Carlson, G. N. (2002). Circumscribing referential domains during real-time language comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 30–49.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006). Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 3–42.Google Scholar
Clifton, C., Frazier, L., & Connine, C. (1984). Lexical expectations in sentence comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 696–708.Google Scholar
Colé, P., & Segui, J. (1994). Grammatical incongruency and vocabulary types. Memory and Cognition, 22, 387–394.Google Scholar
Dahan, D., Swingley, D., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Magnuson, J. S. (2000). Linguistic gender and spoken-word recognition in French. Journal of Memory and Language, 42, 465–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (2005). What makes learning second-language grammar difficult? A review of issues. Language Learning, 55, 1–25.Google Scholar
Dowens, M. G., Vergara, M., Barber, H. A., & Carreiras, M. (2010). Morphosyntactic processing in late second-language learners. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22, 1870–1887.Google Scholar
Dussias, P. E. (2003). Syntactic ambiguity resolution in L2 learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 529–557.Google 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., & Sagarra, N. (2007). The effect of exposure on syntactic parsing in Spanish–English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10, 101–116.Google Scholar
Dussias, P. E., Valdés Kroff, J. R., Guzzardo Tamargo, R. E., & Gerfen, C. (2013). When gender and looking go hand in hand. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 353–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Federmeier, K. D. (2007). Thinking ahead: The role and roots of prediction in language comprehension. Psychophysiology, 44, 491–505.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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
Felser, C., Cunnings, I., Batterham, C., & Clahsen, H. (2012). The timing of island effects in nonnative sentence processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 67–98.Google Scholar
Foote, R. (2010). Integrated knowledge of agreement in early and late English–Spanish bilinguals. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32, 187–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frenck-Mestre, C. (2005). Eye-movement recording as a tool for studying syntactic processing in a second language: A review of methodologies and experimental findings. Second Language Research, 21, 175–198.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garnsey, S., Pearlmutter, N., Myers, E., & Lotocky, M. (1997). The contributions of verb bias and plausibility to the comprehension of temporarily ambiguous sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 58–93.Google Scholar
Grüter, T., Lew-Williams, C., & Fernald, A. (2012). Grammatical gender in L2: A production or a real-time processing problem? Second Language Research, 28, 191–215.Google Scholar
Guillelmon, D., & Grosjean, F. (2001). The gender marking effect in spoken word recognition: The case of bilinguals. Memory and Cognition, 29, 503–511.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harada, S. (1973). Counter equi-NP deletion. University of Tokyo Research Institute of Logopedics and Phoniatrics Annual Bulletin, 7, 131–147.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
Hirotani, M. (2007). Prosody and LF interpretation: Processing Japanese wh-questions. Phonological Studies, 10, 67–68.Google Scholar
Hoji, H. (1985). Logical form constraints and configurational structures in Japanese. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington.Google Scholar
Holmes, V. M., 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 (3), 369–397 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. (2013). Grammatical gender in adult L2 acquisition: Relations between lexical and syntactic variability. Second Language Research, 29, 33–56.Google Scholar
Iwasaki, N. (2008). L2 acquisition of Japanese: Knowledge and use of case particles in SOV and OSV sentences. In Karimi, S. (ed.), Word order and scrambling, pp. 273–300. Malden, MA: Blackwell.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, 65–82.Google Scholar
Kaan, E., Dallas, A., & Wijnen, F. (2010). Syntactic predictions in second-language sentence processing. In Jan-Wouter, Z. & de Vries, M. (eds.), Structure preserved. Festschrift in the honor of Jan Koste, pp. 208–213. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kaan, E., Harris, A., Gibson, E., & Holcomb, P. (2000). The P600 as an index of syntactic integration difficulty. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15, 159–201.Google Scholar
Kaan, E. (2014). Predictive sentence processing in L1 and L2. What's different? Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 4, 257–282.Google Scholar
Kamide, Y., Altmann, G. T. M., & Haywood, S. L. (2003). The time-course of prediction in incremental sentence processing: Evidence from anticipatory eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 133–156.Google Scholar
Keating, G. D. (2009). Sensitivity to violations of gender agreement in native and nonnative Spanish: An eye-movement investigation. Language Learning, 59, 503–535.Google Scholar
Kilborn, K., & Ito, T. (1989). Sentence processing in Japanese–English and Dutch–English bilinguals. In MacWhinney, B. & Bates, E. (eds.), The crosslinguistic study of sentence processing, pp. 257–291. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kimball, J. (1975). Predictive analysis and over-the-top parsing. In Kimball, J. (ed.), Syntax and semantics (vol. 4), pp. 155–179. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kuno, S. (1973). The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lau, E., Stroud, C., Plesch, S., & Phillips, C. (2006). The role of structural prediction in rapid syntactic analysis. Brain and Language, 98, 74–88.Google Scholar
Lee, E.-K., Lu, H.-Y., & Garnsey, S. M. (2013). L1 word order and sensitivity to verb bias in L2 processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16, 761–775.Google Scholar
MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101, 676–703.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (1987). Applying the competition model to bilingualism. Applied Psycholinguistics, 8, 315–327.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2001). The Competition Model: The input, the context, and the brain. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Cognition and Second Language Instruction, pp. 69–90. New York: Cambridge University Press.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
Matin, E., Shao, K. C., & Boff, K. R. (1993). Saccadic overhead: Information-processing time with and without saccades. Perception & Psychophysics, 53, 372–380.Google Scholar
Mazuka, R., Itoh, K., & Kondo, T. (2002). Costs of scrambling in Japanese sentence processing. In Nakayama, M. (ed.), Sentence processing of East Asian languages, pp. 167–188. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
McRae, K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1998). Modeling the influence of thematic fit (and other constraints) in on-line sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 38, 283–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitsugi, S., & MacWhinney, B. (2010). Second language processing in Japanese scrambled sentences. In VanPatten, B. & Jegerski, J. (eds.), Research in second language processing and parsing (vol. 53), pp. 159–175. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Mitsugi, S. & MacWhinney, B. (2012). Processing ditransitive constructions in L2 Japanese: Evidence from eye movements. Paper presented at the Second Language Research Forum, University of Pittsburgh and Carnegie Mellon University, PA.Google Scholar
Miyamoto, E. T. (2002). Case markers as clause boundary inducers in Japanese. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 31, 307–347.Google Scholar
Miyamoto, E. T., Gibson, E., Pearlmutter, N. J., Aikawa, T., & Miyagawa, S. (1999). A u-shaped relative clause attachment preference in Japanese. Language and Cognitive Processes, 14, 663–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nakano, Y., Felser, C., & Clahsen, H. (2002). Antecedent priming at trace positions in Japanese long-distance scrambling. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 31, 531–571.Google Scholar
Nemoto, N. (1999). Scrambling. In Tsujimura, N. (ed.), The handbook of Japanese linguistics, pp. 121–153. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Neville, H., Nicol, J. L., Barss, A., Forster, K. I., & Garrett, M. F. (1991). Syntactically based sentence processing classes: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 3, 151–165.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Omaki, A., & Schulz, B. (2011). Filler-gap dependencies and island constraints in second language sentence processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33 (4), 563–588.Google Scholar
Papadopoulou, D. (2005). Reading-time studies of second language ambiguity resolution. Second Language Research, 21, 98–120.Google Scholar
Phillips, C., & Wagers, M. (2007). Relating structure and time in linguistics and psycholinguistics. In Gaskell, M. G. (ed.), Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics, pp. 739–756. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pickering, M., & Barry, G. (1991). Sentence processing without empty categories. Language and Cognitive Processes, 6, 229–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pritchett, B. L. (1991). Head position and parsing ambiguity. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 20, 251–270.Google Scholar
Ross, J. A. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Rounds, P. L., & Kanagy, R. (1998). Acquiring linguistic cues to identify agent. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 509–542.Google Scholar
Sasaki, Y. (1991). English and Japanese interlanguage comprehension strategies: An analysis based on the competition model. Applied Linguistics, 12, 47–73.Google Scholar
Sasaki, Y., & MacWhinney, B. (2006). The competition model. In Nakayama, M., Mazuka, R. & Shirai, Y. (eds.), The handbook of East Asian psycholinguistics (vol. 2): Japanese, pp. 307–314. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-Prime Reference Guide. Pittsburgh: Psychology Software Tools, Inc.Google Scholar
Sedivy, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., Chambers, C. G., & Carlson, G. N. (1999). Achieving incremental semantic interpretation through contextual representation. Cognition, 71, 109–147.Google Scholar
Shibatani, M. (1990). The languages of Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Spivey, M. J., Tanenhaus, M. K, Eberhard, K. M., & Sedivy, J. C. (2002). Eye movements and spoken language comprehension: Effects of visual context on syntactic ambiguity resolution. Cognitive Psychology, 45, 447–481.Google Scholar
Staub, A., & Clifton, C. Jr. (2006). Syntactic prediction in language comprehension: Evidence from either. . . or. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 425–436.Google Scholar
Stowe, L. A. (1986). Parsing Wh-constructions: Evidence for on-line gap location. Language and Cognitive Processes, 1, 227–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanenhaus, M. K. (2007). Eye movements and spoken language processing. In Gaskell, G. (ed.), Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics, pp. 443–469. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tanenhaus, M. K., & Trueswell, J. C. (1994). Toward a lexicalist framework of constraint-based syntactic ambiguity resolution. In Clifton, C., Frazier, L. & Ryner, K. (eds.), Perspectives in Sentence Processing, pp. 155–180. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Tanenhaus, M. K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., Eberhard, K. M., & Sedivy, J. C. (1995). Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science, 268, 1632–1634.Google Scholar
Traxler, M. J., & Pickering, M. J. (1996). Plausibility and the processing of unbounded dependencies: An eye-tracking study. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 454–475.Google Scholar
Tsujimura, N. (1999). The handbook of Japanese linguistics. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Williams, J. N., Möbius, P., & Kim, C. (2001). Native and non-native processing of English wh-questions: Parsing strategies and plausibility constraints. Applied Psycholinguistics, 22 (4), 509–540.Google Scholar
Yamashita, H. (1997). The effects of word-order and case marking information on the processing of Japanese. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 26, 163–188.Google Scholar
Yamashita, H. (2002). Scrambled sentences in Japanese: Linguistic properties and motivations for production. Text, 22, 597–633.Google Scholar