Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T04:14:39.888Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Parsing Effects in Second Language Sentence Processing

Subject and Object Asymmetries in wh-Extraction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Alan Juffs  and
Michael Harrington
Alan Juffs
Affiliation:
University of Pittsburgh
Michael Harrington
Affiliation:
Carnegie Mellon University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper reexamines claims that second language learners are more accurate at judging long-distance object extraction than subject extraction and that the difference in accuracy is due to processing factors rather than differences in underlying competence. Although previous studies have reported robust effects for the subject/object asymmetry, the global nature of the response measures leaves open the question of whether the subject gap is in fact the locus of difficulty for second language learners. Using many of the same stimuli sentences from original research in combination with a theory of principle-based parsing, this study employs the moving window display technique to collect on-line measures of processing long-distance wh-extraction. Twenty-five advanced Chinese-speaking ESL learners provided grammaticality judgments in two presentation conditions: full-sentence, where judgment reaction times are measured from sentence onset to the learner's judgment; and word-by-word reading, where word-by-word latencies are collected in addition to judgments. The accuracy and reaction time results from the full-sentence condition replicated previous findings. The word-by-word results confirm that it is the subject gap that is the source of difficulty for the learners. Claims in the literature that principles of Universal Grammar are not available to adult learners are not supported by these results, which show that parsing, and not grammatical competence, is the source of difficulty on performance with subject extraction sentences.

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 17 , Issue 4 , December 1995 , pp. 483 - 516
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

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

Aoun, J., & Li, A. Y.-H. (1993). Wh-elements in situ: Syntax or LF? Linguistic Inquiry, 24, 199–238.Google Scholar
Baker, C. L., & McCarthy, J. J. (Eds.). (1981). The logical problem of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Berwick, R., Abney, S., & Tenny, C. (Eds.). (1991). Principle-based parsing: Computation and psycholinguistics. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bever, T. G., & McElree, B. (1988). Empty categories access antecedents during comprehension. Linguistic Inquiry, 19, 35–43.Google Scholar
Birdsong, D. (1989). Metalinguistic performance and interlinguistic competence. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birdsong, D. (1992). Ultimate attainment in second language acquisition. Language, 68, 706–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R. (1983). The comparative fallacy in interlanguage studies: The case of systematicity. Language Learning, 33, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R., Felix, S., & loup, G. (1988). The accessibility of Universal Grammar in adult language learning. Second Language Research, 4, 1–32.Google Scholar
Carlson, G. N., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (Eds.). (1989). Linguistic structure in language processing. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1977). On wh-movement. In Culicover, P., Wasow, T., & Akmajian, A. (Eds.), Formal Syntax (pp. 71–132). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981a). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981b). Principles and parameters in syntactic theory. In Hornstein, N. & Lightfoot, D. (Eds.), Explanation in linguistics: The logical problem of language acquisition (pp. 32–75). London: Longman.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1986a). Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1986b). Knowledge of language. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Chung, S. (1994). Wh-agreement and referentiality in Chamarro. Linguistic Inquiry, 25, 1–44.Google Scholar
Clifton, C., & Frazier, L. (1989). Comprehending sentences with long-distance dependencies. In Carlson, G. N. & Tanenhaus, M. K. (Eds.), Linguistic structure in language processing (pp. 273–317). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, P., & Hermon, G. (1994). Is there LF wh-movement? Linguistic Inquiry, 25, 239–262.Google Scholar
Coppieters, R. (1987). Competence differences between native and near-native speakers. Language, 63, 544–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowan, R., & Abe, Y. (1994). Investigating the validity and reliability of native speaker and second language learner judgments about sentences. In Tarone, E., Gass, S., & Cohen, A. (Eds.), Research methodology in second language acquisition (pp. 287–302). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Crain, S., & Fodor, J. D. (1985). How can grammars help parsers? In Dowty, D., Karttunen, L., & Zwicky, A. (Eds.), Natural language parsing: Psychological, computational and theoretical perspectives (pp. 94–128). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flynn, S. (1987). A parameter-setting model of L2 acquisition. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J. D. (1978). Parsing strategies and constraints on transformations. Linguistic Inquiry, 9, 427–474.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. D. (1992). Islands, learnability and the lexicon. In Goodluck, H. & Rochemont, M. (Eds.), Island constraints: Theory, acquisition, and processing (pp. 109–180). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, E., & Hickok, G. (1993). Sentence processing with empty categories. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 147–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodluck, H., & Rochement, M. (Eds.). (1992). Island constraints: Theory, acquisition, and processing. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamburger, H., & Wexler, K. (1975). A mathematical theory of learning transformational grammar. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 12, 137–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, C.-T.J. (1982). Move wh in a language without wh movement. The Linguistic Review, 1, 369–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, J. (1992). Critical period effects in second language acquisition: The effect of written versus auditory materials on the assessment of grammatical competence. Language Learning, 42, 217–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, J., & Newport, E. (1989). Critical period effects in second language learning: The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 60–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, J., & Newport, E. (1991). Critical period effects on universal properties of language: The status of subjacency in the acquisition of a second language. Cognition, 39, 215–258.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Juffs, A., & Harrington, M. (1995, 05). The significance of error data in L2 processing. Paper presented at Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition, CUNY, New York.Google Scholar
Just, M. A., Carpenter, P. A., & Woolley, J. D. (1982). Paradigms and processes and in reading comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 3, 228–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurtzman, H. S., Crawford, L. F., & Nychis-Florence, C. (1991). Locating wh traces. In Berwick, R., Abney, S., & Tenny, C. (Eds.), Principle-based parsing: Computation and psycholinguistics (pp. 347–382). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacDonald, M. E. (1993). The interaction of lexical and syntactic ambiguity. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 692–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahajan, A. (1994). Against the relevance of Subjacency at LF: The case of Hindi wh. Linguistic Inquiry, 25, 171–179.Google Scholar
Martohardjono, G., & Gair, J. (1993). Apparent UG inaccessibility in second language acquisition: Misapplied principles or principled misapplications? In Eckman, F. (Ed.), Confluence: Linguistics, second language acquisition and speech pathology (pp. 79–103). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McElree, B., & Bever, T. G. (1989). The psychological reality of linguistically defined gaps. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18, 21–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicol, J., & Swinney, D. (1989). The role of structure in co-reference assignment during sentence comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18, 5–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pritchett, B. L. (1988). Garden path phenomena and the grammatical basis of language processing. Language 64, 539–576.Google Scholar
Pritchett, B. L. (1992a). Grammatical competence and parsing performance. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Pritchett, B. L. (1992b). Parsing with grammar: Islands, heads, and garden paths. In Goodluck, H. & Rochemont, M. (Eds.), Island constraints: Theory, acquisition, and processing (pp. 321–350). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schachter, J. (1989). Testing a proposed universal. In Gass, S. & Schachter, J. (Eds.), Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition (pp. 73–88). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schachter, J. (1990). On the issue of completeness in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 6, 93–124.Google Scholar
Schachter, J., & Yip, V. (1990). Grammaticality judgments: Why does anyone object to subject extraction? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 379–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, W. (1990). MicroExperimental laboratory. Pittsburgh, PA: Software Tools, Inc.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B., & Gubala-Ryzak, M. (1992). Learnability and grammar reorganization in L2A: Against negative evidence causing unlearning of verb movement. Second Language Research, 8, 1–38.Google Scholar
Stowe, L. (1986). Parsing wh-constructions: Evidence for on-line gap location. Language and Cognitive Processes, 2, 227–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanenhaus, M. K., Boland, J., Garnsey, S. M., & Carlson, G. N. (1989). Lexical structure in parsing long-distance dependencies. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18, 37–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tarone, E. E., Gass, S. M., & Cohen, A. D. (Eds.). (1994). Research methodology in second-language acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Uziel, S. (1993). Resetting Universal Grammar parameters: Evidence from second language acquisition of Subjacency and The Empty Category Principle. Second Language Research, 9, 49–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L. (1989). Universal Grammar and second language acquisition. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L. (1990). Second language acquisition and Universal Grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 121–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L. (1991). Adverb placement in second language acquisition: Some effects of positive and negative evidence in the classroom. Second Language Research, 7, 133–161.Google Scholar
White, L. (1992). Subjacency violations and empty categories in L2 acquisition. In Goodluck, H. & Rochemont, M. (Eds.), Island constraints: Theory, acquisition, and processing (pp. 445–464). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L., & Genesee, F. (1992, October). How native is a near-native speaker? Paper presented at the Boston University Conference on Language Development, Boston.Google Scholar
White, L., & Juffs, A. (in press). Constraints on wh-movement in two different contexts of non-native language acquisition: Competence and processing. In Flynn, S., Martohardjono, G., & O'Neill, W. (Eds.), The generative study of second language acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Xu, L. (1990). Remarks on LF Movement in Chinese questions. Linguistics, 28, 355–382.Google Scholar