Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-c8zdz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-29T15:42:37.027Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The timing of lexical and syntactic processes in second language sentence comprehension

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 November 2015

HOLGER HOPP
HOLGER HOPP*
Affiliation:
University of Mannheim
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Holger Hopp, English Linguistics, University of Mannheim, Schloss, EW 266, Mannheim 68131, Germany. E-mail: holger.hopp@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper investigates how lexical processing difficulty affects second language (L2) syntactic processing. In a self-paced reading experiment with 36 monolingual and 62 first language German speakers of English, we test how differences in lexical frequency moderate structural processing differences between subject and object clefts. For the L2 group, the results show linear relations between verb frequency and the location of the reading difficulty resulting from the structurally more complex object clefts. Native speakers evince comparable effects only in lower word frequency ranges. The findings indicate that greater demands on lexical processing may cause non-native-like syntactic processing in that they attenuate and delay effects of structure building in L2 sentence processing. We discuss implications for current models of L2 sentence processing.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 37 , Issue 5 , September 2016 , pp. 1253 - 1280
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Binder, K. S., & Rayner, K. (1998). Contextual strength does not modulate the subordinate bias effect: Evidence from eye fixations and self-paced reading. Psychonomic Bulletin, 5, 271–276.Google Scholar
Boland, J. E., & Blodgett, A. (2001). Understanding the constraints on syntactic generation: Lexical bias and discourse congruency effects on eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 391–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006). Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 3–42.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 Academic.Google Scholar
Clifton, C., Staub, A., & Rayner, K. (2007). Eye-movements in reading words and sentences. In van Gompel, R. P. G., Fischer, M. H., Murray, W. S., & Hill, R. L. (Eds.), Eye movements: A window on mind and brain (pp. 341–471). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Coughlin, C. E., & Tremblay, A. (2013). Proficiency and working-memory based explanations for non-native speakers’ sensitivity to agreement in sentence processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 34, 615–646.Google Scholar
Dekydtspotter, L., & Miller, A. K. (2013). Inhibitive and facilitative priming induced by traces in the processing of wh-dependencies in a second language. Second Language Research, 29, 1–28.Google Scholar
Dekydtspotter, L., & Renaud, C. (2014). On second language processing and grammatical development: The parser in second language acquisition. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 4, 131–166.Google Scholar
Dekydtspotter, L., Schwartz, B. D., & Sprouse, R. A. (2006). The comparative fallacy in L2 processing research. In O’Brien, M. Grantham, Shea, C., & Archibald, J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2006): The Banff Conference (pp. 33–40). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Diependaele, K., Lemhöfer, K., & Brysbaert, M. (2013). The word frequency effect in first and second language word recognition: A lexical entrenchment account. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66, 843–863.Google Scholar
Dijkstra, T. (2005). Bilingual visual word recognition and lexical access. In Kroll, J. F. & De Groot, A. M. B. (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches (pp. 179–201) Oxford: Oxford University Press.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., & Pinar, P. (2010). Effects of reading span and plausibility in the reanalysis of wh-gaps by Chinese-English second language speakers. Second Language Research, 26, 443–472.Google Scholar
Duyck, W., Van Assche, E., Drieghe, D., & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2007). Visual word recognition by bilinguals in a sentence context: Evidence for nonselective lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 663–679.Google Scholar
Fedorenko, E., Piantadosi, S., & Gibson, E. (2012). The interaction of syntactic and lexical information sources in language processing: The case of the noun–verb ambiguity. Journal of Cognitive Science, 13, 249–285.Google Scholar
Felser, C., & Roberts, L. (2007). Processing wh-dependencies in a second language: A cross-modal priming study. Second Language Research, 23, 9–36.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Folk, J. R., & Morris, R. K. (2003). Effects of syntactic category assignment on lexical ambiguity resolution in reading: An eye movement analysis. Memory & Cognition, 31, 87–99.Google Scholar
Frazier, L. (1987). Sentence processing: A tutorial review. In Coltheart, M. (Ed.), Attention and performance: Vol. 12. The psychology of reading (pp. 559–586). Hove: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Garnsey, S. M., Pearlmutter, N. J., Myers, E., & Lotocky, B. (1997). The relative contributions of verb bias and plausibility to the interpretation of temporarily ambiguous sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 58–93.Google Scholar
Gennari, S., & MacDonald, M. (2008). Semantic indeterminacy in object relative clauses. Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 161–187.Google Scholar
Gibson, E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68, 1–76.Google Scholar
Gollan, T. H., Montoya, R. I., Cera, C., & Sandoval, T. C. (2008). More use almost always means a smaller frequency effect: Aging, bilingualism, and the weaker links hypothesis. Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 787–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gollan, T. H., Slattery, T. J., Goldenberg, D., van Assche, E., Duyck, W., & Rayner, K. (2011). Frequency drives lexical access in reading but not in speaking: The frequency-lag hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140, 186–209.Google Scholar
Gordon, P. C., Hendrick, R., & Johnson, M. (2001). Memory interference during language processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 27, 1411–1423.Google Scholar
Hale, J. (2001). A probabilistic Earley parser as a psycholinguistic model. Paper presented at the second meeting of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics on Language Technologies, Pittsburgh, PA. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1073357 CrossRefGoogle 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
Hoover, M. L., & Dwivedi, V. D. (1998). Syntactic processing by skilled bilinguals. Language Learning, 48, 1–29.Google Scholar
Hopp, H. (2006). Syntactic features and reanalysis in near-native processing. Second Language Research, 22, 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. (2010). Ultimate attainment in L2 inflectional morphology: Performance similarities between non-native and native speakers. Lingua, 120, 901–931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopp, H. (2014). Working memory effects on the L2 processing of ambiguous relative clauses. Language Acquisition, 21, 250–278.Google Scholar
Hopp, H. (in press). Individual differences in the second language processing of object–subject ambiguities. Applied Psycholinguistics. doi:10.1017/S0142716413000180 Google Scholar
Jegerski, J. (2012). The processing of temporary subject-object ambiguities in native and near-native Mexican Spanish. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15, 721–735.Google Scholar
Jiang, N. (2007). Selective integration of linguistic knowledge in adult second language acquisition. Language Learning, 57, 1–33.Google Scholar
Juffs, A. (2004). Representation, processing, and working memory in a second language. Transactions of the Philological Society, 102, 199–225.Google 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
Kaan, E., Ballantyne, J. C., & Wijnen, F. (2014). Effects of reading speed on second-language sentence processing. Applied Psycholinguistics. Advance online publication. doi:10.1017/S0142716413000519 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
Kroll, J. F., & Hermans, D. (2011). Psycholinguistic perspectives on language processing in bilinguals. In Schmid, M. & Lowie, W. (Eds.), Modeling bilingualism. From structure to chaos: In Honor of Kees de Bot (pp. 15–36). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lemhöfer, K., & Broersma, M. (2012). Introducing LexTALE: A quick and valid Lexical Test for Advanced Learners of English. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 325–343.Google Scholar
Lemhöfer, K., Dijkstra, T., Schriefers, H., Baayen, R. H., Grainger, J., & Zwisterlood, P. (2008). Native language influences on word recognition in a second language: A megastudy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 12–31.Google Scholar
Levy, R. (2008). Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition, 106, 1126–1177.Google Scholar
Libben, M. R., & Titone, D. A. (2009). Bilingual lexical access in context: Evidence from eye movements during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 381–390.Google ScholarPubMed
MacDonald, M., & Christiansen, M. (2002). Reassessing working memory: Comment on Just and Carpenter (1992) and Waters and Caplan (1996). Psychological Review, 109, 35–54.Google Scholar
MacDonald, M., Pearlmutter, N., & Seidenberg, M. (1994). Lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 103, 676–703.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
McDonald, J. L. (2006). Beyond the critical period: Processing-based explanations for poor grammaticality judgment performance by late second language learners. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 381–401.Google Scholar
McDonald, J. L., & Roussel, C. C. (2010). Past tense grammaticality judgment and production in non-native and stressed native English speakers. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13, 429–448.Google Scholar
Miller, K. A. (2014). Accessing and maintaining referents in L2 processing of wh-dependencies. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 4, 167–191.Google Scholar
Omaki, A., & Schulz, B. (2011). Filler-gap dependencies and island constraints in second language sentence processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33, 563–588.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, 24, 501–528.Google Scholar
Pliatsikas, C., & Marinis, T. (2013). Processing empty categories in a second language: When naturalistic exposure fills the (intermediate) gap. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16, 167–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rayner, K., Pacht, J. M., & Duffy, S. A. (1994). Effects of prior encounter and discourse bias on the processing of lexically ambiguous words: Evidence from eye fixations. Journal of Memory & Language, 33, 527–544.Google Scholar
Reichle, R. V., & Birdsong, D. (2014). Processing focus structure in L1 and L2 French: L2 proficiency effects on ERPs. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. Advance online publication. doi:10.1017/S0272263113000594 Google Scholar
Roberts, L. (2013). Sentence processing in bilinguals. In van Gompel, R. P. G. (Ed.), Sentence processing (pp. 221–246). Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, L., & Felser, C. (2011). Plausibility and recovery from garden-paths in second-language sentence processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32, 299–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rossi, S., Gugler, M. F., Friederici, A. D., & Hahne, A. (2006). The impact of proficiency on syntactic second-language processing of German and Italian: Evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 2030–2048.Google Scholar
Runnqvist, E., Gollan, T. H., Costa, A., & Ferreira, V. S. (2013). A disadvantage in bilingual sentence production modulated by syntactic frequency and similarity across languages. Cognition, 129, 256–263.Google Scholar
Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-Prime reference guide. Pittsburgh, PA: Psychology Software Tools.Google Scholar
Schwartz, A. I., & Kroll, J. F. (2006). Bilingual lexical activation in sentence context. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 197–212.Google Scholar
Segalowitz, N., & Segalowitz, S. J. (1993). Skilled performance practice and differentiation of speedup from automatization effects: Evidence from second language word recognition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 13, 369–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seidenberg, M. S., Tanenhaus, M., Leiman, J., & Bienkowski, M. (1982). Automatic access of the meanings of ambiguous words in context: Some limitations of knowledge-based processing. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 489–537.Google Scholar
Slabakova, R. (2000). L1 transfer revisited: The L2 acquisition of telicity in English by Spanish and Slavic native speakers. Linguistics, 38, 739–770.Google Scholar
Sorace, A. (2011). Pinning down the concept of “interface” in bilingualism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1, 1–33.Google Scholar
Staub, A. (2007). The parser doesn't ignore intransitivity, after all. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 550–569.Google Scholar
Staub, A. (2011). Word recognition and syntactic attachment in reading: Evidence for a staged architecture. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140, 407–433.Google Scholar
Swinney, D. (1979). Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re)consideration of context effects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 645–659.Google Scholar
Tabossi, P., Colombo, L., & Job, R. (1987). Accessing lexical ambiguity: Effects of context and dominance. Psychological Research, 49, 161–172.Google Scholar
Tily, H., Fedorenko, E., & Gibson, T. (2010). The time-course of lexical and structural processes in sentence comprehension. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 910–927.Google Scholar
Titone, D., Libben, M., Mercier, J., Whitford, V., & Pivneva, I. (2011). Bilingual lexical access during L1 sentence reading: The effects of L2 knowledge, semantic constraint, and L1–L2 intermixing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 1412–1431.Google Scholar
Tokowicz, N. (2015). Lexical processing and second language acquisition. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Traxler, M., Morris, R., & Seely, R. (2002). Processing subject and object relative clauses: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 69–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Garnsey, S. M. (1994). Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic disambiguation. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 285–318.Google Scholar
Ullman, M. T. (2005). A cognitive neuroscience perspective on second language acquisition: The declarative/procedural model. In Sanz, C. (Ed.), Mind and context in adult second language acquisition: Methods, theory and practice (pp. 141–178). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Van Assche, E., Drieghe, D., Duyck, W., Welvaert, M., & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2011). The influence of semantic constraints on bilingual word recognition during sentence reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 64, 88–107.Google Scholar
Van Heuven, W. J. B., Mandera, P., Keuleers, E., & Brysbaert, M. (2014). SUBTLEX-UK: A new and improved word frequency database for British English. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67, 1176–1190.Google Scholar
Whitford, V., & Titone, D. (2012). Second-language experience modulates first and second language word frequency effects: Evidence from eye movement measures of natural paragraph reading. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 73–80.Google Scholar
Williams, J., Möbius, P., & Kim, C. (2001). Native and non-native processing of English wh-questions: Parsing strategies and plausibility constraints. Applied Psycholinguistics, 22, 509–540.Google Scholar