Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-pnlb5 Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2025-10-31T22:32:57.117Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of reading speed on second-language sentence processing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 January 2014

EDITH KAAN ,
JOCELYN C. BALLANTYNE  and
FRANK WIJNEN
EDITH KAAN*
Affiliation:
University of Florida
JOCELYN C. BALLANTYNE
Affiliation:
Utrecht University
FRANK WIJNEN
Affiliation:
Utrecht University
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Edith Kaan, Department of Linguistics, University of Florida, Box 115454, Gainesville, FL 32611. E-mail: kaan@ufl.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

To test the effects of reading speed on second-language (L2) sentence processing and the potential influence of conflicting native language word order, we compared advanced L2 learners of English with native English speakers on a self-paced reading task. L2 learners read faster overall than native English speakers. When differences in reading speed were controlled for, L2 learners were as sensitive to grammaticality manipulations as native English speakers. On-line reading times did not reflect any effect of cross-language conflict in the learners. Results from an end-of-sentence verification task showed a stronger bias toward a subject–object order in the cross-language conflict conditions in speed-matched L2 learners but not in L2 learners reading faster than native speakers. Results are compatible with hypothesized differences in resource allocation between L2 and native language processing.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 36 , Issue 4 , July 2015 , pp. 799 - 830
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

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

Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data. A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R., & Gulikers, L. (1995). The CELEX Lexical Database [CD]. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania, Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar
Bader, M., & Meng, M. (1999). Subject–object ambiguities in German embedded clauses. An across the board comparison. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 28, 121–141.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., Maechler, M., & Bolker, B. (2011). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 0.9989375-42 [Computer software].Google Scholar
Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1981). Second language acquisition from a functionalist perspective: Pragmatic, semantic and perceptual strategies. In Winitz, H. (Ed.), Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences Conference on Native and Foreign Language Acquisition (pp. 190–214). New York: New York Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
Bialystok, E. (2009). Bilingualism: The good, the bad, and the indifferent. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12, 3–11.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006). Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 3–42.Google Scholar
Costa, A., & Caramazza, A. (1999). Is lexical selection language specific? Further evidence from Spanish–English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 2, 231–244.Google Scholar
Costa, A., Hernandez, M., & Sebastián-Gallés, N. (2008). Bilingualism aids conflict resolution: Evidence from the ANT task. Cognition, 106, 59–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coughlin, C. E., & Tremblay, A. (2012). Proficiency and working memory based explanations for nonnative speakers’ sensitivity to agreement in sentence processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 34, 615–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dallas, A. C. (2008). Influences of verbal properties on second-language filler-gap resolution: A cross-methodological study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/741238885?accountid=10920 Google Scholar
Dekydtspotter, L., Schwartz, B. D., & Sprouse, R. A. (2006). The comparative fallacy in L2 processing research. Paper presented at the 8th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2006).Google Scholar
Dijkstra, T., Grainger, J., & van Heuven, W. J. B. (1999). Recognition of cognates and interlingual homographs: The neglected role of phonology. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 496–518.Google Scholar
Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, D. M. (2007). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (4th ed.). Minneapolis, MN: NCS Pearson.Google Scholar
Dussias, P. E. (2003). Syntactic ambiguity resolution in L2 learners. Some effects of bilinguality on L1 and L2 processing strategies. 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 Psychologia, 128, 501–513.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dussias, P. E., & Sagarra, N. (2007). The effect of exposure on syntactic parsing in Spanish–English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10, 101–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fan, J., McCandliss, B. D., Sommer, T., Raz, A., & Posner, M. I. (2002). Testing the efficiency and independence of attentional networks. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14, 340–347.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
Frazier, L. (1978). On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Frazier, L., & Flores d'Arcais, G. B. (1989). Filler driven parsing: A study of gap filling in Dutch. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 331–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frenck-Mestre, C. (2005). Ambiguities and anomalies: What can eye movements and event-related potentials reveal about second language sentence processing? In Kroll, J. F. & De Groot, A. M. B. (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches (pp. 268–281). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Frenck-Mestre, C., & Pynte, J. (1997). Syntactic ambiguity resolution while reading second and native languages. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A, 50, 119–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, P. C., Hendrick, R., & Johnson, M. (2001). Memory interference during language processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 1411–1423.Google Scholar
Grotjahn, R. (1987). How to construct and evaluate a C-test: A discussion of some problems and some statistical analyses. Quantitative Linguistics, 34, 219–253.Google Scholar
Hahne, A. (2001). What's different in second-language processing? Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Psycholinguistics Research 30, 251–266.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
Hollingshead, A. B. (1975). Four Factor Index of Social Status. New Haven, CT: Yale University.Google Scholar
Hoover, M. L., & Dwivedi, V. D. (1998). Syntactic processing by skilled bilinguals. Language Learning, 48, 1–29.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopp, H. (2010). Ultimate attainment in L2 inflection: Performance similarities between non-native and native speakers. Lingua, 120, 901–931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacob, G. (2009). The role of native language in second-language syntactic processing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Dundee, Scotland.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaan, E. (2001). Effects of NP type on the resolution of word-order ambiguities. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 30, 529–547.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaan, E., Dallas, A. C., & Wijnen, F. (2010). Syntactic predictions in second-language sentence processing. In Zwart, J.-W. & de Vries, M. (Eds.), Structure preserved. Festschrift in the honor of Jan Koster (pp. 207–213). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keijzer, M. (2007). Last in, first out? An investigation of the regression hypothesis in Dutch emigrants in anglophone Canada. Doctoral dissertation, Free University of Amsterdam. LOT Dissertation Series 163. Retrieved from http://www.lot.nl Google Scholar
Kilborn, K. (1989). Sentence processing in a second language: The timing of transfer. Language and Speech, 32, 1–23.Google Scholar
Kilborn, K., & Cooreman, A. (1987). Sentence interpretation strategies in adult Dutch–English bilinguals. Applied Psycholinguistics, 8, 415–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroll, J. F., Bobb, S. C., & Wodniecka, Z. (2006). Language selectivity is the exception, not the rule: Arguments against a fixed locus of language selection in bilingual speech. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 9, 119–135.Google Scholar
Lew-Williams, C., & Fernald, A. (2010). Real-time processing of gender-marked articles by native and non-native Spanish speakers. Journal of Memory and Language, 63, 447–464.Google Scholar
Linck, J., Hoshino, N., & Kroll, J. F. (2008). Cross-language lexical processes and inhibitory control. Mental Lexicon, 3, 349–374.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacWhinney, B., & Bates, E. (1989). The crosslinguistic study of sentence processing. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Marian, V., Blumenfield, H. K., & Kaushanskaya, M. (2007). The language experience and proficiency questionnaire (LEAP-Q): Assessing language profiles in bilinguals and multi-linguals. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 50, 940–967.Google Scholar
Marian, V., & Spivey, M. (2003). Competing activation in bilingual language processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 6, 97–115.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
McDonald, J. (1987). Sentence interpretation in bilingual speakers of English and Dutch. Applied Psycholinguistics, 8, 379–414.Google Scholar
McDonald, J. (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
Nitschke, S., Kidd, E., & Serratrice, L. (2010). First language transfer and long-term structural priming in comprehension. Language & Cognitive Processes, 25, 94–114.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
R Development Core Team. (2007). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org Google Scholar
Reitan, R. M., & Wolfson, D. (1995). Category Test and Trail Making Test as measures of frontal lobe functions. Clinical Neuropsychologist, 9, 50–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, L., & Felser, C. (2011). Plausibility and recovery from garden paths in second language sentence processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32, 299–331.Google Scholar
Sabourin, L., & Stowe, L. A. (2008). Second language processing: When are first and second languages processed similarly? Second Language Research, 24, 397–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schriefers, H., Friederici, A. D., & Kühn, K. (1995). The processing of locally ambiguous clauses in German. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 499–520.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., & Hulstijn, J. (2005). Automaticity in bilingualism and second language learning. In Kroll, J. F. & De Groot, A. M. B. (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistics approaches (pp. 371–388). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Snodgrass, J. G., & Vanderwart, M. (1980). A standardized set of 260 pictures: Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity and visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6, 174–215.Google Scholar
Sorace, A. (2011). Pinning down the concept of “interface” in bilingualism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1, 1–33.Google Scholar
Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643–662.Google Scholar
Tokowicz, N., & MacWhinney, B. (2005). Implicit and explicit measures of sensitivity to violations in second language grammar. An event-related potential investigation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 173–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ullman, M. T. (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
Van Hell, J., & Dijkstra, T. (2002). Foreign language knowledge can influence native language performance in exclusively native contexts. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 780–789.Google Scholar
Van Heuven, W., Dijkstra, T., & Grainger, J. (1998). Orthographic neighborhood effects in bilingual word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 458–483.Google Scholar
Wagers, M. W., Lau, E. F., & Phillips, C. (2009). Agreement attraction in comprehension: Representations and processes. Journal of Memory and Language, 61, 206–237.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, 509–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, F. (2009). Processing at the syntax–discourse interface in second language acquisition. Doctoral dissertation, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Kaan Supplementary Material

Supplementary Material

Download Kaan Supplementary Material(File)
File 32.8 KB
Supplementary material: File

Kaan Supplementary Material

Supplementary Material

Download Kaan Supplementary Material(File)
File 40.4 KB
Supplementary material: File

Kaan Supplementary Material

Supplementary Material

Download Kaan Supplementary Material(File)
File 96.8 KB
Supplementary material: File

Kaan Supplementary Material

Supplementary Material

Download Kaan Supplementary Material(File)
File 30.2 KB