Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-7ccbd9845f-l8x48 Total loading time: 0.58 Render date: 2023-01-31T19:55:40.708Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true

Processing empty categories in a second language: When naturalistic exposure fills the (intermediate) gap*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 May 2012

CHRISTOS PLIATSIKAS*
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Language Sciences, School of Psychology, University of Reading
THEODOROS MARINIS
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Language Sciences, School of Psychology, University of Reading
*
Address for correspondence: Christos Pliatsikas, Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging and Neurodynamics, University of Reading, Reading, Berkshire RG6 6AL, UKc.pliatsikas@reading.ac.uk

Abstract

An ongoing debate on second language (L2) processing revolves around whether or not L2 learners process syntactic information similarly to monolinguals (L1), and what factors lead to a native-like processing. According to the Shallow Structure Hypothesis (Clahsen & Felser, 2006a), L2 learners’ processing does not include abstract syntactic features, such as intermediate gaps of wh-movement, but relies more on lexical/semantic information. Other researchers have suggested that naturalistic L2 exposure can lead to native-like processing (Dussias, 2003). This study investigates the effect of naturalistic exposure in processing wh-dependencies. Twenty-six advanced Greek learners of L2 English with an average nine years of naturalistic exposure, 30 with classroom exposure, and 30 native speakers of English completed a self-paced reading task with sentences involving intermediate gaps. L2 learners with naturalistic exposure showed evidence of native-like processing of the intermediate gaps, suggesting that linguistic immersion can lead to native-like abstract syntactic processing in the L2.

Type
Research Article
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

*

This study was funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) (Project no.: PTA-030–2006-00359). We would like to thank Giuli Dussias and an anonymous reviewer for their constructive feedback. Additionally, we would like to thank Stavroula-Thaleia Kousta and Gabriella Vigliocco for providing us with space to test some participants at University College London, and also the “Scholars” language school (Kallithea, Greece), Athanassios Protopapas and Eleni Vlahou (University of Athens) for providing us with space to test participants in Greece.

References

Bialystok, E. (1997). The structure of age: In search of barriers to second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 13 (2), 116137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006a). Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006b). How native-like is non-native language processing? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10 (12), 564570.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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. 273317. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dallas, A., & Kaan, E. (2008). Second language processing of filler–gap dependencies by late learners. Language and Linguistics Compass, 2 (3), 372388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dekydtspotter, L., Schwartz, B. D., & Sprouse, R. A. (2006). The comparative fallacy in L2 processing research. Presented at the 8th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2006): The Banff Conference.Google Scholar
Dussias, P. E. (2003). Syntactic ambiguity resolution in L2 learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25 (4), 529557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dussias, P. E., & Piñar, P. (2009). Sentence parsing in L2 learners: Linguistic and experience-based factors. In Ritchie, W. C. & Bathia, T. K. (eds.), The new handbook of second language acquisition, pp. 295318. Bingley: Emerald.Google Scholar
Dussias, P. E., & Piñar, P. (2010). Effects of reading span and plausibility in the reanalysis of wh-gaps by Chinese-English L2 speakers. Second Language Research, 26 (4), 443472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dussias, P. E., & Sagarra, N. (2007). The effect of exposure on syntactic parsing in Spanish–English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10 (1), 101116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felser, C., & Roberts, L. (2007). Processing wh-dependencies in a second language: A cross-modal priming study. Second Language Research, 23 (1), 936.CrossRefGoogle 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 (3), 453489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flege, J. (2009). Give input a chance! In Piske, T. & Young-Scholten, M. (eds.), Input matters in SLA, pp. 175190. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Flege, J., & Liu, S. (2001). The effect of experience on adults’ acquisition of a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 527552.Google Scholar
Frazier, L., & Fodor, J. D. (1978). The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition, 2 (4), 291325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frenck-Mestre, C. (2002). An on-line look at sentence processing in the second language. In Altarriba, J. & Herridia, R. (eds.), Bilingual sentence processing, pp. 218236. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Foucart, A., & Frenck-Mestre, C. (2011). Grammatical gender processing in L2: Electrophysiological evidence of the effect of L1–L2 syntactic similarity. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 14 (3), 379399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foucart, A., & Frenck-Mestre, C. (2012). Can late L2 learners acquire new grammatical features? Evidence from ERPs and eye-tracking. Journal of Memory and Language, 66 (1), 226248.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, 5893.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, E., & Warren, T. (2004). Reading-time evidence for intermediate linguistic structure in long-distance dependencies. Syntax, 7 (1), 5578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillon-Dowens, M., Vergara, M., Barber, H. A., & Carreiras, M. (2010). Morphosyntactic processing in late second-language learners. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22 (8), 18701887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grosjean, F. (1998). Studying bilinguals: Methodological and conceptual issues. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1 (2), 131149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hahne, A. (2001). What's different in second-language processing? Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 30 (3), 251266.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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 (1), 73112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopp, H. (2006). Syntactic features and reanalysis in near-native processing. Second Language Research, 22 (3), 369397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, C. N. (2008). Proficiency level and the interaction of lexical and morphosyntactic information during L2 sentence processing. Language Learning, 58 (4), 875909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jiang, N. (2007). Selective integration of linguistic knowledge in adult second language learning. Language Learning, 57 (1), 133.CrossRefGoogle 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 (2), 121151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Juffs, A., & Harrington, M. (1995). Parsing effects in second language sentence processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17 (4), 483516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Juffs, A., & Harrington, M. (1996). Garden path sentences and error data in second language sentence processing. Language Learning, 46 (2), 283323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Just, M. A., Carpenter, P. A., & Woolley, J. D. (1982). Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 111 (2), 228238.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kroll, J. F., & Dussias, P. (2004). The comprehension of words and sentences in two languages. In Bhatia, T. K. & Ritchie, W. C. (eds.), The handbook of bilingualism, pp. 169200. Malden, MA & Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Love, T., & Swinney, D. (1996). Coreference processing and levels of analysis in object-relative constructions: Demonstration of antecedent reactivation with the cross-modal priming paradigm. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25, 524.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacIntyre, P. D., Noels, K. A., & Clément, R. (1997). Biases in self-ratings of second language proficiency: The role of language anxiety. Language Learning, 47 (2), 265287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marinis, T., Roberts, L., Felser, C., & Clahsen, H. (2005). Gaps in second language processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27 (1), 5378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muñoz, C. (2008). Symmetries and asymmetries of age effects in naturalistic and instructed L2 learning. Applied Linguistics, 29 (4), 578596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papadopoulou, D. (2005). Reading-time studies of second language ambiguity resolution. Second Language Research, 21 (2), 98120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papadopoulou, D., & Clahsen, H. (2003). Parsing strategies in L1 and L2 sentence processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25 (4), 501528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pliatsikas, C. (2010). Grammatical processing in second language learners of English. Ph.D. thesis, University of Reading.Google Scholar
Pliatsikas, C., & Marinis, T. (2012). Processing of regular and irregular past tense morphology in highly proficient L2 learners of English: A self-paced reading study. Applied Psycholinguistics, doi:10.1017/S0142716412000082. Published by Cambridge University Press, March 14, 2012.Google Scholar
Rodriguez, G. A. (2008). Second language sentence processing: Is it fundamentally different? Ph.D. thesis, University of Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
Sag, I. A., & Fodor, J. D. (1995). Extraction without traces. In Aranovich, R., Byrne, W., Preuss, S. & Senturia, M. (eds), Proceedings of the 13th Annual Meeting of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL 13), pp. 365384, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002a). E-Prime reference guide. Pittsburgh, PA: Psychology Software Tools Inc.Google Scholar
Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002b). E-Prime user's guide. Pittsburgh, PA: Psychology Software Tools Inc.Google Scholar
UCLES [University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate] (2001). Quick Placement Test (250 User CD-ROM Pack). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google 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, 105122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ullman, M. T. (2004). Contributions of memory circuits to language: The declarative/procedural model. Cognition, 92 (1–2), 231270.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Williams, J. N. (2006). Incremental interpretation in second language sentence processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 9 (1), 7188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, J. N., Mobius, P., & Kim, C. (2001). Native and non-native processing of English wh-questions: Parsing strategies and plausibility constraints. Applied Psycholinguistics, 22 (4), 509540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witzel, J., Witzel, N., & Nicol, J. (2012). Deeper than shallow: Evidence for structure-based parsing biases in second-language sentence processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 33 (2), 419456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
64
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Processing empty categories in a second language: When naturalistic exposure fills the (intermediate) gap*
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Processing empty categories in a second language: When naturalistic exposure fills the (intermediate) gap*
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Processing empty categories in a second language: When naturalistic exposure fills the (intermediate) gap*
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *