Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-59b7f5684b-b2xwp Total loading time: 0.601 Render date: 2022-09-29T15:01:35.207Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "displayNetworkTab": true, "displayNetworkMapGraph": false, "useSa": true } hasContentIssue true

Real-time grammar processing by native and non-native speakers: Constructions unique to the second language*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 July 2013

DANIJELA TRENKIC*
Affiliation:
University of York
JELENA MIRKOVIC
Affiliation:
University of York
GERRY T. M. ALTMANN
Affiliation:
University of York
*
Address for correspondence: Danijela Trenkic, Department of Education, University of York, York YO10 5DD, UKdanijela.trenkic@york.ac.uk

Abstract

We investigated second language (L2) comprehension of grammatical structures that are unique to the L2, and which are known to cause persistent difficulties in production. A visual-world eye-tracking experiment focused on online comprehension of English articles by speakers of the article-lacking Mandarin, and a control group of English native speakers. The results show that non-native speakers from article-lacking backgrounds can incrementally utilise the information signalled by L2 articles in real time to constrain referential domains and resolve reference more efficiently. The findings support the hypothesis that L2 processing does not always over-rely on pragmatic affordances, and that some morphosyntactic structures unique to the target language can be processed in a targetlike manner in comprehension – despite persistent difficulties with their production. A novel proposal, based on multiple meaning-to-form, but consistent form-to-meaning mappings, is developed to account for such comprehension–production asymmetries.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

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 research was supported by the University of York grant to the first author. We thank Craig Chambers for sharing the sentential stimuli from Chambers et al. (2002) with us. We are grateful to Jakke Tamminen, Lauren Davies, Xierong Liu, Chris Rowson and Gitte Joergensen for their assistance in stimulus preparation and participant testing. We also thank the three anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments and suggestions. All remaining errors are our own.

References

Abutalebi, J., & Green, D. W. (2007). Bilingual language production: The neurocognition of language representation and control. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 20, 242275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Altmann, G. T. M, & Kamide, Y. (1999). Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition, 73, 247264.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1989). Functionalism and the Competition Model. In MacWhinney, B. & Bates, E. (eds.), The cross-linguistic study of sentence processing, pp. 373. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Bock, K., & Levelt, W. J. M. (1994). Language production: Grammatical encoding. In Gernsbacher, M. A. (ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics, pp. 945984. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Brown, R. (1973). A first language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chambers, C. G., & Cooke, H. (2009). Lexical competition during second-language listening: Sentence context, but not proficiency, constrains interference from the native lexicon. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 10291040.Google Scholar
Chambers, C. G., Tanenhaus, M. K., Eberhard, K. M., Filip, H., & Carslon, G. N. (2002). Circumscribing referential domains during real-time language comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 3049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, L., Shu, H., Liu, Y., Zhao, J., & Li, P. (2007). ERP signatures of subject–verb agreement in L2 learning. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10, 161174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, P. (2004). Identifiability and definiteness in Chinese. Linguistics, 42, 11291184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006). How native-like is non-native language processing? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 564570.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DeKeyser, R. M. (2005). What makes learning second-language grammar difficult? A review of issues. Language Learning, 55 (S1), 125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Díez-Bedmar, M., & Papp, S. (2008). The use of the English article system by Chinese and Spanish learners. In Gilquin, G., Papp, S. & Díez-Bedmar, M. (eds.), Linking up contrastive and learner corpus research, pp. 147176. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dussias, P. E. (2010). Uses of eye-tracking data in second language sentence processing research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30, 149166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eberhard, K. M., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., Sedivy, J., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1995). Eye movements as a window into real-time spoken language processing in natural contexts. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 24, 409436.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ellert, M. (2011). Ambiguous pronoun resolution in L1 and L2 German and Dutch. Ph.D. dissertation, Radbound University Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2006). Selective attention and transfer phenomena in L2 acquisition: Contingency, cue competition, salience, interference, overshadowing, blocking, and perceptual learning. Applied Linguistics, 27, 164194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frenck-Mestre, C. (2004). Grammatical gender agreement in French for article–noun agreement in native and non-native speakers: Evidence from ERPs. Presented at the Cognitive Neuroscience Society conference, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Gaer, E. P. (1969). Children's understanding and production of sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 8, 289294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
García Mayo, M. P., & Hawkins, R. (eds.). (2009). Second language acquisition of articles: Empirical findings and theoretical implications. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. M., & Selinker, L. (eds.). (1992). Language transfer in language learning (revised edition). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goad, H., & White, L. (2004). Ultimate attainment of L2 inflections: Effects of L1 prosodic structure. In Foster-Cohen, S., Ota, M., Sharwood Smith, M. A. & Sorace, A. (eds.), EUROSLA Yearbook (vol. 4), pp. 119145. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Goldschneider, J. M., & DeKeyser, R. M. (2001). Explaining the “natural order of L2 morpheme acquisition” in English: A meta-analysis of multiple determinants. Language Learning, 51, 150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, D. W. (1998). Mental control of the bilingual lexico-semantic system. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1, 6781.CrossRefGoogle 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, 191215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hahne, A., & Friederici, A. D. (2001). Processing a second language: Late learners’ comprehension mechanisms as revealed by event-related brain potentials. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4, 123141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Han, Z. (2009). Grammatical morpheme inadequacy as a function of linguistic relativity: A longitudinal case study. In Han, Z. & Cadierno, T. (eds.), Linguistic relativity in second language acquisition, pp. 154182. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Haskell, T. R., & MacDonald, M. C. (2003). Conflicting cues and competition in subject–verb agreement. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 760778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. (1991). On (in)definite articles: Implicatures and (un)grammaticaility predictions. Journal of Linguistics, 27, 405–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. (2004). Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, R., & Chan, C. Y.-H. (1997). The partial availability of Universal Grammar in second language acquisition: The ‘failed functional features hypothesis’. Second Language Research, 13, 187226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hermans, D., Bongaerts, T., de Bot, K., & Schreuder, R. (1998). Producing words in a foreign language: Can speakers prevent interference from their first language? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1, 213229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopp, H. (2012). The on-line integration of inflection in L2 processing: Predictive processing of German gender. In Biller, A. K., Chung, E. Y. & Kimball, A. E. (eds.), Proceedings of the 36th Boston University Conference on Language Development (BUCLD 36), pp. 226245. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Huebner, T. (1983). A longitudinal analysis of the acquisition of English. Ann Arbor, MI: Karoma.Google Scholar
Ionin, T., Ko, H., & Wexler, K. (2004). Article semantics in L2 acquisition: The role of specificity. Language Acquisition, 12, 370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, C. N. (2007). The use and non-use of semantic information, word order, and case marking during comprehension by L2 learners of German. Modern Language Journal, 91, 418432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, C. N., & Dussias, P. E. (2009). Cross-linguistic differences and their impact on L2 sentence processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12, 6582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarvis, S. (2002). Topic continuity in L2 English article use. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 387418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jiang, N. (2004). Morphological insensitivity in second language processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25, 603634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jiang, N. (2007). Selective integration of linguistic knowledge in adult second language acquisition. Language Learning, 57, 133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, J. S., & Newport, E. L. (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, 6099.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kamide, Y., Altmann, G. T. M., & Haywood, S. L. (2003). Prediction and thematic information in incremental sentence processing: Evidence from anticipatory eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 133156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaushanskaya, M., & Marian, V. (2007). Bilingual language processing and interference in bilinguals: Evidence from eye tracking and picture naming. Language Learning, 57, 119163.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, 119135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kroll, J. F., Sumutka, B. M., & Schwartz, A. I. (2005). A cognitive view of the bilingual lexicon: Reading and speaking words in two languages. The International Journal of Bilingualism, 9, 2748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroll, J. F., & Stewart, E. (1994). Category interference in translation and picture naming: Evidence for asymmetric connections between bilingual memory representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 149174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lardiere, D. (1998). Dissociating syntax from morphology in a divergent L2 end-state grammar. Second Language Research, 14, 359375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lardiere, D. (2004). Knowledge of definiteness despite variable article omission in SLA. In Brugos, E. A., Micciulla, L. & Smith, C. E. (eds.), Proceedings of the 28th Boston University Conference on Language Development (BUCLD 28), pp. 328–229. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Press.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, 447464.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lu, C. F.-C. (2001). The acquisition of English articles by Chinese learners. Second Language Studies, 20, 4378.Google Scholar
Luk, Z. P., & Shirai, Y. (2009). Is the acquisition order of grammatical morphemes impervious to L1 knowledge? Evidence from the acquisition of plural -s, articles and possessive 's . Language Learning, 59, 721754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, C. G. (1999). Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics (vol. 2). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (1987). The competition model. In MacWhinney, B. (ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition, pp. 249308. Mahwah, NJ. Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2005). A unified model of language acquisition. In Kroll, J. F. & de Groot, A. M. B. (eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches, pp. 4967. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B., & Bates, E. (1989). The crosslinguistic study of sentence processing. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Marian, V., & Spivey, M. (2003). Bilingual and monolingual processing of competing lexical items. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24, 173193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marian, V., Spivey, M., & Hirsch, J. (2003). Shared and separate systems in bilingual language processing: Converging evidence from eyetracking and brain imaging. Brain and Language, 86, 7082.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Master, P. (1990). Teaching English articles as a binary system. TESOL Quarterly, 24, 461478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matin, E., Shao, K., & Boff, K. (1993). Saccadic overhead: Information processing time with and without saccades. Perception & Psychophysics, 53, 372380.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morgan-Short, K., Sanz, C., Steinhauer, K., & Ullman, M. T. (2010). Second language acquisition of gender agreement in explicit and implicit training conditions: An event-related potential study. Language Learning, 60, 154193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muñoz, C. (2008). Symmetries and asymmetries of age effects in naturalistic and instructed L2 learning. Applied Linguistics, 29, 578596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Odlin, T. (1989). Language transfer: Cross-linguistic influences in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ojima, S., Nakata, H., & Kakigi, R. (2005). An ERP study of second language learning after childhood: Effects of proficiency. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17, 12121228.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perani, D., Paulesu, E., Galles, N. S., Dupoux, E., Dehaene, S., Bettinardi, V., Cappa, S. F., Fazio, F., & Mehler, J. (1998). The bilingual brain: Proficiency and age of acquisition of the second language. Brain, 121, 18411852.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prévost, P., & White, L. (2000). Missing surface inflection or impairment in second language acquisition? Evidence from tense and agreement. Second Language Research, 16, 103133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quick Placement Test (2001). CD ROM Pack. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Ringbom, H. (1987). The role of the first language in foreign language learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Roberts, L. (2012). Review article: Psycholinguistic techniques and resources in second language acquisition research. Second Language Research, 28, 113127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, L., Gullberg, M., & Indefrey, P. (2008). Online pronoun resolution in L2 discourse: L1 influence and general learner effects. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 333357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, D. (2000). Variability in the use of the English article system by Chinese learners of English. Second Language Research, 16, 135172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabourin, L. (2003). Grammatical gender and second language processing: An ERP study. Ph.D. dissertation, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.Google Scholar
Sabourin, L., Stowe, L. A., & de Haan, G. J. (2006). Transfer effects in learning an L2 grammatical gender system. Second Language Research, 22, 129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanders, L. D., & Neville, H. J. (2003). An ERP study of continuous speech processing II: Segmentation, semantics, and syntax in non-native speakers. Cognitive Brain Research, 15, 215227.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sanders, L. D., Neville, H. J., & Woldorff, M. G. (2002). Speech segmentation by native speakers: The use of lexical, syntactic, and stress-pattern cues. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 45, 519530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scherag, A., Demuth, L., Rösler, F., Neville, H. J., & Röder, B. (2004). The effects of late acquisition of L2 and the consequences of immigration on L1 for semantic and morpho-syntactic language aspects. Cognition, 93, B97B108.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sharwood Smith, M. A. (1980). Strategies, language transfer and the simulations of learners’ mental operations. Language Learning, 29, 345361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spivey, M., & Marian, V. (1999). Crosstalk between native and second languages: Partial activation of an irrelevant lexicon. Psychological Science, 10, 281284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steinhauer, K., White, E. J., & Drury, J. E. (2009). Temporal dynamics of late second language acquisition: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Second Language Research, 25, 1341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Su, I.-R. (2001a). Transfer of sentence processing strategies: A comparison of L2 learners of Chinese and English. Applied Psycholinguistics, 22, 83112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Su, I.-R. (2001b). Context effects on sentence processing: A study based on the Competition Model. Applied Psycholinguistics, 22, 167189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swain, M. K. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In Gass, S. M. & Madden, C.G. (eds.), Input in second language acquisition, pp. 236244. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Tarone, E. (1985). Variability in interlanguage use: A study of style-shifting in morphology and syntax. Language Learning, 35, 373404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, M. (1989). The acquisition of English articles by first and second language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 10, 335355.CrossRefGoogle 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, 173204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tolentino, L. C., & Tokowicz, N. (2011). Across languages, space and time: A review of the role of cross-language similarity in L2 (morpho)syntactic processing as revealed by fMRI and ERP methods. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33, 91125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trenkic, D. (2002). Form–meaning connections in the acquisition of English articles. In Foster-Cohen, S., Ruthenberg, T. & Poschen, M. L. (eds.), EUROSLA Yearbook (vol. 2), pp. 115133. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Trenkic, D. (2007). Variability in L2 article production: Beyond the representational deficit vs. processing constraints debate. Second Language Research, 23, 289327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trenkic, D. (2008). The representation of English articles in second language grammars: Determiners or adjectives? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 11, 118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trenkic, D. (2009). Accounting for patterns of article omissions and substitutions in second language production. In García Mayo, M. P. & Hawkins, R. (eds.), Second language acquisition of articles: Empirical findings and theoretical implications, pp. 115143. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trenkic, D., & Pongpairoj, N. (2013). Referent salience affects second language article use. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16, 152166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Hell, J. G., & Tokowicz, N. (2010). Event-related brain potentials and second language learning: Syntactic processing in late L2 learners at different L2 proficiency levels. Second Language Research, 26, 4374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction: Theory and research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (2002). Processing instruction: An update. Language Learning, 52, 755803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B., & Cadierno, T. (1993). Explicit instruction and input processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 225243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, A., & Cutler, , , A. (2004). Lexical competition in non-native spoken-word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 50, 125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber-Fox, C. M., & Neville, H. J. (1996). Maturational constraints on functional specializations for language processing: ERP and behavioral evidence in bilingual speakers. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 8, 231–156.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
White, L. (2003). Fossilization in steady state L2 grammars: Persistent problems with inflectional morphology. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 6, 129141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, F. (2009). Processing at the syntax–discourse interface in second language acquisition. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Young, R. (1996). Form–function relations in articles in English interlanguage. In Bayley, R. & Preston, D. R. (eds.), Second language acquisition and linguistic variation, pp. 135175. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Žegarac, V. (2004). Relevance theory and ‘the’ in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 20, 193211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
33
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.

Real-time grammar processing by native and non-native speakers: Constructions unique to the second language*
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.

Real-time grammar processing by native and non-native speakers: Constructions unique to the second language*
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.

Real-time grammar processing by native and non-native speakers: Constructions unique to the second language*
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? *