Hostname: page-component-86c4fcdb79-9svrh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-02-04T23:10:52.863Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

FILLER-GAP DEPENDENCIES AND ISLAND CONSTRAINTS IN SECOND-LANGUAGE SENTENCE PROCESSING

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 November 2011

Akira Omaki  and
Barbara Schulz
Akira Omaki*
Affiliation:
Johns Hopkins University
Barbara Schulz
Affiliation:
University of South Carolina
*
*Address correspondence to: Akira Omaki, Department of Cognitive Science, Johns Hopkins University, Room 237 Krieger Hall, 3400 North Charles Street, Baltimore, MD 21218; e-mail: omaki@cogsci.jhu.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Second-language (L2) sentence processing may differ from processing in a native language in a variety of ways, and it has been argued that one major difference is that L2 learners can only construct shallow representations that lack structural details (e.g., Clahsen & Felser, 2006). The present study challenges this hypothesis by comparing the extent to which advanced L1 Spanish-L2 English learners and English native speakers make use of the relative clause island constraint in constructing filler-gap dependencies. In offline acceptability judgment and online self-paced reading experiments that used stimuli adapted from Traxler and Pickering (1996), both the L2 group and the native-speaker control group demonstrated clear evidence for application of the relative clause island constraint. These findings suggest that advanced L2 learners not only build abstract structural representations but also rapidly constrain the active search for a gap location. These results cast doubt on the proposal that L2 learners are unable to build structural representations with grammatical precision.

Type
ARTICLES
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 33 , Issue 4 , December 2011 , pp. 563 - 588
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

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

Alexopoulou, T., & Keller, F. (2007). Locality, cyclicity, and resumption: At the interface between the grammar and the human sentence processor. Language, 83, 110–160.Google Scholar
Altmann, G. T. M. (1998). Ambiguity in sentence processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2, 146–152.Google Scholar
Aoshima, S., Phillips, C., & Weinberg, A. (2004). Processing filler-gap dependencies in a head-final language. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 23–54.Google Scholar
Belikova, A., & White, L. (2009). Evidence for the fundamental difference hypothesis or not? Island constraints revisited. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 199–223.Google Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R. (1990). The logical problem of foreign language learning. Linguistic Analysis, 20, 3–49.Google Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R. (2009). The evolving context of the fundamental difference hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 175–198.Google Scholar
Boeckx, C. (2008). Islands. Language and Linguistics Compass, 2, 151–167.Google Scholar
Brysbaert, M., & Mitchell, D. C. (1996). Modifier attachment in sentence processing: Evidence from Dutch. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49, 664–695.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1982). Some concepts and consequences of the theory of government and binding. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006). Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 3–42.Google Scholar
Crain, S., & Fodor, J. D. (1985). How can grammars help parsers? In Dowty, D., Kartunnen, L., & Zwicky, A. (Eds.), Natural language parsing: Psychological, computational and theoretical perspectives (pp. 94–128). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Culicover, P. W. (2001). Parasitic gaps: A history. In Culicover, P. W. & Postal, P. M. (Eds.), Parasitic gaps (pp. 3–68). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cunnings, I., Batterham, C., Felser, C., & Clahsen, H. (2009). Constraints on L2 learners’ processing of wh-dependencies. Evidence from eye movements. Essex Research Reports in Linguistics, 58, 1–24.Google Scholar
Dallas, A., & Kaan, E. (2008). Second language processing of filler-gap dependencies by late learners. Language and Linguistics Compass, 2, 372–388.Google Scholar
de Vincenzi, M. (1991). Syntactic parsing strategies in Italian. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Deane, P. D. (1991). Limits to attention: A cognitive theory of island phenomena. Cognitive Linguistics, 2, 1–63.Google Scholar
Dekydtspotter, L., Kim, B., Kim, H.-J., Wang, Y.-T., Kim, H.-K., & Lee, J. K. (2008). Intermediate traces and anaphora resolution in the processing of English as a second language. In Chan, H., Jacob, H., & Kapia, E. (Eds.), Proceedings of Boston University conference on language development 32 (Vol. 1, pp. 84–95). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Dekydtspotter, L., Schwartz, B., & Sprouse, R. (2006). The comparative fallacy in L2 processing research. In O’Brien, M. G., Shea, C., & Archibald, J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the generative approaches to second language acquisition conference 2006 (pp. 33–40). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Dussias, P., & Piñar, P. (2009). Sentence parsing in L2 learners: Linguistic and experienced- based factors. In Ritchie, W. C. & Bhatia, T. K. (Eds.), The new handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 296–318). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group.Google Scholar
Eckes, T., & Grotjahn, R. (2006). A closer look at the construct validity of C-tests. Language Testing, 23, 290–325.Google Scholar
Engdahl, E. (1983). Parasitic gaps. Linguistics and Philosophy, 6, 5–34.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.Google Scholar
Ferreira, F., & Patson, N. D. (2007). The ‘good enough’ approach to language comprehension. Language and Linguistic Compass, 1, 71–83.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. D. (2002). Prosodic disambiguation in silent reading. In Hirotani, M. (Ed.), Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 32 (pp. 113–132). Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Frazier, L. (1987). Syntactic processing: Evidence from Dutch. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 5, 519–559.Google Scholar
Frazier, L., & Clifton, C. (1989). Successive cyclicity in the grammar and the parser. Language and Cognitive Processes, 4, 93–126.Google Scholar
Frazier, L., & Clifton, C. (1996). Construal. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Garnsey, S. M., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Chapman, R. M. (1989). Evoked potentials and the study of sentence comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18, 51–60.Google Scholar
Gibson, E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68, 1– 76.Google Scholar
Gibson, E., & Pearlmutter, N. J. (1998). Constraints on sentence comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2, 262–268.Google Scholar
Gibson, E., & Thomas, J. (1999). Memory limitations and structural forgetting: The perception of complex ungrammatical sentences as grammatical. Language and Cognitive Processes, 14, 225–248.Google Scholar
Gibson, E., & Warren, T. (2004). Reading-time evidence for intermediate linguistic structure in long-distance dependencies. Syntax, 7, 55–78.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. (1999). Processing complexity and filler-gap dependencies across grammars. Language, 75, 244–285.Google Scholar
Hawkins, R., & Hattori, H. (2006). Interpretation of English multiple wh-questions by Japanese speakers: A missing uninterpretable feature account. Second Language Research, 22, 269–301.Google Scholar
Hofmeister, P., & Sag, I. (2010). Cognitive constraints on syntactic islands. Language, 86, 366– 415.Google Scholar
Hopp, H. (2007). Ultimate attainment at the interfaces in second language acquisition: Grammar and processing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Groningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Hopp, H. (2010). Ultimate attainment in L2 inflection: Performance similarities between non-native and native speakers. Lingua, 120, 901–931.Google Scholar
Inagaki, S. (2001). Motion verbs with goal PPs in the L2 acquisition of English and Japanese. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 153–170.Google Scholar
Jackson, C. N., & Bobb, S. C. (2009). The processing and comprehension of wh-questions among second language speakers of German. Applied Psycholinguistics, 30, 603–636.Google Scholar
Jackson, C. N., & Dussias, P. E. (2009). Cross-linguistic differences and their impact on L2 sentence processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12, 65–82.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
Juffs, A., & Harrington, M. (1995). Parsing effects in second language sentence processing: Subject and object asymmetries in wh-extraction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 483–516.Google Scholar
Just, M. A., Carpenter, P., & Wooley, J. D. (1982). Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 111, 228–238.Google Scholar
Kazanina, N., Lau, E. F., Lieberman, M., Yoshida, M., & Phillips, C. (2007). The effect of syntactic constraints on the processing of backwards anaphora. Journal of Memory and Language, 56, 384–409.Google Scholar
Kluender, R. (1998). On the distinction between strong and weak islands: A processing perspective. In Culicover, P. & McNally, L. (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: The limits of syntax (pp. 241–280). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kluender, R. (2004). Are subject islands subject to a processing account? In Chand, V., Kelleher, A., Rodriguez, A., & Schmeiser, B. (Eds.), Proceedings of the west coast conference on formal linguistics 23 (pp. 475–499). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Kluender, R., & Kutas, M. (1993). Subjacency as a processing phenomenon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 573–633.Google Scholar
Lee, M.-W. (2004). Another look at the role of empty categories in sentence processing (and grammar). Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 33, 51–73.Google Scholar
Li, X. (1998). Adult L2 accessibility to UG: An issue revisited. In Flynn, S., Martohardjono, G., & O’Neil, W. (Eds.), The generative study of second language acquisition (pp. 232–286). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Malchukov, A., Haspelmath, M., & Comrie, B. (Eds.) (2010). Studies in ditransitive constructions: A comparative handbook. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.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
Martohardjono, G., & Gair, J. (1993). Apparent UG accessibility in second language acquisition: Misapplied principles or principled misapplications. In Eckman, F. R. (Ed.), Confluence: Linguistics, L2 acquisition and speech pathology (pp. 79–103). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
McElree, B., & Griffith, T. (1998). Structural and lexical constraints on filling gaps during sentence comprehension: A time-course analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 24, 432–460.Google Scholar
McKoon, G., Ratcliff, R., & Ward, G. (1994). Testing theories of language processing: An empirical investigation of the on-line lexical decision task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 20, 1219–1228.Google Scholar
Miller, G., & Isard, S. (1964). Some perceptual consequences of linguistic rules. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 2, 217–228.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. (2000). Transitivity alternations in L2 acquisition toward a modular view of transfer. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 229–273.Google Scholar
Noveck, I. A. (2001). When children are more logical than adults: experimental investigations of scalar implicature. Cognition, 78, 165–188.Google Scholar
O’Grady, W. (2005). Syntactic carpentry: An emergentist approach to syntax. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Papadopoulou, D., & Clahsen, H. (2003). Parsing strategies in L1 and L2 sentence processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 501–528.Google Scholar
Phillips, C. (2006). The real-time status of island phenomena. Language, 82, 795–823.Google Scholar
Phillips, C., & Wagers, M. (2007). Relating structure and time in linguistics and psycholinguistics. In Gaskell, G. (Ed.), Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 739– 756). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pickering, M., & Barry, G. (1991). Sentence processing without empty categories. Language and Cognitive Processes, 6, 229–259.Google Scholar
Pickering, M., & Traxler, M. (2003). Evidence against the use of subcategorization frequency in the processing of unbounded dependencies. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18, 469–503.Google Scholar
Pritchett, B. L. (1992). Parsing with grammar: Islands, heads, and garden paths. In Goodluck, H. & Rochemont, M. (Eds.), Island constraints: Theory, acquisition, and processing (pp. 321–349). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
Rodríguez, G. A. (2008). Second language sentence processing: Is it fundamentally different? Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.Google Scholar
Rohde, D. (2003). Linger software [Computer software]. Retrieved August 1, 2007, fromhttp://tedlab.mit.edu/~dr/Linger/Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Schachter, J. (1990). On the issue of completeness in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 6, 93–124.Google Scholar
Schulz, B. (2006). Wh-scope marking in English interlanguage grammars: Transfer and processing effects on the second language acquisition of complex wh-questions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Hawai‘i, Honolulu.Google Scholar
Schütze, C. T. (1996). The empirical base of linguistics: Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. D. (1998). The second language instinct. Lingua, 106, 133–160.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J., Wagers, M., & Phillips, C. (in press). A test of the relation between working memory and syntactic island effects. Language.Google Scholar
Stowe, L. (1986). Evidence for on-line gap location. Language and Cognitive Processes, 1, 227– 245.Google Scholar
Sussman, R. S., & Sedivy, J. C. (2003). The time-course of processing syntactic dependencies: Evidence from eye movements. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18, 143–163.Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, A., & den Dikken, M. (2003). Islands. In Cheng, L. & Sybesma, R. (Eds.), The second glot international state-of-the-article book (pp. 213–240). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Tanenhaus, M. K., & Trueswell, J. C. (1995). Sentence comprehension. In Miller, J. & Eimas, P. (Eds.), Handbook of perception and cognition: Speech, language and communication (pp. 217–262). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Townsend, D. J., & Bever, T. G. (2001). Sentence comprehension: The integration of habits and rules. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Traxler, M. J., & Pickering, M. J. (1996). Plausibility and the processing of unbounded dependencies: An eye-tracking study. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 454–475.Google Scholar
Trueswell, J. C., Sekerina, I., Hill, N. H., & Logrip, L. (1999). The kindergarten-path effect: Studying on-line sentence processing in young children. Cognition, 73, 89–134.Google Scholar
Warren, T., & Gibson, E. (2002). The influence of referential processing on sentence complexity. Cognition, 85, 79–112.Google Scholar
White, L. (1988). Island effects in second language acquisition. In Flynn, S. & O’Neil, W. (Eds.), Linguistic theory in second language acquisition (pp. 144–172). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
White, L. (2003). Second language acquisition and Universal Grammar. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Whong-Barr, M., & Schwartz, B. D. (2002). Morphological and syntactic transfer in child L2 acquisition of the English dative alternation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 579–616.Google Scholar
Williams, J. N. (2006). Incremental interpretation in second language sentence processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 9, 71–88.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.Google Scholar
Yoshida, M. (2006). Constraints and mechanisms in long-distance dependency formation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.Google Scholar