Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-9nbrm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-20T15:30:25.398Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

GAPS IN SECOND LANGUAGE SENTENCE PROCESSING

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 February 2005

Theodore Marinis ,
Leah Roberts ,
Claudia Felser  and
Harald Clahsen
Theodore Marinis
Affiliation:
University of Essex
Leah Roberts
Affiliation:
University of Essex
Claudia Felser
Affiliation:
University of Essex
Harald Clahsen
Affiliation:
University of Essex
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Four groups of second language (L2) learners of English from different language backgrounds (Chinese, Japanese, German, and Greek) and a group of native speaker controls participated in an online reading time experiment with sentences involving long-distance wh-dependencies. Although the native speakers showed evidence of making use of intermediate syntactic gaps during processing, the L2 learners appeared to associate the fronted wh-phrase directly with its lexical subcategorizer, regardless of whether the subjacency constraint was operative in their native language. This finding is argued to support the hypothesis that nonnative comprehenders underuse syntactic information in L2 processing.Theodore Marinis is now working at the Centre for Developmental Language Disorders and Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London, and Leah Roberts is at the Max-Planck-Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen. The research reported here was supported by the Leverhulme Trust (grant no. F/00 213B to H. Clahsen, C. Felser, and R. Hawkins), which is gratefully acknowledged. We thank Bob Borsley, Roger Hawkins, Andrew Radford, the audiences at EUROSLA 12, the 24th Deutsche Gesellschaft für Sprachwissenschaft Meeting, the 27th annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, EUROSLA 13, three anonymous SSLA reviewers for helpful comments and discussion, and Ritta Husted and Michaela Wenzlaff for helping with the data collection. We also wish to thank Ted Gibson and Tessa Warren for making their prepublication manuscript available to us.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 27 , Issue 1 , March 2005 , pp. 53 - 78
Copyright
© 2005 Cambridge University Press

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

Allen, D. (1992). The Oxford Placement Test. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Baumann, H., Nagengast, J., & Klaas, G. (1993). New Experimental Setup (NESU). Unpublished manuscript, Max-Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Bever, T. G., & McElree, B. (1988). Empty categories access their antecedents during comprehension. Linguistic Inquiry, 19, 35–43.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1973). Conditions on transformations. In S. R. Anderson & P. Kiparsky (Eds.), A festschrift for Morris Halle (pp. 232–286). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In R. Martin, D. Michaels, & J. Uriagereka (Eds.), Step by step (pp. 89–155). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Clahsen, H., & Featherston, S. (1999). Antecedent priming at trace positions: Evidence from German scrambling. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 28, 415–437.Google Scholar
Clifton, C., & Frazier, L. (1989). Comprehending sentences with long-distance dependencies. In G. M. Carlson & M. K. Tanenhaus (Eds.), Linguistic structure in language processing (pp. 273–317). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Crocker, M. (1996). Computational psycholinguistics. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Featherston, S. (2001). Empty categories in sentence processing. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
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
Fiebach, C. J., Schlesewsky, M., & Friederici, A. D. (2002). Separating syntactic memory costs and syntactic integration costs during parsing: The processing of German wh-questions. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 250–272.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. D. (1978). Parsing strategies and constraints on transformations. Linguistic Inquiry, 9, 427–473.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. D. (1995). Comprehending sentence structure. In L. R. Gleitman & M. Liberman (Eds.), An invitation to cognitive science: Vol. 1. Language (2nd ed., pp. 209–246). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Frazier, L., & Clifton, C. (1989). Successive cyclicity in the grammar and the parser. Language and Cognitive Processes, 4, 93–126.Google Scholar
Frenck-Mestre, C. (2002). An on-line look at sentence processing in the second language. In R. R. Heredia & J. Altarriba (Eds.), Bilingual sentence processing (pp. 217–236). New York: Elsevier.
Frenck-Mestre, C., & Pynte, J. (1997). Syntactic ambiguity resolution while reading in second and native languages. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 50, 119–148.Google Scholar
Friederici, A. (2002). Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 78–84.Google Scholar
Garnsey, S., Pearlmutter, N., Myers, E., & Lotocky, M. (1997). The contribution of verb bias and plausibility to the comprehension of temporarily ambiguous sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 58–93.Google Scholar
Gazdar, G., Klein, E., Pullum, G., & Sag, I. (1985). Generalized phrase structure grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.
Gibson, E. (1998). Syntactic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68, 1–75.Google Scholar
Gibson, E., & Warren, T. (2004). Reading-time evidence for intermediate linguistic structure in long-distance dependencies. Syntax, 7, 55–78.Google Scholar
Hahne, A. (2001). What's different in second-language processing? Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 30, 251–266.Google Scholar
Hahne, A., & Friederici, A. (2001). Processing a second language: Late learners' comprehension mechanisms as revealed by event-related brain potentials. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4, 123–141.Google Scholar
Hawkins, R. (2001). Second language syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.
Isel, F. (2002, March). Auditory processing of German sentences by French late bilinguals: Neurodynamics of syntactic and semantic processes. Paper presented at the 24th annual meeting of the German Linguistics Society (DGfS), Mannheim, Germany.
Juffs, A. (1998). Main verb versus reduced relative clause ambiguity resolution in second language sentence processing. Language Learning, 48, 107–147.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
Juffs, A., & Harrington, M. (1996). Garden path sentences and error data in second language sentence processing. Language Learning, 46, 283–326.Google Scholar
Just, M., Carpenter, P., & Woolley, J. (1982). Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 111, 228–238.Google Scholar
King, J. W., & Just, M. A. (1991). Individual differences in syntactic processing: The role of working memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 580–602.Google Scholar
King, J. W., & Kutas, M. (1995). Who did what and when? Using word- and clause-level ERPs to monitor working memory usage in reading. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 7, 376–395.Google Scholar
Kluender, R., & Kutas, M. (1993). Bridging the gap: Evidence from ERPs on the processing of unbounded dependencies. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 5, 196–214.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
Levine, R., & Hukari, T. (2004). The unity of unbounded dependencies. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
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, 5–24.Google Scholar
Nakano, Y., Felser, C., & Clahsen, H. (2002). Antecedent priming at trace positions in Japanese long-distance scrambling. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 31, 531–571.Google Scholar
Nicol, J. L. (1993). Reconsidering reactivation. In G. Altmann & R. Shillcock (Eds.), Cognitive models of speech processing: The second Sperlonga meeting (pp. 321–350). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Nicol, J. L., & Swinney, D. (1989). The role of structure in coreference assignment during sentence comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18, 5–20.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, 25, 501–528.Google Scholar
Pickering, M. (1999). Sentence comprehension. In S. Garrod & M. Pickering (Eds.), Language processing (pp. 123–153). Hove, East Sussex, UK: Psychology Press.
Pickering, M., & Barry, G. (1991). Sentence processing without empty categories. Language and Cognitive Processes, 6, 229–259.Google Scholar
Pickering, M., Barton, S., & Shillcock, R. (1994). Unbounded dependencies, island constraints, and processing complexity. In C. Clifton, L. Frazier, & K. Rayner (Eds.), Perspectives on sentence processing (pp. 199–224). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pollard, C., & Sag, I. A. (1994). Head-driven phrase structure grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Roberts, L. (2003). Syntactic processing in learners of English. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Essex, Colchester, United Kingdom.
Sag, I. A., & Fodor, J. D. (1995). Extraction without traces. In R. Aranovich, W. Byrne, S. Preuss, & M. Senturia (Eds.), Proceedings of the 13th annual meeting of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp. 365–384). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Stowe, L. (1986). Parsing wh-constructions: Evidence for on-line gap location. Language and Cognitive Processes, 1, 227–245.Google Scholar
White, L., & Juffs, A. (1998). Constraints on wh-movement in two different contexts of non-native language acquisition: Competence and processing. In S. Flynn, G. Martohardjono, & W. O'Neil (Eds.), The generative study of second language acquisition (pp. 111–130). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Watanabe, A. (2001). Wh-in-situ languages. In M. Baltin & C. Collins (Eds.), The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory (pp. 203–225). Oxford: Blackwell.
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