Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-fx4k7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-16T16:43:13.683Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

NUMBER ATTRACTION EFFECTS IN NEAR-NATIVE SPANISH SENTENCE COMPREHENSION

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 October 2014

Jill Jegerski
Jill Jegerski*
Affiliation:
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jill Jegerski, Department of Spanish and Portuguese, University of Illinois, MC-176, 707 South Mathews Avenue Urbana, IL 61801. E-mail: jegerski@illinois.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Grammatical agreement phenomena such as verbal number have long been of fundamental interest in the study of second language (L2) acquisition. Previous research from the perspective of sentence processing has documented nativelike behavior among nonnative participants but has also relied almost exclusively on grammar violation paradigms. The present investigation examined the online comprehension of subject-verb number agreement by native and nonnative speakers of Mexican Spanish using the more subtle agreement attraction paradigm, with stimuli grammatical in both conditions, in addition to a nonlocal grammaticality paradigm. The results of a self-paced reading experiment confirmed that nonnatives can acquire nativelike online sensitivity to verbal number agreement, even without grammar errors, and that such sensitivity develops only at very high levels of L2 proficiency.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 38 , Issue 1 , March 2016 , pp. 5 - 33
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

Acuña-Fariña, J. C., Meseguer, E., & Carreiras, M. (2014). Gender and number agreement in comprehension in Spanish. Lingua, 143, 108–128.Google Scholar
Bergen, L., & Gibson, E. (2012, March). Agreement errors as rational encoding errors. Poster presented at the 25th annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, New York, NY.Google Scholar
Bock, J. K., Carreiras, M., & Meseguer, E. (2012). Number meaning and number grammar in English and Spanish. Journal of Memory and Language, 66, 17–37.Google Scholar
Bock, J. K., & Eberhard, K. M. (1993). Meaning, sound, and syntax in English number agreement. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 57–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bock, J. K., & Miller, C. A. (1991). Broken agreement. Cognitive Psychology, 23, 45–93.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006a). Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 3–42.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006b). How native-like is nonnative language processing? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 564–570.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., Felser, C., Neubauer, K., Sato, M., & Silva, R. (2010). Morphological structure in native and nonnative language processing. Language Learning, 60, 21–43.Google Scholar
Coughlin, C., & Tremblay, A. (2013). Proficiency and working memory based explanations for nonnative speakers’ sensitivity to agreement in sentence processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 34, 615–646.Google Scholar
Eberhard, K. M. (1999). The accessibility of conceptual number to the processes of subject-verb agreement in English. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 560–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eberhard, K. M., Cutting, J. C., & Bock, K. (2005). Making syntax of sense: Number agreement in sentence production. Psychological Review, 112, 531–559.Google Scholar
Foote, R. (2010). Age of acquisition and proficiency as factors in language production: Agreement in bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13, 99–118.Google Scholar
Foote, R. (2011). Integrated knowledge of agreement in early and late English–Spanish bilinguals. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32, 187–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foote, R., & Bock, K. (2012). The role of morphology in subject-verb number agreement: A comparison of Mexican and Dominican Spanish. Language and Cognitive Processes, 27, 429–461.Google Scholar
Frenck-Mestre, C., & Pynte, J. (1997). Syntactic ambiguity resolution while reading in second and native languages. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Section A, 50, 119–148.Google Scholar
Hopp, H. (2006). Syntactic features and reanalysis in near-native processing. Second Language Research, 22, 369–397.Google Scholar
Hopp, H. (2010). Ultimate attainment in L2 inflection: Performance similarities between non-native and native speakers. Lingua, 120, 901–931.Google Scholar
Hoshino, N., Dussias, P. E., & Kroll, J. F. (2010). Processing subject-verb agreement in a second language depends on proficiency. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13, 87–98.Google Scholar
Instituto Cervantes. (2007). Diplomas de Español como Lengua Extranjera: Nivel Superior [Certificates of Spanish as a foreign language: Superior level] [Spanish language test]. Retrieved fromhttp://diplomas.cervantes.es/en/general-information/level-c2.htmlGoogle Scholar
Jackson, C. N. (2010). The processing of subject-object ambiguities by English and Dutch L2 learners of German. In VanPatten, B. & Jegerski, J. (Eds.), Research in second language processing and parsing (pp. 207–230). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jiang, N. (2004). Morphological insensitivity in second language processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25, 603–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jiang, N. (2007). Selective integration of linguistic knowledge in adult second language learning. Language Learning, 57, 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jiang, N., Novokshanova, E., Masuda, K., & Wang, X. (2011). Morphological congruency and the acquisition of L2 morphemes. Language Learning, 61, 940–967.Google Scholar
Juffs, A. (1998). Some effects of first language argument structure and syntax on second language processing. Second Language Research, 14, 406–424.Google Scholar
Leeser, M., Brandl, A., & Weissglass, C. (2011). Task effects in second language sentence processing research. In Trofimovich, P. & McDonough, K. (Eds.), Applying priming methods to L2 learning, teaching, and research: Insights from psycholinguistics (pp. 179–198). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marian, V., Blumenfeld, H. K., & Kaushanskaya, M. (2007). The language experience and proficiency questionnaire (LEAP-Q): Assessing language profiles in bilinguals and multilinguals. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50, 940–967.Google Scholar
Montrul, S., & Slabakova, R. (2003). Competence similarities between native and near-native speakers: An investigation of the preterite-imperfect contrast in Spanish. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 351–398.Google Scholar
Nicol, J., Forster, K. I., & Veres, C. (1997). Subject-verb agreement processes in comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 569–587.Google 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, 1212–1228.Google Scholar
Osterhout, L., Allen, M. D., McLaughlin, J., & Inoue, K. (2002). Brain potentials elicited by prose-embedded linguistic anomalies. Memory & Cognition, 30, 1304–1312.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pearlmutter, N. J., Garnsey, S. M., & Bock, K. (1999). Agreement processes in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 427–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1998). Language processing and second language development: Processability theory. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Rossi, S., Gugler, M. F., Friederici, A. D., & Hahne, A. (2006). The impact of proficiency on syntactic second-language processing of German and Italian: Evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 2030–2048.Google Scholar
Sagarra, N., & Herschensohn, J. (2011). Asymmetries in gender and number agreement processing in late bilinguals. In Ortiz-López, L. A. (Ed.), Selected proceedings of the 13th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium (pp. 169–177). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Segalowitz, N. (2003). Automaticity and second languages. In Doughty, C. & Long, M. (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 382–388). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sorace, A. (2005). Syntactic optionality at interfaces. In Cornips, L. & Corrigan, K. (Eds.), Syntax and variation: Reconciling the biological and the social (pp. 46–111). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Benjamins.Google Scholar
SuperLab (Version 4.0.5) [Computer software]. San Pedro, CA: Cedrus Corporation.Google Scholar
Tanner, D., Inoue, K., & Osterhout, L. (2014). Brain-based individual differences in on-line L2 grammatical comprehension. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17, 277–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanner, D., Nicol, J., Herschensohn, J., & Osterhout, L. (2012). Electrophysiological markers of interference and structural facilitation in native and nonnative agreement processing. In Biller, A. K., Chung, E. Y., & Kimball, A. E. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 36th Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 594–606). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Tanner, D., Osterhout, L., & Herschensohn, J. (2009). Snapshots of grammaticalization: Differential electrophysiological responses to grammatical anomalies with increasing L2 exposure. In Chandlee, J., Franchini, M., Lord, S., & Rheiner, G.-M. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 528–539). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction: Theory and research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (2007). Input processing in adult second language acquisition. In VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Vigliocco, G., Butterworth, B., & Garrett, M. F. (1996). Subject-verb agreement in Spanish and English: Differences in the role of conceptual constraints. Cognition, 61, 261–298.Google Scholar
Vigliocco, G., Butterworth, B., & Semenza, C. (1995). Constructing subject-verb agreement in speech: The role of semantic and morphological factors. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 186–215.Google Scholar
Vigliocco, G., & Franck, J. (1999). When sex and syntax go hand in hand: Gender agreement in language production. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 455–478.Google Scholar
Vigliocco, G., & Franck, J. (2001). When sex affects syntax: Contextual influences in sentence production. Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 368–390.Google Scholar
Vigliocco, G., Hartsuiker, R. J., Jarema, G., & Kolk, H. H. (1996). One or more labels on the bottles? Notional concord in Dutch and French. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 407–442.Google Scholar
Wagers, M. W., Lau, E. F., & Phillips, C. (2009). Attraction in comprehension: Representations and processes. Journal of Memory and Language, 61, 206–237.Google 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, 419–456.Google Scholar