Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-6mz5d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-16T07:42:59.422Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Deeper than shallow: Evidence for structure-based parsing biases in second-language sentence processing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2011

JEFFREY WITZEL ,
NAOKO WITZEL  and
JANET NICOL
JEFFREY WITZEL*
Affiliation:
University of Arizona and University of Texas at Arlington
NAOKO WITZEL
Affiliation:
University of Arizona and University of Texas at Arlington
JANET NICOL
Affiliation:
University of Arizona
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Jeffrey Witzel, Department of Linguistics & TESOL, University of Texas at Arlington, Box 19559, 403 Hammond Hall, Arlington, TX 76019. E-mail: jeffrey.witzel@uta.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study examines the reading patterns of native speakers (NSs) and high-level (Chinese) nonnative speakers (NNSs) on three English sentence types involving temporarily ambiguous structural configurations. The reading patterns on each sentence type indicate that both NSs and NNSs were biased toward specific structural interpretations. These results are interpreted as evidence that both first-language and second-language (L2) sentence comprehension is guided (at least in part) by structure-based parsing strategies and, thus as counterevidence to the claim that NNSs are largely limited to rudimentary (or “shallow”) syntactic computation during online L2 sentence processing.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 33 , Issue 2 , April 2012 , pp. 419 - 456
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Altmann, G. T. M., Garnham, A., & Dennis, Y. (1992). Avoiding the garden path: Eye movements in context. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 685–712.Google Scholar
Altmann, G. T. M., van Nice, K. Y., Garnham, A., & Henstra, J.-A. (1998). Late closure in context. Journal of Memory and Language, 38, 459–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balota, D. A., Pollatsek, A., & Rayner, K. (1985). The interaction of contextual constraints and parafoveal visual information in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 17, 364–390.Google Scholar
Barto-Sisamout, K., Nicol, J., Witzel, J., & Witzel, N. (2009). Transfer effects in bilingual sentence processing. Arizona Working Papers in SLA and Teaching, 16, 1–26.Google Scholar
Bever, T. (1970). The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In Hayes, J. R. (Ed.), Cognition and the development of language (pp. 279–362). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Brysbaert, M., & Mitchell, D. C. (1996). Modifier attachment in sentence processing: Evidence from Dutch. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49A, 664–695.Google Scholar
Cai, Z. (2009). Processing Chinese relative clauses with two attachment sites: Initial resolution and the course of reanalysis. Unpublished manuscript, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Carreiras, M., & CliftonC., Jr. C., Jr. (1993). Relative clause interpretation preferences in Spanish and English. Language and Speech, 36, 353–372.Google Scholar
Carreiras, M., & CliftonC., Jr. C., Jr. (1999). Another word on parsing relative clauses: Eyetracking evidence from Spanish and English. Memory & Cognition, 27, 826–833.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006a). Continuity and shallow structures in language processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 107–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006b). Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 3–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006c). How native-like is non-native language processing? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 564–570.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cole, P., Hermon, G., & Sung, L.-M. (1990). Principles and parameters of long-distance reflexives. Linguistic Inquiry, 21, 1–22.Google Scholar
Cole, P., & Sung, L.-M. (1994). Head movement and long distance reflexives. Linguistic Inquiry, 25, 355–406.Google Scholar
Cook, V. (1997). The consequences of bilingualism for cognitive processing. In de Groot, A. M. B. & Kroll, J. F. (Eds.), Tutorials in bilingualism (pp. 279–299). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Cuetos, F., & Mitchell, D. (1988). Cross-linguistic differences in parsing: Restrictions on the use of the Late Closure strategy in Spanish. Cognition, 30, 73–105.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dussias, P. (2001). Sentence parsing in fluent Spanish–English bilinguals. In Nicol, J. (Ed.), One mind, two languages: Bilingual language processing (pp. 159–176). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Dussias, P. (2003). Syntactic ambiguity resolution in L2 learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 529–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dussias, P. E., & Cramer Scaltz, T. R. (2008). Spanish–English L2 speakers' use of subcategorization bias information in the resolution of temporary ambiguity during second language reading. Acta Psychologica, 128, 501–513.Google Scholar
Dussias, P. E., & Sagarra, N. (2007). The effect of exposure on syntactic parsing in Spanish–English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10, 101–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felser, C., & Roberts, L. (2007). Processing wh-dependencies in a second language: A cross-modal priming study. Second Language Research, 23, 9–36.CrossRefGoogle 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
Fernández, E. (2003). Bilingual sentence processing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ferreira, F. (2003). The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 47, 164–203.Google Scholar
Fernández, E. M. (2002). Relative clause attachment in bilinguals and monolinguals. In Heredia, R. R. & Altarriba, J. (Eds.), Bilingual sentence processing (pp. 187–215). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Ferreira, F., & Patson, N. (2007). The good enough approach to language comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1, 71–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J. D. (1998). Learning to parse. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 27, 285–319.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. D. (2002). Prosodic disambiguation in silent reading. In Hirotani, M. (Ed.), NELS (Vol. 32, pp. 113–132). Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
Frazier, L. (1979). On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Frazier, L. (1987a). Sentence processing: A tutorial review. In Coltheart, M. (Ed.), Attention and performance XII: The psychology of reading (pp. 601–681). Hove: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Frazier, L. (1987b). Syntactic processing: Evidence from Dutch. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 5, 519–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frazier, L., & CliftonC., Jr. C., Jr. (1996). Construal. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Frazier, L., & CliftonC., Jr. C., Jr. (1997). Construal: Overview, motivation, and some new evidence. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 26, 277–295.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frazier, L., & Fodor, J. D. (1978). The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition, 6, 291–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1982). Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 178–210.Google Scholar
Frenck-Mestre, C. (1999). Examining second language reading: An on-line look. In Sorace, A., Heycock, C., & Shillcock, R. (Eds.), Language acquisition: Knowledge representation and processing (pp. 474–478). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Frenck-Mestre, C. (2002). An on-line look at sentence processing in the second language. In Heredia, R. R. & Altarriba, J. (Eds.), Bilingual sentence processing (pp. 217–236). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Frenck-Mestre, C., & Pynte, J. (1997). Syntactic ambiguity resolution while reading in a second and native language. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 50A, 119–148.Google Scholar
Frenck-Mestre, C., & Pynte, J. (2000). Resolving syntactic ambiguities: Cross-linguistic differences? In de Vincenzi, M. & Lombardo, V. (Eds.), Cross-linguistic perspectives on language processing (pp. 119–148). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Gibson, E., & Pearlmutter, N. (1998). Constraints on sentence comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2, 262–268.Google Scholar
Gibson, E., Pearlmutter, N., Canseco-Gonzalez, E., & Hickok, G. (1996). Recency preference in the human sentence processing mechanism: Evidence from English and Spanish. Cognition, 59, 23–59.Google Scholar
Gilboy, E., Sopena, J., Clifton, C., & Frazier, L. (1995). Argument structure and association preferences in Spanish and English compound NPs. Cognition, 54, 131–167.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. & Morgan, G. (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 3. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Guillelmon, D., & Grosjean, F. (2001). The gender marking effect in spoken word recognition: The case of bilinguals. Memory & Cognition, 29, 503–511.Google Scholar
Hahne, A., & Friederici, A. D. (2001). Processing a second language: Later learners' comprehension mechanisms as revealed by event-related brain potentials. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4, 123–141.Google Scholar
Hemforth, B., Konieczny, L., & Scheepers, C. (2000). Syntactic attachment and anaphor resolution: Two sides of relative clause attachment. In Crocker, M., Pickering, M., & Clifton, C. (Eds.), Architectures and mechanisms for language processing (pp. 259–282). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hill, R. L., & Murray, W. S. (2000). Commas and spaces: Effects of punctuation on eye movements and sentence parsing. In Kennedy, A., Radach, R., Heller, D., & Pynte, J. (Eds.), Reading as a perceptual process (pp. 565–589). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Hoeks, J. C. J., Hendriks, P., Vonk, W., Brown, C. M., & Hagoort, P. (2006). Processing the noun phrase versus sentence coordination ambiguity: Thematic information does not completely eliminate processing difficulty. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 1581–1599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inoue, A., & Fodor, J. D. (1995). Information-paced parsing in Japanese. In Mazuka, R. & Nagai, N. (Eds.), Japanese sentence processing (pp. 9–63). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Jiang, N. (2004). Morphological insensitivity in second language processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25, 603–634.Google Scholar
Jiang, N. (2007). Selective integration of linguistic knowledge in adult second language learning. Language Learning, 57, 1–33.Google Scholar
Juffs, A. (1998a). Main verb vs. reduced relative clause ambiguity resolution in second language sentence processing. Language Learning, 48, 107–147.Google Scholar
Juffs, A. (1998b). Some effects of first language argument structure and syntax on second language processing. Second Language Research, 14, 406–424.Google Scholar
Juffs, A. (2004). Representation, processing, and working memory in a second language. Transactions of the Philological Society, 102, 199–225.Google Scholar
Juffs, A., & Harrington, M. (1996). Garden path sentences and error data in second language processing research. Language Learning, 46, 286–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kamide, Y. (2006). Incrementality in Japanese sentence processing. In Nakayama, M., Mazuka, R., & Shirai, Y. (Eds.), The handbook of East Asian psycholinguistics: Japanese (pp. 249–256). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kennedy, A., Murray, W., & Boissiere, C. (2004). Parafoveal pragmatics revisited. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 16, 128–153.Google Scholar
Kilborn, K. (1989). Sentence processing in a second language: The timing of transfer. Language and Speech, 32, 1–23.Google Scholar
Kilborn, K. (1992). On-line integration of grammatical information in a second language. In Harris, R. J. (Ed.), Cognitive processing in bilinguals (pp. 337–368). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Kimball, J. (1973). Seven principles of surface structure parsing in natural language. Cognition, 2, 15–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, R., & Nicol, J. (2010). Online processing of anaphora by advanced English learners. In Prior, M. T., Watanabe, Y., & Lee, S.-K. (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 2008 Second Language Research Forum (pp. 150–165). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). Syntactic ambiguity resolution as lexical ambiguity resolution. In Clifton, C., Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (Eds.), Perspectives on sentence processing (pp. 123–153). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1995). The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101, 676–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (1987). The competition model. In MacWhinney, B. (Ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition (pp. 249–308). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2002). Extending the competition model. In Heredia, R. R. & Altarriba, J. (Eds.), Bilingual sentence processing (pp. 31–57). Amsterdam: Elsevier.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McConkie, G. W., & Rayner, K. (1975). The span of the effective stimulus during a fixation in reading. Perception & Psychophysics, 17, 578–586.Google Scholar
Mitchell, D. C., & Cuetos, F. (1991). The origins of parsing strategies. In Smith, C. (Ed.), Current issues in natural language processing (pp. 1–12). Austin, TX: University of Texas, Center for Cognitive Science.Google Scholar
Mitchell, D. C., Cuetos, F., Corley, M. M. B., & Brysbaert, M. (1995). Exposure-based models of human parsing: Evidence for the use of coarse-grained (nonlexical) statistical records. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 24, 469–488.Google Scholar
Miyamoto, E. T. (2002). Case markers as clause boundary inducers in Japanese. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 31, 307–347.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
Pritchett, B. L. (1991). Head position and parsing ambiguity. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 20, 251–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 372–422.Google Scholar
Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (1989). The psychology of reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google ScholarPubMed
Rayner, K., & Sereno, S. C. (1994). Regressive eye movements and sentence parsing: On the use of regression contingent analyses. Memory & Cognition, 22, 281–285.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rayner, K., Well, A. D., Pollatsek, A., Bertera, J. H. (1982).The availability of useful information to the right of fixation in reading. Perception & Psychophysics, 31, 537–550.Google Scholar
Schafer, A., Carter, J., Clifton, C., & Frazier, L. (1996). Focus in relative clause construal. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 135–163.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: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Shen, X. (2006). Late assignment of syntax theory: Evidence from Chinese and English. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Exeter.Google Scholar
Soh, H. L. (1998). Object scrambling in Chinese. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Staub, A. (2010). Eye movements and processing difficulty in object relative clauses. Cognition, 116, 71–86.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., & CliftonC., Jr. C., Jr. (1998). Adjunct attachment is not a form of lexical ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 558–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trueswell, J., & Tanenhaus, M. (1994). Toward a lexicalist framework for constraint-based syntactic ambiguity resolution. In Clifton, C., Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (Eds.), Perspectives on sentence processing (pp. 155–179). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Warren, T., White, S. J., & Reichle, E. D. (2009). Investigating the causes of wrap-up effects: Evidence from eye movements and E-Z Reader. Cognition, 111, 132–137.Google Scholar
Witzel, J. D., & Witzel, N. O. (2011). The processing of Japanese control sentences. In Yamshita, H., Packard, J., & Hirose, Y. (Eds.), Processing and producing head-final structures (pp. 23–47). London: Springer.Google Scholar
Witzel, N., Witzel, J., & Forster, K. (in press). Comparisons of online reading paradigms: Eye tracking, moving window, and maze. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research.Google Scholar
Yuan, B. (1998). Interpretation of binding and orientation of the Chinese reflexive ziji by English and Japanese speakers. Second Language Research, 14, 324–340.Google Scholar
Zagar, D., Pynte, J., & Rativeau, S. (1997). Evidence for early closure attachment on first-pass reading times in French. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 50A, 421–438.Google Scholar