Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

L2 Prediction during complex sentence processing

  • Research Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Cultural Cognitive Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Recent studies have found that proficient second language (L2) listeners are able to predict upcoming linguistic information to the same extent as first language (L1) listeners during simple sentence processing, particularly when semantic cues are given and/or few cognitive resources are required for language processing. These findings may suggest that L2 listeners use the same mechanisms as L1 listeners for prediction. Yet, it has not been fully specified under which conditions L2 listeners can use predictive mechanisms. To address this issue, we investigated whether advanced L2 listeners make predictions while processing more complex constructions that are cognitively more taxing. Specifically, we investigated prediction in sentences containing a relative clause that can modify either of two noun phrases. In an eye-tracking study using a visual world paradigm, L2 learners listened to sentences containing a semantically biasing verb or a neutral one (e.g., “I know the friend of the dancer that will open/get the present”). We measured L2 listeners’ prediction by comparing the fixations to target objects (e.g., present among non-openable objects) between the two experimental conditions. Results showed that L2 listeners, similar to L1 listeners, made significantly more anticipatory looks to the targets in the semantically biasing condition than in the neutral condition, though their prediction started a bit (180 ms) later than L1 listeners’ prediction. These findings suggest that L2 speakers can use prediction mechanisms even during complex sentence processing and provide further evidence for the claim that there is no fundamental difference between L1 and L2 speakers, but that cognitive resources matter for prediction.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allopenna, P. D., Magnuson, J. S., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1998). Tracking the time course of spoken word recognition using eye movements: evidence for continuous mapping models. Journal of Memory and Language,38(4), 419–439.

    Google Scholar 

  • Altmann, G. T., & Kamide, Y. (1999). Incremental interpretation at verbs: restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition,73(3), 247–264.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Barr, D. J. (2008). Analyzing ‘visual world’eyetracking data using multilevel logistic regression. Journal of Memory and Language,59(4), 457–474.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software,67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2016). Praat: doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Version 6.0.17, retrieved April 2016 from http://www.praat.org/. Accessed 22 Apr 2016.

  • Boland, J. E. (2005). Visual arguments. Cognition,95(3), 237–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2004.01.008.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Borovsky, A., Elman, J. L., & Fernald, A. (2012). Knowing a lot for one’s age: vocabulary skill and not age is associated with anticipatory incremental sentence interpretation in children and adults. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,112(4), 417–436.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google 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(4), 1029.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, F., Kidd, E., & Rowland, C. F. (2013). Prediction in processing is a by-product of language learning. Behavioral Brain Sciences,36(4), 350–351. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X12002518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, R. M. (1974). The control of eye fixation by the meaning of spoken language: a new methodology for the real-time investigation of speech perception, memory, and langauge processing. Cognitive Psychology,6(1), 84–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahan, D., Swingley, D., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Magnuson, J. S. (2000). Linguistic gender and spoken-word recognition in French. Journal of Memory and Language,42(4), 465–480.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeLong, K. A., Urbach, T. P., & Kutas, M. (2005). Probabilistic word pre-activation during language comprehension inferred from electrical brain activity. Nature Neuroscience,8(8), 1117–1121.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dijkgraaf, A., Hartsuiker, R., & Duyck, W. (2016). Predicting upcoming information in native-language and non-native-language auditory word recognition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition,20, 917.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dussias, P. E., Kroff, J. R. V., Tamargo, R. E. G., & Gerfen, C. (2013). When gender and looking go hand in hand. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,35(02), 353–387.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dussias, P. E., & Piñar, P. (2010). Effects of reading span and plausibility in the reanalysis of wh-gaps by Chinese-English second language speakers. Second Language Research,26(4), 443–472.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, E. M., Borovsky, A., Elman, J. L., & Evans, J. L. (2015). Novel word learning: an eye-tracking study. Are 18-month-old late talkers really different from their typical peers? Journal of Communication Disorders,58, 43–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erdocia, K., & Laka, I. (2018). Negative transfer effects on L2 word order processing. Frontiers in Psychology,9, 337.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Federmeier, K. D. (2007). Thinking ahead: the role and roots of prediction in language comprehension. Psychophysiology,44(4), 491–505. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2007.00531.x.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Federmeier, K. D., & Kutas, M. (1999). A rose by any other name: long-term memory structure and sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language,41(4), 469–495.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferretti, T. R., McRae, K., & Hatherell, A. (2001). Integrating verbs, situation schemas, and thematic role concepts. Journal of Memory and Language,44(4), 516–547.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucart, A., Martin, C. D., Moreno, E. M., & Costa, A. (2014). Can bilinguals see it coming? Word anticipation in L2 sentence reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,40(5), 1461.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, E., Desmet, T., Grodner, D., Watson, D., Ko, K. (2005). Reading relative clauses in English. Cognitive Linguistics, 16(2), 313–353.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hopp, H. (2010). Ultimate attainment in L2 inflection: performance similarities between non-native and native speakers. Lingua,120(4), 901–931.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hopp, H. (2013). Grammatical gender in adult L2 acquisition: relations between lexical and syntactic variability. Second Language Research,29(1), 33–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hopp, H. (2014). Working memory effects in the L2 processing of ambiguous relative clauses. Language Acquisition,21(3), 250–278.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hopp, H. (2016). Learning (not) to predict: grammatical gender processing in second language acquisition. Second Language Research,32(2), 277–307.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huettig, F. (2015). Four central questions about prediction in language processing. Brain Research,1626, 118–135.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Huettig, F., & Guerra, E. (2019). Effects of speech rate, preview time of visual context, and participant instructions reveal strong limits on prediction in language processing. Brain Research,1706, 196–208.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Huettig, F., & Janse, E. (2016). Individual differences in working memory and processing speed predict anticipatory spoken language processing in the visual world. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience,31(1), 80–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huettig, F., Rommers, J., & Meyer, A. S. (2011). Using the visual world paradigm to study language processing: a review and critical evaluation. Acta Psychologica (Amst),137(2), 151–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.11.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ito, A., Corley, M., & Pickering, M. J. (2018). A cognitive load delays predictive eye movements similarly during L1 and L2 comprehension. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition.,21(2), 251–264.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaan, E. (2014). Predictive sentence processing in L2 and L1: what is different? Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism,4(2), 257–282.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaan, E., Dallas, A., & Wijnen, F. (2010). Syntactic predictions in second-language sentence processing. Structure preserved. Festschrift in the honor of Jan Koster,29, 207–213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser, E., & Trueswell, J. C. (2004). The role of discourse context in the processing of a flexible word-order language. Cognition,94(2), 113–147.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kamide, Y. (2012). Learning individual talkers’ structural preferences. Cognition,124(1), 66–71.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kamide, Y., Altmann, G. T., & Haywood, S. L. (2003a). The time-course of prediction in incremental sentence processing: evidence from anticipatory eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language,49(1), 133–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamide, Y., Scheepers, C., & Altmann, G. T. (2003b). Integration of syntactic and semantic information in predictive processing: cross-linguistic evidence from German and English. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,32(1), 37–55.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J. H., & Christianson, K. (2017). Working memory effects on L1 and L2 processing of ambiguous relative clauses by Korean L2 learners of English. Second Language Research,33(3), 365–388.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knoeferle, P., Crocker, M. W., Scheepers, C., & Pickering, M. J. (2005). The influence of the immediate visual context on incremental thematic role-assignment: evidence from eye-movements in depicted events. Cognition,95(1), 95–127.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Koehne, J., & Crocker, M. W. (2014). The interplay of cross-situational word learning and sentence-level constraints. Cognitive Science,39(5), 849–889. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12178.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kukona, A., Fang, S.-Y., Aicher, K. A., Chen, H., & Magnuson, J. S. (2011). The time course of anticipatory constraint integration. Cognition,119(1), 23–42.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Kurumada, C., Brown, M., Bibyk, S., Pontillo, D. F., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2014). Is it or isn’t it: listeners make rapid use of prosody to infer speaker meanings. Cognition,133(2), 335–342.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Kutas, M., DeLong, K. A., & Smith, N. J. (2011). A look around at what lies ahead: Prediction and predictability in language processing. Predictions in the brain: using our past to generate a future,2011, 190207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kutas, M., & Federmeier, K. D. (2011). Thirty years and counting: finding meaning in the N400 component of the event-related brain potential (ERP). Annual Review of Psychology,62, 621–647.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. (2017). lmerTest package: tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software., 82(13), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laszlo, S., & Federmeier, K. D. (2009). A beautiful day in the neighborhood: an event-related potential study of lexical relationships and prediction in context. Journal of Memory and Language,61(3), 326–338.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  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(4), 447–464.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, L., Burchill, Z., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Jaeger, T. F. (2017). Failure to replicate talker-specific syntactic adaptation. In Proceedings of the 39th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2616–2621).

  • MacWhinney, B. (2005). A unified model of language acquisition Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches (p. 4967).

  • Mani, N., & Huettig, F. (2012). Prediction during language processing is a piece of cake–but only for skilled producers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,38(4), 843–847. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029284.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, C. D., Thierry, G., Kuipers, J.-R., Boutonnet, B., Foucart, A., & Costa, A. (2013). Bilinguals reading in their second language do not predict upcoming words as native readers do. Journal of Memory and Language,69(4), 574–588.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nakamura, C., Arai, M., & Mazuka, R. (2012). Immediate use of prosody and context in predicting a syntactic structure. Cognition,125(2), 317–323.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nieuwland, M., Politzer-Ahles, S., Heyselaar, E., Segaert, K., Darley, E., Kazanina, N., et al. (2017). Limits on prediction in language comprehension A multi-lab failure to replicate evidence for probabilistic pre-activation of phonology. BioRxiv,2017, 111807.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters, R. E., Gruter, T., & Borovsky, A. (2015). Anticipatory and locally coherent lexical activation varies as a function of language proficiency. In Proceedings of the Cognitive Science Society, (pp. 1865–1870).

  • Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2007). Do people use language production to make predictions during comprehension? Trends in Cognitive Sciences,11(3), 105–110.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2013). An integrated theory of language production and comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Sciences,36(4), 329–347. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X12001495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porretta, V., Kyröläinen, A., van Rij, J., & Järvikivi, J. (2017). VWPre: tools for preprocessing visual world data. R package version,1, 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • R Core Team. (2016). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.r-project.org/. Accessed 15 Mar 2016.

  • Ryskin, R. A., Qi, Z., Duff, M. & Brown-Schmidt, S. (2016). Constraints on adaptation to syntactic variability between and within speakers. Poster presented at the 29th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, Gainesville, FL.

  • Shipley, W. C. (1940). A self-administering scale for measuring intellectual impairment and deterioration. The Journal of Psychology,9(2), 371–377.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shook, A., Goldrick, M., Engstler, C., & Marian, V. (2015). Bilinguals show weaker lexical access during spoken sentence comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,44(6), 789–802.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Trenkic, D., Mirkovic, J., & Altmann, G. T. (2014). Real-time grammar processing by native and non-native speakers: Constructions unique to the second language. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition,17(2), 237–257.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Berkum, J. J., Brown, C. M., Zwitserlood, P., Kooijman, V., & Hagoort, P. (2005). Anticipating upcoming words in discourse: evidence from ERPs and reading times. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition,31(3), 443.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Van Petten, C., & Luka, B. J. (2012). Prediction during language comprehension: benefits, costs, and ERP components. International Journal of Psychophysiology,83(2), 176–190.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wechsler, D. (1984). WMS-R: Wechsler memory scale-revised: manual. San Antonio, Texas: Psychological Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Hope Klingensmith, Joshua Daniels, Mitchell Tozian and Chenyue Zhao for their help with making materials and collecting data. This research was partly supported by a Language Learning Dissertation Grant and a UF CLAS Dissertation Fellowship awarded to EC.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, HG613, Hong Kong

    Eunjin Chun

  2. University of Florida, Turlington Hall 4131, Box 115454, Gainesville, FL, 32611, USA

    Edith Kaan

Authors
  1. Eunjin Chun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Edith Kaan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eunjin Chun.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chun, E., Kaan, E. L2 Prediction during complex sentence processing. J Cult Cogn Sci 3, 203–216 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41809-019-00038-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41809-019-00038-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation