Abstract
The present study aimed to investigate (a) the extent to which Chinese-speaking learners of English in Taiwan use referential noun phrase (NP) information contained in discourse contexts to complete ambiguous noun/verb fragments in a sentence completion task, and (b) whether and when they use the contexts to disambiguate main verb versus reduced relative clause (MV/RRC) ambiguities in real time. Results showed that unlike native English speakers, English learners did not create a marked increase in RRC completions in biasing two-NP-referent discourse contexts except for advanced learners. Nevertheless, like native speakers, the learners at elementary, intermediate, and advanced English proficiency levels all used the information in a later stage of resolving the MV/RRC ambiguities in real time. The delayed effect of referential context information observed suggests that L2 learners, like native speakers, are able to construct syntax-to-discourse mappings in real time. It also suggests that processing of syntactic information takes precedence over integration of syntactic information with discourse information during L1 and L2 online sentence processing.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The reason we used a binary-choice sentence completion task was that the sentence completion task adopted in Spivey-Knowlton et al. (1993) may drive our learners to complete the ambiguous noun/verb fragments as sentences with MV interpretations simply because such sentence completions are relatively easier.
The participants and the materials of Experiments 1 and 2 were alike. To avoid potential influences of the sentence completion task, we followed Pan and Felser (2011) to execute the self-paced reading task 5 weeks after the sentence completion task.
The 10 experimental items tested here could not be distributed in counterbalanced presentation lists using a Latin Square design so that we separated the experimental items and filler items into two blocks.
References
Bever, T. G. (1970). The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In J. R. Hayes (Ed.), Cognition and the development of language (pp. 279–352). New York: Wiley.
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006a). Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 3–42.
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006b). Continuity and shallow structures in language processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 107–126.
Crain, S., & Steedman, M. (1985). On not being led up the garden path: The use of context by the psychological syntax processor. In D. R. Dowty, L. Karttunen, & A. M. Zwicky (Eds.), Natural language parsing (pp. 320–358). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Davies, M. (2012). The Corpus of Contemporary American English. Provo: Brigham Young University.
Dussias, P. E. (2003). Syntactic ambiguity resolution in L2 learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 529–557.
Ferreira, F., & Clifton, C. (1986). The independence of syntactic processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 348–368.
Frazier, L. (1978). On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
Frazier, L. (1987). Sentence processing: A tutorial review. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and performance (pp. 559–586). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Frazier, L. (1995). Constraint satisfaction as a theory of sentence processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 24, 437–468.
Frazier, L., & Fodor, J. D. (1978). The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition, 6, 291–326.
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.
Green, M. J., & Mitchell, D. C. (2006). Absence of evidence against competition during syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 1–17.
Guo, J., Guo, T., Yan, Y., Jiang, N., & Peng, N. (2009). ERP evidence for different strategies employed by native speakers and L2 learners in sentence processing. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 22, 123–134.
Hopp, H. (2009). The syntax-discourse interface in near-native L2 acquisition: Off-line and on-line performance. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12, 463–483.
Juffs, A. (1998). Main verb versus reduced relative clause ambiguity resolution in L2 sentence processing. Language Learning, 48, 107–147.
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.
Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review, 87, 329–354.
Just, M. A., Carpenter, P. A., & Woolley, J. D. (1982). Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 3, 228–238.
MacDonald, M. C. (1993). The interaction of lexical and syntactic ambiguity. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 692–715.
MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). Lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101, 676–703.
Marinis, T., Roberts, L., Felser, C., & Clahsen, H. (2005). Gaps in second language sentence processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 53–78.
Pan, H.-Y., & Felser, C. (2011). Referential context effects in L2 ambiguity resolution: Evidence from self-paced reading. Lingua, 121, 221–236.
Rah, A., & Adone, D. (2010). Processing of the reduced relative clause versus main verb ambiguity in L2 learners at different proficiency levels. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 79–109.
Rayner, K., Carlson, M., & Frazier, L. (1983). The interaction of syntax and semantics during sentence processing: Eye movements in the analysis of semantically biased sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 358–374.
Roberts, L., & Felser, C. (2011). Plausibility and recovery from garden paths in second language sentence processing. Applied Psycholingusitics, 32, 299–331.
Sorace, A. (2005). Syntactic optionality at interfaces. In L. Cornips & K. Corrigan (Eds.), Syntax and variation: Reconciling the biological and the social (pp. 46–111). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., Trueswell, J. C., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1993). Context effects in syntactic ambiguity resolution: Discourse and semantic influences in parsing reduced relative clauses. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47, 276–309.
Trueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Garnsey, S. M. (1994). Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 285–318.
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.
Yang, P. L., & Shih, S. C. (2013). A reading-time study of the MV/RRC ambiguity resolution by English learners in Taiwan. Applied Psycholinguistics, 34, 1109–1133.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
Target Sentences Contained in Discourse Contexts from this Self-paced Reading Experiment
The following are the contexts and target sentences used in the self-paced reading experiment. The one-NP-referent context is shown first and the two-NP-referent context is presented in brackets.
-
1.
A boy and a dog were playing with a girl in the playground. The girl kissed the boy but not the dog. [Two boys were playing with a girl in the playground. The girl kissed one of the boys but not the other.] The boy /(who was) /kissed by /the girl /was cute.
-
2.
An author and a journalist ran across a reader on the street. The reader loved the author but not the journalist. [Two authors of the book ran across a reader on the street. The reader loved one of the authors but not the other.] The author /(who was) /loved by /the reader /was humorous.
-
3.
A child and a young man attended the party a lady held. The lady liked the child but not the young man. [Two children attended the party a lady held. The lady liked one of the children but not the other.] The child /(who was) /liked by /the lady /was lovely.
-
4.
A woman and a man were walking into an artist’s workshop slowly. The artist studied the woman but not the man. [Two women were walking into an artist’s workshop slowly. The artist studied one of the women but not the other.] The woman /(who was) /studied by /the artist /was mysterious.
-
5.
A clerk and a customer were negotiating for the price. A manager praised the clerk but not the customer. [Two clerks were negotiating for the price. A manager praised one of the clerks but not the other.] The clerk /(who was)/ praised by /the manager /was smart.
-
6.
A player and his manager were arguing with a coach. The coach kicked the player but not the manager. [Two players were arguing with a coach. The coach kicked one of the players but not the other.] The player /(who was) /kicked by /the coach /was angry.
-
7.
A customer and his dog were about to be hit by the falling books. A salesman pulled the customer to safety but not the dog. [Two customers were about to be hit by the falling books. A salesman pulled one of the customers to safety but not the other.] The customer /(who was) /pulled by /the salesman /was frightened.
-
8.
A woman and an old man carried LV handbags to shop. A man followed the woman but not the old man. [Two women carried LV handbags to shop. A man followed one of the women but not the other.] The woman /(who was) /followed by /the man /was scared.
-
9.
A witness and her little baby saw a car accident that day. A lawyer examined the witness but not the little baby. [Two witnesses saw a car accident that day. A lawyer examined one of the witnesses but not the other.] The witness /(who was) /examined by /the lawyer /was reliable.
-
10.
A man and his son were standing in front of a woman at the concert. The woman patted the man but not the son. [Two men were standing in front of a woman at the concert. The woman patted one of the men but not the other.] The man /(who was) /patted by /the woman /was surprised.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Yang, PL. Use of Referential Discourse Contexts in L2 Offline and Online Sentence Processing. J Psycholinguist Res 45, 1045–1065 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-015-9393-z
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-015-9393-z