This study examines whether second language (L2) learners predict upcoming language prior to the verb in Japanese. Taking the dependency involving negative polarity adverbs – zenzen ‘at all’ and amari ‘(not) very’ – as a test case, this study examined whether Japanese native speakers and L2 learners of Japanese, aided by these adverbs, generate predictions of the polarity of the sentence-final verb. The visual-world paradigm experiment revealed that both native-speaker and L2-learner groups looked progressively more at the target picture before the negated verb when the information from adverbs was available than when it was not. The pattern of results underscores the usefulness of adverbial polarity items as predictive cues and indicates that they expedite the processing of negation in Japanese. Learners successfully exploited this information to generate nativelike predictions on sentence meaning.
AltmannGTKamideY (1999) Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition73: 247–64.
2.
AoshimaSPhillipsCWeinbergA (2004) Processing filler-gap dependencies in a headfinal language. Journal of Memory and Language51: 23–54.
3.
BarrDJ (2008) Analyzing ‘visual world’ eyetracking data using multilevel logistic regression. Journal of Memory and Language59: 457–74.
4.
BarrDJLevyRScheepersCTilyHJ (2013) Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language68: 255–78.
5.
BatesDMächlerMBolkerBWalkerS (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software67: 1–48.
6.
BatesEWulfeckBMacWhinneyB (1991) Cross-linguistic research in aphasia: An overview. Brain and Language41: 123–48.
7.
ClancyB (2015) Investigating intimate discourse: Exploring the spoken interaction of families, couples and friends. Abingdon: Routledge.
8.
ClarkHHChaseWG (1972) On the process of comparing sentences against pictures. Cognitive Psychology3: 472–517.
9.
DeLongKATroyerMKutasM (2014) Pre-processing in sentence comprehension: Sensitivity to likely upcoming meaning and structure. Language and Linguistics Compass8: 631–45.
10.
DijkgraafAHartsuikerRJDuyckW (2017) Predicting upcoming information in native-language and non-native-language auditory word recognition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition20: 917–30.
11.
DowensMGVergaraMBarberHACarreirasM (2010) Morphosyntactic processing in late second-language learners. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience22: 1870–87.
12.
DowensMGGuoTGuoJBarberHCarreirasM (2011) Gender and number processing in Chinese learners of Spanish: Evidence from event related potentials. Neuropsychologia49: 1651–59.
13.
DussiasPEValdés KroffJRGuzzardo TamargoREGerfenC (2013) When gender and looking go hand in hand: Grammatical gender processing in L2 Spanish. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 353–387.
14.
EllisNCSagarraN (2010) Learned attention effects in L2 temporal reference: The first hour and the next eight semesters. Language Learning60: 85–108.
15.
FedermeierKD (2007) Thinking ahead: The role and roots of prediction in language comprehension. Psychophysiology44: 491–505.
16.
FerreiraFChantavarinS (2018) Integration and prediction in language processing: A synthesis of old and new. Current Directions in Psychological Science27: 443–48.
17.
FoucartAFrenck-MestreC (2011) Grammatical gender processing in L2: Electrophysiological evidence of the effect ofL1-L2 syntactic similarity. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition14: 379–99.
18.
GarnseySMPearlmutterNJMyersELotockyMA (1997) The contributions of verb bias and plausibility to the comprehension of temporarily ambiguous sentences. Journal of Memory and Language37: 58–93.
19.
GarridoMIKilnerJMStephanKEFristonKJ (2009) The mismatch negativity: A review of underlying mechanisms. Clinical Neurophysiology120: 453–63.
20.
GibsonE (1998) Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition68: 1–76.
21.
Group Jammassy (2015) A handbook of Japanese grammar patterns for teachers and learners. Tokyo: Kuroshio.
22.
GrüterTLew-WilliamsCFernaldA (2012) Grammatical gender in L2: A production or a real-time processing problem?Second Language Research28: 191–215.
23.
GrüterTRohdeHSchaferAJ (2017) Coreference and discourse coherence in L2: The roles of grammatical aspect and referential form. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism7: 199–229.
24.
GuillelmonDGrosjeanF (2001) The gender marking effect in spoken word recognition: The case of bilinguals. Memory and Cognition29: 503–11.
25.
HayashiM (1999) Where grammar and interaction meet: A study of co-participant completion in Japanese conversation. Human Studies22: 475–99.
26.
HenryNHoppHJacksonCN (2017) Cue additivity and adaptivity in predictive processing. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience32: 1229–49.
27.
HoppH (2009) The syntax–discourse interface in near-native L2 acquisition: Off-line and on-line performance. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition12: 463–83.
28.
HoppH (2013) Grammatical gender in adult L2 acquisition: Relations between lexical and syntactic variability. Second Language Research29: 33–56.
29.
HoppH (2014) Working memory effects in the L2 processing of ambiguous relative clauses. Language Acquisition21: 250–78.
30.
HuangYSnedekerJ (2020) Evidence from the visual world paradigm raises questions about unaccusativity and growth curve analyses. Cognition200: 104251.
31.
HuettigFManiN (2016) Is prediction necessary to understand language? Probably not. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience31: 19–31.
32.
ItoAPickeringMJCorleyM (2018) Investigating the time-course of phonological prediction in native and non-native speakers of English: A visual world eye-tracking study. Journal of Memory and Language98: 1–11.
33.
JacksonCNDussiasPE (2009) Cross-linguistic differences and their impact on L2 sentence processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition12: 65–82.
34.
KaanE (2014) Predictive sentence processing in L2 and L1: What is different?Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism4: 257–82.
35.
KamadaO (2006) KY-koopasu to nihongo kyooiku kenkyuu [KY corpus and Japanese language education research]. Nihongo Kyoiku [Journal of Japanese Language Teaching] 130: 42–51.
36.
KamideYAltmannGTMHaywoodSL (2003) The time-course of prediction in incremental sentence processing: Evidence from anticipatory eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language49: 133–56.
37.
KatoY (1985) Negative sentences in Japanese. Sophia Linguistics: Working Papers in Linguistics19: 1–229.
38.
KeatingGD (2009) Sensitivity to violations of gender agreement in native and nonnative Spanish: An eye-movement investigation. Language Learning59: 503–35.
39.
KimHGrüterT (2020) Predictive processing of implicit causality in a second language: A visual-world eye-tracking study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. Epub ahead of print 8 October 2020. DOI: 10.1017/S0272263120000443.
40.
KishimotoH (2007) Negative scope and head raising in Japanese. Lingua117: 247–88.
41.
KishimotoH (2008) On the variability of negative scope in Japanese. Journal of Linguistics44: 379–435.
42.
Kondo-BrownK (2005) Differences in language skills: Heritage language learner subgroups and foreign language learners. The Modern Language Journal89: 563–81.
43.
KubotaMMatsuzakiJDanIDanHZouridakisG (2020) Head errors of syntactic dependency increase neuromagnetic mismatch intensities. Experimental Brain Research238: 2137–60.
KuperbergGRJaegerTF (2016) What do we mean by prediction in language comprehension?Language, Cognition and Neuroscience31: 32–59.
46.
LadusawW (1996) Negation and polarity items. In: LappinS (ed.) The handbook of contemporary semantic theory. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 321–41.
47.
LauEStroudCPleschSPhillipsC (2006) The role of structural prediction in rapid syntactic analysis. Brain and Language98: 74–88.
48.
LernerGH (1991) On the syntax of sentences-in-progress. Language in Society20: 441–58.
49.
Marslen-WilsonW (1973) Linguistic structure and speech shadowing at very short latencies. Nature244: 522–23.
50.
MatinEShaoKCBoffKR (1993) Saccadic overhead: information-processing time with and without saccades. Perception and Psychophysics53: 372–80.
51.
McDonaldJLRousselCC (2010) Past tense grammaticality judgment and production in non-native and stressed native English speakers. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition13: 429–48.
52.
MirmanDDixonJAMagnusonJS (2008) Statistical and computational models of the visual world paradigm: Growth curves and individual differences. Journal of Memory and Language59: 475–94.
53.
MitsugiS (2017) Incremental comprehension of Japanese passives: Evidence from the visual-world paradigm. Applied Psycholinguistics38: 953–83.
54.
MitsugiSMacwhinneyB (2016) The use of case marking for predictive processing in second language Japanese. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition19: 19–35.
55.
MiyamotoET (2002) Case markers as clause boundary inducers in Japanese. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research31: 307–47.
56.
NäätänenRAlhoK (1997) Mismatch negativity: The measure for central sound representation accuracy. Audiology and Neuro-Otology2: 341–53.
57.
NakataniK (2009) Is the nesting effect caused by structural complexity or structural frequency? A case study of Japanese NPI processing. Poster presented at the 22nd Annual Meeting of the CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, University of California, Davis. http://researchmap.jp/kentaron/ lang=english
58.
NishiokaN (2017) Expressions that contain negation. In: ShibataniMMiyagawaSNodaH (ed.) Handbook of Japanese syntax. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 635–62.
59.
NordmeyerAEFrankMC (2014) The role of context in young children’s comprehension of negation. Journal of Memory and Language77: 25–39.
60.
OmakiADavidson WhiteIGoroTLidzJPhillipsC (2014) No fear of commitment: Children’s incremental interpretation in English and Japanese wh-questions. Language Learning and Development10: 206–33.
61.
OnoTThompsonS (2017) Negative scope, temporality, fixedness, and right- and left-branching: Implications for typology and cognitive processing. Studies in Language41: 543–76.
62.
PulvermüllerFShtyrovYHastingASCarlyonRP (2008) Syntax as a reflex: Neurophysiological evidence for early automaticity of grammatical processing. Brain and Language104: 244–53.
63.
RoehmDBornkessel-SchlesewskyIRöslerFSchlesewskyM (2007) To predict or not to predict: Influences of task and strategy on the processing of semantic relations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience19: 1259–74.
64.
SagarraNEllisNC (2013) From seeing adverbs to seeing verbal morphology: Language experience and adult acquisition of L2 tense. Studies in Second Language Acquisition35: 261–90.
65.
StaubACliftonCJr. (2006) Syntactic prediction in language comprehension: Evidence fromeither . . . or. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition32: 425–36.
66.
SuzukiY (2015) Self-assessment of Japanese as a second language: The role of experiences in the naturalistic acquisition. Language Testing32: 63–81.
67.
TanakaH (2001) Adverbials for turn projection in Japanese: Toward a demystification of the ‘telepathic’ mode of communication. Language in Society30: 559–87.
68.
TanenhausMKSpivey-KnowltonMJEberhardKMSedivyJC (1995) Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science268: 1632–34.
69.
UemuraR (1997) Deeta-beesu de siraberu [Research using databases]. Nihongo-Gaku [Japanese Linguistics]16: 60–68.
70.
YamashitaH (1997) The effects of word-order and case marking information on the processing of Japanese. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research26: 163–88.
71.
YurchenkoAden OudenD-BHoeksemaJ, et al. (2013) Processing polarity: ERP evidence for differences between positive and negative polarity. Neuropsychologia51: 132–41.
