Traditionally, it has been claimed that the non-canonical word order of passives makes them inherently more difficult to comprehend than their canonical active counterparts both in the first (L1) and second language (L2). However, growing evidence suggests that non-canonical word orders are not inherently more difficult to process than canonical counterparts when presented with discourse contexts that license their information structure constraints. In an eye-tracking experiment, we investigated the effect of information structure on the online processing of active and passive constructions and whether this effect differed in monolinguals and L1-Spanish–L2-English speakers. In line with previous corpus studies, our results indicated that there was an interaction between word order and information structure according to which passive sentences were much more costly to process with new–given information structure patterns. Crucially, we failed to find evidence that the effect of information structure on word order constraints in comprehension differed between monolingual and L2 speakers.
Abbot-SmithKChangFRowlandCFergusonHPineJ (2017) Do two and three year old children use an incremental first-NP-as-agent bias to process active transitive and passive sentences? A permutation analysis. PloS One12: 1–20.
2.
ArdalSDonaldMWMeuterRMuldrewSLuceM (1990) Brain responses to semantic incongruity in second language speakers. Brain and Language39: 187–205.
3.
BaderMMengM (1999) Subject–object ambiguities in German embedded clauses: An across-the-board comparison. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research28: 121–43.
4.
BalcomP (1997) Why is this happened? Passive morphology and unaccusativity. Second Language Research13: 1–9.
5.
BaldieBJ (1976) The acquisition of the passive voice. Journal of Child Language3: 331–48.
6.
BallesterEP (2013) Adult L2 Spanish development of syntactic and discourse subject properties in an instructional setting. RAEL: Revista Electrónica de Lingüística Aplicada12: 111–29.
BatesDMaechlerMBolkerBWalkerS (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software67: 1–48.
9.
BelASagarraNDomínguezJPGarcía-AlcarazE (2016) Transfer and proficiency effects in L2 processing of subject anaphora. Lingua184: 134–59.
10.
BellettiALeoniniC (2004) Subject inversion in L2 Italian. In: Foster CohenSSharwoodMSoraceAOtaM (eds) EUROSLA Yearbook. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 95–118.
11.
BellettiABennatiESoraceA (2007) Theoretical and developmental issues in the syntax of subjects: Evidence from near-native Italian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory4: 657.
12.
BenciniGMValianVV (2008) Abstract sentence representations in 3-year-olds: Evidence from language production and comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language1: 97–113.
13.
BernoletSHartsuikerRJPickeringMJ (2009) Persistence of emphasis in language production: A cross-linguistic approach. Cognition2: 300–17.
14.
BirnerBJWardG (1996) A crosslinguistic study of postposing in discourse. Language and Speech39: 113–42.
15.
BirnerBJWardGL (1998) Information status and non-canonical word order in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
16.
BirnerBJWardG (2009) Information structure and syntactic structure. Language and Linguistics Compass4: 1167–87.
17.
BlackwellSEQuesadaML (2012) Third-person subjects in native speakers’ and L2 learners’ narratives: Testing (and revising) the Givenness Hierarchy for Spanish. In GeeslinKLDíaz-CamposM (eds) Selected proceedings of the 14th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, pp. 142–64. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press
18.
Blanco-GómezML (2002) Hiding the agent in English and Spanish newspaper articles: The periphrastic passive. In: Marín ArreseJI (ed.) Conceptualization of events in newspaper discourse: Mystification of events and degree of implication in news reports. Madrid: Universidad Complutense de Madrid, pp. 9–30.
19.
Bley-VromanRW (1983) The comparative fallacy in interlanguage studies: The case of systematicity. Language Learning33: 1–17.
20.
BockJK (1986) Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology18: 355–87.
21.
Bornkessel-SchlesewskySchlesewsky Mvon CramonDY (2009) Word order and Broca’s region: Evidence for a supra-syntactic perspective. Brain and Language111: 125–39.
22.
BrooksPJTomaselloM (1999) Young children learn to produce passives with nonce verbs. Developmental Psychology35: 29–44.
23.
BrownMSavovaVGibsonE (2008) Syntax and discourse constraints interact at the level of structural representation: Evidence from on-line sentence comprehension. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Austin, TX: The Cognitive Science Society, pp. 721–26. Available at: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9fg9v6ps (accessed January 2021).
24.
BrownMSavovaVGibsonE (2012) Syntax encodes information structure: Evidence from on-line reading comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language66: 194–209.
25.
CaramazzaAZurifEB (1976) Dissociation of algorithmic and heuristic processes in language comprehension: Evidence from aphasia. Brain and Language3: 572–82.
26.
CarrithersC (1989) Syntactic complexity does not necessarily make sentences harder to understand. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research1: 75–88.
27.
ChomskyN (1957) Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.
28.
ChomskyN (1965) Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
29.
ClarkHHavilandS (1977) Comprehension and the given–new contract. In: FreedleRO (ed.) Discourse production and comprehension. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 1–40.
30.
CliftonCFrazierL (2004) Should given information come before new? Yes and no. Memory and Cognition32: 886–95.
31.
CohnNPaczynskiM (2013) Prediction, events, and the advantage of Agents: The processing of semantic roles in visual narrative. Cognitive Psychology6: 73–97.
32.
CohnNPaczynskiMKutasM (2017) Not so secret agents: Event-related potentials to semantic roles in visual event comprehension. Brain and Cognition119: 1–9.
33.
CrossleySDuranNDKimYLesterTClarkS (2018) The action dynamics of native and non-native speakers of English in processing active and passive sentences. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism8: 2–28.
34.
DąbrowskaEStreetJ (2006) Individual differences in language attainment: Comprehension of passive sentences by native and non-native English speakers. Language Sciences6: 604–15.
35.
DaviesM (2004) British National Corpus. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Available online at https://www.english-corpora.org/bnc (accessed January 2021).
36.
DiesselH (2004) The acquisition of complex sentences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
37.
DomínguezLArcheMJ (2014) Subject inversion in non-native Spanish. Lingua145: 243–65.
38.
DonaldsonB (2011) Left-dislocation in near-native French. Studies in Second Language Acquisition33: 399–432. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/44486011 (accessed January 2021).
39.
DörnyeiZSkehanP (2003) Individual Differences in Second Language Learning. In: DoughtyCJLongMH (eds) The handbook of second language acquisition. Chichester: John Wiley, pp. 589–630.
40.
EngqvistL (2005) The mistreatment of covariate interaction terms in linear model analyses of behavioural and evolutionary ecology studies. Animal Behaviour70: 967–71.
41.
ErdociaKLakaIMestres-MisséARodriguez-FornellsA (2009) Syntactic complexity and ambiguity resolution in a free word order language: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidences from Basque. Brain and Language109: 1–17.
42.
FedorenkoELevyR (2007) Information structure and word order in Russian sentence comprehension. Poster presented at The 20th CUNY conference on human sentence processing. Available at: http://idiom.ucsd.edu/~rlevy/papers/Russian_info_flow_poster.pdf (accessed January 2021).
43.
FerreiraF (2003) The misinterpretation of non-canonical sentences. Cognitive Psychology47: 164–203.
44.
ForsterKIOlbreiI (1973) Semantic heuristics and syntactic analysis. Cognition2: 319–47.
45.
FoxDGrodzinskyY (1998) Children’s passive: A view from the by-phrase. Linguistic Inquiry2: 311–32.
46.
FoxJWeisbergS (2019) An R Companion to Applied Regression. 3rd edition.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
47.
GãmezPBShimpiPM (2016) Structural priming in Spanish as evidence of implicit learning. Journal of Child Language1: 207–33.
48.
García-AlcarazE (2015) Comprensión y producción de los pronombres nulos y explícitos de tercera persona en posición de sujeto en la adquisición temprana del español L2 [Comprehension and production of null and explicit third person pronouns in subject position in the early acquisition of Spanish L2]. Unpublished PhD thesis, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Spain.
49.
García-AlcarazEBelA (2011) Selección y distribución de los pronombres en el español L2 de los hablantes de árabe [Selection and distribution of L2 Spanish pronouns of Arabic speakers]. Revista de Lingüística y Lenguas Aplicadas6: 165–80.
50.
GelmanAHillJ (2007) Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
51.
GilquinGGriesST (2009) Corpora and experimental methods: A state-of-the-art review. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory5: 1–26.
52.
GivónT (1993) English grammar: A function-based introduction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
53.
GoughPB (1965) Grammatical transformations and speed of understanding. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior2: 107–11.
54.
GoughPB (1966) The verification of sentences: The effects of delay of evidence and sentence length. Journal of Memory and Language5: 492–96.
55.
GrodzinskyYPierceAMarakovitzS (1991) Neuropsychological reasons for a transformational analysis of verbal passive. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory9: 431–53.
56.
GrosjeanF (1998) Studying bilinguals. Methodological and conceptual issues. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition1: 131–49.
57.
GuastiM (1994) Verb syntax in Italian child grammar: Finite and nonfinite verbs. Language Acquisition: A Journal of Developmental Linguistics1: 1–40.
58.
HallidayMA (1967) Notes on transitivity and theme in English: Part 2. Journal of Linguistics3: 199–244.
59.
HartsuikerRJPickeringMJVeltkampE (2004) Is syntax separate or shared between languages? Cross-linguistic syntactic priming in Spanish–English bilinguals. Psychological Science6: 409–14.
60.
HertelTJ (2003) Lexical and discourse factors in the second language acquisition of Spanish word order. Second Language Research19: 273–304.
61.
HinkelE (2002) Why English passive is difficult to teach (and learn). In: HinkelEFotosS (eds), New perspectives on grammar teaching. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 233–59.
62.
HoppH (2005) Constraining second language word order optionality: Scrambling in advanced English–German and Japanese–German interlanguage. Second Language Research21: 34–71.
63.
HoppH (2006) Syntactic features and reanalysis in near-native processing. Second Language Research22: 369–97.
64.
HoppH (2009) The syntax–discourse interface in near-native L2 acquisition: Off-line and on-line performance. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition12: 463–83.
65.
HoppHBailJJacksonCN (2018) Frequency at the syntax–discourse interface: A bidirectional study on fronting options in L1/L2 German and L1/L2 English. Second Language Research35: 1–32.
66.
HoppHBailJJacksonCN (2020) Frequency at the syntax–discourse interface: A bidirectional study on fronting options in L1/L2 German and L1/L2 English. Second Language Research36: 65–96.
67.
IvanovI (2012) L2 acquisition of Bulgarian clitic-doubling: A test case for the interface hypothesis. Second Language Research28: 345–68.
68.
IzumiSLakshmananU (1998) Learnability, negative evidence and the L2 acquisition of the English passive. Second Language Research14: 62–101.
69.
JacksonCN (2007) The use and non-use of semantic information, word order, and case markings during comprehension by L2 learners of German. The Modern Language Journal91: 418–32.
70.
JacksonCNBobbSC (2009) The processing and comprehension of wh-questions among L2 German speakers. Applied Psycholinguistics30: 603–36.
71.
JacksonCNVan HellJG (2011) The effects of L2 proficiency level on the processing of wh-questions among Dutch second language speakers of English. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching49: 195–219.
72.
Johnson-LairdPN (1968) Shorter articles and notes the interpretation of the passive voice. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology1: 69–73.
73.
JuMK (2000) Overpassivization errors by second language learners: The effect of conceptualizable agents in discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition22: 85–111.
74.
JudyT (2015) Knowledge and processing of subject-related discourse properties in L2 near-native speakers of Spanish, L1 Farsi. In: JudyTPerpiñánS (eds) The acquisition of Spanish in understudied language pairings. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 169–99.
75.
KaanE (2001) Effects of NP type on the resolution of word-order ambiguities. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research30: 529–47.
76.
KaiserETrueswellJC (2004) The role of discourse context in the processing of a flexible word-order language. Cognition94: 113–47.
77.
KimYMcDonoughK (2008) Learners’ production of passives during syntactic priming activities. Applied Linguistics1: 149–54.
78.
KrassT (2008) Anaphora resolution in near-native Italian grammars: Evidence from native speakers of Croatian. In: RobertsLMylesFDavidA (eds) EUROSLA Yearbook 8. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 107–34.
79.
KristensenLBEngberg-PedersenENielsenAHWallentinM (2013) The influence of context on word order processing: An fMRI study. Journal of Neurolinguistics26: 73–88.
KutasMVan PettenCKKluenderR (2006) Psycholinguistics electrified II (1994–2005). In: TraxlerMGernsbacherMGernsbacherA (eds) Handbook of psycholinguistics. 2nd edition.Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 659–724.
82.
KuznetsovaABrockhoffPBChristensenRHB (2017) lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software82: 1–27.
83.
LafondLHayesRBhattRM (2001) Constraint demotion and null-subjects in Spanish L2 acquisition. Romance syntax, semantics and L2 acquisition. In: CampsJWiltshireCR (eds) Selected Papers from the 30th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 121–35.
84.
LealT (2016) Look before you move: Clitic Left Dislocation in combination with other elements in the Spanish left periphery. RELA: Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada29: 396–428.
85.
LealTDestruelEHootB (2018) The acquisition of Focus in L2 Spanish. Second Language Research35: 449–77.
86.
LeeserMJ (2007) Learner-based factors in L2 reading comprehension and processing grammatical form: Topic familiarity and working memory. Language Learning57: 229–70.
87.
LeoniniCBellettiA (2004) Adult L2 acquisition of Italian clitic pronouns and subject inversion VS structures. LOT Occasional Series3: 293–304.
88.
LevshinaN (2015) How to do linguistics with R: Data exploration and statistical analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
89.
LeysCLeyCKleinOBernardPLicataL (2013) Detecting outliers: Do not use standard deviation around the mean, use absolute deviation around the median. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology49: 764–66.
90.
LiSPYangLR (2014) A discourse perspective of topic-prominence in Chinese EFL learners’ interlanguage. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature3: 190–97.
91.
LicerasJM (1988) Syntax and stylistics: more on the pro-drop parameter. In: PankhurstJSharwood SmithMvan BurenP (eds) Learnability and second languages: A book of readings. Dordrecht: Foris, pp. 71–93.
92.
LozanoC (2006) Focus and split-intransitivity: the acquisition of word order alternations in non-native Spanish. Second Language Research22: 145–87.
93.
LozanoC (2009) Selective deficits at the syntax–discourse interface: Evidence from the CEDEL2 corpus. In: LeungYISnapeNSharwood-SmithM (eds) Representational deficits in second language acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 127–66.
94.
LozanoC (2016) Pragmatic principles in anaphora resolution at the syntax–discourse interface: Advanced English learners of Spanish in the CEDEL2 corpus. In: Alonso RamosM (ed.) Spanish learner corpus research: Current trends and future perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 235–65.
95.
LozanoC (2018) The development of anaphora resolution at the syntax–discourse interface: pronominal subjects in Greek learners of Spanish. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research47: 411–30.
96.
LozanoCMendikoetxeaA (2013) Learner corpora and second language acquisition. In Díaz-NegrilloABallierNThompsonP (eds) Automatic treatment and analysis of learner corpus data. Amsterdam: Johns Benjamin, pp. 66–96.
97.
LynchA (2017) Bilingualism and second language acquisition. In: Van Deusen-SchollNMayS (eds) Second and foreign language education, encyclopedia of language and education. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 43–55.
MaratsosMFoxDEBeckerJAChalkleyMA (1985) Semantic restrictions on children’s passives. Cognition2: 167–91.
100.
MarchmanVABatesEBurkardtAGoodAB (1991) Functional constraints of the acquisition of the passive: Toward a model of the competence to perform. First Language11: 65–92.
101.
MarefatH (2005) The impact of information structure as a discourse factor on the acquisition of dative alternation by L2 learners. Studia Linguistica59: 66–82.
102.
MargazaPGavarróA (2020) Null/overt subject alternations in L2 Spanish and L2 Greek. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics5: 55.
103.
MarinisT (2007) On-line processing of passives in L1 and L2 children. In: Proceedings of the 2nd conference on generative approaches to language acquisition North America (GALANA). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 265–76.
104.
MarinisTSaddyD (2013) Parsing the passive: Comparing children with specific language impairment to sequential bilingual children. Language Acquisition20: 155–79.
105.
MasterP (1991) Active verbs with inanimate subjects in scientific prose. English for Specific Purposes10: 15–33.
106.
MathiesonP (2017) Secret agents and innocent patients: The mysteries of the English passive voice and its use (and misuse) in EFL writing in Japan. Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics2: 1–13.
107.
McMahonLE (1963) Grammatical analysis as part of understanding a sentence. PhD Thesis, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA.
108.
MehlerJ (1963) Some effects of grammatical transformations on the recall of English sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior4: 346–51.
109.
MendikoetxeaALozanoC (2018) From corpora to experiments: Methodological triangulation in the study of word order at the interfaces in adult late bilinguals (L2 learners). Journal of Psycholinguistic Research47: 871–98.
110.
MessengerKBraniganHPMcLeanJF (2012) Is children’s acquisition of the passive a staged process? Evidence from six- and nine-year-olds’ production of passives. Journal of Child Language5: 991–1016.
111.
MeunierFLittréD (2013) Tracking learners’ progress: Adopting a dual ‘corpus cum experimental data’ approach. The Modern Language Journal97: 61–76.
112.
MontrulSRodríguez LouroC (2006) Beyond the syntax of the null subject parameter. In: TorrensVEscobarL (eds) The acquisition of syntax in Romance languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 401–18.
113.
O’DonnellM (2013) From Learner Corpora to Curriculum Design: an empirical approach to staging the teaching of grammatical concepts. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences95: 571–80.
114.
OlsonDFilbyN (1972) On the comprehension of active and passive sentences. Cognitive Psychology3: 361–81.
115.
PaeHKSchandingBKwonYJLeeYW (2014) Animacy effect and language specificity: Judgment of unaccusative verbs by Korean learners of English as a foreign language. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research43: 187–207.
116.
ParkKS (2014) Information structure and dative word-order alternations in English and Korean: L1 children, L2 children, and L2 adults. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Manoa, HI, USA.
117.
PrentzaATsimpliIM (2013) The interpretability of features in second language acquisition: Evidence from null and postverbal subjects in L2 English. Journal of Greek Linguistics2: 323–65.
118.
R Core Team (2020) R: A language and environment for statistical computing [software]. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available at: http://www.R-project.org (accessed January 2021).
119.
ReichleRVBirdsongD (2014) Processing focus structure in L1 and L2 French: L2 proficiency effects on ERPs. Studies in Second Language Acquisition36: 535–64.
120.
RizziL (1982) Issues in Italian syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.
121.
RobertsLGullbergMIndefreyP (2008) Online pronoun resolution in L2 discourse: L1 influence and general learner effects. Studies in Second Language Acquisition3: 333–57.
122.
RolandDDickFElmanJL (2007) Frequency of basic English grammatical structures: A corpus analysis. Journal of Memory and Language57: 348–79.
123.
RollinsonPMendikoetxeaA (2010) Learner corpora and second language acquisition: Introducing WriCLE. In: Bueno AlonsoJLGonzález ÁlvarezDKirsten TorradoU, et al. (ed.) Analysing data: Describing variation. Vigo: Universidade de Vigo, pp. 1–12
124.
RothmanJ (2009) Pragmatic deficits with syntactic consequences? L2 pronominal subjects and the syntax–pragmatics interface. Journal of Pragmatics41: 951–73.
125.
RunnqvistEGollanTHCostaAFerreiraVS (2013) A disadvantage in bilingual sentence production modulated by syntactic frequency and similarity across languages. Cognition2: 256–63.
126.
SavinHBPerchonockE (1965) Grammatical structure and the immediate recall of English sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior5: 348–53.
127.
SchadDJVasishthSHohensteinSKlieglR (2020) How to capitalize on a prior contrasts in linear (mixed) models: A tutorial. Journal of Memory and Language110: 104038.
128.
SchielzethH (2010) Simple means to improve the interpretability of regression coefficients. Methods in Ecology and Evolution1: 103–13.
129.
SegalowitzNS (1982) The perception of semantic relations in pictures. Memory and Cognition10: 381–88.
130.
SlabakovaR (2015) The effect of construction frequency and native transfer on second language knowledge of the syntax–discourse interface. Applied Psycholinguistics36: 671–99.
131.
SlabakovaRIvanovI (2011) A more careful look at the syntax–discourse interface. Lingua121: 637–51.
132.
SlabakovaRKempchinskyPRothmanJ (2012) Clitic-doubled left dislocation and focus fronting in L2 Spanish: A case of successful acquisition at the syntax–discourse interface. Second Language Research28: 319–43.
133.
SlioussarN (2011). Processing of a free word order language: The role of syntax and context. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research40: 291–306.
134.
Slobin DanI (1966) Grammatical transformations and sentence comprehension in childhood and adulthood. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior5: 219–27.
135.
SoraceA (2003). Near-nativeness. In: LongMDoughtyC (eds) Handbook of second language acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 130–51.
136.
SoraceA (2011) Pinning down the concept of ‘interface’ in bilingualism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism1: 1–33.
137.
SoraceAFiliaciF (2006) Anaphora resolution in near-native speakers of Italian. Second Language Research22: 339–68.
138.
SoraceASerratriceL (2009) Internal and external interfaces in bilingual language development: Beyond structural overlap. International Journal of Bilingualism13: 195–210.
139.
StolterfohtB (2005) Processing word order variations and ellipses: The interplay of syntax and information structure during sentence comprehension. Unpublished PhD thesis, Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Leipzig, Germany.
140.
StromswoldK (2006) Why children understand and misunderstand sentences: An eye tracking study of passive sentences. Technical ReportTR-85. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Center for Cognitive Science.
141.
TankóE (2010) Facing difficulties in the acquisition of the English passive by L1 speakers of Hungarian. Acta Universitatis Sapientiae Philologica2: 312–25.
142.
TannenbaumPHWilliamsF (1968) Generation of active and passive sentences as a function of subject or object focus. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior7: 246–250.
143.
TorchianoM (2020) Effsize – A package for efficient effect size computation [software]. Available at: http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1480624 (accessed January 2021).
144.
TownsendDJBeverTGCrockerM (2001) Sentence comprehension: The integration of habits and rules. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
145.
Tracy-VenturaNMylesF (2015) The importance of task variability in the design of learner corpora for SLA research. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research1: 58–95.
146.
TravisCE (2005) The yo-yo effect: Priming in subject expression in Colombian Spanish. In: GessRRubinEJ (eds) Theoretical and experimental approaches to Romance linguistics: Selected papers from the 34th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 329–49.
147.
TravisCETorres CacoullosR (2012) Who do subject pronouns do in discourse? Cognitive, mechanical and constructional factors in variation. Cognitive Linguistics23: 711–48.
148.
TsimpliISoraceA (2006) Differentiating interfaces: L2 performance in syntax–semantics and syntax–discourse phenomena. In: BUCLD Proceedings. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 653–64.
149.
ValenzuelaE (2005) L2 ultimate attainment and the syntax–discourse interface: The acquisition of topic constructions in non-native Spanish and English. Unpublished PhD thesis, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
150.
ValenzuelaE (2006) L2 end state grammars and incomplete acquisition of Spanish CLLD constructions. In: SlabakovaRMontrulSPrévostP (eds) Inquiries in linguistic development. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 283–304.
151.
VoetenCC (2020) buildmer: Stepwise elimination and term reordering for mixed-effects regression. R package version 1.6 [software]. Available at: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=buildmer (accessed January 2021).
152.
WardGBirnerB (2001) Discourse and Information Structure. In: SchiffrinDTannenDHamiltonH (eds) Handbook of discourse analysis. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 119–37.
153.
WardGBirnerB (2011) Discourse effects of word order variation. In: MaienbornCvon HeusingerKPortnerP (eds) Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 1934–63.
154.
WeskottTFanselowG (2011) On the informativity of different measures of linguistic acceptability. Language87: 249–73.
155.
WhiteL (1989) Universal Grammar and second language acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
156.
WilsonF and Chalton FFLW (2009) Processing at the syntax–discourse interface in second language acquisition. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
157.
YipV (1995) Interlanguage and learnability: From Chinese to English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
158.
YokoyamaSOkamotoHMiyamotoT, et al. (2006) Cortical activation in the processing of passive sentences in L1 and L2: An fMRI study. NeuroImage2: 570–79.
159.
ZoblH (1989) Canonical typological structures and ergativity in English L2 acquisition: Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition. In: GassSSchachterJ (eds) Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University, pp. 203–21.
160.
ZubinDA (1979) Discourse function of morphology: The focus system in German. In: GivónT (ed.) Syntax and semantics: Discourse and syntax. New York: Academic Press, pp. 469–504.
161.
ZurifESwinneyDPratherPSolomonJBushellC (1993) An on-line analysis of syntactic processing in Broca’s and Wernicke’s aphasia. Brain and Language45: 448–64.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
