It remains an open question whether second language (L2) learners can process linguistic properties at the syntax–discourse interface. This study examines this issue in the context of the L2 processing of Korean dative sentences under different information structure requirements. Given that discourse constraints associated with information structure tend to manifest more strongly in noncanonical than in canonical structures, we tested whether L2 learners of Korean show sensitivity to such constraints during online processing. In a story-continuation task, both native and nonnative speaker groups showed a strong preference for producing canonical dative patterns, indicating their comparable knowledge of the canonical status of Korean dative sentences. In a self-paced reading task, both groups spent longer reading times when the word order of dative sentences did not follow given–new information structure, but only for the noncanonical and not the canonical structure. These results suggest that L2 processing of dative structures at the syntax–discourse interface relies on the same parsing architecture that guides native-speaker processing.
BaayenRH (2008) Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2.
BarrDJLevyRScheepersCTilyHJ (2013) Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language68: 255–78.
3.
BatesDMaechlerDBolkerBWalkerS (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software67: 1–48.
4.
BelASagarraNComínguezJPGarcía-AlcarazE (2016) Transfer and proficiency effects in L2 processing of subject anaphora. Lingua184: 134–59.
5.
BirnerBJWardG (1998) Information status and non-canonical word order in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
6.
BirnerBJWardG (2009) Information structure and syntactic structure. Language and Linguistics Compass3: 1167–87.
7.
BresnanJCueniANikitinaTBaayenH (2007) Predicting the dative alternation. In: BoumeGKraemerIZwartsJ (eds) Cognitive foundations of interpretation. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science, pp. 69–94.
8.
BrownMSavovaVGibsonE (2012) Syntax encodes information structure: Evidence from on-line reading comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language66: 194–209.
9.
ChoSLeeMO’GradyW, et al. (2002) Word order preferences for direct and indirect objects in children learning Korean. Journal of Child Language29: 897–909.
10.
ChoiHW (2009) Ordering a left-branching language: Heaviness vs. givenness. Language and Information13: 39–56.
11.
ClahsenHFelserC (2006a) How native-like is non-native language processing?Trends in Cognitive Sciences10: 564–70.
12.
ClahsenHFelserC (2006b) Continuity and shallow structures in language processing. Applied Psycholinguistics27: 107–26.
13.
ClarkHHClarkEV (1977) Psychology and Language. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
14.
ClarkHHHavilandSE (1977) Comprehension and the given–new contract. In: FreedleRO (ed.) Discourse production and comprehension. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp. 1–40.
15.
CliftonCFrazierL (2004) Should given information come before new? Yes and no. Memory and Cognition32: 886–95.
16.
CollinsP (1995) The indirect object construction in English: An informational approach. Linguistics33: 35–49.
17.
DonaldsonB (2011) Left dislocation in near-native French. Studies in Second Language Acquisition33: 399–432.
18.
DussiasPEValdés KroffJRBeatty-MartinezALJohnsMA (2019) What language experience tells us about cognition: Variable input and interactional contexts affect bilingual sentence processing. In: SchwieterJW (ed.) The handbook of the neuroscience of multilingualism. New York: John Wiley, pp. 467–84.
19.
FerreiraF (2003) The misinterpretation of non-canonical sentences. Cognitive Psychology47: 164–203.
20.
FerreiraFCliftonC (1986) The independence of syntactic processing. Journal of Memory and Language25: 348–68.
21.
Frenck-MestreC (2002) An on-line look at sentence processing in the second language. In: AltarribaJHerridiaR (eds) Bilingual sentence processing. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 218–36.
22.
GivónT (1993) English grammar: A function-based introduction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
23.
GordonPCChanD (1995) Pronouns, passives, and discourse coherence. Journal of Memory and Language34: 216–31.
24.
GundelJK (1988) Universals of topic–comment structure. In: HammondMMoravczikEAWirthJ (eds) Studies in syntactic typology. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, pp. 209–39.
25.
HerbayACGonnermanLMBaumSR (2018) How do French–English bilinguals pull verb particle constructions off? Factors influencing second language processing of unfamiliar structures at the syntax–semantics interface. Frontiers in Psychology9: 1885.
26.
HertelTJ (2003) Lexical and discourse factors in the second language acquisition of Spanish word order. Second Language Research19: 273–304.
27.
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.
28.
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.
29.
JustMACarpenterPAWoolleyJD (1982) Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology111: 228–38.
30.
KaiserETrueswellJC (2004) The role of discourse context in the processing of a flexible word-order language. Cognition94: 113–47.
31.
KoizumiMImamuraS (2017) Interaction between syntactic structure and information structure in the processing of a head-final language. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research46: 247–60.
32.
KristensenLBEngberg-PedersenENielsenAHWallentinM (2013) The influence of context on word order processing: An fMRI study. Journal of Neurolinguistics26: 73–88.
33.
LambrechtK (1994) Information structure and sentence form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
34.
LealTDestruelEHootB (2019) The acquisition of focus in L2 Spanish. Second Language Research35: 449–77.
35.
Lee-EllisS (2009) The development and validation of a Korean C-Test using Rasch Analysis. Language Testing26: 245–74.
36.
LenthR (2018) emmeans: Estimated marginal means, aka least-square means: R package version 1.2.4 [computer software]. Available at: https://cran.r-project.org/package=emmeans (accessed November 2022).
37.
López-BeltránPJohnsMADussiasPELozanoCPalmaA (2022) The effects of information structure in the processing of word order variation in the second language. Second Language Research38: 639–70.
38.
LozanoC (2006) Focus and split-intransitivity: The acquisition of word order alternations in non-native Spanish. Second Language Research22: 1–43.
39.
LozanoCCalliesM (2018) Word order and information structure in advanced SLA. In: MalovrhPBenatiAG (eds) The handbook of advanced proficiency in second language acquisition. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 419–41.
40.
MaxwellSEDelaneyHD (2003) Designing experiments and analyzing data: A model comparison perspective. London: Routledge.
41.
ParkKS (2014) Information structure and dative word-order alternations in English and Korean: L1 children, L2 children, and L2 adults. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Hawai'i at Manoa, Honolulu, HI.
42.
ParkKS (2018) Information structure in canonical and scrambled dative orders in L2 Korean. Linguistics Vanguard4: 20160097.
43.
PliatsikasCMarinisT (2013) Processing empty categories in a second language: When naturalistic exposure fills the (intermediate) gap. Bilingualism: Language & Cognition16: 167–182.
44.
QuesadaML (2015) The L2 acquisition of Spanish subjects: Multiple perspectives. Berlin: De Gruyter.
45.
R Core Team (2021) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available at: https://www.R-project.org/ (accessed November 2022).
46.
RatcliffR (1993) Methods for dealing with reaction time outliers. Psychological Bulletin114: 510–32.
47.
ShinG-HParkS (2019) Language use matters: Construction-verb fusion in the comprehension of dative constructions in Korean. Paper presented at the 21st meeting of the International Circle of Korean Linguistics, Melbourne, Australia.
48.
SlabakovaR (2015) The effect of construction frequency and native transfer on second language knowledge of the syntax–discourse interface. Applied Psycholinguistics36: 671–99.
49.
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.
50.
SohnHM (1980) Theme-prominence in Korean. Korean Linguistics2: 1–19.
51.
SoraceA (2011) Pinning down the concept of ‘interface’ in bilingualism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism1: 1–33.
52.
SoraceA (2012) Pinning down the concept of ‘interface’ in bilingualism: A reply to peer commentaries. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism2: 209–16.
53.
SoraceASerratriceL (2009) Internal and external interfaces in bilingual language development: Beyond structural overlap. International Journal of Bilingualism13: 195–210.
54.
ThompsonS (1990) Information flow and dative shift in English discourse. In: EdmonsonJFeaginCMühlhäuslerP (eds) Development and diversity: Language variation across time and space. Arlington, TX: SIL and University of Texas, pp. 239–53.
55.
TrenkicDMirkovicJAltmannGT (2014) Real-time grammar processing by native and non-native speakers: Constructions unique to the second language. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition17: 237–57.
56.
ValenzuelaE (2006) L2 end state grammars and incomplete acquisition of Spanish CLLD constructions. In: SlabakovaRMontrulSPrévostP (eds) Inquiries in linguistic development: In honor of Lydia White. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 283–304.
57.
ZubizarretaML (1998) Prosody, focus, and word order. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
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.
