This study investigates pronoun interpretation by second language (L2) learners of English, focusing on whether first language (L1) transfer and/or processing difficulty affect L2 learners’ pronoun resolution. It is hypothesized that L2 learners’ non-target performance in L2-pronoun interpretation is attributable to two sources. The first is the computational complexity required for pronoun resolution, as argued in L1 acquisition by Grodzinsky and Reinhart and L2 acquisition by Slabakova et al. The second is how pronoun interpretation operates in L1. The hypothesis is tested by comparing Korean and Spanish L2-English learners’ interpretation of English pronouns using a Truth Value Judgment Task. Both groups had difficulty rejecting pronouns with local-referential antecedents when their proficiency levels were low. Additionally, Korean speakers showed more non-target responses than Spanish speakers due to their knowledge of pronoun interpretation in Korean. These results indicate that both L1 transfer and processing difficulty may be sources of L2 learners’ non-target pronoun interpretation, supporting the hypothesis of the study.
AnSJ (2008) The function of third person pronouns ‘ku, kunye’. Hankwuke Hakhoy38: 145–64.
2.
AvrutinSWexlerK (1992) Development of principle B in Russian: Coindexation at LF and coreference. Language Acquisition2: 259–306.
3.
BaauwS (2000) Grammatical features and the acquisition of reference. A comparative study of Dutch and Spanish. PhD Thesis, Utrecht University. Utrecht: LOT.
4.
BaauwS (2018) The interpretation of pronouns across Spanish-speaking populations. Languages3: 11–17.
5.
BarrDLevyRScheepersCTilyH (2013) Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language68: 255–78.
6.
Bley-VromanR (1990) The logical problem of foreign language learning. Linguistic Analysis20: 3–49.
7.
ChienYCWexlerK (1990) Children’s knowledge of locality conditions in binding as evidence for the modularity of syntax and pragmatics. Language Acquisition1: 225–95.
8.
ChoiKY (2013) Consideration of Korean third person pronoun ‘ku’. Studies in Generative Grammar23: 527–58.
9.
ChomskyN (1980) On binding. Linguistic Inquiry11: 1–46.
10.
ChomskyN (1981) Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
11.
ClacksonKFelserCClahsenH (2011) Children’s processing of reflexives and pronouns in English: Evidence from eye-movements during listening. Journal of Memory and Language65: 128–44.
12.
ClahsenHFelserC (2006) Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics27: 3–42.
13.
ConroyATakahashiELidzJPhillipsC (2009) Equal treatment for all antecedents: How children succeed with Principle B. Linguistic Inquiry40: 446–86.
14.
CrainSThorntonR (1998) Investigations in university grammar: A guide to experiments on the acquisition of syntax and semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
15.
ElbourneP (2005) On the acquisition of Principle B. Linguistic Inquiry36: 333–65.
16.
FinerDBroselowE (1986) Second language acquisition of reflexive binding. In: BermanSChoeJ-WMcDonoughJ (eds) Proceedings of NELS. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts at Amherst, pp. 154–68.
17.
GrodzinskyYReinhartT (1993) The innateness of binding and coreference. Linguistic Inquiry24: 69–101.
18.
HanCStoroshenkoDR (2012) Semantic binding of long-distance anaphor caki in Korean. Language88: 764–90.
19.
HartmanJSudoYWexlerK (2012) Principle B and phonologically reduced pronouns in child English. Unpublished paper presented at the 37th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (BUCLD 37), Boston, MA, USA.
20.
HeimIKratzerA (1998) Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.
21.
HuangCTJ (1984) On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry15: 531–74.
22.
IoninTMontrulS (2010) The role of L1-transfer in the interpretation of articles with definite plurals in L2-English. Language Learning60: 877–925.
23.
KangMY (1988) Topics in Korean syntax: Phrase structure, variable binding and movement. Unpublished PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston, MA, USA.
24.
KimEMontrulSYoonJ (2015) The on-line processing of binding principles in second language acquisition: Evidence from eye tracking. Applied Psycholinguistics36: 1317–74.
25.
KimEH (2019) Interpretation and processing of overt pronouns in Korean, English and L2-acquisition. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL, USA.
26.
KimEH (2020) Experimental evidence supporting the overlapping distribution of core and exempt anaphors: Re-examination of long-distance bound caki-casin in Korean. Linguistics58: 1775–806.
27.
KimKMHanCH (2016) Inter-speaker variation in Korean pronouns. In: GroszPPatel-GroszP (eds) Principles and parameters in comparative grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 349–73.
28.
KimK-S (2010) Korean 3rd person pronoun ku: Comparison with pronouns in French and English. French Language Education34: 101–21.
29.
KosterC (1993) Errors in anaphora acquisition. Unpublished PhD thesis, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
30.
KuznetsovaABrockhoffPBChristensenRHB (2017) lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software82: 1–26.
31.
LeeDSchachterJ (1997) Sensitive period effects in binding theory. Language Acquisition6: 333–62.
32.
LeeG (2001) A minimalist account of long-distance anaphorkucasin. Studies in Generative Grammar11: 383–404.
LiCNThompsonSA (1976) Development of the causative in Mandarin Chinese: Interaction of diachronic processes in syntax. In: ShibataniM (ed.) The grammar of causative constructions. Leiden: Brill, pp. 477–92.
35.
LinckJACunningsI (2015) The utility and application of mixed-effects models in second language research. Language Learning65: 185–207.
36.
McKeeC (1992) A comparison of pronouns and anaphors in Italian and English acquisition. Language Acquisition2: 21–54.
37.
PattersonCTrompeltHFelserC (2014) The online application of binding condition B in native and non-native pronoun resolution. Frontiers in Psychology5: 147.
38.
PhilipWCoopmansP (1996) The role of lexical feature acquisition in the development of pronominal anaphora. In: PhilipWWijnenF (eds) Amsterdam series on child language development: Volume 5. Amsterdam: Instituut Algemene Taalwetenschap, pp. 241–257.
39.
PollardCSagIA (1992) Anaphors in English and the scope of binding theory. Linguistic Inquiry23: 261–303.
40.
PollardCSagIA (1994) Head-driven phrase structure grammar. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
41.
R Development Core Team (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing [software]. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available at: http://www.R-project.org (accessed February 2023).
42.
ReinhartT (1983) Coreference and bound anaphora: A restatement of the anaphora questions. Linguistics and Philosophy6: 47–88.
43.
ReinhartT (2011) Processing or pragmatics? Explaining the coreference delay. In: GibsonTPearlmutterN (eds) The processing and acquisition of reference. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 157–194.
44.
ReinhartTReulandE (1993) Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry24: 657–720.
45.
ReulandE (2001) Primitives of binding. Linguistic Inquiry32: 439–92.
46.
ReulandE (2011) Anaphora and language design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
47.
SchwartzBSprouseR (1996) L2 cognitive states and the full transfer/full access hypothesis. Second Language Research12: 40–72.
48.
SeoH-JShin (2016) L2 processing of English pronouns and reflexives. Yeongeohak16: 879–901.
49.
SigurjónsdóttirS (1992) Binding in Icelandic: Evidence from language acquisition. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
50.
SlabakovaRWhiteLGuzzoNB (2017) Pronoun interpretation in the second language: Effects of computational complexity. Frontiers in Psychology8: 1236–47.
51.
SohnHM (1980) Theme-prominence in Korean. Korean Linguistics2: 1–19.
52.
SoraceA (2011) Pinning down the concept of ‘interface’ in bilingualism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism1: 1–33.
53.
SoraceAFiliaciF (2006) Anaphora resolution in near-native speakers of Italian. Second Language Research22: 339–68.
54.
WhiteL (1998) Second language acquisition and Binding Principle B: Child/adult differences. Second Language Research14: 425–39.
55.
WhiteL (2003) Second language acquisition and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
56.
YangDW (1985) On the integrity of control theory. In: BermanSChoeJ-WMcDonoughJ (eds) Proceedings of NELS. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts at Amherst, pp. 389–408.
57.
ZesigerPZesigerLCArabatziM, et al. (2010) The acquisition of pronouns by French children: A parallel study of production and comprehension. Applied Psycholinguistics31: 571–603.
