This study examined number marking comprehension among Japanese learners of second language (L2) English, whose first language (L1) does not have an obligatory number marking system. The study conducted an online sentence comprehension experiment with 96 L1-Japanese learners and 32 native speakers of English, wherein participants engaged in a self-paced reading with Stroop-like number judgment tasks. Participants were required to determine the number of single words in stimuli (e.g. cat/cats, one word; the cats/the cat, two-word sets), and their judgment time was measured for singular and plural words. The results indicated that both groups took more time to judge single plural nouns, suggesting that Japanese L2 learners of English automatically activate plurality in online sentence comprehension as native speakers do. In contrast, neither group showed an interference effect of singularity in judging singular two-word noun sets (the cat), unless the singularity is explicitly marked by indefinite article (a cat). The lack of interference may be because of unmarkedness of singularity.
BaayenRHDijkstraTSchreuderR (1997) Singulars and plurals in Dutch: Evidence for a parallel dual-route model. Journal of Memory and Language37: 94–117.
2.
BaleAGagnonMKhanjianH (2011) On the relationship between morphological and semantic markedness. Morphology21: 197–221.
3.
BañónJAMillerDRothmanJ (2021) Examining the contribution of markedness to the L2 processing of Spanish person agreement. Studies in Second Language Acquisition43: 699–728.
4.
BarrDJLevyRScheepersCTilyHJ (2013) Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language68: 255–78.
5.
BatesDMMaechlerMBolkerBWalkerS (2017). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. Available at: http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4 (accessed July 2023).
6.
BerentIPinkerSTzelgovJBibiUGoldfarbL (2005) Computation of semantic number from morphological information. Journal of Memory and Language53: 342–58.
7.
BeyersmannEDuttonEMAmerSSchillerNOBiedermannB (2015) The production of singular- and plural-dominant nouns in Dutch. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience30: 867–76.
8.
BiedermannBBeyersmannEMasonCNickelsL (2013) Does plural dominance play a role in spoken picture naming? A comparison of unimpaired and impaired speakers. Journal of Neurolinguistics26: 712–36.
9.
BockKEberhardKM (1993) Meaning, sound and syntax in English number agreement. Language and Cognitive Processes8: 57–99.
10.
BockKEberhardKMCuttingJC (2004) Producing number agreement: How pronouns equal verbs. Journal of Memory and Language51: 251–78.
BockKNicolJCuttingJC (1999) The ties that bind: Creating number agreement in speech. Journal of Memory and Language40: 330–46.
13.
BrysbaertMNewB (2009) Moving beyond Kučera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods41: 977–90.
14.
ChoiSHIoninT (2021) Plural marking in the second language: Atomicity, definiteness, and transfer. Applied Psycholinguistics42: 549–78.
15.
ClahsenHFelserC (2006) Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics27: 3–42.
16.
ClahsenHFelserC (2018) Some notes on the shallow structure hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition40: 693–706.
17.
ClahsenHFelserCNeubauerKSatoMSilvaR (2010) Morphological structure in native and nonnative language processing. Language Learning60: 21–43.
18.
CorbettGG (2000) Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
19.
CunningsI (2017) Interference in native and non-native sentence processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition20: 712–21.
20.
DaviesM (2008) The corpus of contemporary American English (COCA): 520 million words, 1990–present. Available at: https://corpus.byu.edu/coca (accessed July 2023).
21.
EberhardKM (1997) The marked effect of number on subject–verb agreement. Journal of Memory and Language36: 147–64.
22.
EberhardKM (1999) The accessibility of conceptual number to the processes of subject–verb agreement in English. Journal of Memory and Language41: 560–78.
23.
EberhardKMCuttingJCBockK (2005) Making syntax of sense: Number agreement in sentence production. Psychological Review112: 531–59.
24.
EckmanFR (1977) Markedness and the contrastive analysis hypothesis. Language Learning27: 315–30.
25.
GorK (2010) Introduction. Beyond the obvious: Do second language learners process inflectional morphology?Language Learning60: 1–20.
26.
GorKChrabaszczACookS (2017) Processing of native and nonnative inflected words: Beyond affix stripping. Journal of Memory and Language93: 315–32.
27.
GulgowskiPBłaszczakJ (2018) Stroop-like interference of grammatical and visual number. Acta Linguistica Academica65(2–3): 259–91.
28.
HaskellTRMacDonaldMC (2003) Conflicting cues and competition in subject–verb agreement. Journal of Memory and Language48: 760–78.
29.
HaspelmathM (2006). Against markedness (And what to replace it with). Journal of Linguistics42: 25–70.
30.
HumphreysKRBockK (2005) Notional number agreement in English. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review12: 689–95.
31.
IoninTWexlerK (2002) Why is ‘is’ easier than ‘-s’? Acquisition of tense/agreement morphology by child second language learners of English. Second Language Research18: 95–136.
32.
JACET Committee of Basic Words Revision (ed.) (2003) JACET List of 8000 Basic Words (JACET8000). Tokyo, Japan: JACET.
33.
JiangN (2004) Morphological insensitivity in second language processing. Applied Psycholinguistics25: 603–34.
34.
JiangN (2007) Selective integration of linguistic knowledge in adult second language learning. Language Learning57: 1–33.
35.
JiangNHuGChrabaszczAYeL (2017) The activation of grammaticalized meaning in L2 processing: Toward an explanation of the morphological congruency effect. International Journal of Bilingualism21: 81–98.
36.
JiangNNovokshanovaEMasudaKWangX (2011) Morphological congruency and the acquisition of L2 morphemes. Language Learning61: 940–67.
37.
KeatingGDJegerskiJ (2015) Experimental designs in sentence processing research: A methodological review and user’s guide. Studies in Second Language Acquisition37: 1–32.
38.
KusanagiKTamuraYFukutaJ (2015) The notional number attraction in English as a foreign language: A self-paced reading study. Journal of the Japan Society for Speech Sciences16: 77–96.
39.
LardiereD (1998) Dissociating syntax from morphology in a divergent L2 end-state grammar. Second Language Research14: 359–75.
40.
LoSAndrewsS (2015) To transform or not to transform: Using generalized linear mixed models to analyse reaction time data. Frontiers in Psychology6: 1171.
41.
McCarthyC (2008) Morphological variability in the comprehension of agreement: An argument for representation over computation. Second Language Research24: 459–86.
42.
NakanishiKTomiokaS (2004) Japanese plurals are exceptional. Journal of East Asian Linguistics13: 113–40.
43.
NewBBrysbaertMSeguiJFerrandLRastleK (2004) The processing of singular and plural nouns in French and English. Journal of Memory and Language51: 568–85.
44.
NickelsLBiedermannBFiederNSchillerNO (2015) The lexical–syntactic representation of number. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience30: 287–304.
45.
PatsonND (2014) The processing of plural expressions. Language and Linguistics Compass8: 319–29.
46.
PatsonNDGeorgeGWarrenT (2014) The conceptual representation of number. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology67: 1349–65.
47.
PatsonNDWarrenT (2010) Evidence for distributivity effects in comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition36: 782–9.
48.
PortinMLehtonenMHarrerG, et al. (2008) L1 effects on the processing of inflected nouns in L2. Acta Psychologica128: 452–65.
49.
PortinMLehtonenMLaineM (2007) Processing of inflected nouns in late bilinguals. Applied Psycholinguistics28: 135–56.
50.
R Core Team (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing [software]. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available at: http://www.R-project.org (accessed July 2023).
51.
SauerlandUAnderssenJYatsushiroK (2005) The plural is semantically unmarked. In: KepserSReisM (eds) Linguistic Evidence. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 413–34.
52.
SauerlandUElbourneP (2002) Total reconstruction, PF movement, and derivational order. Linguistic Inquiry33: 283–319.
53.
ShibuyaMWakabayashiS (2008) Why are L2 learners not always sensitive to subject–verb agreement?EUROSLA Yearbook8: 235–58.
54.
SilvaRClahsenH (2008) Morphologically complex words in L1 and L2 processing: Evidence from masked priming experiments in English. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition11: 245–60.
55.
SongY (2015) L2 processing of plural inflection in English: L2 processing of plural inflection in English. Language Learning65: 233–67.
56.
StaubA (2009) On the interpretation of the number attraction effect: Response time evidence. Journal of Memory and Language60: 308–27.
57.
TamuraYMoritaMNishimuraY (2016, September12) Word frequency dominance and L2 word recognition. Paper presentation at the conference Vocab@Tokyo, international conference on vocabulary learning and teaching, Tokyo, Japan.
58.
TrenkicDMirkovicJAltmannGTM (2014) Real-time grammar processing by native and non-native speakers: Constructions unique to the second language. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition17: 237–57.
59.
TretiakovaES (2020) Japanese EFL learners’ interpretation of plural morphology. Journal of Psycholinguistics4: 122–33.
60.
VainioSPajunenAHyönäJ (2016) Processing modifier–head agreement in L1 and L2 Finnish: An eye-tracking study. Second Language Research32: 3–24.
61.
WenZMiyaoMTakedaAChuWSchwartzBD (2010) Proficiency effects and distance effects in nonnative processing of English number agreement. In: FranichKIsermanKMKeilLL (eds) Proceedings of the 34th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, pp. 445–56.
62.
WolterBYamashitaJ (2018) Word frequency, collocational frequency, L1 congruency, and proficiency in L2 collocational processing: What accounts for L2 performance?Studies in Second Language Acquisition40: 395–416.
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.
