Sentence matching and processing in L2 development

Abstract

The processing strategies described in Clahsen (1984) to explain the develop ment of German word order make predictions that can be tested ex perimentally. Clahsen's Initialization/Finalization Strategy (IFS) in particular predicts that uninverted, ADV-SVO sentences will exact less cost in terms of processing than inverted, ADV-VSO sentences, even though inverted sent ences are grammatical in the target language and uninverted sentences are ungrammatical. The experimental means employed to test this prediction is the Sentence Matching (SM) procedure described originally in Freedman and Forster (1985). In the SM procedure, response times are elicited for particular types of sentences by measuring the time (in msec.) it takes for subjects to determine whether two sentences presented by computer are identical or different.

The results of one of the experiments reported here show that inverted sentences result in significantly shorter response times than uninverted sentences for non-native speakers. This finding directly contradicts the IFS-derived prediction. However, further experimental work reported here indicates that native speakers do not respond at all to the inverted-uninverted contrast. The rest of the article thus seeks to explain this somewhat surprising finding. The proposed explanation also suggests that natives and non-natives may process sentences in the SM task in rather different ways.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bates, E. and MacWhinney, B. 1982: Functionalist approaches to grammar. In Wanner, E. and Gleitman, L. , editors, Language acquisition: the state of the art . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bley-Vroman, R. 1991: Processing, constraints on acquisition, and the parsing of ungrammatical sentences. In Eubank, L. , editor, Point counterpoint. Amsterdam : John Benjamins.

Bley-Vroman, R. and Eubank, L. 1989: Match Test Version 2 (computer program). University of Hawai'i at Manoa and University of North Texas.

Bley-Vroman, R. and Masterson, D. 1989: Reaction times and a grammatical contrast between English and Korean. Paper presented at the Department of ESL Colloquium, University of Hawai'i at Manoa. March 1989.

Clahsen, H. 1984: The acquisition of German word order. In Andersen, R. , editor, Second languages. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

1988 : Parameterized grammatical theory and language acquisition: a study of the acquisition of verb placement and inflection by children and adults. In Flynn, S. and O'Neil, W. , editors, Linguistic theory in second language acquisition. Dordrecht: Reidel.

Clahsen, H. , Meisel, J. and Pienemann, M. 1983: Deutsch als Zweitsprache. Tübingen : Narr.

Clahsen, H. and Muysken, P. 1986: The availability of Universal Grammar to adult and child learners — a study of the acquisition of German word order. Second Language Research 2, 93-119.

Clark, H. 1973: The language-as-a-fixed-effect fallacy. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 12, 335-59.

10.

Crain, S. and Fodor, J.D. 1987: Sentence matching and overgeneration. Cognition 26, 123-69.

11.

duPlessis, J. , Solin, D. , Travis, L. and White, L. 1987: UG or not UG, that is the question. Second Language Research 3, 56-75.

12.

Eubank, L. 1992: Verb movement, agreement, and tense in L2 acquisition . In Meisel, J. , editor, The acquisition of verb placement. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

13.

Forster, K. and Stevenson, B. 1987: Sentence matching and well-formedness. Cognition 26, 171-86.

14.

Freedman, S. and Forster, K. 1985: The psychological status of overgenerated sentences. Cognition 19, 101-86.

15.

Garman, M. 1990: Psycholinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

16.

Goodluck, H. 1990: Knowledge integration in processing and acquisition. In Frazier, L. and de Villiers, J. , editors, Language processing and language acquisition. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

17.

Haegeman, L. 1991: Introduction to Government and Binding Theory. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.

18.

Meisel, J.M. 1991: Principles of Universal Grammar and strategies of language learning: some similarities and differences between first and second language acquisition. In Eubank, L. , editor, Point counterpoint. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

19.

Pienemann, M. 1984: Psychological constraints on the teachability of language . Studies in Second Language Acquisition 6, 186-214.

20.

— 1987: Determining the influence of instruction on L2 speech processing. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 10, 83-113.

21.

Pienemann, M. and Johnson, M. 1987: Processing constraints and learnability. Manuscript, University of Sydney.

22.

Stowe, L. 1992: The processing implementation of grammatical constraints: the sentence matching debate. In Goodluck, H. and Rochemont, M. , editors, Island constraints: theory, acquisition and processing. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

23.

Tomaselli, A. and Schwartz, B. 1990: Analysing the acquisition stages of negation in L2 German: support for UG in SLA. Second Language Research 6, 1-38.

24.

Vikner, S. and Schwartz, B. , in press: The verb always leaves IP in V2 clauses. In Belletti, A. and Rizzi, L. , editors, Parameters and functional heads. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

25.

White, L. 1991: Second language competence versus second language performance: UG or processing strategies. In Eubank, L. , editor, Point counterpoint. Amsterdam : John Benjamins.

26.

Zobl, H. 1991: Linguistic processing in non-native performance and sensitivity to C-command and locality in pronominal reference resolution. Manuscript, Carleton University.