The study investigates human sentence processing and argues that information from multiple sources is considered equally in native and non-native languages. Non-syntactic information does not overrule the parsing decisions prompted by syntactic cues.
Methodology:
The experiment used ambiguous relative clauses (RC) in a self-paced reading task with 20 native and 45 non-native adult speakers of English and Russian. The software Linger recorded participants’ answers to comprehension questions and the time they spent reading each word.
Data and analysis:
Mixed linear analysis performed in R checked for the effect of a matrix verb, RC length, social conventions, the native language and the language of testing on RC processing and interpretation.
Findings:
Both native and non-native speakers followed social conventions in deciding on the interpretation of the RC. However, this information never overruled the attachment decision prompted by the matrix predicate or by the length of the RC which entails certain sentence prosody.
Originality:
The study is innovative in investigating the extent to which each factor affected RC processing. It shows that social conventions enhance processing when they conspire with the structural parse prompted by linguistic cues. When they do not, syntactic information governs sentence parsing in both L1 and L2.
Significance/implications:
The study provides evidence that sentence processing uses linguistic structure as a first parsing hypothesis, which can then be adjusted to incorporate the incoming information from multiple sources.
Limitations:
The findings need further support from testing L2 learners of Russian in various socio-cultural contexts.
ChristiansonK. (2016). When language comprehension goes wrong for the right reasons: Good-enough, underspecified, or shallow language processing. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69, 817–828.
2.
ClahsenH.FelserC. (2006). Continuity and shallow structures in language processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27(2), 107–126.
3.
ClahsenH.FelserC. (2018). Notes on the shallow structure hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40(3), 693–706.
4.
CrockerM. W. (1999). Mechanisms of sentence processing. In GarrodS.PickeringM. J. (Eds.), Language processing (pp. 191–231). Psychology Press.
5.
CuetosF.MitchellD. (1988). Cross-linguistic differences in parsing: Restrictions on the use of the late closure strategy in Spanish. Cognition, 30, 73–105.
6.
CunningsI. (2017). Parsing and working memory in bilingual sentence processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 20(4), 659–678.
7.
DekydtspotterL.RenaudC. (2014). On second language processing and grammatical development: The parser in second language acquisition. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 4(2), 131–165.
8.
DekydtspotterL.DonaldsonB.AdmondsA. C.FultzA. L.PetrushR. A. (2008). Syntactic and prosodic computation in the resolution of relative clause attachment ambiguity by English-French learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 453–480.
9.
DekydspotterL.SchwartzB. D.SprouseR. A. (2006). The comparative fallacy in L2 processing research. In O’Brien, GranthamM.SheaC.ArchibaldJ. (Eds.) Proceedings of the 8th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2006) (pp. 33–40). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
10.
FelserC.MarinisT.ClahsenH. (2003a). Children’s processing of ambiguous sentences: A study of relative clause fttachment. Language Acquisition, 11, 127–163.
11.
FelserC.RobertsL.GrossR.MarinisT. (2003b). The processing of ambiguous sentences by first and second language learners of English. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24, 453–489.
12.
FelserC.SatoM.BertenshawN. (2009). The on-line application of binding principle A in English as a second language. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12(4), 485–502.
13.
FelserC.CunningsI. (2012). Processing reflexives in English as a second language: The role of structural and discourse-level constraints. Applied Psycholinguistics, 33, 571–603.
14.
FernandezE. (1999). Processing strategies in second language acquisition: Some preliminary results. In KleinE.MartohardjonoG. (Eds.), The development of second language grammars: A generative approach (pp. 217–239). John Benjamins.
15.
FodorJ. (1998). Parsing to learn. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 27(3), 339–374.
FrazierL.FodorJ. (1978). The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition, 6(4), 291–325.
19.
GrilloN.CostaJ. (2014). A novel argument for the universality of parsing principles. Cognition, 133(1), 156–187.
20.
GrilloN.CostaJ.FernandesB.SantiA. (2015). Highs and lows in English attachment. Cognition, 144, 116–122.
21.
HemforthB.KoniecznyL.ScheepersC.StrubeG. (1998). Syntactic ambiguity resolution in German. Syntax and Semantics, 31, 293–309.
22.
HoppH. (2014a). Individual differences in the L2 processing of object-subject ambiguities. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36(2), 129–173.
23.
HoppH. (2014b). Working memory effects on the L2 processing of ambiguous relative clauses. Language Acquisition, 21(3), 250–278.
24.
MacDonaldM.PearlmutterN.SeidenbergM. (1994). The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101, 676–703.
25.
PapadopoulouD.ClahsenH. (2003). Parsing strategies in L1 and L2 sentence processing: A study of relative clause attachment in Greek. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 501–528.
26.
PhillipsC. (1996). Order and structure [Doctoral dissertation]. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
27.
PhillipsC. (2003). Linear order and constituency. Linguistic Inquiry, 34(1), 37–90.
28.
PhillipsC. (2013). On the nature of island constraints I: Language processing and reductionist accounts. In Experimental Syntax and Island Effects, edited by J. Sprouse and N. Hornstein. Cambridge University Press, 64–105.
29.
PhillipsC.SchneiderD. (2000). Grammatical search and reanalysis. Journal of Memory and Language45, 308–336.
30.
PozniakC.HemforthB.HaendlerY.SantiA.GrilloN. (2019). Seeing events vs. entities: The processing advantage of pseudo relatives over relative clauses. Journal of Memory and Language, 107, 128–151.
31.
SekerinaI. (1997). The late closure principle vs. the balance principle: Evidence from on-line processing of ambiguous Russian sentences. In CostaP.FrasekJ. (Eds.), Current approaches to formal Slavic linguistics. Contributions of the second European conference on formal description of Slavic languages FDSL II. Potsdam meeting 1997 (pp. 205–217). Peter Lang.
32.
SokolovaM.SlabakovaR (2019). L3-sentence processing: Language-specific or phenomenon-sensitive. Languages, 4(5), 1–17.
33.
SprouseR, A. (2011). The Interface Hypothesis and Full Transfer/Full Access/Full Parse: A brief comparison. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1, 97–100.
34.
TanenhausM. K.Spivey-KnowltonM. J.EberhardK. M.SedivyJ. C. (1995). Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science New Series, 268(5217), 1632–1634.
35.
TrueswellJ.TanenhausM. (1994). Toward a lexicalist framework of constraint-based syntactic ambiguity resolution. In CliftonC.RaynerK.FrazierL. (Eds.), Perspectives on sentence processing (pp. 155–179). Erlbaum.
36.
van GompelR. P. G.PickeringM. J.TraxlerJ. M (2000). Unrestricted race: A new model of syntactic ambiguity resolution. In KennedyA.RadachR.HellerD.OxfordJ. (Eds.) Reading as a perceptual process (pp. 621–648). Elsevier.
37.
ZagarD.PynteJ.RativeauS. (1997). Evidence for early closure attachment on first-pass reading times in French. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 50(A), 421–438.
