Do L2 learners show attachment preferences? The processing of participial relative clauses in L2 Russian by English

Abstract

Aims and objectives:

This study investigated whether first language (L1) English and second language (L2) Russian bilinguals are sensitive to structural information during L2 processing by testing their attachment preference when reading participial relative clauses with three preceding noun phrases in Russian.

Methodology:

The participants read sentences containing a participial relative clause preceded by three noun phrases connected by genitive marking and responded to comprehension questions by indicating which noun phrase the participial relative clause modified or that the sentence was ungrammatical. Their reading times and post-reading responses were recorded.

Data and analysis:

The reading times were log-transformed and fitted to a generalized linear mixed-effects model. Ungrammaticality judgment rates and noun phrase selection accuracy rates were fitted to generalized linear mixed-effects models using a binary logistic distribution.

Findings:

Reading times and ungrammaticality judgment rates showed that the participants preferred to attach the participial relative clause to the first and the third noun phrases. The second noun phrase was least preferred. These results contrast findings in previous studies, which have shown no attachment preference for L2 learners. We argue that the participants were sensitive to structural information, in that they were constrained by the recency preference and the predicate proximity effects, similar to native speakers.

Originality:

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study that tested L2 learners with relative clauses preceded by three noun phrases and showed that L2 learners are also constrained by the recency preference and predicate proximity effects.

Significance/Implications:

We argue that our findings deviate from the null attachment preference found in previous studies, which has been used as evidence that L2 processing is fundamentally different from L1 processing. Our findings suggest that L2 learners were influenced by predicate proximity, similar to native Russian speakers, and were also mildly influenced by recency preference, which could be from this L1.

Keywords

Relative clauses Russian predicate proximity recency preference self-paced reading

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Brown

(1996). Russian Learners’ Dictionary: 10,000 Russian words in frequency order. Routledge.

Carreiras

Clifton

(1993). Relative Clause Interpretation Preferences in Spanish and English. Language and Speech, 36(4), 353–372. https://doi.org/10.1177/002383099303600401

Carreiras

Clifton

(1999). Another word on parsing relative clauses: Eyetracking evidence from Spanish and English. Memory & Cognition, 27(5), 826–833. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03198535

Chernova

Chernigovskaya

T. V.

(2015). Syntactic ambiguity resolution in sentence processing: New evidence from a morphologically rich language. In Proceedings of the EuroAsianPacific Joint Conference on Cognitive Science (pp. 129–133). CEUR Workshop Proceedings.

Clahsen

Felser

(2006a). Continuity and shallow structures in language processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27(1), 107–126.

Clahsen

Felser

(2006b). How native-like is non-native language processing? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(12), 564–570.

Clahsen

Felser

(2018). Some notes on the shallow structure hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40(3), 693–706.

Cuetos

Mitchell

D. C.

(1988). Cross-linguistic differences in parsing: Restrictions on the use of the Late Closure strategy in Spanish. Cognition, 30(1), 73–105.

Darzhinova

Luk

Z. P.

(2024). Processing and comprehension of locally ambiguous participial relative clause sentences in Russian. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 53, Article 15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-024-10041-4

10.

DeKeyser

(2003). Implicit and explicit learning. In Doughty

C. J.

Long

M. H.

(Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 312–348). John Wiley & Sons.

11.

Dekydtspotter

Donaldson

Edmonds

A. C.

Fultz

A. L.

Petrush

R. A.

(2008). Syntactic and prosodic computations in the resolution of relative clause attachment ambiguity by English French learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30(4), 453–480. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263108080728

12.

Dekydtspotter

Schwartz

B. D.

Sprouse

R. A.

(2006). The comparative fallacy in L2 processing research. In O’Brien

M. G.

Shea

Archibald

(Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2006) (pp. 33–40). Cascadilla Proceedings Project.

13.

Dinçtopal-Deniz

(2010). Relative clause attachment preferences of Turkish L2 speakers of English: Shallow parsing in the L2? In VanPatten

Jegerski

(Eds.), Research in second language processing and parsing (pp. 27–63). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lald.53.02din

14.

Dussias

P. E.

Sagarra

(2007). The effect of exposure on syntactic parsing in Spanish–English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10(1), 101–116.

15.

Felser

Marinis

Clahsen

(2003). Children’s processing of ambiguous sentences: A study of relative clause attachment. Language Acquisition, 11(3), 127–163.

16.

Felser

Roberts

Marinis

Gross

(2003). The processing of ambiguous sentences by first and second language learners of English. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24(3), 453–489.

17.

Frazier

(1979). On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Massachusetts Amherst.

18.

Frenck-Mestre

(1997). Examining second language reading: An on-line look. In Proceedings of the GALA 1997 conference on language acquisition (pp. 474–478). HCRC.

19.

Gibson

Pearlmutter

Canseco-Gonzalez

Hickok

(1996). Recency preference in the human sentence processing mechanism. Cognition, 59, 23–59.

20.

Gor

Jackson

(2013). Morphological decomposition and lexical access in a native and second language: A nesting doll effect. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(7), 1065–1091. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2013.776696

21.

Grüter

Rohde

Schafer

A. J.

(2017). Coreference and discourse coherence in L2: The roles of grammatical aspect and referential form. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 7(2), 199–229. https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.15011.gru

22.

Hopp

(2006). Syntactic features and reanalysis in near-native processing. Second Language Research, 22(3), 369–397. https://doi.org/10.1191/0267658306sr272oa

23.

Hopp

(2014). Working memory effects in the L2 processing of ambiguous relative clauses. Language Acquisition, 21(3), 250–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/10489223.2014.892943

24.

Hopp

(2018). The bilingual mental lexicon in L2 sentence processing. Second Language, 17(1), 5–27.

25.

Hopp

(2022). Second language sentence processing. Annual Review of Linguistics, 8(1), 235–256. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-030821-054113

26.

Just

M. A.

Carpenter

P. A.

(1980). A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review, 87(4).

27.

Kallestinova

E. D.

(2007). Aspects of word order in Russian [Doctoral dissertation]. The University of Iowa.

28.

Kapitonova

T. I.

Moskovkin

L. V.

(2006). Metodika obuchenija russkomu jazyku kak inostrannomu jetape predvuzovskoi podgotovki [Methods of teaching Russian as a foreign language at the stage of pre-university training]. Zlatoust.

29.

Keating

G. D.

(2009). Sensitivity to violations of gender agreement in native and nonnative Spanish: An eye-movement investigation. Language Learning, 59(3), 503–535. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00516.x

30.

Leal

Slabakova

Farmer

T. A.

(2017). The fine-tuning of linguistic expectations over the course of L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39(3), 493–525.

31.

Oldfield

R. C.

(1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9(1), 97–113.

32.

Papadopoulou

Clahsen

(2003). Parsing strategies in L1 and L2 sentence processing: A study of relative clause attachment in Greek. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25(4), 501–528.

33.

Peirce

Gray

J. R.

Simpson

MacAskill

Höchenberger

Sogo

Kastman

Lindeløv

J. K.

(2019). PsychoPy2: Experiments in behavior made easy. Behavior Research Methods, 51, 195–203.

34.

Pliatsikas

Marinis

(2013). Processing empty categories in a second language: When naturalistic exposure fills the (intermediate) gap. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16(1), 167–182. https://doi.org/10.1017/S136672891200017X

35.

Rah

(2010). Transfer in L3 sentence processing: Evidence from relative clause attachment ambiguities. International Journal of Multilingualism, 7(2), 147–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790710903276342

36.

Rah

Adone

(2010). Processing of the reduced relative clause versus main verb ambiguity in L2 learners at different proficiency levels. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(1), 79–109.

37.

Sekerina

(1997). The late closure principle vs. the balance principle: Evidence from on-line processing of ambiguous Russian sentences. In Costa

Frasek

(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.

38.

Ullman

M. T.

(2006). The declarative/procedural model and the shallow structure hypothesis. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27(1), 97–105.

39.

Ullman

M. T.

(2016). The declarative/procedural model: A neurobiological model of language learning, knowledge, and use. In Hickok

Small

S. L.

(Eds.), Neurobiology of language (pp. 953–968). Elsevier. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780124077942000766

Do L2 learners show attachment preferences? The processing of participial relative clauses in L2 Russian by English–Russian bilinguals

Abstract

Aims and objectives:

Methodology:

Data and analysis:

Findings:

Originality:

Significance/Implications:

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References