This study examines whether English native speakers and highly proficient non-native speakers make comparable use of plausibility information during online sentence processing. Two sentence types involving temporarily ambiguous structural configurations—subordinate-clause ambiguity sentences and sentences with adjacent/split verb-particle constructions (VPCs)—were tested in a self-paced reading task. In the subordinate-clause ambiguity sentences, the pattern of reading times indicated that both native and non-native speakers used plausibility to recover from initial structural misanalysis. Native speakers were also able to use this information during syntactic and semantic reanalysis in the sentences involving split VPCs. Non-native speakers, however, showed persistent processing difficulty for split VPC sentences, regardless of plausibility. These results are taken to indicate that both native speakers and non-native speakers use plausibility information to recover from misanalysis, even in sentences that require major syntactic revision. The only clear limit on non-native speakers’ ability to use this information related to lexico-syntactic/semantic processing difficulty, in that they appeared to be unable to use this information to recover from misanalysis associated with the structural properties of English VPCs.
AdamsB. C.CliftonC.Jr.MitchellD. C. (1998). Lexical guidance in sentence processing?Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5, 265–270.
2.
BarrD.LevyR.ScheepersC.TilyH. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 255–278.
3.
BatesD.MächlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48.
4.
BiberD.JohanssonS.LeechG.ConradS.FineganE. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Longman.
5.
BlaisM.-J.GonnermanL. M. (2013). Explicit and implicit semantic processing of verb–particle constructions by French–English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16, 829–846.
6.
BolingerD. (1971). The phrasal verb in English. Harvard University Press.
7.
ChenP. (1986). Discourse and particle movement in English. Studies in Language, 10, 79–95.
8.
ChristiansonK.HollingworthA.HalliwellJ. F.FerreiraF. (2001). Thematic roles assigned along the garden path linger. Cognitive Psychology, 42, 368–407.
9.
ClahsenH.FelserC. (2006). Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 3–42.
10.
CliftonC.Jr. (1993). Thematic roles in sentence parsing. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47, 222–246.
11.
CousineauD. (2005). Confidence intervals in within-subject designs: A simpler solution to Loftus and Masson’s method. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 1, 42–45.
12.
DagutM.LauferB. (1985). Avoidance of phrasal verbs: A case for contrastive analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7, 73–79.
13.
Den DikkenM. (1995). Particles. Oxford University Press.
14.
DussiasP. E.PiñarP. (2010). Effects of reading span and plausibility in the reanalysis of wh-gaps by Chinese–English second language speakersf. Second Language Research, 26, 443–472.
15.
FerreiraF.HendersonJ. M. (1991). Recovery from misanalyses of garden-path sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 725–745.
16.
FerreiraF.HendersonJ. M. (1993). Reading processes during syntactic analysis and reanalysis. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47, 247–275.
17.
ForsterK. I.ForsterJ. C. (2003). DMDX: A Windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35, 116–124.
18.
FraserB. (1976). The verb-particle combination in English. Academic Press.
19.
FrazierL.RaynerK. (1982). Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 178–210.
20.
Frenck-MestreC.PynteJ. (1997). Syntactic ambiguity resolution while reading in second and native languages. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 50A, 119–148.
21.
GardnerD.DaviesM. (2007). Pointing out frequent phrasal verbs: A corpus-based analysis. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 339–359.
22.
GarnierM.SchmittN. (2016). Picking up polysemous phrasal verbs: How many do learners know and what facilitates this knowledge?System, 59, 29–44.
23.
GonnermanL. M. (2012). The roles of efficiency and complexity in the processing of verb particle constructions. Journal of Speech Sciences, 2, 3–31.
24.
GonnermanL. M.HayesC. R. (2005). The professor chewed the students. . . out: Effects of dependency, length, and adjacency on word order preferences in sentences with verb particle constructions. In BaraB. G.BucciarelliM.BarsalouL. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 785–790). Lawrence Erlbaum.
25.
GonzálezR. A. (2010). L2 Spanish acquisition of English phrasal verbs: A cognitive linguistic analysis of L1 influence. In Campoy-CubillowM. C.Bellés-FortuñoB.Gea-ValorM. L. (Eds.), Corpus-based approaches to English language teaching (pp. 149–166). Continuum.
26.
GriesS. (1999). Particle movement: A cognitive and functional approach. Cognitive Linguistics, 10, 105–145.
27.
HaidenM. (2006). Verb particle constructions. In EveraertM.van RiemsdijkH. (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to syntax (pp. 344–373). Blackwell.
28.
HarleyH.NoyerR. (1998). Mixed nominalizations, short verb movement and object shift in English. In TamanjiP. N.KusumotoK. (Eds.), Proceedings of NELS 28 (pp. 143–158). GLSA, University of Massachusetts.
29.
HerbayA. C.GonnermanL. M.BaumS. R. (2018). How do French-English bilinguals pull verb particle constructions off? Factors influencing second language processing of unfamiliar structures at the syntax-semantics interface. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1885.
30.
HoppH. (2015). Individual differences in the second language processing of object–subject ambiguities. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36, 129–173.
31.
HoppH. (2018). The bilingual mental lexicon in L2 sentence processing. Second Language, 17, 5–27.
32.
HulstijnJ. H.MarchenaE. (1989). Avoidance: Grammatical or semantic causes?Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 241–255.
33.
JacobG.FelserC. (2016). Reanalysis and semantic persistence in native and non-native garden-path recovery. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69, 907–925.
34.
JohnsonK. (1991). Object positions. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 9, 577–636.
35.
JuffsA. (1998). Some effects of first language argument structure and morphosyntax on second language sentence processing. Second Language Research, 14, 406–424.
36.
JuffsA. (2004). Representation, processing, and working memory in a second language. Transactions of the Philological Society, 102, 199–225.
37.
JuffsA.HarringtonM. (1996). Garden path sentences and error data in second language processing research. Language Learning, 46, 283–326.
38.
JustM. A.CarpenterP. A.WoolleyJ. D. (1982). Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 111, 228–238.
39.
KayneR. S. (1985). Principle of particle constructions. In GuéronJ.ObenauerH.-G.PollockJ.-Y. (Eds.), Grammatical representation (pp. 101–140). Foris.
40.
KoizumiM. (1993). Object agreement phrases and the split-VP hypothesis. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 18, 99–148.
41.
KuznetsovaA.BrockhoffP. B.ChristensenR. H. B. (2017). lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13), 1–26.
42.
LauferB.EliassonS. (1993). What causes avoidance in L2 learning: L1-L2 difference, L1-L2 similarity, or L2 complexity?Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 35–48.
LiaoY.FukuyaY. J. (2004). Avoidance of phrasal verbs: The case of Chinese learners of English. Language Learning, 52, 193–226.
45.
LohseB.HawkinsJ. A.WasowT. (2004). Domain minimization in English verb-particle constructions. Language, 80, 238–261.
46.
McArthurT.AtkinsB. (1974). Dictionary of English phrasal verbs and their idioms. HarperCollins.
47.
MatlockT.HerediaR. R. (2002). Understanding phrasal verbs in monolinguals and bilinguals. In HerediaR. R.AltarribaJ. (Eds.), Bilingual sentence processing (pp. 251–274). North-Holland/Elsevier.
48.
MitchellD. C. (1987). Lexical guidance in human parsing: Locus and processing characteristics. In ColtheartM. (Ed.), Attention and performance XII: The psychology of reading (pp. 601–618). Lawrence Erlbaum.
49.
PickeringM. J.TraxlerM. J. (1998). Plausibility and recovery from garden paths: An eye-tracking study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 940–961.
50.
PritchettB. L. (1988). Garden path phenomena and the grammatical basis of language processing. Language, 64, 539–576.
51.
PritchettB. L. (1992). Grammatical competence and parsing performance. University of Chicago Press.
52.
R Development Core Team. (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
53.
RobertsL.FelserC. (2011). Plausibility and recovery from garden paths in second language sentence processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32, 299–331.
54.
SiyanovaA.SchmittN. (2007). Native and nonnative use of multi-word vs. one-word verbs. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 45, 119–139.
55.
SlatterlyT. J.SturtP.ChristiansonK.YoshidaM.FerreiraF. (2013). Lingering misinterpretations of garden path sentences arise from competing syntactic representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 69, 104–120.
56.
StaubA. (2007). The parser doesn’t ignore intransitivity, after all. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 550–569.
57.
StoweL. (1989). Thematic structures and sentence comprehension. In CarlsonG. N.TanenhausM. K. (Eds.), Linguistic structure in language processing (pp. 319–356). Kluwer.
58.
SturtP.CrockerM. W. (1996). Monotonic syntactic processing: A cross-linguistic study of attachment and reanalysis. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 449–494.
59.
SturtP.PickeringM. J.CrockerM. W. (1999). Structural change and reanalysis difficulty in language comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 136–150.
60.
TaborW.HutchinsS. (2004). Evidence for self-organized sentence processing: Digging-in effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 431–450.
61.
TivM.GonnermanL.WhitfordV.FriesenD.JaredD.TitoneD. (2019). Figuring out how verb-particle constructions are understood during L1 and L2 reading. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 1733.
62.
TraxlerM. J. (2002). Plausibility and subcategorization preference in children’s processing of temporarily ambiguous sentences: Evidence from self-paced reading. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55A, 75–96.
63.
Van DykeJ. A.LewisR. L. (2003). Distinguishing effects of structure and decay on attachment and repair: A cue-based parsing account of recovery from misanalyzed ambiguities. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 285–316.
64.
Van GompelR. P. G.PickeringM. J. (2001). Lexical guidance in sentence processing: A note on Adams, Clifton, and Mitchell (1998). Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 851–857.
65.
WarnerJ.GlassA. L. (1987). Context and distance-to-disambiguation effects in ambiguity resolution: Evidence from grammaticality judgments of garden path sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 26, 714–738.
66.
WilliamsJ. (2006). Incremental interpretation in second language sentence processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 9, 71–88.
67.
WilliamsJ.MöbiusP.KimC. (2001). Native and non-native processing of English wh-questions: Parsing strategies and plausibility constraints. Applied Psycholinguistics, 22, 509–540.
68.
WitzelJ.CorneliusS.WitzelN.ForsterK. I.ForsterJ. C. (2013). Testing the viability of webDMDX for masked priming experiments. The Mental Lexicon, 8, 421–449.
69.
WitzelN.WitzelJ.ForsterK. (2012). Comparisons of online reading paradigms: Eye tracking, moving-window, and maze. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 41, 105–128.
