Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T20:10:29.809Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Facilitating the task for second language processing research: A comparison of two testing paradigms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 July 2013

A. KATE MILLER
A. KATE MILLER*
Affiliation:
Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Kate Miller, Department of World Languages and Cultures, Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis, 539E Cavanaugh Hall, 425 University Boulevard, Indianapolis, IN 46202. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study considers the effects of experimental task demands in research on second language sentence processing. Advanced learners and native speakers of French were presented with the same experimental sentences in two different tasks designed to probe for evidence of trace reactivation during processing: cross-modal priming (Nicol & Swinney, 1989) and probe classification during reading (Dekydtspotter, Miller, Schaefer, Chang, & Kim, 2010). Although the second language learners produced nontargetlike results on the cross-modal priming task, the probe classification during reading task revealed results suggestive of trace reactivation, which point to detailed structural representations during online sentence processing. The implications for current theories of second language sentence processing and for future research in this domain are discussed.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 36 , Issue 3 , May 2015 , pp. 613 - 637
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bley-Vroman, R. (2009). The evolving context of the fundamental difference hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 175–198.Google Scholar
Carr, T. H., & Dagenbach, D. (1990). Semantic priming and repetition priming from masked words: Evidence for a center-surround attentional mechanism in perceptual recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 16, 341–350.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006a). Continuity and shallow structures in language processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 107–126.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006b). Grammatical processing in language learning. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 3–42.Google Scholar
Clifton, C., & Frazier, L. (1989). Comprehending sentences with long distance dependencies. In Carlson, G. M. & Tanenhaus, M. K. (Eds.), Linguistic structure in language processing (pp. 273–317). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, A. M., & Loftus, E. F. (1975). A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review, 82, 407–428.Google Scholar
Dagenbach, D., Carr, T. H., & Barnhardt, T. M. (1990). Inhibitory semantic priming of lexical decisions due to failure to retrieve weakly activated codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 16, 328–340.Google Scholar
Dekydtspotter, L., & Miller, A. K. (2013). Inhibitive and facilitative priming induced by traces in the processing of wh-dependencies in a second language. Second Language Research, 29, 345–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dekydtspotter, L., Miller, A. K., Schaefer, V., Chang, Y., & Kim, O.-H. (2010). Clause-edge reactivations of fillers in processing English as a second language. In Prior, M. T., Watanabe, Y., & Lee, S.-K. (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 2008 Second Language Research Forum (pp. 108–122). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Dekydtspotter, L., Schwartz, B. D., & Sprouse, R. A. (2006). The comparative fallacy in L2 processing research. In Grantham O'Brien, M., Shea, C., & Archibald, J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2006): The Banff Conference (pp. 33–40). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Felser, C., & Clahsen, H. (2009). Grammatical processing of spoken language in child and adult language learners. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 38, 305–319.Google Scholar
Felser, C., Clahsen, H., & Münte, T. F. (2003). Storage and integration in the processing of filler-gap dependencies: An ERP study of topicalization and wh-movement in German. Brain and Language, 87, 345–354.Google Scholar
Felser, C., Marinis, T., & Clahsen, H. (2003). Children's processing of ambiguous sentences: A study of relative clause attachment. Language Acquisition, 11, 127–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felser, C., & Roberts, L. (2007). Processing wh-dependencies in a second language: A cross-modal priming study. Second Language Research, 31, 9–36.Google Scholar
Felser, C., Roberts, L., Gross, R., & Marinis, T. (2003). The processing of ambiguous sentences by first and second language learners of English. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24, 453–489.Google Scholar
Forster, K. I., & Forster, J. C. (2003). DMDX: A Windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 35, 116–124.Google Scholar
Frenck-Mestre, C. (2002). An on-line look at sentence processing in the second language. In Heredia, R. R. & Altarriba, J. (Eds.), Bilingual sentence processing (pp. 217–235). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Frenck-Mestre, C. (2004). Ambiguities and anomalies: What can eye-movements and event-related potentials reveal about second language sentence processing? In Kroll, J. F. & de Groot, A. M. B. (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism (pp. 268–284). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Frenck-Mestre, C. (2005). Eye-movement recording as a tool for studying syntactic processing in a second language: A review of methodologies and experimental findings. Second Language Research, 21, 175–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frenck-Mestre, C., & Pynte, J. (1997). Syntactic ambiguity resolution while reading in second and native languages. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 50, 119–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 78, 1–76.Google Scholar
Hahne, A. (2001). What's different in second-language processing? Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 30, 251–266.Google Scholar
Hahne, A., & Friederici, A. D. (2001). Processing a second language: Late learners’ comprehension mechanisms as revealed by event-related brain potentials. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4, 123–141.Google Scholar
Harrington, M., & Sawyer, M. (1992). L2 working memory capacity and L2 reading skill. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14, 25–38.Google Scholar
Hoover, M. L., & Dwivedi, V. D. (1998). Syntactic processing by skilled bilinguals. Language Learning, 48, 1–29.Google Scholar
Indefrey, P. (2006). It is time to work toward explicit processing models for native and second language speakers. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 66–69.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1987). Consciousness and the computational mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Juffs, A. (1998). Main verb vs. reduced relative clause ambiguity resolution in second language sentence processing. Language Learning, 48, 107–147.Google Scholar
Juffs, A. (2005). The influence of first language on the processing of wh-movement in English as a second language. Second Language Research, 21, 121–151.Google Scholar
Juffs, A., & Harrington, M. (1995). Parsing effects in second language sentence processing: Subject and object asymmetries in wh-extraction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 483–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Love, T. E. (2007). The processing of non-canonically ordered constituents in long distance dependencies by pre-school children: A real-time investigation. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 36, 191–206.Google Scholar
Love, T., Maas, E., & Swinney, D. (2003). The influence of language exposure on lexical and syntactic language processing. Experimental Psychology, 50, 204–216.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marinis, T., Roberts, L., Felser, C., & Clahsen, H. (2005). Gaps in second language sentence processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 53–78.Google Scholar
Marr, D. (1982). Vision. San Francisco, CA: Freeman.Google Scholar
McKoon, G., Albritton, D., & Ratcliff, R. (1996). Sentential context effects on lexical decisions with a cross-modal instead of an all-visual procedure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 1494–1497.Google Scholar
McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (1994). Sentential context and on-line lexical decision. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 1239–1243.Google Scholar
McKoon, G., Ratcliff, R., & Ward, G. (1994). Testing theories of language processing: An empirical investigation of the on-line lexical decision task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 1219–1228.Google Scholar
Miller, A. K. (2011). Rethinking nonnative processing constraints: Evidence from L2 French. In Plonsky, L. & Schierloh, M. (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 2009 Second Language Research Forum (pp. 109–129). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Nicol, J. L., Fodor, J. D., & Swinney, D. (1994). Using cross-modal lexical decision tasks to investigate sentence processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 1229–1238.Google ScholarPubMed
Nicol, J., & Swinney, D. (1989). The role of structure in coreference assignment during sentence comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18, 5–19.Google Scholar
Nicol, J., Swinney, D., Love, T., & Hald, L. (2006). The on-line study of sentence comprehension: An examination of dual task paradigms. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 35, 215–231.Google Scholar
Omaki, A., & Schulz, B. (2011). Filler-gap dependencies and island constraints in second language sentence processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33, 563–588.Google Scholar
Papadopoulou, D., & Clahsen, H. (2003). Parsing strategies in L2 and L2 sentence processing: A study of relative clause attachment in Greek. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 501–528.Google Scholar
Pickering, M., & Barry, G. (1991). Sentence processing without empty categories. Language and Cognitive Processes, 6, 229–259.Google Scholar
Roberts, L., Marinis, T., Felser, C., & Clahsen, H. (2007). Antecedent priming at gap positions in children's sentence processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 36, 175–188.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sag, I. A., & Fodor, J. D. (1994). Extraction without traces. In Aranovich, R., Byrne, W., Preuss, S., & Senturia, M. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 13th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp. 365–384). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Segalowitz, N. (2003). Automaticity and second languages. In Doughty, C. J. & Long, M. H. (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 382–408). Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traxler, M. J., & Pickering, M. J. (1996). Plausibility and the processing of unbounded dependencies: An eye-tracking study. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 454–475.Google Scholar
Weber-Fox, C. M., & Neville, H. J. (1996). Maturational constraints on functional specializations for language processing: ERP and behavioral evidence in bilingual speakers. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 8, 231–256.Google Scholar
Williams, J., Möbius, P., & Kim, C. (2001). Native and non-native processing of English wh-questions: Parsing strategies and plausibility constraints. Applied Psycholinguistics, 22, 509–540.Google Scholar