Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T00:39:58.225Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Native and non-native (L1-Mandarin) speakers of English differ in online use of verb-based cues about sentence structure

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 October 2018

ZHIYING QIAN Open the ORCID record for ZHIYING QIAN [Opens in a new window] ,
EUN-KYUNG LEE ,
DORA HSIN-YI LU  and
SUSAN M. GARNSEY
ZHIYING QIAN*
Affiliation:
Department of Modern Languages and Linguistics, Florida State University
EUN-KYUNG LEE
Affiliation:
Department of English Language and Literature, Yonsei University
DORA HSIN-YI LU
Affiliation:
Department of Language and Creative Writing, National Taipei University of Education
SUSAN M. GARNSEY
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology
*
Address for correspondence: Zhiying Qian, Department of Modern Languages and Linguistics, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study examined whether L1-Mandarin learners of L2-English use verb bias and complementizer cues to process temporarily ambiguous English sentences the same way native speakers do. SVO word order places verbs early in sentences in both languages, allowing the use of verb-based knowledge to anticipate what could follow. The two languages differ, however, in whether an optional complementizer signals embedded clauses. In a self-paced reading experiment, native English speakers and L1-Mandarin learners of L2-English read sentences containing temporary ambiguity about whether a noun was the direct object of the verb preceding it or the subject of an embedded clause. Native speakers replicated previous work showing an optimally efficient interactive pattern of cue use, while non-native learners showed additive effects of the two cues, consistent with predictions of the Competition Model about learning how to use multiple cues in a second language that sometimes agree and sometimes do not.

Keywords

verb biasword orderMandarinsecond language acquisitionsentence processing
Type
Research Article
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 22 , Issue 5 , November 2019 , pp. 897 - 911
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

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

Anible, B., Twitchell, P., Waters, G. S., Dussias, P. E., Pinar, P., & Morford, J. P. (2015). Sensitivity to verb bias in American Sign Language-English bilinguals. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 20, 215–228.Google Scholar
Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 255–278.Google Scholar
Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1987). Competition, variation, and language learning. In MacWhinney, B. (Ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition (pp. 157–193). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1989). Functionalism and the Competition Model. In MacWhinney, B. & Bates, E. (Eds.), The cross-linguistic study of sentence processing (pp. 73–112). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006). Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 3–42.Google Scholar
Dussias, P. E., & Cramer Scaltz, T. R. (2008). Spanish-English L2 speakers' use of subcategorization bias information in the resolution of temporary ambiguity during second language reading. Acta psychologica, 128 (3), 501–513.Google Scholar
Dussias, P. E., Marful, A., Gerfen, C., & Bajo Molina, M. T. (2010). Usage frequencies of complement-taking verbs in Spanish and English: Data from Spanish monolinguals and Spanish-English bilinguals. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 1004–1011.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2006a). Language acquisition as rational contingency learning. Applied Linguistics, 27, 1–24.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2006b). Selective attention and transfer phenomena in L2 acquisition: Contingency, cue competition, salience, interference, overshadowing, blocking, and perceptual learning. Applied Linguistics, 27, 164–194.Google Scholar
Ferreira, F., & Clifton, C. (1986). The independence of syntactic processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 348–368.Google Scholar
Ferreira, F., & Henderson, J. M. (1990). Use of verb information in syntactic parsing: Evidence from eye movements and word-by-word self-paced reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 555–568.Google Scholar
Frazier, L., & Fodor, J. D. (1978). The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition, 6, 291–325.Google Scholar
Francis, W. N., & Kucera, H. (1982). Frequency and analysis of English usage: Lexicon and grammar. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google 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.Google Scholar
Garnsey, S. M., Pearlmutter, N. J., Myers, E., & Lotocky, M. A. (1997). The Contributions of Verb Bias and Plausibility to the Comprehension of Temporarily Ambiguous Sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 58–93.Google Scholar
Hare, M., McRae, K., & Elman, J. L. (2003). Sense and structure: Meaning as a determinant of verb subcategorization preferences. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 281–303.Google Scholar
Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 434–446.Google Scholar
Juliano, C., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1993). Contingent frequency effects in syntactic ambiguity resolution. In Proceedings of the 15th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 593–598). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kennison, S. M. (2001). Limitations on the use of verb information in sentence comprehension. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 132–138.Google Scholar
Lee, E-K., Lu, H-Y., & Garnsey, S. M. (2013). L1 word order and sensitivity to verb bias in L2 processing. Bilingualism: Language & Cognition, 16, 761–775.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B., Bates, E., & Kliegl, R. (1984). Cue validity and sentence interpretation in English, German, and Italian. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 127–150.Google Scholar
McDonald, J. L. (1987). Assigning linguistic roles: The influence of conflicting cues. Journal of Memory and Language, 26, 100–117.Google Scholar
McDonald, J., & MacWhinney, B. (1991). Levels of learning: A comparison of concept formation and language acquisition. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 407–430.Google Scholar
Matessa, M., & Anderson, J. R. (2000). Modelling focused learning in role assignment. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15, 263–292.Google Scholar
Osterhout, L., Holcomb, P. J., & Swinney, D. A. (1994). Brain potentials elicited by garden-path sentences: Evidence of the application of verb information during parsing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 786–803.Google Scholar
Pickering, M. J., & Traxler, M. J. (1998). Plausibility and recovery from garden paths: An eye-tracking study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 940–961.Google Scholar
Pickering, M. J., & Traxler, M. J. (2003). Evidence against the use of subcategorization frequency in the processing of unbounded dependencies. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18, 469–503.Google Scholar
Pickering, M. J., Traxler, M. J., & Crocker, M. W. (2000). Ambiguity resolution in sentence processing: Evidence against frequency-based accounts. Journal of Memory and Language, 43, 447–475.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team. (2008). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
Sturt, P., Pickering, M. J., & Crocker, M. W. (1999). Structural change and reanalysis difficulty in language comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 136–150.Google Scholar
Traxler, M. J. (2005). Plausibility and verb subcategorization in temporarily ambiguous sentences: Evidence from self-paced reading. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 34, 1–30.Google Scholar
Tremblay, A. (2011). Proficiency assessment standards in second language acquisition research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33, 339–372.Google Scholar
Trueswell, J. C., & Kim, A. E. (1998). How to prune a garden path by nipping it in the bud: Fast priming of verb argument structure. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 102–123.Google Scholar
Trueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Garnsey, S. M. (1994). Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 285–318.Google Scholar
Trueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Kello, C. (1993). Verb-specific constraints in sentence processing: Separating effects of lexical preference from garden-paths. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 528–553.Google Scholar
Wiechmann, D. (2008). Initial parsing decisions and lexical bias: Corpus evidence from local NP/S-ambiguities. Cognitive Linguistics, 19, 447–463.Google Scholar
Wilson, M. P., & Garnsey, S. M. (2009). Making simple sentences hard: Verb bias effects in simple direct object sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 60, 368–392.Google Scholar