Processing Wh-dependencies in L2 English by L1 Turkish and Spanish Speakers: Island Constraints and that-trace Effect

Abstract

This study investigates whether advanced L2 speakers exhibit comparable sensitivity to island constraints and the that-trace effect as L1 speakers during real-time processing of long distance grammatical and ungrammatical wh-extractions in English. L1 Spanish, Turkish, and English speakers participated in an online grammaticality judgment task (GJT) featuring five types of wh-extractions with island and that-trace violations, presented in full-sentence and self-paced reading conditions. Findings reveal distinctions between L2 learners and native speakers in accuracy and response times, particularly in subject extractions from non-finite clauses and that-trace violations. However, subject-object asymmetry was consistent across groups, suggesting shared processing patterns. L2 learners showed sensitivity to island constraints, paralleling native speakers. L1 influence varied, with no significant discrepancy between Spanish and Turkish groups. Turkish learners' success in grammatical wh-extractions may stem from overt movement via scrambling and universal grammar availability, whereas Spanish participants displayed nuanced L1 influence on ungrammatical wh-extractions with that-trace violations.

Keywords

• Island constraint
• that-trace effect
• wh-dependencies
• L1 Turkish
• L1 Spanish
• L2 English

References

1. Aygen, G. (2000). T-to-C: Extractable Subject and EPP in Turkish. Proceeding of
2. Western Conference on Linguistics, 12, 65-80. California State University, Fresno.
3. Bourdages, J. S. (1992). Parsing complex NPs in French. In Helen G., and Michael S. R., (eds.), Island constraints: Theory, acquisition and processing, 61–87. Dordrecht, Kluwer
4. Carnie, A. (2007). Syntax. A Generative introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing
5. Chomsky, N, & Lasnik, H. (1977). Filters and Control. Linguistic Inquiry 8, 425-504.
6. Chomsky, N. (1973). Conditions on transformations. In S. Anderson and P. Kiparsky (Eds.) A festschrift for Morris Halle, 86-232. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. New York, NY: North-Holland
7. Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA : MIT Press .
8. Chomsky, N. (1964). Current issues in linguistic theory. In Fodor, J. A. and J. J. Katz (eds.), The structure of language: Readings in the philosophy of language, 50-118. Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall

9. Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2018). Critical commentary. Some notes on the Shallow Structure Hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 40 (2018), 693–706
10. Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006). Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 2 7(1), 3-42.
11. Felser, C., & Roberts, L. (2007). Processing wh-dependencies in English as a second language: A cross-modal priming study. Second Language Research, 23, 1-28.
12. Fodor, J. D. (1989). Empty categories in sentence processing. Language and CognitiveProcesses, 4, 155-209.
13. Fodor, J. D. (1999). Triggers for parsing with. In E. Klein & G. Martohardjono (Eds.), The development of second language grammars: A generative approach, 373–406. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
14. Frazier, L. and Clifton Jr., C., (1989). Successive cyclicity in the grammar and the parser. Language and Cognitive Processes 4, 93–126
15. Frazier, L. (1987). Sentence processing: A tutorial review. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and performance XII, 559-589. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
16. Gibson, E. (1991). A Computational theory of linguistic processing: memory limitationsand processing breakdown. Doctoral dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University
17. Gibson, E., & Warren, T. (2004). Reading-time evidence for intermediate linguistic structure in long distance dependencies. Syntax, 7, 55–78.
18. Johnson, J., & Newport, E . (1991). Critical period effects on universal properties of language: The status of subjacency in the acquisition of a second language. Cognition, 39 , 215 – 258.
19. 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.
20. Juffs, A., & Harrington, M. (1996).Garden path sentences and error data in second language processing research. Language Learning, 46, 286–324.
21. 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.
22. Just, M.A., Carpenter, P.A. and Woolley, J.D. (1982) Paradigms and Processes in Reading Comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology General, 111, 228-238.
23. Kural, M. (1993). Scrambling and Mixed Positions in Turkish. Proceedings of NELS 22, 259-272. GLSA Publications.
24. Marinis, T., Roberts, L., Felser, C., & Clahsen, H. (2005). Gaps in second language sentence processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 53–78.
25. McElree, B., & Griffith, T. (1998). Structural and lexical constraints on filling gaps during sentence comprehension: A time-course analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 24.432–60.
26. Miyamoto, E. T., & Takahashi, S. (2002). Typing mismatch effects in the processing subject wh-phrases in Japanese. Paper presented at The 15th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, CUNY Graduate Center.
27. Öztürk, B. (2005). Case, Referentiality, and Phrase Structure. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
28. Özsoy, A. S. 2009. Turkish as a (non)-wh-in-situ language. InE. A.Csato, G. Ims, J. Parslow, F. Thiesen, E. Türker.( eds). Turcological Letters to Bernt Brendemoen, 221-232. Oslo; Novus forlag.
29. Ross, J. (1967). Constraints on Variables in Syntax. MIT Dissertation, Cambridge, MA.
30. Pickering, M. J., Barton, S., & Shillcock, R. (1994). Unbounded dependencies, island constraints and processing complexity. In Charles C. J., Lyn F, and Keith R. (eds.), Perspectives on sentence processing, 199–224. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
31. Pritchett, B. L. (1991). Subjacency in a principle-based parser. In R. C. Berwick (Ed.), Principle-based parsing: computation and psycholinguistics, 301-345. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
32. Pritchett, B.L. (1992). Grammatical competence and parsing performance. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
33. Schachter, J. (1989). Testing a proposed universal. In Gass, S. and Schachter, J., editors, Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 73–88.
34. Schachter, J. & Yip, V. (1990). Grammaticality judgments: why does anyone object to subject extraction? Studies in Second Language Acquisition 124, 379–92
35. Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-Prime. Reference Guide. Psychology Software Tools, Inc., Pittsburgh.
36. Stowe, L.A., Tanenhaus, M.K. and Carlson, G.N., (1991). Filling gaps on-line: Use of lexical and semantic information in sentence processing. Language and Speech 34, 319–340
37. Stowe, L. (1986). Parsing wh-constructions: evidence for on-line gap location. Language and Cognitive Processes 2, 227–46.
38. Torrego, E. (1984). On inversion in Spanish and some of its effects. Linguistic inquiry. 15. 103-131.
39. Yoshida, M., Aoshima, S., & Phillips, C. (2004). Relative clause prediction in Japanese. Paper presented at the 17th annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, College Park, Maryland.
40. Weinberg, A. (1999). A minimalist theory of human sentence processing. In S. Epstein & N. Hornstein (eds.), Working minimalism, 282-315. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
41. Williams, J. N., Möbius, P., & Kim, C. (2001). Native and non-native processing of English wh-questions: Parsing strategies and plausibility constraints. Applied Psycholinguistics, 22, 509–540
42. White, L. & Juffs, A. (1998). Constraints on wh-movement in two different contexts of non-native language acquisition: Competence and processing. In Flynn, S., Martohardjono, G. and O’Neill, W., (eds.), The generative study of second language acquisition, 111-129. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum,
43. Zagona, K. (2002). The syntax of Spanish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
44. Gibson, E., Hickok G., & Schütze, C. T. (1994). Processing empty categories: a parallel approach. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 23, 381-405.