Transfer of L1 processing strategies to the interpretation of sentence-level L2 input: A cross-linguistic comparison on the resolution of relative clause attachment ambiguities

Abstract

The present study aims to investigate the role of L1 transfer effects on L2 sentence processing strategies during the interpretation of relative clause (RC) attachment ambiguities. The main body of the study is divided into two sections. The first section describes Experiment 1, which is designed to test the resolution of RC attachment ambiguities by Turkish learners of L2 English both in Turkish and English through the use of an off-line task (i.e., paper-and-pencil comprehension tests) and compare their processing preferences to those of native English speakers. The second section presents Experiment 2, which aims to investigate the real-time processing of the RC attachment ambiguities by the same participant groups employing eye-tracking methodology. The results indicated that L1 Turkish and L1 English RC attachment preferences differed and that Turkish learners of L2 English tended to transfer their Turkish sentence processing pattern to real-time interpretation of the English RC attachment ambiguities.

Keywords

• sentence processing
• parsing
• ambiguity resolution
• eye-tracking
• attachment

Kaynakça

1. Carreiras, M. & Clifton, C. Jr. (1999). Another word on parsing relative clauses: Eyetracking evidence from Spanish and English. Memory & Cognition, 27, 826–833.
2. Carroll, S. E. (2001). Input and evidence: The raw material of second language acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
3. Chen, L., Shu, H., Liu, Y., Zhao, J. & Li, P. (2007). ERP signatures of subject-verb agreement in L2 learning. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10, 161-174.
4. Clahsen, H. & Felser, C. (2006a). Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 3–42.
5. Clahsen, H. & Felser, C. (2006b). Continuity and shallow structures in language processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 107–126.
6. Clahsen, H. & Felser, C. (2006c). How native-like is non-native language processing? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 564–570.
7. Clahsen, H. & Felser, C. (2017). Some notes on the shallow structure hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40, 693-706.
8. Clahsen, H. & Muysken, P. (1989). The UG paradox in L2 acquisition. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin, 5, 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/026765838900500101

9. Cuetos, F. & Mitchell, D. (1988). Cross-linguistic differences in parsing: Restrictions on the use of the late closure strategy in Spanish. Cognition, 30, 73–105.
10. Dinctopal-Deniz, N. (2010). Relative clause attachment preferences of Turkish L2 speakers of English. In B. VanPatten, & J. Jegerski (Eds), Research in second language processing and parsing (27-63). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
11. Dussias, P. (2001). Sentence parsing in fluent Spanish-English bilinguals. In J. L. Nicol, (Ed.), One Mind, two languages: Bilingual language processing (159–176). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
12. Dussias, P. (2003). Syntactic ambiguity resolution in second language learners: Some effects of bilinguality on L1 and L2 processing strategies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 529–557.
13. Eubank, L. (1996). Negation in early German-English interlanguage: More valueless features in the L2 initial state. Second Language Research, 12, 73-106.
14. Felser, C., Roberts, L., Marinis, T. & Gross, R. (2003). The processing of ambiguous sentences by first and second language learners of English. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24, 453-489. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716403000237
15. Fernandez, E. (2002). Relative clause attachment in bilinguals and monolinguals. In R. Heredia & J. Altarriba (Eds.), Bilingual sentence processing (187–215). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
16. Frazier, L. & Clifton, C. Jr. (1996). Construal. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
17. Frenck-Mestre, C. (2002). An on-line look at sentence processing in the second language. In R. Heredia & J. Altarriba (Eds.), Bilingual sentence processing (217–236). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
18. 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.
19. Frenck-Mestre, C. & Pynte, J. (1997). Syntactic ambiguity resolution while reading in second and native languages. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 50A, 119-148.
20. Gibson, E., Pearlmutter, N., Canseco-Gonzalez, E. & Hickok, G. (1996). Recency preference in the human sentence processing mechanism. Cognition, 59, 23-59.
21. Hakansson, G., Pienemann, M. & Sayehli, S. (2002). Transfer and typological proximity in the context of second language processing. Second Language Research, 18, 250-273.
22. Hancin-Bhatt, B. (1994). Segment transfer: A consequence of a dynamic system. Second Language Research, 10, 241-269.
23. Harrington, M. (1987). Processing transfer: Language-specific processing strategies as a source of interlanguage variation. Applied Psycholinguistics, 8, 351-377.
24. Hernandez, A. E., Bates, E. A., & Avila, L. X. (1994). On-line sentence interpretation in Spanish-English bilinguals: What does it mean to be "in between"? Applied Psycholinguistics, 15, 417–446.
25. Hemforth, B., Konieczny, L., Scheepers, C. & Strube, G. (1998). Syntactic ambiguity resolution in German. In D. Hillert (Ed.), Sentence Processing: A Crosslinguistic Perspective. Syntax and Semantics, vol. 31 (292–312). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
26. Jackson, C. N. (2007). The use and non-use of semantic information, word order, and case markings during comprehension by L2 learners of German. Modern Language Journal, 91, 418–432.
27. Jackson, C. N. (2008). Processing strategies and the comprehension of sentence-level input by L2 learners of German. System, 36, 388–406.
28. Jegerski, J., VanPatten, B., & Keating, G. D. (2011). Cross-linguistic variation and the acquisition of pronominal reference in L2 Spanish. Second Language Research, 27, 481–507.
29. Jiang, N. (2004). Morphological insensitivity in second language processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25, 603-634.
30. 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.
31. Keating, G. (2009). Sensitivity to violations of gender agreement in native and nonnative Spanish: An eye‐movement investigation. Language Learning, 59, 503-535.
32. Kirkici, B. (2004). The processing of relative clause attachment ambiguities in Turkish. Turkic Languages, 8, 111-121.
33. Liu, H., Bates, E., & Li, P. (1992). Sentence interpretation in bilingual speakers of English and Chinese. Applied Psycholinguistics, 13, 451–484.
34. MacWhinney, B. (2005). New directions in the competition model. In M. Tomasello & D. I. Slobin (Eds.), Beyond Nature-nurture: Essays in Honor of Elizabeth Bates (81-110). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
35. Mitchell, D. & Cuetos, F. (1991). The origins of parsing strategies. In C. Smith (Ed.), Conference proceedings: Current issues in natural language processing, (1-12). Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin.
36. Montrul, S. (2001). Causatives and transitivity in L2 English. Language Learning, 51, 51-106.
37. Odlin, T. (1989). Language transfer: Cross-Linguistic influence in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524537
38. O’Grady, W. (2010). An emergentist approach to syntax. In H. Narrog & B. Heine (eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis, 257-83. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
39. Palmberg, R. (1987). Patterns of vocabulary development in foreign language learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9, 202-221.
40. Papadopoulou, D. & Clahsen, H. (2003). Parsing strategies in L1 and L2 sentence processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 501–528.
41. Pienemann, M. (1998). Language processing and second language development. Processability theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
42. Pienemann, M. (2005). Cross-linguistic aspects of processability theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
43. Rah, A. (2009). Sentence processing in a second language: Attachment preferences in German learners of English (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
44. Rayner, K., Kambe, G, & Duffy, S. A. (2000). The effect of clause wrap-up on eye movements during reading. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53A. 1061-1080.
45. Sasaki, Y. (1994). Paths of processing strategy transfers in learning Japanese and English as foreign languages. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 43-72.
46. Schwartz, B. D. & Sprouse, R. (1996). L2 cognitive states and the full transfer/full access model. Second Language Research, 12, 40-72.
47. Thompson, I. (1991). Foreign accents revisited: The English pronunciation of Russian immigrants. Language Learning, 41, 177-204.
48. Uludag, O. (2018). Resolution of structural ambiguities during real-time L2 sentence processing: Evidence from online and offline measures (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), Cukurova University, Adana, Turkey.
49. Vainikka, A., & Young-Scholten, M. (1996). Gradual development of L2 phrase structure. Second Language Research, 12, 7-39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/026765839601200102
50. VanPatten, B. (2007). Input processing in adult second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (115–135). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
51. VanPatten, B. & Jegerski, J. (2010). Second language processing and parsing: The issues. In B. VanPatten & J. Jegerski (Eds.), Research in second language processing and parsing, (3-24). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
52. White, L. (1985). The pro-drop parameter in adult second language acquisition. Language Learning, 35, 47–62.
53. White, L, (2003). Second language acquisition and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
54. Witzel, J., Witzel, N. & Nicol, J. (2012). Deeper than shallow: Evidence for structure-based parsing biases in second-language sentence processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 33, 419-456.
55. Yu, M. C. (2004). Interlinguistic variation and similarity in second language speech act behavior. The Modern Language Journal, 88, 102-119.