PROCESSING ASYMMETRY BETWEEN SUBJECT AND OBJECT RELATIVE CLAUSES IN ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE

Öz

ORCs are generally found to be more difficult than SRCs in L1 English processing literature. This eye-tracking study tests this asymmetry in L2 English in terms of reading patterns and accuracy, and reports longer overall reading times, regressions and lower comprehension accuracy for ORCs. This indicates processing ORCs is more difficult for L2 English speakers with L1 Turkish. The incremental processing of the RCs by L2 speakers reflects delayed effects of difficulty, contrasting with previous findings in L1 literature. The findings provide further evidence for the processing disadvantage posed by ORCs, and highlight the differences between L1 and L2 processing dynamics.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• language processing,relative clause,SLA,parsing,eye-tracking

Kaynakça

1. Aydın, Özgür (2007). The comprehension of Turkish relative clauses in second language acquisition and agrammatism. Applied Psycholinguistics 28(2): 295-315.
2. Balota, David A., Alexander Pollatsek and Keith Rayner (1985). The interaction of contextual constraints and parafoveal visual information in reading. Cognitive Psychology 17(3): 364-390.
3. Betancort, Moisés, Manuel Carreiras and Patrick Sturt (2009). The processing of subject and object relative clause in Spanish: An eye-tracking study. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 62(10): 1915-1929.
4. Bever, Thomas (1970). The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In Cognition and the development of language, ed. John R. Hayes, 279-352. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
5. Bever, Thomas G. and Brian McElree (1988). Empty categories access their antecedents during comprehension. Linguistic Inquiry 19(1): 35-43.
6. Bulut, Talat (2012). Processing Asymmetry in Turkish Subject and Object Relative Clauses. Master’s thesis, Hacettepe University, Ankara.
7. Calvo, Manuel G. and Enrique Meseguer (2002). Eye movements and processing stages in reading: relative contributions of visual, lexical, and contextual factors. The Spanish Journal of Psychology 5(1): 66-77.
8. Caplan, David, Sujith Vijayan, Gina Kuperberg, Caroline West, Gloria Waters, Doug Greve and Anders M. Dale (2002). Vascular responses to syntactic processing: Event-related fMRI study of relative clauses. Human Brain Mapping 15(1): 26-38.

9. Carreiras, Manuel, John A. Duñabeitia, Marta Vergara, Irene de la Cruz-Pavía and Itziar Laka (2010). Subject relative clauses are not universally easier to process: evidence from Basque. Cognition 115(1): 79-92.
10. Chen, Baoguo, Aihua Ning, Bi Hongyan and Susan Dunlap (2008). Chinese subject-relative clauses are more difficult to process than the object-relative clauses. Acta Psychologica 129(1): 61-65.
11. Clahsen, Harald and Claudia Felser (2006). Grammatical Processing in Language Learners. Applied Psycholinguistics 27(1): 3-42.
12. 1 Cohen, Laurent and Jacques Mehler (1996). Click monitoring revisited: An on-line study of sentence comprehension. Memory and Cognition 24(1): 94-102.
13. Cowles, H. Wind (2011). Psycholinguistics 101. New York: Springer Publishing Company.
14. Doughty, Catherine (1991). Second language instruction does make a difference: Evidence from an empirical study of SL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 13(4): 431-469.
15. Eckman, Fred R., Lawrence Bell and Diane Nelson (1988). On the generalization of relative clause instruction in the acquisition of English as a second language. Applied Linguistics 9(1): 1-13.
16. Ford, Marilyn (1983). A method for obtaining measures of local parsing complexity throughout sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 22(2): 203-218.
17. Frauenfelder, Uli, Juan Segui and Jacques Mehler (1980). Monitoring around the relative clause. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 19(3): 328-337.
18. Frazier, Lyn and Janet D. Fodor (1978). The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition 6(4): 291-325.
19. Frazier, Lyn and Keith Rayner (1982). Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 14(2): 178-210.
20. Frazier, Lyn (1987). Syntactic processing: Evidence from Dutch. Natural Language and Linguistics Theory 5(4): 519-559.
21. Gass, Susan (1979). Language transfer and universal grammatical relations. Language Learning 29(2): 327-344.
22. Gass, Susan (1980). An investigation of syntactic transfer in adult second language learners. In Research in second language acquisition, ed. Robin C. Scarcella and Stephen Krashen, 132-141. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
23. Gass, Susan (1982). From theory to practice. In On TESOL ’81, ed. Mary Hines and William Rutherford. 129-139. Washington, DC: TESOL.
24. Gibson, Edward (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition 68(1): 1-76.
25. Gibson, Edward, Gregory Hickok and Carson T. Schütze (1994). Processing empty categories: A parallel approach. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 23(5): 381-405.
26. Gibson, Edward (2000). The dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. In Image, language, brain, ed. Yasushi Miyashita, Alec Marantz and Wayne O’Neil. 95-126. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
27. Göksel, Aslı and Celia Kerslake (2005). Turkish: A comprehensive grammar. London and New York: Routledge.
28. Gordon, Peter C., Randall Hendrick and Marcus Johnson (2001). Memory interference during language processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 27(6): 1411-1423.
29. Hamilton, Robert L (1994). Is implicational generalization unidirectional and maximal? Evidence from relativization instruction in a second language. Language Learning 44(1): 123-157.
30. Hermon, Gabriella, Özge Öztürk and Jaklin Kornfilt (2007). Acquisition of relative clauses in Turkish. Paper presented at Interdisciplinary approaches to relative clauses (REL07), Cambridge, the United Kingdom.
31. Holmes, Virginia M. and J. Kevin O’Regan (1981). Eye fixation patterns during the reading of relative-clause sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 20(4): 417-430.
32. Hsiao, Franny and Edward Gibson (2003). Processing relative clauses in Chinese. Cognition 90(1): 3-27.
33. Huili, Wang, Yin Lijing, and Li Qiang (2011). Research into the Processing Mechanism of English Relative Clause by Chinese English Learners. International Journal of Business and Social Science 2(21): 49-58.
34. Ishizuka, Tomoko (2005). Processing relative clauses in Japanese. In UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics 13, Papers in Psycholinguistics 2, ed. Reiko Okabe and Kuniko Nielsen, 135-157. Department of Linguistics, University of California at Los Angeles.
35. Just, Marcel A. and Patricia A. Carpenter (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory capacity. Psychological Review 99(1): 122-149.
36. Keenan, Edward. L. and Bernard Comrie (1977). Noun phrase accessibility and Universal Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8(1): 63-99.
37. Keenan, Edward. L. and Sarah Hawkins (1987). The psychological validity of the accessibility hierarchy. In Universal grammar: 15 essays, ed. Edward Keenan, 60-85. London: Routledge.
38. King, Jonathan W. and Marta Kutas (1995). Who did what and when? Using word- and cause-level ERPs to monitor working memory usage in reading. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 7(3): 376-395.
39. Kükürt, Duygu (2004). Comprehension of Turkish relative clauses in Broca’s aphasics and children. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Middle East Technical University, Ankara.
40. Kwon, Nayoung, Maria Polinsky and Robert Kluender (2006). Subject preference in Korean. In Proceedings of the 25th west coast conference on formal linguistics, ed. Donald Baumer, David Montero, and Michael Scanlon, 1-14. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
41. Kwon, Nayoung, Yoonhyoung Lee, Peter C. Gordon, Robert Kluender and Maria Polinsky (2010). Cognitive and linguistic factors affecting subject/object asymmetry: An eye-tracking study of pre-nominal relative clauses in Korean. Language 86(3): 546-582.
42. Lin, Chien-Jer Charles and Thomas G. Bever (2006). Chinese is no exception: Universal subject preference of relative clause processing. Paper presented at the 19th annual CUNY conference on human sentence processing, New York, NY.
43. Lin, Yowyu and Susan M. Garnsey (2011). Animacy and the resolution of temporary ambiguity in relative clause comprehension in Mandarin. In Processing and Producing Head-final Structures, ed. Hiroko Yamashita, Yuki Hirose, and Jerome L. Packard, 241-275. New York: Springer-Verlag.
44. MacDonald, Maryellen C. and Morten H. Christiansen (2002). Reassessing working memory: Comment on Just and Carpenter (1992) and Waters and Caplan (1996). Psychological Review 109(1): 35-54.
45. MacWhinney, Brian (1977). Starting points. Language 53(1): 152-168.
46. MacWhinney, Brian (1982). Basic syntactic processes. In Syntax and semantics: Language acquisition 1, ed. Stan Kuczaj, 73-136. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
47. MacWhinney, Brian (1987). The competition model. In Brian MacWhinney, eds. Mechanisms of Language Acquisition, 249-308. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
48. MacWhinney, Brian and Csaba Pléh (1988). The processing of restrictive relative clauses in Hungarian. Cognition 29(2): 95-141.
49. Mak, M. Willem, Wietske Vonk and Herbert Schriefers (2002). The influence of animacy on relative clause processing. Journal of Memory and Language 47(1): 50-68.
50. Mak, M. Willem, Wietske Vonk and Herbert Schriefers (2006). Animacy in processing relative clauses: The hikers that rocks crush. Journal of Memory and Language 54(4): 466-490.
51. McElree, Brian and Thomas G. Bever (1989). The psychological reality of linguistically defined gaps. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 18(1): 21-35.
52. Mecklinger, Axel, Herbert Schriefers, Karsten Steinhauer and Angela D. Friederici (1995). Processing relative clauses varying on syntactic and semantic dimensions: An analysis with event-related potentials. Memory and Cognition 23(4): 477-494.
53. Mitchell, Don C., Fernando Cuetos, Martin. M. B. Corley and Marc Brysbaert (1995). Exposure-based models of human parsing: Evidence for the use of coarse-grained (nonlexical) statistical records. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 24(6): 469-488.
54. Nicol, Janet L. and David Swinney (1989). The role of structure in coreference assignment during sentence comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 18(1): 5-19.
55. Nicol, Janet L. and Martin J. Pickering (1993). Processing syntactically ambiguous sentences: Evidence from semantic priming. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 22(2): 207-237.
56. O’Grady, William, Lee Miseon and Choo Miho (2003). A subject-object asymmetry in the acquisition of relative clauses in Korean as a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 25(3): 433-448.
57. Özcan, F. Hülya (1997). Comprehension of Relative Clauses in the Acquisition of Turkish. In the 8th International Conference on Turkish Linguistics, ed. Kamile İmer and N. Engin Uzun, 149-155. Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Basımevi.
58. Özçelik, Öner (2006). Processing relative clauses in Turkish as a second language. Unpublished Master’s thesis, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.
59. Özge, Duygu, Theodoros Marinis and Deniz Zeyrek (2008). Comprehension of subject and object relative clauses in monolingual Turkish children. Paper presented at 14th International Conference on Turkish Linguistics, Antalya, Turkey.
60. Pickering, Martin J. (1994). Processing local and unbounded dependencies: A unified account. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 23(4): 323-352.
61. Pickering, Martin J. and Matthew J. Traxler (2001). Strategies for processing unbounded dependencies: First-resort vs. lexical guidance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 27(6): 1401-1410.
62. Qiao, Xiaomei, Liyao Shen and Kenneth Forster (2012). Relative clause processing in Mandarin: Evidence from the maze task. Language and Cognitive Processes 27(4): 611-630.
63. Rayner, Keith (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin 124: 372-422.
64. Rayner, Keith and Alexander Pollatsek (2006). Eye-movement control in reading. In M. Traxler and M. Gernsbacher (Eds.) Handbook of psycholinguistics. London: Academic Press.
65. Rayner, Keith, Sara C. Sereno, Robin K. Morris, A. Réne Schmauder and Charles Clifton Jr. (1989). Eye movements and on-line language comprehension processes. Language and Cognitive Processes 4(3-4): 21-49.
66. Schriefers, Herbert, Angela D. Friederici and Katja Kühn (1995). The processing of locally ambiguous relative clauses in German. Journal of Memory and Language 34(4): 499-520.
67. Slobin, Dan I. (1986). The acquisition and use of relative clauses in Turkic and Indo-European languages. In Studies in Turkish linguistics, ed. Dan I. Slobin and Karl Zimmer, 277-298. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
68. Tabor, Whitney, Cornell Juliano and Michael K. Tanenhaus (1997). Parsing in a dynamical system: An attractor-based account of the interaction of lexical and structural constraints in sentence processing. Language and Cognitive Processes 12(2-3): 211-272.
69. Trask, Robert L. (1999). Key concepts in language and linguistics. London and New York: Routledge.
70. Traxler, Matthew J., Robin K. Morris and Rachel E. Seely (2002). Processing subject and object relative clauses: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language 47(1): 69-70.
71. Traxler, Matthew J., Rihana S. Williams, Shelley A. Blozis and Robin K. Morris (2005). Working memory, animacy, and verb class in the processing of relative clauses. Journal of Memory and Language 53(2): 204-224.
72. Ueno, Mieko and Susan M. Garnsey (2008). An ERP study of the processing of subject and object relative clauses in Japanese. Language and Cognitive Processes 23(5): 646-688.
73. Wanner, Eric and Michael Maratsos (1978). An ATN approach to comprehension. In Linguistic theory and psychological reality, ed. Moris Halle, Joan Bresnan and George A. Miller, 119-161. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
74. Warren, Tessa and Edward Gibson (2002). The influence of referential processing on sentence complexity. Cognition 85(1): 79-112.
75. Waters, Gloria S. and David Caplan (1992). The capacity theory of sentence comprehension: Critique of Just and Carpenter. Psychological Review 103(4): 761-772.
76. Weckerly, Jill and Marta Kutas (1999). An electrophysiological analysis of animacy effects in the processing of object relative sentences. Psychophysiology 36(5): 559-570.
77. Wells, Justine B., Morten H. Christiansen, David S. Race, Daniel J. Acheson and Maryellen C. MacDonald (2009). Experience and sentence processing: Statistical learning and relative clause comprehension. Cognitive Psychology 58(2): 250-271.
78. Wolfe-Quintero, Kate (1992). Learnability and the acquisition of extraction in relative clauses and wh questions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 14(1): 39-70.