Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-n9wrp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-21T11:24:16.289Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Processing focus in native and non-native speakers of English: an eye-tracking study in the visual world paradigm

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 June 2021

Haoyan Ge Open the ORCID record for Haoyan Ge [Opens in a new window] ,
Iris Mulders ,
Xin Kang ,
Aoju Chen  and
Virginia Yip
Haoyan Ge*
Affiliation:
School of Education and Languages, The Open University of Hong Kong, Hong KongSAR, China
Iris Mulders
Affiliation:
Department of Languages, Literature and Communication & Utrecht Institute of Linguistics OTS, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
Xin Kang
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics and Modern Languages & Brain and Mind Institute, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong KongSAR, China
Aoju Chen
Affiliation:
Department of Languages, Literature and Communication & Utrecht Institute of Linguistics OTS, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
Virginia Yip
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics and Modern Languages, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong KongSAR, China
*
*Corresponding author. Email: hge@ouhk.edu.hk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This “visual-world” eye-tracking study investigated the processing of focus in English sentences with preverbal only by L2 learners whose L1 was either Cantonese or Dutch, compared to native speakers of English. Participants heard only-sentences with prosodic prominence either on the object or on the verb and viewed pictures containing an object-focus alternative and a verb-focus alternative. We found that both L2 groups showed delayed eye movements to the alternative of focus, which was different from the native speakers of English. Moreover, Dutch learners of English were even slower than Cantonese learners of English in directing fixations to the alternative of focus. We interpreted the delayed fixation patterns in both L2 groups as evidence of difficulties in integrating multiple interfaces in real time. Furthermore, the similarity between English and Dutch in the use of prosody to mark focus hindered Dutch learners’ L2 processing of focus, whereas the difference between English and Cantonese in the realization of focus facilitated Cantonese learners’ processing of focus in English.

Keywords

L2 processingfocusvisual world eye trackingCantonese learners of EnglishDutch learners of English
Type
Original Article
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 42 , Issue 4 , July 2021 , pp. 1057 - 1088
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

Akker, E., & Cutler, A. (2003). Prosodic cues to semantic structure in native and nonnative listening. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 6(2), 81–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Altmann, G. T. M., & Kamide, Y. (1999). Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition, 73, 247–264.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Altmann, G. T. M., & Kamide, Y. (2004). Now you see it, now you don’t: Mediating the mapping between language and the visual world. In Henderson, J. M., & Ferreira, F. (Eds.), The Interface of language, vision, and action: Eye movements and the visual world (pp. 347–368). Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Altmann, G. T. M., & Kamide, Y. (2007). The real-time mediation of visual attention by language and world knowledge: Linking anticipatory (and other) eye movements to linguistic processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 57, 502–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bates, D., Kliegl, R., Vasishth, S., & Baayen, H. (2015). Parsimonious mixed models. http://arxiv.org/abs/1506.04967 Google Scholar
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48.10.18637/jss.v067.i01CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2018). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer [Computer software]. Version 6.0.39. http://www.praat.org/ Google Scholar
Bouma, G., Hendriks, P., & Hoeksema, J. (2007). Focus particles inside prepositional phrases: A Comparison of Dutch, English, and German. Journal of Comparative German Linguistics, 10, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown-Schmidt, S., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2008). Real-time investigation of referential domains in unscripted conversation: A targeted language game approach. Cognitive Science, 32(4), 643−684.10.1080/03640210802066816CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chafe, W. (1976) Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects and topics. In Li, C. N. (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 27–55). Academic Press.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006). How native-like is non-native language processing? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(12), 564–570.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Davis, C., Sánchez-Casas, R., Garcia-Albea, J. E., Guasch, M., Molero, M., & Ferré, P. (2010). Masked translation priming: Varying language experience and word type with Spanish–English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13(2), 137–155.10.1017/S1366728909990393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dijkstra, T., Grainger, J., & Van Heuven, W. J. (1999). Recognition of cognates and interlingual homographs: The neglected role of phonology. Journal of Memory and Language, 41(4), 496–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eberhard, K. M., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., Sedivy, J. C., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1995). Eye- movements as a window into real-time spoken language comprehension in natural contexts. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 24(6), 409–436.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G* Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Foolen, A., Van Gerrevink, R., Hogeweg, L., & Prawiro-Atmodjo, P. (2009). The placement of focus particles in Dutch. Linguistics in the Netherlands, 26(April 2016), 51–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fung, R. S. Y. (2000). Final particles in standard Cantonese: Semantic extension and pragmatic inference. Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Ge, H., Chen, A., & Yip, V. (2021). Comprehension of focus-to-accentuation mapping in sentences with only by advanced Cantonese learners and Dutch learners of English. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 43(1), 25–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gennari, S., Meroni, P. L., & Crain, S. (2004). Rapid relief of stress in dealing with ambiguity. In Trueswell, J., & Tanenhaus, M. (Eds.), Approaches to studying world-situated language use: Bridging the language-as-product and language-as-action traditions (pp. 245–259). MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gu, W. & Lee, T. (2007). Effects of tonal context and focus on Cantonese F0. In Proceedings of 16th International Conference Phonetic Science, Saarbrucken, 1033–1036.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, C. (1983). On the grammar and semantics of sentence accents. Foris.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, C. (2006). Types of focus in English. In Lee, C., Gordon, M., & Büring, D. (Eds.), Topic and focus: Cross-linguistic perspectives on meaning and intonation (pp. 83–100). Kluwer.Google Scholar
Hopp, H. (2009). The syntax-discourse interface in near-native L2 acquisition: Off-line and on-line performance. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12, 463–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. S. (1972). Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kang, X., Joergensen, G. H., & Altmann, G. T. M. (2020). The activation of object-state representations during online language comprehension. Acta Psychologica, 210, 103162.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2017). lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13). 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladd, R. (2008). Intonational phonology. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information structure and sentence form: Topics, focus, and the representations of discourse referents. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, P. P. L. (2019). Focus manifestation in Mandarin Chinese and Cantonese: A comparative perspective. Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linguistic Society of Hong Kong. (2002). Yueyu pinyin zibiao [Guide to LSHK Cantonese Romanization of Chinese Characters], 2nd edn. Linguistic Society of Hong Kong.Google Scholar
Liu, F. (2009). Intonation systems of Mandarin and English: A functional approach. Doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Liu, J., & Lee, Y. C. (2021). Focus prosody by Korean learners of English. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Man, V. C. (2002). Focus effects on Cantonese tones: An acoustic study. In Proceedings of 1st International Conference on Speech Prosody, Aix-en-Provence, France (pp. 467–470).Google Scholar
Matthews, S., & Yip, V. (2011). Cantonese: A comprehensive grammar. Routledge.Google Scholar
Mirković, J., & Altmann, G. T. (2019). Unfolding meaning in context: The dynamics of conceptual similarity. Cognition, 183, 19–43.10.1016/j.cognition.2018.10.018CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mulders, I., & Szendröi, K. (2016). Early association of prosodic focus with alleen “only”: Evidence from eye movements in the visual-world paradigm. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ortega-Llebaria, M., & Colantoni, L. (2014). L2 English intonation: Relations between form-meaning associations, access to meaning, and L1 transfer. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36(2), 331–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Core Team (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
Reichle, R. V., & Birdsong, D. (2014). Processing focus structure in L1 and L2 French: L2 proficiency effects on ERPs. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36(3), 535–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rooth, M. (1992). A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics, 1, 75–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salverda, A. P., Brown, M., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2011). A goal-based perspective on eye movements in visual world studies. Acta Psychologica, 137(2), 172–180.10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.09.010CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Selkirk, E. (1995). Sentence prosody: Intonation, stress, and phrasing. In Goldsmith, J. (Ed.), The Handbook of Phonological Theory (pp. 550–569). Blackwell.Google Scholar
Shyu, S-I. (2010). Focus interpretation of Zhi “only” associated arguments in Mandarin triadic constructions. Linguistics, 48(3), 671–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slabakova, R., Kempchinsky, P., & Rothman, J. (2012). Clitic-doubled left dislocation and focus fronting in L2 Spanish: A case of successful acquisition at the syntax–discourse interface. Second Language Research, 28(3), 319–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorace, A. (2011). Pinning down the concept of “interface” in bilingualism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1, 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorace, A., & Filiaci, F. (2006). Anaphora resolution in near-native speakers of Italian. Second Language Research, 22, 339–368.10.1191/0267658306sr271oaCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorace, A., & Serratrice, L. (2009). Internal and external interfaces in bilingual language development: Beyond structural overlap. International Journal of Bilingualism, 13(2), 195–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tang, S. W. (2002). Focus and dak in Cantonese. Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 30(2), 266–309.Google Scholar
Tremblay, A., Broersma, M., Coughlin, C. E., & Choi, J. (2016). Effects of the native language on the learning of fundamental frequency in second-language speech segmentation. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 985.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Trommelem, M., & Zonneveld, W. (1999). Word stress in Western Germanic languages. In van der Hulst, H. (Ed.), Word prosodic systems in the languages of Europe (pp. 478–515). Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Van Assche, E., Duyck, W., & Brysbaert, M. (2013). Verb processing by bilinguals in sentence contexts: The effect of cognate status and verb tense. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35(2), 237–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voga, M., & Grainger, J. (2007). Cognate status and cross-script translation priming. Memory & Cognition, 35(5), 938–952.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
White, L. (2011). Second language acquisition at the interfaces. Lingua, 121, 577–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, B., & Xu, Y. (2011). Differential prosodic encoding of topic and focus in sentence-initial position in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of Phonetics, 39, 595–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, W., & Xu, Y. (2010). Prosodic focus in Hong Kong Cantonese without post-focus compression. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference Speech Prosody, Chicago (pp. 1–4).Google Scholar
Xu, L. (2004). Manifestation of informational focus. Lingua, 114(3), 277–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xu, Y., & Xu, C. X. (2005). Phonetic realization of focus in English declarative intonation. Journal of Phonetics, 33(2), 159–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimmermann, M., & Onea, E. (2011). Focus marking and focus interpretation. Lingua, 121(11), 1651–1670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zubizarreta, M. L., & Nava, E. (2011). Encoding discourse-based meaning: Prosody vs. syntax. Implications for second language acquisition. Lingua, 121(4), 652–669.10.1016/j.lingua.2010.06.013CrossRefGoogle Scholar