Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T20:42:31.521Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A reading-time study of the main verb versus reduced relative clause ambiguity resolution by English learners in Taiwan

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 October 2012

PI-LAN YANG  and
SU-CHIN SHIH
PI-LAN YANG*
Affiliation:
National Kaohsiung Marine University
SU-CHIN SHIH
Affiliation:
National Kaohsiung Normal University
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Pi-Lan Yang, Foreign Languages Center, National Kaohsiung Marine University, Number 142, Hai-Chuan Road, Nan-Tzu District, Kaohsiung, Taiwan. E-Mail: pilany@webmail.nkmu.edu.tw
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Using a self-paced reading task, the study aimed to investigate (a) whether English learners in Taiwan immediately resolve main verb versus reduced relative clause ambiguities in a similar way as native English speakers and (b) whether the learners at various English proficiency levels show diverse profiles. With analyses and syntheses of reading times for critical segments, results showed that different proficiency groups of Taiwanese English learners resolved such ambiguities in a way similar to native speakers to varying extents. The findings suggest that the sentence-processing mechanism of human language is subject to sufficient facility with syntactic access and/or with a network of lexical, semantic, and pragmatic information of individual speakers.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 34 , Issue 6 , November 2013 , pp. 1109 - 1133
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012 

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

REFERENCES

Boland, J. E., & Blodgett, A. (2006). Argument status and PP-attachment. Journal of Psycholinguist Research, 35, 385–403.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burgess, C. (1991). Interaction of semantic, syntactic and visual factors in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Rochester.Google Scholar
Camblin, C. C., Gordon, P. C., & Swaab, T. Y. (2007). The interplay of discourse congruence and lexical association during sentence processing: Evidence from ERPs and eye tracking. Journal of Memory and Language, 56, 103–128.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carroll, D. W. (1999). Psychology of language. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006a). Continuity and shallow structures in language processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 107–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006b). Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 3–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clifton, C., Traxler, M. J., Mohamed, M. T., Williams, R. S., Morris, R. K., & Rayner, K. (2003). The use of thematic role information in parsing: Syntactic processing autonomy revisited. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 317–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learners’ errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 5, 161–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crain, S., & Steedman, M. (1985). On not being led up the garden path: The use of context by the psychological syntax processor. In Dowty, D. R., Karttunen, L., & Zwicky, A. M. (Eds.), Natural language parsing (pp. 320–358). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowens, M. G., Carreiras, M., & Laguna, V. de. (2006). The shallow structure hypothesis of second language sentence processing: What is restricted and why? Applied Linguistics, 27, 49–52.Google Scholar
Dussias, P. E. (2003). Syntactic ambiguity resolution in L2 learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 529–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, F., & Clifton, C. (1986). The independence of syntactic processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 348–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flores d'Arcais, G. B. (1990). Parsing principles and language comprehension during reading. In Balota, D. A., Flores d'Arcais, G. B., & Rayner, K. (Eds.), Comprehension processes in reading (pp. 345–357). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A. (1983). The modularity of mind: An essay on faculty psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frazier, L. (1978). On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Frazier, L. (1987). Sentence processing: A tutorial review. In Coltheart, M. (Ed.), Attention and performance (pp. 559–586). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Frazier, L. (1995). Constraint satisfaction as a theory of sentence processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 24, 437–468.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1982). Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 178–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1989). Selection mechanisms in reading lexically ambiguous words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 15, 779–790.Google Scholar
Frenck-Mestre, C., & Pynte, J. (1997). Syntactic ambiguity resolution while reading in second and native languages. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A, 50, 119–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gleason, J. B., & Ratner, N. B. (1993). Psycholinguistics. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
Green, M. J., & Mitchell, D. C. (2006). Absence of evidence against competition during syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Juffs, A. (1998a). Main verb versus reduced relative clause ambiguity resolution in L2 sentence processing. Language Learning, 48, 107–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Juffs, A. (1998b). Some effects of first language argument structure and syntax on second language processing. Second Language Research, 14, 406–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Juffs, A. (2004). Representation, processing, and working memory in a second language. Transactions of the Philological Society, 102, 199–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Juffs, A., & Harrington, M. (1996). Garden path sentences and error data in second language sentence processing. Language Learning, 46, 283–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review, 87, 329–354.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Just, M. A., Carpenter, P. A., & Woolley, J. D. (1982). Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 3, 228–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). Lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101, 676–703.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marinis, T., Roberts, L., Felser, C., & Clahsen, H. (2005). Gaps in second language sentence processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 53–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murray, W. S. (2006). The nature and time course of pragmatic plausibility effects. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 35, 79–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nemser, W. (1971). Approximative systems of foreign language learners. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 9, 115–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papadopoulou, D., & Clahsen, H. (2003). Parsing strategies in L1 and L2 sentence processing: A study of relative clause attachment in Greek. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 501–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pritchett, B. L. (1992). Grammatical competence and parsing performance. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Rayner, K., Carlson, M., & Frazier, L. (1983). The interaction of syntax and semantics during sentence processing: Eye movements in the analysis of semantically biased sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 358–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10, 209–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorace, A. (2006). Possible manifestations of shallow processing in advanced second language speakers. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 88–91.Google Scholar
Su, I. R. (2001a). Context effects on sentence processing: A study based on the competition model. Applied Psycholinguistics, 22, 167–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Su, I. R. (2001b). Transfer of sentence processing strategies: A comparison of L2 learners of Chinese and English. Applied Psycholinguistics, 22, 83–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tabossi, P., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., McRae, K., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1994). Semantic effects on syntactic ambiguity resolution: Evidence for a constraint-based resolution process. In Umilta, C. A. & Moscovitch, M. (Eds.), Attention and Performance: Vol. 15. Conscious and nonconscious processing (pp. 589–616). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Taraban, R., & McClelland, J. L. (1990). Parsing and comprehension: A multiple-constraint view. In Balota, D. A., Flores D'Arcais, G. B., & Rayner, K. (Eds.), Comprehension processes in reading (pp. 231–263). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, J., Möbius, P., & Kim, C. (2001). Native and non-native processing of English wh-questions: Parsing strategies and plausibility constraints. Applied Psycholinguistics, 22, 509–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar