Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-5kfdg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-15T23:50:00.328Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

INTERMEDIATE TRACES AND INTERMEDIATE LEARNERS

Evidence for the Use of Intermediate Structure During Sentence Processing in Second Language French

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 November 2014

A. Kate Miller
A. Kate Miller*
Affiliation:
Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Kate Miller, Department of World Languages, Cavanaugh Hall 539E, 425 University Boulevard, Indianapolis, IN 46202. E-mail: am27@iupui.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study reports on a sentence processing experiment in second language (L2) French that looks for evidence of trace reactivation at clause edge and in the canonical object position in indirect object cleft sentences with complex embedding and cyclic movement. Reaction time (RT) asymmetries were examined among low (n = 20) and high (n = 20) intermediate L2 learners and native speakers (n = 15) of French in a picture-classification-during-reading task. The results show that a subgroup of learners (13 from the low intermediate and 9 from the high intermediate group) as well as the native speakers produced response patterns consistent with reactivation—with the shortest RTs for antecedent-matching probes presented concurrently with the gap—at clause edge, followed by a second reactivation in the canonical object position. This finding suggests that L2 learners may be able to process real-time input in nativelike ways, despite arguments set forth in previous research of this kind.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 37 , Issue 3 , September 2015 , pp. 487 - 516
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Angwin, A. J., Chenery, H. J., Copland, D. A., Cardell, E. A., Murdoch, B. E., & Ingram, J. C. L. (2006). Searching for the trace: The influence of age, lexical activation and working memory on sentence processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 35, 101–117.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carr, T., & Dagenbach, D. (1990). Semantic priming and repetition priming from masked word: Evidence for a center-surround mechanism in perceptual recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 341–350.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1986). Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2005). Rules and representations. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.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 learning. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 3–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costa, A., Caramazza, A., & Sebastian-Galles, N. (2000). The cognate facilitation effect: Implications for models of lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 1283–1296.Google ScholarPubMed
Dagenbach, D., Carr, T. H., & Barnhardt, T. M. (1990). Inhibitory semantic priming of lexical decisions due to failure to retrieve weakly activated codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 328–340.Google Scholar
Dekydtspotter, L. (2009). Second language epistemology: Take two. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 291–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dekydtspotter, L., Donaldson, B., Edmonds, A. C., Liljestrand-Fultz, A., & Petrush, R. A. (2008). Syntactic and prosodic computations in the resolution of relative clause attachment ambiguity by English-French learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 453–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dekydtspotter, L., & Miller, A. K. (2013). Inhibitive and facilitative priming induced by traces in the processing of wh-dependencies in a second language. Second Language Research, 29, 345–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dekydtspotter, L., Schwartz, B. D., & Sprouse, R. A. (2006). The comparative fallacy in L2 processing research. In Grantham O’Brien, M., Shea, C., & Archibald, J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition conference (GASLA 2006): The Banff conference (pp. 33–40). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Dijkstra, T., Grainger, J., & Van Heuven, W. J. B. (1999). Recognition of cognates and interlingual homographs: The neglected role of phonology. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 496–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dussias, P. E. (2003). Syntactic ambiguity resolution in L2 learners: Some effects of bilinguality on L1 and L2 processing strategies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 529–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Favreau, M., & Segalowitz, N. S. (1983). Automatic and controlled processes in the first and second language reading of fluent bilinguals. Memory & Cognition, 11, 565–574.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Felser, C., & Roberts, L. (2007). Processing wh- dependencies in a second language: A cross-modal priming study. Second Language Research, 31, 9–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J. A. (1983). The modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forster, K. I., & Forster, J. C. (2003). DMDX: A Windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers, 35, 116–124.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frenck-Mestre, C. (2002). An on-line look at sentence processing in the second language. In Heredia, R. R. & Altarriba, J. (Eds.), Bilingual sentence processing (pp. 217–235). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frenck-Mestre, C., & Pynte, J. (1997). Syntactic ambiguity resolution while reading in second and native languages. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 50A, 119–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68, 1–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibson, E., & Warren, T. (2004). Reading-time evidence for intermediate linguistic structure in long-distance dependencies. Syntax, 7, 55–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gollan, T., Montoya, R. L., Fennema-Notestine, C., & Morris, S. K. (2005). Bilingualism affects picture naming but not picture classification. Memory & Cognition, 33, 1220–1234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, P. C., Hendrick, R., & Johnson, M. (2004). Effects of noun phrase type on sentence complexity. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 97–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrington, M., & Sawyer, M. (1992). L2 working memory capacity and L2 reading skill. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14, 25–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopp, H. (2013). Individual differences in the second language processing of object-subject ambiguities. Applied Psycholinguistics. Advance online publication. doi:10.1017/S0142716413000180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lemhöfer, K., Dijkstra, T., Schriefers, H., Baayen, R., Grainger, J., & Zwitserlood, P. (2008). Native language influences on word recognition in a second language: A megastudy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 12–31.Google Scholar
Love, T. (2007). The processing of non-canonically ordered constituents in long distance dependencies by pre-school children: A real-time investigation. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 36, 191–206.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Love, T., & Swinney, D. (1996). Coreference processing and levels of analysis in object-relative constructions: Demonstration of antecedent reactivation in the cross-modal priming paradigm. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25, 5–24.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
Nicol, J. L., Fodor, J. D., & Swinney, D. (1994). Using cross-modal lexical decision tasks to investigate sentence processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 1229–1238.Google ScholarPubMed
Nicol, J., & Swinney, D. (1989). The role of structure in coreference assignment during sentence comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18, 5–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Omaki, A., & Schulz, B. (2011). Filler-gap dependencies and island constraints in second language sentence processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33, 563–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pickering, M., & Barry, G. (1991). Sentence processing without empty categories. Language and Cognitive Processes, 6, 229–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pliatsikas, C., & Marinis, T. (2013). Processing empty categories in a second language: When naturalistic exposure fills the (intermediate) gap. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16, 167–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poarch, G. J., & van Hell, , , J. G. (2012). Cross-language activation in children’s speech production: Evidence from second language learners, bilinguals, and trilinguals. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 111, 419–438.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Renaud, C. (2010). On the nature of agreement in English-French acquisition: A processing investigation in the verbal and nominal domains (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Indiana University, Bloomington.Google Scholar
Roberts, L. (2012). Individual differences in second language sentence processing. Language Learning, 62, 172–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, L., Marinis, T., Felser, C., & Clahsen, H. (2007). Antecedent priming at trace positions in children’s sentence processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 36, 175–188.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rodríguez, G. A. (2008). Second language sentence processing: Is it fundamentally different? (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Sag, I., & Fodor, J. D. (1994). Extraction without traces. In Aranovich, R., Byren, W., Preuss, S., & Senturia, M. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 13th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp. 365–384). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Sanford, A. J. S., Price, J., & Sanford, A. J. (2009). Enhancement and suppression effects resulting from information structuring in sentences. Memory & Cognition, 37, 880–888.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Segalowitz, N. S., & Segalowitz, S. J. (1993). Skilled performance, practice, and the differentiation of speed-up from automatization effects: Evidence from second language word recognition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 14, 369–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slabakova, R. (2008). Meaning in the second language. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanner, D., Inoue, K., & Ousterhout, L. (2014). Brain-based individual differences in on-line L2 grammatical comprehension. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17, 277–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traxler, M. J., & Pickering, M. J. (1996). Plausibility and the processing of unbounded dependencies: An eye-tracking study. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 454–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar