Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
×
Home

Plausibility and recovery from garden paths in second language sentence processing

  • LEAH ROBERTS (a1) and CLAUDIA FELSER (a1)

Abstract

In this study, the influence of plausibility information on the real-time processing of locally ambiguous (“garden path”) sentences in a nonnative language is investigated. Using self-paced reading, we examined how advanced Greek-speaking learners of English and native speaker controls read sentences containing temporary subject–object ambiguities, with the ambiguous noun phrase being either semantically plausible or implausible as the direct object of the immediately preceding verb. Besides providing evidence for incremental interpretation in second language processing, our results indicate that the learners were more strongly influenced by plausibility information than the native speaker controls in their on-line processing of the experimental items. For the second language learners an initially plausible direct object interpretation lead to increased reanalysis difficulty in “weak” garden-path sentences where the required reanalysis did not interrupt the current thematic processing domain. No such evidence of on-line recovery was observed, in contrast, for “strong” garden-path sentences that required more substantial revisions of the representation built thus far, suggesting that comprehension breakdown was more likely here.

Copyright

Corresponding author

ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Leah Roberts, Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, P.O. Box 310, Nijmegen 6500 AH, The Netherlands. E-mail: leah.roberts@mpi.nl

References

Hide All
Allan, D. (1992). The Oxford Placement Test. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Baumann, H., Nagengast, J., & Klaas, G. (1993). New experimental setup (NESU). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.
Centre for Lexical Information. (1993). The Celex lexical database. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.
Christianson, K., Hollingworth, A., Halliwell, J., & Ferreira, F. (2001). Thematic roles assigned along the garden path linger. Cognitive Psychology, 42, 368407.
Christianson, K., Williams, C. C., Zacks, R. T., & Ferreira, F. (2006). Misrepresentations of garden-path sentences by older and younger adults. Discourse Processes, 42, 205238.
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006). Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 342.
Clifton, C. (1993). Thematic roles in sentence parsing. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47, 222246.
Felser, C., & Roberts, L. (2007). Processing wh-dependencies in a second language: A cross-modal priming study. Second Language Research, 23, 936.
Felser, C., Roberts, L, Gross, R., & Marinis, T. (2003). The processing of ambiguous sentences by first and second language learners of English. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24, 453489.
Felser, C., Sato, M., & Bertenshaw, N. (2009). The on-line application of binding Principle A in English as a second language. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12, 485502.
Ferreira, F., & Henderson, J. (1991). Recovery from misanalyses of garden-path sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 725745.
Fodor, J. D., & Ferreira, F. (1998). Reanalysis in sentence processing. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Frazier, L. (1987). Sentence processing: A tutorial review. In Coltheart, M. (Ed.): Attention and performance: Vol. 12. The psychology of reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Frazier, L., & Clifton, C. (1998). Sentence reanalysis and visibility. In Fodor, J. D. & Ferreira, F. (Eds.), Reanalysis in sentence processing. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1982). Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 178210.
Frenck-Mestre, C. (2005). Ambiguities and anomalies: What can eye-movements and event-related potentials reveal about second language sentence processing? In Kroll, J. & De Groot, A. (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gibson, E. (1991). A computational theory of human linguistic processing: Memory limitations and processing breakdown. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Carnegie Mellon.
Gorrell, P. (1995). Syntax and parsing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Grodner, D., Gibson, E., Argaman, V., & Babyonyshev, M. (2003). Against repair-based reanalysis in sentence comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 32, 141166.
Hahne, A., & Friederici, A. (2001). Processing a second language: Late learners’ comprehension mechanisms as revealed by event-related brain potentials. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4, 123141.
Hale, J. (2003). The information conveyed by words in sentences. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 32, 101124.
Havik, E., Roberts, L., van Hout, R., Schreuder, R., & Haverkort, M. (2009). Processing subject–object ambiguitities in the L2: A self-paced reading study with German L2 learners of Dutch. Language Learning, 59, 73112.
Holmes, V., Stowe, L., & Cupples, L. (1989). Lexical expectations in parsing complement–verb sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 668689.
Holmes, V. M., Kennedy, A., & Murray, W. (1987). Syntactic structure and the garden path. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 39A, 277294.
Juffs, A. (2004). Representation, processing, and working memory in a second language. Transactions of the Philological Society, 102, 199225.
Juffs, A., & Harrington, M. (1996). Garden path sentences and error data in second language processing research. Language Learning, 46, 286324.
Just, M., Carpenter, P., & Woolley, J. (1982). Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 111, 228238.
Kennedy, A., Murray, W., Jennings, F., & Reid, C. (1989). Parsing complements: Comments on the generality of the principle of minimal attachment. Language and Cognitive Processes 4, 5176.
Levy, R. (2008). Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition, 106, 11261177.
Marinis, T., Roberts, L., Felser, C., & Clahsen, H. (2005). Gaps in second language sentence processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 5378.
McRae, K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1998). Modeling the influence of thematic fit (and other constraints) in on-line sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 38, 283312.
Papadopoulou, D. (2005). Reading-time studies of second language ambiguity resolution. Second Language Research, 21, 98120.
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, 24, 501528.
Papadopoulou, D., & Tsimpli, I. (2005). Morphological cues in children's processing of ambiguous sentences: A study of subject/object ambiguities in Greek. In Brugos, A., Clark-Cotton, M.-R., & Ha, S. (Eds.), BUCLD 29: Proceedings of the 29th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 471481). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Pickering, M., & Traxler, M. (1998). Plausibility and recovery from garden paths: An eye-tracking study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 24, 940961.
Pickering, M., & Van Gompel, R. (2006). Syntactic parsing. In Traxler, M. & Gernsbacher, M. (Eds.), The handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 455503). San Diego, CA: Elsevier.
Pritchett, B. (1992). Grammatical competence and parsing performance. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 372422.
Roberts, L., Gullberg, M., & Indefrey, P. (2008). Online pronoun resolution in L2 discourse: L1 influence and general learner effects. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 333357.
Spivey, M. J., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1998). Syntactic ambiguity resolution in discourse: Modeling the effects of referential context and lexical frequency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 24, 15211543.
Stowe, L. (1989). Thematic structures and sentence comprehension. In Carlson, G. & Tanenhaus, M. (Eds.). Linguistic structure in language processing (pp. 319356). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Sturt, P., & Crocker, M. (1996). Monotonic syntactic processing: A cross-linguistic study of attachment and reanalysis. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 449494.
Sturt, P., Pickering, M., & Crocker, M. (1999). Structural change and reanalysis difficulty in language comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 136150.
Tabor, W., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1999). Dynamical models of sentence processing. Cognitive Science, 23, 491515.
Trueswell, J. C., & Kim, A. E. (1998). How to prune a garden path by nipping it in the bud: Fast priming of verb argument structure. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 102123.
Van Gompel, R. P. G., & Pickering, M. J. (2001). Lexical guidance in sentence processing: A note on Adams, Clifton, and Mitchell (1998). Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 851857.
Vasishth, S., & Lewis, R. L. (2006). Symbolic models of human sentence processing. In Brown, K. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (2nd ed.). New York: Elsevier.
Weinberg, A. (1999). A minimalist theory of human sentence processing. In Epstein, S. & Hornstein, N. (Eds.), Working minimalism (pp. 283315). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Williams, J. (2006). Incremental interpretation in second language sentence processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 9, 7188.
Williams, J., Möbius, P., & Kim, C. (2001). Native and non-native processing of English wh-questions: Parsing strategies and plausibility constraints. Applied Psycholinguistics, 22, 509540.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Applied Psycholinguistics
  • ISSN: 0142-7164
  • EISSN: 1469-1817
  • URL: /core/journals/applied-psycholinguistics
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed