Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T19:28:04.714Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Quantifying contextual effects in second language processing of phonolexically ambiguous and unambiguous words

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 January 2017

ANNA CHRABASZCZ  and
KIRA GOR
ANNA CHRABASZCZ*
Affiliation:
National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow
KIRA GOR
Affiliation:
University of Maryland
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Anna Chrabaszcz, National Research University Higher School of Economics, 21/4 Staraya Basmannaya, Moscow 105066, Russian Federation. E-mail: anna.lukyanchenko@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Second language (L2) speakers often experience difficulty discriminating speech sounds of the nonnative language, which can result in phonolexical ambiguity. We report two experiments that examine how L2 Russian speakers may utilize contextual constraints for phonolexical ambiguity resolution during speech comprehension. L2 ambiguous words constitute minimal pairs with palatalized and unpalatalized consonants in the Russian language, where the phonological feature of palatalization marks semantic, morphological, or syntactic distinctions between words. L2 performance is compared to that of a control group of Russian native speakers. The results demonstrate that L2 listeners rely on contextual information for meaning disambiguation during sentence comprehension, but that the relative reliance on different types of context is task specific.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 38 , Issue 4 , July 2017 , pp. 909 - 942
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

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

Ardal, S., Donald, M. W., Neuter, R., Muldrew, S., & Luce, M. (1990). Brain responses to semantic incongruity in bilinguals. Brain and Language, 39, 187–205.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 390–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barr, D. J. (2013). Random effects structure for testing interactions in linear mixed-effects models. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 328.Google Scholar
Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 255–278.Google Scholar
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2014). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version 1.1-7 [Computer software]. Retrieved from http://CRAN.Rproject.org/package=lme4 Google Scholar
Berne, J. E. (2004). Listening comprehension strategies: A review of the literature. Foreign Language Annals, 37, 521–533.Google Scholar
Best, C. T., & Tyler, M. D. (2007). Nonnative and second-language speech perception: Commonalities and complementarities. In Bohn, O.-S. & Munro, M. J. (Eds.), Language experience and second language speech learning: In honor of James Emil Flege (pp. 12–34). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Block, E. L. (1992). See how they read: Comprehension monitoring of L1 and L2 readers. TESOL, 26, 319–343.Google Scholar
Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2010). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer [Computer software]. Version 4.5.16. Retrieved from www.praat.org Google Scholar
Bondarko, L. (2005). Phonetic and phonological aspects of the opposition of “soft” and “hard” consonants in the modern Russian language. Speech Communication, 47, 7–14.Google Scholar
Broersma, M., & Cutler, A. (2008). Phantom word activation in L2. System, 36, 22–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broersma, M., & Cutler, A. (2011). Competition dynamics of second-language listening. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 74–95.Google Scholar
Chrabaszcz, A., & Gor, K. (2014). Context effects in the processing of phonolexical ambiguity in L2. Language Learning, 64, 415–455.Google Scholar
Chrabaszcz, A., & Jiang, N. (2014). The role of the native language in the use of the English nongeneric definite article by L2 learners: A cross-linguistic comparison. Second Language Research, 30, 351–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006a) Continuity and shallow structures in language processing: A reply to our commentators. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 107–126.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006b) Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 3–42.Google Scholar
Cook, S. V., & Gor, K. (2015). Lexical access in L2: Representational deficit or processing constraint? Mental Lexicon, 10, 247–270.Google Scholar
Cook, S. V., Pandža, N. B., Lancaster, A. K., & Gor, K. (2016). Fuzzy nonnative phonolexical representations lead to fuzzy form-to-meaning mappings. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1345.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cutler, A., & Otake, T. (2004). Pseudo-homophony in non-native listening. Paper presented to the 75th meeting of the Acoustical Society of America, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cutler, A., Weber, A., & Otake, T. (2006). Asymmetric mapping from phonetic to lexical representations in second language listening. Journal of Phonetics, 34, 269–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darcy, I., Daidone, D., & Kojima, C. (2013). Asymmetric lexical access and fuzzy lexical representations in second language learners. Mental Lexicon, 8, 372–420.Google Scholar
De Almeida, R. G., & Libben, G. (2005). Changing morphological structures: The effect of sentence context on the interpretation of structurally ambiguous English trimorphemic words. Language and Cognitive Processes, 20, 373–394.Google Scholar
Dekydtspotter, L., Schwartz, B. D., & Sprouse, R. A. (2006). The comparative fallacy in L2 processing research. In O'Brien, M. G., 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 Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
DeLong, K. A. (2009). Electrophysiological explorations of linguistic pre-activation and its consequences during online sentence processing (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California at San Diego).Google Scholar
Díaz, B., Mitterer, H., Broersma, M., & Sebastián-Gallés, N. (2012). Individual differences in late bilinguals' L2 phonological processes: From acoustic–phonetic analysis to lexical access. Learning and Individual Differences, 22, 680–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duffy, S. A., Morris, R. K., & Rayner, K. (1988). Lexical ambiguity and fixation times in reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 429–446.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2005). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 141–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elston-Güttler, K., & Friederici, A. (2005). Native and L2 processing of homonyms in sentential context. Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 256–283.Google Scholar
Elston-Güttler, K., & Friederici, A. (2007). Ambiguous words in sentences: Brain indices for native and non-native disambiguation. Neuroscience Letters, 414, 85–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Faust, M., & Chiarello, C. (1998). Sentence context and lexical ambiguity resolution by the two hemispheres. Neuropsychologia, 36, 827–835.Google Scholar
Feroce, N., Aziz, P., Chun, E., & Kaan, E. (2016). L2 learners need more time to predict. Paper presented at the 29th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, University of Florida, Gainesville, March 3–5.Google Scholar
FitzPatrick, I., & Indefrey, P. (2007). Effects of sentence context in L2 natural speech comprehension. Nijmegen CNS, 1, 43–56.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E. (1993). Production and perception of a novel, second-language phonetic contrast. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 93, 1589–1608.Google Scholar
Folk, J., & Morris, R. (2003). Effects of syntactic category assignment on lexical ambiguity resolution in reading: An eye movement analysis. Memory and Cognition, 31, 87–99.Google 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.Google Scholar
Foucart, A., Martin, C. D., Moreno, E. M., & Costa, A. (2014). Can bilinguals see it coming? Word anticipation in L2 sentence reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40, 1461.Google Scholar
Franceschina, F. (2001). Morphological or syntactic deficits in near-native speakers? An assessment of some current proposals. Second Language Research, 17, 213–247.Google Scholar
Frazier, L. (1979). On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Frenck-Mestre, C., & Prince, P. (1997). Second language autonomy. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 481–501.Google Scholar
Goh, C. (2000). A cognitive perspective on language learners' listening comprehension problems. System, 28, 55–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grosjean, F. (1980). Spoken word recognition processes and the gating paradigm. Perception and Psychophysics, 28, 267–283.Google Scholar
Hahne, A. (2001). What's different in second-language processing? Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 30, 2001.Google Scholar
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, 123–141.Google Scholar
Hawkins, R., & Chan, C. Y. H. (1997). The partial availability of Universal Grammar in second language acquisition: The “failed functional features hypothesis.” Second Language Research, 13, 187–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes-Harb, R., & Masuda, K. (2008). Development of the ability to lexically encode novel second language phonemic contrasts. Second Language Research, 24, 5–33.Google Scholar
Hopp, H. (2010). Ultimate attainment in L2 inflection: Performance similarities between non-native and native speakers. Lingua, 120, 901–931.Google Scholar
Hu, G., & Jiang, N. (2011). Semantic integration in listening comprehension in a second language: Evidence from cross-modal priming. In Trofimovich, P. & McDonough, K. (Eds.), Applying priming research to L2 learning and teaching (pp. 199–218). Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Jia, G. (2003). The acquisition of the English plural morpheme by native Mandarin Chinese–speaking children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 46, 1297–1311.Google Scholar
Jiang, N., Hu, G., Chrabaszcz, A., & Ye, L. (2015). The activation of grammaticalized meaning in L2 processing: Toward an explanation of the morphological congruency effect. International Journal of Bilingualism. Advance online publication.Google Scholar
Jiang, N., Novokshanova, E., Masuda, K., & Wang, X. (2011). Morphological congruency and the acquisition of L2 morphemes. Language Learning, 61, 940–967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaan, E. (2014). Predictive sentence processing in L2 and L1: What is different? Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 4, 257–282.Google Scholar
Kellas, G., Paul, S., Martin, M., & Simpson, J. (1991). Contextual feature activation and meaning access. In Simpson, G. B. (Ed.), Understanding word and sentence. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Kilborn, K. (1992). On-line integration of grammatical information in a second language. In Harris, R. (Ed.), Cognitive processing in bilinguals (pp. 337–350). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Kintsch, W., & Mross, E. F. (1985). Context effects in word identification. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 336–349.Google Scholar
Kochetov, A. (2002). Production, perception, and emergent phonotactic patterns: A case of contrastive palatalization. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kuhl, P. K. (1991). Human adults and human infants show a “perceptual magnet effect” for the prototypes of speech categories, monkeys do not. Perception and Psychophysics, 50, 93–107.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kutas, M., DeLong, K. A., & Smith, N. J. (2011). A look around at what lies ahead: Prediction and predictability in language processing. In Bar, M. (Ed.), Predictions in the brain: Using our past to generate a future (pp. 190–207). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kutas, M., Van Petten, C., & Besson, M. (1988). Event-related potential asymmetries during the reading of sentences. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 69, 218–233.Google Scholar
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P., & Christensen, R. (2015). ImerTest: Tests in linear mixed effects models. R package version 2.0-25 [Computer software]. Retrieved from http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lmerTest Google Scholar
Lardiere, D. (2007). Ultimate attainment in second language acquisition: A case study. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Lau, E. F. (2009). The predictive nature of language comprehension (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland).Google Scholar
Lee, C. L., & Federmeier, K. D. (2009). Wave-ering: An ERP study of syntactic and semantic context effects on ambiguity resolution for noun/verb homographs. Journal of Memory and Language, 61, 538–555.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. (1993). Speaking: From intention to articulation (Vol. 1). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lively, S., Logan, J., & Pisoni, D. (1993). Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/: II. The role of phonetic environment and talker variability in new perceptual categories. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 94, 1242–1255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
López Prego, B., & Gabriele, A. (2014). Examining the impact of task demands on morphological variability in native and non-native Spanish. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 4, 192–221.Google Scholar
Lukyanchenko, A., & Gor, K. (2011). Perceptual correlates of phonological representations in heritage speakers and L2 learners. In Danis, N., Mesh, K., & Sung, H. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 35th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101, 676.Google Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, W. D., & Tyler, L. K. (1980). The temporal structure of spoken language understanding. Cognition, 8, 1–71.Google Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, W. D., & Welsh, A. (1978). Processing interactions and lexical access during word recognition in continuous speech. Cognitive Psychology, 10, 29–63.Google Scholar
McDonald, J. L. (2006). Beyond the critical period: Processing-based explanations for poor grammaticality judgment performance by late second language learners. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 381–401.Google Scholar
Moreno, E. M., & Kutas, M. (2005). Processing semantic anomalies in two languages: An electrophysiological exploration in both languages of Spanish-English bilinguals. Cognitive Brain Research, 22, 205–220.Google Scholar
Moreno, E. M., Rodríguez-Fornell, A., & Laine, M. (2008). Event-related potentials (ERPs) in the study of bilingual language processing. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 21, 477–508.Google Scholar
Mueller, J. L. (2005). Electrophysiological correlates of second language processing. Second Language Research, 21, 152–174.Google Scholar
Mueller, J. L., Hahne, A., Fujii, Y., & Friederici, A. D. (2005). Native and nonnative speakers' processing of a miniature version of Japanese as revealed by ERPs. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17, 1229–1244.Google Scholar
Ojima, S., Nakata, H., & Kakigi, R. (2005). An ERP study of second language learning after childhood: Effects of proficiency. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17, 1212–1228.Google Scholar
Osterhout, L., McLaughlin, J., Pitkänen, I., Frenck-Mestre, C., & Molinaro, N. (2006). Novice learners, longitudinal designs, and event-related potentials: A means for exploring the neurocognition of second language processing. Language Learning, 56, 199–230.Google Scholar
Ota, M., Hartsuiker, R. J., & Haywood, S. L. (2009). The KEY to the ROCK: Near-homophony in nonnative visual word recognition. Cognition, 111, 263–269.Google Scholar
Pallier, C., Colomé, A., & Sebastián-Gallés, N. (2001). The influence of native-language phonology on lexical access: Exemplar-based versus abstract lexical entries. Psychological Science, 12, 445–449.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Proverbio, A. M., Cok, B., & Zani, A. (2002). Electrophysiological measures of language processing in bilinguals. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14, 994–1017.Google Scholar
Rayner, K., Pacht, J. M., & Duffy, S. A. (1994). Effects of prior encounter and global discourse bias on the processing of lexically ambiguous words: Evidence from eye fixations. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 527–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Core Team. (2015). R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Computer software]. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org/ Google Scholar
Rice, H. (2015). Perceptual acquisition of secondary palatalization in L2: Strengthening the bonds between identification and discrimination through multi-sequence category mapping (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University).Google Scholar
Rossi, S., Gugler, M., Friederici, A., & Hahne, A. (2006). The impact of proficiency on syntactic second-language processing of German and Italian: Evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 2030–2048.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rubin, J. (1994). A review of second language listening comprehension research. Modern Language Journal, 78, 199–221.Google Scholar
Salasoo, A., & Pisoni, D. (1985). Interaction of knowledge sources in spoken word identification. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 210–231.Google Scholar
Sebastián-Gallés, N., Echeverría, S., & Bosch, L. (2005). The influence of initial exposure on lexical representation: Comparing early and simultaneous bilinguals. Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 240–255.Google Scholar
Sebastián-Gallés, N., Rodríguez-Fornells, A., de Diego-Balaguer, R., & Díaz, B. (2006). First- and second-language phonological representations in the mental lexicon. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 1277–1291.Google Scholar
Service, E., Simola, M., Metsanheimo, O., & Maury, S. (2002). Bilingual working memory span is affected by language skill. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 14, 383–408.Google Scholar
Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., & Sedivy, J. C. (1995). Resolving attachment ambiguities with multiple constraints. Cognition, 55, 227–267.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., Trueswell, J. C., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1993). Context effects in syntactic ambiguity resolution: Discourse and semantic influences in parsing reduced relative clauses. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47, 276.Google Scholar
Steinhauer, K., White, E., & Drury, J. (2008). Temporal dynamics of late second language acquisition: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Second Language Research, 25, 13–41.Google Scholar
Swaab, T., Brown, C., & Hagoort, P. (2003). Understanding words in sentence contexts: The time course of ambiguity resolution. Brain and Language, 86, 326–343.Google Scholar
Tabossi, P. (1988). Accessing lexical ambiguity in different types of sentential contexts. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 324–340.Google Scholar
Tabossi, P., Colombo, L., & Job, R. (1987). Accessing lexical ambiguity: Effects of context and dominance. Psychological Research, 49, 161–167.Google Scholar
Tyler, L. K., & Warren, P. (1987). Local and global structure in spoken language comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 26, 638–657.Google Scholar
Vandergrift, L. (2007). Recent developments in second and foreign language listening comprehension research. Language Teaching, 40, 191–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Petten, C., & Kutas, M. (1987). Ambiguous words in context: An event-related potential analysis of the time course of meaning activation. Journal of Memory and Language, 26, 188–208.Google Scholar
Van Petten, C., & Kutas, M. (1991). Influences of semantic and syntactic context on open- and closed-class words. Memory and Cognition, 19, 95–112.Google Scholar
Weber, A., & Cutler, A. (2004). Lexical competition in non-native spoken-word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 50, 1–25.Google Scholar
Weber-Fox, C., Davis, L. J., & Cuadrado, E. (2003). Event-related brain potential markers of high-language proficiency in adults. Brain and Language, 85, 231–244.Google Scholar