Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-01T07:43:27.335Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Incremental comprehension of Japanese passives: Evidence from the visual-world paradigm

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2017

SANAKO MITSUGI
SANAKO MITSUGI*
Affiliation:
University of Kansas
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Sanako Mitsugi, Department of East Asian Languages and Cultures, University of Kansas, 1445 Jayhawk Blvd., Wescoe Hall 2108, Lawrence, KS 66045. E-mail: mitsugi@ku.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Psycholinguistic research has shown that sentence processing is incremental (e.g., Altmann & Kamide, 1999). In Japanese, a verb-final language, native speakers use case markers to incrementally assign thematic roles and predictively activate a structural representation of upcoming linguistic items. This study examined whether second-language learners of Japanese, guided by case markers, generate predictions as to whether the upcoming verb involves the active or passive voice. The results show that the native speakers made predictive eye movements before the verb, but the learners did not; the learners were less efficient in using case-marker cues than the native speakers and relied more on verb morphology information. These results suggest that case markers guide thematic role assignments, expediting the processing for Japanese native speakers. Learners may depend more on information from the verb to compensate for the inefficiency in case-marker-driven predictive processing.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 38 , Issue 4 , July 2017 , pp. 953 - 983
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

Altmann, G., & Kamide, Y. (1999). Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition, 73, 247–264.Google Scholar
Aoshima, S., Phillips, C., & Weinberg, A. (2004). Processing filler-gap dependencies in a head-final language. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 23–54.Google Scholar
Bader, M., & Meng, M. (1999). Subject-object ambiguities in German embedded clauses: An across-the-board comparison. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 28, 121–143.CrossRefGoogle 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. M., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2014). Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4 . R Package Version 1.1-7 [Computer software]. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
Bever, T. G. (1970). The cognitive basis for linguistic structure. In Hayes, J. R. (Ed.), Cognition and the development of language. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Bollen, K. A. (2007). On the origins of latent curve models. In Cudeck, R. & MacCallum, R. (Eds.), Factor analysis at 100 (pp. 79–98). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Borer, H., & Wexler, K. (1987). The maturation of syntax. Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics, 4, 23–172.Google Scholar
Chang, F. (2009). Learning to order words: A connectionist model of heavy NP shift and accessibility effects in Japanese and English. Journal of Memory and Language, 61, 374–397.Google Scholar
Chen, H. C. (1990). Lexical processing in a nonnative language: The effects of language proficiency and learning strategy. Memory and Cognition, 18, 279–288.Google Scholar
Choi, Y., & Trueswell, J. C. (2010). Children's (in)ability to recover from garden-paths in a verb-final language: Evidence for developing control in sentence processing. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 106, 41–61.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clancy, P. M. (1985). The acquisition of Japanese. In Slobin, D. I. (Ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition: Vol. 1. The data (pp. 373–524). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Dahan, D., Swingley, D., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Magnuson, J. S. (2000). Linguistic gender and spoken-word recognition in French. Journal of Memory and Language, 42, 465–480.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (2005). What makes learning second-language grammar difficult? A review of issues. Language Learning, 55, 1–25.Google Scholar
DeLong, K. A., Urbach, T. P., & Kutas, M. (2005). Probabilistic word pre-activation during language comprehension inferred from electrical brain activity. Nature Neuroscience, 8, 1117–1121.Google Scholar
Dowens, M. G., Vergara, M., Barber, H. A., & Carreiras, M. (2010). Morphosyntactic processing in late second-language learners. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22, 1870–1887.Google Scholar
Dufour, R., & Kroll, J. F. (1995). Matching words to concepts in two languages: A test of the concept mediation model of bilingual representation. Memory and Cognition, 23, 166–180.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dussias, P. E., & Cramer Scaltz, T. R. (2008). Spanish-English L2 speakers’ use of subcategorization bias information in the resolution of temporary ambiguity during second language reading. Acta Psychologica, 128, 501–513.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dussias, P. E., Marful, A., Gerfen, C., & Molina, M. T. B. (2010). Usage frequencies of complement-taking verbs in Spanish and English: Data from Spanish monolinguals and Spanish-English bilinguals. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 1004–1011.Google Scholar
Dussias, P. E., Valdés Kroff, J. R., Guzzardo Tamargo, R. E., & Gerfen, C. (2013). When gender and looking go hand in hand. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 353–387.Google Scholar
Eda, S., Itomitsu, M., & Noda, M. (2008). The Japanese skills test as an on-demand placement test: Validity comparisons and reliability. Foreign Language Annals, 41, 218–236.Google Scholar
Fanselow, G., Kliegl, R., & Schlesewsky, M. (1999). Processing difficulty and principles of grammar. In Kemper, S. & Kliegl, R. (Eds.), Constraints on language: Aging, grammar, and memory (pp. 170–200). Boston: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Federmeier, K. D. (2007). Thinking ahead: The role and roots of prediction in language comprehension. Psychophysiology, 44, 491–505.Google Scholar
Fernald, A., Pinto, J. P., Swingley, D., Weinberg, A., & McRoberts, G. (1998). Rapid gains in speed of verbal processing by infants in the second year. Psychological Science, 9, 228–231.Google Scholar
Fernald, A., Zangl, R., Portillo, A. L., & Mark. (2008). Looking while listening: Using eye movements to monitor spoken language. In Sekerina, I. A., Fernández, E. M., & Clahsen, H. (Eds.), Developmental psycholinguistics: On-line methods in children's language processing (Vol. 44, pp. 97–135). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ferreira, F. (2003). The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 47, 164–203.Google Scholar
Foote, R. (2010). Integrated knowledge of agreement in early and late English–Spanish bilinguals. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32, 187–220.Google 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.Google Scholar
Fukui, N. (1986). Theory of projection in syntax. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Gahl, S., Jurafsky, D., & Roland, D. (2004). Verb subcategorization frequencies: American English corpus data, methodological studies, and cross-corpus comparisons. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36, 432–443.Google Scholar
Garnsey, S., Pearlmutter, N., Myers, E., & Lotocky, M. (1997). The contributions of verb bias and plausibility to the comprehension of temporarily ambiguous sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 58–93.Google Scholar
Gibson, E., & Pearlmutter, N. J. (1998). Constraints on sentence processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2, 262–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grüter, T., Lew-Williams, C., & Fernald, A. (2012). Grammatical gender in L2: A production or a real-time processing problem? Second Language Research, 28, 191–215.Google Scholar
Grüter, T., Rohde, H., & Schafer, A. (2014). The role of discourse-level expectations in non-native speakers' referential choices. In Orman, W. & Valleau, M. J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 38th Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 179–191). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Grüter, T., Rohde, H., & Schafer, A. J. (2016). Coreference and discourse coherence in L2: The roles of grammatical aspect and referential form. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism. Advance online publication. doi:10.1075/lab.15011.gru Google Scholar
Guillelmon, D., & Grosjean, F. (2001). The gender marking effect in spoken word recognition: The case of bilinguals. Memory and Cognition, 29, 503–511.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hakuta, K. (1982). Interaction between particles and word order in the comprehension and production of simple sentences in Japanese children. Developmental Psychology, 18, 62–76.Google Scholar
Hale, J. (2001). A probabilistic early parser as a psycholinguistic model. Paper presented at the Second Meeting of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Pittsburgh, PA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrington, M., & Sawyer, M. (1992). L2 working memory capacity and l2 reading skill. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14, 25–38.Google Scholar
Havik, E., Roberts, L., Van Hout, R., Schreuder, R., & Haverkort, M. (2009). Processing subject-object ambiguities in the L2: A self-paced reading study with German L2 learners of Dutch. Language Learning, 59, 73–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirotani, M., Makuuchi, M., Rüschemeyer, S., & Friederici, A. D. (2011). Who was the agent? The neural correlates of reanalysis processes during sentence comprehension. Human Brain Mapping, 32, 1775–1787.Google Scholar
Hopp, H. (2006). Syntactic features and reanalysis in near-native processing. Second Language Research, 22, 369–397.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.Google Scholar
Hopp, H. (2013). Grammatical gender in adult L2 acquisition: Relations between lexical and syntactic variability. Second Language Research, 29, 33–56.Google Scholar
Hoshi, H. (1991). The generalized projection principle and its implications for passive constructions. Journal of Japanese Linguistics, 13, 53–89.Google Scholar
Hoshi, H. (1999). Passives. In Tsujimura, N. (Ed.), The handbook of Japanese linguistics (pp. 191–225). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Huang, Y. T., Zheng, X., Meng, X., & Snedeker, J. (2013). Children's assignment of grammatical roles in the online processing of Mandarin passive sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 69, 589–606.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Itomitsu, M. (1996). Developing Japanese skills test: Theoretical framework for a standardized proficiency test (Unpublished master's thesis, Ohio State University).Google Scholar
Iwasaki, N. (2008). L2 acquisition of Japanese: Knowledge and use of case particles in SOV and OSV sentences. In Karimi, S. (Ed.), Word order and scrambling (pp. 273–300). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Jackson, C. (2008). Proficiency level and the interaction of lexical and morphosyntactic information during L2 sentence processing. Language Learning, 58, 875–909.Google Scholar
Jackson, C. N., & Dussias, P. E. (2009). Cross-linguistic differences and their impact on L2 sentence processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12, 65–82.Google Scholar
Jaeger, F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 434–446.Google Scholar
Jurafsky, D. (1996). A probabilistic model of lexical and syntactic access and disambiguation. Cognitive Science, 20, 137–194.Google Scholar
Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99, 122–149.Google Scholar
Kaan, E. (2014). Predictive sentence processing in L2 and L1: What is different? Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 4, 257–282.Google Scholar
Kamide, Y., Altmann, G. T. M., & Haywood, S. L. (2003). The time-course of prediction in incremental sentence processing: Evidence from anticipatory eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 133–156.Google Scholar
Keating, G. D. (2009). Sensitivity to violations of gender agreement in native and nonnative Spanish: An eye-movement investigation. Language Learning, 59, 503–535.Google Scholar
Kilborn, K., & Ito, T. (1989). Sentence processing in Japanese-English and Dutch English bilinguals. In MacWhinney, B. & Bates, E. (Eds.), The crosslinguistic study of sentence processing (pp. 257–291). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kimball, J. (1975). Predictive analysis and over-the-top parsing. In Kimball, J. (Ed.), Syntax and semantics (Vol. 4, pp. 155–179). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Koda, K. (1993). Transferred L1 strategies and L2 syntactic structure in L2 sentence comprehension. Modern Language Journal, 77, 490–500.Google Scholar
Kuno, S. (1973). The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lau, E., Stroud, C., Plesch, S., & Phillips, C. (2006). The role of structural prediction in rapid syntactic analysis. Brain and Language, 98, 74–88.Google Scholar
Lee, E.-K., Lu, D. H.-Y., & Garnsey, S. M. (2013). L1 word order and sensitivity to verb bias in L2 processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16, 761–775.Google Scholar
Levy, R. (2008). Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition, 106, 1126–1177.Google Scholar
MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101, 676–703.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacWhinney, B. (1987). Applying the competition model to bilingualism. Applied Psycholinguistics, 8, 315–327.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2001). The competition model: The input, the context, and the brain. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 69–90). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1973). Linguistic structure and speech shadowing at very short latencies. Nature, 244, 522–523.Google Scholar
Martin, C. D., Thierry, G., Kuipers, J. R., Boutonnet, B., Foucart, A., & Costa, A. (2013). Bilinguals reading in their second language do not predict upcoming words as native readers do. Journal of Memory and Language, 69, 574–588.Google Scholar
Matin, E., Shao, K. C., & Boff, K. R. (1993). Saccadic overhead: Information-processing time with and without saccades. Perception & Psychophysics, 53, 372–380.Google Scholar
Mazuka, R., & Itoh, K. (1995). Can Japanese speakers be led down the garden path? In Mazuka, R. & Nagai, N. (Eds.), Japanese sentence processing (pp. 295–329). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Minai, U. (2000). The acquisition of Japanese passives. In Nakayama, M. & Quinn, C. J. (Eds.), Japanese/Korean linguistics (Vol. 9, pp. 339–350). Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Mirman, D., Dixon, J. A., & Magnuson, J. S. (2008). Statistical and computational models of the visual world paradigm: Growth curves and individual differences. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 475–494.Google Scholar
Mitsugi, S., & MacWhinney, B. (2010). Second language processing in Japanese scrambled sentences. In VanPatten, B. & Jegerski, J. (Eds.), Research in second language processing and parsing (Vol. 53, pp. 159–175). Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Mitsugi, S., & MacWhinney, B. (2016). The use of case marking for predictive processing in second language Japanese. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19, 19–35.Google Scholar
Miyagawa, S. (1999). Causatives. In Tsujimura, N. (Ed.). The handbook of Japanese linguistics (pp. 236–268). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Miyamoto, E. T. (2002). Case markers as clause boundary inducers in Japanese. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 31, 307–347.Google Scholar
Mizutani, N. (1985). Hanashi-kotoba-no Bunpo [A grammar of spoken language]. Tokyo: Kuroshio Shuppan.Google Scholar
Nakano, Y., Felser, C., & Clahsen, H. (2002). Antecedent priming at trace positions in Japanese long-distance scrambling. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 31, 531–571.Google Scholar
Pozzan, L., & Trueswell, J. C. (2015). Revise and resubmit: How real-time parsing limitations influence grammar acquisition. Cognitive Psychology, 80, 73–108.Google Scholar
Rounds, P. L., & Kanagy, R. (1998). Acquiring linguistic cues to identify agent. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 509–542.Google Scholar
Sano, T., Endo, M., & Yamakoshi, K. (2001). Developmental issues in the acquisition of Japanese unaccusatives and passives. In Do, A. H.-J., Domínguez, L., & Johansen, A. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 25th annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 668–683). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Sasaki, Y. (1991). English and Japanese interlanguage comprehension strategies: An analysis based on the competition model. Applied Linguistics, 12, 47–73.Google Scholar
Sasaki, Y. (1994). Paths of processing strategy transfers in Japanese and English as foreign languages: A competition model approach. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 43–72.Google Scholar
Sasaki, Y., & MacWhinney, B. (2006). The competition model. In Nakayama, M., Mazuka, R., & Shirai, Y. (Eds.), The handbook of East Asian psycholinguistics: Vol. 2. Japanese (pp. 307–314). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sato, F. (1997). Eigo o bogo to suru nihongo gakushuusha no danwa bunseki [A discourse analysis of learners of Japanese with the first language English background]. Paper presented at the Kanda University of International Studies on Language Acquisition Research Conference, Kanda University of International Studies, Chiba, Japan.Google Scholar
Shibatani, M. (1988). Voice in Philippine languages. In Shibatani, M. (Ed.), Passive and voice (pp. 85–142). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Shibatani, M. (1990). The languages of Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Staub, A., & Clifton, C. Jr. (2006). Syntactic prediction in language comprehension: Evidence from either . . . or. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 32, 425–436.Google Scholar
Sugisaki, K. (1999). Japanese passives in acquisition. UCONN Working Papers in Linguistics, 10, 145–156.Google Scholar
Tanaka, M. (1998). Factors affecting the acquisition of point of view, voice, and complex sentence. In Tanaka, M. (Ed.), The acquisition of point of view and voice in Japanese as a foreign/second language: The influence of the linguistic and non-linguistic environment. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research Final Research Report Summary (Project No. 08680323). Tokyo: University of Electro-Communications.Google Scholar
Tanenhaus, M. K. (2007). Eye movements and spoken language processing. In Gaskell, G. (Ed.), Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 443–469). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tanenhaus, M. K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., Eberhard, K. M., & Sedivy, J. C. (1995). Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science, 268, 1632–1634.Google Scholar
Trueswell, J. C., Kaufman, D., Hafri, A., & Lidz, J. (2012). Development of parsing abilities interacts with grammar learning: Evidence from Tagalog and Kannada. In Biller, A. K., Chung, E. Y., & Kimball, A. E. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 36th annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 620–632). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Tsujimura, N. (1996). An introduction to Japanese linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Watanabe, A. (1996). Chu-jyokyu Nohongo Gakushusha no Danwa Tenkai [Discourse development by intermediate and advanced level learners of Japanese]. Tokyo: Kuroshio Shuppan.Google Scholar
Yamashita, H. (1997). The effects of word-order and case marking information on the processing of Japanese. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 26, 163–188.Google Scholar