Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-564cf476b6-lwxm7 Total loading time: 0.348 Render date: 2021-06-19T16:37:40.801Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true }

SYNTACTIC AND PROSODIC COMPUTATIONS IN THE RESOLUTION OF RELATIVE CLAUSE ATTACHMENT AMBIGUITY BY ENGLISH-FRENCH LEARNERS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 October 2008

Laurent Dekydtspotter
Affiliation:
Indiana University
Bryan Donaldson
Affiliation:
Indiana University
Amanda C. Edmonds
Affiliation:
Indiana University
Audrey Liljestrand Fultz
Affiliation:
Indiana University
Rebecca A. Petrush
Affiliation:
Indiana University
Corresponding
E-mail address:

Abstract

This study investigates the manner in which syntax, prosody, and context interact when second- and fourth-semester college-level English-French learners process relative clause (RC) attachment to either the first noun phrase (NP1) or the second noun phrase (NP2) in complex nominal expressions such as le secrétaire du psychologue qui se promène (au centre ville) “the secretary of the psychologist who takes a walk (downtown).” Learners' interpretations were affected by the length of the RC, specifically its phonological weight. Effects of intonation contour were found only in a subset of learners. In a response time (RT) experiment that manipulated contexts, fourth-semester learners showed a final bias for NP1 attachment in interpretation but an initial RT bias for NP2 attachment. Second-semester learners also produced a NP2 attachment bias in RTs, but no asymmetry in interpretation was found. We argue that the processing of RC attachment by English-French learners requires a task-specific algorithm that implicates autonomous syntactic and prosodic computations and specific interactions among them.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Baccino, T., De Vincenzi, M., & Job, R. (2000). Crosslinguistic studies of the late closure strategy: French and Italian. In De Vincenzi, M. & Lombardo, V. (Eds.), Crosslinguistic perspectives on language processing (pp. 89118). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R. (1983). The comparative fallacy in interlanguage studies: The case of systematicity. Language Learning, 33, 117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R. (1990). The logical problem of second language learning. Linguistic Analysis, 20, 349.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H. & Felser, C. (2006a). Continuity and shallow structures in language processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 107126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, H. & Felser, C. (2006b). Grammatical processing in language learning. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, H. & Muysken, P. (1986). The availability of Universal Grammar to adult and child learners: A study of the acquisition of German word order. Second Language Research, 2, 93119.Google Scholar
Clifton, C. & Frazier, L. (1989). Comprehending sentences with long distance dependencies. In Carlson, G. M. & Tanenhaus, M. K. (Eds.), Linguistic structure in language processing (pp. 273317). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J.D., MacWhinney, B., Flatt, M., & Provost, J. (1993). PsyScope: A new graphic interactive environment for designing psychology experiments. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 25, 257271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crocker, M. (1996). Computational psycholinguistics: An interdisciplinary approach to the study of language. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cuetos, F. & Mitchell, D.C. (1988). Crosslinguistic differences in parsing: Restrictions on the use of the late closure strategy in Spanish. Cognition, 30, 73105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dekydtspotter, L. (2001). The universal parser and interlanguage: Domain-specific mental organization in the comprehension of combien interrogatives in English-French interlanguage. Second Language Research, 17, 93145.Google Scholar
Dekydtspotter, L., Anderson, B., & Sprouse, R.A. (2007). Syntax-semantics in English-French interlanguage: Advancing understanding of second language epistemology. In Ayoun, D. (Ed.), French applied linguistics (pp. 75102). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dekydtspotter, L. & Outcalt, S. (2005). A syntactic bias in scope ambiguity resolution in the processing of English-French cardinality interrogatives: Evidence for informational encapsulation. Language Learning, 55, 137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dekydtspotter, L., Schwartz, B.D., & Sprouse, R.A. (2006). The comparative fallacy in L2 processing research. In O'Brien, M. Grantham, Shea, C., & Archibald, J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2006): The Banff Conference (pp. 3340). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
De Vincenzi, M. & Job, R. (1995). An investigation of late closure: The role of syntax, thematic structure, and pragmatics in initial and final interpretation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 13031321.Google Scholar
Dussias, P. (2001). Sentence parsing in fluent Spanish-English bilinguals. In Nicol, J. (Ed.), One mind, two languages: Bilingual language processing (pp. 159176). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Dussias, P. (2003). The effect of bilinguality on L1 and L2 processing strategies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 529557.Google Scholar
Favreau, M. & Segalowitz, N. (1983). Automatic and controlled processing in reading in a second language. Memory and Cognition, 11, 565574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernández, E., Fodor, J.D., de Almeida, R.G., Bradley, D., & Quinn, D. (2003, March). Relative clause attachment in Canadian French: Prosodic boundary or F0 matching? Poster presented at the 16th annual CUNY conference on human sentence processing, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Fodor, J.A. (1983). Modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, J.A. (2000). The mind does not work this way. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, J.D. (1998). Learning to parse? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 27, 285319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J.D. (2002). Prosodic disambiguation in silent reading. In Hirotani, M. (Ed.), Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society, 32 (Vol. 1, pp. 113132). Amherst, MA: GSLA.Google Scholar
Fodor, J.D. & Inoue, A. (1998). Attach anyway. In Fodor, J. D. & Ferreira, F. (Eds.), Reanalysis in sentence processing (pp. 101141). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J.D. & Inoue, A. (2000). Garden path re-analysis: Attach (anyway) and revision as last resort. In De Vincenzi, M. & Lombardo, V. (Eds.), Cross-linguistic perspectives on language processing (pp. 2161). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frazier, L. (1978). On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.Google Scholar
Frazier, L. (1979). On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Frazier, L. & Clifton, C. Jr. (1996). Construal. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Frazier, L. & Fodor, J.D. (1978). The sausage machine: A two-stage parsing model. Cognition, 6, 291326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frazier, L. & Raynier, K. (1988). Parametrizing the language processing system: Left- vs. right-branching within and across languages. In Hawkins, J. A. (Ed.), Explaining language universals (pp. 247279). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Frenck-Mestre, C. (1997). Examining second language reading: An on-line look. In Sorace, A., Heycock, C., & Shillcok, R. (Eds.), Proceedings of the GALA 1997 Conference on Language Acquisition (pp. 474478). Edinburgh: Human Communications Research Center.Google Scholar
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. 217235). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frenck-Mestre, C. (2005). Eye-movement recording as a tool for studying syntactic processing in a second language: A review of methodologies and experimental findings. Second Language Research, 21, 175198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frenck-Mestre, C. & Pynte, J. (1997). Syntactic ambiguity resolution while reading in second and native languages. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 50A, 119148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frenck-Mestre, C. & Pynte, J. (2000). Resolving syntactic ambiguities: Cross-linguistic differences? In De Vincenzi, M. & Lombardo, V. (Eds.), Cross-linguistic perspectives on language processing (pp. 119148). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, E., Pearlmutter, N., Canseco-Gonzalez, E., & Hickok, G. (1996). Recency preference in the human sentence processing mechanism. Cognition, 59, 2359.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hawkins, R. (2001). The theoretical significance of Universal Grammar in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 17, 345367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, B. (1989). The prosodic hierarchy in meter. In Kiparsky, P. & Youmans, G. (Eds.), Rhythm and meter (pp. 201260). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inkelas, S. & Zec, D. (1995). Syntax-phonology interface. In Goldsmith, J. A. (Ed.), Handbook of phonological theory (pp. 535549). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Jiang, N. (2004). Morphological insensitivity in second language processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25, 603634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Juffs, A. (1998a). Main verb vs. reduced relative clause ambiguity resolution in second language sentence processing. Language Learning, 48, 107147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Juffs, A. (1998b). Some effects of first language argument structure and morphosyntax on second language sentence processing. Second Language Research, 14, 406424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Juffs, A. (2006). Grammar and parsing and a transition theory. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 6669.CrossRefGoogle 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, 483516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jun, S.-A. & Fougeron, C. (2002). Realizations of accentual phrases in French intonation. Probus, 14, 147172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kimball, J. (1973). Seven principles of surface structure parsing in natural language. Cognition, 2, 1547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lieberman, M., Aoshima, S., & Phillips, C. (2006). Nativelike biases in generation of wh-questions by nonnative speakers of Japanese. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 423448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liljestrand Fultz, A. (2007). Prosody in syntactic disambiguation in English-French interlanguage. In Caunt-Nulton, H., Kulatilake, S., & Woo, I. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 394405). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Meisel, J. (1998). Parametric change in language development: Psycholinguistic and historical perspectives on second language acquisition. In González, J. Fernández & Guervós, J. de Santiago (Eds.), Second language acquisition and learning (pp. 1836). València, Spain: Servei de Publicacions Universitat de València.Google Scholar
Nespor, M. & Vogel, I. (1982). Prosodic domains of external sandhi rules. In van der Hulst, H. & Smith, N. (Eds.), The structure of phonological representations: Part 1 (pp. 225265). Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Nespor, M. & Vogel, I. (1986). Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Papadopoulou, D. (2005). Reading-time studies of second language ambiguity resolution. Second Language Research, 21, 98120.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, 501528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Post, B. (1999). Restructured phonological phrases in French: Evidence from clash resolution. Linguistics, 37, 4163.Google Scholar
Pritchett, B.L. (1992). Grammatical competence and parsing performance. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Pynte, J. & Colonna, S. (2000). Decoupling syntactic parsing from visual inspection: The case of relative clause attachment in French. In Kennedy, A., Radach, R., Heller, D., & Pynte, J. (Eds.), Reading as a perceptual process (pp. 529547). Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, B.D. (1999). Let's make up your mind: “Special nativist” perspectives on language, modularity of mind, and nonnative language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 635655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, B.D. & Sprouse, R.A. (2000). When syntactic theories evolve: Consequences for L2 acquisition research. In Archibald, J. (Ed.), Second language acquisition and linguistic theory (pp. 156186). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Selkirk, E. (1984). Phonology and syntax: The relation between sound and structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Selkirk, E. (1986). On derived domain in sentence phonology. Phonology Yearbook, 3, 371405.Google Scholar
Slabakova, R. (2006). Is there a critical period for semantics? Second Language Research, 22, 302338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stowe, L.A. (1986). Parsing WH-constructions: Evidence for on-line gap location. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18, 143163.Google Scholar
White, L. (2003). Second language acquisition and Universal Grammar. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zagar, D., Pynte, J., & Rativeau, S. (1997). Evidence for early closure attachment on first-pass reading times in French. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 50A, 421438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

SYNTACTIC AND PROSODIC COMPUTATIONS IN THE RESOLUTION OF RELATIVE CLAUSE ATTACHMENT AMBIGUITY BY ENGLISH-FRENCH LEARNERS
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

SYNTACTIC AND PROSODIC COMPUTATIONS IN THE RESOLUTION OF RELATIVE CLAUSE ATTACHMENT AMBIGUITY BY ENGLISH-FRENCH LEARNERS
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

SYNTACTIC AND PROSODIC COMPUTATIONS IN THE RESOLUTION OF RELATIVE CLAUSE ATTACHMENT AMBIGUITY BY ENGLISH-FRENCH LEARNERS
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *