Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-45l2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T14:40:27.870Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

L2 PROCESSING OF LINGUISTIC AND NONLINGUISTIC INFORMATION

L2 SPEAKERS USE DEFINITENESS IF REAL-WORLD KNOWLEDGE IS UNUSABLE

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 August 2021

Hyunah Ahn Open the ORCID record for Hyunah Ahn [Opens in a new window]
Hyunah Ahn*
Affiliation:
Seoul National University
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Hyunah Ahn, Department of English Language and Literature, College of Humanities, Seoul National University, Gwanak-ro Gwanak-gu, Seoul, Korea. E-mail: prosodygal@snu.ac.kr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study investigates how linguistic and nonlinguistic information interacts in second language (L2) sentence processing. Previous studies argued that L2 behaviors might stem from how L2 speakers rely more on one type of information over another. However, direct attempts have not been made to test the (dis)agreement of different information types. To fill this gap, the present study explored the integration of definiteness and real-world knowledge. Experiment 1 showed that both first language (L1) speakers (n = 34) and advanced L2 speakers (n = 49) could use definiteness to predict unmentioned referents, but intermediate L2 speakers could not (n = 35). After confirming that L1 and L2 speakers shared the same real-world knowledge, Experiment 2 (n (L1) = 36, n (L2) = 43) showed that the two groups’ behaviors differed when linguistic and nonlinguistic information had to be processed simultaneously. The findings suggest that L2 speakers can process linguistic information in a targetlike manner only in the absence of usable nonlinguistic information.

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 44 , Issue 2 , May 2022 , pp. 507 - 535
Check for updates
Open Practices
Open materials
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

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.)

Footnotes

This paper was funded by the East-West Center in Honolulu, Hawaii and a Language Learning dissertation grant. Data collection in Seoul was possible thanks to the Department of English Language and Literature at Seoul National University, allowing me space to run experiments. The experiments were part of my dissertation work, which benefitted greatly from countless hours of discussions with my dissertation supervisor, Dr. William O’Grady. I would also like to thank all three reviewers for their insightful comments on earlier drafts of this paper and the editor-in-chief and the handling editor for their prompt and efficient help with the manuscript. All errors are mine.

The author declares no potential conflicts of interest concerning the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

The experiments in this article earned an Open Materials badge for transparent practices. The materials are available at https://www.iris-database.org/iris/app/home/detail?id=york:939285

References

REFERENCES

Ahern, C., & Stevens, J. (2014). How uniqueness guides definite description processing. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 20, 1–10.Google Scholar
Ahn, H. (2021). From interlanguage grammar to target grammar in L2 processing of definiteness as uniqueness. Second Language Research, 37, 91–119. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658319868003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Altmann, G. T., & Kamide, Y. (1999). Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition, 73, 247–264.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Altmann, G. T., & Mirkovic, J. (2009). Incrementality and prediction in human sentence processing. Cognitive Science, 33, 583–609. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2009.01022.x CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Altmann, G. T. M., & Kamide, Y. (2007). The real-time mediation of visual attention by language and world knowledge: Linking anticipatory (and other) eye movements to linguistic processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 57, 502–518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.12.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 1–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickerton, D. (1981). Roots of language. Karoma Publishers.Google Scholar
Braginsky, M. (2018). wordbankr: Accessing the Wordbank Database. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=wordbankr Google Scholar
Brown, R. (1973). A first language: The early stages. Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burkhardt, P. (2006). Inferential bridging relations reveal distinct neural mechanisms: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Brain and Language, 98, 159–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2006.04.005 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burkhardt, P. (2008a). Two types of definites: Evidence for presupposition cost. In Grønn, A. (Ed.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 12 (pp. 66–80). Department of Literature, Area Studies and European Languages, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
Burkhardt, P. (2008b). Dependency precedes independence: Online evidence from discourse processing. In Benz, A. & Kühnlein, P. (Eds.), Constraints in discourse (pp. 141–158). John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Butler, Y. G. (2002). Second language learners’ theories on the use of English articles. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 451–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chambers, C. G., Tanenhaus, M. K., Eberhard, K. M., Filip, H., & Carlson, G. N. (2002). Circumscribing referential domains during real-time language comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 30–49. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2001.2832 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006). Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied PsychoLinguistics, 27, 3–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2018). Some notes on the shallow structure hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40, 693–706. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263117000250 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clifton, C. Jr. (2013). Situational context affects definiteness preferences: Accommodation of presuppositions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 39, 487–501.Google ScholarPubMed
Cunnings, I. (2017). Parsing and working memory in bilingual sentence processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 20, 659–678. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1366728916000675 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De-Dios-Flores, I. (2019). Processing sentences with multiple negations: Grammatical structures that are perceived as unacceptable. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02346 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Emslie, H. C., & Stevenson, R. J. (1981). Pre-school children’s use of the articles in definite and indefinite referring expressions. Journal of Child Language, 8, 313–328. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0305000900003214 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fernandez, M., Tartar, J. L., Padron, D., & Acosta, J. (2013). Neurophysiological marker of inhibition distinguishes language groups on a non-linguistic executive function test. Brain and Cognition, 83, 330–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2013.09.010 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferreira, F., Bailey, K. G. D., & Ferraro, V. (2002). Good-enough representations in language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 11–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, F., Engelhardt, P. E., & Jones, M. W. (2009). Good enough language processing: A satisfying approach. In Taatgen, N., Rijn, H., Nerbonne, J., & Schomaker, L. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 413–418). Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Ferreira, F., & Patson, N. D. (2007). The “good enough” approach to language comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1, 71–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frank, M. C., Braginsky, M., Yurovsky, D., & Marchman, V. A. (2017). Wordbank: An open repository for developmental vocabulary data. Journal of Child Language, 44, 677–694. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000916000209 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gernsbacher, M. A., & Robertson, R. (2002). The definite article the as a cue to map thematic information. In Louwerse, M. M. & Peer, W. Van (Eds.), Thematics: Interdisciplinary studies (Vol. 3, pp. 119–136). https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.3.11ger CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagoort, P., Hald, L., Bastiannsen, M., & Petersson, K. M. (2004). Integration of word meaning and world knowledge in language comprehension. Science, 304, 438–441.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hawkins, J. A. (1978). Definiteness and indefiniteness: A study in reference and grammaticality prediction. Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. (1991). On (in)definite articles: Implicatures and (un)grammaticality prediction. Journal of Linguistics, 27, 405–442. https://doi.org/10.2307/4176125 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heim, I. (1988). The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Garland Publishing Inc.Google Scholar
Hofmeister, P. (2011). Representational complexity and memory retrieval in language comprehension. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26, 376–405. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2010.492642 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huebner, T. (1983). A longitudinal analysis of the acquisition of English. Karoma Publishers.Google Scholar
Ionin, T. (2006). This is definitely specific: Specificity and definiteness in article systems. Natural Language Semantics, 14, 175–234. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-005-5255-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ionin, T., Baek, S., Kim, E., Ko, H., & Wexler, K. (2012). That’s not so different from the: Definite and demonstrative descriptions in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 28, 69–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658311432200 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ionin, T., Ko, H., & Wexler, K. (2004). Article semantics in L2 acquisition: The role of specificity. Language Acquisition, 12, 3–69. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327817la1201_2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ionin, T., & Zubizarreta, M. L. (2010). Introduction to the special issue: Selective first language influence and retreat from negative transfer. Second Language Research, 26, 283–291. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658310365767 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ionin, T., Zubizarreta, M. L., & Maldonado, S. B. (2008). Sources of linguistic knowledge in the second language acquisition of English articles. Lingua, 118, 554–576. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2006.11.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ionin, T., Zubizarreta, M. L., & Philippov, V. (2009). Acquisition of article semantics by child and adult L2-English learners. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12, 337–361. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1366728909990149 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kamide, Y. (2008). Anticipatory processes in sentence processing. Language and Linguistics Compass, 2, 647–670.CrossRefGoogle 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0749-596x(03)00023-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karimi, H., & Ferreira, F. (2016). Good-enough linguistic representations and online cognitive equilibrium in language processing. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69, 1013–1040. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2015.1053951 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ko, H., Ionin, T., & Wexler, K. (2010). The role of presuppositionality in the second language acquisition of English articles. Linguistic Inquiry, 41, 213–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krizman, J., Bradlow, A. R., Lam, S. S.-Y., & Kraus, N. (2016). How bilinguals listen in noise: Linguistic and nonlinguistic factors. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 20, 834–843. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1366728916000444 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2017). lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenth, R. V. (2016). Least-squares means: The R package lsmeans. Journal of Statistical Software, 69, 1–33. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v069.i01 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, C. D., Garcia, X., Breton, A., Thierry, G., & Costa, A. (2014). From literal meaning to veracity in two hundred milliseconds. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00040 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martin, C. D., Garcia, X., Breton, A., Thierry, G., & Costa, A. (2015). World knowledge integration during second language comprehension. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31, 206–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2015.1084012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matuschek, H., Kliegl, R., Vasishth, S., Baayen, H., & Bates, D. (2017). Balancing type I error and power in linear mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 94, 305–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2017.01.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Grady, W. (2015). Processing determinism. Language Learning, 65, 6–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12091 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostreicher, H. J., & Sharf, D. J. (1976). Effects of coarticulation on the identification of deleted consonant and vowel sounds. Journal of Phonetics, 4, 285–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0095-4470(19)31256-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, D., & Phillips, C. (2016). Negative polarity illusions and the format of hierarchical encodings in memory. Cognition, 157, 321–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.08.016 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Phillips, C., & Ehrenhofer, L. (2015). The role of language processing in language acquisition. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 5, 409–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Psychology Software Tools (2014) E-Prime 2.0 [software]. Psychology Software Tools. http://www.pstnet.com Google Scholar
R Core Team. (2019). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/ Google Scholar
Roy, B. C., Frank, M. C., DeCamp, P., Miller, M., & Roy, D. (2015). Predicting the birth of a spoken word. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of U.S.A, 112, 12663–12668. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1419773112 Google Scholar
Russell, B. (1905). On denoting. Mind, 14, 479–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schultz, B. (2006). Wh-scope marking in English interlanguage grammars: Transfer and processing effects on the second language acquisition of complex wh-questions. University of Hawai`i at Mānoa.Google Scholar
Schumacher, P. B. (2009). Definiteness marking shows late effects during discourse processing: Evidence from ERPs. In Devi, S. L., Branco, A., & Mitkov, R. (Eds.), Anaphora processing and applications, lecture notes in artificial intelligence (Vol. 5847, pp. 91–106). Springer.Google Scholar
Sharf, D. J., & Beiter, R. C. (1974). Identification of consonants from formant transitions presented forward and backward. Language and Speech, 17, 110–118.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sikos, L., Duffield, C. J., & Kim, A. E. (2016). Grammatical predictions reveal influences of semantic attraction in online sentence comprehension: Evidence from speeded forced-choice sentence continuations. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31, 1055–1073. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2016.1186808 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, N. J., & Levy, R. (2013). The effect of word predictability on reading time is logarithmic. Cognition, 128, 302–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.02.013 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sorace, A. (2011). Pinning down the concept of “interface” in bilingualism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism , 1, 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.1.1.01sor CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorace, A., & Filliaci, F. (2006). Anaphora resolution in near-native speakers of Italian. Second Language Research, 22, 339–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trenkic, D., Mirkovic, J., & Altmann, G. T. M. (2014). Real-time grammar processing by native and non-native speakers: Constructions unique to the second language. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17, 237–257. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1366728913000321 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Ahn supplementary material

Ahn supplementary material

Download Ahn supplementary material(File)
File 2.3 MB