This paper measures the effect of the presence or absence of discourse markers such as so, right, well, OK, and now on second language lecture comprehension. A control group viewed a video recording of an extract of a naturally occurring lecture, whereas an experimental group viewed the same extract, but with discourse markers deleted. The results clearly indicate that subjects comprehended the lecture better when discourse markers were included than when they were deleted. This finding contrasts with earlier research that suggested discourse markers play no significant role in comprehension. This contrast is interpreted as being due to differences in experimental procedures.

This paper reports on a study that examines the pattern of interaction in child native speaker (NS)–nonnative speaker (NNS) conversation to determine if the NSs provide negative feedback to their NNS conversational partners. It appears that just as children are able to modify their input for their less linguistically proficient conversational partners in first language acquisition (Snow, 1977), so too are children able to modify their interactions for NNS peers in the second language acquisition process and, in doing so, provide negative feedback. Two forms of NS modification were identified in this study as providing reactive and implicit negative feedback to the NNS. These were (a) negotiation strategies, including repetition, clarification requests, and comprehension checks, and (b) recasts. The results indicated that NSs respond differentially to the grammaticality and ambiguity of their NNS peers' conversational contributions. Furthermore, NS responses (negotiate, recast, or ignore) appeared to be triggered by the type and complexity of NNS errors, although it was more likely overall that negative feedback would be used rather than the error ignored. Additionally, evidence suggested that negative feedback was incorporated by the NNSs into their interlanguage systems. This indicates that not only does negative evidence exist for child second language learners in these types of conversations, but that it is also usable and used by them in the language acquisition process.

This paper reexamines claims that second language learners are more accurate at judging long-distance object extraction than subject extraction and that the difference in accuracy is due to processing factors rather than differences in underlying competence. Although previous studies have reported robust effects for the subject/object asymmetry, the global nature of the response measures leaves open the question of whether the subject gap is in fact the locus of difficulty for second language learners. Using many of the same stimuli sentences from original research in combination with a theory of principle-based parsing, this study employs the moving window display technique to collect on-line measures of processing long-distance wh-extraction. Twenty-five advanced Chinese-speaking ESL learners provided grammaticality judgments in two presentation conditions: full-sentence, where judgment reaction times are measured from sentence onset to the learner's judgment; and word-by-word reading, where word-by-word latencies are collected in addition to judgments. The accuracy and reaction time results from the full-sentence condition replicated previous findings. The word-by-word results confirm that it is the subject gap that is the source of difficulty for the learners. Claims in the literature that principles of Universal Grammar are not available to adult learners are not supported by these results, which show that parsing, and not grammatical competence, is the source of difficulty on performance with subject extraction sentences.

This paper is based on a study by Chaudron and Parker (1990) on the effect of discourse markedness and structural markedness on the development of noun phrase use. In the previous study, it was found that zero anaphora, the least marked form on the two counts, did not fulfill the general predictions drawn from the two markedness scales, and no explanation was offered for that phenomenon. The research presented here partially replicates that study but focuses on the use of zero anaphora in written text, distinguishing between pragmatically constrained and syntactically constrained zero anaphora. Our findings are discussed in light of this distinction, and an explanation lying in the interaction among markedness, the L1, and the L2 is proposed.