[Home ] [Archive]   [ فارسی ]  
:: Main :: About :: Current Issue :: Archive :: Search :: Submit :: Contact ::
Main Menu
Home::
Journal Information::
Articles archive::
For Authors::
For Reviewers::
Registration::
Contact us::
Site Facilities::
::
Search in website

Advanced Search
..
Receive site information
Enter your Email in the following box to receive the site news and information.
..
:: Volume 21, Issue 1 (4-2018) ::
2018, 21(1): 125-161 Back to browse issues page
Relative Clause Ambiguity Resolution in L1 and L2: Are Processing Strategies Transferred?
Hamideh Marefat , Bahareh Farzizadeh
Abstract:   (5276 Views)
This study aims at investigating whether Persian native speakers highly advanced in English as a second language (L2ers) can switch to optimal processing strategies in the languages they know and whether working memory capacity (WMC) plays a role in this respect. To this end, using a self-paced reading task, we examined the processing strategies 62 Persian speaking proficient L2ers used to read sentences containing ambiguous relative clauses in their L1 and L2. The results showed that L2ers adopt the same strategy as that used by English native speakers in both of their languages, indicating a target-language like parsing pattern in their L2 and an attrition of L1 parsing routine. Additionally, their attachment preferences were not modulated by WMC in L2. This result highlights the “skill-through-experience” position adopted by researchers who question the role of WMC in L2 syntactic parsing. However, high-capacity L2ers' preferences in L1 had attrited (becoming English-like), and low-capacity ones had no preference. This modulation, too, can bear out the above position owing to the observation that L2ers failed to differentiate between their L1 and L2, and particularly that their differing WMCs did not contribute to native-like performance in their L1.
Keywords: Attrition, Bilingual parser, Processing transfer, Relative clause ambiguity, Working memory capacity
Full-Text [PDF 440 kb]   (1889 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research | Subject: Special
Received: 2017/08/7 | Accepted: 2018/01/2 | Published: 2018/04/15
References
1. Allan, D. (2004). Oxford placement test. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2. Alptekin, C., & Gulcan, E. (2010). The role of L1 and L2 working memory in literal and inferential comprehension in L2 reading. Journal of Research in Reading, 33 (2), 206-219. [DOI:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2009.01412.x]
3. Anderson, J. I. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard university press.
4. Brien, C., & Sabourin, L. (2012). Second language effects on ambiguity resolution in the first language. EUROSLA Yearbook, 12 (1), 191-217. [DOI:10.1075/eurosla.12.10bri]
5. Brysbaert, M., & Mitchell, D. C. (1996). Modifier attachment in sentence parsing: Evidence from Dutch. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49 (3), 664-695. [DOI:10.1080/713755636]
6. Caplan, D., & Waters, G. S. (1995). Aphasic disorders of syntactic comprehension and working memory capacity. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 12 (6), 638-649. [DOI:10.1080/02643299508252011]
7. Caplan, D., & Waters, G. (1999). Verbal working memory and sentence comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22 (1), 77-126. [DOI:10.1017/S0140525X99001788]
8. Chaudron, C. (1985). Intake: On models and methods for discovering learners' processing of input. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7 (1), 1-14. [DOI:10.1017/S027226310000512X]
9. Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006). How native-like is non-native language processing? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10 (12), 564-570. [DOI:10.1016/j.tics.2006.10.002]
10. Conway, A. R. A., Kane, M. J., Bunting, M. F., Hambrick, D. Z., Wilhelm, O., & Engle, R. W. (2005). Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user's guide. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12 (5), 769-786. [DOI:10.3758/BF03196772]
11. Cook, V. (1992). Evidence for multicompetence. Language Learning, 42 (4), 557-591. [DOI:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1992.tb01044.x]
12. Cook, V. (2003). Introduction: The Changing L1 in the L2 User's Mind. Effects of the Second Language on the First. In V. Cook (Ed.), Effects of the second language on the first (pp. 1-18). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
13. Coppieters, R. (1987). Competence differences between native and near-native speakers. Language, 63 (3), 544-573. [DOI:10.2307/415005]
14. Cuetos, F., & Mitchell, D. C. (1988). Cross-linguistic differences in parsing: Restrictions on the use of the late closure strategy in Spanish. Cognition, 30 (1), 73-105. [DOI:10.1016/0010-0277(88)90004-2]
15. Cuetos, F., Mitchell, D., & Corley, M. (1996). Parsing in different languages. In M. Carreiras, J. Garcia-Albea, & N. S. Galles (Eds.), Language processing in Spanish (pp. 145-187). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
16. Cummins, J., & Swain, M. (1986). Bilingual education: Aspects of theory, research and practice. Longman: London.
17. Davis, M., & Gardner, D. (2010). Frequency dictionary of American English. New York: Routledge.
18. Dijkstra, T., & Van Heuven, W. (2002). The architecture of the bilingual word recognition system: From identification to decision. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 5 (3), 175-197. Dussias, P. E. (2003). Syntactic ambiguity resolution in L2 learners: Some effects of bilinguality on L1 and L2 processing strategies. Studies of Second Language Acquisition, 25 (4), 529-557. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263103000238 [DOI:10.1017/S1366728902003012]
19. Dussias, P. E., & Pinar, P. (2010). Effects of reading span and plausibility in the reanalysis of wh-gaps by Chinese-English. Second Language Research, 26 (4), 121-151. [DOI:10.1177/0267658310373326]
20. Dussias, P. E., & Sagarra, N. (2007). The effect of exposure on syntactic parsing in Spanish-English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10 (1), 101-116. [DOI:10.1017/S1366728906002847]
21. Ericsson, K. A., & Kintsch, W. (1995). Long-term working memory. Psychological Review, 102 (2), 211-245. [DOI:10.1037/0033-295X.102.2.211]
22. Felser, C., & Roberts, L. (2007). Processing wh-dependencies in a second language: A cross-modal priming study. Second Language Research, 23 (1), 9-36. [DOI:10.1177/0267658307071600]
23. Fernandez, E. (2003). Bilingual sentence processing. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [DOI:10.1075/lald.29]
24. Foucart, A., & Frenck-Mestre, C. (2012). Can late leaners acquire new grammatical features? Evidence from ERPs and eye-tracking. Elsevier, 66 (1), 226-248.
25. Frazier, L., & Clifton, C., Jr. (1996). Construal. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
26. Frenck-Mestre, C. (2005). Ambiguities and anomalies: What can eye-movements and event-related potentials reveal about second language sentence processing? In J. Kroll, & A. deGroot (Eds.), Handbook of Bilingualism (pp. 268-284). Elsevier: Amsterdam.
27. Frenck-Mestre, C., & Pynte, J. (2000). Resolving syntactic ambiguity: Cross-linguistic differences? In M. DeVincenzi, & V. Lombardo (Eds.), Cross-linguistic perspectives on language processing (pp. 119-148). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Kluwer. [DOI:10.1007/978-94-011-3949-6_5]
28. Gibson, E., Pearlmutter, N., Canseco-Gonzalez, E., & Hickok, G. (1996). Recency preference in the human sentence processing mechanism. Cognition, 59 (1), 23-59. [DOI:10.1016/0010-0277(95)00687-7]
29. Gibson, E., & Pearlmutter, N. (1998). Constraints on sentence comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2 (7), 262-268. [DOI:10.1016/S1364-6613(98)01187-5]
30. Gilboy, E. J., Sopena, M., Clifton, C., Jr., & Frazier, L. (1995). Argument structure and association preferences in Spanish and English compound NPs. Cognition, 54 (2), 131-167. [DOI:10.1016/0010-0277(94)00636-Y]
31. Green, D. W. (1998). Mental control of the bilingual lexico-semantic system. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1 (2), 67-81. [DOI:10.1017/S1366728998000133]
32. Grillo, N., & Costa, J. (2014). A novel argument for the universality of parsing principles. Cognition, 133 (1), 156-187. [DOI:10.1016/j.cognition.2014.05.019]
33. Grosjean, F. (1989). Neurolinguists, beware! The bilingual is not two monolinguals in one person. Brain and Language, 36 (1), 3-15. [DOI:10.1016/0093-934X(89)90048-5]
34. Grosjean, F. (1997). The bilingual individual. Interpreting, 2 (1/2), 163-187. [DOI:10.1075/intp.2.1-2.07gro]
35. Herdina, P., & Jessner, U. (2002). A dynamic model of multilingualism: Perspectives of change in psycholinguistics. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
36. Hopp, H. (2013). Individual differences in the L2 processing of object-subject ambiguities. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36 (2), 129-173. [DOI:10.1017/S0142716413000180]
37. Hopp, H. (2014). Working memory effects in the L2 processing of ambiguous relative clauses. Language Acquisition, 21 (3), 250-278. [DOI:10.1080/10489223.2014.892943]
38. Jackson, C. N., & Bobb, S. C. (2009). The processing and comprehension of wh-questions among second language speakers of German. Applied Psycholinguistics, 30 (4), 603-636. [DOI:10.1017/S014271640999004X]
39. Jarvis, S. (2002). Topic continuity in L2 English article use. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24 (3), 387-418. [DOI:10.1017/S0272263102003029]
40. Jiang, N. (2007). Selective integration of linguistic knowledge in adult second language learning. Language Learning, 57 (1), 1-33. [DOI:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2007.00397.x]
41. Juffs, A. (2004). Representation, processing, and working memory in a second language. Transactions of the Philological Society, 102 (2), 199-225. [DOI:10.1111/j.0079-1636.2004.00135.x]
42. 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 (4), 483-516. [DOI:10.1017/S027226310001442X]
43. Juffs, A., & Harrington, M. (2011). Aspects of working memory in L2 learning. Language Teaching, 44 (2), 137-166. [DOI:10.1017/S0261444810000509]
44. Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99 (1), 122-149. [DOI:10.1037/0033-295X.99.1.122]
45. Just, M. A., Carpenter, P. A., & Keller, T. A. (1996). The capacity theory of comprehension: New frontiers of evidence and arguments. Psychological Review, 103 (4), 773-780. [DOI:10.1037/0033-295X.103.4.773]
46. Kamide, Y., & Mitchell, D. C. (1997). Relative clause attachment: Non-determinism in Japanese parsing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 26 (2), 247-254. [DOI:10.1023/A:1025017817290]
47. Kasparian, K., & Steinhauer, K. (2017). When the second language takes the lead: Neurocognitive processing changes in the first language of adult attriters. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 389, 1-22. Kecskes, I. (1998). The state of L1 knowledge in foreign language learners. WORD, 49 (3), 321-340. https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.1998.11432476 [DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00389]
48. Kecskes, I. (2008). The effect of the second language on the first language. Babylonia, 2, 31-34.
49. Kim, J. H. (2010). L1 transfer in L2 relative clause attachment. English Language and Linguistics, 16 (3), 115-134. [DOI:10.17960/ell.2010.16.3.006]
50. Kim, J. H., & Christianson, K. (2012). Sentence complexity and working memory effects in ambiguity resolution. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 42, 1-19.
51. Kim, J. H., & Christianson, K. (2016). Working memory effects on L1 and L2 processing of ambiguous relative clauses by Korean L2 learners of English. Second Language Research, 33 (3), 365-388. [DOI:10.1177/0267658315623322]
52. Linck, J. A., Kroll, J. F., & Sunderman, G. (2009). Losing access to the native language while immersed in a second language: Evidence for the role of inhibition in second-language learning. SAGE, 20 (12), 1507-1515. [DOI:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02480.x]
53. MacDonald, M. C., & Christiansen, M. H. (2002). Reassessing working memory: Comment on just and Carpenter (1992) Waters and Caplan (1996). Psychological Review, 109 (1), 35-54. [DOI:10.1037/0033-295X.109.1.35]
54. MacDonald, M. C., Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). Working memory constraints on the processing of syntactic ambiguity. Cognitive Psychology, 24 (1), 56-98. [DOI:10.1016/0010-0285(92)90003-K]
55. Malakooti, N. (2010). Ambiguity resolution of the English relative clause by Persian learners of English. Unpublished dissertation, Yazd, Iran.
56. McLaughlin, J., Tanner, D., Pitkanen, I., Frenck-Mestre, C., Inoue, K., Valentine, G., & Osterhout, L. (2010). Brain potentials reveal discrete stages of L2 grammatical learning. Language Learning. 60 (2), 123-150. [DOI:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00604.x]
57. Miyake, A., & Friedman, N. (1998). Individual differences in second language proficiency: Working memory as language aptitude. In A. F. Healy, & L. E. Bourne (Eds.), Foreign language learning: Psycholinguistic studies on training and retention (pp. 339-364). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
58. Munakata, Y., McClelland, J. L., Johnson, M. H., & Siegler, R. S. (1997). Rethinking infant knowledge: Toward an adaptive process account of successes and failures in object permanence tasks. Psychological Review, 104 (4), 686-713. [DOI:10.1037/0033-295X.104.4.686]
59. Nakano, Y., & Wang, M. (2011). Relative-clause attachments in L1 and L2 English of Japanese learners: An offline questionnaire and eye-tracking studies. Poster presented at Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing.
60. Omaki, A. (2005). Working memory and relative clause attachment in first and second language processing. Unpublished MA thesis, University of Hawai, Honolulu.
61. O'Rourke, P. (2013). The interaction of different working memory mechanisms and sentence processing: A study of the P600. Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society.
62. Papadopoulou, D., & Clahsen, H. (2003). Parsing strategies in L1 and L2 sentence processing: A study of relative clause attachment in Greek. Unpublished MA thesis, University of Exeter, UK.
63. Paradis, M. (1993). Linguistic, Psycholinguistic, and Neurolinguistic Aspects of "Interference" in Bilingual Speakers: The Activation Threshold Hypothesis. International Journal of Psycholinguistics, 9 (2), 133-145.
64. Paradis, M. (2004). A neurolinguistic theory of bilingualism. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [DOI:10.1075/sibil.18]
65. Pavlenko, A. (2000). L2 influence on L1 in late bilingualism. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 11 (2), 175-205.
66. Pearlmutter, N. J., & MacDonald, M. C. (1995). Individual differences and probabilistic constraints in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 34 (4), 521-542. [DOI:10.1006/jmla.1995.1024]
67. Pynte, J., & Colonna, S. (2001). Competition between primary and non-primary relations during sentence comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 30 (6), 569-599. [DOI:10.1023/A:1014278905819]
68. Roth, F. P. (1984). Accelerating language learning in young children. Child Language, 11 (1), 89-107. [DOI:10.1017/S0305000900005602]
69. Sabourin, L. (2003). Grammatical gender and second language processing: An ERP study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Groningen.
70. Sasaki, Y. (1994). Paths of processing strategy transfers in learning Japanese and English as foreign languages: A competition model approach. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16 (1), 43-72. [DOI:10.1017/S0272263100012584]
71. Schmid, M. S. (2009). On L1 attrition and the linguistic system. Eurosla Yearbook, 9 (1), 212- 244. [DOI:10.1075/eurosla.9.11sch]
72. Timmer, K., Ganushchak, L. Y., Ceusters, I., & Schiller, N. O. (2014). Second language phonology influences first language word naming. Brain and Language, 133, 14-25. [DOI:10.1016/j.bandl.2014.03.004]
73. Tsimpli, T. Sorace, A., Heycock, C., & Filiaci, F. (2004). First language attrition and syntactic subjects: A study of Greek and Italian near-native speakers of English. International Journal of Bilingualism, 8 (3), 257-277. [DOI:10.1177/13670069040080030601]
74. Ullman, M. (2001). The neural basis of lexicon and grammar in first and second language: The declarative/procedural model. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4 (2), 105-122. [DOI:10.1017/S1366728901000220]
75. Waters, G. S., & Caplan, D. (1996). The measurement of verbal working memory capacity and its relation to reading comprehension. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49 (1), 51-79. [DOI:10.1080/713755607]
Add your comments about this article
Your username or Email:

CAPTCHA


XML   Persian Abstract   Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Marefat H, Farzizadeh B. Relative Clause Ambiguity Resolution in L1 and L2: Are Processing Strategies Transferred?. Journal title 2018; 21 (1) :125-161
URL: http://ijal.khu.ac.ir/article-1-2855-en.html


Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Volume 21, Issue 1 (4-2018) Back to browse issues page
Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics
Persian site map - English site map - Created in 0.15 seconds with 37 queries by YEKTAWEB 4642