This study compares four methodologies used to examine online sentence processing during reading. Specifically, self-paced, non-cumulative, moving-window reading (Just et al. in J Exp Psychol Gen 111:228-238, 1982), eye tracking (see e.g., Rayner in Q J Exp Psychol 62:1457-1506, 2009), and two versions of the maze task (Forster et al. in Behav Res Methods 41:163-171, 2009)--the lexicality maze and the grammaticality maze--were used to investigate the processing of sentences containing temporary structural ambiguities. Of particular interest were (i) whether each task was capable of revealing processing differences on these sentences and (ii) whether these effects were indicated precisely at the predicted word/region. Although there was considerable overlap in the general pattern of results from the four tasks, there were also clear differences among them in terms of the strength and timing of the observed effects. In particular, excepting sentences that tap into clause-closure commitments, both maze task versions provided robust, "localized" indications of incremental sentence processing difficulty relative to self-paced reading and eye tracking.

This study examines the reading patterns of native speakers (NSs) and high-level (Chinese) nonnative speakers (NNSs) on three English sentence types involving temporarily ambiguous structural configurations. The reading patterns on each sentence type indicate that both NSs and NNSs were biased toward specific structural interpretations. These results are interpreted as evidence that both first-language and second-language (L2) sentence comprehension is guided (at least in part) by structure-based parsing strategies and, thus as counterevidence to the claim that NNSs are largely limited to rudimentary (or "shallow") syntactic computation during online L2 sentence processing.One of the core questions in second-language (L2) psycholinguistics is how L2 sentence comprehension is accomplished. In order to answer this question, researchers have focused largely on identifying and accounting for the similarities and differences between first-language (L1) and L2 sentence processing. Although there appears to be considerable overlap in the characteristics of L1 and L2 sentence comprehension, salient L1/L2 processing differences include disparities in global performance (i.e., generally slower and less accurate performance in the L2; among others, see Cook, 1997;Frenck-Mestre, 2002;Hahne & Friederici, 2001), as well as differential sensitivity to certain morphosyntactic cues (Guillelmon

No abstract