Limits on expectation-based processing: Use of grammatical aspect for co-reference in L2

Abstract

This study examines the use of discourse-level information to create expectations about reference in real-time processing, testing whether patterns previously observed among native speakers of English generalize to nonnative speakers. Findings from a visual-world eye-tracking experiment show that native (L1; N = 53) but not nonnative (L2; N = 52) listeners’ proactive coreference expectations are modulated by grammatical aspect in transfer-of-possession events. Results from an offline judgment task show these L2 participants did not differ from L1 speakers in their interpretation of aspect marking on transfer-of-possession predicates in English, indicating it is not lack of linguistic knowledge but utilization of this knowledge in real-time processing that distinguishes the groups. English proficiency, although varying substantially within the L2 group, did not modulate L2 listeners’ use of grammatical aspect for reference processing. These findings contribute to the broader endeavor of delineating the role of prediction in human language processing in general, and in the processing of discourse-level information among L2 users in particular.

Prediction in bilingual sentence processing: How prediction differs in a later learned language from a first language

“…In contrast, Grüter and Rohde (2021) found that grammatical aspect did not modulate the prediction of upcoming reference in L2 speakers of English. The L2 speakers with varying L1s showed no difference between conditions in real-time processing, despite their native-like performance in an additional offline task.…”

“…There, L2 speakers did not over-rely on a semantic cue as in the studies above, but they did not integrate a semantic and a grammatical cue, unlike an L1 group. In Grüter, Takeda, Rohde and Schafer (2018) and Grüter and Rohde (2021), participants had to integrate the lexical semantics of the verb and grammatical aspect to predict upcoming reference. For transfer-of-possession verbs such as in ( 5), more references to the goal argument were expected after completed events.…”

“…The above-mentioned findings by Grüter and Rohde (2021) can be explained by the SSH, as L2 speakers showed no use of grammatical information for prediction. Alternatively, the L1/L2 difference in the study by Grüter and Rohde (2021) can be explained by the model proposed by Cunnings (2017), according to which L2 speakers are more susceptible to interference during memory retrieval operations than L1 speakers. As shown in (5), towards the end of the first clause, participants in the study had to retrieve information provided at the verb to interpret (upcoming) reference.…”

“…To sum up, several studies showing L1/L2 differences in prediction can be explained by differences in cue weighting. Crucial for the purpose of the current review, one conclusion we can draw from the finding that L1 and L2 speakers weigh cues differently is that more qualitative L1/L2 differences in prediction are likely to occur when a predictive cue does not exist in the L2 speakers' L1/is less reliable in the L1 (classifiers associated with noun classes, Grüter et al, 2020;morphological case on NPs, Hopp, 2015) and/or when different sources of information need to be integrated for prediction (Grüter & Rohde, 2021;Hopp, 2015).…”

Pronominalization and Expectations for Re-Mention: Modeling Coreference in Contexts With Three Referents

“…Indeed, there is evidence that not everyone can always engage in predictive processing [e.g., children, non-native speakers, and nonstudent and older adults (Huettig, 2015;Pickering and Gambi, 2018;Grüter et al, 2012)]. For example, nonnative speakers don't make the same coreference predictions that native speakers do in contexts with transfer-of-possession verbs, a finding that has been attributed to the increased difficulty of real-time nextmention computations during second language processing (Grüter and Rohde, 2021). Further research can thus shed light on whether our hypothesis regarding the differences witnessed in Experiments 1 and 3 is on the right track.…”