ONLINE PRONOUN RESOLUTION IN L2 DISCOURSE: L1 Influence and General Learner Effects

Abstract

This study investigates whether advanced second language (L2) learners of a nonnull subject language (Dutch) are influenced by their null subject first language (L1) (Turkish) in their offline and online resolution of subject pronouns in L2 discourse. To tease apart potential L1 effects from possible general L2 processing effects, we also tested a group of German L2 learners of Dutch who were predicted to perform like the native Dutch speakers. The two L2 groups differed in their offline interpretations of subject pronouns. The Turkish L2 learners exhibited a L1 influence, because approximately half the time they interpreted Dutch subject pronouns as they would overt pronouns in Turkish, whereas the German L2 learners performed like the Dutch controls, interpreting pronouns as coreferential with the current discourse topic. This L1 effect was not in evidence in eyetracking data, however. Instead, the L2 learners patterned together, showing an online processing disadvantage when two potential antecedents for the pronoun were grammatically available in the discourse. This processing disadvantage was in evidence irrespective of the properties of the learners' L1 or their final interpretation of the pronoun. Therefore, the results of this study indicate both an effect of the L1 on the L2 in offline resolution and a general L2 processing effect in online subject pronoun resolution.

Focus in Dutch reading: an eye-tracking experiment with heritage speakers of Turkish

“…To examine the potential effect of general processing difficulties in interpreting focus structures, the findings might be compared to a different group of L2 speakers of Dutch, whose L1 resembles Dutch regarding focus marking. For an example of a study comparing bilingual groups and revealing both general processing difficulties and L1 transfer, see Roberts et al (2008).…”

“…Hopp, 2009;Roberts et al, 2008;Sorace, 2000). This optionality is, for example, related to the overt expression or drop of pronouns (Montrul, 2011;Sorace & Filiaci, 2006), or to word order differences (e.g.…”

“…Regarding the syntax-discourse interface, Roberts et al (2008) is, to our knowledge, the only study that showed L1 transfer in the heritage speakers' L2. However, it is uncertain whether Dutch was the dominant language for all these bilinguals, because the Turkish heritage speakers in this study varied greatly in age of first exposure to Dutch (ranging from 4 to 41 years, with a mean age of 19.9).…”

Acquiring L2 sentence comprehension: A longitudinal study of word monitoring in noise

“…A large literature documents L1 transfer onto the L2 in offline tasks (see Odlin, 2003 for an overview) and in online lexical processing (Dijkstra, Grainger & van Heuven, 1999). By contrast, the precise role of transfer in online written L2 sentence processing is still under debate (e.g., Clahsen & Felser, 2006;FrenckMestre, 2005;Odlin, 2003;Roberts, Gullberg & Indefrey, 2008). Little is known about such transfer effects in online auditory sentence comprehension.…”

The role of native and non-native grammars in the comprehension of possessive pronouns

“…The L1 effect suggests that when an agreement constraint is absent in a native language, speakers have more difficulty deploying it in a La. This result is relevant not only for La but also for L2 processing work, which has produced divergent findings with regard to the role of L1 influence, which is sometimes absent or affects offline and online measures differentially (for examples, see Liszka & Roberts, 2013;Hopp, 2009;Roberts, Gullberg, & Indefrey, 2008). On the other hand, the L2 effect suggests that exposure to a L2 grammar can further modulate processing by increasing sensitivity to constraints that are present in both the L2 and La.…”