Some Notes on the Shallow Structure Hypothesis

Clahsen, Harald; Felser, Claudia

doi:10.1017/s0272263117000250

Cited by 153 publications

(135 citation statements)

References 59 publications

(95 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

110

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It also provides further evidence that the MDL constraint does not carry any particularly strong weight in L2 processing. Our findings on both Condition A and Condition B can be reconciled by the hypothesis that referential dependency formation is more strongly guided by discourse-level cues, such as topic-hood, and less by structural cues such as c-command, in L2 compared to L1 comprehension (Clahsen & Felser, 2018;Cunnings, 2017;Felser, 2016). That is, the most accessible antecedent in the current discourse representation is likely to be initially retrieved by L2 comprehenders, which may or may not also be a grammatically appropriate antecedent.…”

Section: Referential Dependenciesmentioning

confidence: 54%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Structure-sensitive constraints in non-native sentence processing

Felser

2019

Journal of the European Second Language Association

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Studies examining the real-time application of structure-sensitive constraints in second-language (L2) sentence processing have shown that depending on the type of constraint under investigation, the constraint may be more likely, equally (un)likely, or less likely to be violated during L2 than during native (first-language, L1) processing. Several attempts have been made in the past to attribute L1/L2 processing differences to a specific underlying cause, including cognitive resource limitations, reduced sensitivity to grammatical information, or increased susceptibility to memory interference during L2 processing. Focusing on recent findings on the processing of referential and filler-gap dependencies, I argue that trying to reduce L1/L2 processing differences to a single cause is misguided. What is called for instead is a more careful investigation of how different types of constraint and information sources interact during L2 comprehension, taking into account what linguistic cues need to be extracted from the input or need to be re-accessed in order for a given constraint to be applied. This should provide us with a more nuanced picture of how the relative weighting or timing of constraints or information sources might differ in L2 in comparison to L1 processing.

show abstract

Section: Referential Dependenciesmentioning

confidence: 54%

“…• processing resource limitation accounts (e.g., McDonald, 2006), • the memory interference account (Cunnings, 2017), and • the revised shallow structure hypothesis (Clahsen & Felser, 2018).…”

Section: Overview and Rationalementioning

confidence: 99%

Structure-sensitive constraints in non-native sentence processing

Felser

2019

Journal of the European Second Language Association

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Adult L2 learners would tend to process sentences making efficient use of non-grammatical information (such as semantic, pragmatic, probabilistic, or surface-level information) rather than building and manipulating abstract syntactic representations in real time (Clahsen and Felser, 2018), which would be the default processing pattern for native speakers. This tendency to underuse detailed syntactic analysis would hinder L2 learners’ grammatical parsing skills from becoming easily automatized and should be reflected in their processing of complex grammatical structures, even for the most proficient L2 learners.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Do French–English Bilinguals Pull Verb Particle Constructions Off? Factors Influencing Second Language Processing of Unfamiliar Structures at the Syntax-Semantics Interface

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An important challenge in bilingualism research is to understand the mechanisms underlying sentence processing in a second language and whether they are comparable to those underlying native processing. Here, we focus on verb-particle constructions (VPCs) that are among the most difficult elements to acquire in L2 English. The verb and the particle form a unit, which often has a non-compositional meaning (e.g., look up or chew out), making the combined structure semantically opaque. However, bilinguals with higher levels of English proficiency can develop a good knowledge of the semantic properties of VPCs (Blais and Gonnerman, 2013). A second difficulty is that in a sentence context, the particle can be shifted after the direct object of the verb (e.g., The professor looked it up). The processing is more challenging when the object is long (e.g., The professor looked the student’s last name up). This shifted structure favors syntactic processing at the expense of VPC semantic processing. We sought to determine whether or not bilinguals’ reading time (RT) patterns would be similar to those observed for native monolinguals (Gonnerman and Hayes, 2005) when reading VPCs in sentential contexts. French–English bilinguals were tested for English language proficiency, working memory and explicit VPC semantic knowledge. During a self-paced reading task, participants read 78 sentences with VPCs that varied according to parameters that influence native speakers’ reading dynamics: verb-particle transparency, particle adjacency and length of the object noun phrase (NP; 2, 3, or 5 words). RTs in a critical region that included verbs, NPs and particles were measured. Results revealed that RTs were modulated by participants’ English proficiency, with higher proficiency associated with shorter RTs. Examining participants’ explicit semantic knowledge of VPCs and working memory, only readers with more native-like knowledge of VPCs and a high working memory presented RT patterns that were similar to those of monolinguals. Therefore, given the necessary lexical and computational resources, bilingual processing of novel structures at the syntax-semantics interface follows the principles influencing native processing. The findings are in keeping with theories that postulate similar representations and processing in L1 and L2 modulated by processing difficulty.

show abstract

“…Therefore, if the adult L2 learners in Inagaki (2014) had been exposed to a comparable amount of input, they might have developed a grammar representation that is similar to that of the bilingual participants in the present study. This might have in turn led to similar processing patterns (see Clahsen & Felser 2017 for sources of differences in grammar processing). Other studies pointing to the role of input in explaining performance differences in grammar include Gathercole (2007), Argyri and Sorace (2007) and Serratrice et al (2009).…”

Section: Sensitivity To Morphosyntax and Role Of Inputmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mass-count distinction in Chinese-English bilingual students

Yin¹,

O’Brien²

2018

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There has been increased interest in examining the relationship between different linguistic modules in second language learners' grammar system. One such interface concerns learners' ability to map morphosyntax to target-like semantic interpretations, especially in cases where the first and second languages differ in morphosyntax-semantics mapping. We examined this issue by investigating Chinese-English bilingual adolescents' knowledge regarding the semantic consequences of mass-count morphosyntax in English. 228 Chinese-English bilingual students from Singapore took part in a quantity judgment task. Following previous studies, we tested five noun conditions including count (e.g., shoe), substance mass (e.g., ketchup), object mass (e.g., furniture) and two conditions involving items that can occur flexibly in both mass and count contexts (e.g., string/strings). The last two conditions specifically probe learners' ability to make use of morphosyntax in deriving semantics. The representation of quantity for objects/substance was manipulated for number or combined volume (e.g., two large shoes/portions of ketchup versus six tiny shoes/portions of ketchup). Participants were asked to make judgments on the quantity of items, in response to questions presented in a count and/or mass frame (Who has more shoes/ketchup/furniture/string/strings?). Results show that our bilingual participants were able to make appropriate semantic judgments of quantity in response to manipulation of morphosyntax. We compare our findings with previous research in first and second language contexts and discuss the differences in terms of the quantity and quality of input in shaping learners' grammar system.

show abstract

Some Notes on the Shallow Structure Hypothesis

Cited by 153 publications

References 59 publications

Structure-sensitive constraints in non-native sentence processing

Structure-sensitive constraints in non-native sentence processing

How Do French–English Bilinguals Pull Verb Particle Constructions Off? Factors Influencing Second Language Processing of Unfamiliar Structures at the Syntax-Semantics Interface

Mass-count distinction in Chinese-English bilingual students

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About