Structure-sensitive constraints in non-native sentence processing

Abstract

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.

Binding Out of Relative Clauses in Native and Non-native Sentence Comprehension

“…Considering that our L2 speakers were able to obtain telescoping readings if given more time, we suggest instead that the L1/L2 differences we observed in Experiment 2 reflect L2 comprehenders' difficulty manipulating previously built structural representations (e.g. Felser, 2016Felser, , 2019. On the assumption that computing telescoping readings requires the QP's scope to be extended, our L2 comprehenders might not have been able to perform this kind of nonisomorphic syntax-semantics mapping in real time (compare also Boxell et al, 2017).…”

“…This could be because L2 structural representations lack sufficient detail to start with (compare Clahsen & Felser's, 2006& Felser's, , 2018 shallow structure hypothesis), or because they are unstable and fade too quickly from memory to be able to serve as the input to further derivational (e.g. scope shifting) processes (Felser, 2019). Syntactically mediated binding will then be eschewed in favour of discourse-based coreference assignment because establishing binding relationships requires navigating previously built syntactic representations and retracing c-command paths.…”

“…Syntax-semantics mismatches such as those exemplified by (1–3) above also provide useful test cases for the hypothesis that second language (L2) speakers have problems re-accessing or manipulating previously built syntactic representations during anaphor resolution (Felser, 2016 , 2019 ). L2 speakers have been reported to have difficulty deriving semantic or pragmatic representations that are non-isomorphic to a sentence's syntactic form (e.g.…”

Interference-based and capacity-based approaches to working memory in second language sentence processing

“…This finding might be in particular unexpected from a capacity-based view of L2 processing. If L2 processing was capacity limited, we might expect an even greater focus on the local antecedent in L2 processing than L1 processing, but this was not found (see Felser, 2019, for further discussion).…”

Kognitivna obrada sintaktički dvosmislenih konstrukcija

“…Ipak, pitanje transfera u sintaktičkoj obradi i dalje je kontroverzno. Odnedavno se može čuti i umjereno stajalište da transfer mora postojati, ali da su sintaktičke predodžbe koje neizvorni govornici formuliraju u tumačenju dvosmislenih struktura nužno manje detaljne i manje dubinske nego kod izvornih govornika te da transfer leksičkih, semantičkih i pragmatičkih informacija nije snažan kao u nekim drugim aspektima obrade i upotrebe jezika (Clahsen i Felser, 2018;Felser, 2019).…”