Second Language Processing

Question 1

Is L2 processing incremental?

Answer 1

Mixed evidence, but processing largely seems to be.

Incrementality depends on proficiency.

Question 2

Second-Language reading times

Answer 2

A general slowing of reading times is common in L2 readers

Eye movements during reading show that L2 readers tend to re-read more than L1, even at proficiency.

Suggested to be due to leftover habits from before proficiency.

Question 3

Predictive processing

Question 4

Predictive processing in L1

Answer 4

Comprehenders process incrementally in L1.
There is evidence for prediction during sentence processing.

Using semantic information to shift visual attention to the relevant subject(s).

Some evidence shows specific words can even be predicted.

Question 5

DeLong 2005 Experiment

Answer 5

ERP experiments show
larger N400 amplitudes
to articles that do not
match a highly
predictable upcoming
noun.

For this sentence: The day was breezy so the boy went outside to fly a kite/ an airplane in the park.

N400 reaction starts at the unexpected article (an from “an airplane”)

Shows that prediction is not just conceptual.

Question 6

Is L2 processing predictive?

Answer 6

Mixed results:

L2 speakers did not show N400 amplitude differences for experiments similar to kite experiment.

French-Spanish bilinguals sensitive to gendered articles that matched or mismatched a predicted word.

Slides 8 and 9

Question 7

Predictive processing in native speakers (Ito, Corley, Pickering, Martin)

Answer 7

Tested the relationship between sentence constraint (cloze predictability), presentation rate and prediction of various kinds on
N400 amplitude.
– Prediction of form
– Prediction of meaning

Conclusion: Comprehenders can pre-activate word meaning and form in predictable contexts. BUT, form prediction is limited (only when there is more time to make predictions). LPC suggests that the form similarity is eventually noticed by comprehenders.

Question 8

Predictive processing in L2 speakers (Ito et al 2016)

Answer 8

Experiment on Spanish-English bilinguals with high self-rated proficiency (8.2/10)
Ito and colleagues did not find clear evidence for active prediction in
non-native speakers (i.e., N400 differences).

Question 9

Discussion/ Summary slides

Answer 9

18, 19

Question 10

Filling gaps in a second language

Answer 10

Filler-gap processing, in a learned language

One hypothesis: The shallow structure hypothesis

Question 11

The shallow-structure hypothesis

Answer 11

Clahsen and Felser (2006)

SSH: L2 speakers can only form shallow representations of linguistic input.

L2 comprehenders do not show a preference for a single way of resolving attachment ambiguities (e.g., Felser et al., 2003)

Weaker version (SSH-): L2 comprehenders do not form a detailed structural representation on first-pass processing (but may following reanalysis)
Slides 29, 30, 31

Question 12

Movement Islands

Answer 12

While movement dependencies are unbounded, they are subject to structural limitations

Some structures are “islands” to wh-extraction
It is ungrammatical to extract a wh-item from a relative clause.

Question 13

Movement islands in processing

Answer 13

Longer first fixation times on the verb
when the moved item was implausible as the object of the verb. (pausibility effect)

RC-islands affect plausibility and where gaps can go

Question 14

Islands in L2 processing

Answer 14

Acceptability ratings are different for L2 and L1 groups = the L2 group can tell if there’s something off with a sentence
Slides 35, 36, 37