Cover not available

In:Current Perspectives on Generative SLA - Processing, Influence, and Interfaces: Selected proceedings of the 16th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference
Edited by Marta Velnić, Anne Dahl and Kjersti Faldet Listhaug
[Language Acquisition and Language Disorders 70] 2024
► pp. 238–261

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload Book EPUB
authorization required

Chapter 10
Sensitivity to event structure in passives supports deep processing in L1 and L2

 | University of York
 | University of York
 | University of York
Published online: 17 October 2024
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/lald.70.10ger
Abstract
A key question in second language research is whether native (L1) and non-native (L2) sentence processing are fundamentally different. Recent L1 research has questioned the assumption that passives are harder to process than actives: passive complexity appears to be determined by event structure (Paolazzi et al., 2019; Paolazzi et al., 2021). We replicate these results using a maze task; only passives of states appear to be more difficult to process than actives, inconsistent with a Good-Enough account. We also present evidence that L2 learners can recruit similarly nuanced processing mechanisms in understanding passives. L2 learners display the same interaction of event structure and passivization. Taken together, the results appear inconsistent with shallow processing accounts of both L1 and L2 processing.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Passivization and event structure
  • 2.Experiment
    • 2.1Participants
    • 2.2English proficiency
    • 2.3Experimental materials
    • 2.4Procedure
    • 2.5Data analysis
  • 3.Results
  • 4.Discussion
  • 5.Conclusion
  • References
  • Appendix
References (38)
References
Abbot-Smith, K., & Behrens, H. (2006). How known constructions influence the acquisition of other constructions: The German passive and future constructions. Cognitive Science, 30(6), 995–1026. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bader, M., & Meng, M. (2018). The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences revisited. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 44(8), 1286–1311. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(3), 255–278. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Borer, H., & Wexler, K. (1987). The maturation of syntax. In T. Roeper & E. Williams (Eds.), Parameter setting, (pp. 123–172). Reidel. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boyce, V., Futrell, R., & Levy, R. P. (2020). Maze made easy: Better and easier measurement of incremental processing difficulty. Journal of Memory and Language, 111, 104082. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carrithers, C. (1989). Syntactic complexity does not necessarily make sentences harder to understand. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18(1), 75–88. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Christianson, K., Hollingworth, A., Halliwell, J. F., & Ferreira, F. (2001). Thematic roles assigned along the garden path linger. Cognitive Psychology, 42(4), 368–407. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Christianson, K., Luke, S. G., & Ferreira, F. (2010). Effects of plausibility on structural priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(2), 538–544. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006a). Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27(1), 3–42. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2006b). Continuity and shallow structures in language processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27(1), 107–126. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2006c). How native-like is non-native language processing? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(12), 564–570. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2018). Some notes on the Shallow Structure Hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40(3), 693–706. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Drummond, A., von der Malsburg, T., Erlewine, M. Y., & Vafaie, M. (2016). Ibex farm. Retrieved on 16 May 2024 from [URL]
Felser, C., Roberts, L., Marinis, T., & Gross, R. (2003). The processing of ambiguous sentences by first and second language learners of English. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24(3), 453–489. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ferreira, F. (2003). The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 47(2), 164–203. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ferreira, F., Bailey, K. G. D., & Ferraro, V. (2002). Good-enough representations in language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(1), 11–15. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ferreira, F., & Christianson, K. (2016). Is now-or-never language processing good enough? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 39. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ferreira, F., & Patson, N. D. (2007). The “good enough” approach to language comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1(1–2), 71–83. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gehrke, B., & Grillo, N., (2007). Aspects on passives. In S. Blaho, E. Schoorlemmer, & V. Luis (Eds.) Proceedings of ConSOLE XIV (pp. 121–141). Student Organisation of Linguistics in Europe.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2009). How to become passive. In B. Gehrke & N. Grillo, Explorations of Phase Theory: Features and arguments (pp. 231–268) Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gelman, A., & Hill, J. (2007). Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grillo, N., Alexiadou, A., Gehrke, B., Hirsch, N., Paolazzi, C., & Santi, A. (2019). Processing unambiguous verbal passives in German. Journal of Linguistics, 55(3), 523–562. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gulordava, K., Bojanowski, P., Grave, E., Linzen, T., & Baroni, M. (2018). Colorless green recurrent networks dream hierarchically. In M. Walker, H. Ji, & A. Stent (Eds.), Proceedings from the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Technologies (Vol.1). ACL.
Hale, J. (2001). A probabilistic Earley parser as a psycholinguistic model. In L. Levin (Ed.), Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 159–166). ACL. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jacob, G., & Felser, C. (2016). Reanalysis and semantic persistence in native and non-native garden-path recovery. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(5), 907–925. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Karimi, H., & Ferreira, F. (2016). Good-enough linguistic representations and online cognitive equilibrium in language processing. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(5), 1013–1040. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levy, R. (2008). Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition, 106(3), 1126–1177. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Meng, M., & Bader, M. (2020). Does comprehension (sometimes) go wrong for noncanonical sentences? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 74(1), 1–28. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Osterhout, L., & Swinney, D. A. (1993). On the temporal course of gap-filling during comprehension of verbal passives. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 22(2), 273–286. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Oxford University Press, University of Cambridge, & Association of Language Testers in Europe. (2001). Quick placement test: Paper and pen test. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Paolazzi, C. L., Grillo, N., Alexiadou, A., & Santi, A. (2019). Passives are not hard to interpret but hard to remember: Evidence from online and offline studies. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 34(8), 991–1015. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Paolazzi, C. L., Grillo, N., Cera, C., Karageorgou, F., Bullman, E., Chow, W. Y., & Santi, A. (2021). Eyetracking while reading passives: An event structure account of difficulty. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 37(2), 135–153. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Papadopoulou, D., & Clahsen, H. (2003). Parsing strategies in L1 and L2 sentence processing: A study of relative clause attachment in Greek. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25(4), 501–528. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
RStudio Team. (2021). RStudio: Integrated Development for R. RStudio, PBC, Boston, MA. [URL]
Roberts, L., & Felser, C. (2011). Plausibility and recovery from garden paths in second language sentence processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32(2), 299–331. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Street, J. A., & Dąbrowska, E. (2010). More individual differences in language attainment: How much do adult native speakers of English know about passives and quantifiers? Lingua, 120(8), 2080–2094. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traxler, M. J., Corina, D. P., Morford, J. P., Hafer, S., & Hoversten, L. J. (2013). Deaf readers’ response to syntactic complexity: Evidence from self-paced reading. Memory & Cognition, 42(1), 97–111. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Witzel, N., Witzel, J., & Forster, K. (2011). Comparisons of online reading paradigms: Eye tracking, moving-window, and maze. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 41(2), 105–128. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue