Cover not available

Article published In: Pragmatics & Cognition
Vol. 31:1 (2024) ► pp.185–204

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

Definiteness matters as a discourse cue in L1 and L2 processing of relative clauses

 | University of York
 | University of Tehran
Open Access logo
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.

Open Access publication of this article was funded through a Transformative Agreement with the University of York.

Published online: 11 October 2024
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.00044.sol
Abstract
This study explores how syntactic and discourse-based parsing principles direct English relative clause attachment preferences. Forty-nine highly advanced L1-Persian L2-English and thirty-six English native speakers completed a self-paced reading task involving temporarily ambiguous relative clauses that were semantically associated with either the first or the second noun phrase (NP) in a complex NP (NP1–of–NP2) (The resident called the nurseNP1 of the patientNP2 who was injecting penicillin/coughing severely). We manipulated the definiteness of the antecedent (a/the nurse & a/the patient) to examine the extent to which a discourse-based definiteness principle — which motivates attachment to a definite NP — impacts attachment preferences. The results showed no L1/L2 differences, and both groups preferred an NP2 interpretation in relative clauses with a definite antecedent but no strong preference in relative clauses with an indefinite antecedent. The findings highlight the significance of definiteness and cast doubt on the hypothesis that L1 and L2 processing are fundamentally different.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Relative clause ambiguities in L2
  • 3.Method
    • 3.1Participants
    • 3.2Materials
    • 3.3Procedure
    • 3.4Analysis
  • 4.Predictions
  • 5.Results
  • 6.Discussion
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
References (41)
References
Arabmofrad, Ali., & Hamideh Marefat. 2008. Relative clause attachment ambiguity resolution in Persian. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics 11(1). 20–49.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ariel, Mira. 1990. Accessing noun-phrase antecedents (RLE Linguistics B: Grammar). London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2001. Accessibility theory: An overview. In Ted J. M. Sanders, Joost Schilperoord & Wilbert Spooren (eds.), Text representation: Linguistic and psycholinguistic aspects. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barr, Dale J., Roger Levy, Christoph Scheepers, & Harry J. Tily. 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
Bates, Douglas, Martin Maechler, Ben Bolker & Steve Walker. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67(1). 1–48. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ben-Shachar, Matten S., Daniel Lüdecke & Do minique Makowski. 2020. Effectsize: Estimation of effect size indices and standardized parameters. Journal of Open Source Software 5(56). 2815. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cheng, Yesi, Jason Rothman & Ian Cunnings. 2021. Parsing preferences and individual differences in nonnative sentence processing: Evidence from eye movements. Applied Psycholinguistics 42(1). 129–151. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cho, Jacee. 2017. The acquisition of different types of definite noun phrases in L2-English. International Journal of Bilingualism 21(3). 367–382. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clahsen, Harald & Claudia Felser. 2006. Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics 27(1). 3–42. 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
Clifton Jr. Charles, & Fernanda Ferreira. 1989. Ambiguity in context. Language and Cognitive Processes 4(3–4). SI77–SI103. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crain, Stephen & Mark Steedman. 1985. On not being led up the garden path: The use of context by the psychological syntax processor. In David R. Dowty, Lauri Karttunen & Arnold M. Zwicky (eds.), Natural language parsing: Psychological, computational and theoretical perspectives, 320–358. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cuetos, Fernando & Don C. Mitchell. 1988. Cross-linguistic differences in parsing: Restrictions on the use of the late closure strategy in Spanish. Cognition 30(1). 73–105. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cunnings, Ian. 2017. Parsing and working memory in bilingual sentence processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 20(4). 659–678. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dekydtspotter, Laurent, Bryan Donaldson, Amanda C. Edmonds, Audrey Liljestrand Fultz & Rebecca A. Petrush. 2008. Syntactic and prosodic computations in the resolution of relative clause attachment ambiguity by English-French learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 30(4). 453–448. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Epstein, Richard. 2002. The definite article, accessibility, and the construction of discourse referents. Cognitive Linguistics 12(4). 333–378. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Felser, Claudia. 2019. Structure-sensitive constraints in non-native sentence processing. Journal of the European Second Language Association 3(1). 12–22. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fernández, Eva M. 1999. Processing strategies in second language acquisition: Some preliminary results. In Elaine C. Klein & Gita Martohardjono (eds.), The development of second language grammars: A generative approach, 217–240. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Forster, Kenneth I., & Jonathan C. Forster. 2003. DMDX: A Windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behaviour Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 35(1). 116–124. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Frazier, Lyn. 1978. On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies. Connecticut: University of Connecticut PhD dissertation.
Frazier, Lyn & Charles Clifton. 1996. Construal. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Frenck-Mestre, Cheryl. 1997. Examining second language reading: An on-line look. In Antonella Sorace, Caroline B. Heycock & Richard Shillcock (eds.), Proceedings of the GALA ’97 Conference on Language Acquisition, 444–449.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2002. An on-line look at sentence processing in the second language. In Roberto R. Heredia & Jeanette Altarriba (eds.), Bilingual sentence processing, 217–236. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibson, Edward, Neal J. Pearlmutter, Enriqueta Canseco-González & Gregory Hickok. 1996. Recency preferences in the human sentence processing mechanism. Cognition 59(1). 23–59. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Givón, Thomas. 1992. The grammar of referential coherence as mental processing instructions. Linguistics 30(1). 5–55. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goad, Heather., Natalia B. Guzzo & Lydia White. 2021. Parsing ambiguous relative clauses in L2 English: Learner sensitivity to prosodic cues. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 43(1). 83–108. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heim, Irene Roswitha. 1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Massachusetts: University of Massachusetts PhD dissertation.
Hopp, Holger. 2006. Syntactic features and reanalysis in near-native processing. Second Language Research 22(3). 369–397. [URL]
. 2014. Working memory effects in the L2 processing of ambiguous relative clauses. Language Acquisition 21(3). 250–278. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ishihara, Kenji., Elizabeth Hiser & Tae Okada. 2003. Modifying C-Test for practical purposes. Doshisha Studies in Language and Culture (4). 539–568.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Klein, Natalie M., Whitney Gegg-Harrison, Greg N. Carlson & Michael K. Tanenhaus. 2013. Experimental investigations of weak definite and weak indefinite noun phrases. Cognition 128(2). 187–213. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kuznetsova, Alexandra, Per B. Brockhoff & Rune H. B. Christensen. 2017. lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software 82(13). 1–26. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pan, Hui-Yu, Sarah Schimke & Claudia Felser. 2015. Referential context effects in non-native relative clause ambiguity resolution. International Journal of Bilingualism 19(3). 298–313. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Papadopoulou, Despina & Harald Clahsen. 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
R Core Team. 2020. R: A language and environment for statistical computing [software]. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. [URL]
Solaimani, Ehsan, Florence Myles & Laurel Lawyer. 2024. Reading Realities: Context, Memory, and the Interplay of L1–L2 Comprehension [Manuscript submitted for publication]. Department of Language and Linguistics, University of Essex.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Spivey, Michael J. & Michael K. Tanenhaus. 1998. Syntactic ambiguity resolution in discourse: Modelling the effects of referential context and lexical frequency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 24(6). 1521–1543. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Trace, Jonathan. 2020. Clozing the gap: How far do cloze items measure? Language Testing 37(2). 235–253. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Gompel, Roger P. G., Martin J. Pickering, Matthew J. Traxler. 2000. Unrestricted race: A new model of syntactic ambiguity resolution. In Allan Kennedy, Ralph Radach, Dieter Heller & Joel Pynte (eds.), Reading as a perceptual process, 621–648. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Warren, Tessa & Edward Gibson. 2002. The influence of referential processing on sentence complexity. Cognition 85(1). 79–112. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zehr, Jeremy & Florian Schwarz. 2018. Penncontroller for internet-based experiments (ibex). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Solaimani, Ehsan, Franziska Baumeister, Anamaria Bentea, Vicky Chondrogianni, Hélène Delage, Pauline Wolfer & Stephanie Durrleman
2025. Bilingualism, working memory, and relative clause comprehension in children. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism DOI logo
Solaimani, Ehsan
2024. Minding the gap: Similarity-based interference in L1 and L2 processing of long-distance Wh-dependencies. Applied Psycholinguistics 45:6 ► pp. 1165 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue