Multiple Constraints on Processing Ambiguous Sentences: Evidence from Adult L2 Learners

Language Learning

Volumn 46, Issue 4, 1996, Pages 681-711

  Ying, H G ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0030344172     PISSN: 00238333     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01356.x     Document Type: Article

References (87)

1. Abney, S. (1989). A computational model of human parsing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18, 129-144.
2. Adjémian, C. (1983). The transferability of lexical properties. In S. M. Gass & L. Selinker (Eds.), Language transfer in language learning (pp. 250-268). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
3. Altmann, G. (1986). Reference and the resolution of local syntactic ambiguity: The effect of context during human sentence processing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Edinburgh, Scotland.
4. Altmann, G. (1987). Modularity and interaction in sentence processing. In J. L. Garfield (Ed.), Modularity in knowledge representation and natural language understanding (pp. 249-257). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
5. Altmann, G., & Steedman, M. (1988). Interaction with context during human sentence processing. Cognition, 30, 191-238.
6. Ard, J., & Gass, S. M. (1987). Lexical constraints on syntactic acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9, 233-252.
7. Baker, C. L. (1979). Syntactic theory and the projection problem. Linguistic Inquiry, 10, 533-581.
8. Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1989). Functionalism and the Competition Model. In B. MacWhinney & E. Bates (Eds.), The crosslinguistic study of sentence processing (pp. 3-73). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9. Bialystok, E. (1990). The competence of processing: Classifying theories of second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 24, 635-648.
10. Bialystok, E. (1994). Towards an explanation of second language acquisition. In G. Brown, K. Malmjær, A. Pollitt, & J. Williams (Eds.), Language and understanding (pp. 115-138). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
11. Britt, M. A. (1994). The interaction of referential ambiguity and argument structure in the parsing of prepositional phrases. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 251-283.
12. Britt, M. A., Perfetti, C. A., Garrod, S., & Rayner, K. (1992). Parsing and discourse: Context effects and their limits. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 293-314.
13. Celce-Murcia, M., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1983). The grammar book: An ESL/EFL teacher's course. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
14. Chafe, W. (1994). Discourse, consciousness, and time: The flow and displacement of consciousness experience in speaking and wrtiting. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
15. Chomsky, N. (1964). The logical basis of linguistic theory. In H. G. Lunt (Ed.), Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Linguists, Cambridge, Mass., August 27-31, 1962 (pp. 914-978) The Hague, Holland: Mouton.
16. Clahsen, H. (1984). The acquisition of German word order. In R. Andersen (Ed.), Second languages (pp. 65-86). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
17. Clahsen, H., & Hong, U. (1995). Agreement and null subjects in German L2 development: New evidence from reaction-time experiments. Second Language Research, 11, 57-87.
18. Clahsen, H., & Muysken, P. (1986). The availability of Universal Grammar to adult and child learners: A study of the acquisition of German word order. Second Language Research, 2, 93-119.
19. Cooper, W. E., Paccia, J. M., & Lapointe, S. G. (1978). Hierarchical coding in speech timing. Cognitive Psychology, 10, 154-177.
20. Dirksen, C. R. (1990). Learning styles of mainland Chinese students of English. IDEAL, 5, 29-38.
21. DuBois, J., Schuetze-Coburn, S., Cumming, S., & Paolino, D. (1993). Outline of discourse transcription. In J. A. Edwards & M. D. Lampert (Eds.), Talking data: Transcription and coding in discourse research (pp. 45-87). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
22. Eubank, L. (1993). Sentence matching and processing in L2 development. Second Language Research, 9, 253-280.
23. Fodor, J. A. (1983). Modularity of mind: An essay on faculty psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
24. Fodor, J. D. (1978). Parsing strategies and constraints on transformations. Linguistic Inquiry, 9, 427-473.
25. Fodor, J. D., & Inoue, A. (1994). The diagnosis and cure of garden paths. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 23, 407-434.
26. Fodor, J. D., Ni, W., Crain, S., & Shankweiler, D. (1996). Tasks and timing in the perception of linguistic anomaly. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25, 25-57.
27. Ford, M., Bresnan, J., & Kaplan, R. M. (1982). A competence-based theory of syntactic closure. In J. Bresnan (Ed.), The mental representation of grammatical relations (pp. 727-796). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
28. Frazier, L. (1979). On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies. Bloomington, IN: Indiana Linguistics Club.
29. Frazier, L. (1987). Theories of sentence processing. In J. L. Garfield (Ed.), Modularity in knowledge-representation and natural-language understanding (pp. 291-307). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
30. Frazier, L., & De Villiers, J. (1990). Introduction. In L. Frazier and J. De Villiers (Eds.), Language processing and language acquisition (pp. 1-11). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
31. Frazier, L., & Fodor, J. D. (1978). The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition, 6, 291-325.
32. Frazier, L., & Rayner, R. (1982). Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 178-210.
33. Freedman, S. E., & Forster, K. I. (1985). The psychological status of overgenerated sentences. Cognition, 19, 101-86.
34. Garnham, A. (1994). Psychological processes and understanding. In G. Brown, K. Malmjær, A. Pollitt, & J. Williams (Eds.), Language and understanding (pp. 99-114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
35. Gass, S. M. (1987). The resolution of conflicts among competing systems: A bidirectional perspective. Applied Psycholinguistics, 8, 329-350.
36. Gleitman, L. (1990). The structural sources of verb meaning. Language Acquisition, 1, 3-55.
37. Grimshaw, J. (1990). Argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
38. Haegeman, L. (1994). Introduction to government and binding theory (2nd ed). Oxford: Blackwell.
39. Hale, K., & Keyser, S. J. (1993). On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. In K. Hale & S. J. Keyser (Eds.), The view from building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger (pp. 53-110). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
40. Harley, B., Howard, J., & Hart, D. (1995). Second language processing at different ages: Do younger learners pay more attention to prosodic cues to sentence structure? Language Learning, 45, 43-71.
41. Harrington, M. (1987). Processing transfer: Language-specific processing strategies as a source of interlanguage variation. Applied Psycholinguistics, 8, 351-377.
42. Heilenman, L. K., & McDonald, J. L. (1993). Processing strategies in L2 learners of French: The role of transfer. Language Learning, 43, 507-557.
43. Juffs, A. (1996). Semantics-syntax correspondences in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 12, 177-221.
44. Juffs, A., & Harrington, M. (1995). Parsing effects in second language sentence processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition., 17, 483-516.
45. Kail, M. (1989). Cue validity, cue cost, and processing types in sentence comprehension in French and Spanish. In B. MacWhinney & E. Bates (Eds.), The crosslinguistic study of sentence processing (pp. 77-117). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
46. Kasher, A. (1991). Pragmatics and the modularity of mind. In S. Davies (Ed.), Pragmatics: A reader (pp. 567-582). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
47. Kilborn, K. (1989). Sentence processing in a second language: The timing of transfer. Language and Speech, 32, 1-23.
48. Kilborn, K. (1994). Learning a language late: Second language acquisition in adults. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 917-944). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
49. Kilborn, K., & Cooreman, A. (1987). Sentence interpretation strategies in adult Dutch-English bilinguals. Applied Psycholinguistics, 8, 415-431.
50. Kilborn, K., & Ito, T. (1989). Sentence processing strategies in adult bilinguals. In B. MacWhinney & E. Bates (Eds.), The crosslinguistic study of sentence processing (pp. 257-291). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
51. Leech, G. N. (1971). Meaning and the English verb London: Longman.
52. Levelt, W. J. M., Zwanenburg, W., & Ouweneel, G. F:. E. (1970). Ambiguous surface structure and phonetic form in French. Foundations of Language, 6, 260-273.
53. Liu, H., Bates, E., & Li, P. (1992). Sentence interpretation in bilingual speakers of English and Chinese. Applied Psycholinguistics, 13, 451-484.
54. MacDonald, M. C. (1993). The interaction of lexical and syntactic ambiguity. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 692-715.
55. MacWhinney, B. (1987a). Applying the competition model to bilingualism. Applied Psycholinguistics, 8, 315-327.
56. MacWhinney, B. (1987b). The competition model. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition (pp. 249-308). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
57. MacWhinney, B. (1992). Competition and transfer in second language learning. In R. J. Harris, (Ed.), Cognitive processing in bilinguals (pp. 371-390). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
58. McDonald, J. L., & Heilenman, L. K. (1991). Determinants of cue strength in adult first and second language speakers of French. Applied Psycholinguistics, 12, 313-348.
59. Miao, X. (1981). Word order and semantic strategies in Chinese sentence comprehension. International Journal of Psycholinguistics, 8, 23-33.
60. Miller, G. A., & Chomsky, N. (1963). Finitary models of language users. In R. D. Luce, R. R. Bush, & E. Galanter (Eds.), Handbook of mathematical psychology (pp. 419-492). New York: Wiley.
61. Myles, F. (1995). Interaction between linguistic theory and language processing in SLA. Second Language Research, 11, 235-266.
62. Nicol, J. L. (1996a). Introduction. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25, 1-3.
63. Nicol, J. L. (1996b). What can prosody tell a parser? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25, 179-192.
64. Pesetsky, D. M. (1995). Zero syntax: Experiencers and cascades. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
65. Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
66. Pritchett, B. L. (1988). Garden path phenomena and the grammatical basis of language processing. Language, 64, 539-576.
67. Pritchett, B. L. (1992). Grammatical competence and parsing performance. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
68. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.
69. Rayner, K., Carlson, M., & Frazier, L. (1983). The interaction of syntax and semantics during sentence processing: Eye movements in the analysis of semantically biased sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 22, 358-374.
70. Rayner, K., & Frazier, L. (1987). Parsing temporarily ambiguous complements. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 39A, 657-673.
71. Reid, J. (1987). The learning style preferences of ESL students. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 87-111.
72. Ritchie, W. C., & Bhatia, T. (1996). Second language acquisition: Introduction, foundations, and overview. In W. C. Ritchie and T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 1-46). New York: Academic Press.
73. Sag, I. (1991). Linguistic theory and natural language processing. In E. Klein & F. Veltman (Eds.), Natural language and speech: Symposium proceedings, Brussels, November 26/27, 1991 (pp. 69-83). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
74. Sasaki, Y. (1991). English and Japanese interlanguage comprehension strategies: An analysis based on the Competition Model. Applied Psycholinguistics, 12, 47-73.
75. Schachter, J., & Yip, V. (1990). Grammaticality judgments: Why does anyone object to subject extraction? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 379-392.
76. Sedivy, J. C., & Spivey-Knowlton, M. (1994). The use of structural, lexical, and pragmatic information in parsing attachment ambiguities. In C. Clifton, Jr., L. Frazier, & K. Rayner (Eds.), Perspectives on sentence processing (pp. 389-413). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
77. Smith, N. V., & Tsimpli, I. M. (1995). The mind of a savant: Language-learning and modularity. Oxford: Blackwell.
78. Sperber, D., Cara, F., & Girotto, V. (1995). Relevance theory explains the selection task. Cognition, 57, 31-95.
79. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
80. Spivey-Knowlton, M., & Sedivy, J. C. (1995). Resolving attachment ambiguities with multiple constraints. Cognition, 55, 227-267.
81. Steedman, M., & Altmann, G. (1989). Ambiguity in context: A reply. Language and Cognitive Processes, 4, 211-234.
82. Tanenhaus, M. K., Boland, J., Garnsey, S. M., & Carlson, G. N. (1989). Lexical structure in parsing long-distance dependencies. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18, 37-50.
83. Vaid, J., & Pandit, R. (1991). Sentence interpretation in normal and aphasic Hindi speakers. Brain and Language, 41, 250-274.
84. White, L. ( 1995). Psych verbs and the T/SM restriction : What do L2 learners know? In P. Lostinen (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1995 Canadian Linguistics Association Annual Conference (pp. 615-625). Toronto: University of Toronto.
85. White, L., Brown, C., Bruhn-Garavito, J., Chen, D., Hirakawa, M., & Montrul, S. (in press). Psych verbs in second language acquisition. In E. Klein & G. Martohardjono (Eds.), Second language acquisition and generative grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
86. Wilson, D. & Sperber, D. (1991). Pragmatics and modularity. In S. Davis (Ed.), Pragmatics: A reader (pp. 583-595). New York: Oxford University Press.
87. Wulfeck, B. B., Juarez, L. A., Bates, E., & Kilborn, K. (1986). Sentence interpretation strategies in healthy and aphasic bilingual adults. In J. Vaid (Ed.), Language processing in bilinguals: Psycholinguistics and neurological perspectives (pp. 199-219). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.