Animacy affects the processing of subject-object ambiguities in the second language: Evidence from self-paced reading with German second language learners of Dutch

Applied Psycholinguistics

Volumn 31, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 671-691

  Jackson, Carrie N ^a   Roberts, Leah ^b  

^a PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR PSYCHOLINGUISTICS   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77957231087     PISSN: 01427164     EISSN: 14691817     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0142716410000196     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R., & Gulikers, L. (1995). The CELEX lexical database [CD-ROM]. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania, Linguistic Data Consortium.
2. Bornkessel, I., & Schlesewsky, M. (2006). The extended argument dependency model: A neurocognitive approach to sentence comprehension across languages. Psychological Review, 113, 787-821. (Pubitemid 44629918)
3. Caplan, D., Stanczak, L., & Waters, G. (2008). Syntactic and thematic constraint effects on blood oxygenation level dependent signal correlates of comprehension of relative clauses. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20, 643-656. (Pubitemid 351480956)
4. Chen, E., West, W. D., Waters, G., & Caplan, D. (2006). Determinants of BOLD signal correlates of processing object-extracted relative clauses. Cortex, 42, 591-604. (Pubitemid 44842062)
5. Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006). Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 3-42. (Pubitemid 43388794)
6. Cuetos, F., & Mitchell, D. C. (1988). Cross-linguistic differences in parsing: Restrictions on the use of the late closure strategy in Spanish. Cognition, 30, 73-105.
7. Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 450-466.
8. Desmet, T., De Baecke, C., Drieghe, D., Brysbaert, M., & Vonk,W. (2006). Relative clause attachment in Dutch: On-line comprehension corresponds to corpus frequencies when lexical variables are taken into account. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21, 453-485. (Pubitemid 43738876)
9. Dussias, P. E. (2003). Syntactic ambiguity resolution in L2 learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 529-557.
10. Dussias, P. E., & Cramer, T. (2008). Spanish-English L2 speakers? use of subcategorization bias information in the resolution of temporary ambiguity during second language reading. Acta Psychologica, 128, 501-513.
11. Dussias, P. E., & Pinar, P. (in press). Effects of reading span and plausibility in the reanalysis of wh-gaps by Chinese-English L2 speakers. Second Language Research.
12. Dussias, P. E., & Sagarra, N. (2007). The effect of exposure on syntactic parsing in Spanish-English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10, 101-116.
13. Felser, C., Roberts, R., Marinis, T., & Gross, R. (2003). The processing of ambiguous sentences by first and second language learners of English. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24, 453-489. (Pubitemid 37206746)
14. Frazier, L. (1987). Syntactic processing: Evidence from Dutch. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 5, 519-559.
15. Frazier, L., & Flores d?Arcais, G. B. (1989). Filler driven parsing: A study of gap filling in Dutch. Journal of Memory and Language, 8, 331-344.
16. Frenck-Mestre, C. (2005). Ambiguities and anomalies: What can eye movements and event-related potentials reveal about second language processing? In J. F. Kroll & A. M. B. de Groot (Eds.) Handbook of bilingualism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
17. Frenck-Mestre, C., & Pynte, J. (1997). Syntactic ambiguity resolution while reading in second and native languages. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 50A, 119-148. (Pubitemid 127036213)
18. Friederici, A. D., & Frisch, S. (2000). Verb argument structure processing: The role of verb-specific and argument-specific information. Journal of Memory and Language, 43, 476-507.
19. Geerts, G., Haeseryn, W., de Rooij, J., & van den Toorn, M. C. (1984). Algemene Nederlandse spraakkunst [General Dutch grammar]. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.
20. Gibson, E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68, 1-76. (Pubitemid 128424124)
21. Gibson, E., Desmet, T., Grodner, D.,Watson, D., & Ko, K. (2005). Reading relative clauses in English. Cognitive Linguistics, 16, 313-353. (Pubitemid 41151068)
22. Gordon, P. C.,Hendrick, R.,&Johnson, M. (2004). Effects of noun phrase type on sentence complexity. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 97-114. (Pubitemid 38939399)
23. Gorrell, P. (2000). The subject-before-object preference in German clauses. In B. Hemforth & L. Konieczny (Eds.) German sentence processing. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
24. Havik, E., Roberts, L., van Hout, R., Schreuder, R., & Haverkort, M. (2009). Processing subject-object ambiguities in the L2: A self-paced reading study with German L2 learners of Dutch. Language Learning, 59, 73-112.
25. Hemforth, B., Konieczny, L., & Scheepers, C. (2000). Modifier attachment: Relative clauses and coordinations. In B.Hemforth&L.Konieczny (Eds.) German sentence processing. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
26. Hoover, M. L.,&Dwivedi,V.D. (1998). Syntactic processing in skilled bilinguals. Language Learning, 48, 1-29.
27. Hopp, H. (2006). Syntactic features and reanalysis in near-native processing. Second Language Research, 22, 369-397. (Pubitemid 44298307)
28. Jackson, C. N. (2008). Proficiency level and the interaction of lexical and morphosyntactic information during L2 sentence processing. Language Learning, 58, 875-909.
29. Juffs, A. (1998). Main verb versus reduced relative clause ambiguity resolution in L2 sentence processing. Language Learning, 48, 107-147. (Pubitemid 128063651)
30. Juffs, A. (2005). The influence of first language on the processing of wh-movement in English as a second language. Second Language Research, 21, 121-151. (Pubitemid 40572626)
31. Kaan, E. (1997). Processing subject-object ambiguities in Dutch (Groningen Dissertations in Linguistics 20). Groningen: University of Groningen, Department of General Linguistics.
32. Kaan, E. (2001). Effects of NP type on the resolution of word-order ambiguities. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 30, 529-547. (Pubitemid 33750804)
33. Konieczny, L., Hemforth, B., Scheepers, C., & Strube, G. (1997). The role of lexical heads in parsing: Evidence from German. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12, 307-348. (Pubitemid 127092529)
34. Kuperberg, G. R., Kreher, D. A., Sitnikova, T., Caplan, D. N., & Holcomb, P. J. (2007). The role of animacy and thematic relationships in processing active English sentences: Evidence from event related potentials. Brain and Language, 100, 223-237. (Pubitemid 46400816)
35. MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). Lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution, Psychological Review, 101, 676-703.
36. MacWhinney, B. (2005). A unified model of language acquisition. In J. F. Kroll & A. M. B. de Groot (Eds.) Handbook of bilingualism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
37. Mak,W. M.,Vonk,W.,&Schriefers, H. (2002). The influence of animacy on relative clause processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 50-68. (Pubitemid 36161070)
38. Mak, W. M., Vonk, W., & Schriefers, H. (2006). Animacy in processing relative clauses: The hikers that rocks crush. Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 466-490. (Pubitemid 43549015)
39. Marinis, T., Roberts, L., Felser, C., & Clahsen, H. (2005). Gaps in second language processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 53-78.
40. Papadopoulou, D. (2005). Reading-time studies of second language ambiguity resolution. Second Language Research, 21, 98-120. (Pubitemid 40572625)
41. 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, 501-528.
42. Primus, B. (1998). The relative order of recipient and patient in the languages of Europe. In A. Siewierska (Ed.) Constituent order in the languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
43. Roberts, L., & Felser, C. (2010). Plausibility and recovery from garden-paths in second language sentence processing. Manuscript submitted for publication.
44. Schlesewsky, M., Fanselow, G., Kliegl, R., & Krems, J. (2000). Preferences for grammatical functions in the processing of locally ambiguous wh-questions in German. In B. Hemforth&L.Konieczny (Eds.) German sentence processing. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
45. Schriefers, H., Friederici, A. D., & K̈uhn, K. (1995). The processing of locally ambiguous relative clauses in German. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 499-520.
46. Traxler, M. J., Morris, R. K., & Seely, R. E. (2002). Processing subject and object relative clauses: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 69-90.
47. Traxler, M. J., & Pickering, M. J. (1996). Plausibility and the processing of unbounded dependencies: An eye-tracking study. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 454-475.
48. Traxler, M. J., Williams, R. S., Blozis, S. A., & Morris, R. K. (2005). Working memory, animacy, and verb class in the processing of relative clauses. Journal of Memory and Language, 53, 204-224.
49. Vandeweghe, W. (2000). Grammatica van de Nederlandse zin [Grammar of the Dutch sentence]. Leuven, Belgium: Garant.
50. Weckerly, J.,&Kutas,M. (1999).An electrophysiological analysis of animacy effects in the processing of object relative clauses. Psychophysiology, 36, 559-570. (Pubitemid 29357551)