Prepositional Phrase Attachment Global Ambiguity Resolution in Semantically Biased and Neutral Conditions by L2 Learners

Hadi Maghsoud

Abstract


This study investigated the prepositional phrase attachment preferences of Persian speaking second language learners
of English in dealing with globally ambiguous sentences. Results are reported from 34 participants across two
proficiency levels who took part in an online reading task and an offline reading task. In both tasks, the preferences
were examined in biased and neutral conditions; in the former the verb was semantically biased towards the DP
inside the PP (e.g. Peter killed the man with a gun) and in the latter condition there was no bias (e.g. Peter met the
man with a gun). The findings showed that in both online and offline reading tasks participants resolved the
ambiguity by attaching the ambiguous DP to the verb, being influenced by the semantic relationship between the two,
but in the neutral condition, the preferences were almost equal for both interpretations. The proficiency level did not
influence preferences except for a slight interaction effect in the offline reading task. The findings indicate that L2
learners of different proficiency levels rely on semantics rather than syntax in processing globally ambiguous
sentences. The findings of this study in the neutral condition, are in line with the unrestricted race model. However,
this model and the constraint-based theories fail to provide a proper explanation for the biased and neutral conditions
respectively. It is suggested that discrepancy between the assumptions of the constraint-based theories and the
unrestricted race model seems to be due to ignoring the role of semantic relationship between phrases in sentences
used for elicitation of parsing preferences; a factor that needs to be taken into account in future studies.


Full Text:

PDF

References


Aissen, J. (2003). Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 21(3), 435-483.

Altmann, G., & Steedman, M. (1988). Interaction with context during human sentence processing. Cognition, 30, 191-238.

Branigan, H. P., Pickering, M. J., & McLean, J. F. (2005). Priming prepositional-phrase attachment during comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, (3), 468–481.

Britt, M. A., Perfetti, C. A., Garrod, S., & Rayner, K. (1992). Parsing in discourse: context effects and their limits. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 293-314.

Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006). How native-like is non-native language processing? TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences, 10(12), 564-570.

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.

Cunnings, I. (2016). Parsing and working memory in bilingual sentence processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, doi:10.1017/S1366728916000675

Dussias, P. E. (2003). Syntactic ambiguity resolution in L2 learners: Some effects of bilinguality on L1 and L2 processing strategies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 529–557.

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, 453–489.

Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1982). Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 178-210.

Frenck-Mestre, C., & Pynte, J. (1997). Syntactic ambiguity resolution while reading in second and native languages. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 50A, 119–148.

Fukumura, K., & van Gompel, R. P. G. (2011). The effect of animacy on the choice of referring expression. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26 (10), 1472-1504.

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.

Hopp, H. (2006). Syntactic features and reanalysis in near-native processing. Second Language Research, 22(3), 369-397.

Jackson, C. N. & Dussias, P. E. (2009). Cross-linguistic differences and their impact on L2 sentence processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12 (1), 65 – 82.

Marinis, T., Roberts, L., Felser, C., & Clahsen, H. (2005). Gaps in second language processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 53–78.

McArthur, T., & McArthur R. (1998). Concise Oxford Companion to the English Language, Oxford University Press. Retrieved April 27, 2017, from http://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps.

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.

Roberts, L., Gullberg, M., & Indefrey, P. (2008). On-line pronoun resolution in L2 discourse: L1 influence and general learner effects. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 333-357.

Spivey-Knowlton, M. & Sedivy, J. C. (1994). Resolving attachment ambiguities with multiple constraints. Cognition, 55, 227-267.

Tanenhaus, M. K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., Eberhard, K. M., & Sedivy, J. C. (1995). Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science, 268 (5217), 1632-1634.

Traxler, M. J., Pickering, M. J., & Clifton, C. (1998). Adjunct attachment is not a form of lexical ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 558–592.

Van-Gompel, R. P. G. (Ed.) (2013). Sentence processing, current issues in the psychology of language. London: Psychology Press.

Van Gompel, R. P. G., Pickering, M. J., & Traxler, M. J. (2000).

Unrestricted race: A new model of syntactic ambiguity resolution. In A. Kennedy, R. Radach, D. Heller, & J. Pynte (Eds.), Reading as a perceptual process (pp. 621-648), Oxford: Elsevier.

Van Gompel, R. P. G., Pickering, M. J., & Traxler, M. J. (2001). Reanalysis in sentence processing: Evidence against current constraint-based and two-stage models. Journal of Memory and Language 45, 225–258.

Witzel, J., Witzel, N., & Nicol, J. (2012). Deeper than shallow: Evidence for structure-based parsing biases in second-language sentence processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 33, 419-456.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.5430/ijelt.v5n2p20

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


International Journal of English Language Teaching     ISSN 2329-7913 (Print)   ISSN 2329-7921 (Online)

Copyright © Sciedu Press

To make sure that you can receive messages from us, please add the 'sciedu.ca' and ‘sciedupress.com’ domains to your e-mail 'safe list'. If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox', please check your 'spam' or 'junk' folder.