1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Cognitive Linguistic Studies
  4. Volume 12, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 12, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2213-8722
  • E-ISSN: 2213-8730
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The present study aimed to identify whether different modes of presentation have an effect on the cognitive processing of ambiguous relative clauses (RCs) in English-as-a-foreign-language (EFL) learners. The study used different online modes of presentation, in which the ambiguous RCs were presented in different conditions to the participants. The participants were 135 L1-Persian EFL learners who were randomly assigned to three modes of presentation, namely online ( = 45), timed online ( = 45), and self-paced online ( = 45). The stimuli used in the study were structurally ambiguous RCs. The participants were asked to read the sentences appearing on the laptop monitor one by one and decide whether the RC was related to any of the noun phrases. Using the software , error rates were measured to determine the effect of mode of presentation on the EFL learners’ cognitive processing of ambiguous RCs. The data revealed that the mode of presentation had a significant effect on their cognitive processing of ambiguous RCs. The study results underscore the notion that mode of presentation has a strong effect on cognitive processing of ambiguous RCs in second language education.

© 2025 John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00124.rah
2025-06-02
2025-06-24

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00124.rah
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Ahmadian, M. J.
    (2012) The effects of guided careful online planning on complexity, accuracy and fluency in intermediate EFL learners’ oral production: The case of English articles. Language Teaching Research, 16(1), 129–149. 10.1177/1362168811425433
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168811425433 [Google Scholar]
  2. Ahmadian, M. J., Tavakoli, M., & Dastjerdi, H. V.
    (2015) The combined effects of online planning and task structure on complexity, accuracy, and fluency of L2 speech. The Language Learning Journal, 43(1), 41–56. 10.1080/09571736.2012.681795
     https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2012.681795 [Google Scholar]
  3. Akal, T.
    (2021) Recency preference in ambiguous relative clause attachment in Turkish. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 17(S1), 139–159. 10.17263/jlls.903361
     https://doi.org/10.17263/jlls.903361 [Google Scholar]
  4. Arabmofrad, A., & Marefat, H.
    (2008) Relative Clause Attachment Ambiguity Resolution in Persian. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11(1), 29–49.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Baleghizadeh, S., & Shahri, M. N. N.
    (2017) The effect of online planning, strategic planning and rehearsal across two proficiency levels. The Language Learning Journal, 45(2), 171–184. 10.1080/09571736.2013.808258
     https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2013.808258 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bidaoui, A., Foote, R., & Abunasser, M.
    (2016) Relative clause attachment in native and L2 Arabic. International Journal of Arabic Linguistics, 2(2), 75–95.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Butterworth, B.
    (1980) Some constraints on models of language production. InB. Butterworth (Ed.), Language production (pp.140–153). New York: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Caffarra, S., Molinaro, N., Davidson, D., & Carreiras, M.
    (2015) Second language syntactic processing revealed through event-related potentials: An empirical review. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 511, 31–47. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2015.01.010
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2015.01.010 [Google Scholar]
  9. Dekydtspotter, L., Donaldson, B., Edmonds, A. C., Fultz, A. L., & Petrush, R. A.
    (2008) Syntactic and prosodic computations in the resolution of relative clause attachment ambiguity by English-French learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30(4), 453–480. 10.1017/S0272263108080728
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263108080728 [Google Scholar]
  10. 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(4), 453–485. 10.1080/01690960400023485
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960400023485 [Google Scholar]
  11. Desmet, T., & Declercq, M.
    (2006) Cross-linguistic priming of syntactic hierarchical configuration information. Journal of Memory and Language, 54(4), 610–632. 10.1016/j.jml.2005.12.007
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2005.12.007 [Google Scholar]
  12. Dinçtopal-Deniz, N.
    (2010) Relative clause attachment preferences of Turkish L2 speakers of English: Shallow parsing in the L2?. InB. VanPatten & J. Jegerski (Eds.), Research in second language processing and parsing (pp.27–64). New York: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lald.53.02din
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lald.53.02din [Google Scholar]
  13. Dong, Y., Wen, Y., Zeng, X., & Ji, Y.
    (2015) Exploring the cause of English pronoun gender errors by Chinese learners of English: Evidence from the self-paced reading paradigm. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 44(6), 733–747. 10.1007/s10936‑014‑9314‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-014-9314-6 [Google Scholar]
  14. 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(4), 529–557. 10.1017/S0272263103000238
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263103000238 [Google Scholar]
  15. Dussias, P. E., & Sagarra, N.
    (2007) The effect of exposure on syntactic parsing in Spanish-English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10(1), 101–116. 10.1017/S1366728906002847
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728906002847 [Google Scholar]
  16. Ellis, R.
    (2003) Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Ellis, R., & Yuan, F.
    (2004) The effects of planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy in second language narrative writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(1), 59–84. 10.1017/S0272263104261034
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263104261034 [Google Scholar]
  18. Felser, C., Marinis, T., & Clahsen, H.
    (2003a) Children’s processing of ambiguous sentences: A study of relative clause attachment. Language Acquisition: A Journal of Developmental Linguistics, 11(3), 127–163. 10.1207/s15327817la1103_1
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327817la1103_1 [Google Scholar]
  19. Felser, C., Roberts, L., Marinis, T., & Gross, R.
    (2003b) The processing of ambiguous sentences by first and second language learners of English. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24(3), 453–489. 10.1017/S0142716403000237
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716403000237 [Google Scholar]
  20. Fernández, E. M.
    (1999) Processing strategies in second language acquisition: Some Preliminary Results. InE. C. Klein & G. Martohardjono (Eds.), The development of second language grammars: A generative approach (pp.217–239). New York: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lald.18.12fer
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lald.18.12fer [Google Scholar]
  21. (2002) Relative clause attachment in bilinguals and monolinguals. InR. R. Heredia & J. Altarriba (Eds.), Bilingual sentence processing (pp.187–215). Amsterdam: Elsevier. 10.1016/S0166‑4115(02)80011‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(02)80011-5 [Google Scholar]
  22. Frazier, L., & Fodor, J. D.
    (1978) The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition, 6(4), 291–325. 10.1016/0010‑0277(78)90002‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(78)90002-1 [Google Scholar]
  23. Frenck-Mestre, C.
    (2002) An on-line look at sentence processing in the second language. InR. R. Heredia & J. Altarriba (Eds.), Bilingual sentence processing (pp.217–236). Amsterdam: Elsevier. 10.1016/S0166‑4115(02)80012‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(02)80012-7 [Google Scholar]
  24. Ghavamnia, M., Tavakoli, M., & Esteki, M.
    (2013) The effect of pre-task and online planning conditions on complexity, accuracy and fluency on EFL learners’ written production. Porta Linguarum, 201, 31–43. 10.30827/Digibug.29559
     https://doi.org/10.30827/Digibug.29559 [Google Scholar]
  25. Gibson, E., Pearlmutter, N., Canseco-Gonzalez, E., & Hickok, G.
    (1996) Recency preference in the human sentence processing mechanism. Cognition, 59(1), 23–59. 10.1016/0010‑0277(95)00687‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(95)00687-7 [Google Scholar]
  26. Goad, H., Guzzo, N. B., & White, L.
    (2020) Parsing ambiguous relative clauses in L2 English: Learner sensitivity to prosodic cues. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 43(1), 83–108. 10.1017/S0272263120000285
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263120000285 [Google Scholar]
  27. Grillo, N., & Costa, J.
    (2014) A novel argument for the universality of parsing principles. Cognition, 1331(11), 156–187. 10.1016/j.cognition.2014.05.019
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.05.019 [Google Scholar]
  28. 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(1), 73–112. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2009.00501.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00501.x [Google Scholar]
  29. Hemforth, B., Fernandez, S., Clifton Jr, C., Frazier, L., Konieczny, L., & Walter, M.
    (2015) Relative clause attachment in German, English, Spanish and French: Effects of position and length. Lingua, 166(A), 43–64. 10.1016/j.lingua.2015.08.010
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2015.08.010 [Google Scholar]
  30. Hopp, H.
    (2014) Working memory effects in the L2 processing of ambiguous relative clauses. Language Acquisition, 21(3), 250–278. 10.1080/10489223.2014.892943
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10489223.2014.892943 [Google Scholar]
  31. Iudina, M. V., & Fedorova, O. V.
    (2009) Syntactic ambiguity resolution: Priming and self-priming effects. Paper fromComputational Linguistics and Intellectual Technologies, 8(15), 554–569.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Jackson, C. N., & Roberts, L.
    (2010) 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, 31(4), 671–691. 10.1017/S0142716410000196
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716410000196 [Google Scholar]
  33. Jegerski, J., Keating, G. D., & VanPatten, B.
    (2016) On-line relative clause attachment strategy in heritage speakers of Spanish. International Journal of Bilingualism, 20(3), 254–268. 10.1177/1367006914552288
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006914552288 [Google Scholar]
  34. Jun, S.-A., & Koike, C.
    (2008) Default prosody and relative clause attachment in Japanese. Japanese-Korean Linguistics, 131, 5–41.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Karimi, M. N., Samadi, E., & Babaii, E.
    (2021) Relative clause attachment ambiguity resolution in L1-persian learners of L2 English: The effects of semantic priming and proficiency. Journal of Modern Research in English Language Studies, 8(3), 153–185. 10.30479/jmrels.2020.13469.1666
     https://doi.org/10.30479/jmrels.2020.13469.1666 [Google Scholar]
  36. Kim, J. H., & Christianson, K.
    (2013) Sentence complexity and working memory effects in ambiguity resolution. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 42(5), 393–411. 10.1007/s10936‑012‑9224‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-012-9224-4 [Google Scholar]
  37. (2017) Working memory effects on L1 and L2 processing of ambiguous relative clauses by Korean L2 learners of English. Second Language Research, 33(3), 365–388. 10.1177/0267658315623322
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658315623322 [Google Scholar]
  38. Kim, S. H., & Kim, J. H.
    (2012) Frequency effects in L2 multiword unit processing: Evidence from self-paced reading. TESOL Quarterly, 46(4), 831–841. 10.1002/tesq.66
     https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.66 [Google Scholar]
  39. Lee, J. F., Malovrh, P. A., Doherty, S., & Nichols, A.
    (2022) A self-paced reading (SPR) study of the effects of processing instruction on the L2 processing of active and passive sentences. Language Teaching Research, 26(6), 1133–1157. 10.1177/1362168820914025
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820914025 [Google Scholar]
  40. Malakooti, N., Rezai, M. J., & Samavarchi, L.
    (2020) Ambiguity resolution of English relative clauses by Persian learners of English. Journal of New Advances in English Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics, 2(1), 220–258.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Marefat, H., & Farzizadeh, B.
    (2018) Relative clause ambiguity resolution in L1 and L2: Are processing strategies transferred?. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 21(1), 125–161.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Marefat, H., & Meraji, M.
    (2005) Parsing preferences in structurally ambiguous relative clauses: L1 vs. L2. Journal of Humanities, 12(1), 111–126.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Marefat, H., Samadi, E., & Yaseri, M.
    (2015) Semantic priming effect on relative clause attachment ambiguity resolution in L2. Applied Research on English Language, 4(2), 78–95. 10.22108/ARE.2015.15504
     https://doi.org/10.22108/ARE.2015.15504 [Google Scholar]
  44. Marsden, E., Thompson, S., & Plonsky, L.
    (2018) A methodological synthesis of self-paced reading in second language research. Applied Psycholinguistics, 39(5), 861–904. 10.1017/S0142716418000036
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716418000036 [Google Scholar]
  45. Mitchell, D. C., Brysbaert, M., Grondelaers, S., & Swanepoel, P.
    (2000) Modifier attachment in DutchDutch: Testing aspects of construal theory. InA. Kennedy, R. Radach, D. Heller, & J. Pynte (Eds.), Reading as a perceptual process (pp.493–516). Amsterdam: Elsevier. 10.1016/B978‑008043642‑5/50023‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008043642-5/50023-1 [Google Scholar]
  46. Pan, H.-Y., Schimke, S., & Felser, C.
    (2015) Referential context effects in non-native relative clause ambiguity resolution. International Journal of Bilingualism, 19(3), 298–313. 10.1177/1367006913515769
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006913515769 [Google Scholar]
  47. 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. 10.1017/S0272263103000214
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263103000214 [Google Scholar]
  48. Peirce, J. W.
    (2009) Generating stimuli for neuroscience using PsychoPy. Frontiers in Neuroinformatics, 21, Article 10. 10.3389/neuro.11.010.2008
     https://doi.org/10.3389/neuro.11.010.2008 [Google Scholar]
  49. Pliatsikas, C., & Marinis, T.
    (2013) Processing of regular and irregular past tense morphology in highly proficient second language learners of English: A self-paced reading study. Applied Psycholinguistics, 34(5), 943–970. 10.1017/S0142716412000082
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716412000082 [Google Scholar]
  50. Rahmani Doqaruni, V.
    (2023) The effect of age on cognitive processing of ambiguous relative clauses in second language education. Lingue e Linguaggio, 22(1), 3–18. 10.1418/107016
     https://doi.org/10.1418/107016 [Google Scholar]
  51. Roberts, L.
    (2016) Self-paced reading and L2 grammatical processing. InA. Mackey & E. Marsden (Eds.), Advancing methodology and practice: The IRIS repository of instruments for research into second languages (pp.58–73). New York: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Roberts, L., & Liszka, S. A.
    (2013) Processing tense/aspect-agreement violations on-line in the second language: A self-paced reading study with French and German L2 learners of English. Second Language Research, 29(4), 413–439. 10.1177/0267658313503171
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658313503171 [Google Scholar]
  53. Rodriguez, G.
    (2004) Relative clause attachment preferences in second language learners’ parsing performance. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 10(1), 157–169.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Swets, B., Desmet, T., Hambrick, D. Z., & Ferreira, F.
    (2007) The role of working memory in syntactic ambiguity resolution: A psychometric approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136(1), 64–81. 10.1037/0096‑3445.136.1.64
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.136.1.64 [Google Scholar]
  55. Tabari, M. A.
    (2016) The effects of planning time on complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexical variety in L2 descriptive writing. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 11, Article 10. 10.1186/s40862‑016‑0015‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-016-0015-6 [Google Scholar]
  56. Taheri, M., Davodi, M., & Nasiri, F.
    (2015) The processing of ambiguous sentences by Iranian EFL learners: A study of relative clause attachment. Cumhuriyet Science Journal, 36(3), 1096–1105.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Traxler, M. J.
    (2007) Working memory contributions to relative clause attachment processing: A hierarchical linear modeling analysis. Memory & Cognition, 351, 1107–1121. 10.3758/BF03193482
     https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193482 [Google Scholar]
  58. Vafaee, P., Suzuki, Y., & Kachisnke, I.
    (2017) Validating grammaticality judgement tests: Evidence from two new psycholinguistic measures. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39(1), 59–95. 10.1017/S0272263115000455
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263115000455 [Google Scholar]
  59. VanPatten, B., Keating, G. D., & Leeser, M. J.
    (2012) Missing verbal inflections as a representational problem: Evidence from self-paced reading. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 2(2), 109–140. 10.1075/lab.2.2.01pat
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.2.2.01pat [Google Scholar]
  60. Yuan, F., & Ellis, R.
    (2003) The effects of pre-task planning and on-line planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 monologic oral production. Applied Linguistics, 24(1), 1–27. 10.1093/applin/24.1.1
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/24.1.1 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00124.rah
Loading
The effect of mode of presentation on EFL learners’ cognitive processing of ambiguous relative clauses
Cognitive Linguistic Studies 12, 52 (2025); https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.00124.rah
/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00124.rah
/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00124.rah
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): ambiguous relative clauses; cognitive processing; EFL learners; error rate; mode of presentation

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error