1887
Volume 7, Issue 5
  • ISSN 1879-9264
  • E-ISSN: 1879-9272
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

We report the results from an eye-movement monitoring study investigating native (L1) and non-native (L2) speakers’ real-time processing of antecedent-contained deletion (ACD), a type of verb phrase ellipsis in which the ellipsis gap forms part of its own antecedent. The resulting interpretation problem is traditionally thought to be solved by quantifier raising, a covert scope-shifting operation that serves to remove the gap from within its antecedent. Our L2 group comprised advanced, native German-speaking L2 learners of English. The analysis of the eye-movement data showed that both L1 and L2 English speakers tried to recover the missing verb phrase after encountering the gap. Only the native speakers showed evidence of ellipsis resolution being affected by quantification, however. No effects of quantification following gap detection were found in the L2 group, by contrast, indicating that recovery of the elided material was accomplished independently from the object’s quantificational status in this group.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/lab.15006.box
2016-06-24
2019-07-16
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Allan, D.
    (2004) The Oxford Placement Test. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Arregui, A. , Clifton, C. , Frazier, L. , & Moulton, K.
    (2006) Processing elided verb phrases with flawed antecedents: The recycling hypothesis. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 232–246. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2006.02.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.02.005 [Google Scholar]
  3. Breakstone, M.Y. , Cremers, A. , Fox, D. , & Hackl, M.
    (2011) On the analysis of scope ambiguities in comparative constructions: Converging evidence from real-time sentence processing and offline data. In N. Ashton , A. Chereches , & D. Lutz (Eds.), Proceedings of SALT21 (pp.712–731). Cornell University Department of Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Carminati, M. , Frazier, L. , & Rayner, K.
    (2002) Bound variables and c-command. Journal of Semantics, 19, 1–34. doi: 10.1093/jos/19.1.1
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/19.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  5. Chung, E.S.
    (2013) Sources of difficulty in L2 scope judgments. Second Language Research, 29, 285–310. doi: 10.1177/0267658312464969
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658312464969 [Google Scholar]
  6. Clahsen, H. & Felser, C.
    (2006) How native-like is non-native language processing?Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, (12), 564–570. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2006.10.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.10.002 [Google Scholar]
  7. Cormack, A.
    (1984) VP anaphora: variables and scope. In F. Landman & F. Veltman (Eds.), Varieties of formal semantics (pp.81–102). Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Culicover, P. , & Jackendoff, R.
    (2005) Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199271092.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199271092.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  9. Dallas, A. & Kaan, E.
    (2008) Second language processing of filler-gap dependencies by late learners. Language and Linguistics Compass, 2. doi: 10.1111/j.1749‑818X.2008.00056.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00056.x [Google Scholar]
  10. Dalrymple, M. , Shieber, S. , & Pereira, F.
    (1991) Ellipsis and higher order unification. Linguistics and Philosophy, 14, 399–452. doi: 10.1007/BF00630923
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00630923 [Google Scholar]
  11. Dekydtspotter, L. , & Miller, A.K.
    (2013) Inhibitive and facilitative priming induced by traces in the processing of wh-dependencies in a second language. Second Language Research, 29, 345–372. doi: 10.1177/0267658312467030
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658312467030 [Google Scholar]
  12. Diesing, M.
    (1992) Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Duffield, N. , & Matsuo, A.
    (2009) Native-speakers’ vs. L2 learners sensitivity to parallelism in VP-Ellipsis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 1–31. doi: 10.1017/S0272263109090044
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109090044 [Google Scholar]
  14. Duffield, N. , Matsuo, A. , & Roberts, L.
    (2009) Factoring out the parallelism effect in VP-ellipsis: English vs. Dutch contrasts. Second Language Research, 25, 427–467. doi: 10.1177/0267658309349425
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658309349425 [Google Scholar]
  15. Felser, C.
    (2015) Native vs. non-native processing of discontinuous dependencies. Second Language, 14.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Felser, C. , & Cunnings, I.
    (2012) Processing reflexives in English as a second language: The role of structural and discourse-level constraints. Applied Psycholinguistics, 33, 571–603. doi: 10.1017/S0142716411000488
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716411000488 [Google Scholar]
  17. Felser, C. , & Roberts, L.
    (2007) Processing wh-dependencies in a second language: A cross-modal priming study. Second Language Research, 23, 9–36. doi: 10.1177/0267658307071600
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658307071600 [Google Scholar]
  18. Frazier, L. , & Clifton, C.
    (2000) On bound variable interpretations: The LF-only hypothesis. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29, 125–140. doi: 10.1023/A:1005136826534
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005136826534 [Google Scholar]
  19. (2001) Parsing coordinates and ellipsis: Copy alpha. Syntax, 4, 1–22. doi: 10.1111/1467‑9612.00034
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9612.00034 [Google Scholar]
  20. (2005) The syntax-discourse divide: Processing ellipsis. Syntax, 8, 121–174. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑9612.2005.00077.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2005.00077.x [Google Scholar]
  21. Gibson, E. , Jacobson, P. , Graff, P. , Mahowald, K. , Fedorenko, E. , & Piantadosi, S.T.
    (2014) A pragmatic account of complexity in definite Antecedent-Contained-Deletion relative clauses. Journal of Semantics. Published online, doi:10.1093/jos/ffu006
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffu006 [Google Scholar]
  22. Ginzburg, J. , & Sag, I.A.
    (2000) Interrogative investigations. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Hackl, M. , Koster-Hale, J. , & Varvoutis, J.
    (2012) Quantification and ACD: evidence from real-time sentence processing. Journal of Semantics, 29, 145–206. doi: 10.1093/jos/ffr009
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffr009 [Google Scholar]
  24. Hardt, D.
    (1993) VP ellipsis and contextual interpretation. Technical Reports (CIS). Paper 417. repository.upenn.edu/cis_reports/417.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Harley, H.
    (2002) ACD, WCO and QR of DPs. Linguistic Inquiry, 33, 659–664. doi: 10.1162/ling.2002.33.4.659
    https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2002.33.4.659 [Google Scholar]
  26. Heim, I. , & Kratzer, A.
    (1998) Semantics in Generative Grammar. Blackwell, Malden, MA.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Hopp, H.
    (2009) The syntax-discourse interface in near-native L2 acquisition: Off-line and on-line performance. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12, 463–483. doi: 10.1017/S1366728909990253
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728909990253 [Google Scholar]
  28. Hornstein, N.
    (1994) An argument for minimalism: The case of antecedent-contained deletion. Linguistic Inquiry, 25, 455–480.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Ionin, T. , Luchkina, T. , & Stoops, A.
    (2014) Quantifier scope and scrambling in the second language acquisition of Russian. In U. Minai et al. (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 5th Conference on Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition–North America (pp.169–180). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Jacobson, P.
    (1998) Direct compositionality and variable-free semantics: The case of antecedent contained deletion. In K. Johnson (Ed.), Topics in ellipsis (pp.30–68). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Just, M.A. , & Carpenter, P.
    (1980) A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review, 87, 329–354. doi: 10.1037/0033‑295X.87.4.329
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.87.4.329 [Google Scholar]
  32. Kaplan, J.
    (1984) Obligatory too in English. Language, 60, 510–518. doi: 10.2307/413989
    https://doi.org/10.2307/413989 [Google Scholar]
  33. Kennedy, C.
    (1997) Antecedent contained deletion and the syntax of quantification. Linguistic Inquiry, 28, 662–688.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Kiguchi, H. , & Thornton, R.
    (2004) Binding principles and ACD constructions in child grammars. Syntax, 7, 234–271. doi: 10.1111/j.1368‑0005.2004.00071.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1368-0005.2004.00071.x [Google Scholar]
  35. Lobeck, A.
    (1995) Ellipsis: Functional Heads, Licensing and Identification. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Marinis, T. , Roberts, L. , Felser, C. , & Clahsen, H.
    (2005) Gaps in second language sentence processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 53–78. doi: 10.1017/S0272263105050035
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263105050035 [Google Scholar]
  37. Marsden, H.
    (2004) Quantifier scope in non-native Japanese: A comparative interlanguage study of Chinese, English, and Korean-speaking learners. PhD dissertation, University of Durham.
  38. Martin, A.E. , & McElree, B.
    (2008) A content-addressable pointer mechanism underlies comprehension of verb-phrase ellipsis. Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 879–906. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2007.06.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.06.010 [Google Scholar]
  39. May, R.
    (1985) Logical form: its structure and derivation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Merchant, J.
    (2001) The syntax of silence: Sluicing, islands, and the theory of ellipsis. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Murphy, G.L.
    (1985) Processes of understanding anaphora. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 290–303. doi: 10.1016/0749‑596X(85)90029‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(85)90029-4 [Google Scholar]
  42. Patterson, C. , Trompelt, H. , & Felser, C.
    (2014) The online application of binding condition B in native and non-native pronoun resolution. Frontiers in Psychology, 5: 147. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00147.
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00147 [Google Scholar]
  43. Phillips, C. , & Parker, D.
    (2014) The psycholinguistics of ellipsis. Lingua, 151, 78–95. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2013.10.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2013.10.003 [Google Scholar]
  44. Rayner, K.
    (1998) Eye-movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 372–422. doi: 10.1037/0033‑2909.124.3.372
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.3.372 [Google Scholar]
  45. Roberts, L. , Gullberg, M. , & Indefrey, P.
    (2008) Online pronoun resolution in L2 discourse: L1 influence and general learner effects. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 333–357. doi: 10.1017/S0272263108080480
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263108080480 [Google Scholar]
  46. Rosales Sequeiros, X.
    (2004) Interpretation of reflexive anaphora in L2 VP-ellipsis: Relevance Theory and paradigms of explanation. Second Language Research20, 256–280. doi: 10.1191/0267658304sr240oa
    https://doi.org/10.1191/0267658304sr240oa [Google Scholar]
  47. Ross, J.R.
    (1969) Guess who?In R.I. Binnick , A. Davidson , G.M. Green & J.L. Morgan (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society (pp.252–286). Chicago, IL: CLS.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Sag, I.A.
    (1976) Deletion and Logical Form. MIT dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Shapiro, L.P. , & Hestvik, A.
    (1995) On-line comprehension of VP-ellipsis: Syntactic reconstruction and semantic influence. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 24, 517–532. doi: 10.1007/BF02143165
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02143165 [Google Scholar]
  50. Shapiro, L.P. , Hestvik, A. , Lesan, L. , & Garcia, A.R.
    (2003) Charting the time-course of sentence processing: Reconstructing missing arguments in VP-ellipsis constructions. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 1–19. doi: 10.1016/S0749‑596X(03)00026‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-596X(03)00026-3 [Google Scholar]
  51. Sorace, A.
    (2011) Pinning down the concept of “interface” in bilingualism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1, 1–33. doi: 10.1075/lab.1.1.01sor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.1.1.01sor [Google Scholar]
  52. Sugawara, A. , Kotek, H. , Hackl, M. , & Wexler, K.
    (2013) Long vs. short QR: Evidence from the acquisition of ACD. Proceedings of Boston University Conference on Language Development (BUCLD)37. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Syrett, K. , & Lidz, J.
    (2009) Quantifier Raising in 4-year-olds. Language Acquisition, 16, 67–81. doi: 10.1080/10489220902769226
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10489220902769226 [Google Scholar]
  54. (2011) The locality of QR: Evidence from children’s interpretations of antecedent contained deletion. Linguistic Inquiry, 42, 305–337. doi: 10.1162/LING_a_00043
    https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00043 [Google Scholar]
  55. Szabolcsi, A.
    (2014) Quantification and ACD: What is the evidence from real-time processing evidence for?A reply to Hackl et al. (2012) Journal of Semantics, 31, 135–145. doi: 10.1093/jos/ffs025
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffs025 [Google Scholar]
  56. Tanenhaus, M. , & Carlson, G.N.
    (1990) Comprehension of deep and surface verb phrase anaphors. Language and Cognitive Processes, 5, 257–280. doi: 10.1080/01690969008407064
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690969008407064 [Google Scholar]
  57. Winkler, S.
    (2005) Ellipsis and focus in generative grammar. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110890426
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110890426 [Google Scholar]
  58. Ying, H.G.
    (2005) Relevance and second language learners’ interpretation of reflexive anaphora in VP-ellipsis. Language Sciences, 27, 551–570. doi: 10.1016/j.langsci.2005.02.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2005.02.003 [Google Scholar]
  59. Yoshida, M. , Walsh Dickey, M. , & Sturt, P.
    (2013) Predictive processing of syntactic structure: Sluicing and ellipsis in real-time sentence processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28, 272–302. doi: 10.1080/01690965.2011.622905
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2011.622905 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/lab.15006.box
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/lab.15006.box
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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