1887
Volume 7, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1879-9264
  • E-ISSN: 1879-9272
GBP
Buy:£15.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Discourse-level factors, such as event structure and the form of referential expressions, play an important role in native speakers’ referential processing. This paper presents an experiment with Japanese- and Korean-speaking learners of English, investigating the extent to which discourse-level biases that have gradient effects in L1 speakers are also implicated in L2 speakers’ coreference choices. Results from a story continuation task indicate that biases involving referential form were remarkably similar for L1 and L2 speakers. In contrast, event structure, indicated by perfective versus imperfective aspect, had a more limited effect on L2 speakers’ referential choices. The L2 results are discussed in light of existing accounts of L1 reference processing, which assume that referential choices are shaped by speakers’ continually updated expectations about what is likely to be mentioned next, and argued to reflect L2 speakers’ reduced reliance on expectations.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/lab.15011.gru
2016-02-04
2018-09-23
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Altmann, G. T. M. , & Kamide, Y.
    (1999) Incremental interpretation at verbs: restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition, 73, 247–264. doi: 10.1016/S0010‑0277(99)00059‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00059-1 [Google Scholar]
  2. Ariel, M.
    (1990) Accessing noun phrase antecedents. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Arnold, J. E.
    (2001) The effects of thematic roles on pronoun use and frequency of reference. Discourse Processes, 31, 137–162. doi: 10.1207/S15326950DP3102_02
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326950DP3102_02 [Google Scholar]
  4. (2010) How speakers refer: the role of accessibility. Language and Linguistics Compass, 4, 187–203. doi: 10.1111/j.1749‑818X.2010.00193.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2010.00193.x [Google Scholar]
  5. Asher, N. , & Lascarides, A.
    (2003) Logics of Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bakeman, R. , & McArthur, D.
    (1996) Picturing repeated measures: Comments on Loftus, Morrison, and others. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 28, 584–589. doi: 10.3758/BF03200546
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03200546 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bardovi-Harlig, K.
    (2000) Tense and aspect in second language acquisition: Form, meaning and use. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Barr, D.
    (2013) Coding categorical variables when analyzing factorial experiments with regression. Retrieved fromtalklab.psy.gla.ac.uk/tvw/catpred/
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Belletti, A. , Bennati, E. , & Sorace, A.
    (2007) Theoretical and developmental issues in the syntax of subjects: Evidence from near-native Italian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 25, 657–689. doi: 10.1007/s11049‑007‑9026‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-007-9026-9 [Google Scholar]
  10. Brown, J. D.
    (1980) Relative merits of four methods for scoring cloze tests. Modern Language Journal, 64, 311–317. doi: 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.1980.tb05198.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1980.tb05198.x [Google Scholar]
  11. Caramazza, A. , Grober, E. , Garvey, C. , & Yates, J.
    (1977) Comprehension of Anaphoric Pronouns. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 16, 601–609. doi: 10.1016/S0022‑5371(77)80022‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(77)80022-4 [Google Scholar]
  12. Carminati, M. N.
    (2002) The processing of Italian subject pronouns. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Chambers, C. G. , & Cooke, H.
    (2009) Lexical competition during second-language listening: Sentence context, but not proficiency, constrains interference from the native lexicon. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 35, 1029–1040.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. DeLong, K. A. , Troyer, M. , & Kutas, M.
    (2014) Pre-processing in sentence comprehension: Sensitivity to likely upcoming meaning and structure. Language and Linguistic Compass, 8, 631–645. doi: 10.1111/lnc3.12093
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12093 [Google Scholar]
  15. DeLong, K. A. , Urbach, T. P. , & Kutas, M.
    (2005) Probabilistic word pre-activation during language comprehension inferred from electrical brain activity. Nature Neuroscience, 8, 1117–1121. doi: 10.1038/nn1504
    https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1504 [Google Scholar]
  16. Federmeier, K. D.
    (2007) Thinking ahead: The role and roots of prediction in language comprehension. Psychophysiology, 44, 491–505. doi: 10.1111/j.1469‑8986.2007.00531.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2007.00531.x [Google Scholar]
  17. Ferretti, T. R. , Rohde, H. , Kehler, A. , & Crutchley, M.
    (2009) Verb aspect, event structure, and coreferential processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 61, 191–205. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2009.04.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2009.04.001 [Google Scholar]
  18. Ferstl, E. C. , Garnham, A. , & Manouilidou, C.
    (2011) Implicit causality bias in English: a corpus of 300 verbs. Behavioral Research Methods, 43, 124–135. doi: 10.3758/s13428‑010‑0023‑2
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-010-0023-2 [Google Scholar]
  19. Foucart, A. , Martin, C. D. , Moreno, E. M. , & Costa, A.
    (2014) Can Bilinguals See It Coming? Word Anticipation in L2 Sentence Reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40, 1461–1469.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Fukumura, K. , van Gompel, P. G.
    (2010) Choosing anaphoric expressions: Do people take into account likelihood of reference?Journal of Memory and Language, 62, 52–66. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2009.09.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2009.09.001 [Google Scholar]
  21. Gabriele, A.
    (2005) The acquisition of aspect in a second language: A bidirectional study of learners of English and Japanese. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). City University of New York Graduate Center.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. (2009) Transfer and transition in the SLA of aspect: A bidirectional study of learners of English and Japanese. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 371–402. doi: 10.1017/S0272263109090342
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109090342 [Google Scholar]
  23. Gatt, A. , Krahmer, E. , van Deemter, K. , & van Gompel, R. P. G.
    (2014) Models and empirical data for the production of referring expressions. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, Special Issue on the Production of Referring Expressions: Models and Empirical Data, 29, 899–911.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Grosz, B. J. , Joshi, A. K. , & Weinstein, S.
    (1995) Centering: A framework for modeling the local coherence of discourse. Computational Linguistics, 21, 203–225.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Gundel, J. K. , Hedberg, N. , & Zacharski, R.
    (1993) Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language, 69, 274–307. doi: 10.2307/416535
    https://doi.org/10.2307/416535 [Google Scholar]
  26. Hobbs, J. R.
    (1979) Coherence and coreference. Cognitive Science, 3, 67–90. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog0301_4
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0301_4 [Google Scholar]
  27. Hopp, H.
    (2009) The syntax-discourse interface in near-native L2 acquisition: Off-line and online performance. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12, 463–483.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Hwang, M. O.
    (1983) Topic continuity/discontinuity in Korean narrative. Korean Linguistics, 3, 47–80. doi: 10.1075/kl.3.05moh
    https://doi.org/10.1075/kl.3.05moh [Google Scholar]
  29. Jaeger, T. F.
    (2008) Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 434–446. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2007.11.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.11.007 [Google Scholar]
  30. Kaan, E.
    (2014) Predictive sentence processing in L2 and L1: What is different?Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 4, 257–282. doi: 10.1075/lab.4.2.05kaa
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.4.2.05kaa [Google Scholar]
  31. Kaan, E. , Dallas, A. , & Wijnen, F.
    (2010) Syntactic predictions in second-language sentence processing. In J.-W. Zwart & M. de Vries (Eds.), Structure preserved. Festschrift in the honor of Jan Koster (pp.207–213). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/la.164.23kaa
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.164.23kaa [Google Scholar]
  32. Kaiser, E.
    (2011) Focusing on pronouns: Consequences of subjecthood, pronominalisation, and contrastive focus. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26, 1625–1666. doi: 10.1080/01690965.2010.523082
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2010.523082 [Google Scholar]
  33. Kehler, A.
    (2002) Coherence, reference, and the theory of grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Kehler, A. , Hayes, E. , & Barner, D.
    (2011) Pragmatically-driven biases in children’s pronoun interpretation. Poster presented atthe 24th annual CUNY conference on human sentence processing, Stanford, CA.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Kehler, A. , Kertz, L. , Rohde, H. , & Elman, J. L.
    (2008) Coherence and coreference revisited. Journal of Semantics, 25, 1–44. doi: 10.1093/jos/ffm018
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffm018 [Google Scholar]
  36. Kehler, A. & Rohde, H.
    (under review). Pronoun Interpretation in a QUD Model of Discourse.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Kilborn, K.
    (1992) On-line integration of grammatical information in a second language. In Harris, R. (Ed.), Cognitive Processing in Bilinguals (pp.337–350). Amsterdam: Elsevier. doi: 10.1016/S0166‑4115(08)61504‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(08)61504-6 [Google Scholar]
  38. Kim, H.
    (1997) Referential choice for third persons in Korean conversation. Discourse and Cognition, 4, 121–158.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Kim, K. , Grüter, T. , & Schafer, A. J.
    (2013) Effects of event-structure and topic/focus-marking on pronoun reference in Korean. Poster presented atthe 26th annual CUNY conference on human sentence processing, Columbia, SC.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Lee, E. H.
    (2006) Stative progressives in Korean and English. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 695–717. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.09.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.09.006 [Google Scholar]
  41. Lewis, R. L. , Vasishth, S. , & Van Dyke, J. A.
    (2006) Computational principles of working memory in sentence comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 447–454. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2006.08.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.08.007 [Google Scholar]
  42. Madden, C. J. & Zwaan, R. A.
    (2003) How does verb aspect constrain event representations?Memory & Cognition, 31, 663–672. doi: 10.3758/BF03196106
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196106 [Google Scholar]
  43. Magliano, J. P. , & Schleich, M. C.
    (2000) Verb aspect and situation models. Discourse Processes, 29, 83–112. doi: 10.1207/S15326950dp2902_1
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326950dp2902_1 [Google Scholar]
  44. Mann, W. C. , & Thompson, S. A.
    (1988) Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text, 8, 243–281. doi: 10.1515/text.1.1988.8.3.243
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1988.8.3.243 [Google Scholar]
  45. Martin, C. D. , Thierry, G. , Kuipers, J. , Boutonnet, B. , Foucart, A. , & Costa, A.
    (2013) Bilinguals reading in their second language do not predict upcoming words as native readers do. Journal of Memory and Language, 69, 574–588. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2013.08.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2013.08.001 [Google Scholar]
  46. McKoon, G. , Greene, S. , & Ratcliff, R.
    (1993) Discourse models, pronoun resolution, and the implicit causality of verbs. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 19, 1040–1052.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. McLaughlin, B.
    (1987) Reading in a second language: studies with adult and child learners. In S. R. Goldman & H. T. Trueba (Eds.), Becoming literate in English as a second language (pp.57–70). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Miltsakaki, E.
    (2007) A rethink of the relationship between salience and anaphora resolution. In A. Branco (Ed.), Proceedings of the 6th discourse anaphora and anaphor resolution colloquium (pp.91–96). Lagos, Portugal: Discourse anaphora and anaphora resolution colloquium.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Moens, M. , Steedman, M.
    (1988) Temporal Ontology and Temporal Reference. Computational Linguistics, 14, 15–28.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Obana, Y.
    (2003) Anaphoric choices in Japanese fictional novels: The discourse arrangement of noun phrases, zero and third person pronouns. Text, 23, 405–443. doi: 10.1515/text.2003.017
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2003.017 [Google Scholar]
  51. Pearson
    (2011) Versant English Test: test description and validation summary. Palo Alto, CA: Pearson Knowledge Technologies. (www.versanttest.com)
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Pyykkönen, P. , & Järvikivi, J.
    (2010) Activation and persistence of implicit causality information in spoken language comprehension. Experimental Psychology, 57, 5–16. doi: 10.1027/1618‑3169/a000002
    https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000002 [Google Scholar]
  53. 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]
  54. Rohde, H. , Kehler, A. , & Elman, J. L.
    (2006) Event structure and discourse coherence biases in pronoun interpretation. In R. Sun (Ed.), Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp.617–622). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Rohde, H. , & Kehler, A.
    (2014) Grammatical and information-structural influences on pronoun production. Language, Cognition, and Neuroscience, 29, 912–927. doi: 10.1080/01690965.2013.854918
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2013.854918 [Google Scholar]
  56. Shirai, Y.
    (2000) The semantics of the Japanese imperfective -teiru: An integrative approach. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 327–361. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(99)00051‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00051-X [Google Scholar]
  57. 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]
  58. Sorace, A. , & Filiaci, F.
    (2006) Anaphora resolution in near-native speakers of Italian. Second Language Research, 22, 339–368. doi: 10.1191/0267658306sr271oa
    https://doi.org/10.1191/0267658306sr271oa [Google Scholar]
  59. Stevenson, R. J. , Crawley, R. A. , & Kleinman, D.
    (1994) Thematic roles, focusing and the representation of events. Language and Cognitive Processes, 9, 519–548. doi: 10.1080/01690969408402130
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690969408402130 [Google Scholar]
  60. Ueno, M. , Kehler, A.
    (2010) The interpretation of null and overt pronouns in Japanese: Grammatical and pragmatic factors. In S. Ohlsson & R. Catrambone (Eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp.2057–2062). Austin: Cognitive Science Society.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/lab.15011.gru
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/lab.15011.gru
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