1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism
  4. Volume 14, Issue 4
  5. Article
Volume 14, Issue 4
  • ISSN 1879-9264
  • E-ISSN: 1879-9272
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Research in sentence processing in bilingual children is emergent but incomplete as very few studies examine the processing of structurally complex sentences or bilingual children’s real-time interpretation of sentences. One underexplored linguistic feature which can offer insights in this direction are garden-path sentences, i.e., sentences with temporary syntactic ambiguity. These are difficult to process for monolingual children as incremental processing results in an initial misinterpretation and the need for reanalysis. Studies on bilingual children’s processing of garden-path sentences have used paradigms with limited ecological validity and which are not informative about one’s interpretation while listening. This study bridges this gap by investigating the processing of garden-path sentences in bilingual children with the visual-world eye-tracking paradigm. It further explores the role of referential context in the visual stimuli to aid disambiguation. Monolingual and bilingual children aged 8–11 years completed a task similar to Trueswell et al. (1999). The results showed similar difficulty with revising garden-path sentences as evidenced by comprehension accuracy for both groups but only the monolinguals showed real-time garden-path effects in the gaze data. We interpret these findings as a manifestation of slower sentence processing in bilingual children. Both groups made limited use of the referential context to facilitate processing.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/lab.22104.pon
2024-04-08
2024-12-04

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/lab.22104.pon
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Atkinson, E., Wagers, M. W., Lidz, J., Phillips, C., & Omaki, A.
    (2018) Developing incrementality in filler-gap dependency processing. Cognition, 1791, 132–149. 10.1016/j.cognition.2018.05.022
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.05.022 [Google Scholar]
  2. Barr, D. J.
    (2008) Analyzing ‘visual world’ eyetracking data using multilevel logistic regression. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 457–474. 10.1016/j.jml.2007.09.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.09.002 [Google Scholar]
  3. Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J.
    (2013) Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(3), 255–278. 10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bentea, A., & Marinis, T.
    (2021) Not all wh-dependencies are created equal: processing of multiple wh-questions in Romanian children and adults. Applied Psycholinguistics, 42(4), 825–864. 10.1017/S0142716421000059
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716421000059 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bishop, D. V. M.
    (2003) The Test for Reception of Grammar, Version 2 (TROG-2). Psychological Corporation.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Blumenfeld, H. K., & Marian, V.
    (2007) Constraints on parallel activation in bilingual spoken language processing: Examining proficiency and lexical status using eye-tracking. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22(5), 633–660. 10.1080/01690960601000746
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960601000746 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bosch, J. E., & Foppolo, F.
    (2023) Prediction during spoken language processing in monolingual and multilingual children: Investigating the role of literacy. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 10.1075/lab.22099.bos
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.22099.bos [Google Scholar]
  8. Cho, S. J., Brown-Schmidt, S., & Lee, W. Y.
    (2018) Autoregressive generalized linear mixed effect models with crossed random effects: An application to intensive binary time series eye-tracking data. Psychometrika, 831, 751–771. 10.1007/s11336‑018‑9604‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-018-9604-2 [Google Scholar]
  9. Choi, Y., & Trueswell, J. C.
    (2010) Children’s (in) ability to recover from garden paths in a verb-final language: Evidence for developing control in sentence processing. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 106(1), 41–61. 10.1016/j.jecp.2010.01.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2010.01.003 [Google Scholar]
  10. Chondrogianni, V., & Marinis, T.
    (2012) Production and processing asymmetries in the acquisition of tense morphology by sequential bilingual children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15(1), 5–21. 10.1017/S1366728911000368
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728911000368 [Google Scholar]
  11. Chondrogianni, V. & Marinis, T.
    (2016) L2 children do not fluctuate: Production and on-line processing of indefinite articles in Turkish-speaking child learners of English. In: Haznedar, B. & Ketrez, F. N. (Eds.). The Acquisition of Turkish in Childhood. John Benjamins. [Trends in Language Acquisition Research 20], 361–388. 10.1075/tilar.20.16cho
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tilar.20.16cho [Google Scholar]
  12. Chondrogianni, V., Vasić, N., Marinis, T., & Blom, E.
    (2015) Production and on-line comprehension of definiteness in English and Dutch by monolingual and sequential bilingual children. Second Language Research, 31(3), 309–341. 10.1177/0267658314564461
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658314564461 [Google Scholar]
  13. Colomé, À.
    (2001) Lexical activation in bilinguals’ speech production: Language-specific or language-independent?Journal of Memory and Language, 45(4), 721–736. 10.1006/jmla.2001.2793
     https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2001.2793 [Google Scholar]
  14. Contemori, C., Carlson, M., & Marinis, T.
    (2018) On-line processing of English which-questions by children and adults: a visual world paradigm study. Journal of Child Language, 45(2), 415–441. 10.1017/S0305000917000277
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000917000277 [Google Scholar]
  15. Costa, A., Caramazza, A., & Sebastian-Galles, N.
    (2000) The cognate facilitation effect: implications for models of lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(5), 1283.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. de Bruin, A., Della Sala, S., & Bak, T. H.
    (2016) The effects of language use on lexical processing in bilinguals. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31(8), 967–974. 10.1080/23273798.2016.1190024
     https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2016.1190024 [Google Scholar]
  17. Dryer, S. M.
    (2013) Position of Interrogative Phrases in Content Questions. InM. S. Dryer & M. Haspelmath. (Eds.) The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Dussias, P. E., & Scaltz, T. R. C.
    (2008) Spanish–English L2 speakers’ use of subcategorization bias information in the resolution of temporary ambiguity during second language reading. Acta psychologica, 128(3), 501–513. 10.1016/j.actpsy.2007.09.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2007.09.004 [Google Scholar]
  19. Gathercole, S. E., & Baddeley, A. D.
    (1996) The children’s test of non-word repetition. Psychological Corporation.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Harrell, F. E.
    (2001) Regression modeling strategies: with applications to linear models, logistic regression, and survival analysis. Springer. 10.1007/978‑1‑4757‑3462‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-3462-1 [Google Scholar]
  21. Hoff, E.
    (2018) Bilingual development in children of immigrant families. Child Development Perspectives, 12(2), 80–86. 10.1111/cdep.12262
     https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12262 [Google Scholar]
  22. Hopp, H.
    (2015) Individual differences in the second language processing of object–subject ambiguities. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36(2), 129–173. 10.1017/S0142716413000180
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716413000180 [Google Scholar]
  23. Hurewitz, F., Brown-Schmidt, S., Thorpe, K., Gleitman, L. R., & Trueswell, J. C.
    (2000) One frog, two frog, red frog, blue frog: Factors affecting children’s syntactic choices in production and comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29(6), 597–626. 10.1023/A:1026468209238
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026468209238 [Google Scholar]
  24. Kidd, E., & Bavin, E. L.
    (2005) Lexical and referential cues to sentence interpretation: An investigation of children’s interpretations of ambiguous sentences. Journal of Child Language, 32(4), 855–876. 10.1017/S0305000905007051
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000905007051 [Google Scholar]
  25. Kidd, E., Stewart, A. J., & Serratrice, L.
    (2011) Children do not overcome lexical biases where adults do: The role of the referential scene in garden-path recovery. Journal of Child Language, 38(1), 222–234. 10.1017/S0305000909990316
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000909990316 [Google Scholar]
  26. Lemmerth, N., & Hopp, H.
    (2019) Gender processing in simultaneous and successive bilingual children: cross-linguistic lexical and syntactic influences. Language Acquisition, 26(1), 21–45. 10.1080/10489223.2017.1391815
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10489223.2017.1391815 [Google Scholar]
  27. Lew-Williams, C.
    (2017) Specific Referential Contexts Shape Efficiency in Second Language Processing: Three Eye-Tracking Experiments With 6-and 10-Year-Old Children in Spanish Immersion Schools. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 371, 128–147. 10.1017/S0267190517000101
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190517000101 [Google Scholar]
  28. Matin, E., Shao, K. & Boff, K.
    (1993) Saccadic overhead: information processing time with and without saccades. Perception & Psychophysics531, 372–80. 10.3758/BF03206780
     https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206780 [Google Scholar]
  29. McDonald, J. L.
    (2006) Beyond the critical period: Processing-based explanations for poor grammaticality judgment performance by late second language learners. Journal of Memory and Language, 55(3), 381–401. 10.1016/j.jml.2006.06.006
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.06.006 [Google Scholar]
  30. Meir, N., Parshina, O., & Sekerina, I. A.
    (2020) The interaction of morphological cues in bilingual sentence processing: An eye-tracking study. InProceedings of the 44th Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp.367–389). Cascadilla.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Meroni, L., & Crain, S.
    (2003) On not being led down the kindergarten path. InProceedings of the 27th Boston University Conference on language development (pp.531–544). Cascadilla Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Mirman, D.
    (2014) Growth curve analysis: A hands-on tutorial on using multilevel regression to analyze time course data. InProceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (Vol.36, no.36).
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Pan, H. Y., & Felser, C.
    (2011) Referential context effects in L2 ambiguity resolution: Evidence from self-paced reading. Lingua, 121(2), 221–236. 10.1016/j.lingua.2010.08.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2010.08.003 [Google Scholar]
  34. Papangeli, A. & Marinis, T.
    (2010) Επεξεργασία δομικά αμφίσημων προτάσεων στην Ελληνική ως Γ1 και ως Γ2. [Processing of structurally ambiguous sentences in Greek as L1 and L2]. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Department of Linguistics, School of Philology, Faculty of Philosophy, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, May2–3 2009 Thessaloniki: Institute of Modern Greek Studies [Institute Manoli Triantafillidi], 477–486.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Pontikas, G., Cunnings, I., & Marinis, T.
    (2023) Online processing of which-questions in bilingual children: Evidence from eye-tracking. Journal of Child Language, 50(5), 1082–1118. 10.1017/S0305000922000253
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000922000253 [Google Scholar]
  36. Pozzan, L., & Trueswell, J. C.
    (2016) Second language processing and revision of garden-path sentences: a visual word study. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19(3), 636–643. 10.1017/S1366728915000838
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728915000838 [Google Scholar]
  37. Raven, J. C., & Court, J. H.
    (1998) Raven’s progressive matrices and vocabulary scales. Psychologists Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Renfrew, C. E.
    (1995) Word finding vocabulary test. Speechmark Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Roberts, L.
    (2012) Individual differences in second language sentence processing. Language Learning, 621, 172–188. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2012.00711.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00711.x [Google Scholar]
  40. Roberts, L., & Felser, C.
    (2011) Plausibility and recovery from garden paths in second language sentence processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32(2), 299–331. 10.1017/S0142716410000421
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716410000421 [Google Scholar]
  41. Roesch, A. D., & Chondrogianni, V.
    (2016) “Which mouse kissed the frog?” Effects of age of onset, length of exposure, and knowledge of case marking on the comprehension of wh-questions in German-speaking simultaneous and early sequential bilingual children. Journal of Child Language, 43(3), 635–661. 10.1017/S0305000916000015
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000916000015 [Google Scholar]
  42. Semel, E., Wiig, E. & Secord, W.
    (2003) Clinical evaluation of language fundamentals -4 (CELF-4). San Antonio, TX: PyschCorp.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Stone, K., Lago, S., & Schad, D. J.
    (2021) Divergence point analyses of visual world data: Applications to bilingual research. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 24(5), 833–841. 10.1017/S1366728920000607
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728920000607 [Google Scholar]
  44. Trueswell, J. C., Sekerina, I., Hill, N. M., & Logrip, M. L.
    (1999) The kindergarten-path effect: Studying on-line sentence processing in young children. Cognition, 73(2), 89–134. 10.1016/S0010‑0277(99)00032‑3
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00032-3 [Google Scholar]
  45. Tuller, L.
    (2015) Clinical use of parental questionnaires in multilingual contexts. InS. Armon-Lotem, J. de Jong, & N. Meir (Eds.), Assessing multilingual children: Disentangling bilingualism from language impairment (pp.299–328). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781783093137‑013
     https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783093137-013 [Google Scholar]
  46. Unsworth, S.
    (2023) Shared syntax and cross-linguistic influence in bilingual children: Evidence from between-and within-language priming. Linguistic approaches to bilingualism. 10.1075/lab.22093.uns
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.22093.uns [Google Scholar]
  47. van Dijk, C., Aumeistere, A., Brouwer, S., Dijkstra, T., & Unsworth, S.
    (2022a) Cross-linguistic Influence Online: An Eye-Tracking Study on Pronoun Resolution in Simultaneous Bilingual Turkish-Dutch Children. InY. Gong & F. Kpogo. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 46th annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, 153–166.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. van Dijk, C., Dijkstra, T., & Unsworth, S.
    (2022b) Cross-linguistic influence during online sentence processing in bilingual children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1–14. 10.1017/S1366728922000050
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728922000050 [Google Scholar]
  49. Vasić, N., & Blom, W. B. T.
    (2011) Production and processing of determiners in Turkish-Dutch child L2 learners. InBUCLD35: proceedings of the 35th annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp.616–627). Cascadilla Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Vasić, N., Chondrogianni, V., Marinis, T., & Blom, W. B. T.
    (2012) Processing of gender in Turkish-Dutch and Turkish-Greek child L2 learners. InBUCLD36: proceedings of the 36th annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp.646–659). Cascadilla Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Vasilyeva, M., Waterfall, H., Gámez, P. B., Gómez, L. E., Bowers, E., & Shimpi, P.
    (2010) Cross-linguistic syntactic priming in bilingual children. Journal of Child Language, 37(5), 1047–1064. 10.1017/S0305000909990213
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000909990213 [Google Scholar]
  52. Weighall, A. R.
    (2008) The kindergarten path effect revisited: Children’s use of context in processing structural ambiguities. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 99(2), 75–95. 10.1016/j.jecp.2007.10.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2007.10.004 [Google Scholar]
  53. Williams, J. N., Möbius, P., & Kim, C.
    (2001) Native and non-native processing of English wh-questions: Parsing strategies and plausibility constraints. Applied Psycholinguistics, 22(4), 509–540. 10.1017/S0142716401004027
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716401004027 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/lab.22104.pon
Loading
Sentence processing in bilingual children
Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 14, 476 (2024); https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.22104.pon
/content/journals/10.1075/lab.22104.pon
/content/journals/10.1075/lab.22104.pon
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): bilingual children; eye-tracking; garden-path sentences; psycholinguistics; sentence processing; visual-world paradigm

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