Abstract
Relative clauses have long been examined in research on first (L1) and second (L2) language acquisition and processing, and a large body of research has shown that object relative clauses (e.g. ‘The boy that the girl saw’) are more difficult to process than subject relative clauses (e.g. ‘The boy that saw the girl’). Although there are different accounts of this finding, memory-based factors have been argued to play a role in explaining the object relative disadvantage. Evidence of memory-based factors in relative clause processing comes from studies indicating that representational similarity influences the difficulty associated with object relatives as a result of a phenomenon known as similarity-based interference. Although similarity-based interference has been well studied in L1 processing, less is known about how it influences L2 processing. We report two studies – an eye-tracking experiment and a comprehension task – investigating interference in the comprehension of relative clauses in L1 and L2 readers. Our results indicated similarity-based interference in the processing of object relative clauses in both L1 and L2 readers, with no significant differences in the size of interference effects between the two groups. These results highlight the importance of considering memory-based factors when examining L2 processing.
Highlights
Relative clauses (RCs) have been widely examined in different subfields of linguistics, and a long line of research in psycholinguistics has demonstrated that object RCs like (1b), where the sentence subject (‘the boy’) is interpreted as the object of the RC verb ‘saw’, are more difficult to process than subject RCs like (1a) in English (for review, see Second Language Research 00(0)Gordon and Lowder, 2012; Lau and Tanaka, 2021)
Relative clauses have long been examined in research on first (L1) and second (L2) language acquisition and processing, and a large body of research has shown that object relative clauses (e.g. ‘The boy that the girl saw’) are more difficult to process than subject relative clauses (e.g. ‘The boy that saw the girl’)
Our results indicated similarity-based interference in the processing of object relative clauses in both L1 and L2 readers, with no significant differences in the size of interference effects between the two groups
Summary
Relative clauses (RCs) have been widely examined in different subfields of linguistics, and a long line of research in psycholinguistics has demonstrated that object RCs like (1b), where the sentence subject (‘the boy’) is interpreted as the object of the RC verb ‘saw’, are more difficult to process than subject RCs like (1a) in English (for review, see Second Language Research 00(0)Gordon and Lowder, 2012; Lau and Tanaka, 2021). Gibson, 1998; Gordon and Lowder, 2012; Grodner and Gibson, 2005; Lewis et al, 2006; Lewis and Vasishth, 2005) Such accounts explain the object RC difficulty at least in part due to object RCs placing increased memory demands on language processing than subject RCs. That memory plays a role in explaining the object RC disadvantage is demonstrated by a series of studies reported by Gordon et al (2001, 2004, 2006), who found that similarity-based interference influences the object RC disadvantage. ‘the boy’ and ‘the girl’) are more difficult to process than object RCs containing one common noun and a proper name Object RCs that contain two common nouns (e.g. ‘the boy’ and ‘the girl’) are more difficult to process than object RCs containing one common noun and a proper name (e.g. ‘the boy’ and ‘Susan’)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
