Abstract

There is a debate as to whether second language (L2) learners show qualitatively similar processing profiles as native speakers or whether L2 learners are restricted in their ability to use syntactic information during online processing. In the realm of wh-dependency resolution, research has examined whether learners, similar to native speakers, attempt to resolve wh-dependencies in grammatically licensed contexts but avoid positing gaps in illicit contexts such as islands. Also at issue is whether the avoidance of gap filling in islands is due to adherence to syntactic constraints or whether islands simply present processing bottlenecks. One approach has been to examine the relationship between processing abilities and the establishment of wh-dependencies in islands. Grammatical accounts of islands do not predict such a relationship as the parser should simply not predict gaps in illicit contexts. In contrast, a pattern of results showing that individuals with more processing resources are better able to establish wh-dependencies in islands could conceivably be compatible with certain processing accounts. In a self-paced reading experiment which examines the processing of wh-dependencies, we address both questions, examining whether native English speakers and Korean learners of English show qualitatively similar patterns and whether there is a relationship between working memory, as measured by counting span and reading span, and processing in both island and non-island contexts. The results of the self-paced reading experiment suggest that learners can use syntactic information on the same timecourse as native speakers, showing qualitative similarity between the two groups. Results of regression analyses did not reveal a significant relationship between working memory and the establishment of wh-dependencies in islands but we did observe significant relationships between working memory and the processing of licit wh-dependencies. As the contexts in which these relationships emerged differed for learners and native speakers, our results call for further research examining individual differences in dependency resolution in both populations.

Highlights

  • Research on the processing of wh-dependencies has found evidence that both native speakers and second language (L2) learners are able to utilize abstract syntactic information in the course of online processing (e.g., Aldwayan et al, 2010; Omaki and Schulz, 2011; Kim et al, 2015)

  • The study examines the nature of islands, investigating whether there is a relationship between working memory and the processing of wh-dependencies in islands

  • Gap-Filling in Grammatically Licit Positions As individual differences in working memory may affect the resolution of wh-dependencies in grammatically licensed positions, we examined whether working memory modulated the magnitude of filled-gap effects in the following positions: the filled object position in Non-Island sentences, and the filled subject position in both Non-Island and Island sentences

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Research on the processing of wh-dependencies has found evidence that both native speakers and second language (L2) learners are able to utilize abstract syntactic information in the course of online processing (e.g., Aldwayan et al, 2010; Omaki and Schulz, 2011; Kim et al, 2015). The presence of the object filled-gap effects across studies suggests that the lack of a reading time slowdown within the island conditions in (2) and (3) is not due to, for example, a lack of statistical power Both Aldwayan et al (2010) and Canales (2012) found limited evidence of subject filled-gap effects (e.g., a reading time slowdown at Barbara in 1b as compared to 1a) in both experiments, suggesting that the parser can actively generate a prediction for a gap immediately following the wh-element. These recent results are in line with several earlier, behavioral studies that showed that L2 learners at very high levels of proficiency are able to show nativelike levels of performance on a grammaticality judgment task with respect to the rejection of ungrammatical island violations (e.g., Martohardjono, 1993; White and Juffs, 1998; see review in Belikova and White, 2009)

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

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 call