Native and non-native processing of English wh- questions:: Parsing strategies and plausibility constraints

被引:84
作者
Williams, JN
Möbius, P
Kim, C
机构
[1] Univ Cambridge, Res Ctr English & Appl Linguist, Cambridge CB2 1QA, England
[2] Chonnam Natl Univ, Kwangju, South Korea
关键词
D O I
10.1017/S0142716401004027
中图分类号
H0 [语言学];
学科分类号
030303 ; 0501 ; 050102 ;
摘要
The two experiments reported here investigated the processing of English wh- questions by native speakers of English and advanced Chinese, German, and Korean learners of English as a second language. Performance was evaluated in relation to parsing strategies and sensitivity to plausibility constraints. In an on-line plausibility judgment task, both native and non-native speakers behaved in similar ways. All groups postulated a gap at the first position consistent with the grammar, as predicted by the filler-driven strategy and as shown by garden path or filled-gap effects that were induced when the hypothesized gap location turned out to be incorrect. In addition, all subjects interpreted the plausibility of the filler-gap dependency, as shown by a reduction in the garden path effect when the initial analysis was implausible. However; the native speakers' reading profiles showed evidence of a more immediate effect of plausibility than those of the non-native speakers, suggesting that they initiated reanalysis earlier when the first analysis was implausible. Experiment 2 showed that the non-native speakers had difficulty canceling a plausible gap hypothesis even in an off-line (pencil and paper) task, whereas for the native speakers there was no evidence that the sentences caused difficulty in this situation. The results suggest that native and non-native speakers employ similar strategies in immediate on-line processing and hence are garden-pathed in similar ways, but they differ in their ability to recover from misanalysis.
引用
收藏
页码:509 / 540
页数:32
相关论文
共 39 条
[1]  
Barnett V., 1984, Outliers in Statistical Data, V2nd
[2]  
Bates E., 1989, The crosslinguistic study of sentence processing, P3
[3]   Verb argument structure in parsing and interpretation: Evidence from wh-questions [J].
Boland, JE ;
Tanenhaus, MK ;
Garnsey, SM ;
Carlson, GN .
JOURNAL OF MEMORY AND LANGUAGE, 1995, 34 (06) :774-806
[4]  
Chomsky N., 1981, Lectures on Government and Binding: the Pisan Lectures, DOI DOI 10.1515/9783110884166
[5]   Antecedent priming at trace positions: Evidence from German scrambling [J].
Clahsen, H ;
Featherston, S .
JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLINGUISTIC RESEARCH, 1999, 28 (04) :415-437
[6]   INDIVIDUAL-DIFFERENCES IN WORKING MEMORY AND READING [J].
DANEMAN, M ;
CARPENTER, PA .
JOURNAL OF VERBAL LEARNING AND VERBAL BEHAVIOR, 1980, 19 (04) :450-466
[7]   USE OF VERB INFORMATION IN SYNTACTIC PARSING - EVIDENCE FROM EYE-MOVEMENTS AND WORD-BY-WORD SELF-PACED READING [J].
FERREIRA, F ;
HENDERSON, JM .
JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY-LEARNING MEMORY AND COGNITION, 1990, 16 (04) :555-568
[8]  
FODOR JD, 1978, LINGUIST INQ, V9, P427
[9]   THE DIAGNOSIS AND CURE OF GARDEN PATHS [J].
FODOR, JD ;
INOUE, A .
JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLINGUISTIC RESEARCH, 1994, 23 (05) :407-434
[10]  
FRAZIER L, 1989, Language and Cognitive Processes, V4, P93, DOI 10.1080/01690968908406359