Agreement and reflexives in non-native sentence processing

[thumbnail of Open Access]
Preview
Text (Open Access) - Published Version
· Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.
· Please see our End User Agreement before downloading.
| Preview
Available under license: Creative Commons Attribution
[thumbnail of 2024-07-31 Agreement and Reflexives in Non-Native Processing - Final.docx]
Text - Accepted Version
· Restricted to Repository staff only
Restricted to Repository staff only

Please see our End User Agreement.

It is advisable to refer to the publisher's version if you intend to cite from this work. See Guidance on citing.

Add to AnyAdd to TwitterAdd to FacebookAdd to LinkedinAdd to PinterestAdd to Email

Shatha, A. and Cunnings, I. orcid id iconORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5318-0186 (2024) Agreement and reflexives in non-native sentence processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. ISSN 1469-1841 doi: 10.1017/S136672892400049X

Abstract/Summary

How native (L1) and non-native (L2) readers utilise syntactic constraints on linguistic dependency resolution during language comprehension is debated, with previous research yielding mixed findings. To address this discrepancy, we report two large-scale studies, using self-paced reading and grammaticality judgements, investigating subject-verb agreement and reflexives in L1 English speakers and Arabic leaners of L2 English. We manipulated sentence grammaticality and the properties of ‘distractor’ constituents (The key(s) to the cabinet(s) were rusty) in two studies testing number in agreement and gender/number in reflexives. Study 1 showed L2ers’ performance largely patterned with L1ers’. Though grammaticality effects were smaller for agreement in L2ers than L1ers, proficiency modulated L2 performance. Study 2 revealed no significant between-group differences. Contrasting some L1 studies, significant distractor effects were only detected for reflexives in Study 1. Together, these results imply that L2ers compute syntactic dependencies similarly to L1ers, and potential differences might be driven by L2 proficiency.

Altmetric Badge

Item Type Article
URI https://reading-clone.eprints-hosting.org/id/eprint/118808
Identification Number/DOI 10.1017/S136672892400049X
Refereed Yes
Divisions Interdisciplinary Research Centres (IDRCs) > Centre for Literacy and Multilingualism (CeLM)
Life Sciences > School of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences > Department of Clinical Language Sciences
Life Sciences > School of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences > Language and Cognition
Publisher Cambridge University Press
Download/View statistics View download statistics for this item

Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

University Staff: Request a correction | Centaur Editors: Update this record

Search Google Scholar