SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Kafkas Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi / 2024 / Sayı: 34

THE EFFECT OF DISCOURSE-LEVEL CUES ON RC ATTACHMENT PREFERENCE IN L2 ENGLISH: IMPLICIT CAUSALITY IN VERBS

L2 İngilizce'de RC Bağlam Tercihi Üzerinde Söylem Düzeyi İpuçlarının Etkisi: Örtülü Nedensellik Fiilleri

Tugba Aydın Yıldız(ZONGULDAK BÜLENT ECEVİT ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-5248-2484
Pages
649–668
Publication Date
2024-12-13
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In contrast, L2 speakers showed a preference for high attachment in both conditions, suggesting that L2 sentence processing relies more on lexical than syntactic information.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Examining implicit causality and relative clause attachment ambiguity in bilingual participants, this study investigates whether adult second language (L2) English speakers share sensitivity with native speakers to implicit causality (IC) information during online resolution of relative clause attachment ambiguity.
📊
Key Findings & Data:L1 Turkish/L2 English speakers and English natives participated in offline sentence completion and online self-paced reading tasks.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In contrast, L2 speakers showed a preference for high attachment in both conditions, suggesting that L2 sentence processing relies more on lexical than syntactic information.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:örtülü nedensellik · ilgi cümleciği · belirsizlik bağlamı

Abstract

Examining implicit causality and relative clause attachment ambiguity in bilingual participants, this study investigates whether adult second language (L2) English speakers share sensitivity with native speakers to implicit causality (IC) information during online resolution of relative clause attachment ambiguity. L1 Turkish/L2 English speakers and English natives participated in offline sentence completion and online self-paced reading tasks. Results revealed that L1 English speakers preferred high attachment in IC conditions and low attachment in non-IC conditions. In contrast, L2 speakers showed a preference for high attachment in both conditions, suggesting that L2 sentence processing relies more on lexical than syntactic information.

Özet

İkinci dil (L2) konuşan yetişkinlerin İngilizce'deki örtülü nedensellik ve ilgi cümleciği bağlama belirsizliği konularını inceleyen bu çalışma, L2 İngilizce konuşmacılarının, İngilizce'de fiillerde kodlanan örtülü nedensellik (ON) bilgilerine ne kadar duyarlı olduklarını araştırır. L1 Türkçe / L2 İngilizce konuşmacılar ile İngilizce ana dil konuşmacıları, çevrimdışı cümle tamamlama ve çevrimiçi kendi hızlarındaki okuma görevlerinde test edilmiştir. Sonuçlar, L1 İngilizce konuşmacılarının ON koşullarında yüksek bağlama, ON olmayan koşullarda düşük bağlama tercih ettiğini gösterdi. Buna karşın, L2 konuşmacıların her iki koşulda da yüksek bağlama tercih ettikleri ortaya çıktı. Bulgular, L2 cümle işleme sürecinin daha çok sözdizimi bilgisi yerine leksikal bilgiye dayandığını destekliyor.

🔖

Cite This Article

Yıldız, T. A. (2024). THE EFFECT OF DISCOURSE-LEVEL CUES ON RC ATTACHMENT PREFERENCE IN L2 ENGLISH: IMPLICIT CAUSALITY IN VERBS. Kafkas Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, Sayı: 34, 649–668. https://doi.org/10.56597/kausbed.1451149

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (19)

  1. Altmann, G. ve Steedman, M. (1988). Interaction with context during human sentence processing. Cognition, 30, 191–238.
  2. Clahsen, H. ve Felser, C. (2006). How native-like is non-native language processing?. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(12), 564-570.
  3. Clahsen, H. ve Felser, C. (2018). Notes on the Shallow Structure Hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40, 693-706.
  4. Dekydtspotter, L. Donaldson, B., Edmonds, A., Fultz, A. ve Petrush, R. (2008). Syntactic and prosodic computation in the resolution of relative clause attachment ambiguity by English-French learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 453-480.
  5. Dussias, P. E. (2003). Syntactic ambiguity resolution in second language learners: Some effects of bilinguality on L1 and L2 processing strategies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 529 - 557.
  6. Felser, C., Roberts, L., Marinis, T. ve Gross, R. (2003). The processing of ambiguous sentences by first and second language learners of English. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24(3), 453-489.
  7. Fernández E. M. (2002). Relative clause attachment in bilinguals and monolinguals. In R.R. Heredia & J. Altarriba (Eds.), Bilingual Sentence Processing (1st ed., pp.187-215). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
  8. Frazier, L. (1978). On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies. (Ph.D. thesis, University of Connecticut).
  9. Garvey, C. ve Caramazza, A. (1974). Implicit causality in verbs. Linguistic Inquiry, 5(3), 459-464.
  10. Gibson, E., Pearlmutter, N., Canseco-González, E. ve Hickok, G. (1996). Recency preference in the human sentence processing mechanism. Cognition, 59, 23-59.
  11. Grillo, N. ve Costa, J. (2014). A novel argument for the universality of parsing principles. Cognition, 133, 157-187.
  12. Kehler, A., Kertz, L., Rohde, H. ve Elman, J. L. (2008). Coherence and coreference revisited. Journal of Semantics, 25, 1–44.
  13. Koornneef. A. ve Sanders, J. M. T. (2013). Establishing coherence relations in disource: The influence of implicit causality and connectives on pronoun resolution. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 28, 1169-1206.
  14. Öztürk, B. ve Taylan, E. E. (2015). Possessive construction in Turkish. Lingua, 182, 88-108.
  15. Pan, H.Y., Schimke, S. ve Felser, C. (2015). Referential context effect in non-native relative clause ambiguity resolution. International Journal of Bilingualism, 19, 298-313.
  16. Papadopoulou, D. ve Clahsen, H. (2003). Parsing strategies in L1 and L2 sentence processing: A study of relative clause attachment in Greek. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 501-528.
  17. Rohde, H., Levy, R. ve Kehler, A. (2011). Anticipating explanations in relative clause processing. Cognition, 118, 339-358.
  18. Schneider, W., Eschman, A. ve Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-Prime User’s Guide Psychology software tools, Pittsburgh: PA.
  19. Sokolova, M. (2018). Phenomenon-specific sentence processing in native speakers and language learners. In Proceedings of Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition (GALA13) Conference.