This study examines how late bilinguals parse temporarily and globally ambiguous relative clauses, and whether this preference is modulated by their reading habits. Research questions are as follows: (1) Do late bilinguals’ attachment preferences differ as the task varies, for example, translating versus identifying the NP modified by the given RC? (2) Are attachment preferences influenced by locally or globally ambiguous subject relative clauses? (3) Do late bilinguals’ reading habits have any influence on their attachment preferences in the two tasks?
Design/Methodology/Approach:
We used a self-paced reading task and translation task with a group of late bilinguals whose native language (L1) was Turkish and who learned English (L2) as a foreign language in formal settings (N = 43).
Data and Analysis:
We performed a repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the data.
Findings/Conclusions:
We found that task type influenced participants’ attachment preferences. Greater use of the second noun phrase (NP2) as opposed to the first noun phrase (NP1) was found in the translation task, regardless of ambiguity type, which shows that proficient late bilinguals were able to perform like native speakers. In the question-answer task, however, the reverse pattern observed can be interpreted either as the L1 influence, or alternatively, the underuse of syntactic information in L2, supporting the Shallow Structure Hypothesis (SSH). We found no correlation between the attachment preferences and reading habits of the participants.
Originality:
This study was the first to examine parsing ambiguity in RCs through a translation task.
Significance/Implications:
The results may be taken into consideration in a psycholinguistic approach to translation studies. Further studies may investigate ambiguity parsing by using online tasks backed by the eye-tracking method.
AkalT. (2021). Recency preference in ambiguous relative clause attachment in Turkish. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 17(Special Issue 1), 139–159.
2.
BaşerZ. (2019). A universal parser or language specific parsing strategies: A study on relative clause attachment preference in Turkish. RumeliDE Dil ve Edebiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi, 6, 1–21.
3.
BaşerZ.HohenbergerA. (2020). Is there a particular RC attachment preference in Turkish? Negotiating the effects of semantic factors. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 49(4), 511–539.
4.
BidaouiA.FooteR.AbunasserM. (2016). Relative clause attachment in native and L2 Arabic. The International Journal of Arabic Linguistics, 2(2), 75–95.
5.
BolandJ. E.BlodgettA. (2001). Understanding the constraints on syntactic generation: Lexical bias and discourse congruency effects on eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 391–411.
6.
BrysbaertM.MitchellD. (1996). Modifier attachment in sentence parsing: Evidence from Dutch. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, A, 49(3), 664–695.
7.
BulutT.UysalH.WuD. H. (2013). Processing asymmetry between subject and object relative clauses in English as a second language. Dilbilim Dergisi, 29(1), 45–68.
8.
CarreirasM.CliftonC. (1993). Relative clause interpretation preferences in Spanish and English. Language and Speech, 36(4), 353–372.
9.
CarreirasM.CliftonC. (1999). Another word on parsing relative clauses: Eyetracking evidence from Spanish and English. Memory & Cognition, 27(5), 826–833.
10.
ClahsenH.FelserC. (2006). Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27(1), 3–41.
11.
ClahsenH.FelserC. (2018). Some notes on the shallow structure hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40, 693–706.
12.
CoşkunA. (2011). Investigation of the application of communicative language teaching in the English language classroom-a case study on teachers’ attitudes in Turkey. Journal of Linguistics and Language Teaching, 2(1). https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED513910.pdf
13.
CuetosF.MitchellD. C. (1988). Cross-linguistic differences in parsing: Restrictions on the use of the late closure strategy in Spanish. Cognition, 30(1), 73–105.
14.
DekydtspotterL.DonaldsonB.EdmondsA. C.FultzA. L.PetrushR. A. (2008). Syntactic and prosodic computations in the resolution of relative clause attachment ambiguity by English-French learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30(4), 453–480.
15.
De VincenziM.JobR. (1993). Some observations on the universality of the late closure strategy: Evidence from Italian. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 22, 189–206.
16.
De VincenziM.JobR. (1995). An investigation of late closure: The role of syntax, thematic structure, and pragmatics in initial and final interpretation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 21, 1–19.
17.
Dinçtopal-DenizK. (2010). Relative clause attachment preferences of Turkish L2 speakers of English Shallow parsing in the L2? In VanPattenB.JegerskiJ. (Eds.), Research in second language processing and parsing. Language acquisition and language disorders (Vol. 53, pp. 27–64). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
18.
DussiasP. E. (2003). Syntactic ambiguity resolution in L2 learners: Some effects of bilinguality on LI and L2 processing strategies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25(4), 529–557.
19.
EhrlichK.FernándezE.FodorJ. D.StenshoelE.VinereanuM. (1999). Low attachment of relative clauses: New data from Swedish, Norwegian, and Romanian [Poster presentation] 12th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, New York.
20.
Esen-AygünH.Kızılaslan-TuncerB. (2021). Investigation of the relationship between reading habits and metacognitive reading strategies of prospective teachers. International Journal of Psychology and Educational Studies, 8(4), 152–165.
21.
FelserC.ClahsenH. (2009). Grammatical processing of spoken language in child and adult language learner. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 38, 305–319.
22.
FelserC.MarinisT.ClahsenH. (2003). Children’s processing of ambiguous sentences: A study of relative clause attachment. Language Acquisition, 11(3), 127–163.
23.
FernándezE. M. (1999). Processing strategies in second language acquisition: Some preliminary results. In KleinE. C.MartohardjonoG. (Eds.), The development of second language grammars: A generative approach (pp. 217–239). John Benjamins.
24.
FernándezE. M. (2003). Bilingual sentence processing: Relative clause attachment in English and Spanish. John Benjamins.
25.
FodorJ. D. (1998). Learning to parse?Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 27(2), 285–319.
26.
FodorJ. D. (2002). Psycholinguistics cannot escape prosody. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Speech Prosody (pp. 83–88). Université de Provence.
FrazierL. (1987a). Sentence processing. In ColtheartM. (Ed.), Attention and performance XII (pp. 559–586). Erlbaum.
29.
FrazierL. (1987b). Syntactic processing: Evidence from Dutch. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 5, 519–560.
30.
FrazierL.CliftonC.Jr. (1996). Construal. The MIT Press.
31.
FrazierL.RaynerK. (1982). Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 178–210.
32.
Frenck-MestreC. (2002). On-line sentence processing in the second language. In AltarribaJ.HerridiaR. (Eds.), Bilingual sentence processing (pp. 217–236). Elsevier.
33.
GibsonE.PearlmutterN.Canseco-GonzalezE.HickockG. (1996). Recency preferences in the human sentence processing mechanism. Cognition, 59, 23–59.
34.
GilboyE.SopenaJ.CliftonC.Jr.FrazierL. (1995). Argument structure and association preferences in Spanish and English compound NPs. Cognition, 54, 131167.
35.
GökselA.KerslakeC. (2005). Turkish A comprehensive grammar. Routledge.
36.
HemforthB.FernandezS.CliftonC.Jr.FrazierL.KoniecznyL.WalterM. (2015). Relative clause attachment in German, English, Spanish and French: Effects of position and length. Lingua, 166, 43–64.
37.
HemforthB.KonieczynL.ScheepersC.StrubeG. (1998). Syntactic ambiguity resolution in German. In HillertD. (Ed.), Sentence processing: A cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 293–312). Academic Press.
38.
HenstraJ. (1996). On the parsing of syntactically ambiguous sentences: Coordination and relative clause attachment [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Sussex.
39.
ItoK.MasatoshiK.KiyamaS. (2021). How Native Japanese speakers solve ambiguous relative clauses in their L1 and L2: Evidence from the self-paced reading of Japanese and English. Buckeye East Asian Linguistics, 5, 4–12.
40.
KırkıcıB. (2004). The processing of relative clause attachment ambiguities in Turkish. Turkic Languages, 8, 111–121.
41.
KırkıcıB.ClahsenH. (2013). Inflection and derivation in native and non-native language processing: Masked priming experiments on Turkish. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16, 776–794.
42.
KırkgözY. (2008). Curriculum innovation in Turkish primary education. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 36, 309–322.
43.
KamideY.MitchellD. C. (1997). Relative clause attachment: Nondeterminism in Japanese parsing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 26(2), 247–254.
44.
LeeD.KweonS. O. (2004). A sentence processing study of relative clauses in Korean with two attachment sites, 담화와인지, 11(2), 125–140.
45.
MaiaM.FernándezE. M.CostaA.Lourenço-GomesM. (2007). Early and late preferences in relative clause attachment in Portuguese and Spanish. Journal of Portuguese Linguistics, 5(6), 227–250.
46.
MarefatH.FarzizadehB. (2018). Relative clause ambiguity resolution in L1 and L2: Are processing strategies transferred?Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 21(1), 125–161.
47.
MarefatH.MerajiM. (2005). Parsing preferences in structurally ambiguous relative clauses: L1 vs. L2. Journal of Humanities12(1), 111–127.
48.
Marslen-WilsonW. D.TylerL. K. (1980). The temporal structure of spoken language understanding. Cognition, 8, 1–71.
49.
McDonaldJ. (2006). Beyond the critical period processing-based explanations for poor grammaticality judgement performance by late second language learners. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 381–401.
50.
MitchellD. C.CuetosF.ZagarD. (1990). Reading in different languages: Is there a universal mechanism for parsing sentences? In BalotaD. A.Flores d’ArcaisG. B.RaynerK. (Eds.), Comprehension processes in reading (pp. 285–302). Lawrence Erlbaum.
51.
MiyaoM.OmakiA. (2006). No ambiguity about it: Korean learners of Japanese have a clear attachment preference. In BammanD.MagnitskaiaT.ZallerC. (Eds.), A Supplement to the Proceedings of the 30th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development Supplement (pp.5–8). Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
52.
PapadopoulouD.ClahsenH. (2002). Parsing strategies in Ll and L2 sentence processing: A study of relative clause attachment in Greek. Essex Research Reports in Linguistics, 39, 61–92.
53.
PapadopoulouD.ClahsenH. (2003). Parsing strategies in L1 and L2 sentence processing: A study of relative clause attachment in Greek. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25(4), 501–528.
54.
PavlenkoA. (2012). Affective processing in bilingual speakers: Disembodied cognition?International Journal of Psychology, 47(6), 405–428.
55.
RodriguezG. (2004). Relative clause attachment preferences in second language learners’ parsing performance. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 10(1), Article 13. https://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol10/iss1/13
56.
SekerinaI.FederovaO. (2004). Questionnaire studies of relative clause attachment ambiguity in Russian [Unpublished Manuscript]. The City University of New York.
57.
TuranC. (2020). High vs low: Turkish parser’s attachment preferences to relative clauses. ISPEC International Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities, 4(3), 241–270.
58.
UludağO. (2020a). The application of syntactic parsing strategies during real-time L2 sentence comprehension: Evidence from eye-movement recordings. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 16(3), 1203–1218.
59.
UludağO. (2020b). Transfer of L1 processing strategies to the interpretation of sentence-level L2 input: A crosslinguistic comparison on the resolution of relative clause attachment ambiguities. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(2), 155–188.
60.
WitzelJ.WitzelN.NicolJ. (2012). Deeper than shallow: Evidence for structure-based parsing biases in second-language sentence processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 33(2), 419–456.
