Abstract
The ‘good-enough’ processing account argues that, given the parallel activation of two parsing routes—algorithmic and heuristic parsing, the processor prefers heuristics over algorithms when unfolding incoming input. Literature on L2 ‘good-enough’ processing conjoins with this argument, also claiming that various factors may modulate how the L2 processor adjusts its way to heuristic or algorithmic parsing. The present study investigates how L2 learners with contrastive L1 backgrounds (Czech; English) achieve ‘good-enough’ comprehension in Korean, a popular L2 target but understudied for this topic. We focus on morphological causative and suffixal passive constructions, which differ in terms of the alignment between thematic roles and case-marking and the interpretive computation that verbal morphology invites. Participants joined acceptability judgement and self-paced reading tasks, with manipulation of word order (verb-final vs. verb-initial). Results from these tasks suggest two aspects of L2 comprehension. First, L1 and L2 comprehension do not qualitatively differ regarding ‘good-enough’ processing: the L2 processor utilises both parsing routes to reduce the burden of work at hand at the earliest opportunity. Second, the divergence of L1 and L2 processing behaviours during comprehension may originate from various factors surrounding L2 learners (e.g., L2 usage, L1–L2 interface, task types), anchoring the noisy representations of L2 knowledge.
Funding source: H2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions
Award Identifier / Grant number: CZ.02.01.01/00/22_010/0002593
-
Research funding: This work was supported by OP JAC Project “MSCA Fellowships at Palacký University I.” CZ.02.01.01/00/22_010/0002593, run at Palacky University in Olomouc, Czech Republic.
References
Alsaif, Abdullah & James Milton. 2012. Vocabulary input from school textbooks as a potential contributor to the small uptake gained by English as a foreign language learners in Saudi Arabia. Language Learning Journal 40(1). 21–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2012.658221.Search in Google Scholar
Altmann, Gerry & Yuki Kamide. 1999. Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition 73(3). 247–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0010-0277(99)00059-1.Search in Google Scholar
Ambridge, Ben, Evan Kidd, Caroline Rowland & Anna Theakston. 2015. The ubiquity of frequency effects in first language acquisition. Journal of Child Language 42(2). 239–273. https://doi.org/10.1017/s030500091400049x.Search in Google Scholar
Baayen, Harald & Petar Milin. 2010. Analyzing reaction times. International Journal of Psychological Research 3(2). 12–28. https://doi.org/10.21500/20112084.807.Search in Google Scholar
Barr, Dale, Roger Levy, Christoph Scheepers & Harry Tily. 2013. Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language 68(3). 255–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001.Search in Google Scholar
Bates, Douglas, Martin Mächler, Ben Bolker & Steve Walker. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67(1). 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01.Search in Google Scholar
Bever, Thomas G. 1970. The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In John R. Hayes (ed.), Cognition and the development of language, 279–362. New York: Wiley & Sons.Search in Google Scholar
Brooks, Patricia & Michael Tomasello. 1999. Young children learn to produce passives with nonce verbs. Developmental Psychology 35. 29–44. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.35.1.29.Search in Google Scholar
Christianson, Kiel. 2016. When language comprehension goes wrong for the right reasons: Good-enough, underspecified, or shallow language processing. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 69(5). 817–828. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2015.1134603.Search in Google Scholar
Clahsen, Harald & Claudia Felser. 2006. Continuity and shallow structures in language processing. Applied Psycholinguistics 27(1). 107–126. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0142716406060206.Search in Google Scholar
Cunnings, Ian. 2017. Parsing and working memory in bilingual sentence processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 20(4). 659–678. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1366728916000675.Search in Google Scholar
Dwivedi, Veena. 2013. Interpreting quantifier scope ambiguity: Evidence of heuristic first, algorithmic second processing. PLoS One 8(11). e81461. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0081461.Search in Google Scholar
Eckes, Thomas & Rüdiger Grotjahn. 2006. A closer look at the construct validity of C-tests. Language Testing 23(3). 290–325. https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532206lt330oa.Search in Google Scholar
Ellis, Nick C. 2002. Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24. 143–188. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263102002024.Search in Google Scholar
Ellis, Nick C. 2006. Cognitive perspectives on SLA: The associative-cognitive CREED. AILA Review 19(1). 100–121. https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.19.08ell.Search in Google Scholar
Ellis, Nick C. & Fernando Ferreira-Junior. 2009. Construction learning as a function of frequency, frequency distribution, and function. The Modern Language Journal 93(3). 370–385. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00896.x.Search in Google Scholar
Ferreira, Fernanda. 2003. The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences. Cognitive Psychology 47. 164–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0010-0285(03)00005-7.Search in Google Scholar
Ferreira, Fernanda & Charles CliftonJr. 1986. The independence of syntactic processing. Journal of Memory and Language 25. 348–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596x(86)90006-9.Search in Google Scholar
Ferreira, Fernanda & Nikole Patson. 2007. The ‘good enough’ approach to language comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass 1(1–2). 71–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818x.2007.00007.x.Search in Google Scholar
Frazier, Lyn & Keith Rayner. 1982. Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology 14(2). 178–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(82)90008-1.Search in Google Scholar
Frenck-Mestre, Cheryl, Seung Kyung Kim, Hyeree Choo, Alain Ghio, Julia Herschensohn & Sungryoung Koh. 2019. Look and listen! The online processing of Korean case by native and non-native speakers. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 34(3). 385–404. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2018.1549332.Search in Google Scholar
Friederici, Angela, Axel Mecklinger, Kevin Spencer, Karsten Steinhauer & Emanuel Donchin. 2001. Syntactic parsing preferences and their on-line revisions: A spatio-temporal analysis of event-related brain potentials. Cognitive Brain Research 11(2). 305–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0926-6410(00)00065-3.Search in Google Scholar
Futrell, Richard & Edward Gibson. 2017. L2 processing as noisy channel language comprehension. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 20(4). 683–684. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1366728916001061.Search in Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 2019. Explain me this: Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.10.2307/j.ctvc772nnSearch in Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument structure (Linguistic inquiry monographs 18). Cambridge: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Grüter, Theres, Hannah Rohde & Amy Schafer. 2017. Coreference and discourse coherence in L2: The roles of grammatical aspect and referential form. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 7. 199–229. https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.15011.gru.Search in Google Scholar
Grüter, Theres & Holger Hopp. 2021. How permeable are native and non-native syntactic processing to crosslinguistic influence? Journal of Memory and Language 121. 104281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2021.104281.Search in Google Scholar
Hartsuiker, Robert, Martin Pickering & Eline Veltkamp. 2004. Is syntax separate or shared between languages? Cross-linguistic syntactic priming in Spanish-English bilinguals. Psychological Science 15. 409–414. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00693.x.Search in Google Scholar
Hopp, Holger. 2014. Working memory effects in the L2 processing of ambiguous relative clauses. Language Acquisition 21(3). 250–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/10489223.2014.892943.Search in Google Scholar
Hopp, Holger. 2018. The bilingual mental lexicon in L2 sentence processing. Second Language 17. 5–27.Search in Google Scholar
Hwang, Sun Hee & Donna Lardiere. 2013. Plural-marking in L2 Korean: A feature-based approach. Second Language Research 29(1). 57–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658312461496.Search in Google Scholar
Izumi, Shinichi & Usha Lakshmanan. 1998. Learnability, negative evidence and the L2 acquisition of the English passive. Second Language Research 14(1). 62–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/026765898675700455.Search in Google Scholar
Jacob, Gunnar & Claudia Felser. 2016. Reanalysis and semantic persistence in native and non-native garden-path recovery. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 69(5). 907–925. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2014.984231.Search in Google Scholar
Jiang, Nan, Eugenia Novokshanova, Kyoko Masuda & Xin Wang. 2011. Morphological congruency and the acquisition of L2 morphemes. Language Learning 61(3). 940–967. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00627.x.Search in Google Scholar
Just, Marcel, Patricia Carpenter & Jacqueline Woolley. 1982. Paradigms and processes and in reading comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 3(2). 228–238. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.111.2.228.Search in Google Scholar
Karimi, Hossein & Fernanda Ferreira. 2016. Good-enough linguistic representations and online cognitive equilibrium in language processing. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 69(5). 1013–1040. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2015.1053951.Search in Google Scholar
Kharkwal, Gaurav & Karin Stromswold. 2014. Good-enough language processing: Evidence from sentence-video matching. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 43(1). 27–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-013-9239-5.Search in Google Scholar
Kim, Jong-Bok & Incheol Choi. 2004. The Korean case system: A unified, constraint-based approach. Language Research 40. 885–921.Search in Google Scholar
Kim, Hyunwoo & Gyu-Ho Shin. 2022. Effects of verb and construction frequency in sentence comprehension: A case of dative construction in Korean. Functions of Language 29(3). 274–299. https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.22028.kim.Search in Google Scholar
Kim, Hyunwoo, Gyu-Ho Shin & Haerim Hwang. 2020. Integration of verbal and constructional information in the second language processing of English dative constructions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 42(4). 825–847. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263119000743.Search in Google Scholar
Koornneef, Arnout & Jos Van Berkum. 2006. On the use of verb-based implicit causality in sentence comprehension: Evidence from self-paced reading and eye tracking. Journal of Memory and Language 54(4). 445–465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2005.12.003.Search in Google Scholar
Lee-Ellis, Sunyoung. 2009. The development and validation of a Korean C-test using Rasch analysis. Language Testing 26(2). 245–274. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532208101007.Search in Google Scholar
Levy, Roger. 2008. Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition 106(3). 1126–1177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.05.006.Search in Google Scholar
Lim, Jung Hyun & Kiel Christianson. 2013. Second language sentence processing in reading for comprehension and translation. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 16(3). 518–537. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1366728912000351.Search in Google Scholar
Lim, Jung Hyun & Kiel Christianson. 2015. Second language sensitivity to agreement errors: Evidence from eye movements during comprehension and translation. Applied Psycholinguistics 36(6). 1283–1315. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0142716414000290.Search in Google Scholar
MacWhinney, Brian. 2008. A unified model. In Peter Robinson & Nick Ellis (eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition, 341–371. New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
McDonald, Janet. 2006. Beyond the critical period: Processing-based explanations for poor grammaticality judgment performance by late second language learners. Journal of Memory and Language 55(3). 381–401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.06.006.Search in Google Scholar
McKay, Todd. 2019. More on the validity and reliability of C-test scores: A meta-analysis of C-test studies. Washington, D.C: Georgetown University dissertation PhD thesis.Search in Google Scholar
Naughton, James. 2005. Czech: An essential grammar. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203567036Search in Google Scholar
O’Grady, William. 2005. Syntactic carpentry: An emergentist approach to syntax. Mahwah: Erlbaum.10.4324/9781410612571Search in Google Scholar
O’Grady, William. 2015. Processing determinism. Language Learning 65(1). 6–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12091.Search in Google Scholar
Omaki, Akira & Barbara Schulz. 2011. Filler-gap dependencies and island constraints in second-language sentence processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 33(4). 563–588. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263111000313.Search in Google Scholar
Park, Sun Hee & Hyunwoo Kim. 2021. Cross-linguistic influence in the second language processing of Korean morphological and syntactic causative constructions. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 12(5). 687–713. https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.20026.par.Search in Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven. 1989. Learnability and cognition. The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Pozzan, Lucia & John Trueswell. 2015. Revise and resubmit: How real-time parsing limitations influence grammar acquisition. Cognitive Psychology 80. 73–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2015.03.004.Search in Google Scholar
Pozzan, Lucia & John Trueswell. 2016. Second language processing and revision of garden-path sentences: A visual word study. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 19(3). 636–643. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1366728915000838.Search in Google Scholar
R Core Team. 2021. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Search in Google Scholar
Robenalt, Clarice & Adele Goldberg. 2016. Nonnative speakers do not take competing alternative expressions into account the way native speakers do. Language Learning 66(1). 60–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12149.Search in Google Scholar
Römer, Ute. 2004. Comparing real and ideal language learner input: The use of an EFL textbook corpus in corpus linguistics and language teaching. In Guy Aston, Silva Bernardini & Dominic Steward (eds.), Corpora and language learners, 151–168. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/scl.17.12romSearch in Google Scholar
Shin, Gyu-Ho & Boo Kyung Jung. 2022. Input–output relation in L2 acquisition: Textbook and learner writing for adult English-speaking beginners of Korean. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 45(3). 347–370. https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.20049.shi.Search in Google Scholar
Shin, Gyu-Ho & Seongmin Mun. 2023. Korean-speaking children’s constructional knowledge about a transitive event: Corpus analysis and Bayesian modelling. Journal of Child Language 50(2). 311–337. https://doi.org/10.1017/S030500092100088X.Search in Google Scholar
Shin, Gyu-Ho & Sun Hee Park. 2023. Isomorphism and language-specific devices in comprehension of Korean suffixal passive construction by Mandarin-speaking learners of Korean. Applied Linguistics Review 14(3). 503–531. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2020-0036.Search in Google Scholar
Slabakova, Roumyana. 2014. The bottleneck of second language acquisition. Foreign Language Teaching and Research 46(4). 543–559.Search in Google Scholar
Sohn, Ho-Min. 1999. The Korean language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Sorace, Antonella. 2011. Pinning down the concept of “interface” in bilingualism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 1(1). 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.1.1.01sor.Search in Google Scholar
Swets, Benjamin, Timothy Desmet, Charles Clifton & Fernanda Ferreira. 2008. Underspecification of syntactic ambiguities: Evidence from self-paced reading. Memory & Cognition 36(1). 201–216. https://doi.org/10.3758/mc.36.1.201.Search in Google Scholar
Tachihara, Karina & Adele Goldberg. 2020. Reduced competition effects and noisier representations in a second language. Language Learning 70(1). 219–265. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12375.Search in Google Scholar
Tan, Maryann & Anouschka Foltz. 2020. Task sensitivity in L2 English speakers’ syntactic processing: Evidence for good-enough processing in self-paced reading. Frontiers in Psychology 11. 575847. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.575847.Search in Google Scholar
Townsend, David & Thomas Bever. 2001. Sentence comprehension: The integration of habits and rules. Cambridge: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/6184.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Traxler, Matthew. 2014. Trends in syntactic parsing: Anticipation, Bayesian estimation, and good-enough parsing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 18(11). 605–611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2014.08.001.Search in Google Scholar
Vigliocco, Gabriella, Jane Warren, Simona Siri, Joanne Arciuli, Sophie Scott & Richard Wise. 2006. The role of semantics and grammatical class in the neural representation of words. Cerebral Cortex 16(12). 1790–1796. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhj115.Search in Google Scholar
Zehr, Jérémy & Florian Schwarz. 2018. PennController for internet based experiments (IBEX). https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/MD832.Search in Google Scholar
Supplementary Material
This article contains supplementary material (https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2022-0152).
© 2023 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
