Chapter 8. Task effects in second language sentence processing research

Abstract

This chapter explores the ways in which secondary tasks utilized in on-line sentence processing experiments can influence second language (L2) learners’ processing behavior. After a brief introduction to sentence processing and the self-paced reading methodology, we present data from a self-paced reading study that investigates how task type (comprehension questions vs. grammaticality judgment tasks) affect intermediate L2 Spanish learners processing of two types of grammatical violations: noun-adjective gender agreement and subject-verb inversion in wh-questions. Our findings suggest that, for some structures, certain secondary tasks commonly used in sentence processing research can indeed influence how L2 learners’ process morpho-syntactic violations during comprehension. We discuss the implications of our findings for L2 learning research, as well as for L2 instruction.

Number Attraction Effects in Near-Native Spanish Sentence Comprehension

“…It is important to note, however, that this difference may well affect only reading time measures and not ERPs, as conscious attention to L2 agreement errors while reading has been shown to cause a self-paced reading time effect that otherwise did not occur (Leeser et al, 2011 ), but the P600 effect seen in ERP research on agreement may be less dependent on concurrency with a metalinguistic task (Osterhout, Allen, McLaughlin, & Inoue, 2002 ). It seems that a grammar error somehow presents a greater challenge in processing, perhaps because the parser has diffi culty fi nding a subject when neither of the preverbal NPs agrees with the verb.…”

“…Rather, the idea is that processing effects that arise during the reading of sentences without errors may be less robust-particularly with reading time measures, which are known to be susceptible to the level of attention to errors demanded by an experimental task (Leeser, Brandl, & Weissglass, 2011 )-and thus less likely to occur among L2 participants. However, one potential limitation among the aforementioned studies that documented nativelike processing is that they all relied on some type of agreement violation paradigm to elicit reading time or ERP effects.…”

Experimental Designs in Sentence Processing Research

“…Despite the overall similarity between the outcomes of the two studies, however, only the L2 participants in the investigation that used the grammaticality judgment probe exhibited nativelike reading time effects later on in the sentence while reading a second, subordinate clause. It is also worth noting that all of the critical stimuli in both of these studies were grammatical, unlike the agreement stimuli for the Leeser et al ( 2011 ) study described previously, so the type of distractor task may be less critical with sentence processing paradigms that do not involve errors or other easily recognizable phenomena. It also appears that the waveforms observed in ERP studies, typically obtained when sentences are processed in conjunction with an acceptability judgment task, can also be observed when the only task is to passively read for comprehension and there is no acceptability judgment (Osterhout, Allen, McLaughlin, & Inoue, 2002 ).…”

Second language sentence processing in reading for comprehension and translation

“…To summarize, the L2 studies conducted so far have provided mixed results; some of the studies show L2 speaker's ability to use syntactic knowledge during online comprehension in the same manner as native speakers (Frenck-Mestre & Pynte, 1997;Hopp, 2006;Jackson, 2008;Jackson & Bobb, 2009;Williams, 2006), whereas others suggest that L2 processing lacks abstract linguistic structure compared to native speakers (Felser et al, 2003;Felser & Roberts, 2007;Marinis et al, 2005;Papadopoulou & Clahsen, 2003). Furthermore, there are studies to indicate that individual differences, such as proficiency, working memory capacity, and task play a role in the L2 processing mechanism (Hopp, 2006;Jackson & Bobb, 2009;Leeser et al, 2011;Williams, 2006) Good-Enough processing Interestingly, shallow processing does not appear to be unique to L2 learners; the "shallow and less detailed" language processing discussed in the L2 processing literature has also been observed in monolingual processing studies. The GOOD-ENOUGH (GE) APPROACH to language comprehension (Christianson et al, 2001;Christianson, Luke & Ferreira, 2010;Christianson, Williams, Zacks & Ferreira, 2006;Ferreira et al, 2002;Ferreira & Patson, 2007) proposes that comprehenders compute linguistic input using both syntactic and semantic or heuristic processing, but the outputs of these routes are not always reconciled if one output appears good enough for comprehension, thus yielding a final interpretation that is not completely faithful to the input.…”

“…This study further compares processing patterns in two reading tasks (reading for comprehension vs. reading for translation). A few studies report the roles of secondary tasks on influencing L2 speakers' reading time patterns (Jackson & Bobb, 2009;Leeser, Brandl & Whiteglass, 2011;Williams, 2006), demonstrating that secondary tasks such as an explicit grammaticality judgment or a memory task increase L2 learners' attention to grammatical structures. Given these observations, the current study also investigates how different tasks modulate learners' awareness of syntactic information during online comprehension.…”