Determiner-Number Specification and Non-Local Agreement Computation in L1 and L2 Processing

Abstract

The present study employed a self-paced reading task in conjunction with concurrent acceptability judgements to examine how similar or different English natives and Chinese learners of English are when processing non-local agreement. We also tested how determiner-number specification modulates number agreement computation in both native and non-native processing by manipulating number marking with demonstrative determiners (the versus that/these). Results suggest both groups were sensitive to non-local agreement violations, indexed by longer reading times for sentences containing number violations. Furthermore, we found determiner-number specification facilitated processing of number violations in both native and non-native groups in an acceptability judgement task only, with stronger sensitivity to violations with demonstrative determiners than those with bare determiners. Contrary to some theories that predict qualitative differences between native and non-native processing, we did not find any significant differences between native and non-native speakers, despite the fact that the Chinese speakers of English had to process a novel linguistic feature absent in their native language.

The neurocognitive processing mechanism of English subject-verb agreement by Chinese-speaking learners

“…Due to the fact that the morphological system used in Mandarin Chinese is severely simplified ( Armstrong et al, 2018 ), the subject–verb agreement, despite a simple syntactic rule, seems to cause great difficulties for Chinese learners of English in both language production and comprehension, even for advanced learners and those living in English-speaking countries ( Jiang, 2004 , 2007 ; Lardiere, 2007 ). Recent studies have provided evidence that plural number specification of determiners (e.g., quantifiers and demonstratives) facilitates the computation of subject–verb agreement during online sentence comprehension, with greater sensitivity to violations specified by plural quantificational determiners (e.g., many and some ) than those with referential determiners (e.g., the ) ( Tanner and Bulkes, 2015 ; Cheng et al, 2022 ). However, it is proposed that L2 learners commit more omission errors than commission errors ( Lardiere, 2007 ); specifically, L2 learners tend to drop agreement markers, e.g., look instead of looks , more than they supply unnecessary agreement markers, e.g., looks instead of look .…”