Native and second language processing of quantifier scope ambiguity

Abstract

The present study investigates native (L1) and second language (L2) processing of scope ambiguities in English sentences containing the universal quantifier every in subject NP and negation. Previous studies in L1 and L2 processing of scope ambiguities have found speakers to generally employ a ‘minimal effort’ principle that highly prefers the surface scope reading regardless of contextual support because accessing the inverse scope reading incurs significant processing cost. The present study compared L1 and L2 scope judgments and processing strategies of sentences such as Every horse didn’t jump over the fence and examined whether the two groups differ in their speed and manner of analysis. Thirty native English speakers and 42 Korean learners of English participated in a self-paced reading/interpretation task that has context (ambiguous vs. unambiguous) and scope reading (surface vs. inverse) as variables. The results revealed significant differences in scope endorsement rates with L2 learners arriving at the surface scope as the dominant reading and L1 learners’ judgments being highly dependent on contextual ambiguity. Moreover, L1 vs. L2 differences in processing strategies were found: L2 learners exhibited a strong tendency to arrive at the most economical interpretation while L1 speakers consulted detailed syntactic and semantic rules of computation.

Connectivity effects in pseudoclefts in L1 and L2 speakers of German

“…There is evidence suggesting that non-native (L2) comprehenders have reduced access to readings that derive from non-isomorphic syntax–semantics mappings compared to native (L1) comprehenders, indicating that L2 speakers may experience greater difficulty establishing scope-shifted representations. Most of the evidence supporting this claim comes from studies on scope ambiguities (Chu et al, 2014; Chung and Shin, 2022; Wu and Ionin, 2019).…”

“…Findings like these may be taken to indicate that L2 speakers generally struggle to establish scope-shifted representations. According to Chung and Shin (2022), L2 speakers’ preference for surface scope readings reflects computational economy constraints: Interpretations that can be read off a sentence’s surface form are assumed to be easier for L2 speakers to compute than interpretations that require covert changes to a sentence’s hierarchical-structural configuration. This speculation, however, runs into at least two problems that warrant further investigation.…”

Corpus evidence for the role of world knowledge in ambiguity reduction: Using high positive expectations to inform quantifier scope

“…Previous studies show variation in interpretation behavior. On the one hand, children and non-native speakers seem to disprefer the inverse scope interpretation of every-negation (Musolino 1999, Gualmini et al 2008, Viau et al 2010, Chung & Shin 2022; converging research on scope ambiguity suggests that surface scope is easier to access, involving less representational complexity or processing cost (Tunstall 1998, Pritchett & Whitman 1995, Anderson 2004, Lee et al 2011). On the other hand, experimental studies that directly measure interpretation preference by adult native English speakers find a preference for inverse scope interpretations of every-and all-negation (Carden 1970, Heringer 1970, Carden 1973).…”