Second language word processing in sentence contexts: Pre-lexical prediction versus post-lexical integration

Essa Qurbi

doi:10.29038/eejpl.2023.10.1.qur

Authors

Essa Qurbi Najran University, Saudi Arabia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.29038/eejpl.2023.10.1.qur

Keywords:

second language, word prediction, sentence context, lexical processing

Abstract

This study investigated the effects of sentence contexts on the second language (L2) word recognition process. It aims at finding whether second language (L2) learners of English perform similar to English native speakers in terms of using the sentence context to predict upcoming word in their L2. A group of L2 participants and a control group of native speakers (L1) participants performed a cross-modal priming task in which they were asked to make a lexical decision on a visually presented word while listening to a semantically related or non- related English sentence. The test was conducted to determine whether both groups of participants were able to predict an upcoming word based on the context of the preceding sentence that is auditorily presented. The study is conducted using PsychoPy software whereas the data was analyzed using linear-mixed effects modeling in RStudio software. The results showed that the L1 speakers were able to predict an upcoming word based on the context of the preceding sentence. That is, a significantly faster recognition of the related word was observed compared to the less related words. On other hand, the English second language participants were not as able to predict an upcoming word as quickly as the English native speaker participants were. However, the L2 participants showed post-access lexical processing or what is called an integrating process of the presented word to the previous sentence context. That is, an effect of the sentence context was observed with L2 participants, yet only after reading the presented word, they decide whether it is appropriate to the preceding sentence context or not.

Acknowledgments

The author is thankful to the Deanship of Scientific Research at Najran University for funding this work under the National Research Priorities funding program.

Author: Essa Qurbi,

0000-0002-7073-0602 eabatel@nu.edu.sa

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Altmann, G.T.M., Kamide, Y., (1999). Incremental interpretation at verbs: restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition, 73, 247–264.

Arnon, I., & Snider, N. (2010). More than words: Frequency effects for multi-word phrases. Journal of Memory and Language, 62(1), 67–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2009.09.005

Batel, E. (2020). Context Effect on L2 Word Recognition: Visual Versus Auditory Modalities. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 49(2), 223-245.

Bishop, J. (2012). Focus, prosody, and individual differences in “autistic” traits: Evidence from cross-modal semantic priming. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics, 111, 1-26.

Block, C. K., & Baldwin, C. L. (2010). Cloze probability and completion norms for 498 sentences: Behavioral and neural validation using event-related potentials. Behavior research methods, 42(3), 665-670.

Boston, M., Hale, J., Kliegl, R., Patil, U., & Vasishth, S. (2008). Parsing costs as predictors of reading difficulty: An evaluation using the Potsdam sentence corpus. Journal of Eye Movement Research, 2(1), 1–12.

DeLong, K. A., Urbach, T. P., & Kutas, M. (2005). Probabilistic word pre-activation during language comprehension inferred from electrical brain activity. Nature Neuroscience, 8 (8), 1117–1121. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1504

Demberg, V., & Keller, F. (2008). Data from eye-tracking corpora as evidence for theories of syntactic processing complexity. Cognition, 109(2), 193–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.07.008

Demberg, V., Keller, F., & Koller, A. (2013). Incremental, predictive parsing with psycholinguistically motivated tree-adjoining grammar. Computational Linguistics, 39(4), 1025–1066. https://doi.org/10.1162/Coli_a_00160

Hale, J. (2001). A probabilistic earley parser as a psycholinguistic model. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics on Language technologies (NAACL ‘01), Pittsburgh, PA.

Holcomb, P. J., & Anderson, J. E. (1993). Cross-modal semantic priming: A time-course analysis using event-related brain potentials. Language and cognitive processes, 8(4), 379-411.

Ito, A., Martin, A. E., & Nieuwland, M. S. (2017). How robust are prediction effects in language comprehension? Failure to replicate article-elicited N400 effects. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 32(8), 954-965.

Jackendoff, R., & Jackendoff, R. S. (2002). Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford University Press, USA.

Kaan, E. (2014). Predictive sentence processing in L2 and L1: What is different?. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 4(2), 257-282.

Kuperberg, G. & Jaeger, F. (2016) What do we mean by prediction in language comprehension?, Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31:1, 32-59. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2015.1102299

Kutas, M., & Federmeier, K. D. (2011). Thirty years and counting: Finding meaning in the N400 component of the event- related brain potential (ERP). Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 621–647. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.131123

Levy, R. (2008). Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition, 106(3), 1126–1177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.05.006

Libben, M. R., & Titone, D. A. (2009). Bilingual lexical access in context: evidence from eye movements during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35(2), 381.

Linzen, T., & Jaeger, T. F. (2015). Uncertainty and expectation in sentence processing: Evidence from subcategorization distri- butions. Cognitive Science. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12274

Martin, C. D., Thierry, G., Kuipers, J. R., Boutonnet, B., Foucart, A., & Costa, A. (2013). Bilinguals reading in their second language do not predict upcoming words as native readers do. Journal of Memory and Language, 69(4), 574–588.

Onifer, W., & Swinney, D. A. (1981). Accessing lexical ambiguities during sentence comprehension: Effects of frequency of meaning and contextual bias. Memory & Cognition, 9(3), 225-236.

Rayner, K., Binder, K. S., Ashby, J., & Pollatsek, A. (2001). Eye move- ment control in reading: Word predictability has little influ- ence on initial landing positions in words. Vision Research, 41(7), 943–954. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0042-6989(00)00310-2.

Schwartz, A. I., & Kroll, J. F. (2006). Bilingual lexical activation in sentence context. Journal of Memory and Language, 55(2), 197-212.

Staub, A. (2015). The effect of lexical predictability on eye move- ments in reading: Critical review and theoretical interpretation. Language and Linguistics Compass, 9(8), 311–327. https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12151

Staub, A., Grant, M., Astheimer, L., & Cohen, A. (2015). The influence of cloze probability and item constraint on cloze task response time. Journal of Memory and Language, 82, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2015.02.004

Swinney, D. A., Onifer, W., Prather, P., & Hirshkowitz, M. (1979). Semantic facilitation across sensory modalities in the processing of individual words and sentences. Memory & Cognition, 7(3), 159-165.

Tabossi, P. (1988). Accessing lexical ambiguity in different types of sentential contexts. Journal of memory and language, 27(3), 324-340.

Traxler, M. J., & Foss, D. J. (2000). Effects of sentence constraint on priming in natural language comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(5), 1266.

Traxler, M. J., & Foss, D. J. (2000). Effects of sentence constraint on priming in natural language comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 26(5), 1266–1282. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.26.5.1266

Van Petten, C., & Luka, B. J. (2012). Prediction during language comprehension: Benefits, costs, and ERP components. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 83(2), 176–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2011.09.015

Wlotko, E. W., & Federmeier, K. D. (2012). So that’s what you meant! Event-related potentials reveal multiple aspects of context use during construction of message-level meaning. NeuroImage, 62(1), 356–366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.04.054