This thesis investigates whether there are differences in language comprehension and language production between highly advanced/near-native adult learners of a second language (late L2ers) and native speakers (L1ers), and if so, how they should be characterised. In previous literature (Sorace & Filiaci 2006, Sorace 2011 inter alia), nonconvergence of the near-native grammar with the native grammar has been identified as most likely to occur at the interface between syntax and another cognitive domain. This thesis focuses on grammatical and ungrammatical representations at the syntax-lexicon interface between very advanced/near-native Dutch learners of English and native speakers of English. We tested differences in syntactic knowledge representations and real-time processing through eight experiments. By syntactic knowledge representations we mean the explicit knowledge of grammar (specifically word order dependence on lexical-semantics) that a language user exhibits in their language comprehension and production, and by realtime processing we mean the language user’s ability to access implicit and explicit knowledge of grammar under time and/or memory constraints in their language comprehension and production. To test for systematic differences at the syntax-lexicon interface we examined linguistic structures in English that differ minimally in word order from Dutch depending on the presence or absence of certain lexical items and their characteristics; these were possessive structures with animate and inanimate possessors and possessums in either a prenominal or postnominal construction, preposed adverbials of location (locative inversions) followed by either unergative or unaccusative verbs, and preposed adverbials of manner containing a negative polarity item (negative inversions) or positive polarity item followed by either V2 or V3 word order. We used Magnitude Estimation Tasks and Speeded Grammaticality Judgement Tasks to test comprehension, and Syntactic Priming (with/without extra memory load) and Speeded Sentence Completion Tasks to test production. We found evidence for differences in comprehension and production between very advanced, near-native Dutch L2ers and native speakers of English, and that these differences appear to be associated with processing rather than with competence. Dutch L2ers differed from English L1ers with respect to preferences in word order of possessive structures and after preposed adverbials of manner. However, these groups did not differ in production and comprehension with respect to transitivity in locative inversions. We conclude that even among highly advanced to near-native late learners of a second language there may be non-convergence of the L2 grammar. Such non-convergence need not coincide with the L1 grammar but may rather be a result of over-applying linguistic L2 knowledge. Thus, very advanced to near-native L2ers still have access to limited (meta)linguistic resources that under time and memory constraints may result in ungrammatical language comprehension and/or production at the syntax-lexicon interface. In sum, in explaining interface phenomena, the results of this study provide evidence for a processing account over a representational account, i.e. Dutch L2ers showed they possess grammatical knowledge of the specific L2 linguistic structures in comprehension and production, but over-applied this knowledge in exceptional cases under time and/or memory pressure. We suggest that current bilingual production models focus more on working memory by including a separate memory component to such models and conducting empirical research to test its influence on L2 production and comprehension.

No description available.

This dissertation contributes to an ongoing debate on the types of linguistic features which can be acquired in a second language by looking at the multiple learning challenges related to the ergative case system (the appearance of –ne with the subject) in Hindi-Urdu by classroom learners. Some hypotheses in second language research hold that interpretable features (features which contribute semantic information) can be acquired in a second language, whereas uninterpretable features (features which express grammatical information) cannot be easily acquired, if ever. Additionally, hypotheses in second language processing hold that the second language learners are able to process semantic information but not grammatical information. This dissertation investigates at the acquisition process of second language learners of Hindi-Urdu acquiring the uninterpretable ergative case. In Hindi-Urdu, the subject of a sentence appears with the ergative case marker –ne, when the verb is transitive and in the perfective aspect. In my dissertation, I test the validity of the aforementioned hypotheses and investigate the acquisition and acquisitional process of ergative case in L2 Hindi-Urdu by L1 English speakers by analyzing data collected by using an acceptability/grammaticality judgement task, a self-paced reading task and a production task from Hindi-Urdu learners and native speakers.

There are many factors which make speaking and understanding a second language (L2) a highly complex challenge. Skills and competencies in in both linguistic and metalinguistic areas emerge as parts of a multi-faceted, flexible concept underlying bilingual/multilingual communication. On the linguistic level, a combination of an extended knowledge of idiomatic expressions, a broad lexical familiarity, a large vocabulary size, and the ability to deal with phonetic distinctions and fine phonetic detail has been argued necessary for effective nonnative comprehension of spoken language. The scientific interest in these factors has also led to more interest in the L2’s information structure, the way in which information is organised and packaged into informational units, both within and between clauses. On a practical level, the information structure of a language can offer the means to assign focus to a certain element considered important. Speakers can draw from a rich pool of linguistic means to express this focus, and listeners can in turn interpret these to guide them to the highlighted information which in turn facilitates comprehension, resulting in an appropriate understanding of what has been said. If a speaker doesn’t follow the principles of information structure, and the main accent in a sentence is placed on an unimportant word, then there may be inappropriate information transfer within the discourse, and misunderstandings. The concept of focus as part of the information structure of a language, the linguistic means used to express it, and the differential use of focus in native and nonnative language processing are central to this dissertation. Languages exhibit a wide range of ways of directing focus, including by prosodic means, by syntactic constructions, and by lexical means. The general principles underlying information structure seem to contrast structurally across different languages, and they can also differ in the way they express focus. In the context of L2 acquisition, characteristics of the L1 linguistic system are argued to influence the acquisition of the L2. Similarly, the conceptual patterns of information structure of the L1 may influence the organization of information in the L2. However, strategies and patterns used to exploit information structure for succesful language comprehension in the native L1, may not apply at all, or work in different ways or todifferent degrees in the L2. This means that L2 learners ideally have to understand the way that information structure is expressed in the L2 to fully use the information structural benefit in the L2. The knowledge of information structural requirements in the L2 could also imply that the learner would have to make adjustments regarding the use of information structural devices in the L2. The general question is whether the various means to mark focus in the learners’ native language are also accessible in the nonnative language, and whether a L1-L2 transfer of their usage should be considered desirable. The current work explores how information structure helps the listener to discover and structure the forms and meanings of the L2. The central hypothesis is that the ability to access information structure has an impact on the level of the learners’ appropriateness and linguistic competence in the L2. Ultimately, the ability to make use of information structure in the L2 is believed to underpin the L2 learners’ ability to effectively communicate in the L2. The present study investigated how use of focus markers affects processing speed and word recall recall in a native-nonnative language comparison. The predominant research question was whether the type of focus marking leads to more efficient and accurate word processing in marked structures than in unmarked structures, and whether differences in processing patterns can be observed between the two language conditions. Three perception studies were conducted, each concentrating on one of the following linguistic parameters: 1. Prosodic prominence: Does prosodic focus conveyed by sentence accent and by word position facilitate word recognition? 2. Syntactical means: Do cleft constructions result in faster and more accurate word processing? 3. Lexical means: Does focus conveyed by the particles even/only (German: sogar/nur) facilitate word processing and word recall? Experiments 2 and 3 additionally investigated the contribution of context in the form of preceding questions. Furthermore, they considered accent and its facilitative effect on the processing of words which are in the scope of syntactic or lexical focus marking. All three experiments tested German learners of English in a native German language condition and in English as their L2. Native English speakers were included as a control for the English language condition. Test materials consisted of single sentences, all dealing with bird life. Experiment 1 tested word recognition in three focus conditions (broad focus, narrow focus on the target, and narrow focus on a constituent than the target) in one condition using natural unmanipulated sentences, and in the other two conditions using spliced sentences. Experiment 2 (effect of syntactic focus marking) and Experiment 3 (effect of lexical focus marking) used phoneme monitoring as a measure for the speed of word processing. Additionally, a word recall test (4AFC) was conducted to assess the effective entry of target-bearing words in the listeners’ memory. Experiment 1: Focus marking by prosodic means Prosodic focus marking by pitch accent was found to highlight important information (Bolinger, 1972), making the accented word perceptually more prominent (Klatt, 1976; van Santen & Olive, 1990; Eefting, 1991; Koopmans-van Beinum & van Bergem, 1989). However, accent structure seems to be processed faster in native than in nonnative listening (Akker& Cutler, 2003, Expt. 3). Therefore, it is expected that prosodically marked words are better recognised than unmarked words, and that listeners can exploit accent structure better for accurate word recognition in their L1 than they do in the L2 (L1 > L2). Altogether, a difference in word recognition performance in L1 listening is expected between different focus conditions (narrow focus > broad focus). Results of Experiments 1 show that words were better recognized in native listening than in nonnative listening. Focal accent, however, doesn’t seem to help the German subjects recognize accented words more accurately, in both the L1 and the L2. This could be due to the focus conditions not being acoustically distinctive enough. Results of experiments with spliced materials suggest that the surrounding prosodic sentence contour made listeners remember a target word and not the local, prosodic realization of the word. Prosody seems to indeed direct listeners’ attention to the focus of the sentence (see Cutler, 1976). Regarding the salience of word position, VanPatten (2002; 2004) postulated a sentence location principle for L2 processing, stating a ranking of initial > final > medial word position. Other evidence mentions a processing adantage of items occurring late in the sentence (Akker & Cutler, 2003), and Rast (2003) observed in an English L2 production study a trend of an advantage of items occurring at the outer ends of the sentence. The current Experiment 1 aimed to keep the length of the sentences to an acceptable length, mainly to keep the task in the nonnative lnaguage condition feasable. Word length showed an effect only in combination with word position (Rast, 2003; Rast & Dommergues, 2003). Therefore, word length was included in the current experiment as a secondary factor and without hypotheses. Results of Experiment 1 revealed that the length of a word doesn’t seem to be important for its accurate recognition. Word position, specifically the final position, clearly seems to facilitate accurate word recognition in German. A similar trend emerges in condition English L2, confirming Klein (1984) and Slobin (1985). Results don’t support the sentence location principle of VanPatten (2002; 2004). The salience of the final position is interpreted as recency effect (Murdock, 1962). In addition, the advantage of the final position may benefit from the discourse convention that relevant background information is referred to first, and then what is novel later (Haviland & Clark, 1974). This structure is assumed to cue the listener as to what the speaker considers to be important information, and listeners might have reacted according to this convention. Experiment 2: Focus marking by syntactic means Atypical syntactic structures often draw listeners’ attention to certain information in an utterance, and the cleft structure as a focus marking device appears to be a common surface feature in many languages (Lambrecht, 2001). Surface structure influences sentence processing (Foss & Lynch, 1969; Langford & Holmes, 1979), which leads to competing hypotheses in Experiment 2: on the one hand, the focusing effect of the cleft construction might reduce processing times. On the other, cleft constructions in German were found to be used less to mark fo than in English (Ahlemeyer & Kohlhof, 1999; Doherty, 1999; E. Klein, 1988). The complexity of the constructions, and the experience from the native language might work against an advantage of the focus effect in the L2. Results of Experiment 2 show that the cleft structure is an effective device to mark focus in German L1. The processing advantage is explained by the low degree of structural markedness of cleft structures: listeners use the focus function of sentence types headed by the dummy subject es (English: it) due to reliance on 'safe' subject-prominent SVO-structures. The benefit of cleft is enhanced when the sentences are presented with context, suggesting a substantial benefit when focus effects of syntactic surface structure and coherence relation between sentences are integrated. Clefts facilitate word processing for English native speakers. Contrary to German L1, the marked cleft construction doesn’t reduce processing times in English L2. The L1-L2 difference was interpreted as a learner problem of applying specific linguistic structures according to the principles of information structure in the target language. Focus marking by cleft did not help German learners in native or in nonnative word recall. This could be attributed to the phonological similarity of the multiple choice options (Conrad & Hull, 1964), and to a long time span between listening and recall (Birch & Garnsey, 1995; McKoon et al., 1993). Experiment 3: Focus marking by lexical means Focus particles are elements of structure that can indicate focus (König, 1991), and their function is to emphasize a certain part of the sentence (Paterson et al., 1999). I argue that the focus particles even/only (German: sogar/nur) evoke contrast sets of alternatives resp. complements to the element in focus (Ni et al., 1996), which causes interpretations of context. Therefore, lexical focus marking isn’t expected to lead to faster word processing. However, since different mechanisms of encoding seem to underlie word memory, a benefit of the focusing function of particles is expected to show in the recall task: due to focus particles being a preferred and well-used feature for native speakers of German, a transfer of this habitualness is expected, resulting in a better recall of focused words. Results indicated that focus particles seem to be the weakest option to mark focus: Focus marking by lexical particle don’t seem to reduce word processing times in either German L1, English L2, or in English L1. The presence of focus particles is likely to instantiate a complex discourse model which lets the listener await further modifying information (Liversedge et al., 2002). This semantic complexity might slow down processing. There are no indications that focus particles facilitate native language word recall in German L1 and English L1. This could be because focus particles open sets of conditions and contexts that enlarge the set of representations in listeners rather than narrowing it down to the element in the scope of the focus particle. In word recall, the facilitative effect of focus particles emerges only in the nonnative language condition. It is suggested that L2 learners, when faced with more demanding tasks in an L2, use a broad variety of means that identify focus for a better representation of novel words in the memory. In Experiments 2 and 3, evidence suggests that accent is an important factor for efficient word processing and accurate recall in German L1 and English L1, but less so in English L2. This underlines the function of accent as core speech parameter and consistent cue to the perception of prominence native language use (see Cutler & Fodor, 1979; Pitt & Samuel, 1990a; Eriksson et al., 2002; Akker & Cutler, 2003); the L1-L2 difference is attributed to patterns of expectation that are employed in the L1 but not (yet?) in the L2. There seems to exist a fine-tuned sensitivity to how accents are distributed in the native language, listeners expect an appropriate distribution and interpret it accordingly (Eefting, 1991). This pleads for accent placement as extremely important to L2 proficiency; the current results also suggest that accent and its relationship with other speech parameters has to be newly established in the L2 to fully reveal its benefits for efficient processing of speech. There is evidence that additional context facilitates processing of complex syntactic structures but that a surplus of information has no effect if the sentence construction is less challenging for the listener. The increased amount of information to be processed seems to impede better word recall, particularly in the L2. Altogether, it seems that focus marking devices and context can combine to form an advantageous alliance: a substantial benefit in processing efficiency is found when parameters of focus marking and sentence coherence are integrated. L2 research advocates the beneficial aspects of providing context for efficient L2 word learning (Lawson & Hogben, 1996). The current thesis promotes the view that a context which offers more semantic, prosodic, or lexical connections might compensate for the additional processing load that context constitutes for the listeners. A methodological consideration concerns the order in which language conditions are presented to listeners, i.e., L1-L2 or L2-L1. Findings suggest that presentation order could enforce a learning bias, with the performance in the second experiment being influenced by knowledge acquired in the first (see Akker & Cutler, 2003). To conclude this work: The results of the present study suggest that information structure is more accessible in the native language than it is in the nonnative language. There is, however, some evidence that L2 learners have an understanding of the significance of some information-structural parameters of focus marking. This has a beneficial effect on processing efficiency and recall accuracy; on the cognitive side it illustrates the benefits and also the need of a dynamic exchange of information-structural organization between L1 and L2. The findings of the current thesis encourage the view that an understanding of information structure can help the learner to discover and categorise forms and meanings of the L2. Information structure thus emerges as a valuable resource to advance proficiency in a second language. / Das Sprechen und Verstehen einer Fremdsprache (L2) stellt eine komplexe Leistung für einen Nicht-Muttersprachler dar. Kenntnisse und Fertigkeiten auf verschiedenen sprachlichen und außersprachlichen Ebenen wirken dabei zusammen, wie z.B. eine andere Grammatik, neue Lautbildungen in der Aussprache, der Aufbau von Wortschatz, und auch die Sensibilisierung für mögliche kulturell unterschiedliche Kommunikationsformen oder das Training kommunikativer Kompetenz. Eine wichtige Hilfe bei der muttersprachlichen wie der fremdsprachlichen Sprachverarbeitung bieten Mittel, mit denen sprachliche Information gegliedert wird, um sie verständlich zu machen. Die Informationsstruktur ermöglicht es, zum Beispiel den Fokus einer Äußerung zu markieren und damit Intentionen sprachlich zu vermitteln. In gesprochener Sprache sind es vor allem prosodische Mittel wie Satzakzent, die es dem Hörer ermöglichen, die wichtigen Informationen in der Äußerung herauszufinden. Aber auch durch die Verwendung unterschiedlicher grammatischer Strukturen oder durch besondere Wortwahl können Sprecher Satzteile markieren, die sie für besonders wichtig halten, und sie damit hervorheben. Wird die Informationsstruktur eines Satzes verletzt, indem zum Beispiel der Satzakzent auf ein eher unwichtiges Wort gelegt wird, kann der Gesprächspartner/die Gesprächspartnerin einen anderen Teil des Satzes als im Fokus stehend interpretieren als den vom Sprecher eigentlich intendierten Teil. Dies kann - in Kombination mit anderen Faktoren wie ungeschickter Wortwahl - zu Missverständnissen führen. Nun kann eine Sprache prosodische, syntaktische oder lexikalische Möglichkeiten der Markierung besitzen, die entweder in einer anderen Sprache nicht vorkommen, oder die andere Funktionen in Bezug auf die Interpretation von Äußerungen erfüllen, die in dieser Form in der jeweils anderen Sprache nicht existieren. Dies betrifft zum Beispiel Unterschiede zwischen Intonations- und Tonsprachen oder zwischen silbenzählenden und akzentzählenden Sprachen. Ruft der Fremdsprachenlerner die Strukturen sprachlicher Information in der Muttersprache (L1) ab und überträgt sie auf die Fremdsprache, kann dies bei gleicher informationsstruktureller Organisation der Sprache zu einer erfolgreichen Strategie des fremdsprachlichen Verstehens führen. Wird aber Informationsstruktur in der Fremdsprache mit anderen Mitteln als in der Muttersprache ausgedrückt, entsteht ein Spannungsfeld zwischen Verarbeitungsstrategien der Muttersprache und denen der Fremdsprache. Die vorliegende Arbeit befasst sich mit der Rolle informationsstruktureller Parameter in der muttersprachlichen und fremdsprachlichen Sprachverarbeitung. Es wird untersucht, wie Fremdsprachenlerner Fokusmarkierung in der Muttersprache (hier: Deutsch) und in der Fremdsprache (hier: Englisch) zu effizienter Sprachverarbeitung nutzen. Das Ziel ist eine tiefere Einsicht, wie sich Informationsstruktur in der Fremdsprache erschließt; die grundlegende Annahme ist dabei, dass ein Verständnis und eine Sensibilisierung für Informationsstruktur dem Fremdsprachenlerner hilft, Form und Bedeutung von Sprache zu erkennen. Eine solche Einsicht in Informationsstruktur unterstützt die Erweiterung und Festigung fremdsprachlicher Kompetenz. Die Frage nach dem Gebrauch von Informationsstruktur in einer Fremdsprache wird in drei experimentellen Studien untersucht, die sich auf jeweils eines der folgenden sprachlichen Mittel zur Fokusmarkierung konzentrieren: 1. Prosodische Mittel der Fokusmarkierung: Unterstützen Satzakzent und Wortposition im Satz eine bessere Worterkennung? 2. Syntaktische Mittel der Fokusmarkierung: Ermöglicht die Konstruktion eines Spaltsatzes (Englisch: cleft) eine schnellere Verarbeitung des fokussierten Elements im Satz als eine kanonische Wortstellung, und kann sich der Hörer auch zu einem späteren Zeitpunkt noch besser an ein syntaktisch markiertes als an ein unmarkiertes Element erinnern? 3. Lexikalische Mittel der Fokusmarkierung: Bewirken Fokuspartikel (hier: nur/sogar) eine schnellere Verarbeitung des fokussierten Elements, und kann sich der Hörer auch zu einem späteren Zeitpunkt noch besser an das fokussierte als an das nicht-fokussierte Element erinnern? Zusätzlich wird in Experiment 2 und in Experiment 3 untersucht, welchen Einfluss einleitende Fragen haben, die zur Fokusmarkierung eines Elements im Folgesatz dienen. Außerdem wird nachgegangen, welche Rolle es spielt, wenn ein syntaktisch oder lexikalisch fokussiertes Element einen Tonhöheakzent bekommt oder wenn dieser auf dem vorangegangenen Adjektiv realisiert wird. Die Probanden sind deutsche Muttersprachler, die Englisch als Fremdsprache gelernt haben. In den Experimenten werden den Testpersonen jeweils Sprachaufnahmen von deutschen Sätzen und Aufnahmen von parallel dazu konstruierten englischen Sätzen dargeboten. Als Kontrollgruppe für den englischen Teil der Experimente werden englische Muttersprachler getestet, um Referenzdaten für die Ergebnisse der Fremdsprachenlerner zu erhalten. Die Experimente sind als Perzeptionsexperimente konzipiert. Experiment 1 (prosodische Fokusmarkierung) untersucht Worterkennung in drei Bedingungen mitunterschiedlichem Fokus (weiter und enger Fokus, enger Fokus auf anderem Satzelement als dem Zielwort), und zwei Bedingungen mit künstlich durch splicing verändertem Sprachmaterial. In Experiment 2 (syntaktische Fokusmarkierung) und Experiment 3 (lexikalische Fokusmarkierung) wird im Hörexperiment als Methode phoneme monitoring angewandt, wobei die Reaktionszeiten zum Erkennen des fokussierten Worts (welches ein vorher spezifiziertes Phonem enthält) gemessen werden. Im Anschluss an den Hörteil wird in diesen zwei Experimenten außerdem ein Erinnerungstest durchgeführt, bei dem die fokussierten Elemente mit einem Multiple-Choice-Verfahren (4AFC) noch einmal abgefragt werden und die Anzahl der richtigen Antworten gewertet wird. Zu 1.: Prosodische Mittel der Fokusmarkierung Akzentuierung ist ein Mittel, um im Satz wichtige Information hervorzuheben (Bolinger, 1972), was zu einer besseren Wahrnehmung solch akzentuierter Information führt (siehe z.B. van Santen & Olive, 1990; Eefting, 1991). Akzentstruktur scheint jedoch schneller in der L1 als in der L2 verarbeitet zu werden (Akker & Cutler, 2003). Es wird daher angenommen, dass in der L1 eine Fokusmarkierung durch Tonhöheakzent zu besserer Worterkennung eines solchermaßen markierten Wortes führt. Akzentstruktur sollte sich auch in der L2 erschließen, wenn auch in geringerem Maß (L1 > L2). Insgesamt wird ein unterschiedlich starker Fokuseffekt je nach Fokusbedingung erwartet (enger Fokus > weiter Fokus). Die Ergebnisse von Experiment 1 bestätigen, dass Worte in der Muttersprache besser erkannt werden als in der Fremdsprache. Ein unterschiedlicher, als Satzakzent realisierter Fokus hilft allerdings den Probanden weder in der Muttersprache noch in der Fremdssprache, fokussierte Worte schneller zu erkennen. Dies könnte auf ungenügende akustische Unterschiede in der Realisierung der unterschiedlichen Fokuskonditionen in den Sprachaufnahmen zurückzuführen sein. Die Experimente mit synthetisch, durch splicing manipuliertem Sprachmaterial ergeben, dass die umgebende Satzprosodie eher zur Worterkennung beiträgt als die einzelne Akzentmarkierung des Wortes (Cutler, 1976). Für die Salienz der Wortposition im Satz postulierte VanPatten (2004) für fremdsprachliche Wahrnehmung die Reihenfolge von initialer > finaler > medialer Position. Akker und Cutler (2003) erwähnen für L1 und L2 einen Verarbeitungsvorteil von später im Satz auftretenden Worten gegenüber früher Auftretenden. Des weiteren fand Rast (2003) in einer L2-Produktionsstudie einen Vorteil der äußeren Satzpositionen gegenüber der medialen Position. Im vorliegenden Experiment werden die Sätze vor allem wegen der fremdsprachlichen Testbedingung in akzeptabler Länge gehalten, was Aussagen über die Position an den äußeren Satzenden ermöglicht, aber weniger deutliche Effekte für die medial Position erwarten lässt. Wortlänge wurde als Nebenfaktor mit in das Experiment aufgenommen ohne eigenständige Hypothesen dafür zu formulieren. In einer früheren L2 Studie zeigte Wortlänge nur in Abhängigkeit zur Position des Wortes im Satz einen Effekt (Rast, 2003; Rast & Dommergues, 2003). Die Ergebnisse von Experiment 1 zeigen, dass die Länge der Zielworte keine entscheidende Rolle für deren korrekte Erkennung spielt. Die Wortposition im Satz, und hier besonders die finale Position, trägt jedoch entscheidend zur korrekten Worterkennung im Deutschen bei. Ein ähnlicher Trend zeigt sich für die Worterkennung in der Fremdsprache Englisch (siehe Klein, 1984; Slobin, 1985). Das Lokalitätsprinzip von VanPatten (2004) mit dem Verarbeitungsvorteil von initial > final > medial kann nicht bestätigt werden, und die besondere Salienz der finalen Position wird mit Murdock (1962) als recency effect erklärt. Außerdem könnte die finale Position von der Konvention für die Integration neuer Information profitieren: bekannte Information wird vor neuer Information genannt (Haviland & Clark, 1974). Hörer handeln nach dieser üblichen Diskursstruktur und richten ihre Aufmerksamkeit auf Information, die in finaler Position genannt wird. Zu 2.: Syntaktische Mittel der Fokusmarkierung Die Abweichung von kanonischer Satzstruktur lenkt die Aufmerksamkeit auf bestimmte Elemente im Satz, und der Spaltsatz ist in vielen Sprachen eine bekannte Art der Fokussierung (Lambrecht, 2001). Die Oberflächenstruktur eines Satzes beeinflusst seine Verarbeitung (Foss & Lynch, 1969; Langford & Holmes, 1979) und in Experiment 2 stehen zwei Hypothesen gegenüber: Der fokussierende Effekt von Spaltsätzen könnte einen Verarbeitungsvorteil bewirken. Andererseits sind Spaltsätze im Deutschen seltener und weniger gebräuchlich als im Englischen (Ahlemeyer & Kohlhof, 1999; Doherty, 1999; E. Klein, 1988); die syntaktische Komplexität von Spaltsätzen und die Erfahrung der Muttersprache könnten einem Verarbeitungsvorteil in Deutsch L1 und Englisch L2 entgegenwirken. Die Ergebnisse von Experiment 2 zeigen, dass der Spaltsatz ein effektives Mittel der Fokusmarkierung im Deutschen ist. Dies wird auf die geringe strukturelle Markiertheit des Ersatz-Subjekts ‚es’ zurückgeführt, da es an kanonischer, initialer Stelle steht. Die Prominenz dieses Subjekts setzt das nachfolgende Subjekt-Element in Fokus und verleiht ihm Subjekt-Prominenz. Der verarbeitungsfördernde Effekt von Spaltsätzen wird noch erhöht, wenn Oberflächenstruktur (Spaltsatz) und Satzzusammenhang (Kontext) integriert werden. Der Spaltsatz wird jedoch nicht in der Fremdsprache als ein effektives Mittel der Fokusmarkierung genutzt. Englische Muttersprachler nutzen den Fokuseffekt des Spaltsatzes zur schnellen Worterkennung, aber dieses informationsstrukturelle Mittel der L2 wird nicht von Fremdsprachenlernern erkannt und verwertet. Dies wird als Lernerproblem interpretiert: linguistische Strukturen der Muttersprache werden nicht adäquat nach informationsstrukturellen Prinzipien in der Fremdsprache angewandt. Der Spaltsatz trägt weder im Deutschen noch im Englischen zu einer besseren Erinnerungsleistung bei. Das kann zum einen an der starken phonologischen Ähnlichkeit der im Test angebotenen Antwortoptionen liegen (Conrad & Hull, 1964); zum anderen kann es mit der Zeitspanne zusammenhängen, die zwischen Hörexperiment und Erinnerungstest liegen und die die Erinnerung an ein bestimmtes Wort zu sehr erschwert (Birch & Garnsey, 1995; McCoon et.al., 1993). Zu 3.: Lexikalische Mittel der Fokusmarkierung Fokuspartikel sind Exponenten von Fokusstruktur und sie markieren Satzelemente (König, 1991; Paterson et al., 1999). Die untersuchten Fokuspartikel evozieren Kontrast und Alternativmengen zu dem fokussierten Element, was Interpretationen von Kontext bewirkt (Ni et al., 1996; Liversedge et al., 2002). Von daher wird keine schnellere Verarbeitung von fokussierten Worten erwartet. Ihre förderliche Eigenschaft zeigt sich jedoch in der Erinnerungsleistung, da sich dieser Prozess auf andere Erschließungsmechanismen zu stützen scheint: es wird erwartet, dass der bevorzugte Gebrauch von lexikalischen Mitteln zur Fokusmarkierung im Deutschen (König, 1991; Ahlemeyer & Kohlhof, 1999) sich positiv auf die Erinnerung von fokussierten Worten auswirkt. Die Fokuspartikel nur und sogar in Experiment 3 erweisen sich in der Experimentreihe als schwächste Exponenten von Fokusmarkierung: Weder im Deutschen noch in Englischen als Fremdsprache noch in der englischen Kontrollgruppe bewirken diese Fokuspartikel eine schnellere Verarbeitung des fokussierten Elements. Dies erklärt sich durch die Eigenschaft von Fokuspartikeln, eine Menge an Alternativen zu evozieren und dadurch beim Hörer komplexe Diskursmodelle anzuregen, die sowohl das Element in Fokus als auch Alternativen dazu beinhalten (siehe Ni et al., 1996; Liversedge et al., 2002). Verarbeitung und Interpretation der Fokusstruktur benötigen dann einen erhöhten Zeitaufwand. Im Erinnerungstest kommt der Fokuseffekt nur in der fremdsprachlichen Testbedingung zum Tragen: Werden Lerner hinsichtlich mit hinsichtlich ihrer L2-Fertigkeit anspruchsvollen Situationen konfrontiert, wird Fokusstruktur zu einer besseren Repräsentation in der Erinnerung genutzt. Übergreifend zeigt sich aus Experiment 2 und Experiment 3, dass ein zusätzlicher Satzakzent in Sätzen mit syntaktischer oder lexikalischer Fokusmarkierung in muttersprachlichem Deutsch und Englisch genutzt wird, aber in der Fremdsprache nicht gleichermaßen effektiv verarbeitet wird. Ein bedeutender Parameter wie Tonhöheakzent wird in der Fremdsprache scheinbar weniger genutzt, wenn gleichzeitig andere Mittel der Markierung auftreten. Vor allem deutet dieser Effekt jedoch auf eine weitaus differenziertere Wahrnehmung und Interpretation von Tonhöheakzent in der Muttersprache hin. Des weiteren scheint die Reihenfolge, in der die Testsprachen den Probanden angeboten werden (L1-L2,oder L2-L1) von Bedeutung zu sein, da ein Lerneffekt aus der ersten Testsprache die Leistung in der zweiten Testsprache beeinflussen kann. Dies erschwert die Erhebung vergleichbarer Daten für zwei Sprachen von derselben Probandengruppe (siehe Akker & Cutler, 2003). Im Hinblick auf die Auswirkungen von Kontext auf die Wortverarbeitung weisen die Ergebnisse darauf hin, dass vorangestellte Fragen dem Fremdsprachenlerner nur bedingt Hilfe bei der zügigen Verarbeitung von z.B. schwierigeren Satzkonstruktionen bieten. Zusätzlicher Kontext scheint außerdem die Erinnerungsleistung zu erschweren, vor allem in der Fremdsprache. Sowohl in der Fremdsprachenforschung als auch in der Fremdsprachendidaktik hat die Einbettung in einen Kontext bei dem Erlernen von Worten eine große Bedeutung (Lawson & Hogben, 1996). Es wird dahingehend argumentiert, dass eine Form von Kontext, die mehr semantische, prosodische oder lexikalische Verbindungen schafft, den zusätzlichen Verarbeitungsaufwand kompensieren müsste. Die Ergebnisse der vorliegenden Arbeit weisen darauf hin, dass sich Informationsstruktur eher in der Muttersprache als in der Fremdsprache erschließt. Einzelne informationsstrukturelle Parameter werden jedoch sehr wohl von den Fremdsprachenlernern erfolgreich ausgewertet, was sich in einer schnelleren und nachhaltigeren sprachlichen Verarbeitung äußert. Auf der kognitiven Ebene zeigt die vorliegende Arbeit die vorteilhafte Wirkung auf, wenn Informationsstruktur von Mutter- und Fremdsprache in dynamischem Austausch stehen. Die Ergebnisse bestärken die Annahme, dass ein Verständnis von Informationsstruktur dem Fremdsprachenlerner helfen kann, Form und Bedeutung der Fremdsprache zu erkennen. Informationsstruktur erweist sich als potentiell wertvolle Ressource in der Entwicklung und Stärkung fremdsprachlicher Kompetenz.

Fluent sentence comprehension requires the automatic application of grammatical principles, in combination with other kinds of information, to a linear input string. The latter can vary greatly in complexity, and it has been observed that structures that involve non-adjacent relationships (non-local dependencies) cause particular processing difficulties, for even fluent readers. This thesis focuses on the potential role that L1 transfer plays in processing non-local dependencies in the L2. Although L1 transfer has been demonstrated in a variety of L2 domains (Juffs, 2005), the degree to which L1 syntactic properties influence the L2 in real-time processing remains an open question (Clahsen & Felser, 2006b). A better understanding of L1 influence on L2 processing has important implications for emerging models of L2 sentence processing and SLA theory in general. This thesis examines L1 effects on the processing of L2 English relative clauses. It builds on established models of L1 relative clause processing (e.g., Gibson, 1998) and focuses on the asymmetry observed in the processing of subject versus object relative clauses. Research has shown that L1 individuals find object relative clauses more difficult to process than their subject counterparts (King & Just, 1991), and off-line L2 research suggests that this asymmetry might hold for L2 processing as well (Izumi, 2003; Kanno, 2007). This thesis will examine the asymmetry on-line and investigate the role that L1 background plays in on-line performance, both alone and in combination with other processing factors. The main data are on-line performance by three groups of advanced-level learners of L2 English from Japan, China, and Vietnam. The three L1s differ from English to varying degrees in relative clause formation, as reflected in head direction, branching direction and the presence of an overt relative marker. Vietnamese shares all three properties with English and Japanese none, leading to the prediction that the Japanese learners will have the greatest difficulty, as evident in the largest subject/object asymmetry in processing times. Evidence for the effect of L1 syntactic properties on L2 processing will be sought in a set of studies that compare processing outcomes for these learners across key individual difference factors in L2 processing, working memory capacity, lexical processing efficiency, and proficiency. The effect of non-structural information, in the form of animacy contrasts and frequency effects, on L2 syntactic processing across the L1 groups will also be examined. By systematically examining group differences across these key factors, the degree and nature of potential L1 influence on the processing of these non-local dependencies can be better assessed. Three groups of advanced-level L2 English learners from China, Japan, and Vietnam, a group of intermediate-level learners in Japan, and native English controls participated in the data collection. Participants were first tested on a battery of individual difference measures that established language proficiency and general processing skill for individual participants and groups. On-line reading data of relative clause structures were then collected and reported in a set of five studies. Study 1 examined reading when the target structures contained high frequency content words, which minimized word recognition demands. Advanced L2 learners took longer to read object relative clauses, and the difference was the greatest for the Japanese group. Study 2 revealed that the subject/object asymmetry and L1 influence evident in Study 1 disappeared when word recognition was effortful, as in sentences with low frequency words, suggesting that L1 syntactic influence may only be evident when lexical processing is relatively automatic. Study 3 examined the effect of proficiency differences on processing outcomes by comparing performance by Intermediate and Advanced Japanese learners. The Intermediate learners showed no subject/object asymmetry in sentences with high frequency words, providing further evidence that processing efficiency is a key factor when considering possible L1 effects in L2 processing. Study 4 demonstrated that advanced L2 learners benefited from animacy cues in on-line processing, with the difficulty associated with object relative sentences and the L1 effect evident in sentences with animate head nouns neutralized in sentences with inanimate head nouns. The findings indicate that L2 learners may rely on lexical information as an alternative to syntactic knowledge in some cases. Finally, Study 5 compared processing performance on full or reduced relative clauses to examine both the influence of L1 syntactic properties and L1 structural frequency biases on L2 processing outcomes. Although the influence of frequency information was not evident, the results suggested that the availability of an overt relative marker in the L1 affected L2 processing outcomes. Overall, the results provide some support for the view that L1 background influences the processing of complex syntactic structures in the L2, a finding consistent with Juffs (2005) but contrary to Clahsen et al. (Clahsen & Felser, 2006b). However, the effect is sensitive to a range of factors, which appears to support the claim by the latter that L2 learners may rely more on lexical-semantic information than L1 individuals.

Fluent sentence comprehension requires the automatic application of grammatical principles, in combination with other kinds of information, to a linear input string. The latter can vary greatly in complexity, and it has been observed that structures that involve non-adjacent relationships (non-local dependencies) cause particular processing difficulties, for even fluent readers. This thesis focuses on the potential role that L1 transfer plays in processing non-local dependencies in the L2. Although L1 transfer has been demonstrated in a variety of L2 domains (Juffs, 2005), the degree to which L1 syntactic properties influence the L2 in real-time processing remains an open question (Clahsen & Felser, 2006b). A better understanding of L1 influence on L2 processing has important implications for emerging models of L2 sentence processing and SLA theory in general. This thesis examines L1 effects on the processing of L2 English relative clauses. It builds on established models of L1 relative clause processing (e.g., Gibson, 1998) and focuses on the asymmetry observed in the processing of subject versus object relative clauses. Research has shown that L1 individuals find object relative clauses more difficult to process than their subject counterparts (King & Just, 1991), and off-line L2 research suggests that this asymmetry might hold for L2 processing as well (Izumi, 2003; Kanno, 2007). This thesis will examine the asymmetry on-line and investigate the role that L1 background plays in on-line performance, both alone and in combination with other processing factors. The main data are on-line performance by three groups of advanced-level learners of L2 English from Japan, China, and Vietnam. The three L1s differ from English to varying degrees in relative clause formation, as reflected in head direction, branching direction and the presence of an overt relative marker. Vietnamese shares all three properties with English and Japanese none, leading to the prediction that the Japanese learners will have the greatest difficulty, as evident in the largest subject/object asymmetry in processing times. Evidence for the effect of L1 syntactic properties on L2 processing will be sought in a set of studies that compare processing outcomes for these learners across key individual difference factors in L2 processing, working memory capacity, lexical processing efficiency, and proficiency. The effect of non-structural information, in the form of animacy contrasts and frequency effects, on L2 syntactic processing across the L1 groups will also be examined. By systematically examining group differences across these key factors, the degree and nature of potential L1 influence on the processing of these non-local dependencies can be better assessed. Three groups of advanced-level L2 English learners from China, Japan, and Vietnam, a group of intermediate-level learners in Japan, and native English controls participated in the data collection. Participants were first tested on a battery of individual difference measures that established language proficiency and general processing skill for individual participants and groups. On-line reading data of relative clause structures were then collected and reported in a set of five studies. Study 1 examined reading when the target structures contained high frequency content words, which minimized word recognition demands. Advanced L2 learners took longer to read object relative clauses, and the difference was the greatest for the Japanese group. Study 2 revealed that the subject/object asymmetry and L1 influence evident in Study 1 disappeared when word recognition was effortful, as in sentences with low frequency words, suggesting that L1 syntactic influence may only be evident when lexical processing is relatively automatic. Study 3 examined the effect of proficiency differences on processing outcomes by comparing performance by Intermediate and Advanced Japanese learners. The Intermediate learners showed no subject/object asymmetry in sentences with high frequency words, providing further evidence that processing efficiency is a key factor when considering possible L1 effects in L2 processing. Study 4 demonstrated that advanced L2 learners benefited from animacy cues in on-line processing, with the difficulty associated with object relative sentences and the L1 effect evident in sentences with animate head nouns neutralized in sentences with inanimate head nouns. The findings indicate that L2 learners may rely on lexical information as an alternative to syntactic knowledge in some cases. Finally, Study 5 compared processing performance on full or reduced relative clauses to examine both the influence of L1 syntactic properties and L1 structural frequency biases on L2 processing outcomes. Although the influence of frequency information was not evident, the results suggested that the availability of an overt relative marker in the L1 affected L2 processing outcomes. Overall, the results provide some support for the view that L1 background influences the processing of complex syntactic structures in the L2, a finding consistent with Juffs (2005) but contrary to Clahsen et al. (Clahsen & Felser, 2006b). However, the effect is sensitive to a range of factors, which appears to support the claim by the latter that L2 learners may rely more on lexical-semantic information than L1 individuals.

Fluent sentence comprehension requires the automatic application of grammatical principles, in combination with other kinds of information, to a linear input string. The latter can vary greatly in complexity, and it has been observed that structures that involve non-adjacent relationships (non-local dependencies) cause particular processing difficulties, for even fluent readers. This thesis focuses on the potential role that L1 transfer plays in processing non-local dependencies in the L2. Although L1 transfer has been demonstrated in a variety of L2 domains (Juffs, 2005), the degree to which L1 syntactic properties influence the L2 in real-time processing remains an open question (Clahsen & Felser, 2006b). A better understanding of L1 influence on L2 processing has important implications for emerging models of L2 sentence processing and SLA theory in general. This thesis examines L1 effects on the processing of L2 English relative clauses. It builds on established models of L1 relative clause processing (e.g., Gibson, 1998) and focuses on the asymmetry observed in the processing of subject versus object relative clauses. Research has shown that L1 individuals find object relative clauses more difficult to process than their subject counterparts (King & Just, 1991), and off-line L2 research suggests that this asymmetry might hold for L2 processing as well (Izumi, 2003; Kanno, 2007). This thesis will examine the asymmetry on-line and investigate the role that L1 background plays in on-line performance, both alone and in combination with other processing factors. The main data are on-line performance by three groups of advanced-level learners of L2 English from Japan, China, and Vietnam. The three L1s differ from English to varying degrees in relative clause formation, as reflected in head direction, branching direction and the presence of an overt relative marker. Vietnamese shares all three properties with English and Japanese none, leading to the prediction that the Japanese learners will have the greatest difficulty, as evident in the largest subject/object asymmetry in processing times. Evidence for the effect of L1 syntactic properties on L2 processing will be sought in a set of studies that compare processing outcomes for these learners across key individual difference factors in L2 processing, working memory capacity, lexical processing efficiency, and proficiency. The effect of non-structural information, in the form of animacy contrasts and frequency effects, on L2 syntactic processing across the L1 groups will also be examined. By systematically examining group differences across these key factors, the degree and nature of potential L1 influence on the processing of these non-local dependencies can be better assessed. Three groups of advanced-level L2 English learners from China, Japan, and Vietnam, a group of intermediate-level learners in Japan, and native English controls participated in the data collection. Participants were first tested on a battery of individual difference measures that established language proficiency and general processing skill for individual participants and groups. On-line reading data of relative clause structures were then collected and reported in a set of five studies. Study 1 examined reading when the target structures contained high frequency content words, which minimized word recognition demands. Advanced L2 learners took longer to read object relative clauses, and the difference was the greatest for the Japanese group. Study 2 revealed that the subject/object asymmetry and L1 influence evident in Study 1 disappeared when word recognition was effortful, as in sentences with low frequency words, suggesting that L1 syntactic influence may only be evident when lexical processing is relatively automatic. Study 3 examined the effect of proficiency differences on processing outcomes by comparing performance by Intermediate and Advanced Japanese learners. The Intermediate learners showed no subject/object asymmetry in sentences with high frequency words, providing further evidence that processing efficiency is a key factor when considering possible L1 effects in L2 processing. Study 4 demonstrated that advanced L2 learners benefited from animacy cues in on-line processing, with the difficulty associated with object relative sentences and the L1 effect evident in sentences with animate head nouns neutralized in sentences with inanimate head nouns. The findings indicate that L2 learners may rely on lexical information as an alternative to syntactic knowledge in some cases. Finally, Study 5 compared processing performance on full or reduced relative clauses to examine both the influence of L1 syntactic properties and L1 structural frequency biases on L2 processing outcomes. Although the influence of frequency information was not evident, the results suggested that the availability of an overt relative marker in the L1 affected L2 processing outcomes. Overall, the results provide some support for the view that L1 background influences the processing of complex syntactic structures in the L2, a finding consistent with Juffs (2005) but contrary to Clahsen et al. (Clahsen & Felser, 2006b). However, the effect is sensitive to a range of factors, which appears to support the claim by the latter that L2 learners may rely more on lexical-semantic information than L1 individuals.

Fluent sentence comprehension requires the automatic application of grammatical principles, in combination with other kinds of information, to a linear input string. The latter can vary greatly in complexity, and it has been observed that structures that involve non-adjacent relationships (non-local dependencies) cause particular processing difficulties, for even fluent readers. This thesis focuses on the potential role that L1 transfer plays in processing non-local dependencies in the L2. Although L1 transfer has been demonstrated in a variety of L2 domains (Juffs, 2005), the degree to which L1 syntactic properties influence the L2 in real-time processing remains an open question (Clahsen & Felser, 2006b). A better understanding of L1 influence on L2 processing has important implications for emerging models of L2 sentence processing and SLA theory in general. This thesis examines L1 effects on the processing of L2 English relative clauses. It builds on established models of L1 relative clause processing (e.g., Gibson, 1998) and focuses on the asymmetry observed in the processing of subject versus object relative clauses. Research has shown that L1 individuals find object relative clauses more difficult to process than their subject counterparts (King & Just, 1991), and off-line L2 research suggests that this asymmetry might hold for L2 processing as well (Izumi, 2003; Kanno, 2007). This thesis will examine the asymmetry on-line and investigate the role that L1 background plays in on-line performance, both alone and in combination with other processing factors. The main data are on-line performance by three groups of advanced-level learners of L2 English from Japan, China, and Vietnam. The three L1s differ from English to varying degrees in relative clause formation, as reflected in head direction, branching direction and the presence of an overt relative marker. Vietnamese shares all three properties with English and Japanese none, leading to the prediction that the Japanese learners will have the greatest difficulty, as evident in the largest subject/object asymmetry in processing times. Evidence for the effect of L1 syntactic properties on L2 processing will be sought in a set of studies that compare processing outcomes for these learners across key individual difference factors in L2 processing, working memory capacity, lexical processing efficiency, and proficiency. The effect of non-structural information, in the form of animacy contrasts and frequency effects, on L2 syntactic processing across the L1 groups will also be examined. By systematically examining group differences across these key factors, the degree and nature of potential L1 influence on the processing of these non-local dependencies can be better assessed. Three groups of advanced-level L2 English learners from China, Japan, and Vietnam, a group of intermediate-level learners in Japan, and native English controls participated in the data collection. Participants were first tested on a battery of individual difference measures that established language proficiency and general processing skill for individual participants and groups. On-line reading data of relative clause structures were then collected and reported in a set of five studies. Study 1 examined reading when the target structures contained high frequency content words, which minimized word recognition demands. Advanced L2 learners took longer to read object relative clauses, and the difference was the greatest for the Japanese group. Study 2 revealed that the subject/object asymmetry and L1 influence evident in Study 1 disappeared when word recognition was effortful, as in sentences with low frequency words, suggesting that L1 syntactic influence may only be evident when lexical processing is relatively automatic. Study 3 examined the effect of proficiency differences on processing outcomes by comparing performance by Intermediate and Advanced Japanese learners. The Intermediate learners showed no subject/object asymmetry in sentences with high frequency words, providing further evidence that processing efficiency is a key factor when considering possible L1 effects in L2 processing. Study 4 demonstrated that advanced L2 learners benefited from animacy cues in on-line processing, with the difficulty associated with object relative sentences and the L1 effect evident in sentences with animate head nouns neutralized in sentences with inanimate head nouns. The findings indicate that L2 learners may rely on lexical information as an alternative to syntactic knowledge in some cases. Finally, Study 5 compared processing performance on full or reduced relative clauses to examine both the influence of L1 syntactic properties and L1 structural frequency biases on L2 processing outcomes. Although the influence of frequency information was not evident, the results suggested that the availability of an overt relative marker in the L1 affected L2 processing outcomes. Overall, the results provide some support for the view that L1 background influences the processing of complex syntactic structures in the L2, a finding consistent with Juffs (2005) but contrary to Clahsen et al. (Clahsen & Felser, 2006b). However, the effect is sensitive to a range of factors, which appears to support the claim by the latter that L2 learners may rely more on lexical-semantic information than L1 individuals.

Fluent sentence comprehension requires the automatic application of grammatical principles, in combination with other kinds of information, to a linear input string. The latter can vary greatly in complexity, and it has been observed that structures that involve non-adjacent relationships (non-local dependencies) cause particular processing difficulties, for even fluent readers. This thesis focuses on the potential role that L1 transfer plays in processing non-local dependencies in the L2. Although L1 transfer has been demonstrated in a variety of L2 domains (Juffs, 2005), the degree to which L1 syntactic properties influence the L2 in real-time processing remains an open question (Clahsen & Felser, 2006b). A better understanding of L1 influence on L2 processing has important implications for emerging models of L2 sentence processing and SLA theory in general. This thesis examines L1 effects on the processing of L2 English relative clauses. It builds on established models of L1 relative clause processing (e.g., Gibson, 1998) and focuses on the asymmetry observed in the processing of subject versus object relative clauses. Research has shown that L1 individuals find object relative clauses more difficult to process than their subject counterparts (King & Just, 1991), and off-line L2 research suggests that this asymmetry might hold for L2 processing as well (Izumi, 2003; Kanno, 2007). This thesis will examine the asymmetry on-line and investigate the role that L1 background plays in on-line performance, both alone and in combination with other processing factors. The main data are on-line performance by three groups of advanced-level learners of L2 English from Japan, China, and Vietnam. The three L1s differ from English to varying degrees in relative clause formation, as reflected in head direction, branching direction and the presence of an overt relative marker. Vietnamese shares all three properties with English and Japanese none, leading to the prediction that the Japanese learners will have the greatest difficulty, as evident in the largest subject/object asymmetry in processing times. Evidence for the effect of L1 syntactic properties on L2 processing will be sought in a set of studies that compare processing outcomes for these learners across key individual difference factors in L2 processing, working memory capacity, lexical processing efficiency, and proficiency. The effect of non-structural information, in the form of animacy contrasts and frequency effects, on L2 syntactic processing across the L1 groups will also be examined. By systematically examining group differences across these key factors, the degree and nature of potential L1 influence on the processing of these non-local dependencies can be better assessed. Three groups of advanced-level L2 English learners from China, Japan, and Vietnam, a group of intermediate-level learners in Japan, and native English controls participated in the data collection. Participants were first tested on a battery of individual difference measures that established language proficiency and general processing skill for individual participants and groups. On-line reading data of relative clause structures were then collected and reported in a set of five studies. Study 1 examined reading when the target structures contained high frequency content words, which minimized word recognition demands. Advanced L2 learners took longer to read object relative clauses, and the difference was the greatest for the Japanese group. Study 2 revealed that the subject/object asymmetry and L1 influence evident in Study 1 disappeared when word recognition was effortful, as in sentences with low frequency words, suggesting that L1 syntactic influence may only be evident when lexical processing is relatively automatic. Study 3 examined the effect of proficiency differences on processing outcomes by comparing performance by Intermediate and Advanced Japanese learners. The Intermediate learners showed no subject/object asymmetry in sentences with high frequency words, providing further evidence that processing efficiency is a key factor when considering possible L1 effects in L2 processing. Study 4 demonstrated that advanced L2 learners benefited from animacy cues in on-line processing, with the difficulty associated with object relative sentences and the L1 effect evident in sentences with animate head nouns neutralized in sentences with inanimate head nouns. The findings indicate that L2 learners may rely on lexical information as an alternative to syntactic knowledge in some cases. Finally, Study 5 compared processing performance on full or reduced relative clauses to examine both the influence of L1 syntactic properties and L1 structural frequency biases on L2 processing outcomes. Although the influence of frequency information was not evident, the results suggested that the availability of an overt relative marker in the L1 affected L2 processing outcomes. Overall, the results provide some support for the view that L1 background influences the processing of complex syntactic structures in the L2, a finding consistent with Juffs (2005) but contrary to Clahsen et al. (Clahsen & Felser, 2006b). However, the effect is sensitive to a range of factors, which appears to support the claim by the latter that L2 learners may rely more on lexical-semantic information than L1 individuals.

Made available in DSpace on 2015-05-14T12:43:14Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 arquivototal.pdf: 1762262 bytes, checksum: 48f6d4351d028ae118fd26095d9b1f42 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2012-04-20 / Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior / This work aims to investigate the coreferential processing of learners of a L2 (french) in three proficiency levels (beginner, intermediate, advanced) and compare them with native french speakers. It will be analyzed the extent to which the proficiency influences the processing of the L2 in the specific phenomenon of Repeated Name Penalty (Gordon & Chan 1995, Gordon & Hendrick, 1998; Chambers & Smyth, 1998) and Informational Load Hypothesis (Almor, 1999), besides relating the processing of the L2 Shallow Structure Hypothesis (Felser, 2006) and the Declarative/Procedural Model (Ullman, 2001). Two self-observation reading experiments were applied. In the first experiment, we analyzed the reading times for pronouns and repeated names in retrieved anaphoric in the subject position with learners from the three proficiency levels. The results show that each level of proficiency presents a pattern processing. The second experiment was applied to native speakers of French language and reading times compared with the performance of learners of an advanced level in the first experiment. There was a difference in processing between the two groups, although both suffer repeated name penalty, concerning the processing time; Learners process slower than natives, confirming the Shallow Structure Hypothesis and the Declarative/Procedural Model. / Este trabalho pretende investigar o processamento correferencial de aprendizes de L2 (francês) em três níveis de proficiência (iniciante, intermediário, avançado) e compará-los com falantes nativos de francês. Analisaremos até que ponto a proficiência influencia o processamento da L2 no fenômeno específico da Penalidade do Nome Repetido (Gordon & Chan 1995, Gordon & Hendrick, 1998; Chambers & Smyth, 1998) e Hipótese da Carga Informacional (Almor, 1999), além de relacionar o processamento da L2 com a Hipótese da Estrutura Rasa (Felser, 2006) e o Modelo Declarativo-Procedural (Ullman, 2001). Foram aplicados dois experimentos de leitura automonitorada. No primeiro experimento, analisamos os tempos de leitura de pronomes e nomes repetidos em retomadas anafóricas na posição de sujeito com os aprendizes dos três níveis de proficiência. Os resultados mostram que cada nível de proficiência apresenta um padrão de processamento. O segundo experimento foi aplicado com falantes nativos de língua francesa e os tempos de leitura comparados com o desempenho dos aprendizes de nível avançado no primeiro experimento. Observou-se uma diferença de processamento entre os dois grupos, embora ambos sofram penalidade do nome repetido, no que concerne ao tempo de processamento; os aprendizes processam de maneira menos rápida que os nativos, confirmando a Hipótese da Estrutura Rasa e o Modelo Declarativo-Procedural.