Search Abstracts | Symposia | Slide Sessions | Poster Sessions
Investigating sensitivity to binding constraints in L1 and L2 English using event-related potentials
Poster Session D, Saturday, September 13, 5:00 - 6:30 pm, Field House
Xuan Wang1, Alison Garbriele1, Robert Fiorentino1; 1University of Kansas
We investigate Mandarin Chinese-speaking learners of English’s sensitivity to binding theory constraints (Chomsky, 1981) to address an ongoing debate over whether second language (L2) processing is guided by grammatical constraints similar to native speakers. Some studies have shown that target-like interpretation of L2 reflexives is possible for some learners despite L1/L2 differences (e.g., Jiang, 2009), but other studies have argued that L2 learners do not follow binding constraints initially during processing, but rather consider a discourse-prominent antecedent (Shallow Structure Hypothesis, Clahsen & Felser 2006; 2018; Felser et al., 2009; Felser & Cunnings, 2012). This study used ERPs to address this debate by comparing the processing of reflexives and pronouns to examine if L2 learners adhere to binding constraints online. Twenty-five L1-Chinese L2-English learners and 26 L1-English speakers were asked to read 160 English sentences word by word in four conditions during an EEG experiment (Reflexives: (1a) Wendy thought that Adam trusted himself before the mistake. (1b) *Adam thought that Wendy trusted himself before the mistake. Pronouns: (2a) Adam thought that Wendy trusted him before the mistake. (2b) #Wendy thought that Adam trusted him before the mistake.), followed by comprehension questions. They also completed offline tasks examining sensitivity to binding constraints and the gender associated with the names in the experiment; these tasks showed target-like performance overall. ERPs time-locked to the onset of the reflexive/pronoun were analyzed between grammatical and violation conditions in 500-900ms (P600) and 500-1400ms (Nref) time-windows. If L2 learners exhibit native-like processing, they should show a P600 in (1b) compared to (1a) (e.g., Harris et al., 2000) and either a P600 or an Nref to (2b) compared to (2a) (Nieuwland, 2014). Note that Chinese permits long-distance binding for reflexives, and studies have shown that L1 Chinese speakers elicit a P600 when retrieving a long-distance antecedent compared to a local antecedent (Li & Zhou, 2010), or an Nref when evaluating multiple antecedents in the discourse (Zhang et al., 2021). Therefore, if L1 transfer effects are present, L2 learners would exhibit either a P600 or an Nref in reflexive condition (1b) compared to (1a), while demonstrating native-like processing for pronouns (P600 or Nref) in (2b) compared to (2a). However, under the Shallow Structure Hypothesis, L2 learners may prefer discourse-prominent subject antecedents for both pronouns and reflexives, showing a P600 to (2b) compared to (2a), but a reverse effect for reflexives with (1a) (Wendy/himself) showing a P600 compared to (1b) (Adam/himself). Results revealed that L1 speakers elicited P600s in response to the violation conditions for both reflexives and pronouns. In contrast, L2 learners exhibited an Nref for reflexives and a P600 for pronouns. These patterns suggest that L2 learners distinguished between reflexives and pronouns during online processing, rather than relying only on discourse prominence and treating them similarly. The Nref for the reflexive conditions potentially reflects L1 transfer, as L2 learners may have considered both antecedent positions, as permitted in L1 Chinese. Our results provide ERP evidence that is more in line with L1 transfer accounts than the Shallow Structures Hypothesis.
Topic Areas: Language Development/Acquisition,