Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Linguistics Vanguard

A Multimodal Journal for the Language Sciences

Editor-in-Chief: Bergs, Alexander / Cohn, Abigail C. / Good, Jeff

Online
ISSN
2199-174X
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Effects of exposure and information structure in native and non-native pronoun resolution in French

Saveria Colonna / Sarah Schimke / Israel de la Fuente / Sascha Kuck / Barbara Hemforth
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique – Laboratoire de Linguistique Formelle, Paris, Île-de-France, France
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2018-03-09 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2016-0093

Abstract

The present study investigated pronoun resolution strategies in French native speakers and in German-speaking learners of French. French and German differ in antecedent preferences in ambiguous constructions such as The postman hit the pirate before he went home: while French shows a N2-preference, German shows a N1-preference. This difference is explained by effects of exposure to an unambiguous alternative construction referring to N1 that exists in French, but not in German (Hemforth et al. 2010, Language specific preferences in anaphor resolution: Exposure or gricean maxims? In Steallan Ohlsson and Richard Catarambone (eds.), 32nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 2218–2223. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society). In questionnaires, we tested French active and passive sentences to investigate (a) whether the L2-learners would apply the same strategy as natives in the active condition (i.e. N2-preference), and (b) whether the explicit topicalization of a referent as a consequence of passivization influences interpretation preferences in both groups (resulting in more N1 choices). The results show that German learners prefer the N1 more often than the French natives in the active condition. Crucially, the number of N1 choices increased in both groups in the passive condition. These results suggest that L2-learners might have difficulties acquiring strategies based on the frequency and availability of alternative constructions in the L2, and provide further evidence for the importance of information-structure-based strategies in L1 and L2 pronoun resolution.

Keywords: pronoun resolution; L2 acquisition; information structure; usage-based preferences

References

  • Baayen, Harald. 2011. languageR: Data sets and functions with “Analyzing Linguistic Data: A practical introduction to statistics”. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=languageR.Google Scholar

  • Baayen, Harald, Dough J. Davidson & Douglas M. Bates. 2008. Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language 59(4). 390–412. DOI:.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Barr, Dale J., Roger Levy, Christoph Scheepers & Harry J. Tily. 2013. Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language 68(3). 255–278.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bates, Douglas, Martin Maechler, Ben Bolker, Steven Walker, Rune H. B. Christensen & Henrik Singmann. 2014. lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4 . http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/lme4/index.html.Google Scholar

  • Baumann, Peter, Lars Konieczny & Barbara Hemforth. 2014. Conversational implicatures in anaphora resolution: Alternative constructions and referring expressions. In Barbara Hemforth, Barbara Schmiedtovà & Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen (eds.), Psycholinguistic approaches to meaning and understanding across languages, 197–212. Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics. Munich: Springer.Google Scholar

  • Birner, Betty J. & Gregory Ward. 1998. Information status and noncanonical word order in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar

  • Caramazza, Alfonso & Shalini Gupta. 1979. The roles of topicalization, parallel function and verb semantics in the interpretation of pronouns. Linguistics 17(5–6). DOI:.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Clahsen, Harald & Claudia Felser. 2006. Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics 27(1). 3–42.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Colonna, Saveria, Sarah Schimke & Barbara Hemforth. 2012. Information structure effects on anaphora resolution in German and French: A crosslinguistic study of pronoun resolution. Linguistics 50(5). 901–1073.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Colonna, Saveria, Sarah Schimke & Barbara Hemforth. 2014. Information structure and pronoun resolution in German and French: Evidence from the visual-world paradigm. In Barbara Hemforth, Barbara Schmiedtovà & Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen (eds.), Psycholinguistic approaches to meaning and understanding across languages, 175–195. Studies in theoretical psycholinguistics. Munich: Springer.Google Scholar

  • Comrie, Bernard. 1977. In defense of spontaneous demotion: The impersonal passive. In Peter Cole & Jerrold M. Sadock (eds.), Syntax and semantics 8. Grammatical relations, 147–158. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

  • Cowles, H. Wind, Matthew Walenski & Robert Kluender. 2007. Linguistic and cognitive prominence in anaphor resolution: Topic, contrastive focus and pronouns. Topoi 26(1). 3–18. DOI:.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Crawley, Ros A., Rosemary J. Stevenson & David Kleinman. 1990. The use of heuristic strategies in the interpretation of pronouns. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 19. 245–264.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • de la Fuente, Israel, Barbara Hemforth, Saveria Colonna & Sarah Schimke. 2016. The role of syntax, semantics, and pragmatics in pronoun resolution: A cross-linguistic overview. In Anke Holler & Katja Suckow (eds.), Experimental perspectives on anaphora resolution (Linguistische Arbeiten 563), 11–31. Berlin & Boston: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Desclés, Jean-Pierre, Zlatka Guentchéva & Sebastian Shaumyan. 1985. Theoretical aspects of passivization in the framework of applicative grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company . DOI:.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Felser, Claudia & Ian Cunnings. 2012. Processing reflexives in a second language: The timing of structural and discourse-level information. Applied Psycholinguistics 33(3). 571–603. DOI:.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Felser, Claudia, Mikako Sato & Nicholas Bertenshaw. 2009. The on-line application of Binding Principle A in English as a second language. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 12. 485–502.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Fox, John & Sanford Weisberg. 2011. An R companion to applied regression, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. http://socserv.socsci.mcmaster.ca/jfox/Books/Companion.Google Scholar

  • Frazier, Lyn. 2012. Squib: Co-reference and adult language comprehension. Revista Linguística/Revista do Programa de Pós-Graduação em Linguística da Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro 8(2). 1–11.Google Scholar

  • Gernsbacher, Morton A. 1990. Language comprehension as structure building. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

  • Gernsbacher, Morton A. & David J. Hargreaves. 1988. Accessing sentence participants: The advantage of first mention. Journal of Memory and Language 27. 699–717.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Gernsbacher, Morton A., David J. Hargreaves & Mark Beeman. 1989. Building and accessing clausal representations: The advantage of first mention versus the advantage of clause recency. Journal of Memory and Language 28. 735–755.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Givón, Talmy. 1979. On understanding grammar. Cambridge: Academic Press Inc.Google Scholar

  • Grice, Herbert P. 1975. Logic and Conversation. In Peter Cole & Jerry L. Morgan (eds.), Speech acts (Syntax and Semantics 3), 41–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

  • Harris, Margaret. 1978. Noun animacy and the passive voice: A developmental approach. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 30(3). 495–504. DOI:.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hemforth, Barbara, Lars Konieczny, Christoph Scheepers, Saveria Colonna, Sarah Schimke, Peter Baumann & Joël Pynte. 2010. Language specific preferences in anaphor resolution: Exposure or gricean maxims? In Steallan Ohlsson & Richard Catarambone (eds.), 32nd annual conference of the cognitive science society, 2218–2223. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar

  • Jaeger, Florian T. 2011. Post to HLP/Jaeger lab blog. http://hlplab.wordpress.com/2011/06/25/more-on-random-slopes (accessed 03 November 2016).Google Scholar

  • Järvikivi, Juhani, Roger P. G. van Gompel, Jukka Hyönä & Raymond Bertram. 2005. Ambiguous pronoun resolution. Psychological Science 16(4). 260–264. DOI:.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Jegerski, Jill, Bill VanPatten & Gregor D. Keating. 2011. Cross-linguistic variation and the acquisition of pronominal reference in L2 Spanish. Second Language Research 27(4). 481–507. DOI:.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Kaiser, Elsi, David Cheng-Huan Li & Edward Holsinger. 2011. Exploring the lexical and acoustic consequences of referential predictability. In Iris Hendrickx, Sobha Lalitha Devi, António Branco & Ruslan Mitkov (eds.), Anaphora processing and applications, 171–183. Berlin & Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar

  • Kaiser, Elsi & John C. Trueswell. 2008. Interpreting pronouns and demonstratives in Finnish: Evidence for a form-specific approach to reference resolution. Language and Cognitive Processes 23(5). 709–748. DOI:.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Kehler, Andrew. 2004. Discourse topics, sentence topics, and coherence. Theoretical Linguistics 30. 227–240. DOI:.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Klein, Wolfgang & Clive Perdue. 1997. The basic variety (or couldn’t natural languages be much simpler). Second Language Research 13(4). 301–347.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Levinson, Stephen C. 2000. Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.Google Scholar

  • Ngo, Binh & Elsi Kaiser. 2016. Effects of passivization on subsequent mention and anaphor production in Vietnamese. Poster presented at AMLaP conference. Bilbao, September 1–3.Google Scholar

  • Patterson, Clare, Helena Trompelt & Claudia Felser. 2014. The online application of binding condition B in native and non-native pronoun resolution. Frontiers in Psychology 5. 147. DOI:.CrossrefPubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Prévost, Sophie. 2006. Topicalisation, focalisation et constructions syntaxiques en français médiéval: Des relations complexes. In Denis Apothéloz, Bernard Combettes & Franck Neveu (eds.), Les linguistiques du détachement, Sciences pour la communication, 427–439. Nancy, France: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

  • R Core Team. 2012. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar

  • Robenalt, Clarice & Adele E. Goldberg. 2016. Nonnative speakers do not take competing alternative expressions into account the way native speakers do. Language Learning 66(1). 60–93. DOI:.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Roberts, Leah, Marianne Gullberg & Peter Indefrey. 2008. On-line pronoun resolution in L2 discourse: L1 influence and general learner effects. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 30. 333–357.Google Scholar

  • Rohde, Hannah & Kehler Andrew. 2014. Grammatical and information-structural influences on pronoun production. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 29(8). 912–927. DOI:.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Schimke, Sarah & Saveria Colonna. 2016. Native and non-native interpretation of pronominal forms : Evidence from French and Turkish. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 38(1). 131–162. DOI:.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Schumacher, Petra B., Leah Roberts & Juhani Järvikivi. 2017. Agentivity drives real-time pronoun resolution: Evidence from German er and der. Lingua 185. 25–41.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Shibitani, Masayoshi. 1985. Passives and related constructions: A prototype analysis. Language 61. 821–848. DOI:.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Sorace, Antonella & Francesca Filiaci. 2006. Anaphora resolution in near-native speakers of Italian. Second Language Research 22(3). 339–368. DOI:.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Tannenbaum, Percy H. & Frederick Williams. 1968. Generation of active and passive sentences as a function of subject and object focus. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour 7. 246–250. DOI:.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Thompson, Sandra A. 1987. The Passive in English: A Discourse Perspective. In Robert Channon & Linda Shockey (eds.), In Honor of Ilse Lehiste/Ilse Lehiste Puhendusteos, 497–511. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

About the article

Received: 2016-11-09

Accepted: 2017-04-08

Published Online: 2018-03-09


Citation Information: Linguistics Vanguard, Volume 4, Issue s1, 20160093, ISSN (Online) 2199-174X, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2016-0093.

Export Citation

©2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[1]
Sarah Schimke, Israel de la Fuente, Barbara Hemforth, and Saveria Colonna
Language Learning, 2018

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in