{"title":"Native and second language processing of quantifier scope ambiguity","authors":"Eun Seon Chung, Jeong-Ah Shin","doi":"10.1177/02676583221079741","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The present study investigates native (L1) and second language (L2) processing of scope ambiguities in English sentences containing the universal quantifier every in subject NP and negation. Previous studies in L1 and L2 processing of scope ambiguities have found speakers to generally employ a ‘minimal effort’ principle that highly prefers the surface scope reading regardless of contextual support because accessing the inverse scope reading incurs significant processing cost. The present study compared L1 and L2 scope judgments and processing strategies of sentences such as Every horse didn’t jump over the fence and examined whether the two groups differ in their speed and manner of analysis. Thirty native English speakers and 42 Korean learners of English participated in a self-paced reading/interpretation task that has context (ambiguous vs. unambiguous) and scope reading (surface vs. inverse) as variables. The results revealed significant differences in scope endorsement rates with L2 learners arriving at the surface scope as the dominant reading and L1 learners’ judgments being highly dependent on contextual ambiguity. Moreover, L1 vs. L2 differences in processing strategies were found: L2 learners exhibited a strong tendency to arrive at the most economical interpretation while L1 speakers consulted detailed syntactic and semantic rules of computation.","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02676583221079741","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3
Abstract
The present study investigates native (L1) and second language (L2) processing of scope ambiguities in English sentences containing the universal quantifier every in subject NP and negation. Previous studies in L1 and L2 processing of scope ambiguities have found speakers to generally employ a ‘minimal effort’ principle that highly prefers the surface scope reading regardless of contextual support because accessing the inverse scope reading incurs significant processing cost. The present study compared L1 and L2 scope judgments and processing strategies of sentences such as Every horse didn’t jump over the fence and examined whether the two groups differ in their speed and manner of analysis. Thirty native English speakers and 42 Korean learners of English participated in a self-paced reading/interpretation task that has context (ambiguous vs. unambiguous) and scope reading (surface vs. inverse) as variables. The results revealed significant differences in scope endorsement rates with L2 learners arriving at the surface scope as the dominant reading and L1 learners’ judgments being highly dependent on contextual ambiguity. Moreover, L1 vs. L2 differences in processing strategies were found: L2 learners exhibited a strong tendency to arrive at the most economical interpretation while L1 speakers consulted detailed syntactic and semantic rules of computation.
本研究探讨了母语(L1)和第二语言(L2)对含有普遍量词every的英语句子中主语NP和否定的范围歧义的加工。先前关于L1和L2范围歧义处理的研究发现,说话者通常采用“最小努力”原则,无论上下文支持如何,都高度倾向于表面范围阅读,因为访问反向范围阅读会产生显着的处理成本。本研究比较了“Every horse didn 't jump over The fence”等句子的第一语言和第二语言的范围判断和加工策略,考察了两组在分析速度和方式上是否存在差异。30名英语母语者和42名韩国英语学习者参与了一项以语境(模糊与明确)和范围阅读(表面与反向)为变量的自定节奏阅读/解释任务。结果显示,二语学习者以表层范围为主导阅读,而一语学习者的判断高度依赖语境歧义,两者在范围认同率上存在显著差异。此外,我们还发现了母语和二语在处理策略上的差异:二语学习者表现出强烈的倾向于达到最经济的解释,而母语使用者则会参考详细的句法和语义计算规则。
期刊介绍:
Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance.
Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.