Cited by 98Neurobiology of Language and BilingualismLanguage Development and DisordersSecond Language Acquisition and Learning

Spanish–English L2 speakers’ use of subcategorization bias information in the resolution of temporary ambiguity during second language reading

Dussias, Paola E., Cramer Scaltz, Tracy R.·2008·Acta Psychologica

Abstract

Using a self-paced moving window reading paradigm, we examine the degree to which structural commitments made while 60 Spanish-English L2 speakers read syntactically ambiguous sentences in their second language (L2) are constrained by the verb's lexical entry about its preferred structural environment (i.e., subcategorization bias). The ambiguity under investigation arises because a noun phrase immediately following a verb can be parsed as either the direct object of the verb 'The CIA director confirmed the rumor when he testified before Congress', or as the subject of an embedded complement 'The CIA director confirmed the rumor could mean a security leak'. In an experiment with 59 monolingual English participants, we replicate the findings reported in the previous literature demonstrating that native speakers are guided by subcategorization bias information during sentence interpretation. In a bilingual experiment, we then show that L2 subcategorization biases influence L2 sentence interpretation. The results indicate that L2 speakers keep track of the relative frequencies of verb-subcategorization alternatives and use this information when building structure in the L2.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.actpsy.2007.09.004

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dussias, P. E., & Cramer Scaltz, T. R.
Affiliations
Pennsylvania State University (US)
Corresponding author
Dussias, Paola E.
Venue
Acta Psychologica
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-07
Volume
128
Issue
3
Pages
501-513
ISSN
0001-6918 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2136525752
Cited by
98
References
1
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 7
FWCI
1.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Acta Psychologica (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (HD 50629, R03HD050629)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
Keywords
syntactic ambiguity resolution, second language reading, Spanish-English bilinguals, structural commitment, complementation, sentence parsing, self-paced reading
MeSH terms
Cognition, Humans, Psycholinguistics, Reading, Spain, Speech Perception, Time Factors, United States, Bias, Multilingualism

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review