The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
PARSING STRATEGIES IN L1 AND L2 SENTENCE PROCESSING: A Study of Relative Clause Attachment in Greek
Abstract
To contribute to a better understanding of second language (L2) sentence processing, the present study examines how L2 learners parse temporarily ambiguous sentences containing relative clauses. Results are reported from both off-line and on-line experiments with three groups of advanced learners of Greek whose native languages (L1s) were Spanish, German, or Russian as well as from corresponding experiments with a control group of adult native speakers of Greek. We found that, despite their nativelike mastery of the construction under investigation, the L2 learners showed relative-clause attachment preferences that were different from those of the native speakers. Moreover, the L2 learners did not exhibit L1-based preferences in their L2 Greek, as might be expected if they were directly influenced by L1 attachment preferences. We suggest that L2 learners integrate information relevant for parsing differently from native speakers, with the L2 learners relying more on lexical cues than the native speakers and less on purely structurally based parsing strategies.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
L2 cognitive states and the Full Transfer/Full Access model
Schwartz, B. D., & Sprouse, R. A. (1996) · Second Language Research · doi:10.1177/026765839601200103 · Cited by 1,743 · cited 1×
“Likewise, L1 parsing might be taken to be a direct instantiation of a U(niversal) P(arser), and one might, for example, hypothesize that L1 transfer (conceived of as an instantiation of UP) represents the initial state of L2 processing, similarly to what Schwartz and Sprouse (1996) have argued for with respect to L2 g…”
ResultHawkins, R., & Chan, C. Y.-H. (1997) · Second Language Research · doi:10.1191/026765897671476153 · Cited by 851 · cited 1×
“The format of the grammaticality judgment task was adopted from Hawkins and Chan (1997).”
MethodApplying the Competition Model to bilingualism
Macwhinney, B. (1987) · Applied Psycholinguistics · doi:10.1017/s0142716400000357 · Cited by 142
Cited by
Age and second language acquisition and processing: A selective overview
Birdsong, D. (2006) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2006.00353.x · Cited by 544
How native-like is non-native language processing?
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2006.10.002 · Cited by 395
Self-citationContinuity and shallow structures in language processing
CLAHSEN, H., & FELSER, C. (2006) · Applied Psycholinguistics · doi:10.1017/s0142716406060206 · Cited by 276
Self-citationThe role of language processing in language acquisition
Phillips, C., & Ehrenhofer, L. (2015) · Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism · doi:10.1075/lab.5.4.01phi · Cited by 123
Dussias, P. E., & Cramer Scaltz, T. R. (2008) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2007.09.004 · Cited by 98
Metadata
- Authors
- Papadopoulou, D., & Clahsen, H.
- Venue
- Studies in Second Language Acquisition
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2003-11-24
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 501-528
- ISSN
- 0272-2631 (ISSN-L)
- 1470-1545
- OpenAlex
- W2119103661
- Cited by
- 288
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 5.01
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.