Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-17T22:02:42.227Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

NATIVE AND NONNATIVE INTERPRETATION OF PRONOMINAL FORMS

Evidence from French and Turkish

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2015

Sarah Schimke  and
Saveria Colonna
Sarah Schimke*
Affiliation:
University of Osnabrück, University of Münster
Saveria Colonna
Affiliation:
University Paris 8, CNRS
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Sarah Schimke, University of Münster, Institute of German Studies, Schlossplatz 34, D-48143 Münster. E-mail: sarah.schimke@uni-muenster.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study investigates the influence of grammatical role and discourse-level cues on the interpretation of different pronominal forms in native speakers of French, native speakers of Turkish, and Turkish learners of French. In written questionnaires, we found that native speakers of French were influenced by discourse-level cues when interpreting ambiguous overt subject pronouns in French, whereas native speakers of Turkish were mainly influenced by a syntactic cue—subjecthood—when interpreting null subjects (pro) in Turkish translation equivalents. When interpreting implicit subjects of nonfinite dependent clauses (PRO), native speakers of both French and Turkish were influenced by subjecthood. Finally, Turkish learners of French were influenced by discourse-level cues in the interpretation of overt pronouns as well as PRO and showed no subject preference in either case. These results are in line with approaches to second language (L2) acquisition that stress the role of discourse-level principles in the processing and use of a L2 (Clahsen & Felser, 2006; Klein & Perdue, 1997).

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 38 , Issue 1 , March 2016 , pp. 131 - 162
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Alonso-Ovalle, L., Fernández-Solera, S., Frazier, L., & Clifton, C. (2002). Null vs. overt pronouns and the topic-focus articulation in Spanish. Journal of Italian Linguistics, 14, 151–169.Google Scholar
Ariel, M. (1990). Accessing noun phrase antecedents. London, UK, and New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Asher, N., & Vieu, L. (2005). Subordinating and coordinating discourse relations. Lingua, 115, 591–610.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H. (2011). languageR: Data sets and functions with “Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics” (R package Version 1.4) [Computer software]. Retrieved fromhttp://CRAN.R-project.org/package=languageRGoogle Scholar
Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 255–278.Google Scholar
Bates, D., Maechler, M., & Bolker, B. (2012). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes (R package Version 0.999999–0) [Computer software]. Retrieved fromhttp://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4Google Scholar
Belletti, A., Bennati, E., & Sorace, A. (2007). Theoretical and developmental issues in the syntax of subjects: Evidence from near-native Italian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 25, 657–689.Google Scholar
Bouma, G., & Hopp, H. (2006). Effects of word order and grammatical function on pronoun resolution in German. In Artstein, R. & Poesio, M. (Eds.), Ambiguity in Anaphora Workshop proceedings – ESSLI 2006 (pp. 5–12). Retrieved fromhttp://cswww.essex.ac.uk/Research/nle/anaphora/aa06proc.pdfGoogle Scholar
Carminati, M. N. (2002). The processing of Italian subject pronouns (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Foris.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006). How native-like is non-native language processing? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 564–570.Google Scholar
Colonna, S., Schimke, S., & Hemforth, B. (2012). Information structure effects on anaphora resolution in German and French: A cross-linguistic study of pronoun resolution. Linguistics, 50, 991–1013.Google Scholar
Colonna, S., Schimke, S., Hemforth, B., & Istanbullu, S. (2011, March). Priming in French anaphora resolution. Poster presented at the 24th CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. (1977). In defense of spontaneous demotion: The impersonal passive. In Cole, P. & Sadock, J. M. (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 8. Grammatical relations (pp. 47–58). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Council of Europe (2001). A common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cowles, H. W., Walenski, M., & Kluender, R. (2007). Linguistic and cognitive prominence in anaphor resolution: Topic, contrastive focus and pronouns. Topoi, 26, 3–18.Google Scholar
Crawley, R., Stevenson, R., & Kleinman, D. (1990). The use of heuristic strategies in the interpretation of pronouns. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 4, 245–264.Google Scholar
Degand, L., & Simon, A. C. (2005). “My brother, he drives like crazy”: Contextual salience, linguistic marking and discourse organization in spoken French. In Stede, M., Chiarcos, C., Grabski, M., & Lagerwerf, L. (Eds.), Salience in discourse: Multidisciplinary approaches to discourse (pp. 43–52). Münster, Germany: Nodus Publikationen.Google Scholar
de la Fuente, I., & Hemforth, B. (2013). Topicalization and focusing effects on subject and object pronoun resolution in Spanish. In Cabrelli Amaro, J., Lord, G., de Prada Pérez, A., & Aaron, J. E. (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 16th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium (pp. 27–45). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Desclés, J.-P., Guentcheva, Z., & Shaumyan, S. (1985). Passivization in applicative grammar. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Dimroth, C., Gretsch, P., Jordens, P., Perdue, C., & Starren, M. (2003). Finiteness in Germanic languages: A stage-model for first and second language development. In Dimroth, C. & Starren, M. (Eds.), Information structure and the dynamics of language acquisition (pp. 65–93). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Enç, M. (1986). Topic switching and pronominal subjects in Turkish. In Slobin, D. & Zimmer, K. (Eds.), Studies in Turkish linguistics (pp. 195–208). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ergüvanlı, E. (1984). The function of word order in Turkish grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Felser, C., & Cunnings, I. (2012). Processing reflexives in a second language: The timing of structural and discourse-level constraints. Applied Psycholinguistics, 33, 571–603.Google Scholar
Frederiksen, J. (1981). Understanding anaphora: Rules used by readers in assigning pronominal referents. Discourse Processes, 4, 323–347.Google Scholar
Garvey, C., Caramazza, A., & Yates, J. (1975). Factors influencing assignment of pronoun antecedents. Cognition, 3, 227–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelormini-Lezama, C., & Almor, A. (2011). Repeated names, overt pronouns, and null pronouns in Spanish. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26, 437–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gernsbacher, M. A. (1990). Language comprehension as structure building. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Givón, T. (1979). On understanding grammar. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Givón, T. (Ed.). (1983). Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Grévisse, M. (1986). Le bon usage [Good usage]. Paris, France: Duculot.Google Scholar
Gundel, J., Hedberg, N., & Zacharski, R. (1993). Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language, 69, 274–307.Google Scholar
Gürel, A. (2002). Linguistic characteristics of second language acquisition and first language attrition: Overt versus null pronouns (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). McGill University, Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (1995). The converb as a cross-linguistically valid category. In Haspelmath, M. & König, E. (Eds.), Converbs in cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 1–56). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Haug, D. T. T., Fabricius-Hansen, C., Behrens, B., & Helland, B. P. (2012). Open adjuncts: degree of event integration. In Fabricius-Hansen, C. & Haug, D. (Eds.), Big events, small clauses: The grammar of elaboration (pp. 131–178). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hemforth, B., Konieczny, L., Scheepers, C., Colonna, S., Schimke, S., Baumann, P., & Pynte, J. (2010). Language specific preferences in anaphor resolution: Exposure or gricean maxims? In Ohlsson, S. & Catrambone, R. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2218–2223), Portland, OR: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Järvikivi, J., van Gompel, R. P. G., Hyönä, J., & Bertram, R. (2005). Ambiguous pronoun resolution: Contrasting the first mention and subject preference accounts. Psychological Science, 16, 260–264.Google Scholar
Jegerski, J., VanPatten, B., & Keating, G. (2011). Cross-linguistic variation and the acquisition of pronominal reference in L2 Spanish. Second Language Research, 27, 481–507.Google Scholar
Kaiser, E., & Trueswell, J. C. (2008). Interpreting pronouns and demonstratives in Finnish: Evidence for a form-specific approach to reference resolution. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 709–748.Google Scholar
Kehler, A. (2002). Coherence, reference and the theory of grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kehler, A., & Rohde, H. (2013). A probabilistic reconciliation of coherence-driven and centering-driven theories of pronoun interpretation. Theoretical Linguistics, 39, 1–37.Google Scholar
Klein, W., & Perdue, C. (1997). The basic variety (or: couldn’t natural language be much simpler?). Second Language Research, 13, 301–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kornfilt, J. (1997). Turkish. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kortmann, B. (1995). Adverbial participial clauses in English. In Haspelmath, M. & König, E. (Eds.), Converbs in cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 189–238). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lacheret-Dujour, A., & François, J. (2004). De la notion de détachement topical à celle de constituant thématique extrapropositionnel [From the notion of topic detachment to the notion of extrasentential thematic constituent]. Cahiers de praxématique, 40, 167–198.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K. (1981). Topic, antitopic, and verb agreement in non-standard French. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lynch, J. (2007). The English language: A user’s guide. Newburyport, MA: Focus Publishing/R. Pullins Co.Google Scholar
Mayol, L. (2010). Redefining salience and the Position of the Antecedent Hypothesis: A study of Catalan pronouns. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 16, Article 15.Google Scholar
McKoon, G., Greene, S. B., & Ratcliff, R. (1993). Discourse models, pronoun resolution, and the implicit causality of verbs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 1040–1052.Google Scholar
Meisel, J. (1991). Principles of universal grammar and strategies of language use: On the similarities and differences between first and second language acquisition. In Eubank, L. (Ed.), Point counterpoint: Universal Grammar in the second language (pp. 231–267). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Okuma, T. (2011). Acquisition of topic shift by L1 English speakers of L2 Japanese. In Herschensohn, J. & Tanner, D. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (pp. 90–100). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Pan, H.-Y., & Felser, C. (2011). Referential context effects in L2 ambiguity resolution: Evidence from self-paced reading. Lingua, 121, 221–236.Google Scholar
Pan, H.-Y., Schimke, S., & Felser, C. (2015). Referential context effects in non-native relative clause ambiguity resolution. International Journal of Bilingualism, 19, 298–313.Google Scholar
Prévost, S. (2009). Topicalization, focalisation et constructions syntaxiques en français médiéval : des relations complexes [Topicalization, focusing and syntactic constructions in medieval French: Complex relations]. In Apothéloz, D., Combettes, B., & Neveu, F. (Eds.), Les linguistiques du détachement. Actes du colloque international de Nancy (pp. 427–439). Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team (2012). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (Version 3.1.0) [Computer software]. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved fromhttp://www.R-project.org/Google Scholar
Roberts, L., & Felser, C. (2011). Plausibility and recovery from garden-paths in second-language sentence processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32, 299–331.Google Scholar
Roberts, L., Gullberg, M., & Indefrey, P. (2008). Online pronoun resolution in L2 discourse: L1 influence and general learner effects. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 333–357.Google Scholar
Rohde, H., Kehler, A., & Elman, J. L. (2006). Event structure and discourse coherence biases in pronoun interpretation. In Sun, R. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 697–702). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Sanders, T., & Noordman, L. (2000). The role of coherence relations and their linguistic markers in text processing. Discourse Processes, 29, 37–60.Google Scholar
Schimke, S. (2009). The acquisition of finiteness by Turkish learners of German and Turkish learners of French: Investigating knowledge of forms and functions in production and comprehension (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Shaer, B., Cook, P., Frey, W., & Maienborn, C. (Eds.) (2008). Dislocated elements in discourse: Syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic perspectives. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Shibitani, M. (1985). Passives and related constructions: A prototype analysis. Language, 61, 821–848.Google Scholar
Sorace, A. (2000). Syntactic optionality in non-native grammars. Second Language Research, 16, 93–102.Google Scholar
Sorace, A. (2003). Ultimate L2 attainment. In Long, M. & Doughty, C. (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 130–151). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sorace, A. (2005). Selective optionality in language development. In Cornips, L. & Corrigan, K. P. (Eds.), Syntax and variation: Reconciling the biological and the social (pp. 55–80). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sorace, A., & Filiaci, F. (2006). Anaphora resolution in near-native speakers of Italian. Second Language Research, 22, 339–368.Google Scholar
Tannenbaum, P., & Williams, F. (1968). Generation of active and passive sentences as a function of subject or object focus. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 7, 246–250.Google Scholar
Thompson, S. A. (1978). The passive in English: A discourse perspective. In Channon, R. & Shockey, L. (Eds.), In honor of Ilse Lehiste: Ilse Lehiste Puhendusteos (pp. 497–511). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Foris.Google Scholar
Verhagen, J. (2009). Finiteness in Dutch as a second language (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar