@article{FernandezHoehleBrocketal.2018,
  author    = {Fernandez, Leigh and H{\"o}hle, Barbara and Brock, Jon and Nickels, Lyndsey},
  title     = {Investigating auditory processing of syntactic gaps with L2 speakers using pupillometry},
  series = {Second language research},
  volume    = {34},
  journal   = {Second language research},
  number    = {2},
  publisher = {Sage Publ.},
  address   = {London},
  issn      = {0267-6583},
  doi       = {10.1177/0267658317722386},
  pages     = {201 -- 227},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {According to the Shallow Structure Hypothesis (SSH), second language (L2) speakers, unlike native speakers, build shallow syntactic representations during sentence processing. In order to test the SSH, this study investigated the processing of a syntactic movement in both native speakers of English and proficient late L2 speakers of English using pupillometry to measure processing cost. Of particular interest were constructions where movement resulted in an intermediate gap between clauses. Pupil diameter was recorded during auditory presentation of complex syntactic constructions. Two factors were manipulated: syntactic movement (such that some conditions contained movement while others did not), as well as syntactic movement type (either causing an intermediate gap or not). Grammaticality judgments revealed no differences between the two groups, suggesting both were capable of comprehending these constructions. Pupil change slope measurements revealed a potential sensitivity to intermediate gaps for only native speakers, however, both native and late L2 speakers showed similar facilitation during processing of the second gap site. Acoustic analysis revealed potential acoustic cues that may have facilitated the processing of these constructions. This suggests that, contrary to the predictions of the SSH, late L2 speakers are capable of constructing rich syntactic representations during the processing of intermediate gap constructions in spoken language.},
  language  = {en}
}
@phdthesis{Schlenter2019,
  author    = {Schlenter, Judith},
  title     = {Predictive language processing in late bilinguals},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-43249},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-432498},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  pages     = {251},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {The current thesis examined how second language (L2) speakers of German predict upcoming input during language processing. Early research has shown that the predictive abilities of L2 speakers relative to L1 speakers are limited, resulting in the proposal of the Reduced Ability to Generate Expectations (RAGE) hypothesis. Considering that prediction is assumed to facilitate language processing in L1 speakers and probably plays a role in language learning, the assumption that L1/L2 differences can be explained in terms of different processing mechanisms is a particularly interesting approach. However, results from more recent studies on the predictive processing abilities of L2 speakers have indicated that the claim of the RAGE hypothesis is too broad and that prediction in L2 speakers could be selectively limited. In the current thesis, the RAGE hypothesis was systematically put to the test. In this thesis, German L1 and highly proficient late L2 learners of German with Russian as L1 were tested on their predictive use of one or more information sources that exist as cues to sentence interpretation in both languages, to test for selective limits. The results showed that, in line with previous findings, L2 speakers can use the lexical-semantics of verbs to predict the upcoming noun. Here the level of prediction was more systematically controlled for than in previous studies by using verbs that restrict the selection of upcoming nouns to the semantic category animate or inanimate. Hence, prediction in L2 processing is possible. At the same time, this experiment showed that the L2 group was slower/less certain than the L1 group. Unlike previous studies, the experiment on case marking demonstrated that L2 speakers can use this morphosyntactic cue for prediction. Here, the use of case marking was tested by manipulating the word order (Dat > Acc vs. Acc > Dat) in double object constructions after a ditransitive verb. Both the L1 and the L2 group showed a difference between the two word order conditions that emerged within the critical time window for an anticipatory effect, indicating their sensitivity towards case. However, the results for the post-critical time window pointed to a higher uncertainty in the L2 group, who needed more time to integrate incoming information and were more affected by the word order variation than the L1 group, indicating that they relied more on surface-level information. A different cue weighting was also found in the experiment testing whether participants predict upcoming reference based on implicit causality information. Here, an additional child L1 group was tested, who had a lower memory capacity than the adult L2 group, as confirmed by a digit span task conducted with both learner groups. Whereas the children were only slightly delayed compared to the adult L1 group and showed the same effect of condition, the L2 speakers showed an over-reliance on surface-level information (first-mention/subjecthood). Hence, the pattern observed resulted more likely from L1/L2 differences than from resource deficits. The reviewed studies and the experiments conducted show that L2 prediction is affected by a range of factors. While some of the factors can be attributed to more individual differences (e.g., language similarity, slower processing) and can be interpreted by L2 processing accounts assuming that L1 and L2 processing are basically the same, certain limits are better explained by accounts that assume more substantial L1/L2 differences. Crucially, the experimental results demonstrate that the RAGE hypothesis should be refined: Although prediction as a fast-operating mechanism is likely to be affected in L2 speakers, there is no indication that prediction is the dominant source of L1/L2 differences. The results rather demonstrate that L2 speakers show a different weighting of cues and rely more on semantic and surface-level information to predict as well as to integrate incoming information.},
  language  = {en}
}
@phdthesis{Schunack2017,
  author    = {Schunack, Silke},
  title     = {Processing of non-canonical word orders in an L2},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-103750},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  pages     = {xvii, 443 Seiten},
  year      = {2017},
  abstract  = {This thesis investigates the processing of non-canonical word orders and whether non-canonical orders involving object topicalizations, midfield scrambling and particle verbs are treated the same by native (L1) and non-native (L2) speakers. The two languages investigated are Norwegian and German. 32 L1 Norwegian and 32 L1 German advanced learners of Norwegian were tested in two experiments on object topicalization in Norwegian. The results from the online self-paced reading task and the offline agent identification task show that both groups are able to identify the non-canonical word order and show a facilitatory effect of animate subjects in their reanalysis. Similarly high error rates in the agent identification task suggest that globally unambiguous object topicalizations are a challenging structure for L1 and L2 speakers alike. The same participants were also tested in two experiments on particle placement in Norwegian, again using a self-paced reading task, this time combined with an acceptability rating task. In the acceptability rating L1 and L2 speakers show the same preference for the verb-adjacent placement of the particle over the non-adjacent placement after the direct object. However, this preference for adjacency is only found in the L1 group during online processing, whereas the L2 group shows no preference for either order. Another set of experiments tested 33 L1 German and 39 L1 Slavic advanced learners of German on object scrambling in ditransitive clauses in German. Non-native speakers accept both object orders and show neither a preference for either order nor a processing advantage for the canonical order. The L1 group, in contrast, shows a small, but significant preference for the canonical dative-first order in the judgment and the reading task. The same participants were also tested in two experiments on the application of the split rule in German particle verbs. Advanced L2 speakers of German are able to identify particle verbs and can apply the split rule in V2 contexts in an acceptability judgment task in the same way as L1 speakers. However, unlike the L1 group, the L2 group is not sensitive to the grammaticality manipulation during online processing. They seem to be sensitive to the additional lexical information provided by the particle, but are unable to relate the split particle to the preceding verb and recognize the ungrammaticality in non-V2 contexts. Taken together, my findings suggest that non-canonical word orders are not per se more difficult to identify for L2 speakers than L1 speakers and can trigger the same reanalysis processes as in L1 speakers. I argue that L2 speakers' ability to identify a non-canonical word order depends on how the non-canonicity is signaled (case marking vs. surface word order), on the constituents involved (identical vs. different word types), and on the impact of the word order change on sentence meaning. Non-canonical word orders that are signaled by morphological case marking and cause no change to the sentence's content are hard to detect for L2 speakers.},
  language  = {en}
}