Native and Second Language Processing of Quantifier Scope Ambiguity

Autor/inn/en	Chung, Eun Seon; Shin, Jeong-Ah
Titel	Native and Second Language Processing of Quantifier Scope Ambiguity
Quelle	In: Second Language Research, 39 (2023) 3, S.785-810 (26 Seiten)Infoseite zur Zeitschrift PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Zusatzinformation	ORCID (Chung, Eun Seon) ORCID (Shin, Jeong-Ah)
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	0267-6583
DOI	10.1177/02676583221079741
Schlagwörter	Second Language Learning; Second Language Instruction; English (Second Language); Form Classes (Languages); Language Processing; Native Language; Ambiguity (Semantics); Nouns; Phrase Structure; Korean; Comparative Analysis; Decision Making; Reading Processes; Context Effect; Psycholinguistics; College Students; Native Speakers; Advanced Students; Foreign Countries; Syntax; South Korea (Seoul) + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Zweitsprachenerwerb; Fremdsprachenunterricht; English as second language; English; Second Language; Englisch als Zweitsprache; Analytischer Sprachbau; Sprachverarbeitung; Phrasenstruktur; Koreanisch; Decision-making; Entscheidungsfindung; Leseprozess; Psycholinguistik; Collegestudent; Muttersprachler; Fortgeschrittener; Ausland
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. (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	SAGE Publications. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: https://sagepub.com
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2024/1/01