To be specified published in:
Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism
Vol. 7:5 (2017) ► pp. 554–582

Antecedent contained deletions in native and non-native sentence processing

| University of Potsdam, Germany
| University of Potsdam, Germany
| University of Reading, UK
We report the results from an eye-movement monitoring study investigating native (L1) and non-native (L2) speakers’ real-time processing of antecedent-contained deletion (ACD), a type of verb phrase ellipsis in which the ellipsis gap forms part of its own antecedent. The resulting interpretation problem is traditionally thought to be solved by quantifier raising, a covert scope-shifting operation that serves to remove the gap from within its antecedent. Our L2 group comprised advanced, native German-speaking L2 learners of English. The analysis of the eye-movement data showed that both L1 and L2 English speakers tried to recover the missing verb phrase after encountering the gap. Only the native speakers showed evidence of ellipsis resolution being affected by quantification, however. No effects of quantification following gap detection were found in the L2 group, by contrast, indicating that recovery of the elided material was accomplished independently from the object’s quantificational status in this group.
Keywords: L2 processing, eye-movement monitoring, antecedent contained deletion
Published online: 24 June 2016
https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.15006.box
References

References

Allan, D.
(2004) The Oxford Placement Test. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Arregui, A., Clifton, C., Frazier, L., & Moulton, K.
(2006) Processing elided verb phrases with flawed antecedents: The recycling hypothesis. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 232–246. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Breakstone, M.Y., Cremers, A., Fox, D., & Hackl, M.
(2011) On the analysis of scope ambiguities in comparative constructions: Converging evidence from real-time sentence processing and offline data. In N. Ashton, A. Chereches, & D. Lutz (Eds.), Proceedings of SALT 21 (pp. 712–731). Cornell University Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Carminati, M., Frazier, L., & Rayner, K.
(2002) Bound variables and c-command. Journal of Semantics, 19, 1–34. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chung, E.S.
(2013) Sources of difficulty in L2 scope judgments. Second Language Research, 29, 285–310. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, H. & Felser, C.
(2006) How native-like is non-native language processing? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, (12), 564–570. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cormack, A.
(1984) VP anaphora: variables and scope. In F. Landman & F. Veltman (Eds.), Varieties of formal semantics (pp. 81–102). Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
Culicover, P., & Jackendoff, R.
(2005) Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dallas, A. & Kaan, E.
(2008) Second language processing of filler-gap dependencies by late learners. Language and Linguistics Compass, 2. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dalrymple, M., Shieber, S., & Pereira, F.
(1991) Ellipsis and higher order unification. Linguistics and Philosophy, 14, 399–452. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dekydtspotter, L., & Miller, A.K.
(2013) Inhibitive and facilitative priming induced by traces in the processing of wh-dependencies in a second language. Second Language Research, 29, 345–372. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Diesing, M.
(1992) Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Duffield, N., & Matsuo, A.
(2009) Native-speakers’ vs. L2 learners sensitivity to parallelism in VP-Ellipsis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 1–31. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Duffield, N., Matsuo, A., & Roberts, L.
(2009) Factoring out the parallelism effect in VP-ellipsis: English vs. Dutch contrasts. Second Language Research, 25, 427–467. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Felser, C.
(2015) Native vs. non-native processing of discontinuous dependencies. Second Language, 14.Google Scholar
Felser, C., & Cunnings, I.
(2012) Processing reflexives in English as a second language: The role of structural and discourse-level constraints. Applied Psycholinguistics, 33, 571–603. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Felser, C., & Roberts, L.
(2007) Processing wh-dependencies in a second language: A cross-modal priming study. Second Language Research, 23, 9–36. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Frazier, L., & Clifton, C.
(2000) On bound variable interpretations: The LF-only hypothesis. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29, 125–140. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2001) Parsing coordinates and ellipsis: Copy alpha. Syntax, 4, 1–22. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2005) The syntax-discourse divide: Processing ellipsis. Syntax, 8, 121–174. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, E., Jacobson, P., Graff, P., Mahowald, K., Fedorenko, E., & Piantadosi, S.T.
(2014) A pragmatic account of complexity in definite Antecedent-Contained-Deletion relative clauses. Journal of Semantics. Published online, CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ginzburg, J., & Sag, I.A.
(2000) Interrogative investigations. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Hackl, M., Koster-Hale, J., & Varvoutis, J.
(2012) Quantification and ACD: evidence from real-time sentence processing. Journal of Semantics, 29, 145–206. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hardt, D.
(1993) VP ellipsis and contextual interpretation. Technical Reports (CIS). Paper 417. http://​repository​.upenn​.edu​/cis​_reports​/417.
Harley, H.
(2002) ACD, WCO and QR of DPs. Linguistic Inquiry, 33, 659–664. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heim, I., & Kratzer, A.
(1998) Semantics in Generative Grammar. Blackwell, Malden, MA.Google Scholar
Hopp, H.
(2009) The syntax-discourse interface in near-native L2 acquisition: Off-line and on-line performance. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12, 463–483. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hornstein, N.
(1994) An argument for minimalism: The case of antecedent-contained deletion. Linguistic Inquiry, 25, 455–480.Google Scholar
Ionin, T., Luchkina, T., & Stoops, A.
(2014) Quantifier scope and scrambling in the second language acquisition of Russian. In U. Minai et al. (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 5th Conference on Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition–North America (pp. 169–180). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Jacobson, P.
(1998) Direct compositionality and variable-free semantics: The case of antecedent contained deletion. In K. Johnson (Ed.), Topics in ellipsis (pp. 30–68). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Just, M.A., & Carpenter, P.
(1980) A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review, 87, 329–354. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, J.
(1984) Obligatory too in English. Language, 60, 510–518. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, C.
(1997) Antecedent contained deletion and the syntax of quantification. Linguistic Inquiry, 28, 662–688.Google Scholar
Kiguchi, H., & Thornton, R.
(2004) Binding principles and ACD constructions in child grammars. Syntax, 7, 234–271. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lobeck, A.
(1995) Ellipsis: Functional Heads, Licensing and Identification. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Marinis, T., Roberts, L., Felser, C., & Clahsen, H.
(2005) Gaps in second language sentence processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 53–78. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Marsden, H.
(2004) Quantifier scope in non-native Japanese: A comparative interlanguage study of Chinese, English, and Korean-speaking learners. PhD dissertation, University of Durham.Google Scholar
Martin, A.E., & McElree, B.
(2008) A content-addressable pointer mechanism underlies comprehension of verb-phrase ellipsis. Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 879–906. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
May, R.
(1985) Logical form: its structure and derivation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Merchant, J.
(2001) The syntax of silence: Sluicing, islands, and the theory of ellipsis. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Murphy, G.L.
(1985) Processes of understanding anaphora. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 290–303. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, C., Trompelt, H., & Felser, C.
(2014) The online application of binding condition B in native and non-native pronoun resolution. Frontiers in Psychology, 5: 147. Crossref.Google Scholar
Phillips, C., & Parker, D.
(2014) The psycholinguistics of ellipsis. Lingua, 151, 78–95. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rayner, K.
(1998) Eye-movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 372–422. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rosales Sequeiros, X.
(2004) Interpretation of reflexive anaphora in L2 VP-ellipsis: Relevance Theory and paradigms of explanation. Second Language Research 20, 256–280. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ross, J.R.
(1969) Guess who? In R.I. Binnick, A. Davidson, G.M. Green & J.L. Morgan (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society (pp. 252–286). Chicago, IL: CLS.Google Scholar
Sag, I.A.
(1976) Deletion and Logical Form. MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Shapiro, L.P., & Hestvik, A.
(1995) On-line comprehension of VP-ellipsis: Syntactic reconstruction and semantic influence. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 24, 517–532. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, L.P., Hestvik, A., Lesan, L., & Garcia, A.R.
(2003) Charting the time-course of sentence processing: Reconstructing missing arguments in VP-ellipsis constructions. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 1–19. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sorace, A.
(2011) Pinning down the concept of “interface” in bilingualism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1, 1–33. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sugawara, A., Kotek, H., Hackl, M., & Wexler, K.
(2013) Long vs. short QR: Evidence from the acquisition of ACD. Proceedings of Boston University Conference on Language Development (BUCLD) 37. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Syrett, K., & Lidz, J.
(2009) Quantifier Raising in 4-year-olds. Language Acquisition, 16, 67–81. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011) The locality of QR: Evidence from children’s interpretations of antecedent contained deletion. Linguistic Inquiry, 42, 305–337. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Szabolcsi, A.
(2014) Quantification and ACD: What is the evidence from real-time processing evidence for? A reply to Hackl et al. (2012) Journal of Semantics, 31, 135–145. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tanenhaus, M., & Carlson, G.N.
(1990) Comprehension of deep and surface verb phrase anaphors. Language and Cognitive Processes, 5, 257–280. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Winkler, S.
(2005) Ellipsis and focus in generative grammar. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ying, H.G.
(2005) Relevance and second language learners’ interpretation of reflexive anaphora in VP-ellipsis. Language Sciences, 27, 551–570. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yoshida, M., Walsh Dickey, M., & Sturt, P.
(2013) Predictive processing of syntactic structure: Sluicing and ellipsis in real-time sentence processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28, 272–302. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by other publications

Clahsen, Harald & Claudia Felser
2018. SOME NOTES ON THE SHALLOW STRUCTURE HYPOTHESIS. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 40:3 ► pp. 693 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 october 2020. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.