Cover not available
Article published In:
Processing in Bilingual Children
Edited by Chantal van Dijk, Jasmijn E. Bosch and Sharon Unsworth
[Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 14:4] 2024
► pp. 476–511

Sentence processing in bilingual children

Evidence from garden-path sentences

ORCID logo | University of ReadingReading
ORCID logo | University of ReadingReading
ORCID logo | University of KonstanzKonstanz
Research in sentence processing in bilingual children is emergent but incomplete as very few studies examine the processing of structurally complex sentences or bilingual children’s real-time interpretation of sentences. One underexplored linguistic feature which can offer insights in this direction are garden-path sentences, i.e., sentences with temporary syntactic ambiguity. These are difficult to process for monolingual children as incremental processing results in an initial misinterpretation and the need for reanalysis. Studies on bilingual children’s processing of garden-path sentences have used paradigms with limited ecological validity and which are not informative about one’s interpretation while listening. This study bridges this gap by investigating the processing of garden-path sentences in bilingual children with the visual-world eye-tracking paradigm. It further explores the role of referential context in the visual stimuli to aid disambiguation. Monolingual and bilingual children aged 8–11 years completed a task similar to Trueswell et al. (1999). The results showed similar difficulty with revising garden-path sentences as evidenced by comprehension accuracy for both groups but only the monolinguals showed real-time garden-path effects in the gaze data. We interpret these findings as a manifestation of slower sentence processing in bilingual children. Both groups made limited use of the referential context to facilitate processing.
Keywords: sentence processing, bilingual children, eye-tracking, visual-world paradigm, garden-path sentences, psycholinguistics
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Garden-path sentence processing in monolinguals
    • 1.2Garden-path sentence processing in bilinguals
    • 1.3The present study
  • 2.Method
    • 2.1Participants
    • 2.2Design
    • 2.3Materials
    • 2.4Procedure
    • 2.5Analyses
  • 3.Results
    • 3.1Accuracy and reaction times
    • 3.2Gaze data
      • Looks to the ID during the ID region (Peter put the apple ON THE PLATE in the box before going to school)
      • Looks to the ID during the CD region (Peter put the apple on the plate IN THE BOX before going to school)
      • Looks to the ID during the FINAL region (Peter put the apple on the plate in the box BEFORE GOING TO SCHOOL)
  • 4.Discussion
    • Some final comments on the methodology and analyses
  • 5.Conclusion
    • Data availability
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 8 April 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.22104.pon
References (53)
References
Atkinson, E., Wagers, M. W., Lidz, J., Phillips, C., & Omaki, A. (2018). Developing incrementality in filler-gap dependency processing. Cognition, 1791, 132–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barr, D. J. (2008). Analyzing ‘visual world’ eyetracking data using multilevel logistic regression. Journal of Memory and Language, 59 (4), 457–474. DOI logoGoogle 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(3), 255–278. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bentea, A., & Marinis, T. (2021). Not all wh-dependencies are created equal: processing of multiple wh-questions in Romanian children and adults. Applied Psycholinguistics, 42(4), 825–864. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bishop, D. V. M. (2003). The Test for Reception of Grammar, Version 2 (TROG-2). Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Blumenfeld, H. K., & Marian, V. (2007). Constraints on parallel activation in bilingual spoken language processing: Examining proficiency and lexical status using eye-tracking. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22(5), 633–660. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cho, S. J., Brown-Schmidt, S., & Lee, W. Y. (2018). Autoregressive generalized linear mixed effect models with crossed random effects: An application to intensive binary time series eye-tracking data. Psychometrika, 831, 751–771. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Choi, Y., & Trueswell, J. C. (2010). Children’s (in) ability to recover from garden paths in a verb-final language: Evidence for developing control in sentence processing. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 106(1), 41–61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chondrogianni, V., & Marinis, T. (2012). Production and processing asymmetries in the acquisition of tense morphology by sequential bilingual children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15 (1), 5–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chondrogianni, V. & Marinis, T. (2016). L2 children do not fluctuate: Production and on-line processing of indefinite articles in Turkish-speaking child learners of English. In: Haznedar, B. & Ketrez, F. N. (Eds.). The Acquisition of Turkish in Childhood. John Benjamins. [ Trends in Language Acquisition Research 20 ], 361–388. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chondrogianni, V., Vasić, N., Marinis, T., & Blom, E. (2015). Production and on-line comprehension of definiteness in English and Dutch by monolingual and sequential bilingual children. Second Language Research, 31 (3), 309–341. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Colomé, À. (2001). Lexical activation in bilinguals’ speech production: Language-specific or language-independent? Journal of Memory and Language, 45(4), 721–736. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Contemori, C., Carlson, M., & Marinis, T. (2018). On-line processing of English which-questions by children and adults: a visual world paradigm study. Journal of Child Language, 45(2), 415–441. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Costa, A., Caramazza, A., & Sebastian-Galles, N. (2000). The cognate facilitation effect: implications for models of lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(5), 1283.Google Scholar
de Bruin, A., Della Sala, S., & Bak, T. H. (2016). The effects of language use on lexical processing in bilinguals. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31(8), 967–974. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dryer, S. M. (2013). Position of Interrogative Phrases in Content Questions. In M. S. Dryer & M. Haspelmath. (Eds.) The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.Google Scholar
Dussias, P. E., & Scaltz, T. R. C. (2008). Spanish–English L2 speakers’ use of subcategorization bias information in the resolution of temporary ambiguity during second language reading. Acta psychologica, 128(3), 501–513. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gathercole, S. E., & Baddeley, A. D. (1996). The children’s test of non-word repetition. Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Harrell, F. E. (2001). Regression modeling strategies: with applications to linear models, logistic regression, and survival analysis. Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoff, E. (2018). Bilingual development in children of immigrant families. Child Development Perspectives, 12(2), 80–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopp, H. (2015). Individual differences in the second language processing of object–subject ambiguities. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36(2), 129–173. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hurewitz, F., Brown-Schmidt, S., Thorpe, K., Gleitman, L. R., & Trueswell, J. C. (2000). One frog, two frog, red frog, blue frog: Factors affecting children’s syntactic choices in production and comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29(6), 597–626. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kidd, E., & Bavin, E. L. (2005). Lexical and referential cues to sentence interpretation: An investigation of children’s interpretations of ambiguous sentences. Journal of Child Language, 32(4), 855–876. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kidd, E., Stewart, A. J., & Serratrice, L. (2011). Children do not overcome lexical biases where adults do: The role of the referential scene in garden-path recovery. Journal of Child Language, 38(1), 222–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lemmerth, N., & Hopp, H. (2019). Gender processing in simultaneous and successive bilingual children: cross-linguistic lexical and syntactic influences. Language Acquisition, 26(1), 21–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lew-Williams, C. (2017). Specific Referential Contexts Shape Efficiency in Second Language Processing: Three Eye-Tracking Experiments With 6-and 10-Year-Old Children in Spanish Immersion Schools. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 371, 128–147. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matin, E., Shao, K. & Boff, K. (1993). Saccadic overhead: information processing time with and without saccades. Perception & Psychophysics 531, 372–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McDonald, J. L. (2006). Beyond the critical period: Processing-based explanations for poor grammaticality judgment performance by late second language learners. Journal of Memory and Language, 55(3), 381–401. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meir, N., Parshina, O., & Sekerina, I. A. (2020). The interaction of morphological cues in bilingual sentence processing: An eye-tracking study. In Proceedings of the 44th Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 367–389). Cascadilla.Google Scholar
Meroni, L., & Crain, S. (2003). On not being led down the kindergarten path. In Proceedings of the 27th Boston University Conference on language development (pp. 531–544). Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Mirman, D. (2014). Growth curve analysis: A hands-on tutorial on using multilevel regression to analyze time course data. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (Vol. 36, no. 36).Google Scholar
Pan, H. Y., & Felser, C. (2011). Referential context effects in L2 ambiguity resolution: Evidence from self-paced reading. Lingua, 121(2), 221–236. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Papangeli, A. & Marinis, T. (2010). Επεξεργασία δομικά αμφίσημων προτάσεων στην Ελληνική ως Γ1 και ως Γ2. [Processing of structurally ambiguous sentences in Greek as L1 and L2]. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Department of Linguistics, School of Philology, Faculty of Philosophy, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, May 2–3, 2009. Thessaloniki: Institute of Modern Greek Studies [Institute Manoli Triantafillidi], 477–486.Google Scholar
Pontikas, G., Cunnings, I., & Marinis, T. (2023). Online processing of which-questions in bilingual children: Evidence from eye-tracking. Journal of Child Language, 50 (5), 1082–1118. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pozzan, L., & Trueswell, J. C. (2016). Second language processing and revision of garden-path sentences: a visual word study. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19(3), 636–643. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Raven, J. C., & Court, J. H. (1998). Raven’s progressive matrices and vocabulary scales. Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
Renfrew, C. E. (1995). Word finding vocabulary test. Speechmark Publishing.Google Scholar
Roberts, L. (2012). Individual differences in second language sentence processing. Language Learning, 621, 172–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberts, L., & Felser, C. (2011). Plausibility and recovery from garden paths in second language sentence processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32(2), 299–331. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roesch, A. D., & Chondrogianni, V. (2016). “Which mouse kissed the frog?” Effects of age of onset, length of exposure, and knowledge of case marking on the comprehension of wh-questions in German-speaking simultaneous and early sequential bilingual children. Journal of Child Language, 43 (3), 635–661. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Semel, E., Wiig, E. & Secord, W. (2003). Clinical evaluation of language fundamentals -4 (CELF-4). San Antonio, TX: PyschCorp.Google Scholar
Stone, K., Lago, S., & Schad, D. J. (2021). Divergence point analyses of visual world data: Applications to bilingual research. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 24(5), 833–841. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trueswell, J. C., Sekerina, I., Hill, N. M., & Logrip, M. L. (1999). The kindergarten-path effect: Studying on-line sentence processing in young children. Cognition, 73(2), 89–134. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tuller, L. (2015). Clinical use of parental questionnaires in multilingual contexts. In S. Armon-Lotem, J. de Jong, & N. Meir (Eds.), Assessing multilingual children: Disentangling bilingualism from language impairment (pp. 299–328). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Dijk, C., Aumeistere, A., Brouwer, S., Dijkstra, T., & Unsworth, S. (2022a). Cross-linguistic Influence Online: An Eye-Tracking Study on Pronoun Resolution in Simultaneous Bilingual Turkish-Dutch Children. In Y. Gong & F. Kpogo. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 46th annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, 153–166.Google Scholar
van Dijk, C., Dijkstra, T., & Unsworth, S. (2022b). Cross-linguistic influence during online sentence processing in bilingual children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vasić, N., & Blom, W. B. T. (2011). Production and processing of determiners in Turkish-Dutch child L2 learners. In BUCLD35: proceedings of the 35th annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 616–627). Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Vasić, N., Chondrogianni, V., Marinis, T., & Blom, W. B. T. (2012). Processing of gender in Turkish-Dutch and Turkish-Greek child L2 learners. In BUCLD36: proceedings of the 36th annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 646–659). Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Vasilyeva, M., Waterfall, H., Gámez, P. B., Gómez, L. E., Bowers, E., & Shimpi, P. (2010). Cross-linguistic syntactic priming in bilingual children. Journal of Child Language, 37(5), 1047–1064. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weighall, A. R. (2008). The kindergarten path effect revisited: Children’s use of context in processing structural ambiguities. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 99(2), 75–95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Williams, J. N., Möbius, P., & Kim, C. (2001). Native and non-native processing of English wh-questions: Parsing strategies and plausibility constraints. Applied Psycholinguistics, 22(4), 509–540. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

van Dijk, Chantal, Jasmijn Bosch & Sharon Unsworth
2024. Language processing in bilingual children. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 14:4 ► pp. 435 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 august 2024. 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.