Cover not available
Article published In:
Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism
Vol. 14:6 (2024) ► pp.915–933

That-trace effects in Najdi Arabic L2 learners of English

A partial replication

ORCID logo | Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University
ORCID logo | Montclair State University
The current study is a partial replication of Kim and Goodall (2024), who tested competing predictions of two prominent accounts of that-trace effects, which are argued to emerge due to either syntactic constraints or considerations of the production system. To tease apart these possibilities, Kim and Goodall examine L2 sensitivity to that-trace effects, as the two accounts implicitly have different expectations regarding L2 performance. Their results showed a non-native pattern of acceptability judgments for Korean and Spanish learners of English, whose L1s do not display that-trace effects, which are argued to support a production-based account. The current study extends their experiment to Nadji Arabic L2 learners of English, whose L1 critically exhibits that-trace effects, allowing us to probe whether previous findings can be accounted for by processing difficulties or L1 background. Our results indicated that despite L2 learners’ native-like sensitivity at the group level, lower proficiency was associated with non-native-like subject extraction effects, in line with Kim and Goodall’s results. Overall, findings from an acceptability judgment task suggest that L2 sensitivity to that-trace effects does not involve transfer of a syntactic constraint, but is something that develops with proficiency, more in line with a production-based account.
Keywords: that-trace effects, Najdi Arabic, L2 learners, syntactic constraint, acceptability judgments
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Theoretical accounts of that-trace effects
    • 1.2That-trace effects in L2 learners
  • 2.Current study
    • 2.1That-trace effect in Najdi Arabic
    • 2.2Method
      • 2.2.1Participants
      • 2.2.2Materials
      • 2.2.3Procedure
    • 2.3Predictions
  • 3.Results
  • 4.Discussion
    • 4.1The role of proficiency
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Data availability statement
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 27 August 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.24008.ald
References (41)
References
Albaty, Y. A. (2013). Wh-in-situ in Najdi Arabic. Workings Papers of the Linguistics Circle, 23 (1), 1–14. [URL]
Aldosari, S., Covey, L., & Gabriele, A. (2024). Examining the source of island effects in native speakers and second language learners of English. Second Language Research, 40 (1), 51–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alotaibi, M., & Borsley, R. D. (2013). Gaps and resumptive pronouns in Modern Standard Arabic. In S. Muller (Ed.), Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Head-Driven Phase Structure Grammar (pp. 6–23). CSLI Publications. [URL]. DOI logo
Altamimi, M. I. (2015). Arabic pro-drop. [Master’s thesis, Eastern Michigan University]. [URL]
Aoun, J. (1981). ECP move α, and subjacency. Linguistic Inquiry, 12 (4), 637–645. [URL]
Aoun, J., Benmamoun, E., & Choueiri, L. (2010). The syntax of Arabic. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4: Fitting linear. Journal of Statistical Software, 67 1, 1–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bošković, Ž. (2016). On the timing of labeling: Deducing comp–trace effects, the subject condition, the adjunct condition, and tucking in from labeling. The Linguistic Review, 33 (1), 17–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boxell, O., & Felser, C. (2017). Sensitivity to parasitic gaps inside subject islands in native vs. non-native processing. Bilingualism, Language and Cognition, 20 (3), 494–511. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cho, J. (2022). Online processing and offline judgments of L2-English articles. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 12 (3), 280–309. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Foris.Google Scholar
Cowart, W., & McDaniel, D. (2021). The that-trace effect. In G. Goodall (Ed.), Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Syntax, (pp. 258–277). Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cunnings, I. (2017). Parsing and working memory in bilingual sentence processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 20 (4), 659–678. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Erlewine, M. Y. (2020). Anti-locality and subject extraction. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 5 (1), 84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Filiou, D. (2019). L2 acquisition of interrogative and relative clauses by Greek learners of English: That-trace effects and subject–object extraction. Selected Papers on Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, 231, 174–190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fukuda, S., Goodall, G., Michel, D., & Beecher, H. (2012). Is magnitude estimation worth the trouble? In J. Choi, E. A. Hogue, J. Punske, D. Tat, J. Schertz, & A. Trueman (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp. 328–336). Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Gennari, S. P., & MacDonald, M. C. (2009). Linking production and comprehension processes: The case of relative clauses. Cognition, 111 (1), 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grüter, T., & Rohde, H. (2021). Limits on expectation-based processing: Use of grammatical aspect for co-reference in L2. Applied Psycholinguistics, 42 (1), 51–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. (2004). Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). Processing efficiency and complexity in typological patterns. In J. Song (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic typology (pp. 206–226). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heil, J., & Ebert, S. (2018). Extra-syntactic factors in the that-trace effect. In J. E. MacDonald (Ed.), Contemporary Trends in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics: Selected Papers from the Hispanic Linguistic Symposium 2015: Volume 15 1 (pp. 309–332). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hofmeister, P., & Sag, I. A. (2010). Cognitive constraints and island effects. Language, 86 (2), 366–415. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopp, H. (2014). Working memory effects in the L2 processing of ambiguous relative clauses. Language Acquisition, 21 (3), 250–278. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hsiao, Y., & MacDonald, M. C. (2016). Production predicts comprehension: Animacy effects in Mandarin relative clause processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 89 1, 87–109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kandybowicz, J. (2009). Embracing edges: Syntactic and phono–syntactic edge sensitivity in Nupe. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 27 1, 305–344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, B., & Goodall, G. (2024). The source of that-trace effect: New evidence from L2 English. Second Language Research, 40 (1), 79–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. (2017). LmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82 (13), 1–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martohardjono, G. (1993). Wh-movement in the acquisition of a second language: A cross-linguistic study of three languages with and without movement [Unpublished doctoral dissertation] Cornell University.
MacDonald, M. C. (2013). How language production shapes language form and comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology, 4 1, 1–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McDaniel, D., Cowart, W., McKee, C., & Garrett, M. F. (2015). The role of the language production system in shaping grammars. Language, 91 (2), 415–441. [URL]
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
McElree, B., Jia, G., & Litvak, A. (2000). The time course of conceptual processing in three bilingual populations. Journal of Memory and Language, 42 (2), 229–254. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morgan, A. M. (2022). The that-trace effect and island boundary-gap effect are the same: Demonstrating equivalence with null hypothesis significance testing and psychometrics. Glossa Psycholinguistics, 1 (1). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Park, S. H., & Kim, H. (2022). Cross-linguistic influence in the second language processing of Korean morphological and syntactic causative constructions. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 12 (5), 687–713. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perlmutter, D. M. (1971). Deep and surface structure constraints in syntax. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Reglero, L. (2005). Resetting parameters in L2 acquisition: Wh-islands and that-trace effects. In M. Nomura, F. Niinuma, & L. Reglero (Eds.), The University of Connecticut Working Papers in Linguistics (pp. 164–194). University of Connecticut. Distributed by MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1990). Relativized minimality. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. D., & Sprouse, R. A. (1996). L2 cognitive states and the full transfer/full access model. Second Language Research, 12 (1), 40–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sprouse, J., Wagers, M., & Phillips, C. (2012). A test of the relation between working memory capacity and syntactic island effects. Language, 88 (1), 82–123. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wasow, T. (2002). Postverbal behavior. CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
White, L., & Genesee, F. (1996). How native is near-native? The issue of age and ultimate attainment in the acquisition of a second language. Second Language Research, 12 (3), 233–265. DOI logoGoogle Scholar