The Comprehension of Garden-Path Structures by Iranian EFL Learners

Journal of Teaching English Lnaguage Studies

مقاله 6، دوره 2، شماره 3، اردیبهشت 2014، صفحه 93-112   

نویسنده

Zeinab Sadat Parpanchi^*

Islamic Azad University, Takestan Branch

چکیده

The present study sought to investigate the comprehension of Garden-Path structures by Iranian EFL learners. 50 female students of Kharazmi English Language Institute in Karaj participated in this study. All of the participants were native speakers of Persian studying in Kharazmi English language institute in Karaj, Iran. They ranged from 18 to 30 in terms of age. The participants were administered two tests. A multiple choice test for English language proficiency test(PET) to determine the level of the participants and a multiple choice garden-path test including garden-path and non garden-path questions to measure the possible effect of garden path structures on subjects' comprehension and to measure the participants' knowledge of garden-path structures. The same tests were presented to participants of advanced and intermediate level . Repeated measure ANOVA procedures were applied to analyze the obtained data. The findings showed that the advanced group performed better on the garden-path test. There was a significant dependency between the English language proficiency level and comprehension of garden-path structures. We can claim that language proficiency affects Iranian EFL learners' comprehension of garden-path structures and garden-path structures influence Iranian EFL learners' comprehension. The findings of the present study may have implications for L2 learners and teachers.

کلیدواژه‌ها

ambiguity؛ comprehension؛ Garden-path sentence؛ Psycholinguistics؛ Syntax

مراجع

Altmann, G.T.M. (1988). Ambiguity, parsing strategies, and computational models.  Language and Cognitive Processes. 3(2), 73-97.

Altmann, G. (1989). Parsing and interpretation: An introduction. Language and Cognitive Processes, 4, l-20.

Altmann, G. T. M. (1997). The ascent of Babel: An exploration of language, mind, and understanding. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Altmann, G.T.M. and Mirkovic, J. (2009). Incrementality and prediction in human sentence processing. Cognitive Science, 33, 583-609.

Altmann, G. T. M., & Steedman, M. J. (1988). Interaction with context during human       sentence processing. Cognition, 30(3), 191-238.

Barry, Anita K. (1998). English Grammar Language as Human Behavior New Jersey, Courier Companies Inc.

Berwick R., & Weinberg A. (1984). The Grammatical Basis of Linguistics        Performance: Language Use and Acquisition. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Christianson K., Williams C.C., Zacks R.T., & Ferreira F. (2006). Misinterpretations of  garden-path  sentences by older and younger adults. Discourse Processes, 42: 205–238. 

Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006). Grammatical processing in language learners.      Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 3–42.

Clifton, C. Jr., M. Traxler, M. Mohamed, R. S. Williams, R. K. Morris, and K. Rayner. ( 2003). The use of thematic role information in parsing: syntactic processing autonomy revisited. Journal of Memory and Language 49.317–34.

Clifton, C., Jr., A. Staub, and K. Rayner. (2007). Eye movements in reading words and sentences. Eye movement research: insights into mind and brain, ed by. R. van Gompel, M. Fisher, W. Murray and R. L. Hill, 341–71. New York, NY: Elsevier.

Coker, P., & Crain, S. (1979). Lexical Access During Sentence Processing. Paper presented at Linguistic Society of America Annual Meeting, University of California at Irvine.

Crain, S., & Coker , P. (1979).A Semantic  Constraint on Parsing. Paper presented at Linguistic Society of America Annual  Meeting, University of California at Irvine.  

Crain, S., & Steedman, M. J. (1985). On not being led up the garden path: the use of  context by the psychological parser. In D. Dowty, L. Karttunen, & A. Zwicky (Eds.), Natural Language Parsing: Psychological, Computational, and Theoretical perspectives. (pp. 320-358) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Crocker, M. (1994). On the nature of the principle-based sentence processor.   Perspectives on sentence processing, ed. by C. Clifton, L. Frazier and K. Rayner, 245–66. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Crocker, M. W.(1999). Mechanisms for sentence processing. in Garrod, S.& Pickering, M.. (eds.), Language Processing. 191-232.

DeDe, G., Caplan, D., Kemtes, K. A., & Waters, G. (2004). The relationship between     age, verbal working memory, and language comprehension. Psychology and Aging, 19, 601-616.

Elman, J. L. (1990). Finding structure in time. Cognitive Science, 14, 179-211.

Elman, J. L., Bates, E. A., Johnson, M. H., Karmiloff-Smith, A., Parisi, D., & Plunkett, K. (1996). Rethinking Innateness: A connectionist perspective on development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books. 

Gorrell, P. (1995). Syntax and parsing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Green, M. J., and D. C. Mitchell.(2006). Absence of real evidence against competition during syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language 55.1–17.

Hahne, A.,&Friederici, A. (2001). Processing a second language: Late learners’ comprehension mechanisms as revealed by event-related brain potentials. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4, 123–141.

Hale, J. (2003). The information conveyed bywords in sentences. Journal of     Psycholinguistic Research, 32, 101–124.

Hewings, Ann, Hewings, Matin (2006). Grammar and Context : an advanced resource book London, Routledge

Inoue, A .& Fodor, J. D.(1995) Information-paced parsing of Japanese, in Mazuka, R and Nagai, N (eds.), Japanese sentence processing. Lawrence Erlbaum.

Juffs, A. (2004). Representation, processing, and working memory in a second language. Transactions of the Philological Society, 102, 199–225.

Levy, R. (2008). Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition, 106, 1126–1177.

Lewis, R. L. (2000). Falsifying serial and parallel parsing models: empirical conundrums and an overlooked paradigm. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 29.241–8.

MacDonald, M. C., N. J. Pearlmutter, and M. S. Seidenberg.( 1994). The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review 101.676–703.

Marcus, M. (1980). A Theory of Syntactic Recognition for Natural Language.   Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Marinis, T.,Roberts, L., Felser,C.,&Clahsen, H. (2005).Gaps in second language  sentence processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 53–78.

McClelland, J. L., M. St. John, and R. Taraban.(1989). Sentence comprehension: A parallel distributed processing approach. Language and Cognitive Processes 4.SI 287–336.

McDonald, M.C., Pearlmutter, N. & Seidenberg, M. (1994). The lexical nature of  syntactic ambiguity  resolution. Psychological Review, 101, 676–703.

McRae, K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J.,&Tanenhaus,M.K. (1998).Modeling the influence of thematic fit (and other constraints) in on-line sentence comprehension. Journal  of Memory and Language, 38, 283–312..

Ni, W., S. Crain, and D. Shankweiler. (1996). Sidestepping garden paths: assessing the contributions of syntax, semantics and plausibilty in resolving ambiguities.  Language and Cognitive Processes 11.283–334.

Papadopoulou, D. (2005). Reading-time studies of second language ambiguity resolution. Second Language Research, 21, 98–120.

Papadopoulou, D., & Clahsen, H. (2003). Parsing strategies in L1 and L2 sentence processing: A study of relative clause attachment in Greek. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 501–528.

Pickering, M. J.(1999). Sentence comprehension. in Simon, G & Pickering, M (eds.), Language Processing. 123-153. Psychology Press.