Sentence processing

2.4.1. Factors infl uencing sentence processing

Sentence processing is another component essential to reading comprehension.

Th ere are a number of factors that can infl uence, i.e., inhibit or facilitate, sentence processing. One of them is sentence length. Th e correlation between syntactic complexity and sentence length seems obvious; however, the assumed relation between sentence length and reading diffi culty has raised doubts among reading researchers. Irwin and Pulver (1984), and Pearson (1975) indicated a preference of native English readers for syntactically complex sentences rather than loose

simple sentences. Davison, Wilson and Hermon (1985) as well as R. C. Anderson and Davison (1986) showed that sentence length and complexity have little eff ect on comprehension. R. C. Anderson and Davison (1986: 51) claim that:

[t]he presence of long sentences and complex words in a text in some way refl ects or is correlated with complexities of subject matter, but need not directly cause a text to be diffi cult. While these factors may impede comprehension for some readers who have diffi culty segmenting words and parsing sentences or who have limited working memory capacity, these very same factors also provide the reader with explicit information about the composition of a word or the relations between sentences.

Instead of calculating the length of text sentences (Note 3), Berman (1984) suggests estimating text “heaviness” and “transparency.” Berman explains that

“heaviness” “is not a straightforward function of linear length” (Berman 1984: 142).

It concerns “the amount and depth of information which the reader must store in memory in moving from one constituent to the next, and how hard the transition becomes as a result.” Nominalisation is an example of a factor contributing to text

“heaviness.” By violating the basic NVN (noun, verb, noun) structure, it may make understanding an English text more diffi cult for FL/L2 readers. As examples of factors that make English texts less transparent, i.e., opaque, Berman points to lack of relative pronouns in English relative clauses, nominal “one” or verbal “do”

as grammatical substitutes for repeated lexical material. Berman warns, however, that both cohesive devices and grammatical/lexical substitution are not universal across languages. For example, in Hebrew and Arabic lexical/grammatical repeti-tion are common rhetorical devices. Th is seems an important conclusion for FL/

L2 educators.

To investigate the role of syntax in L2/FL reading, Berman (1984) conducted a series of studies. In her introspective study with EFL Israeli college students, Berman asked students to explain what they had not understood in the text they were assigned to read. Th e study aimed to fi nd out whether the text the students considered diffi cult seemed diffi cult because of its language or concepts. Th e re-sults of the study showed that many sources of problems were caused by syntactic, rather than lexical or conceptual factors. Th e researcher concluded that problems in processing FL sentences may be due to the learners’ mother tongue. Berman (1984: 141) also stresses the role of SVO ordering, claiming that “FL readers’ com-prehension is liable to be impaired by shifts in SVO ordering; for where the typical expectations of the reader, certainly in a foreign language, are violated, his fl uency may be disrupted and hence comprehension hindered.”

2.4.2. Sentence processing in the competition model of language acquisition

In research exploring principles governing syntactic parsing, apart from intro-spective methods (as the one applied by Berman 1984), sentence processing mod-els proved useful. Th e competition model of language acquisition (Bates and

MacWhinney 1982), developed in the functionalist approach, has inspired many studies. Th e model views language processing as a series of competitions between lexical items, phonological forms, and syntactic patterns. Language is viewed as a set of correspondences between linguistic forms and their functions. Th e acqui-sition of processing competence involves internalisation of such form-function correspondences and is constrained by form-function relationships. A lexical item is understood as a direct mapping between the formal and functional levels of processing. When more than one mapping is possible, the fi nal choice is determined by the strength of available cues. Syntactic parsing, thus, is viewed as a process of competition among alternative mappings; the choice of the fi nal alternative depends on the strength of the cues supporting these alternatives.

Th e competition model addresses the question as to whether parsing processing is language-specifi c or universal across languages. Th is has given rise to a number of experimental contrastive studies which attempt to predict and account for dif-ferences in form-function mappings during sentence processing in typologically diverse languages. Working within the competition model, Bates and associates (1982) assume that syntactic parsing depends on the form-function mapping pat-tern specifi c for a particular language. Th e researchers compared the strength of syntactic (i.e., word order) and semantic (i.e., animacy) cues in governing thematic interpretation among native speakers of two contrasting languages: rigidly ordered English and loosely ordered Italian. Th e subjects’ task was to listen to a series of word strings and state which word was the subject of the sentence. Th e results of the study confi rmed the researchers’ expectations that English subjects relied more heavily on syntactic cues, whereas for Italian speakers semantic information was more important. Recently, the Competition Model has been used as a starting point for constructing a Unifi ed Model (MacWhinney 2008), which would account for both L1 and FL/L2 learning. It is assumed that “rather than attempting to build two separate models of L1 and L2 learning, it makes more sense to consider the shape of a Unifi ed Model in which the mechanisms of L1 learning are seen as a subset of the mechanisms of L2 learning” (MacWhinney 2008: 342).

2.4.3. Cross-linguistic variations in sentence processing

Studies on FL/L2 sentence processing look at the transfer of syntactic process-ing. For example, McDonald’s (1987) study, also conducted within the framework of the competition model, investigated Dutch learners of English and American learners of Dutch across three diff erent profi ciency levels. Th e task involved lis-tening to sentences in a thematic-role task. Th e fi nding indicated that the subjects demonstrated reliance on the cues typical of their L1s, i.e., word order for English and case infl ections for Dutch. Interestingly, the learners changed their sensitiv-ity as their profi ciency rose, gradually adapting their mapping procedures to FL patterns. Similar conclusions were drawn by Kilborn and Ito (1989) in the study involving adult FL learners of Japanese and English. Th e results implied a gradual change from L1 to FL cue usage. Th e studies showed, as MacWhinney (2008: 351)

concludes, that “[t]he process begins with L2 cue weight settings that are close to those for L1. Over time, these settings change in the direction of the native speakers’

settings for L2.” It is worth pointing out that the Competition Model also suggests some amount of transfer from FL/L2 back to L1. Studies into sentence process-ing, e.g., Dussias (2001, cited in MacWhinney 2008) showed the evidence for such eff ects.

It is worth discussing competition model studies showing that cross-linguistic transfer is not a simple bidirectional process and may depend on the languages in-volved, as shown by Gass (1987) and Sasaki (1991). Replicating the Gass study, Sasaki observed that while American learners of Japanese resembled native Japanese read-ers’ performance, Japanese learners of English depended on their L1-based syntactic cues. Sasaki (1991: 61, cited in Koda 2005: 114) concluded that “transfer takes place only from a less syntax-centered language to one that is more so.”

An important research question concerning sentence processing is whether L1 syntactic infl uence on the FL/L2 is temporary or persistent. Lardiere (1998a, 1998b, 2000) observed a L1 Chinese learner with a long immersion in English.

She observed that the subject had problems with supplying past tense and third-person singular “-s” on main verbs. Lardiere explained that Chinese lacks these linguistic features, i.e., verbs do not infl ect for tense or subject-verb agreement.

Th e researcher attributed the learner’s failure to both language universals and L1 learning. She concluded that: “Tense and agreement features may be present in the inventory of syntactic features in the language faculty at birth, but, if they are not selected during L1 acquisition, they become inaccessible at some point during a person’s maturation.” Lardiere says that her study yields similar results to Brown (2000), who also reports FL/L2 learners’ persistent failures to acquire certain pho-nemes which are not present in their L1.

Another possible factor infl uencing the transferability of syntactic elements is psychotypology, the notion developed by Kellerman (1983). It is the learner per-ception of the distance between the L1 and the FL/L2, which changes as the reader learns more of the target language. Kellerman’s (1983) and Gass’s (1983) studies seem to confi rm this assumption.

In summation, the research on cross-linguistic variations in sentence processing presented here points to the signifi cant role of L1 especially in early stages of FL/

L2 development. It is important to note that there are also other factors infl uencing FL/L2 syntactic mechanisms, such as universal principles or FL/L2 knowledge. An interplay among all the above-mentioned factors needs further attention.

Notes

Phonologic or phonological awareness is defi ned as the ability to manipu-1.

late mentally the sounds that make up words (Torgesen et al. 2007). Many researchers (e.g., Harrison 1996) agree that phonological awareness seems

to be related to familiarity with rhymes, which in turn goes with the abil-ity to read and spell words (Bryant et al. 1989). As regards reading in Polish as L1, the impact of the ability to manipulate sounds on early reading was observed by Krasowicz-Kupis (1999). A necessity to explore the role of early development of FL (English) on phonological awareness in L1 (Polish) was raised by Kusiak (2011).

Vocabulary knowledge, often named the learner’s mental lexicon, has been 2.

considered an important aspect of multilingual competence (Singleton 1999).

A comprehensive defi nition of a mental lexicon has been provided by Gabryś-Barker (2005: 39), who suggests that “it should be seen more as a conceptual system than a pure inventory of entries, a system which is composed of con-cepts and their linguistic realisations both phonological and orthographic, and with strong emphasis on lexical processing.”

It is useful to note that Berman’s approach to text diffi culty is an