An Investigation into the Effective Factors in Comprehending English Garden-Path Sentences by EFL Learners

Document Type: Research Paper

Authors

1 department of foreign languages and linguistics, Shiraz University, Iran

2 Department of foreign languages and linguistics, Shiraz University, Iran

10.22099/jtls.2020.34657.2731

Abstract

The present study aimed at highlighting the possible effects of age, proficiency level, and the structural composition of Garden-Path (GP) sentences on EFL learners' comprehension. 80 Iranian EFL learners were recruited from the initial pool of 114 participants based on the results of an English proficiency test; 40 advanced, and 40 intermediate learners were selected. Moreover, two age-groups of teenagers and adults were specified based on the study's necessities. In order to determine the accuracy and also the time needed for comprehension of GP sentences, a software application was designed, which provided learners with a set of GP and non-GP sentences and depicted the elapsed time for each participant to show the correct understanding of the presented sentences on the screen. As statistical analyses revealed, the participants, apart from age and proficiency levels, had less difficulty in comprehending non-GP items. It was also concluded that different types of GP sentences imposed different degrees of difficulty for the participants to comprehend. Furthermore, "proficiency level," unlike "age," was found to be a determining factor for the comprehension of GP sentences for Iranian EFL learners.

Keywords


Abbasian, G. R. & Moeenian, S. (2015). Validation and Investigation of Sentence Parsing Strategies: a Study of EFL Learners Psych and Language Processing. Journal of social science research6(3), 1099-1122.

Akmajian, A., Demeres, R., Farmer, A., & Harnish, R. (2001). Linguistics: An introduction to language and communication (5th Ed.). Cambridge, CA: MIT Press.

Aldama, F. L. (2010). Toward a cognitive theory of narrative acts. University of Texas Press.

Beare, A. M. (2017). Cognitive aging. Gerontology perspectives, 3, 89-109.

Bever, T. G. (1970). The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. Cognition and the development of language279(362), 1-16.

Carreiras, M., Clifton, C. & Meseguer, E. (2002). Overt reanalysis strategies and eye movements during the reading of mild garden path sentences. Memory & Cognition, 30(4), 551-561.

Choi, Y. & Trueswell, J. C. (2010). Referential and syntactic processes: what develops? The Processing and Acquisition of Reference, 65-108.

Christianson, K., Williams, C. C., Zacks, R. T., & Ferreira, F. (2005). Younger and older adults' ‘good-enough’ interpretations of garden-path sentences. Discourse processes42(2), 205-238.

Crain, S., & Coker, P. (1979). A Semantic Constraint on Parsing. Linguistic Society of America: University of California Press.

Engelhardt, P. E. (2014). Children’s and adolescents’ processing of temporary syntactic ambiguity: An eye movement study. Child Development Research, 6, 56-78.

Frazier, L. (1987). Sentence processing: A tutorial review. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and performance 12: The psychology of reading (p. 559–586). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Frazier, L., & Fodor, J. D. (1978). The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition6(4), 291-325.

Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1987). Resolution of syntactic category ambiguities: Eye movements in parsing ambiguous sentences. Journal of memory and language, 26(5), 505-526.

Gerth, S., & Graben, P. (2009). Unifying syntactic theory and sentence processing difficulty through a connectionist minimalist parser. Cognitive neurodynamics, 3(4), 297-316.

Harley, B. (2008). Age in second language acquisition. College-Hill publications.

Hickok, G. (1993). Parallel parsing: Evidence from reactivation in garden-path sentences. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research22(2), 239-250.

Jovanovic J. C. (2013). Taking your own path: Individual differences in executive function and language processing skills in child learners. Journal of experimental child psychology, 141, 187-209.

Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review, 87(4), 329.

Khosravizadeh, P., & Pashmforoosh, R. (2012). How are parts of speech learned? A lexical-driven or a structure-driven model. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 32, 275-282.

Khosravizadeh, P., Latifi, A., & Ghaziani, G., Ahmadi, A. (2015). Your gender may lead you down the garden path. Journal of Language and Literature, 6(1), 20-45.

Marcus, M. P. (1980). Theory of syntactic recognition for natural languages. MIT press.

Marzban, A. & Sepassi, F. (2005). On the effects of economization and disambiguation in the production of EFL learners. Asian EFL Journal25, 45-76.

Osterhout, L., Holcomb, P. J., & Swinney, D. A., Fodor, J. D. (1994). Brain potentials elicited by garden-path sentences: evidence of the application of verb information during parsing. Journal of experimental psychology, 20(4), 786-798.

Parpanchi, Z. S. (2014). The Comprehension of Garden-Path Structures by Iranian EFL Learners. Iranian EFL Journal, 34, 54-78.

Pozzan, L., & Trueswell, J. C. (2016). Second language processing and revision of garden-path sentences: a visual word study. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition19(3), 636-643.

Rayner, K., Kambe, G., & Duffy, S. A. (2000). The effect of clause wrap-up on eye movements during reading. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Section A53(4), 1061-1080.

Reisberg, J. (2010). Seven principles of surface structure parsing in natural language. Cognition, 2(1), 15-47.

Roberts, L. (2012). Individual differences in second language sentence processing. Language Learning, 62(2), 172-188.

Shooshtari, Z. G. & Shahri, S. (2014). Down the garden path: an effective kind of EFL grammar instruction. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 1777-1784.

Sorace, A. (2011). Pinning down the concept of “interface” in bilingualism. Linguistic approaches to bilingualism1(1), 1-33.

Tabor, W., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1999). Dynamical models of sentence processing. Cognitive Science23(4), 491-515.

Townsend, D. J., & Bever, T. G. (2001). Sentence comprehension: The integration of habits and rules. MIT Press.

Traxler, M. J. (2014). Trends in syntactic parsing: Anticipation, Bayesian estimation, and good-enough parsing. Trends in cognitive sciences18(11), 605-611.

Traxler, M. J., & Tooley, K. M. (2007). Lexical mediation and context effects in sentence processing. Brain Research, 1146, 59-74.

Van Gompel, R. P., Pickering, M. J. (2006). The activation of inappropriate analyses in garden-path sentences: Evidence from structural priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 55(3), 335-362.

Van Gompel, R. P., Pickering, M. J., Pearson, J., & Liversedge, S. P. (2005). Evidence against the competition during syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language52(2), 284-307.

Yoo, H., & Dickey, M. W. (2011). Aging Effects and Working Memory in Garden-Path Recovery. Clinical Archives of Communication Disorders2(2), 91-102.