THE EFFECTS OF AGE, PRESENTATION MODE (ONLINE, OFFLINE), AND SEGMENTATION OF AMBIGUOUS SENTENCES ON ATTACHMENT PREFERENCES OF FEMALE EFL LEARNERS

Mahdi Mardani, Mandana Modarres

Abstract


One kind of structural ambiguity is in sentences including two determiner phrases (DP) that are followed by a relative clause (RC). One example of this type of ambiguity is "Somebody shot the servant of the actress who was on the balcony". Speakers of different languages attribute RC either to DP1 or DP2. The goal of this study was to investigate the relationship between participants' age and participants' attachment preferences, as well as different ways of presenting the material (i.e., offline vs. online) on the attachment preferences. This study also aims to see if the segmentation of experimental sentences plays any role in participant attachment preferences. To this end, a sample of 50 female native speakers of Persian ranging between 15 to 25 years participated in this study. The instruments used in the present research include an offline sentence acceptability judgment test and main tests that included the first main test, offline test, online complete presentation (timed), and an online segment-by-segment sentence. For the analysis of data t-tests and ANOVA were used. The statistics showed that participants' age affects attachment preferences, and adolescents have a tendency toward DP1 selection. Different modes of presenting ambiguous sentences also affected the results; presenting materials in a self-paced online method leads to a significant difference other two modes. Finally, segmentation plays a role in the attachment preference of RC and in resolving ambiguous sentences. The results showed that students had a preference for segmented presentation rather than a holistic mode of presentation.

 

Article visualizations:

Hit counter


Keywords


attachment preference, determiner phrase (DP), relative clause (RC), structural ambiguity, parsing

Full Text:

PDF

References


Arabmofrad, A., & Marefat, H. (2008). Relative clause attachment ambiguity resolution in Persian. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 29-49.

Cuetos, F., Mitchell, D. C., & Corley, M. M. B. (1996). Parsing in different languages. In M. Carreiras, J. E. Garcia-Albea, & N. Sabastian-Galles (Eds.), Language processing in Spanish (pp. 145-187). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Dussias, P. E. (2003). Syntactic ambiguity resolution in L2 learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 529-557.

Felser, C., Roberts, L., Gross, R., & Marinis, T. (2003). Processing of ambiguous sentences by first and second language learners of English. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24, 453–489.

Fernández, E. M. (2000). Bilingual sentence processing: Relative clause attachment in English and Spanish. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, City University of New York.

Fodor, J. D. (1998). Learning to parse? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 27, 285-319.

Frenck-Mestre, C. and Pynte, J. (1997). Syntactic ambiguity resolution while reading in second and native languages. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 50A, 119-148.

Gibson, E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependency. Cognition, 68, 1-76.

Gibson, E. (1991). A computational theory of human linguistic processing: Memory limitations and processing breakdown. Ph.D. thesis Carnegie Mellon University.

Gibson, E. (2000). The Dependency Locality Theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. In Y. Miyashita, A. Marantz, & W. O’Neil (Eds.), Image, language, brain (pp. 95-126). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Gibson, E., & Pearlmutter, N. J. (1994). A corpus-based analysis of psycholinguistic constraints on prepositional-phrase attachment. In C. Clifton, L. Frazier, & K. Rayner (Eds.), Perspectives on sentence processing (pp. 181-198). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Gibson, E., Pearlmutter, N., Canseco-Gonzalez, E., & Hickok, G. (1996). Recency preference in the human sentence processing mechanism. Cognition, 59, 23–59.

Gilboy, E., Sopena, J. M., Clifton, C., & Frazier, L. (1995). Argument structure and association preferences in Spanish and English complex NPs. Cognition, 54, 131-167.

Kimball, J. (1973). Seven principles of surface structure parsing in natural language. Cognition 2, 15–47.

Mitchell, D., & Cuetos, F. (1991). The origins of parsing strategies. In C. Smith (Ed.), Current Issues in Natural Language Processing (pp. 1–12). Austin, TX: Center for Cognitive Science, University of Austin.

Marefat, H. & Meraji, M. (2005). Parsing Preferences in Structurally Ambiguous Relative Clauses: L1 vs. L2. J. Humanities, 12 (1), 111-127.

Papadopoulou, D. & Clahsen, H. (2005). Parsing Strategies in L1 and L2 Sentence Processing: A study of relative clause attachment in Greek. Unpublished Master's thesis. University of Essex.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.46827/ejel.v8i1.4695

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright © 2015 - 2023. European Journal of English Language Teaching (ISSN 2501-7136) is a registered trademark of Open Access Publishing Group. All rights reserved.

This journal is a serial publication uniquely identified by an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) serial number certificate issued by Romanian National Library (Biblioteca Nationala a Romaniei). All the research works are uniquely identified by a CrossRef DOI digital object identifier supplied by indexing and repository platforms.

All the research works published on this journal are meeting the Open Access Publishing requirements and can be freely accessed, shared, modified, distributed and used in educational, commercial and non-commercial purposes under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).