Home Linguistics & Semiotics Chapter 3. Second language prediction ability across different linguistic domains
Chapter
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Chapter 3. Second language prediction ability across different linguistic domains

Evidence from German
  • Judith Schlenter and Claudia Felser
View more publications by John Benjamins Publishing Company

Abstract

Previous research suggests that second language (L2) speakers can reliably use lexical-semantic cues for predictive processing but have difficulty using morphosyntactic ones. Here we report the results from a visual-world eye-tracking study that tested first language (L1) Russian/L2 German speakers in two parallel experiments, asking whether morphosyntactic prediction is indeed more limited in an L2 compared to semantic prediction. In Experiment 1 both the L2 speakers and L1 German-speaking controls showed evidence of using selectional restriction information to anticipate an upcoming direct object. Unlike what was reported previously, in Experiment 2 the same group of L2 speakers also showed evidence of using morphological case information predictively. However, between-group differences suggested that L2 speakers had more difficulty integrating competing cues during processing than L1 speakers.

Abstract

Previous research suggests that second language (L2) speakers can reliably use lexical-semantic cues for predictive processing but have difficulty using morphosyntactic ones. Here we report the results from a visual-world eye-tracking study that tested first language (L1) Russian/L2 German speakers in two parallel experiments, asking whether morphosyntactic prediction is indeed more limited in an L2 compared to semantic prediction. In Experiment 1 both the L2 speakers and L1 German-speaking controls showed evidence of using selectional restriction information to anticipate an upcoming direct object. Unlike what was reported previously, in Experiment 2 the same group of L2 speakers also showed evidence of using morphological case information predictively. However, between-group differences suggested that L2 speakers had more difficulty integrating competing cues during processing than L1 speakers.

Downloaded on 23.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1075/bpa.12.03sch/html
Scroll to top button