4.3 Article

Quantifying individual differences in native and nonnative sentence processing

期刊

APPLIED PSYCHOLINGUISTICS
卷 42, 期 3, 页码 579-599

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0142716420000648

关键词

bilingual sentence processing; garden-path sentences; individual differences; measurement reliability; sentence comprehension

资金

  1. Leverhulme Trust [RPG-2018-337]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Research on sentence processing focuses on the role of individual differences in language comprehension, especially in native and nonnative speakers. Commonly used tasks may not consistently measure individual differences, highlighting the need for further examination in this area.
Research in sentence processing has increasingly examined the role of individual differences in language comprehension. In work on native and nonnative sentence processing, examining individual differences can contribute crucial insight into theoretical debates about the extent to which nativelike processing is possible in a nonnative language. Despite this increased interest in individual differences, whether commonly used psycholinguistic tasks can reliably measure individual differences between participants has not been systematically examined. As a preliminary examination of this issue in nonnative processing, we report a self-paced reading experiment on garden-path sentences in native and nonnative comprehension. At the group level we replicated previously observed findings in native and nonnative speakers. However, while we found that our self-paced reading experiment was a reliable way of assessing individual differences in overall reading speed and comprehension accuracy, it did not consistently measure individual differences in the size of garden-path effects in our sample (N = 64 native and 64 nonnative participants, and 24 experimental items). These results suggest that before individual differences in sentence processing can be meaningfully assessed, the question of whether commonly used tasks can consistently measure individual differences requires systematic examination.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据