Native and non-native processing of English wh- questions: Parsing strategies and plausibility constraints

By John N. Williams, P. Möbius, Choonkyong Kim. Applied Psycholinguistics, 2001

147 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Artificial Intelligence, Cognitive Neuroscience, Developmental and Educational Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/5e23a66191b1afbebd1ec9d64c515aeb4af7db48

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Artificial Intelligence

In Cognitive Neuroscience

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Processing wh-dependencies in a second language: a cross-modal priming study (2007, background): “While there is evidence that learners are able to link dislocated constituents to their lexical subcategorizers when processing wh-dependencies in the L2 (Williams et al., 2001; Juffs and Harrington, 1995; Juffs, 2005; Marinis et al., 2005), the results from a reading-time study by Marinis et al.”
Syntactic features and reanalysis in near-native processing (2006, background): “Reading-time studies on gap-filling effects in wh-movement by Juffs and Harrington (1996), Williams et al. (2001) and Juffs (2005) demonstrate that, like natives, non-natives attempt to integrate a displaced constituent as early as possible with a potential subcategorizer, thus showing evidence of…”
Processing Subject-Object Ambiguities in the L2: A Self-Paced Reading Study With German L2 Learners of Dutch (2009, methodology): “Other studies have found more evidence for this and have furthermore found that the strength of the processing difficulty in the processing of such subject-object ambiguities in English differs as a function of the plausibility of the initial interpretation (Felser & Roberts, 2004; Williams, 2006; W”
Plausibility and recovery from garden paths in second language sentence processing (2011, background): “Our L2 group’s high accuracy scores are in stark contrast to those found in some earlier L2 processing studies that have used metalinguistic judgment tasks (Juffs & Harrington, 1996; Williams et al., 2001; but see Juffs, 2004).”
Incremental interpretation in second language sentence processing (2006, methodology): “ Williams et al (2001) study and the present Experiment 1 used the stop-making sense”
The influence of first language on the processing of wh-movement in English as a second language (2005, unknown): “Williams et al. (2001) made a similar suggestion.”
Grammatical processing in language learners (2006, methodology): “Instead, learner groups from typologically different L1 backgrounds have been found to show remarkably similar patterns of L2 processing, which argues against a strong L1 influence on L2 parsing (compare also Marinis et al., 2005; Williams et al., 2001).”
Effects of reading span and plausibility in the reanalysis of wh-gaps by Chinese-English second language speakers (2010, background): “Word-by-word comparisons are relevant here because previous studies (e.g. Williams et al., 2001) have shown that monolingual and L2 readers differ in how early they use plausibility information to recover from misanalysis.”