Tamura, et al. (2015). Conceptual Plurality in Japanese EFL Learners' Online Sentence Processing: A Case of Garden-path Sentences with Reciprocal Verbs. The 41st Annual Conference of the Japan Society of English Language Education, Kumamoto, Japan.

1. Conceptual Plurality
in Japanese EFL Learners’
Online Sentence Processing:
A Case of
Garden-path Sentences with
Reciprocal Verbs
August 23, 2015
41st JASELE
Kumamoto Gakuen University

2. Overview
• Introduction
• Background
• The Present Study
• Results
• Discussion
• Conclusion
2

3. • Grammatically (morphologically) plural
• “PUT -s”
• cats, dogs, cups, etc.
• Conceptually plural
• plurale tantum
• scissors, pants <-these are single entity
• collective nouns
• family, staff, team
• grammatically singular but conceptually plural
Background
3
Conceptual Plurality

4. • Verbs that involves two or more people and each
of them is “both Agent and Target” in the actions
(Dixon, 2005, p.65)
• Typically followed by each other (but not always)
• Non-reciprocal use
• John met Mary. (John: Agent, Mary: Patient or
Target)
• Reciprocal use
• John and Mary met. (Both: Agent and Patient)
• *John met. vs. They met.
4
Introduction
Reciprocal verbs

5. • Requires readers reanalysis
As the parents left their child played the guitar nicely.
5
Introduction
Garden-path sentences

6. • Requires readers reanalysis
As the parents left their child played the guitar nicely.
[As the parents left,] their child played the guitar nicely.
6
Introduction
Garden-path sentences
NP ??
NP V
DOV
V DO
Subjective NP
intransitive

7. Findings of This Study
• L2 learners may be able to conceptually
process conjoined NPs as plural
• The pattern that L2 learners showed was similar
to the results of previous L1 studies
7
Introduction

8. Yu TAMURA1
Junya FUKUTA2
Yoshito NISHIMURA1
Yui HARADA1
Kazuhisa HARA1
Daiki KATO1
1
Graduate School, Nagoya Univ.
2
Graduate School, Nagoya Univ. / The Japan
Society for the Promotion of Science
8

9. Overview
• Introduction
• Background
• The Present Study
• Results
• Discussion
• Conclusion
9

10. • Extensively investigated in the field of L1
psycholinguistics (e.g., Bock & Cutting, 1992; Bock &
Eberhard, 1993; Haskell & MacDonald, 2003; Humphreys & Bock,
2005; Patson & Ferreira, 2009; Patson & Warren, 2010; Patson,
George, & Warren, 2014, Vigliocco, Butterworth, & Semenza, 1995)
• L2 learners might be able to use conceptual
plural information in online processing (e.g., Hoshino,
Dussias, & Kroll, 2010; Kusanagi, Tamura, & Fukuta, 2015; Tamura &
Nishimura, 2015)
Background
10
Conceptual Plurality

11. • How numerosity or number information is
represented mentally.
• cat, cats
• Sometimes, it’s ambiguous
• some cats
• exact number unspecified
• the soldiers
• a single undifferentiated group?
• a set of differentiated group?
11
Introduction
Conceptual Plurality

12. • Kaup, Kelter, & Habel (2002)
• John and Mary went shopping.
A. They bought a gift.
B. Both bought a gift.
• How many gifts did John and Mary buy?
12
Introduction
Conceptual Plurality

13. A. They bought a gift.
• 1 gift: John and Mary represented as group
B. Both bought a gift.
• 2 gifts : John bought one and Mary bought one
• “a gift” (singular) is distributed
• Human sentence processor is sensitive to the
difference between group and distributed object.
13
Introduction
Conceptual Plurality

14. • Humphreys & Bock (2005)
• distributional effects of collective nouns
• Sentence completion task
A. The gang on the motorcycles…
B. The gang near the motorcycles…
• plural verbs are produced more in A than B
• “gang” is distributed to each motorcycles
14
Introduction
Conceptual Plurality

15. • Patson & Ferreira (2009)
• Used reciprocal verbs and garden-path
sentences
• Fingings
• Plurality is ambiguously represented in
processing
• constituent of plural set must be clearly
specified (e.g., conjoined NP)
15
Introduction
Previous L1 Research

16. • Previous research
• Even highly proficient L2 learners whose L1
doesn’t have number agreement cannot fully
acquire the plural marker -s (e.g., Chen et al., 2007;
Jiang, 2004; 2007)
• It may depend on the linguistic structures and
task (e.g., Lim & Christianson, 2014; Song, 2015)
Background
16
Acquisition of plurality

17. • Plural marking (Shibuya & Wakabayashi, 2008)
• Conjoined NP (e.g., Tom and Mary): salient
• Plural definite (e.g., The chefs): less salient
-> Japanese learners of English (JLE) are
sensitive to number disagreement in the case of
conjoined NP
Background
17
Acquisition of plurality

18. • Processing of conjoined NP (Tamura et al., in prep)
• His wife and son *is/are in the cottage now.
-> Singular agreement was faster
• The writer and the director *was/were at this
party.
-> No difference
JLE cannot interpret conjoined NP as plural in
online sentence processing?
Background
18
Acquisition of plurality

19. • Trenkic, Mirovic, & Altmann (2014)
“Being able to detect violations in ungrammatical
sentences, however, is not the same as being able
to facilitatively utilise grammatical information in the
processing of well-formed sentences.” (p.239)
• Vainio, Pajunen, & Hyona (2015)
“the non-violation paradigm allows its user to
examine how linguistic structures…are utilized
during online language processing in the absence
of grammatical violations” (p.4)
Background
19
Limitation of anomaly detection

20. • Previous research on processing and acquisition
of plural features (e.g., Shibuya and Wakabayashi, 2008;
Tamura et al., in prep)
• anomaly detection
• number agreement
• The failure of detecting number agreement
mismatch does not tell us much about WHY it
happened.
• failure of assigning plural features?
• failure of matching number features?
Background
20
Motivation of the study

21. • Plurality is much explicit in conjoined NP than
plural definite description
• Reciprocal verbs require two thematic roles
A. While the boy and the girl dated the performer
played the piano on the stage.
B. While the teenagers dated the performer played
the piano on the stage.
In processing conjoined NP with reciprocal verbs,
no garden-path effects should be found.
Background
21
Hypothesis

22. Overview
• Introduction
• Background
• The Present Study
• Results
• Discussion
• Conclusion
22

23. • 32 Japanese undergraduate and
graduate students
• 58% had some experience in staying
in English-speaking countries
(Min = 2 weeks, Max = 54 months)
Table 1. Background Information of the Participants
The Present Study
23
Participants
Age TOEIC Score
N M SD M SD
Participants 32 24.77 5.34 824.22 113.12

24. • Twenty test items in four conditions
A. While the boy and the girl dated the
performer played the piano on the stage.
B. While the teenagers dated the performer
played the piano on the stage.
C. While the boy and the girl paid the performer
played the piano on the stage.
D. While the teenagers paid the performer
played the piano on the stage.
The Present Study
24
Stimuli
Conj/recip
PDD/recip
Conj/OT
PDD/OT

25. • Ten reciprocal verbs
• fight, hug, date, kiss, argue, embrace, meet,
divorce, marry, battle
• Ten optionally transitive verbs
• criticise, write, pay, investigate, email, search,
negotiate, leave, recover, protest
• Five conjunctions equally distributed
• when, while, as, after, because
(based on Patson & Ferreira, 2009)
The Present Study
25
Stimuli

26. • Self-paced reading task on PC
• Moving window and word by word reading
The Present Study
26
Experiment
_____ __ __ __ ___ _____ __ _____ ___ ____
While __ __ __ ___ _____ __ _____ ___ ____
____ the __ __ ___ _____ __ _____ ___ ____
____ __ boy __ ___ _____ __ _____ ___ _______ __ boy __ ___ _____ __ _____ ___ _______ ___ __ ___ _____ __ _____ stage. ___
____ __ ___ __ ___ _____ __ _____ ___ 次へ

27. • Target regions
A. While the boy and the girl dated the
performer played the piano on the stage.
B. While the teenagers dated the performer
played the piano on the stage.
C. While the boy and the girl paid the performer
played the piano on the stage.
D. While the teenagers paid the performer
played the piano on the stage.
The Present Study
27
Experiment

28. • Outliers
1. Each participant’s means and SDs of RTs in
each condition were calculated
2. Responses above the Mean RTs +/- 3SD were
removed
3. Responses below 200ms were removed
4. Overall, 4.5% of all the responses were
removed
The Present Study
28
Analysis

29. • Generalized Linear Mixed-Effects Model (GLMM) by R 3.2.0
• Explanatory variables
• Verb types (2 levels):
• reciprocal, optionally transitive (OT)
• Noun types (2 levels):
• Conjoined, plural definite description (PDD)
• Response variables
• Raw RTs
• Distribution family and link function
• Gamma distribution and log-link
• Participants with low proficiency (n = 4) were removed
The Present Study
29
Analysis

30. Overview
• Introduction
• Background
• The Present Study
• Results
• Discussion
• Conclusion
30

31. 31
Reading Time
Results
V the N targetV D N
Conj/recip
617
(212)
531
(142)
543
(182)
600
(248)
498
(116)
543
(163)
PDD/recip
758
(428)
516
(116)
594
(226)
721
(369)
550
(219)
593
(250)
Conj/OT
679
(351)
505
(121)
535
(147)
643
(230)
561
(224)
607
(238)
PDD/OT
723
(250)
518
(143)
697
(183)
697
(229)
561
(183)
558
(154)
Table 2.
Mean RTs (ms) and SDs (parentheses) in each condition
N = 28

32. 32
Reading Time
Results

33. 33
Reading Time
Results

34. 34
Reading Time
Results

35. • Target V
• The best model justified by AIC and BIC
• rt ~ conj + (1 | participant) + (1 | item)
• Only the main effect of noun type
•Number of observation: 501
•Participant : 28
•Item: 20
Model Selection
Results
35

36. • Target V
• Random effects (intercepts)
• Fixed effects
Model Selection
Results
36
Variance SD
participant 0.05 0.22
item 0.01 0.12
Residual 0.18 0.42
Estimate SE t p
intercepts 6.44 0.09 69.80 p < .001
conj -0.11 0.03 -3.31 p < .001

37. • Determiner (one word after the Target V)
• The best model justified by AIC and BIC
• rt ~ recip + conj + recip:conj + (1 + conj + recip
| participant) + (1 + conj | item)
• interaction was included (but not significant)
• Number of observation: 547
• Participant : 28
• Item: 20
Model Selection
Results
37

38. • Determiner (one word after the Target V)
• Random effects (intercepts & slope)
•Fixed effects
Model Selection
Results
38
Variance SD
participant (intercept) 0.03 0.17
conj 0.24 0.15
recip 0.22 0.14
item (intercept) > 0.01 0.05
conj 0.02 0.14
Residual 0.140 0.37
Estimate SE t p
intercepts 6.22 0.06 98.97 p < .001
recip -0.06 0.05 -1.27 .21
conj -0.05 0.07 -0.82 .41
recip:conj -0.07 0.05 -1.37 .17

39. • Object Noun (two words after the Target V)
• The best model justified by AIC and BIC
• rt ~ recip + conj + recip:conj + (1 + conj + recip
| participant) + (1 | item)
• interaction was included
• Number of observation: 532
• Participant : 28
• Item: 20
Model Selection
Results
39

40. •Object Noun (two words after the Target V)
• Random effects (intercepts & slope)
•Fixed effects
Model Selection
Results
40
Variance SD
participant (intercept) 0.04 0.19
conj 0.02 0.13
recip 0.02 0.13
item (intercept) 0.01 0.12
Residual 0.13 0.37
Estimate SE t p
intercepts 6.28 0.09 69.31 p < .001
recip -0.04 0.04 -0.84 .21
conj -0.02 0.04 -0.42 .41
recip:conj -0.12 0.05 -2.21 0.03

41. Overview
• Introduction
• Background
• The Present Study
• Results
• Discussion
• Conclusion
41

42. • Target V
• Conj/recip, Conj/OT < PDD/OT, PDD/recip
• Determiner (one word after the Target V)
• No difference
• Object noun (two words after the Target V)
• PDD/OT < Conj/OT (β = -0.09, t = -1.74, p = .08)
• Conj/recip < Conj/OT (β = -0.10, t = -2.49, p = .01)
• PDD/recip - PDD/OT (β = 0.03, t = 0.79, p = .43)
• Conj/recip - PDD/recip ( β = 0.04, t = 0.86, p = .40)
Discussion
42
RT differences

43. • Conjoined NP and PDD were processed
differently
• The participants succeeded in assigning
reciprocality to reciprocal verbs only when the
subject was conjoined
Discussion
43
Processing of Plurals

44. • Subject NP: conjoined
• Verb: optionally transitive
-> The participants still looked for object noun
Discussion
44
Processing of Plurals

45. Fast RT in conjoined NP with reciprocal verbs were
not only because of conjoined NP but also
reciprocal verbs
Discussion
45
Processing of Plurals

46. • Conjoined NP
• Plural definite description
Discussion
46
Processing of Plurals
※It is possible that the
participants failed to
process plural marker -s

47. Discussion
47
Processing of Plurals
Structure of NP Methodology Results
Shibuya &
Wakabayashi
(2008)
[Proper Noun]
and
[Proper Noun]
overuse of 3rd
person singular -s
sensitive
Tamura et al. (in
prep)
[Det + Noun]
and
[Det + Noun]
number agreement
with copula be
insensitive
This study
[Det + Noun]
and
[Det + Noun]
garden-path
sentences with
reciprocal verbs
conceptually
sensitive

48. • Possible causes of conflicting results
• 3rd person singular -s vs. copula be
• Proper nouns vs. [Det + N]
• Tom and Mary vs. the wife and the husband
• Confirming the conceptual representation of
plurals (e.g., Hoshino, Dussias, & Kroll, 2010; Kusanagi, Tamura,
& Fukuta, 2015; Tamura & Nishimura, 2015)
Discussion
48
Processing of Plurals

49. • Plurality assignment to PDD
• Shibuya & Wakabayashi (2008) -> NO
• What about the case of copula be?
• Conceptual representation of
• [quantifier + N] (e.g., many cats, some cats)
• [numerals + N] (e.g., two cats, three cats)
• singularity (e.g., a cat, one thing)
Discussion
49
Future Research

50. • Self-paced reading task
• cannot capture the processing of reanalysis
• eye-tracking would be better?
• Comprehension questions
• no test items were followed by CQ
• unclear as to the success of ambiguity
resolution
Discussion
50
Limitations

51. Overview
• Introduction
• Background
• The Present Study
• Results
• Discussion
• Conclusion
51

52. • What JLE can do is
• conceptually representing conjoined NP as plural
(but not syntactically?)
• What JLE cannot do is
• conceptually representing PDD as plural
52
Representation of plurality
Conclusion

53. Bock, K., & Cutting, J. (1992). Regulating mental energy : Performance units in language production. Journal of
Memory and Language, 31, 99–127. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(92)90007-K
Bock, K., & Eberhard, K. M. (1993). Meaning, sound and syntax in english number agreement. Language and
Cognitive Processes, 8, 57–99. doi:10.1080/01690969308406949
Chen, L., Shu, H., Liu, Y., Zhao, J., & Li, P. (2007). ERP signatures of subject–verb agreement in L2 learning.
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10, 161–174. doi:10.1017/S136672890700291X
Dixon, R. M. W. (2005). A semantic approach to English grammar (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Haskell, T. R., & MacDonald, M. C. (2003). Conflicting cues and competition in subject-verb agreement. Journal of
Memory and Language, 48, 760–778. doi:10.1016/S0749-596X(03)00010-X
Hoshino, N., Dussias, P. E., & Kroll, J. F. (2010). Processing subject–verb agreement in a second language
depends on proficiency. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13, 87–98. doi:10.1017/S1366728909990034
Jiang, N. (2004). Morphological insensitivity in second language processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25, 603–
634. doi:10.1017/S0142716404001298
Jiang, N. (2007). Selective integration of linguistic knowledge in adult second language learning. Language
Learning, 57, 1–33. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2007.00397.x
Kaup, B., Kelter, S., & Habel, C. (2002). Representing referents of plural expressions and resolving plural
anaphors. Language and Cognitive Processes, 17, 405–450. doi:10.1080/01690960143000272
Kusanagi, K., Tamura, Y., & Fukuta, J. (2015). The Notional number attraction in English as a foreign language : A
self-paced reading study. Journal of the Japan Society for Speech Sciences, 16, 77–96.
Lim, J. H., & Christianson, K. (2014). Second language sensitivity to agreement errors : Evidence from eye
movements during comprehension and translation, Applied Psycholinguistics. Advanced online publication.
doi: 10.1017/S0142716414000290
References
53

54. Patson, N. D., & Ferreira, F. (2009). Conceptual plural information is used to guide early parsing decisions: Evidence
from garden-path sentences with reciprocal verbs. Journal of Memory and Language, 60, 464–486. doi:10.1016/
j.jml.2009.02.003
Patson, N. D., George, G., & Warren, T. (2014). The conceptual representation of number. The Quarterly Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 67, 1349–65. doi:10.1080/17470218.2013.863372
Patson, N. D., & Warren, T. (2011). Building complex reference objects from dual sets. Journal of Memory and
Language, 64, 443–459. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2011.01.005
Song, Y. (2015). L2 Processing of Plural Inflection in English. Language Learning, 65, 233–267. doi:10.1111/lang.12100
Shibuya, M., & Wakabayashi, S. (2008). Why are L2 learners not always sensitive to subject-verb agreement?
EUROSLA Yearbook, 8, 235–258. doi:10.1075/eurosla.8.13shi
Tamura, Y., & Nishimura, Y. (2015). Word frequency effects and plurality in L2 word recognition: A preliminary study.
Paper presented at the 45th Annual Conference of Chubu English Language Education Society. Wakayama,
Japan.
Tamura, Y., Fukuta, J., Nishimura, Y., & Kato, D. (in prep). L2 learners’ implicit and explicit knowledge about Subject-
verb agreement and Coordinated NPs.
Trenkic, D., Mirkovic, J., & Altmann, G. T. M. (2014). Real-time grammar processing by native and non-native speakers:
Constructions unique to the second language. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17, 237–257. doi:10.1017/
S1366728913000321
Vainio, S., Pajunen, a., & Hyona, J. (2015). Processing modifier-head agreement in L1 and L2 Finnish: An eye-tracking
study. Second Language Research. Advanced online publication. doi:10.1177/0267658315592201
Vigliocco, G., Butterworth, B., & Semenza, C. (1995). Constructing Subject-Verb Agreement in Speech: The Role of
Semantic and Morphological Factors. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 186–215. doi:10.1006/jmla.1995.1009
References
54

55. Conceptual Plurality
in Japanese EFL Learners’ Online Sentence Processing:
A Case of Garden-path Sentences with Reciprocal Verbs
contact info Yu Tamura
Graduate School, Nagoya University
yutamura@nagoya-u.jp
http://www.tamurayu.wordpress.com/
55
A. While the boy and the girl dated the performer played the piano on the stage.
B. While the teenagers dated the performer played the piano on the stage.
C. While the boy and the girl paid the performer played the piano on the stage.
D. While the teenagers paid the performer played the piano on the stage.
No garden-path effect on A
-> JLE can conceptually represent conjoined NP

56. Model Df AIC BIC logLik deviance
(1|participant)+(1| item) 4 6932 6949 -3462 6924
conj + (1| participant)+(1| item) 5 6923 6944 -3457 6913
recip + (1| participant)+(1| item) 5 6933 6954 -3462 6923
conj + recip + (1| participant)+(1| item) 6 6924 6949 -3456 6912
conj*recip+ (1| participant)+(1| item) 7 6926 6955 -3456 6912
conj*recip+ (1+conj | participant)+(1| item) 9 6926 6964 -3454 6908
conj*recip+ (1+recip | participant)+(1| item) 9 6922 6960 -3452 6904
conj*recip+ (1+conj | participant)+(1+conj | item) 11 6930 6976 -3454 6908
conj*recip+ (1+recip| participant)+(1+recip| item) 11 6925 6971 -3451 6903
conj*recip+ (1+conj+recip| participant)+(1| item) 12 6923 6973 -3449 6899
conj*recip+ (1+conj+recip| participant)+(1+recip| item) 14 6927 6986 -3449 6899
conj*recip+ (1+conj+recip| participant)+(1+conj| item) 14 6926 6985 -3449 6898
conj*recip+ (1+conj+recip| participant)+(1+conj+recip| item) 17 6931 7003 -3449 6897
56
Model Selection (Target V)

57. Model Df AIC BIC logLik deviance
(1|participant)+(1| item) 4 7252 7270 -3622 7244
conj + (1| participant)+(1| item) 5 7251 7273 -3621 7241
recip + (1| participant)+(1| item) 5 7250 7272 -3620 7240
conj + recip + (1| participant)+(1| item) 6 7249 7275 -3619 7237
conj*recip+ (1| participant)+(1| item) 7 7250 7280 -3618 7236
conj*recip+ (1+conj | participant)+(1| item) 9 7238 7277 -3610 7220
conj*recip+ (1+recip | participant)+(1| item) 9 7237 7276 -3609 7219
conj*recip+ (1+conj | participant)+(1+conj | item) 11 7231 7278 -3605 7209
conj*recip+ (1+recip| participant)+(1+recip| item) 11 7238 7285 -3608 7216
conj*recip+ (1+conj+recip| participant)+(1| item) 12 7226 7277 -3601 7202
conj*recip+ (1+conj+recip| participant)+(1+recip| item) 14 7227 7287 -3600 7199
conj*recip+ (1+conj+recip| participant)+(1+conj| item) 14 7218 7278 -3595 7190
conj*recip+ (1+conj+recip| participant)+(1+conj+recip| item) 17 7219 7292 -3593 7185
57
Model Selection (Determiner)

58. Model Df AIC BIC logLik deviance
(1|participant)+(1| item) 4 7065 7082 -3528 7057
conj + (1| participant)+(1| item) 5 7066 7087 -3528 7056
recip + (1| participant)+(1| item) 5 7066 7087 -3528 7056
conj + recip + (1| participant)+(1| item) 6 7067 7093 -3527 7055
conj*recip+ (1| participant)+(1| item) 7 7063 7093 -3525 7049
conj*recip+ (1+conj | participant)+(1| item) 9 7061 7100 -3522 7043
conj*recip+ (1+recip | participant)+(1| item) 9 7059 7097 -3520 7041
conj*recip+ (1+conj | participant)+(1+conj | item) 11 7061 7108 -3520 7039
conj*recip+ (1+recip| participant)+(1+recip| item) 11 7060 7108 -3519 7038
conj*recip+ (1+conj+recip| participant)+(1| item) 12 7052 7103 -3514 7028
conj*recip+ (1+conj+recip| participant)+(1+recip| item) 14 7053 7113 -3513 7025
conj*recip+ (1+conj+recip| participant)+(1+conj| item) 14 7052 7112 -3512 7024
conj*recip+ (1+conj+recip| participant)+(1+conj+recip| item) 17 7055 7127 -3510 7021
58
Model Selection (ObjectNoun)

59. Conjoined NP PDD
the producer and the editor the editors
the artist and the painter the artists
the doctor and the nurse the doctors
the manager and the secretary the managers
the professor and the lecturer the professors
the boy and the girl the teenagers
the actor and the actress the actors
the French and the Spanish the Europeans
the waiter and the waitress the waiters
the wife and the husband the lovers
the mayor and the councilor the politicians
the mother and father the parents
the writer and the novelist the writers
the runner and the cyclist the athletes
the singer and the guitarist the musicians
the king and the queen the leaders
the novelist and the poet the writers
the musician and the comedian the entertainers
the coach and the trainer the coaches
the engineer and the mechanic the enginerrs
59
The List of Conjoined NP and PDD