Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Coordinated NPs agree with singular or plural in there-constructions?: A comparison between NS and NNS in a self-paced reading task

1,141 views

Published on

Tamura, Y., Fukuta, J., Nishimura, Y., & Kato, D. (2015). Coordinated NPs agree with singular or plural in there-constructions?: A comparison between NS and NNS in a self-paced reading task. Poster presented at the 17th Annual International Conference of the Japan Society for Language Sciences. Oita, Japan.

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Coordinated NPs agree with singular or plural in there-constructions?: A comparison between NS and NNS in a self-paced reading task

  1. 1. Coordinated NPs agree with singular or plural in there-constructions? A Comparison between NS and NNS in a self-paced reading task Yu Tamura (Graduate School, Nagoya University) Junya Fukuta (Graduate School, Nagoya University / The Japan Society for the Promotion of Science) Yoshito Nishimura (Graduate School, Nagoya University) Daiki Kato(Graduate School, Nagoya University) 1. Introduction Purpose: Investigating Japanese EFL learners’ online sentence processing of subject-verb agreement (SVA) in the case of existential there-constructions. Background: How does SVA occur? (1a) A pen and an eraser are on my desk. (1b) *A pen and an eraser is on my desk. (2a) There is a pen and an eraser on my desk. (2b) ?There are a pen and an eraser on my desk. ※NS prefer (2a) to (2b) (Sobin, 1997) 2. The Present Study Self-paced reading task (moving window) Patrticipants: 32 NNS (TOEIC: M =462.7) and 8 NS Stimuli: 8 pairs (G and UG) of target sentences There | is/are | a | pen | and | an | eraser | on | the |desk. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Analysis: nonparametric bootstrapping (10,000 times) and comparison of mean differences using Cohen’s d (M+/- 2SD was removed from the analysis) 3. Results Table 1. Mean RTs (in ms) and SDs (in parentheses) References O’Grady, W. (2005). Syntactic carpentry: A emergentist approach to syntax. Routledge. Sobin, N. (1997). Agreement, default rules, and grammatical viruses. Linguistic Inquiry, 28, 318–343. Tamura, Y., Fukuta, J., Nishimura, Y., & Kusanagi, K. (2014). Japanese EFL learners implicit/explicit knowledge of subject-verb agreement in existential there: A self-paced reading study. Paper presented at The 20th JABAET Conference, Housei Univ, Japan. Figure 1. 95% bootstrapped confidence intervals of Cohen’s d is/are a pen and an eraser NNS sig 453 (103) 419 (111) 623 (305) 546 (120) 412 (86) 553 (153) pl 465 (104) 446 (135) 653 (240) 502 (101) 427 (84) 570 (144) NS sig 319 (61) 320 (61) 310 (58) 310 (63) 298 (63) 298 (69) pl 322 (68) 339 (60) 329 (63) 326 (72) 309 (66) 321 (66) 4. Discussion and Conclusion • NNS might reanalyse NP as plural when they encountered and. -> NNS processed coordinated NP as plural With the help of explicit knowledge about and?(e.g., Tamura et al., 2014) • NS might not resolve agreement errors as NNS did. -> NS made SVA at the nearest NP. Emergentist account may explain this tendency?(e.g., O’Grady, 2005) Figure 2. Mean RT profile for NS and NNS July 19, 2015 The 17th Annual International Conference of the Japan Society for Language Sciences

×