FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2400354979> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2400354979 abstract "Aspectual Coercion in Non-native Speakers of English Ho Leung Chan (ellchl@nus.edu.sg) Department of English Language & Literature, National University of Singapore, Singapore Abstract This study examined the processing correlates of aspectual coercion among native and non-native speakers of English. For native English speakers, results suggested that the processing delay associated with aspectual coercion is minimal. Aspectual coercion was perhaps cognitively easy to perform. By contrast, non-native speakers of English from unlike first language (L1) backgrounds differed in their reading performance. The differences varied systematically as a function of aspectual contrasts in L1 after controlling for second language (L2) English proficiency. Korean participants showed trends of aspectual coercion despite the absence of significant effects; German participants exhibited indifference across experimental conditions; Chinese participants showed aspectual coercion effects opposite to the predictions specified by the English grammar. A coupling of these data with evidence from the semelfactive progressive (e.g. coughing) in English suggests that the so- called online aspectual coercion effects may arise from a prototype organization of aspectual categories that is prone to L1 influence. Keywords: Aspectual coercion; semelfactive progressive; prototype; L1 transfer Introduction The study of aspectual coercion in non-native speakers provides an unusual opportunity to understand how aspectual conflicts are recognized and resolved in the course of language processing. Presumably, the challenge for non- native speakers to process subtle semantic nuances on the fly is far greater than that of native speakers. If aspectual coercion incurs an extra processing cost, it will be more likely to find evidence of that in non-native speakers than in native speakers. This may in turn shed light on aspectual coercion research conducted on native speakers that have reported mixed findings in the literature. Aspectual Coercion Verbs denote events that take place in time. A semelfactive verb (e.g. cough) denotes a single-stage, atelic situation (Smith, 1991; 1997). When the semelfactive verb cough combines with an adverbial modifier of duration or durative adverbial for an hour in the sentence Sam coughed for an hour, the combination becomes problematic. The semelfactive verb and durative adverbial are aspectually incompatible with each other. However, the sentence is neither ill-formed nor ungrammatical. Often an iterative interpretation is derived, namely Sam coughed repeatedly for an hour. Researchers have hypothesized that a computational process is invoked to resolve the incompatibility and construe a more coherent interpretation. Such a process is commonly known as aspectual coercion. The discussion of coercion phenomena first appeared in Moens and Steedman (1988). Empirical studies to date have yet to provide conclusive evidence about the processing consequence of aspectual coercion. Also, it remains unexplored that semelfactive progressive (e.g. coughing) in English derives an iterative interpretation even in the absence of durative adverbials. Whether a construction such as Sam was coughing for an hour incurs an extra processing cost or not, and how non- native speakers respond to aspectual coercion relative to native speakers, become the twin goals of this study. It is hypothesized that a greater processing cost can be found in non-native speakers than in native speakers if aspectual coercion is computationally costly. Another prediction is that a construction like Sam was coughing for an hour will not incur an extra processing cost, because there is not any aspectual mismatch between the verbal predicate and the adverbial in the first place. Psycholinguistic Evidence A small number of empirical studies have examined the psycholinguistic evidence of aspectual coercion using behavioral and brain-imaging techniques. The reported findings were mixed. Some studies found longer decision times and/or higher reading latencies in cases of aspectual coercion, while others reported null results. Task differences may be responsible for these dissimilar findings. Pinango, Zurif, and Jackendoff (1999) first examined the processing load associated with aspectual coercion using a cross-modal lexical decision task. They found longer decision times at the probe positions of coercion sentences. Todorova, Strab, Bedecker, and Frank (2000) employed a self-paced, makes-sense judgment task, and found higher reading latencies in coercion sentences. Pinango, Winnick, Ullah, and Zurif (2006) later reported that online effects of aspectual coercion could only be found when a secondary lexical decision task was administered at a delayed interval of 250ms. Unlike previous paradigms, Pickering, McElree, Frisson, Chen, and Traxler (2006) employed the self-paced reading and eye-tracking techniques to foster more naturalistic reading in experimental settings. Nonetheless, Pickering et al. found no behavioral differences in terms of reading times and other eye-tracking estimates across conditions. The researchers attributed the null results to an underspecification account, which claimed that native English speakers did not commit to the telicity of situations immediately during normal sentence comprehension. Another challenge stems from lexical aspect. Lexical aspect (or Aktionsart) refers to the temporal meanings" @default.
• W2400354979 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2400354979 creator A5024764248 @default.
• W2400354979 date "2013-01-01" @default.
• W2400354979 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W2400354979 title "Aspectual Coercion in Non-native Speakers of English" @default.
• W2400354979 cites W122454834 @default.
• W2400354979 cites W1499647402 @default.
• W2400354979 cites W1520466917 @default.
• W2400354979 cites W1552554163 @default.
• W2400354979 cites W2039561503 @default.
• W2400354979 cites W2051007066 @default.
• W2400354979 cites W2052135388 @default.
• W2400354979 cites W2054518132 @default.
• W2400354979 cites W2061311021 @default.
• W2400354979 cites W2069055088 @default.
• W2400354979 cites W2104201859 @default.
• W2400354979 cites W2111493765 @default.
• W2400354979 cites W2112340261 @default.
• W2400354979 cites W2153076044 @default.
• W2400354979 cites W591961736 @default.
• W2400354979 hasPublicationYear "2013" @default.
• W2400354979 type Work @default.
• W2400354979 sameAs 2400354979 @default.
• W2400354979 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W2400354979 countsByYear W24003549792016 @default.
• W2400354979 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2400354979 hasAuthorship W2400354979A5024764248 @default.
• W2400354979 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2400354979 hasConcept C154775046 @default.
• W2400354979 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2400354979 hasConcept C171041071 @default.
• W2400354979 hasConcept C26022165 @default.
• W2400354979 hasConcept C2777188754 @default.
• W2400354979 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W2400354979 hasConceptScore W2400354979C138885662 @default.
• W2400354979 hasConceptScore W2400354979C154775046 @default.
• W2400354979 hasConceptScore W2400354979C15744967 @default.
• W2400354979 hasConceptScore W2400354979C171041071 @default.
• W2400354979 hasConceptScore W2400354979C26022165 @default.
• W2400354979 hasConceptScore W2400354979C2777188754 @default.
• W2400354979 hasConceptScore W2400354979C41895202 @default.
• W2400354979 hasIssue "35" @default.
• W2400354979 hasLocation W24003549791 @default.
• W2400354979 hasOpenAccess W2400354979 @default.
• W2400354979 hasPrimaryLocation W24003549791 @default.
• W2400354979 hasRelatedWork W1985471064 @default.
• W2400354979 hasRelatedWork W2135378775 @default.
• W2400354979 hasRelatedWork W2140706548 @default.
• W2400354979 hasRelatedWork W2148951781 @default.
• W2400354979 hasRelatedWork W2186519654 @default.
• W2400354979 hasRelatedWork W2186548960 @default.
• W2400354979 hasRelatedWork W2282193652 @default.
• W2400354979 hasRelatedWork W2369410072 @default.
• W2400354979 hasRelatedWork W2466946519 @default.
• W2400354979 hasRelatedWork W2748874218 @default.
• W2400354979 hasRelatedWork W2753401269 @default.
• W2400354979 hasRelatedWork W2883891620 @default.
• W2400354979 hasRelatedWork W2937034061 @default.
• W2400354979 hasRelatedWork W3007400842 @default.
• W2400354979 hasRelatedWork W3035104794 @default.
• W2400354979 hasRelatedWork W3166151033 @default.
• W2400354979 hasRelatedWork W3174568826 @default.
• W2400354979 hasRelatedWork W3184834290 @default.
• W2400354979 hasRelatedWork W3211270967 @default.
• W2400354979 hasRelatedWork W39045350 @default.
• W2400354979 hasVolume "35" @default.
• W2400354979 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2400354979 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2400354979 magId "2400354979" @default.
• W2400354979 workType "article" @default.