Japanese EFL Learners’ Native-like Parsing of PP Attachment Ambiguity
Toshiyuki YAMADA and Yuki HIROSE (University of Tokyo)
1. Introduction
Our goal is to investigate whether L2 parsing is similar to L1 parsing with respect to the adoption ofparsing principles or strategies. We examined Japanese EFL learners’ parsing of PP attachment
ambiguity, illustrated as in (1)(1) Put the apple on the towel into the bag.
Assuming the incremental (i.e., word-by-word) parsing, (1) is temporarily ambiguous and twostructures as in (2a-b) are possible for the first PP (PP1) attachment.
(2) a. VP-attachment
b. DP-attachment
vPvP

VPv
putv

DPputt

VPv
v

PP1the apple

DPt

DP

PP1

the apple

on the towel(PP2)

on the towel

VP-attachment in (2a) is based on Minimal Attachment (MA) (fewer syntactic nodes preferred(Frazier 1979)), whereas DP-attachment in (2b) is motivated by Late Closure (more recent attachment
preferred (Frazier 1979)). At the second PP (PP2), (1) is disambiguated, supporting DP-attachment.
It has been demonstrated that native speakers of English show a garden-path effect in (1) (see, e.g.,Ferreira & Clifton 1986; Frazier 1987; Tanenhaus et al. 1995). Their preferred, initial analysis
adopting MA-based VP-attachment as in (2a) turns out to be incorrect at PP2 because no attachment
site is available for that PP, and thus reanalysis into DP-attachment as in (2b) is required. Hirose et al.
(2008) found in the higher-proficiency Japanese EFL learners a native-like preference for initial
MA-based VP-attachment. The question remains whether the lower-proficiency learners without sucha preference had preferred LC-based DP-attachment instead.
2. The Present Study
The purposes of the present study are (i) to confirm the outcome of Hirose et al. (2008) by theself-paced reading technique and (ii) more importantly to detect a LC-based DP-attachment preference,
if any, as well as a MA-based VP-attachment preference.
Sixty-eight Japanese EFL learners participated in a self-paced reading experiment composed oftwenty-four target sentences as in (3a-d) (R stands for a region of segmentation), counterbalanced into
four lists, with forty-eight filler sentences.
R1 R2
R3R4R5R6(3) a. Susan / put / the candy / in the box / into the paper bag / before the party.
b. Susan / put / the candy / for her son / into the paper bag / before the party.
c. Susan / put / the candy / in the box / right away
/ before the party.
d. Susan / put / the candy / into the box / right away
/ before the party.
In (3a) and (3c), the PP in R4 is temporarily ambiguous as to attachment but, in the underlined, critical
R5, is disambiguated into DP- and VP-attachment, respectively. The sentences in (3b) (the PP in R4forced to DP-attachment) and (3d) (the PP in R4 forced to VP-attachment) are unambiguous controlsfor (3a) and (3c). The mean residual reading times (RRT’s) were analyzed by 2 (DP/VP forAttachment) x 2 (un/ambiguous for Ambiguity) ANOVAs. The rationale was that longer RRT’s in R5in ambiguous (3a) and (3c) compared to unambiguous counterparts, (3b) and (3d), would indicate agarden-path effect due to MA-/LC-based VP-/DP-attachment preferences, respectively.
No reliable RRT differences were observed in R1-R4 and R6 (no interactions between Attachment
and Ambiguity). The RRT’s in R5 are summarized as in Table 1 ((3a-d) represent four conditions).
Table 1: The Mean RRT’s in R5 by Condition(3a) DP:amb (3b) DP:unamb (3c) VP:amb (3d) VP:unamb
The Mean RRT’s (ms)490
508-112
There were main effects of Attachment (F1(1,67) = 17.41, P < .001; F2(1,23) = 13.14, P < .01) and ofAmbiguity (Ps < .001), and their interaction was also significant (F1(1,67) = 12.86, P < .001;
F2(1,23) = 12.65, P < .01). The subsequent pair-wise comparisons indicated a reliable RRT differencein DP-attachment conditions (Ps < .001) and a statistically marginal RRT difference in VP-attachment
conditions (F1(1,67) = 5.24, P < .05; F2(1,23) = 3.84, P = .062).
Although we cannot deny a possibility that the main effect of ambiguity observed in R5 might havebeen due to the use of different lexical items in R4, we discuss as follows on the basis of the pair-wisecomparisons, given that the interaction was statistically significant. The significant RRT difference inR5 between (3a) and (3b) means a garden-path effect in (3a) and implies a native-like parsing
preference for adopting MA-based VP-attachment for PP1 in (3a). The statistically marginal RRT

difference in R5 between (3c) and (3d) may suggest that the Japanese EFL learners were bimodal inthat they might have had both preferences of MA-based VP-attachment and LC-based DP-attachment.
The former preference seems, however, superior because, given the significant interaction, the size ofambiguity effect (or, inferably, garden-path effect) was bigger in DP-attachment conditions, indicating
the MA preference. Another reason is that it was only 23 out of 68 participants (33.82%) who showeda bigger RRT difference in VP-attachment conditions, suggesting the LC preference, as in Table 2.
Table 2: The Mean RRT’s in R5 by Condition for the 23 Participants(3a) DP:amb (3b) DP:unamb (3c) VP:amb (3d) VP:unamb
The Mean RRT’s (ms)
266
236
205
-167
As Hirose et al. (2008) pointed out, the adoption of MA or LC is probably related to whether or not
the learner can use the ditransitive verb’s argument structure and take the incoming PP as an argument
as soon as he/she encounters it.
3. A Follow-up Sentence Completion Study
A new group of twenty Japanese EFL learners were recruited to examine their knowledge of theditransitive verb’s argument structure. The task was a sentence completion questionnaire, as in (4),consisting of twelve ditransitive verbs used in the main experiment.
(4) The woman put
The participant was instructed to use as many words as he/she liked to complete a sentence.
The results showed that the participants’ L2 knowledge of ditransitive verbs varied both byparticipant and by item. Estimating that the proficiency levels of the participants in this study and in
the main experiment were not considerably different, we compared the results of the sentencecompletion and the RRT pattern in R5. In fact, out of the twelve ditransitive verbs, jam, set, and drip
were used by a majority as monotransitive (only an object DP written), and as in Table 3 the RRT
difference for jam and set was bigger in VP-attachment conditions than in DP-attachment conditions.
Table 3: The Mean RRT’s in R5 by Condition for jam and set(3a) DP:amb (3b) DP:unamb (3c) VP:amb (3d) VP:unamb
The Mean RRT’s (ms)
31
18
-88
-165
On the other hand, put, stuff, pour, and place were used as ditransitive by a majority, and the RRT
difference for all of them was bigger in DP-attachment conditions as in Table 41.
Table 4: The Mean RRT’s in R5 by Condition for put, stuff, pour, and place(3a) DP:amb (3b) DP:unamb (3c) VP:amb (3d) VP:unamb
The Mean RRT’s (ms)660
6-186-177
For those verbs that were predominantly used as monotransitive, it is probable that the subsequent
PP was analyzed as an adjunct, triggering LC. Thus, the RRT pattern in Table 3 would mean agarden-path effect in (3c) due to the LC preference. Contrastively, the RRT pattern in Table 4indicating the MA preference was observed for those verbs that were used mainly as ditransitive.
There may be some correlation between the learner’s parsing preference and ditransitive knowledge.
4. General Discussion
Our self-paced reading experiment, as a whole, supported the Japanese EFL learners’ native-like
preference for adopting MA in parsing of the temporary PP attachment ambiguity. This fact isinteresting in that, whether L1 or L2 parsing, MA is initially adopted, although the pattern did notseem to hold for all items. Together with the results of the follow-up sentence completion study, ourfinding leaves us a possibility that the Japanese EFL learners were bimodal, suggesting both MA andLC preferences depending on the ditransitive verbs. Recruiting the same population, the correlation
between their RRT patterns and ditransitive knowledge should be further examined. Since some of theverbs used in the present study could have been treated both as ditransitive and as monotransitive, thesame norming study by native speakers should be conducted for the verb in question to beunambiguously ditransitive.
References
Ferreira, F. & Clifton, C., Jr. (1986). The independence of syntactic processing. JML, 25, 348-368.
Frazier, L. (1979). On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies. [unpublished doctoral
dissertation in 1978]. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
Frazier, L. (1987). Sentence processing: A tutorial review. In M. Coltheart (ed.), Attention andperformance XII: The psychology of reading (pp. 559-586). Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hirose, Y., Goya, T., & Ofuru, Y. (2008). The attachment preference and the role of referential
information in second language parsing. In T. Ogura, H. Kobayashi, S. Inagaki, M. Hirakawa, S.
Arita, & Y. Terao (eds.), SLS, Vol. 7 (pp. 155-168). Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.
Tanenhaus, M. K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., Eberhand, K. M., & Sedivy, J. C. (1995). Integration ofvisual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science, 268, 1632-1634.
1For the other verbs put aside here, lean and splash were used by a majority as intransitive, and insert, lay, and spray were used asditransitive by nine out of 20 participants.