2018 Friday Poster 6378

Friday, November 2, 2018 | Poster Session I, Metcalf Small | 3pm

Anaphora resolution in English L2 learners: an analysis of different discourse contexts
C. Contemori, O. Asiri

While in null subject languages, overt pronouns refer to non-salient antecedents and mark a topic-shift (e.g., Carminati, 2002), in nonnull subject languages, overt pronouns indicate reference maintenance to the current discourse topic (Arnold et al., 2000).

Learners of a null subject language whose L1 is a nonnull subject language show some optionality in the interpretation of null and overt subjects in the L2 (e.g., Belletti et al. 2007). To account for these results, the Interface Hypothesis (IH, Sorace, 2011) proposed that interface structures between syntax and pragmatics (as in the case of anaphoric expressions) require an increase use of cognitive resources and are therefore less likely to be successfully acquired by L2 learners in comparison to structures without this interface. So far, research on learners of nonnull subject languages has shown conflicting results (Cunnings et al., 2016; Roberts et al., 2008; Schimke & Colonna, 2016). Here, we test the interpretation of pronominal forms in learners of English (nonnull subject) whose L1 is Spanish (null subject language). The aim is to examine if L2 learners can acquire native-like interpretation of anaphoric pronouns in English and shed light on which discourse contexts can be difficult to interpret and why.

In Experiment 1, 24 native English monolingual speakers and 31 intermediate/advanced English as a Second Language (ESOL) students (L1 Spanish) completed a sentence comprehension task that tested the interpretation of English pronouns in the context of anaphora (1) and cataphora (2). The analysis of the NP1 choices (Figure 1) revealed a main effect of Condition (ß=2.1, SD=0.3, t=-5.539, p<0.0001), showing more NP1 choices in the cataphora compared to the anaphora condition. No group differences emerged from the analysis.

In Experiment 2, we manipulated the discourse context and the salience of the two referents by making (i) the two referents (Eric and John) in the discourse equally prominent (Equal Prominence, (4)), (ii) the second referent (John) increasingly prominent with repeated reference in the preceding discourse (NP2 Repetition, (5)) (iii) making the second referent more salient by using a pronoun in the preceding context (NP2 Pronoun Condition, (6)). A group of native speakers (n=29) and a subgroup of the same ESOL students as in Exp1 (n=28) participated in the sentence comprehension task. The analysis showed significantly more NP1 responses in the native speakers in all three conditions, compared to the L2 learners (ß=2.4, SD=0.4, t=- 5.595, p<0.0001).

In Experiment 1, the L2 speakers did not show increased difficulty compared to native speakers in integrating multiple sources of information to resolve ambiguous pronouns in English, contra the IH. As shown in Experiment 2, the discourse structure has an impact on L2 interpretation of ambiguous pronouns. We propose that L2 learners experience cross-linguistic interference from the L1, and may be more prone to consider an explicit pronoun in English as marking a topic shift, when two characters in the preceding discourse have equal prominence. Results of a third experiment conducted with native speakers of Mexican Spanish (testing similar contexts as in Experiment 2) seem to support this hypothesis.