This article examined the integration of semantic and morphosyntactic information by Korean learners of English as a second language (L2). In Experiment 1, L2 learners listened to English active or passive sentences that were either plausible or implausible and translated them into Korean. A significant number of Korean translations maintained the original passive/active structure, but switched the thematic roles of the actors in the sentences. In Experiment 2, the direction of translation was reversed and participants made very few translation errors, showing that the errors in Experiment 1 were not due to participants’ lack of control over the English passive morphosyntax. The results are strikingly similar to previous results in the first language (L1) psycholinguistics literature, and support a view of L2 processing (like L1 processing) that is ‘good enough’ in nature: misinterpretations arise from only a ‘good enough’ integration of semantic and morphosyntactic information in the input.
AgrestiA (2007) An Introduction to Categorical Data Analysis, 2nd edn.Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.
2.
BockK (1986) Meaning, sound, and syntax: Lexical priming in sentence production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition12: 575–586.
3.
BoersmaPWeeninkD (2005) Praat: Doing phonetics by computer: Version 4.3.14 [computer program]. Retrieved from: http://www.praat.org (October2012). Amsterdam: Phonetic Sciences, University of Amsterdam.
4.
CampbellS (1998) Translation into the Second Language. Longman: New York.
5.
ChamotAUKupperL (1989) Learning strategies in foreign language instruction. Foreign Language Annals22: 13–22.
6.
ChristiansonKHollingworthAHalliwellJFFerreiraF (2001) Thematic roles assigned along the garden path linger. Cognitive Psychology42: 368–407.
7.
ChristiansonKLukeSGFerreiraF (2010) Effects of plausibility on structural priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology36: 538–544.
8.
ChristiansonKWilliamsCZacksRFerreiraF (2006) Younger and older adults’ good- enough interpretations of garden-path sentences. Discourse Processes42: 205–238.
9.
ClahsenHFelserC (2006a) Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics27: 3–42.
10.
ClahsenHFelserC (2006b) Continuity and shallow structures in language processing. Applied Psycholinguistics27: 107–126.
11.
ConwayARAKaneMJBuntingMF. (2005) Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user’s guide. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review12: 769–786.
12.
CorderoAD (1984) The role of translation in second language acquisition. The French Review57: 350–355.
13.
DanksJHGriffinJ (1997) Reading and translation. In: DanksJHShreveGMFountainSBMcBeathMK (eds) Cognitive Processes in Translation and Interpreting. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 161–175.
14.
DussiasPE (2001) Sentence parsing in fluent Spanish–English bilinguals. In: NicolJL (ed.) One mind, two languages: Bilingual language processing. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 159–176.
15.
DussiasPE (2010) Use of eye-tracking data in second language sentence processing research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics30: 149–166.
16.
FelserCRobertsLMarinisTGrossR (2003) The processing of ambiguous sentences by first and second language learners of English. Applied Psycholinguistics24: 453–489.
17.
FerreiraF (2003) The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences. Cognitive Psychology47: 164–120.
18.
FerreiraFPatsonND (2007) The ‘good-enough’ approach to language comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass1/1–2: 71–83.
19.
FerreiraFBaileyKFerraroV (2002) Good enough representations in language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science11: 11–15.
20.
FerreiraFChristiansonKHollingworthA (2001) Misinterpretations of garden-path sentences: Implications for models of sentence processing and reanalysis. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research30: 3–20.
21.
FisherCHallDRakowitzSGleitmanL (1994) When it is better to receive than to give: Syntactic and conceptual constraints on vocabulary growth. Lingua92: 333–375.
22.
FrazierLCliftonC (1996) Construal. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
23.
Frenck-MestreCPynteJ (1997) Syntactic ambiguity resolution while reading in second and native languages. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology50A: 119–148.
24.
GerverD (1976) Empirical studies of simultaneous interpretation: A review and a model. In: BrislinRW (ed.) Translation: Application and Research. New York: Wiley, pp. 165–207.
25.
HatzidakiAPothosEM (2008) Bilingual language representation and cognitive processes in translation. Applied Psycholinguistics29: 125–150.
26.
HoppH (2006) Syntactic features and reanalysis in near-native processing. Second Language Research22: 369–397.
27.
JackendoffR (2007) A parallel architecture perspective on language processing. Brain Research1146: 2–22.
28.
JacksonC (2008) Proficiency level and the interaction of lexical and morphosyntactic information during L2 sentence processing. Language Learning58: 875–909.
29.
JacksonCBobbSC (2009) The processing and comprehension of wh-questions among second language speakers of German. Applied Psycholinguistics30: 603–636.
30.
JacksonCDussiasPE (2009) Cross-linguistic differences and their impact on L2 sentence processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition12: 65–82.
31.
JiangN (2004) Morphological insensitivity in second language processing. Applied Psycholinguistics25: 603–634.
32.
JiangN (2007) Selective integration of linguistic knowledge in adult second language learning. Language Learning57: 1–33.
33.
JuffsA (1998) Main verb versus reduced relative clause ambiguity resolution in second language sentence processing. Language Learning48: 107–147.
34.
JustMACarpenterPA (1992) A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review99: 122–149.
35.
KimJ-H (2008) Working memory effects on bilingual sentence processing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, IL, USA.
36.
KingJJustMA (1991) Individual differences in syntactic processing: The role of working memory. Journal of Memory and Language30: 580–602.
37.
KrollJFStewartE (1994) Category interference in translation and picture naming evidence for asymmetric connections between bilingual memory representations. Journal of Memory and Language33: 149–174.
38.
KrollJFTokowiczN (2001) The development of conceptual representation for words in a second language. In: NicolJL (ed.) One Mind, Two Languages: Bilingual Language Processing. Oxford: Blackwell.
39.
KuperbergG (2007) Neural mechanisms of language comprehension: Challenges to syntax. Brain Research1146: 23–49.
40.
LeeK-OLeeY-J (2008) An event-structural account of passive acquisition in Korean. Language and Speech51: 133–149.
41.
LeeserMJBrandlAWhiteglassC (2011) Task effects in second language processing research. In: TromovichPMcDonoughK (eds) Applied Priming Methods to L2 Learning, Teaching and Research: Insights from Psycholinguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 179–198.
42.
LimJ-HChristiansonK (in press) Second language sentence processing in reading for comprehension and translation. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition.
43.
MacDonaldMCPearlmutterNJSeidenbergMS (1994) The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review101: 676–703.
44.
MacizoPBajoMT (2004) When translation makes the difference: Sentence processing in reading and translation. Psicológica25: 181–205.
45.
MacizoPBajoMT (2006) Reading for repetition and reading for translation: Do they involve the same process?Cognition99: 1–34.
46.
MalakoffME (1992) Translation ability: A natural bilingual and metalinguistic skill. In: HarrisRJ (ed.) Cognitive Processing in Bilinguals. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, pp. 515–529.
47.
MarinisTRobertsLFelserCClahsenH (2005) Gaps in second language sentence processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition27: 53–78.
48.
PapadopoulouDClahsenH (2003) Parsing strategies in L1 and L2 sentence processing: A study of relative clause attachment in Greek. Studies in Second Language Acquisition24: 501–528.
49.
PinkerS (1984) Language Learnability and Language Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
50.
SabourinLStoweLA (2008) Second language processing: When are first and second languages processed similarly?Second Language Research24: 397–430.
51.
SeleskovitchD (1976) Interpretation: A psychological approach to translating. In: BrislinRW (ed.) Translation: Applications and research. New York: Wiley, pp. 92–116.
52.
SohnH-M (2001) The Korean Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
53.
TolentinoLCTokowiczN (2011) Across languages, space, and time: A review of the role of cross-language similarity in L2 (morpho)syntactic processing as revealed by fMRI and ERP methods. Studies in Second Language Acquisition33: 91–125.
54.
TownsendDJBeverTG (2001) Sentence Comprehension: The Integration of Habits and Rules. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
55.
Van HelJTokowiczN (2010) ERP reveals brain potentials and second language learning: Syntactic processing in late L2 learners at different L2 proficiency levels. Second Language Research26: 43–74.
