Accessible antecedent

146

The analysis of the regressions was also modified by incorporating the factor proficiency (regressions~aoi*pronountype*proficiency+[1ǀsubj]+[1ǀtrial]). The analysis of the number of regressions demonstrated a main effect of proficiency in the sense that low proficiency L2 speakers ( = -0.054, SE= 0.027, -2.047, p< .05) and highly proficient L2 speakers ( = -0.047, SE= 0.024, -1.966, p< .05) made fewer regressions to the antecedents than L1 speakers. Main effects of pronountype ( = 0.027, SE= 0.013, 2.166, p< .05) and antecedent ( = 0.029, SE=

0.008, 3.700, p< .001) were also present and showed, that more regressions were made for the reflexive pronoun than for the personal pronoun and more regressions were directed to the repetition of antecedent 1 than to antecedent 1 itself.

The regression model used to analyse the total times at the antecedents was modified with proficiency as a fixed factor (total times~aoi*pronountype*proficiency+[1ǀsubj]+[1ǀtrial]).

The analysis of the total times at the antecedents showed a main effect of antecedent ( = 1.635, SE= 0.629, 2.600, p< .01) and pronountype ( = β.16γ, SE= 1.0β4, β.111, p< .05). The fixations on the antecedents were shorter for the reflexive pronoun than for the personal pronoun. Longer fixations were directed to the repetition of antecedent 1 than to antecedent 1 itself.

Summarising, the analysis of the total times for the critical or post-critical regions did not show that personal pronouns were fixated longer than reflexive pronouns in L2 speakers. The analyses of the regressions to the antecedents and total times at the antecedents were also not informative, as they did not show significant effects. Thus, it seems that the L1 German does not influence the processing of personal pronouns in a PP in the L2.

147 the fixed factors accessible antecedent and group and the random factors subj (subject) and trial (fixation~accessible antecedent*group+[1ǀsubj]+[trial]).

The graphs of the total times display longer fixations for L2 speakers than for L1 speakers at the critical (graph 30) and post-critical region (graph 31). The structures seem not to differ from each other.

Graph 30: total time at critical region Graph 31: total time at post-critical region

• 1 Antecedent: co-argument structure with a reflexive pronoun and one accessible antecedent, 2 Antecedents:

co-argument structure with a reflexive pronoun and two accessible antecedents, Dutch: L1 speakers, German: L2 speakers

• The hairdresser and the visagist were working at the hairdresser’s. The hairdresser who liked to try things shaved himself so that the new aftershave could be tested.

• critical region: himself so that, post-critical region: the new aftershave

The analysis reported a main effect of group ( = 0.β81, SE= 0.08γ, γ.γ7γ, p< .001) at the critical region. L2 speakers fixated longer than L1 speakers. There was no interaction.

No effects were found at the post-critical region.

Table 15 gives an overview of the number of regressions to the antecedents that L1 and L2 speakers made after they read the reflexive pronoun with one (CO A) or two accessible antecedents (CO R). Overall, L1 speakers made more regressions than L2 speakers. Both groups made more regressions to the repetition of the antecedent 1 than to antecedent 1 and 2.

148

Table 15: regressions of L1 and L2 speakers L1 L2

CO A antecedent 1 36 11

antecedent 2 44 8

repetition of antecedent 1 64 26

CO R antecedent 1 49 15

antecedent 2 57 15

repetition of antecedent 1 71 36

• CO R=co-argument structure with a reflexive pronoun, CO A=co-argument structure with a reflexive pronoun, L2 low: low proficiency L2 speakers, L2 high: highly proficient L2 speakers, L1: L1 speakers

• The hairdresser and the visagist were working at the hairdresser’s. The hairdresser who liked to try things shaved himself so that the new aftershave could be tested.

• Antecedent 1: hairdresser, antecedent β: visagist, repetition of antecedent 1: hairdresser

The number of regressions was analysed with the regression model regressions~aoi*accessible antecedent*group+[1ǀsubj]+[1ǀtrial]. The analysis of the number of regressions to the antecedents showed a main effect of group ( = 0.050, SE= 0.021, -2.396, p< .05) and antecedent ( = 0.0γ5, SE= 0.008, 4.1β4, p< .001), but no interaction. The L2 speakers made fewer regressions back to the antecedents than the L1 speakers, and the repetition of antecedent 1 received more regressions than antecedent 1.

The total times at the antecedents were also analysed by applying the model total times~aoi*pronountype*proficiency+[1ǀsubj]+[1ǀtrial]. Thus, the regression model contained the dependent variable total times, the fixed factors aoi, pronountype and proficiency and also the random factors subj (subject) and trial. The analysis of the total times on the antecedents also showed main effects of group ( = -3.755, SE= 1.513, -2.482, p< .05) and antecedents ( = β.178, SE= 0.67γ, γ.βγ6, p< .005). Overall, the L2 had longer fixations than the L1 group and fixations were longer for the repetition of antecedent 1 than for antecedent 1 itself.

Again, it was investigated if effects arose due to the factor proficiency. The graphs of the total times display longer fixations for low and high proficiency L2 speakers than for L1 speakers at the critical (graph 32) and post-critical region (graph 33). The structures do not seem to differ from each other.

The regression model for the critical and post-critical region (fixation~accessible antecedent*proficiency+[1ǀsubj]+[trial]) considered proficiency as a factor and demonstrated a main effect of proficiency at the critical region. Low proficiency L2 speakers ( = 0.352,

149 SE= 0.110, 3.208, p< .005) and highly proficient L2 speakers ( = 0.225, SE= 0.100, 2.237, p<

.05) fixated longer than L1 speakers. The analysis at the post-critical region again showed a main effect of proficiency ( = 0.272, SE= 0.132, 2.057, p< .05) that is the same as for the critical region.

Graph 32: total time at critical region Graph 33: total time at post-critical region

• 1 Antecedent: co-argument structure with a reflexive pronoun and one accessible antecedent, 2 Antecedents:

co-argument structure with a reflexive pronoun and two accessible antecedents, L1: L1 speakers, L2 high: highly proficient L2 speakers, L2 low: low proficiency L2 speakers

• The hairdresser and the visagist were working at the hairdresser’s. The hairdresser who liked to try things shaved himself so that the new aftershave could be tested.

• critical region: himself so that, post-critical region: the new aftershave

The analysis of the regressions back to the antecedents also considered proficiency as a factor.

The fixed factor proficiency replaced group. The regression model regressions~aoi*accessible antecedent*proficiency+[1ǀsubj]+[1ǀtrial] revealed only a main effect of antecedent ( = 0.0γ5, SE= 0.008, 4.1β4, p< .001). The repetition of antecedent 1 received more regressions than antecedent 1.

Finally, the total times at the antecedents were analysed, and this time considered proficiency as a fixed factor (total times~aoi*accessible antecedent*proficiency+[1ǀsubj]+[1ǀtrial]. The analysis of the total times showed a main effect of proficiency ( = -3.767, SE= 1.838, -2.050, p< .05) in the sense that highly proficient L2 speakers made longer fixations than L1

150

speakers, and a main effect of antecedent ( = β.178, SE= 0.67γ, γ.βγ6, p< .005). Longer fixations were directed to the repetition of antecedent 1 than to antecedent 1 itself.

To summarise, reflexive pronouns were not fixated shorter when the context provided two antecedents (CO R) compared to reflexive pronouns that had only one accessible antecedent.

The analyses of the regressions to the antecedents and also the total times at the antecedents did not show that the conditions differed. It can be concluded that L2 speakers were not to interrupted in their processing of the pronominal element by the number of accessible antecedents.