Hypotheses

5.1.1 L1 speakers: syntax versus discourse

Syntax is accessible for L1 speakers. Research has shown that L1 speakers make use of syntax to process the reflexive pronoun in a co-argument structure, but not for the processing of a personal pronoun or reflexive pronouns in a PP (Nicol and Swinney, 1989; Hendriks et al., 2011; Burkhardt, 2005; Schumacher et al., 2010)

The first hypothesis thus is:

Hypothesis 1:

L1 speakers apply a syntactic operation to process reflexive pronouns in a co-argument structure, whereas they adapt a non-syntactic operation in the processing of reflexive pronouns in a PP and personal pronouns in general.

This hypothesis is confirmed if faster RTs in the self-paced reading study were found for reflexive pronouns in a co-argument structure compared to personal pronouns and pronominal elements in PPs. In eyetracking, shorter fixations on reflexive pronouns compared to personal pronouns in a co-argument structure and compared to pronominal elements in a PP should be found. Moreover, fewer/shorter fixations should be directed to the syntactically legal antecedents of reflexive pronouns in a co-argument structure than to the antecedents of the personal pronouns in a co-argument and PP structure and reflexive pronouns in a PP.

If the hypothesis was confirmed by the processing studies, this would provide evidence of the division of labour between syntactic and non-syntactic operations, as has theoretically been assumed by Reinhart and Reuland (1993) and Reuland (2001, 2011) and substantiated by psycholinguistic research (Arnold et al., 2000; Badecker & Straub, 2002; Burkhardt, 2005;

Ehrlich & Rayner, 1983; Sturt, 2003; Hendriks et al., 2011; Ruigendijk & Schumacher, 2011;

Sekerina et al., 2004).

5.1.2 L2 speakers: syntax versus discourse

It has been argued that syntax is difficult to access for L2 speakers (Ullman, 2001, Clahsen and Felser, 2006) but it seems to be controversial in how far syntax is affected in L2 speakers and if L2 speakers with a high proficiency in the L2 can overcome problems concerning syntax.

The second hypothesis with regard to the L2 speakers says that:

Hypothesis 2:

96

Lβ speakers’ processing will be interfered by information of the context so that they apply a discourse operation in the processing of pronominal elements in both the co-argument structure and the PP.

This hypothesis would be confirmed if no differences in RTs were found between reflexive and personal pronouns within and across structures in the self-paced reading study. Also, fixation should be equally distributed between reflexive and personal pronouns within and across structures. Moreover, fixations should also be equally distributed across antecedents.

5.1.3 Proficiency: highly proficient versus low proficiency L2 speakers

Research (Rothman, 2009; Patterson et al. 2014; White, 1985; Hawkins and Chan, 1997;

Leung, 2003) has shown that highly proficient L2 speakers process like L1 speakers and different from low proficiency L2 speakers. However, the role of proficiency is controversially debated in the L2 literature. For instance, Ullman (2001) assumed that with a high proficiency in the L2, syntax is accessible. Clahsen and Felser (2006) reject proficiency as a factor giving access to syntax. This research project can provide insight into the role of proficiency.

The hypothesis relating to the issue of proficiency is that:

Hypothesis 3:

Highly proficient L2 speakers process reflexive pronouns in a co-argument relation with a syntactic operation and personal pronoun in the same structure, as well as pronominal elements in a PP with a discourse operation. Low proficiency L2 speakers are hypothesised to apply a discourse operation in the processing of pronominal elements in both types of structures.

As a consequence, it should be found that highly proficient L2 speakers behave like L1 speakers and these groups should be different from low proficiency L2 speakers in processing pronominal elements.

5.1.4 Accessible antecedent

It is also interesting to know if manipulating the context influences, how pronominal elements were processed. The lead-in sentence provided either two grammatical accessible antecedents (119) or only one accessible antecedent, although two persons were introduced (120). The hypothesis is that L1 speakers’ processing is not influenced by information of the context, so that a syntactic operation will be applied in the processing of reflexive pronouns in a co-argument structure. The hypothesis for L2 speakers is that they apply a discourse operation

97 anyway. However, Felser and Cunnings (2012) have shown that the number of accessible antecedents influences the processing of reflexive pronouns. They found that reflexive pronouns with only one accessible antecedent – although the context provided two antecedents – were processed more slowly than with two accessible antecedents. A mismatch in gender between the antecedent and the reflexive pronoun slowed down processing.

Therefore, the hypothesis that will be tested is:

Hypothesis 4:

L2 speakers in this study will also be interfered by information of the context.

L2 speakers showed show a slower processing of reflexive pronouns in sentences like (154) compared to sentences like (153).

(153) De kapper en de visagistj werkten in de kapsalon. De kapperi die graag dingen uitprobeerde schoor zichi zodat de nieuwe aftershave kon worden uitgeprobeerd

“The hairdresser and the stylist were working in the hairdresser’s. The hairdresser who liked to try things shaved himself so that the new aftershave could be tested”

(154) De kapper en ik_j werkten in de kapsalon. De kapper_i die graag dingen uitprobeerde schoor zich_i zodat de nieuwe aftershave kon worden uitgeprobeerd

“The hairdresser and me were working in the hairdresser’s. The hairdresser who liked to try things shaved himself so that the new aftershave could be tested”

5.1.5 Interference

German and Dutch are related languages and therefore show a lot of similarities in the field of pronominal binding. The binding of the pronominal elements in a co-argument structure is not different between German and Dutch. But differences in binding exist in PPs. The processing of personal pronouns contained in a PP provides a broader spectrum of interpretation in Dutch. Sabourin (2003), for instance, has shown that transfer is used by L2 speakers and employed at large in closely related languages.

The hypothesis that relates to interference in the processing of pronominal elements in PPs is:

Hypothesis 5:

98

Lβ speakers’ processing of pronominal elements is influenced by the grammatical representation of the L1 and L2.

This hypothesis would be substantiated if the self-paced reading study showed RTs that were longer for L2 speakers on the personal pronoun in a PP compared to reflexive pronouns.

5.1.6 Interference and proficiency

However, proficiency could be a factor that blocks interference. Highly proficient L2 speakers have developed a fully detailed grammatical L2 system, which is used for processing. Low proficiency L2 speakers do not have sufficient L2 knowledge, so that an L2 grammatical system has not yet been built.

The hypothesis regarding proficiency is:

Hypothesis 6:

Highly proficient L2 speakers only consult the L2 representation in the processing of pronominal elements and low proficiency L2 speakers are hypothesised to apply the L1 representation as well.

The processing of highly proficient L2 speakers should be different from low proficiency L2 speakers, as only differences in the processing of reflexive and personal pronouns in PPs should appear for low proficiency L2 speakers. Highly proficient L2 speakers should process reflexive and personal pronouns in PPs equally.

5.1.7 Comprehension study

The purpose of the comprehension study was to get information of the grammaticality of three types of picture NP structures and how pronominal elements in these structures were interpreted in German and Dutch. The comprehension will only be investigated in L1 speakers. The three structures were picture NPs (PNP) (155), possessed PNPs (p-PNP) (156) and picture NPs with a subject in Spec-position (s-PNP) (157).

(155) Janj en Daan bespreken de verhuizing. Daani vertelt dat een mooi portret van zichzelfi/*j/hem*i/j zorgvuldig in papier moet worden ingepakt

“Jan and Daan discuss the moving. Daan says that a nice picture of himself/him carefully has to be carefully wrapped in paper”

(156) Jan en Daan bespreken de verhuizing. Jan_j vertelt dat Daan_i’s mooie portret van zichzelf_i/*j/hem_*i/j zorgvuldig in papier moet worden ingepakt

“Jan and Daan discuss the moving. Jan says that Daan’s nice picture of himself/him has to be carefully wrapped in paper ”

99 (157) Jan en Daan bespreken de verhuizing. Jan_j vertelt dat Daan_i een mooi portret

van zichzelf_i/*j/hem_*i/j zorgvuldig in papier moet inpakken

“Jan and Daan discuss the moving. Jan says that Daan has to wrap the picture of himself/him carefully in paper”

Above, it has been described how the reflexive and personal pronouns should be bound according to the structural factors like Principles A and B and Condition B. Research (e.g.

Sturt, 2003; Runner et al. 2002, 2003, 2006) has shown that binding of reflexive and personal pronouns in this case is not always in accordance with the theory (Chomsky, 1981; Reinhart and Reuland, 1993). Except for the reflexive pronoun in PNPs (119), the theories make the same predictions with regard to the binding of the pronominal elements for German and Dutch. The similarity between the structures is that discourse can be applied to guide the interpretation. The difference is that a syntactic operation can only be applied in (120) and (121).

The hypothesis concerning the comprehension of pronominal elements is that:

Hypothesis 7:

Whenever possible, reflexive pronouns will be primarily guided in their interpretation by syntactic factors and personal pronouns will be guided by structural and non-structural factors.

According to that hypothesis, the choices of antecedents should be as predicted by the theory (Reinhart and Reuland, 1993).

100