title: Comprehending non-native speakers: theory and evidence for adjustment in manner of processing.
abstract: Non-native speakers have lower linguistic competence than native speakers, which renders their language less reliable in conveying their intentions. We suggest that expectations of lower competence lead listeners to adapt their manner of processing when they listen to non-native speakers. We propose that listeners use cognitive resources to adjust by increasing their reliance on top-down processes and extracting less information from the language of the non-native speaker. An eye-tracking study supports our proposal by showing that when following instructions by a non-native speaker, listeners make more contextually-induced interpretations. Those with relatively high working memory also increase their reliance on context to anticipate the speaker's upcoming reference, and are less likely to notice lexical errors in the non-native speech, indicating that they take less information from the speaker's language. These results contribute to our understanding of the flexibility in language processing and have implications for interactions between native and non-native speakers.
authors: Department of Psychology, University of Chicago Chicago, IL, USA ; Psychology of Language Department, Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics Nijmegen, Netherlands.
authors: Shiri
authors: S
authors: Lev-Ari
keywords: comprehension; expectations; non-native speakers; psycholinguistics; top-down processing; working memory
references: Cogn Sci. 2006 Mar 4;30(2):311-45
references: 21702817
references: Lang Speech. 1994 Jul-Sep;37 ( Pt 3):221-35
references: 7861911
references: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2007 Sep;33(5):914-30
references: 17723069
references: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2006 Nov;32(6):1291-303
references: 17087584
references: Cogn Psychol. 2009 Mar;58(2):250-71
references: 18922516
references: Science. 1970 Jan 23;167(3917):392-3
references: 5409744
references: Cogn Psychol. 2003 Sep;47(2):164-203
references: 12948517
references: J Cogn Neurosci. 2008 Apr;20(4):580-91
references: 18052777
references: Psychol Rev. 1992 Jan;99(1):122-49
references: 1546114
references: Psychophysiology. 2005 Mar;42(2):133-41
references: 15787850
references: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2010 Mar;36(2):538-44
references: 20192548
references: J Acoust Soc Am. 2012 Jan;131(1):509-17
references: 22280612
references: J Psycholinguist Res. 2001 Jan;30(1):3-20
references: 11291182
references: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2007 Apr;33(2):391-409
references: 17469975
references: J Cogn Neurosci. 2012 Apr;24(4):878-87
references: 21812565
references: J Exp Psychol Gen. 2005 May;134(2):222-41
references: 15869347
references: Behav Res Methods. 2005 Aug;37(3):498-505
references: 16405146
references: Science. 1995 Jun 16;268(5217):1632-4
references: 7777863
references: Cognition. 2008 Sep;108(3):804-9
references: 18582855
references: Psychol Sci. 2008 Apr;19(4):332-8
references: 18399885
references: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2004 May;30(3):687-96
references: 15099136
references: Cogn Psychol. 2001 Jun;42(4):368-407
references: 11368528
references: Lang Speech. 1995 Jul-Sep;38 ( Pt 3):289-306
references: 8816082
references: J Mem Lang. 2008 Nov;59(4):434-446
references: 19884961
references: Psychon Bull Rev. 2004 Oct;11(5):882-8
references: 15732698