Cross-linguistic differences 1 Running Head: Cross-linguistic differences IN PRESS WITH BILINGUALISM: LANGUAGE AND COGNITION

Using a self-paced reading task, the present study investigates how highly proficient second language (L2) speakers of German with English as their native language process unambiguous wh-subject-extractions and wh-object-extractions in German. Previous monolingual research has shown that English and German exhibit different processing preferences for the type of wh-question under investigation, due in part to the robust case marking system in German—a morphosyntactic feature that is largely absent in English (e.g., Fanselow et al., 1999; Meng and Bader, 2000; Juffs, 2005; Juffs and Harrington, 1995). The results revealed that the L2 German speakers utilized case-marking information and exhibited a subject-preference similar to German native speakers. These findings are discussed in light of relevant research regarding the ability of L2 speakers to adopt native-like processing strategies in their L2. Cross-linguistic differences 3 When processing written language, second language readers face many uncertainties about how people and objects are connected to one another. This is, in part, because second language speakers may lack the grammatical information needed to establish correct dependencies between word strings in the second language (L2), making the comprehension process particularly challenging. Another factor that may complicate the comprehension of sentences in an L2 is that speakers bring to the task a fully developed grammatical system and set of processing strategies from their first language (L1). Although the computation of sentence structure may be facilitated when the information needed to perform syntactic processing is the same in the L1 and the L2, learners may encounter difficulties when the correct interpretation of a sentence is linked to the application of information specific to the L2. Recent research using a variety of psycholinguistic techniques has examined the extent to which L2 speakers are able to learn different types of information about the L2 (e.g., lexically-specific syntactic information, semantic and/or discourse information) and to what extent they use this information in real time as they map words in the L2 onto slots in a syntactic frame. Such research not only contributes to our understanding of how L2 speakers comprehend target language input, but also sheds new light on how lexical and syntactic information is stored in and retrieved from memory (e.g., Ullman, 2001), and why even highly proficient L2 speakers may never attain native-like knowledge in their L2 (e.g., Ladiere, 1998; see White, 2003, for an extensive review of this question). Findings from these studies examining L2 sentence processing highlight two key questions that, as of yet, remain unresolved: • Can highly proficient L2 speakers utilize information unique to the L2 during on-line processing? Cross-linguistic differences 4 • When faced with cross-linguistic differences in processing preferences, do L2 speakers adopt native-like preferences, do they maintain the preferences from their L1, or do they exhibit preferences that parallel neither the L1 nor the L2? The present study examines how L2 German speakers (English L1) process subject versus object wh-questions in German, constructions for which previous monolingual research has demonstrated different processing preferences between the two languages (Dussias and Piñar, in preparation; Fanselow, Kliegl, and Schlesewsky, 1999; Juffs, 2005; Juffs and Harrington, 1995; Meng and Bader, 2000). These cross-linguistic differences stem, at least in part, from the robust case marking system in German. Although this case marking system is part of the core grammar of German (cf. Lenerz, 1977; Zubin, 1977), it often presents major difficulties for L2 learners of German whose L1 is English because such a system is not part of their L1 grammar (cf. Jackson, in press; Ritterbusch, LaFond, and Agustin, 2006). Furthermore, even when proficient L2 German speakers are able to exploit case-marking information with regard to comprehension accuracy, they may not be sensitive to such information during online processing (Hopp, 2006). Thus, results from the present study shed additional light on two questions central to our understanding of how L2 speakers process grammatical information when reading in their nonnative language. The article is organized as follows. First, we summarize recent findings that examine how L2 speakers process sentences in their non-native language when confronted with grammatical information not present in their L1 grammar. Secondly, we summarize literature that investigates cross-linguistic variability in processing preferences and how this variability has an impact on L2 speakers’ processing preferences. The next section outlines in greater detail the cross-linguistic differences between English and German that are relevant for the current study, as well as other Cross-linguistic differences 5 L2 processing research investigating related wh-constructions. This is followed by our predictions and an explanation of our methods. We then present our results and, finally, we discuss how these results relate to previous findings. 1. L2 sentence processing research 1.1. Processing of L2-specific information A key source of evidence indicating processing similarities between native and second language speakers has come from studies involving the manipulation of a verb’s argument structure. In an early study conducted by Frenck-Mestre and Pynte (1997), English-French and French-English bilinguals read sentences in both their L1 and their L2 that contained temporary subject/object ambiguities, as in Every time the dog obeyed the pretty girl showed her approval. In English the verb obey is optionally transitive. Therefore, it is ambiguous whether the noun phrase the pretty girl is the object of the verb obeyed or the subject of the ensuing clause. In French, however, this syntactic ambiguity does not exist because the French equivalent of obey must be interpreted as an intransitive verb. Eye-movement records from both groups failed to show any qualitative differences between the native and second language speakers at the point of disambiguation, indicating that L2 speakers were able to activate the correct lexical representation of the L2 verbs, even when these lexical representations were different in each language (see Juffs 1998, for additional support for the claim that L2 speakers make use of L2 lexical-semantic information during L2 sentence processing). In a related study, Hoover and Dwivedi (1998) investigated syntactic processing in highly fluent L2 French speakers while reading sentences containing constructions that did not exist in their L1 English. The structure under investigation involved pre-verbal pronominalization in French causative and non-causative constructions. Their findings revealed similar patterns of Cross-linguistic differences 6 reading times for L2 French speakers and French native speakers, indicating, once again, that L2 readers exhibited target-like syntactic processing during the on-line analysis of structures not found in their L1. Other evidence, however, has challenged the view that L2 speakers are able to access and use morphosyntactic information unique to the L2 while processing language in real time. For example, Jiang (2004) investigated L2 speakers’ sensitivity to grammatical violations when their L1 and L2 differed with regard to whether they marked subject-verb agreement. He showed that highly proficient Chinese-English speakers exhibited nearly perfect performance on a written grammar test that asked learners to select the correct verbal form in sentences, such as The crime in the cities (was/were) a reflection of the violence in today’s society, but were insensitive to the same morphosyntactic manipulation in an on-line comprehension task. This finding indicates that even when Chinese-English speakers demonstrate explicit knowledge of subject-verb agreement in English, they may not be sensitive to this information during on-line comprehension. 1.2. Cross-linguistic processing differences and L2 processing Recently, researchers have also exploited the existence of cross-linguistic differences in the way temporarily ambiguous structures are resolved to examine whether L2 learners use the same processing strategies employed by native speakers of the target language or whether they transfer processing strategies from their L1 to the L2. The central question in these studies is whether processing strategies are kept largely independent when bilinguals compute or “parse” an initial syntactic structure for the sentences they read, or whether strategies from one language influence parsing decisions in the other language. This issue has been investigated most extensively by examining the resolution of relative clause attachment ambiguities (e.g., Dussias, Cross-linguistic differences 7 2001, 2003; Felser, Roberts, Gross, and Marinis, 2003; Fernández, 1999, 2003; Frenck-Mestre, 1997, 2002; Papadopoulou and Clahsen, 2003), in part because the cross-linguistic differences in relative clause attachment preferences provide fertile ground to test whether L2 sentence processing is influenced by a reader’s native language. To illustrate, the sentence in (1) and its translated equivalent in (2), mean something very different in English and German. (1) The robber shot the daughter of the actress who was on the balcony. (2) Der Räuber erschoss die Tochter der Schauspielerin, die auf dem Balkon war. The robber shot the daughter of the actress who on the balcony was “The robber shot the daughter of the actress who was on the balcony.” In both languages, the relative clause who was on the balcony/die auf dem Balkon war is temporarily ambiguous because it can modify either the first noun (NP1) or the second noun (NP2) in the complex NP. Therefore, a full syntactic analysis of this sentence requires the disambiguation of the relative clause attachment. Where English and German differ is in how each language resolves the ambiguity. In English, the general preference is to attach the relative clause to NP2, or low-attachment, resulting in a reading where the actress was on the balcony. In contrast, German research has generally shown a preference to attach the relative clause to NP1, or high-attachment, giving rise to the interpretation in which the daughter was on the balcony (e.g., Hemforth, Konieczny, and Scheepers, 2000). A number of studies have examined how L2 speakers resolve relative clause ambiguities of the type exemplified above using different language pairs (e.g., Spanish-English; GermanEnglish; Spanish-Greek; Spanish-French), but the findings are inconclusive. While some studies Cross-linguistic differences 8 have shown that learners transfer strategies from the L1 when processing the L2, others have found evidence against the transfer of L1 processing strategies. Factors known to modulate these findings are similarities between L1 and L2 parsing strategies, as well as proficiency level and years of exposure to the L2 (e.g., Frenck-Mestre, 1997, 2002). Lexical-semantic properties of the preposition linking the two noun phrases have also been shown to influence attachment preferences in native speakers and L2 speakers alike (e.g., Felser et al., 2003; Fernández, 2003; Papadapoulou and Clahsen, 2003). In several studies, L2 speakers have not shown a preference for either high or low attachment in certain linguistic contexts. For example, Papadopoulou and Clahsen (2003) asked native speakers of high-attaching languages to read temporarily ambiguous sentences in their L2 Greek, a language where high attachment is also the preferred strategy. They found that proficient L2 speakers showed no preference for high or low attachment when processing an L2 that also favored high attachment, and interpreted the findings as evidence that L2 speakers do not rely on structure-based information to the same extent native speakers do (for similar findings, see Felser et al., 2003; but see Frenck-Mestre, 1997, 2002; Dussias, 2003; Dussias and Sagarra, 2007; Miyao and Omaki, 2006 for counter-evidence). Interestingly, in their study, participants did not simply follow the attachment preference in their L1, since there was no preference for either high or low attachment. Thus, Papadapoulou and Clahsen argued that the participants’ behavior could not be explained by language transfer from the L1. Based on this and other evidence on the lack of intermediate gap effects during L2 reading (e.g., Marinis, Roberts, Felser, and Clahsen, 2005), Clahsen and Felser (2006) have recently argued that the structure-building processes during online L2 sentence comprehension are fundamentally different from the representations built by native speakers of the target Cross-linguistic differences 9 language. According to their shallow structure hypothesis, the syntactic representations that L2 speakers construct while processing input in their L2 are ‘shallower’ and less detailed than those computed by adult L1 speakers. In their view, whereas L1 speakers prioritize ‘structure-driven’ strategies and syntactic information during sentence processing, L2 speakers privilege lexicalsemantic and pragmatic information. Furthermore, even though L2 speakers may be able to process morphological information in a native-like manner, this does not necessarily imply that they will incrementally build the full syntactic structure of a sentence during on-line parsing. Although it seems indisputable that the evidence on L2 sentence comprehension is tilted in support of the claim that L2 speakers are guided by lexical-semantic information during L2 sentence parsing (cf. Clahsen and Felser, 2006 and references therein; Fernández, 2003; Gass, 1987; Harrington, 1987; Papadopoulou and Clahsen, 2003; Sasaki 1991; Su, 2001), the need for more research in this area is clear, given that the claim that L2 speakers never adopt structurebased parsing principles has not been convincingly challenged. 2. The processing of wh-questions 2.1. Wh-questions in English One area that has addressed the extent to which L2 speakers adopt structure-based parsing principles during L2 processing is research investigating how L2 speakers parse socalled filler-gap constructions. Converging evidence stemming from monolingual research examining the processing of such constructions, such as Who did the boy believe he saw on the playground? suggests that when the human sentence parser is confronted with a wh-element, like who, it attempts to integrate this element into the target sentence as quickly as possible (e.g., Frazier and Clifton, 1989; see Carlson & Tanenhaus, 1988; Fodor, 1993; Pritchett, 1992 for discussion on various theoretical approaches for explaining this phenomenon). Positing a landing Cross-linguistic differences 10 site, or gap, for the wh-element can have consequences for both the syntactic structure of a sentence, as well as the assignment of thematic and grammatical roles for the wh-element in question. The construction of syntactic structure and the assignment of thematic roles can lead to processing difficulties when later syntactic and lexical information in the sentence force the reanalysis of an initial parse. For example, Williams, Möbius and Kim (2001) explored whether English native speakers and L2 English speakers (Korean, Chinese or German L1) differed regarding whether the semantic plausibility of a potential filler modulated the postulation of a gap during parsing. In their study they compared the processing of sentences like (3) and (4) using a self-paced, plausibility judgment task: (3) Which girl did the man push the bike into late last night? (4) Which river did the man push the bike into late last night? The findings showed that both the native speakers and the L2 participants were more likely to make stop-making-sense decisions at the verb site in sentences like (3), where the wh-phrase which river was an implausible filler as the object of the verb push, thus providing evidence for gap postulation and simultaneous incorporation of semantic information. Interestingly, they also found that both native and L2 speakers showed slower reading times at the postverbal nounphrase region (the bike) in sentences like (3), where the wh-filler is plausible (Which girl did the man push?). They argued that this is because when the filler is plausible as the direct object of the verb, it is more costly to discard it as the actual gap filler. By contrast, when the wh-filler is implausible as the direct object of the verb, as in (4) (Which river did the man push?), there is less resistance to reanalysis and, therefore, reading times are faster at the position of the real filler (the bike). This comparison between English native and L2 English groups suggests that Cross-linguistic differences 11 adult L2 speakers of English parse wh-questions using strategies that are very similar to those adopted by native speakers, even when the parallel structures in their native languages look very different. Using a self-paced reading task, however, Marinis et al. (2005) found that L2 English speakers (Chinese, Japanese, German and Greek L1) did not utilize the same processing strategies as English native speakers when parsing sentences containing long-distance whdependencies, such as (5) and (6) below. (5) The nurse who the doctor argued ____ that the rude patient had angered ____ is refusing to work late. (6) The nurse who the doctor’s argument about the rude patent had angered ____ is refusing to work late. Both the English native speakers and the English L2 speakers exhibited longer reading times at had angered compared to nonextraction control sentences, suggesting that both groups had difficulty integrating the wh-element with its subcategorizing verb. Among the English native speakers, this difficulty was mitigated in sentences like (5), which contained an intermediate landing site for the displaced wh-element. In contrast, no such intermediate gap effects were found in the L2 speaker group. Similar to selected findings for relative clause attachment preferences among L2 speakers (e.g., Felser et al., 2003; Papadopoulou and Clahsen, 2003), Marinis et al. concluded the lack of intermediate gap effects among the L2 speakers provides evidence that L2 speakers do not utilize syntactic information, nor do they build the same degree of syntactic structure during on-line processing as native speakers. Some studies also suggest that L2 speakers employ processing resources to the degree that is necessary to perform the task at hand. In Williams (2006), participants were required to Cross-linguistic differences 12 read filler-gap sentences, presented one word at a time, and to perform one of two tasks: (1) To press a button as soon as they thought that a sentence displayed on a computer screen had stopped making sense, (2) To perform a memory task that required the completion of a sentence using a word that had appeared in a previously displayed sentence. The results showed that the L2 speakers processed the input incrementally, just like the native speakers did, when the task encouraged such type of processing (i.e., in the stop-making-sense task). However, when the task imposed memory demands, the non-native readers did not process the input incrementally, most likely because they were not able to allocate sufficient resources to perform such type of processing. This suggests that L2 speakers may be able to overcome processing limitations under the appropriate task conditions. With regard to the assignment of thematic roles to wh-elements, a second set of studies have also examined how L2 speakers of English with a variety of L1s process filler-gap constructions, such as examples (7) and (8) below. (7) Who did Jane believe ______ likes Mary? (subject-extraction) (8) Who did Jane believe Mary likes _______? (object-extraction) In line with the human sentence parser’s general attempt to incorporate the wh-element into the target sentence quickly, upon initially reading the word who, English readers attempt to integrate this element into the main clause, Who did Jane believe?. When later information in a sentence renders this interpretation untenable, readers must adjust their initial assumptions regarding the syntactic structure of the sentence. L2 processing studies (Dussias and Piñar, in preparation; Juffs, 2005; Juffs and Harrington, 1995) have found that when forced to reanalyze their initial interpretation, both English native speakers and L2 learners of English exhibit greater processing difficulties on Cross-linguistic differences 13 subject-extractions, such as (7), compared to object-extractions, such as (8), with lower accuracy rates when judging whether such sentences are grammatical or ungrammatical, and longer reading times for the complement clause in sentence (7) compared to the complement clause in sentence (8). Furthermore, L2 speakers of English exhibit this sensitivity to extraction type regardless of whether their L1 permits wh-movement or not (Juffs, 2005). Based on additional findings that neither English native speakers nor L2 speakers of English had difficulties processing wh-extractions out of nonfinite clauses (e.g., Who does the boss expect ____ to meet the customers next Monday?). Juffs hypothesized that L2 speakers in particular may be gardenpathed on subject-extractions from finite clauses, as in (7), not because of difficulties with whextractions in general, but due to “the juxtaposition of two tensed verbs in embedded finite clauses” (p. 144). Pritchett (1992) suggests that the parser employs information about a verb’s thematic roles to make early structural commitments during sentence processing, and constantly updates the syntactic structure it assigns to a string of words in accordance with principles of syntax. This is captured in the principle of Generalized Theta Attachment (GTA), “Every principle of the syntax attempts to be maximally satisfied at every point during processing” (p.138). One prediction made by the GTA is that there will be a cost for reanalysis when it involves changes in theta and Case properties of an A-bar chain (Juffs and Harrington, 1995; but see Juffs, 2005). In example (8) above, it should be relatively easy to recover from an initial misparse. Here, the noun phrases that have appeared by the time the first verb is encountered will be evaluated with respect to the possible thematic roles associated with the verb. Thus, when believe enters the parse, its argument structure becomes available, and the arguments who and Jane are provisionally assigned the ‘theme’ (object) and ‘agent’ (subject) thematic roles, respectively (i.e., Cross-linguistic differences 14 Who did Jane believe?), based on word order information. This analysis becomes impossible when the next word Mary is processed. The parser is forced to reanalyze who as the object of likes, which requires a change in theta role assigner, from believe to likes, but keeps the theme theta role of who intact. In contrast, when a wh-word is extracted from the subject position, as in Who did Jane believe ____ likes Mary?, reanalysis should be more costly (as evidenced, for example, by longer reading times compared to a control condition). As in the previous case, when the argument structure of believe is accessed, who and Jane are assigned the roles of ‘theme’ and ‘agent.’ However, when likes is encountered, the initial analysis must be relinquished and the parser must restructure the string to allow the filler to be the subject of a new clause. Such reanalysis requires, in addition to a change in theta/Case assigner, a change of the features of the A-bar chain: (a) a change in theta role (from internal to external) and (b) a change in case (from ‘accusative’ to ‘nominative’). It is, therefore, presumed to be more costly than extraction from an object position, which only requires a change in theta/Case assigner. 2.2. Wh-questions in German In contrast to English, German exhibits a subject-preference for this type of wh-question (cf. Fanselow et al., 1999; Meng and Bader, 2000). Unlike English, where one uses word order or contextual information to determine the subject or the object in a sentence, German relies largely on case marking information, provided on the article or adjective preceding the noun, to indicate grammatical roles in a sentence. At the same time, however, case syncretism leads to a certain degree of ambiguity. In particular, case information for feminine and neuter nouns is identical in both the nominative case, used to identify the grammatical subject in a sentence, and accusative case, used to identify the direct object. In contrast, masculine nouns are unambiguous in both the nominative and accusative case. Cross-linguistic differences 15 Meng and Bader (2000) exploited this difference between unambiguous and ambiguous case markings, presenting ambiguous and unambiguous wh-questions, like the examples provided below, alongside ungrammatical controls in a speeded grammaticality judgment task. (9) Welche Politikerin glaubst du, traf den Minister? (subject-extraction; ambiguous) WhichNOM/ACC politician believe you met the ACC minister? “Which politician do you believe met the minister?” (10) Welche Politikerin glaubst du, traf der Minister? (object-extraction; ambiguous) WhichNOM/ACC politician believe you met theNOM minister? “Which politician do you believe the minister met? (11) Welcher Politiker glaubst du, traf den Minister? (subject-extraction; unambiguous) WhichNOM politician believe you met the ACC minister? “Which politician do you believe met the minister?” (12) Welchen Politiker glaubst du, traf der Minister? (object-extraction; unambiguous) Which ACC politician believe you met theNOM minister? “Which politician do you believe the minister met?” There was no significant difference in judgment accuracy for subjectversus object-extractions in either ambiguous or unambiguous sentences. Furthermore, there was no significant difference in reaction times for judging unambiguous sentences, regardless of extraction type. However, reaction times for judging ambiguous sentences that disambiguated to object-extractions, such as Cross-linguistic differences 16 (10), were significantly longer than ambiguous subject-extractions, such as (9). These findings support a general subject-first preference among German native speakers (e.g., Bader and Meng, 1999; Gorrell, 2000; Schlesewsky, Fanselow, Kliegl, and Krems, 2000), in that participants were garden-pathed on ambiguous sentences that later disambiguated to object-first sentences. At the same time, reaction times on unambiguous sentences suggest that unambiguous case marking information may alleviate the difficulty of object-first sentences. Furthermore, the lack of differences in judgment accuracy across conditions highlights that even when initial assumptions about grammatical role assignment in ambiguous sentences turn out to be false, German native speakers can recover from an initial misparse by successfully processing case marking information. While Bader and Meng (2000) found no significant differences for unambiguous objectextractions compared to unambiguous subject-extractions, Fanselow et al. (1999), using a selfpaced reading task, did find a subject-preference, even in unambiguous wh-questions, like (13)(16). (13) Welcher Mann denkst du kennt den Professor? (subject-extraction; present tense) Which NOM man think you knows the ACC professor? “Which man do you think knows the professor?” (14) Welchen Mann denkst du kennt der Professor? (object-extraction; present tense) Which ACC man think you knows the NOM professor? “Which man do you think the professor knows?” Cross-linguistic differences 17 (15) Welcher Mann hast du gedacht kennt den Professor? (subjectextraction; past tense) Which NOM man have you thought knows the ACC professor? “Which man did you think knows the professor?” (16) Welchen Mann hast du gedacht kennt der Professor? (objectextraction; past tense) Which ACC man have you thought knows theNOM professor? “Which man did you think the professor knows?” At the initial wh-phrase, welcher/welchen Mann “which man”, Fanselow et al. reported longer reading times for wh-phrases unambiguously marked as the direct object compared to those marked as the grammatical subject. Similarly, reading times at the finite verb kennt “knows” were longer in object-extractions than in subject-extractions. Furthermore, this difficulty with object-extractions appeared at the finite verb in the complement clause regardless of the tense, and, thus, regardless of the relative length and syntactic complexity of the matrix clause. The theoretical implications these German data have for Pritchett’s (1992) theory of Generalized Theta Attachment are beyond the scope of the present study. However, the findings from previous L1 German research, when presented alongside results involving the same sentence constructions among L1 English speakers, highlight a difference in processing preferences between these two languages. Furthermore, this preference for subject-extractions over object-extractions in the L1 German literature may be due, at least in part, to the morphological case marking system in German, whereby wh-phrases can be unambiguous with regard to their grammatical roles. 2.3. Present study Cross-linguistic differences 18 Given that this morphological feature of German is not present in English, the first research question posed in the current study is whether or not highly proficient L2 speakers of German (English L1) can incorporate an L2 morphosyntactic structure into their L2 grammar that is not present in their L1. If highly proficient L2 speakers of German have integrated the German case marking system into their L2 and can utilize this information during on-line processing, then they should exhibit differences in reading times at crucial portions of subjectextraction versus object-extractions, like (17) and (18), similar to native speakers of German. If, however, L2 speakers of German are unable to utilize case markings during on-line processing, then no differences in the relative processing difficulty of subjectversus object-extractions should appear while reading the target sentences (cf. Jiang, 2004). (17) Wer denkst du, bewunderte den Sportler nach dem Spiel? (subjectextraction) WhoNOM think you, admired theACC athlete after the game? “Who do you think admired the athlete after the game?” (18) Wen denkst du, bewunderte der Sportler nach dem Spiel? (objectextraction) WhoACC think you, admired theNOM athlete after the game? “Who do you think the athlete admired after the game?” The second question posed in the current study is whether or not L2 speakers can adopt native-like processing preferences when cross-linguistic processing differences between their L1 and their L2 stem from differences in the core grammar of each language. Even if highly proficient L2 German speakers are sensitive to German case markings and are able to utilize this information during on-line processing, they may continue to rely on processing preferences from Cross-linguistic differences 19 their L1 when processing L2 sentences (cf. Frenck-Mestre, 1997). Alternatively, they may adopt preferences that parallel neither L1 nor L2 strategies (cf. Felser et al., 2003; Papadapoulou and Clahsen, 2003). If highly proficient L2 German speakers continue to utilize L1 English processing strategies, then they should demonstrate a preference for object-extractions, with longer reading times on subject-extractions compared to object-extractions at the complement clause. If they are able to adopt native-like L2 processing strategies, then L2 German speakers should demonstrate a preference for subject-extractions, with longer reading times on objectextractions compared to subject-extractions at the complement clause. Finally, if highly proficient L2 German speakers exhibit no clear preference for either subjector objectextractions when reading the complement clause, this will provide evidence that L2 speakers may utilize neither L1 nor L2 strategies when processing L2 input. Examining the processing of this type of wh-question among L1 and L2 German speakers also provides the opportunity to test Juffs’ (2005) hypothesis that parsing difficulties on whextractions out of finite clauses stem from the adjacency of two finite verbs and not necessarily because of the inherent complexity of this type of wh-question. Juffs developed this hypothesis based on L1 and L2 English results involving two different syntactic structures, namely whextractions from finite clauses compared to wh-extractions from nonfinite clauses. In German, by varying the tense of the matrix clause, one can manipulate whether or not the verb in the complement clause is adjacent to a finite element in the matrix clause while holding the syntactic structure of the complement clause constant. German syntax requires that all verbal elements appear in the second or final position of the clause (cf. Grewendorf, 1988). Furthermore, in whextractions out of a finite clause, when there is no overt complementizer introducing the complement clause, the finite verb must be moved to the phrase immediately following the Cross-linguistic differences 20 matrix clause. As a result, when the matrix clause is in the present tense, as in (19), the subject of the matrix clause separates the matrix clause verb from the verb in the complement clause, meaning that these two finite verbs are not adjacent to one another. In contrast, in present perfect tense sentences, as in (20), the complement clause verb is immediately preceded by the past participle in the matrix clause. (19) Wen denkst du, bewunderte der Sportler nach dem Spiel? (objectextraction; present tense) WhoACC think you, admired theNOM athlete after the game? “Who do you think the athlete admired after the game?” (20) Wen hast du gedacht, bewunderte der Sportler nach dem Spiel? (object-extraction; past-tense) WhoACC have you thought, admired theNOM athlete after the game? “Who did you think the athlete admired after the game?” If, as proposed by Juffs, parsing difficulties on wh-extractions from finite clauses arise from encountering the finite verb in the complement clause immediately after processing a finite element from the matrix clause, then differences between subjectand object-extractions should only appear when the matrix clause is in the present perfect tense, as in (20). If, however, there are inherent differences in the difficulty of processing this type of wh-question, then differences between subjectand object-extractions should appear regardless of the verb tense in the matrix