{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03019175846593227, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01591187270501836, 'mean_word_length': 5.538666666666667, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Morphological insensitivity in second language processing

Two competing explanations exist regarding the nature of morphological difficulty in adult second language acquisition: competence deficit versus performance deficiency. This study tested these explanations by examining English as a second language (ESL) learners’ morphological performance in reading comprehension tasks. Chinese ESL speakers were asked to read English sentences for comprehension in three self-paced word by word reading experiments. Their reading times were measured to determine if they were sensitive to idiosyncrasies/disagreement in sentences that do and do not involve the number morpheme. The results show that they are not sensitive to number disagreement, but sensitive to other idiosyncrasies tested. This insensitivity to the number morpheme suggests that their morphological knowledge is not an integrated part of their automatic second language competence. Inflectional bound morphemes of English, such as third person singular -s, plurals, and past tense, are notoriously difficult for adult learners of English as a second language (ESL). Even very advanced ESL speakers who are otherwise considered highly proficient and effective users of the language often have difficulty in using these morphemes correctly in spontaneous communication. Such difficulty has been well documented in the second language acquisition (SLA) literature. First, a large number of studies have shown a low accuracy rate in the use of inflectional morphemes by adult ESL users in spontaneous communication across different first language (L1) backgrounds and different second language (L2) proficiency levels (e.g., Bailey, Madden, & Krashen, 1974; Ellis, 1988; Johnson & Newport, 1989; Krashen et al., 1977; Perkins & Larsen–Freeman, 1975; Shapira, 1978; Wei, 2000). With the exception of -ing, the accuracy rates for the use of inflectional morphemes in spontaneous speech are far from those of native speakers. L2 learners’ difficulty with inflectional morphemes can also be seen in their variable and inconsistent performance involving these morphemes. In Johnson, Shenkman, Newport, and Medin (1996), for example, native speakers and adult ESL learners were tested in an auditory grammaticality judgment test in two sessions separated by 3 weeks. More than 22% of adult ESL learners’ responses were inconsistent between the two sessions, as compared to 2% by native speakers.