ArticleJournal of eye movement research2026
Cognitive Mechanisms of Referential Ambiguity Resolution in L2 Russian by Chinese Learners: Evidence from Eye-Tracking.
Article in Journal of eye movement research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A central question in second language (L2) sentence processing concerns how learners resolve referential ambiguity in real time, particularly when cues from their first language (L1) conflict with those of the target language. Given the substantial typological distance between Chinese (an analytic language) and Russian (a highly inflectional language), this study employs eye-tracking methodology to investigate the developmental trajectory of the cognitive mechanisms in referential ambiguity resolution among Chinese learners of Russian. The results revealed proficiency-related differences in ambiguity processing. Both proficiency groups showed increased processing difficulty when encountering ambiguous pronouns, indicating that referential ambiguity imposed a measurable online cost. High-proficiency learners read more efficiently overall, whereas low-proficiency learners showed a stronger first-mention anchoring pattern. These findings suggest that increasing L2 proficiency is associated with changes in processing efficiency and cue weighting during referential resolution. Notably, even high-proficiency learners did not categorically rely on Russian gender agreement to resolve reference in the morphologically disambiguated condition, suggesting that the integration of morphosyntactic cues into real-time reference resolution remains effortful at advanced proficiency. The study contributes eye-tracking evidence on how Chinese-speaking learners manage referential ambiguity in a morphologically rich L2.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.