Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T22:36:06.410Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Determinants of cue strength in adult first and second language speakers of French

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Janet L. McDonald  and
L. Kathy Heilenman
Janet L. McDonald*
Affiliation:
Louisiana State University
L. Kathy Heilenman
Affiliation:
Louisiana State University
*
J. L. McDonald, Department of Psychology, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study investigates the determinants of adult usage of various syntactic and semantic cues in sentence interpretation. Native French speakers and advanced English/French bilinguals were tested for the strength of usage of word order, clitic pronoun agreement, verb agreement, and noun animacy cues in the assignment of the actor role in French sentences. Native speakers showed strong use of clitic pronoun agreement, followed by much weaker use of verb agreement, an even weaker use of noun animacy, and negligible use of word order. This ranking reflects the importance of these cues in naturally occurring French sentences involving conflicts among cues in conjunction with a learning-on-error model. The English/French bilinguals did not manifest English-like strategies of word order preference on the French sentences; rather, they showed a cue ranking very similar to that of native speakers, although detectability may have played a role in their use of verb agreement. The failure of English word order strategies to correctly interpret many naturally occurring French sentences may be responsible for the adaptation of strategies appropriate to the second language.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 12 , Issue 3 , September 1991 , pp. 313 - 348
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Ammon, M. S., & Slobin, D. I. (1979). A cross-linguistic study of the processing of causative sentences. Cognition, 7, 3–17.Google Scholar
Arrivé, M., Gadet, F., & Galmiche, M. (1986). La grammaire d’aujourd’hui: Guide alphabétique de linguistique française. Paris: Flammarion.Google Scholar
Ashby, W. J. (1980). Prefixed conjugation in Parisian French. In Izzo, H. J. (Ed.), Italic and romance linguistic studies in honor of Ernst Pulgram. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ashby, W. J. (1988). The syntax, pragmatics, and sociolinguistics of left- and right-dislocations in French. Lingua, 75, 203–229.Google Scholar
Barnes, B. K. (1985). The pragmatics of left detachment in spoken standard French. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1981). Second language acquisition from a functionalist perspective: Pragmatic, semantic and perceptual strategies. In Winitz, H. (Ed.), Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences conference on native and foreign language acquisition. New York: New York Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1982). Functionalist approaches to grammar. In Wanner, E. & Gleitman, L. R. (Eds.), Language acquisition: The state of the art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1987). Competition, variation and language learning. In MacWhinney, B. (Ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bossong, G. (1981). Sequence et visée: L’expression positionelle du thème et du rhème en français parlé. Folia Linguistica, 15, 237–252.Google Scholar
Calvé, P. (1982). Un trait du français parlé authentique: La dislocation. Bulletin of the Canadian Association of Applied Linguistics, 4, 25–44.Google Scholar
Cardinal, M. (1987). Les grands désordres. Paris: Grasset & Fasquelle.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and point of view. In Li, C. (Ed.), Subject and topic. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. (1965). Some structural properties of simple active and passive sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 4, 365–370.Google Scholar
Cook, V. C. (1977). Cognitive processes in second language learning. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 15, 1–20.Google Scholar
Cook, V. C. (1986). Do second language learners have a cognitive deficit? In Cook, V. (Ed.), Experimental approaches to second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Deforges, R. (1981). La bicyclette bleue. Paris: Ramsay.Google Scholar
Donner, C. (1987). Trois minutes de soleil en plus. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
François, D. (1974). Français parlé: Présentation et description d’un corpus de français parlé recueilli dans un milieu ouvrier de la proche banlieue parisienne: Vol. 2. Paris: SELAF.Google Scholar
Gaatone, D. (1976). Les pronoms conjoints dans la construction factitive. Revue de Linguistique Romane, 40, 165–182.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M. (1987). The resolution of conflicts among competing systems: A bidirectional perspective. Applied Psycholinguistics, 8, 329–350.Google Scholar
Gougenheim, G., Michéa, R., Rivenc, P., & Sauvageot, A. (1964). L’élaboration du français fondamental (ler degré étude sur l’établissement d’un vocabulaire et d’une grammaire de base). Paris: Didier.Google Scholar
Harrington, M. (1987). Processing transfer: Language specific processing strategies as a source of interlanguage variation. Applied Psycholinguistics, 8, 351–378.Google Scholar
Johnson, J. G. (1967). Syntactic position and rated meaning. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 6, 240–246.Google Scholar
Judge, A., & Healey, F. (1985). A reference grammar of modern French. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Kail, M. (1989). Cue validity, cue cost and processing types in French sentence comprehension. In MacWhinney, B. & Bates, E. (Eds.), Crosslinguistic studies of sentence processing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kail, M., & Charvillat, A. (1986). Linguistic cues in sentence processing in French children and adults from a crosslinguistic perspective. In Kurca, I., Shugar, G., & Danks, J. (Eds.), Knowledge and language. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Kail, M., & Charvillat, A. (1988). Local and topological processing in sentence comprehension by French and Spanish children. Journal of Child Language, 15, 637–662.Google Scholar
(in press). Sentence processing in a second language: The timing of transfer. Language and Speech.Google Scholar
Kilborn, K., & Cooreman, A. (1987). Sentence interpretation strategies in adult Dutch-English bilinguals. Applied Psycholinguistics, 8, 415–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labro, P. (1986). L’étudiant étranger. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Lado, R. (1965). Memory span as a factor in second language learning. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 3, 123–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, K. (1981). Topic, antitopic and verb agreement in non-standard French. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, J., & Harding-Esch, E. (1977). Summary and recall of text in first and second languages: Some factors contributing to performance differences. In Sinmaiko, H. W. & Gerver, D. (Eds.), Proceedings of the NATO symposium on language interpretation and communication. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Lyons, C. (1982). Pronominal voice in French. In Vincent, N. & Harris, M. (Eds.), Studies in the romance verb: Essays offered to Joe Cremora on the occasion of his 60th birthday. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B., Bates, E., & Kliegl, R. (1984). Cue validity and sentence interpretation in English, German and Italian. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 127–150.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B., Pleh, C., & Bates, E. (1985). The development of sentence interpretation in Hungarian. Cognitive Psychology, 17, 178–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsh, L. G., & Maki, R. H. (1976). Efficiency of arithmetic operations in bilinguals as a function of language. Memory and Cognition, 4, 459–464.Google Scholar
McDonald, J. L. (1986). The development of sentence comprehension strategies in English and Dutch. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 41, 317–335.Google Scholar
McDonald, J. L. (1987 a). Sentence interpretation in bilingual speakers of English and Dutch. Applied Psycholinguistics, 8, 379–413.Google Scholar
McDonald, J. L. (1987 b). Sentence interpretation processes: The influence of conflicting cues. Journal of Memory and Language, 26, 100–117.Google Scholar
McDonald, J. L., & MacWhinney, B. (1989). Levels of learning: A comparison of concept learning and language learning. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (1982). Universal and particular in the acquisition of language. In Wanner, E. & Gleitman, L. R. (Eds.), Language acquisition: The state of the art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sokolov, J. L. (1988). Cue validity in Hebrew sentence comprehension. Journal of Child Language, 15, 129–155.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Trévise, A. (1986). Is it transferable, topicalization? In Kellerman, E. & Smith, M. Sharwood (Eds.), Crosslinguistic influence in second language acquisition. New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Vinay, J.-P., & Darbelnet, J. (1977). Stylistique comparée du français et de l’anglais. Paris: Didier.Google Scholar
Wulfeck, B., Juarez, L., Bates, E., & Kilborn, K. (1986). Sentence interpretation strategies in healthy and aphasie bilingual adults. In Vaid, J. (Ed.), Language processing in bilin-guals: Psycholinguistic and neuropsychological perspectives. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar