Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T02:11:43.335Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

L2 LEARNERS’ ADAPTATION TO AN L2 STRUCTURE THAT IS DIFFERENT FROM L1

PRIMING OF AN ENGLISH CAUSATIVE STRUCTURE IN KOREAN LEARNERS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2021

Heeju Hwang Open the ORCID record for Heeju Hwang [Opens in a new window]
Heeju Hwang*
Affiliation:
The University of Hong Kong
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Heeju Hwang, Department of Linguistics, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong. E-mail: heejuhwang@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The present study investigates how L2 learners adapt their production preferences following immediate and cumulative experience with a syntactic structure when an L2 structure differs from an L1 structure in terms of verb subcategorization frame and argument structure. Korean learners of English described causative events in English in a picture-matching game. The meaning of a causative sentence in English (e.g., Jen had her computer fixed) is expressed with an active transitive sentence in Korean (e.g., Jen-NOM computer-ACC fixed). The results demonstrated that both immediate and cumulative experience with a causative structure increased the likelihood of producing grammatical causative descriptions (e.g., Jen had her computer fixed), while decreasing the production of ungrammatical active transitive descriptions (e.g., Jen fixed her computer). The findings provide novel evidence that an implicit learning mechanism is involved in L2 learners’ processing and learning of an L2 structure that is different from L1.

Type
Research Report
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 44 , Issue 4 , September 2022 , pp. 1181 - 1193
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

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.)

Footnotes

I would like to thank Lok Ting Chan, Yuk Yue Fiona Cheng, Sheung Yee Lam, Chun Yin Liu, Sze Nga Ong, and Tan Ting Grace Tang for their assistance with data collection and coding.

References

REFERENCES

Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 255–278. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B. M., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 1–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernolet, S., Hartsuiker, R. J., & Pickering, M. (2013). From language-specific to shared syntactic representations: The influence of second language proficiency on syntactic sharing in bilinguals. Cognition, 127, 287–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.02.005 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bock, J. K. (1986). Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 355–387. http://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(86)90004-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bock, J. K. (1995). Sentence production: From mind to mouth. In Miller, J. & Eimas, P. (Eds.), Speech, language & communication (pp. 181–216). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-012497770-9/50008-x Google Scholar
Bock, J. K., & Griffin, Z. M. (2000). The persistence of structural priming: Transient activation or implicit learning? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129, 177–192. http://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.129.2.177 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Branigan, H. P., Pickering, M. J., & Cleland, A. A. (2000). Syntactic co-ordination in dialogue. Cognition, 75, B13–B25. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0010-0277(99)00081-5 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chang, F., Dell, G. S., & Bock, J. K. (2006). Becoming syntactic. Psychological Review, 113, 234–272. http://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.113.2.234 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Corley, M., & Scheepers, C. (2002). Syntactic priming in English sentence production: Categorical and latency evidence from an Internet-based study. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 126–131. http://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196267 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dell, G. S. (1986). A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review, 93, 283–321. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-295x.93.3.283 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fine, A. B., & Jaeger, T. F. (2013). Evidence for implicit learning in syntactic comprehension. Cognitive Science, 37, 578–591. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12022 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fine, A. B., & Jaeger, T. F. (2016). The role of verb repetition in cumulative structural priming in comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42, 1362–1376. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000236 Google ScholarPubMed
Fine, A. B., Jaeger, T. F., Farmer, T. A., & Qian, T. (2013). Rapid expectation adaptation during syntactic comprehension. PLoS ONE, 8, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0077661 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fine, A. B., Qian, T., Jaeger, T. F., & Jacobs, R. A. (2010). Is there syntactic adaptation in language comprehension? In Proceedings of the 2010 Workshop on Cognitive Modeling and Computational Linguistics (pp. 18–26).Google Scholar
Flett, S., Branigan, H. P., & Pickering, M. J. (2013). Are non-native structural preferences affected by native language preferences? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16, 751–760. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1366728912000594 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grüter, T., Zhu, Y. A., & Jackson, C. N. (2021). Forcing prediction increases priming and adaptation in second language production. In Kaan, E. & Grüter, T. (Eds.), Prediction in second language processing and learning (pp. 208–231). John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S.T. (2005). Syntactic priming: A corpus-based approach. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 34, 365–399. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-005-6139-3 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hartsuiker, R. J., & Bernolet, S. (2017). The development of shared syntax in second language learning. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 20, 219–234. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728915000164 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartsuiker, R. J., Bernolet, S., Schoonbaert, S., Speybroeck, S., & Vanderelst, D. (2008). Syntactic priming persists while the lexical boost decays: Evidence from written and spoken dialogue. Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 214–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.07.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartsuiker, R. J., Pickering, M. J., & Veltkamp, E. (2004). Is syntax separate or shared between languages? Cross-linguistic syntactic priming in Spanish-English bilinguals. Psychological Science, 15, 409–414. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00693.x CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heyselaar, E., & Segaert, K. (2021, March 1). Structural priming persists for (at least) one month in young adults, but not in healthy older adults. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/9gdqr CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hwang, H., & Shin, J.-A. (2019). Cumulative effects of syntactic experience in a between- and a within-language context: Evidence for implicit learning. Journal of Memory and Language, 109, 104054. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2019.104054 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hwang, H., Shin, J.-A., & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2018). Late bilinguals share syntax unsparingly between L1 and L2: Evidence from crosslinguistically similar and different constructions. Language Learning, 68, 177–205. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12272 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 434–446. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.11.007 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jaeger, T. F., & Snider, N. E. (2013). Alignment as a consequence of expectation adaptation: Syntactic priming is affected by the prime’s prediction error given both prior and recent experience. Cognition, 127, 57–83. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.10.013 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaan, E., & Chun, E. (2017). Priming and adaptation in native speakers and second-language learners. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 21, 228–242. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1366728916001231 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaschak, M. P., Loney, R. A., & Borreggine, K. L. (2006). Recent experience affects the strength of structural priming. Cognition, 99, B73–B82. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2005.07.002 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kim, Y., & McDonough, K. (2008). Learners’ production of passives during syntactic priming activities. Applied Linguistics, 29, 149–154. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amn004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahowald, K., James, A., Futrell, R., & Gibson, E. (2016). A meta-analysis of syntactic priming in language production. Journal of Memory and Language, 91, 5–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2016.03.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonough, K. (2006). Interaction and syntactic priming: English L2 speakers’ production of dative constructions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 179–207. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263106060098 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonough, K., & Mackey, A. (2008). Syntactic priming and ESL question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 31–47. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263108080029 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montero-Melis, G., & Jaeger, T. F. (2019). Changing expectations mediate adaptation in L2 production. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 23, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728919000506 Google Scholar
Montrul, S., & Ionin, T. (2009). Transfer effects in the interpretation of definite articles by Spanish heritage speakers. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13, 449–473. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728910000040 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nitschke, S., Kidd, E., & Serratrice, L. (2010). First language transfer and long-term structural priming in comprehension. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25, 94–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960902872793 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pickering, M. J., & Branigan, H. P. (1998). The representation of verbs: Evidence from syntactic priming in language production. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 633–651. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1998.2592 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pickering, M. J., & Ferreira, V. S. (2008). Structural priming: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 427–459. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.3.427 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Potter, M. C., & Lombardi, L. (1990). Regeneration in the short-term recall of sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 633–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sachs, J. S. (1967). Recognition memory for syntactic and semantic aspects of connected discourse. Perception & Psychophysics, 2, 437–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shin, J.-A., & Christianson, K. (2009). Syntactic processing in Korean-English bilingual production: Evidence from cross-linguistic structural priming. Cognition, 112, 175–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2009.03.011 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shin, J.-A., & Christianson, K. (2012). Structural priming and second language learning. Language Learning, 62, 931–964. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00657 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In Gass, S. M. & Madden, C. (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Newbury House.Google Scholar
Tokowicz, N., & MacWhinney, B. (2005). Implicit and explicit measures of sensitivity to violations in second language grammar: An event-related potential investigation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 173–204. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263105050102 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trofimovich, P., McDonough, K., & Neumann, H. (2013). Using collaborative tasks to elicit auditory and structural priming. TESOL Quarterly, 47, 177–186. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.78 CrossRefGoogle Scholar