No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Cross-linguistic differences in predicting L2 sentence structure: The use of categorical and gradient verb constraints
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 June 2023
Abstract
This study investigates whether cross-linguistic differences affect how adult second language (L2) learners use different types of verb subcategorization information for prediction in real-time sentence comprehension. Using visual world eye-tracking, we tested if first language (L1) German and L1 Turkish intermediate-to-advanced learners of L2 English make use of categorical and gradient probabilistic selectional information of ditransitive verbs to predict whether the verbs would be followed by prepositional-object or double-object dative constructions. L1 German learners used both categorical (“pay/*donate the woman the money”) and gradient (“pay/#send the woman the money”) constraints for prediction in a target-like manner. In contrast, L1 Turkish learners were delayed in recruiting categorical verb information and were only selectively sensitive to gradient verb information. We argue that target-like predictive processing across categorical and gradient verb information is attainable for L2 learners, but differences in L1-L2 word order may curtail the utility of prediction by verb subcategorization information in L2 processing.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press
References
Altmann, G. T. M., & Mirković, J. (2009). Incrementality and prediction in human sentence processing. Cognitive Science, 33, 583–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ariji, K., Omaki, A., & Tatsuta, N. (2003).Working memory restricts the use of semantic information in ambiguity resolution. In Slezak, P. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Cognitive Science (pp. 19–25). University of New South Wales.Google Scholar
Audacityteam. (2017). Audacity [Computer software]. https://audacityteam.org/audacity-2-1-3-released/Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. B. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 390–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 255–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bates, D., & Sarkar, D. (2007). lme4: linear mixed effects models using S4 classes (R package version 0.999999–0) [Computer software]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
Bovolenta, G., & Marsden, E. (2021). Prediction and error-based learning in L2 processing and acquisition: A conceptual review. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 44, 1384–1409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, J., Cueni, A., Nikitina, T., & Baayen, H. (2007). Predicting the dative alternation. In Bouma, G., Krämer, I., & Zwarts, J. (Eds.), Cognitive foundations of interpretation (pp. 69–94). Royal Netherlands Academy of Science.Google Scholar
Callies, M., & Szczesniak, K. (2008). Argument realization, information status and syntactic weight: A learner corpus study of the dative alternation. In Walter, M. & Grommes, P. (Eds.), Fortgeschrittene Lernervarietäten: Korpuslinguistik und Zweitsprachenerwerbsforschung [Advanced learner varieties: Corpus linguistics and research into second language acquisition] (pp. 165–187). Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Dijkgraaf, A., Hartsuiker, R. J., & Duyck, W. (2017). Predicting upcoming information in native-language and non-native-language auditory word recognition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 20, 917–930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dijkstra, T., Grainger, J., & van Heuven, W. J. B. (1999). Recognition of cognates and interlingual homographs: The neglected role of phonology. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 496–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dink, J. W., & Ferguson, B. (2015). eyetrackingR: An R library for eye-tracking data analysis [Computer software]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.eyetrackingr.comGoogle Scholar
Dussias, P. E., & Cramer-Scaltz, T. R. (2008). Spanish-English L2 speakers’ use of subcategorization bias information in the resolution of temporary ambiguityduring second language reading. Acta Psychologica, 128, 501–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dussias, P. E., Valdés Kroff, J. R., Guzzardo Tamargo, R. E., & Gerfen, C. (2013). When gender and looking go hand in hand. Grammatical gender processing in L2 Spanish. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 353–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foucart, A. (2021). Language prediction in second language: Does language similarity matter? In Kaan, E. & Grüter, T. (Eds.), Prediction in second language processing (pp. 91–114). John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Frenck-Mestre, C., Kim, S. K., Choo, H., Ghio, A., Herschensohn, J., & Koh, Sungryong. (2019). Look and listen! The online processing of Korean case by native and non-native speakers. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 34, 385–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garnsey, S. M., Pearlmutter, N. J., Myers, E., & Lotocky, M. A. (1997). The contributions of verb bias and plausibility to the comprehension of temporarily ambiguous sentences. Journal of Memory & Language, 37, 58–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. (2003). Towards a corpus-based identification of prototypical instances of constructions. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grüter, T., Lau, E., & Ling, W. (2020). How classifiers facilitate predictive processing in L1 and L2 Chinese: The role of semantic and grammatical cues. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 35, 221–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grüter, T., & Rohde, H. (2021). Limits on expectation-based processing: Use of Grammatical Aspect for Co-Reference in L2. Applied Psycholinguistics, 42, 51–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henry, N., Jackson, C. N., & Hopp, H. (2017). Cue additivity and adaptivity in predictive processing. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 32, 1229–1249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopp, H. (2013). Grammatical gender in adult L2 acquisition: Relations between lexical and syntactic variability. Second Language Research, 29, 33–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopp, H. (2014). Working memory effects in the L2 processing of ambiguous relative clauses. Language Acquisition, 21, 250–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopp, H. (2015a). Semantics and morphosyntax in predictive L2 sentence processing. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 53, 277–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopp, H. (2015b). Individual differences in the second language processing of object-subject ambiguities. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36, 129–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopp, H., & Lemmerth, N. (2018). Lexical and syntactic congruency in L2 predictivegender processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40, 171–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inagaki, S. (1997). Japanese and Chinese learners’ acquisition of the narrow range rules for the dative alternation in English. Language Learning, 47, 637–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ito, A., Corley, M., & Pickering, M. (2018). A cognitive load delays predictive eye movements similarly during L1 and L2 comprehension. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 21, 251–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jäschke, T., & Plag, I. (2016). The dative alternation in German–English interlanguage. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 485–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaan, E. (2014). Predictive sentence processing in L2 and L1: What is different? Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 4, 257–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaan, E., & Chun, E. (2018). Priming and adaptation in native speakers and second-language learners. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 21, 228–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaan, E., & Grüter, T. (2021). Prediction in second language processing and learning: Advances and directions. In Kaan, E. & Grüter, T. (Eds.), Prediction in second language processing (pp. 1–24). John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kootstra, G. J., & Doedens, W. J. (2016). How multiple sources of experience influence bilingual syntactic choice: Immediate and cumulative cross-language effects of structural priming, verb bias, and language dominance. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19, 710–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kornfilt, J. (2003). Scrambling, subscrambling, and case in Turkish. In Karimi, S. (Ed.), Word order and scrambling (pp. 125–155). Blackwell Publishing Ltd.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuperberg, G., & Jaeger, T. F. (2016). What do we mean by prediction in language comprehension? Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31, 32–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, E.-K., Lu, H.-Y., & Garnsey, S. M. (2013). L1 word order and sensitivity to verb bias in L2 processing. Bilingualism: Language & Cognition, 16, 761–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lemhöfer, K., & Broersma, M. (2012). Introducing LexTALE: A quick and valid Lexical Test for Advanced Learners of English. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 325–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Matin, E., Shao, K. C., & Boff, K. R. (1993). Saccadic overhead: Information-processing time with and without saccades. Perception & Psychophysics, 53, 372–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mazurkewich, I. (1984). The acquisition of the dative alternation by second language learners and linguistic theory. Language Learning, 34, 91–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Özge, D., Küntay, A., & Snedeker, J. (2019). Why wait for the verb? Turkish speaking children use case markers for incremental language comprehension. Cognition, 183, 152–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pickering, M. J., & Gambi, C. (2018). Predicting while comprehending language: A theory and review. Psychological Bulletin, 144, 1002–1044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2013). An integrated theory of language production and comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36, 329–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salamoura, A., & Williams, J. E. (2006). Lexical activation of cross-language syntactic priming. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 9, 299–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheepers, C., Williams, R. S., Mohr, S., Arai, M., & van Gompel, R. P. G. (2007, March 29–31). Sometimes it’s better to donate than to give: Syntactic projections in on-line sentence comprehension [Poster presentation]. Twentieth Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, San Diego, United States.Google Scholar
Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-Prime reference guide. Psychology Software Tools.Google Scholar
Şafak, D. F. (2022). How do L2 learners use verbs in sentence processing? Integration and prediction in L2 sentence comprehension [Doctoral dissertation, Technische Universität Braunschweig]. Universitätsbibliothek Braunschweig. https://leopard.tu-braunschweig.de/receive/dbbs_mods_00071218Google Scholar
Şafak, D. F., & Hopp, H. (2022). Verb bias and semantic persistence effects in L2 ambiguity resolution. Second Language Research, 38, 705–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tily, H., Hemforth, B., Arnon, I., Shuval, N., Snider, N., & Wasow, T. (2008, September 4–6). Eye movements reflect comprehenders’ knowledge of syntactic structure probability [Verbal presentation].
Fourteenth Annual Meeting of Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing (AMLaP)
, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
van Bergen, G., & Flecken, M. (2017). Putting things in new places: Linguistic experience modulates the predictive power of placement verb semantics. Journal of Memory and Language, 92, 26–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolk, C., Wolfer, S., Baumann, P., Hemforth, B., & Konieczny, L. (2011). Acquiring English dative verbs: Proficiency effects in German L2 learners. In Carlson, L., Hölscher, C., & Shipley, T. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2401–2406). Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Yang, C., & Montrul, S. (2017). Learning datives: The tolerance principle in monolingual and bilingual acquisition. Second Language Research, 33, 119–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Şafak and Hopp supplementary material
Şafak and Hopp supplementary material
PDF
95.1 KB