Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T10:57:10.777Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Frequency effects on first and second language compositional phrase comprehension and production

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 April 2019

Sarut Supasiraprapa
Sarut Supasiraprapa*
Affiliation:
National Institute of Development Administration, Thailand
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Usage-based approaches to language acquisition posit that first (L1) and second language (L2) speakers should process more frequent compositional phrases, which have a meaning derivable from word parts, faster than less frequent ones (e.g., Bybee, 2010; Ellis, 2011). Although this prediction has received increasing empirical support, methodological limitations in previous relevant studies include a lack of control of frequencies of subparts of target phrases and scant attention to L2 production. Addressing these limitations, the current study tested phrase frequency effects in both language comprehension and production in two respective experiments, in which adult native English speakers (N = 51) and English L2 learners (N = 52) completed a timed phrasal decision task and an elicited oral production task. Experiment 1 revealed phrase frequency effects in both groups, lending support to usage-based researchers’ proposal that L1 and L2 speakers retain memory of word co-occurrences and that compositional phrase processing reflects an accumulation of statistics in previously encountered input. Experiment 2, however, provided weaker evidence for phrase frequency effects in these participant groups. Based on the results and previous empirical studies, methodological issues that may have impacted frequency effects and implications for future work in this area are discussed.

Keywords

comprehensionfrequency effectsL2 learnersproductionusage-based
Type
Original Article
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 40 , Issue 4 , July 2019 , pp. 987 - 1017
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2019 

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

Ambridge, B., Kidd, E., & Rowland, C. F., & Theakston, A. L. (2015). The ubiquity of frequency effects in first language acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 41, 239–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ambridge, B., & Lieven, E. M. (2011). Child language acquisition: Contrasting theoretical approaches. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnon, I. (2015). What can frequency effects tell us about the building blocks and mechanisms of language learning? Journal of Child Language, 42, 274–277.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arnon, I., & Priva, U. C. (2013). More than words: The effect of multi-word frequency and constituency on phonetic duration. Language and Speech, 56, 349–371.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arnon, I., & Priva, U. C. (2014). The changing effect of word and multiword frequency on phonetic duration for highly frequent sequences. Mental Lexicon, 9, 377–400.Google Scholar
Arnon, I., & Snider, N. (2010). More than words: Frequency effects for multi-word phrases. Journal of Memory and Language, 62, 67–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aylett, M., & Turk, A. (2004). The smooth signal redundancy hypothesis: A functional explanation for the relationship between redundancy, prosodic prominence, and duration in spontaneous speech. Language and Speech, 47, 31–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 390–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bannard, C., & Matthews, D. (2008). Stored word sequences in language learning: The effect of familiarity on children’s repetition of four-word combinations. Psychological Science, 19, 241–248.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bates, D. M. (2010). lme4: Mixed-effects modeling with R. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Bates, D. M., Mächler, M., Bolker, B. M., & Walker, S. C. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 1–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, A., Jurafsky, D., Fosler-Lussier, E., Girand, C., Gregory, M., & Gildea, D. (2003). Effects of disfluencies, predictability, and utterance position on word form variation in English conversation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 113, 1001–1024.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bley-Vroman, R. (2009). The evolving context of the Fundamental Difference Hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 175–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2010). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (Version 6.0.09) [Software]. Retrieved from http://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/praat/Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (2006). From usage to grammar: The minds response to repetition. Language, 82, 711–733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. (2010). Language, usage and cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J., & Hopper, P. (2001). Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J., & Scheibman, J. (1999). The effect of usage on degrees of constituency: The reduction of don’t in English. Linguistics, 37, 575–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cedrus Corporation. (2006). SuperLab Pro (Version 4.5) [Computer software]. San Pedro, CA: Author.Google Scholar
Chang, F. (2002). Symbolically speaking: A connectionist model of sentence production. Cognitive Science, 26, 609–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, F., Dell, G. S., & Bock, K. (2006). Becoming syntactic. Psychological Review, 113, 234–272.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cieri, C., Miller, D., & Walker, K. (2004). The Fisher corpus: A resource for the next generations of speech-to-text. Paper presented at the Fourth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, Lisbon, May 26–28, 2004.Google Scholar
Davies, M. (2013). Google scholar and COCA-academic: Two very different approaches to examining academic English. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12, 155–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (1997). Beyond explicit rule learning: Automatizing second language morphosyntax. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 195–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (2000). The robustness of critical period effects in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 499–533.Google Scholar
Diependaele, K., Lemhöfer, K., & Brysbaert, M. (2013). The word frequency effect in first- and second-language word recognition: A lexical entrenchment account. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66, 843–863.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Durrant, P., & Schmitt, N. (2010). Adult learners’ retention of collocations from exposure. Second Language Research, 26, 163–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (1996). Sequencing in SLA: Phonological memory, chunking and points of order. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 91–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 143–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2006a). Language acquisition as rational contingency learning. Applied Linguistics, 27, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2006b). Selective attention and transfer phenomena in L2 acquisition: Contingency, cue competition, salience, interference, overshadowing, blocking, and perceptual learning. Applied Linguistics, 27, 164–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2011). Frequency-based accounts of SLA. In Gass, S. &Mackey, A. (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 193–210). London: Routledge/Taylor Francis.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2013). Second language acquisition. In Trousdale, G. &Hoffmann, T. (Eds.), Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp. 365–378). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2019). Essentials of a theory of language cognition. Modern Language Journal, 103 (Suppl.), 39–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C., Römer, U., & O’Donnell, M. B. (2016). Language usage, acquisition, and processing: Cognitive and corpus investigations of construction grammar. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C., Simpson-Vlach, R., & Maynard, C. (2008). Formulaic language in native and second language speakers: Psycholinguistics, corpus linguistics, and TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 42, 375–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernández, B. G., & Schmitt, N. (2015). How much collocation knowledge do L2 learners have? The effects of frequency and amount of exposure. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 166, 94–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foster, P., Bolibaugh, C., & Kotula, A. (2014). Knowledge of nativelike selections in a L2. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36, 101–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, J. (2008). Applied regression analysis and generalized linear models (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Fox, J., & Weisberg, S. (2011). An R companion to applied regression (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Godfrey, J. J., Holliman, E. C., & McDaniel, J. (1992). SWITCHBOARD: Telephone speech corpus for research and development. Proceedings of the International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (Vol. 1, pp. 517–520). San Francisco: IEEE.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2003). Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 219–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gries, S. T. (2010). Useful statistics for corpus linguistics. In Sánchez, A., and Almela, M. (Eds.), A mosaic of corpus linguistics: Selected approaches (pp. 269–291). Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Gries, S. T. (2015). 50-something years of work on collocations. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 18, 137–165.Google Scholar
Gyllstad, H., & Wolter, B. (2016). Collocational processing in light of the phraseological continuum model: Does semantic transparency matter? Language Learning, 66, 296–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hernández, M., Costa, A., & Arnon, I. (2016). More than words: Multiword frequency effects in non-native speakers. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31, 785–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoey, M. (2005). Lexical priming: A new theory of words and language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ibbotson, P. (2013). The scope of usage-based theory. Frontier in Psychology, 4. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00255Google ScholarPubMed
Jannsen, N., & Barber, H. A. (2012). Phrase frequency effects in production. PLoS ONE, 7. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0033202Google Scholar
Littlemore, J. (2009). Applying cognitive linguistics to second language learning and teaching. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loewen, S., & Plonsky, L. (2016). An A–Z of applied linguistics research methods. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2008). A unified model. In Robinson, P. &Ellis, N. C. (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 341–371). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Muñoz, C. (2008). Symmetries and asymmetries of age effects in naturalistic and instructed L2 learning. Applied Linguistics, 29, 578–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myers, R. (1990). Classical and modern regression with applications (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Duxbury.Google Scholar
Nippold, M. A., & Rudzinski, M. (1993). Familiarity and transparency in idiom explanation: A developmental study of children and adolescents. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 36, 728–737.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ortega, L. (2013). SLA for the 21st century: Disciplinary progress, transdisciplinary relevance, and the bi/multilingual turn. Language Learning, 63, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peirce, J. W. (2007). PsychoPy—Psychophysics software in Python. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 162, 8–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pinker, S. (1999). Words and rules: The ingredients of language. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Prasada, S., & Pinker, S. (1993). Generalization of regular and irregular morphological patterns. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 1–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Core Team. (2015). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
Reali, F., & Christiansen, M. H. (2007). Word-chunk frequencies affect the processing of pronominal object-relative clauses. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 161–170.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reddy, S., & Stanford, J. (2015). Toward completely automated vowel extraction: Introducing DARLA. Linguistics Vanguard, 1, 15–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siyanova-Chanturia, A., Conklin, K., & van Heuven, W. J. B. (2011). Seeing a phrase “time and again” matters: The role of phrasal frequency in the processing of multiword sequences. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 37, 776–784.Google ScholarPubMed
Sonbul, S. (2015). Fatal mistake, awful mistake, or extreme mistake? Frequency effects on off-line/on-line collocational processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 18, 419–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sosa, A. V., & MacFarlane, J. (2002). Evidence for frequency-based constituents in the mental lexicon: Collocations involving the word of. Brain and Language, 83, 227–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supasiraprapa, S. (2018). Prototype effects in first and second language learners: The case of English transitive semantics. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 21, 618–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2009). The usage-based theory of language acquisition. In Bavin, E. (Ed.), Handbook of child language (pp. 69–87). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tremblay, A., Derwing, B., Libben, G., & Westbury, C. (2011). Processing advantages of lexical bundles: Evidence from self-paced reading and sentence recall tasks. Language Learning, 61, 569–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tremblay, A., & Tucker, B. V. (2011). The effects of n-gram probabilistic measures on the recognition and production of four-word sequences. Mental Lexicon, 6, 302–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valsecchi, M., Kuänstler, V., Saage, S., White, B. J., Mukherjee, J., & Gegenfurtner, K. R. (2013). Advantage in reading lexical bundles is reduced in non-native speakers. Journal of Eye Movement Research, 6, 1–16.Google Scholar
Whitford, V., & Titone, D. (2012). Second-language experience modulates first- and second-language word frequency effects: Evidence from eye movement measures of natural paragraph reading. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 73–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wolter, B., & Gyllstad, H. (2011). Collocational links in the L2 mental lexicon and the influence of L1 intralexical knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 32, 430–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolter, B., & Gyllstad, H. (2013). Frequency of input and L2 collocational processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 451–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolter, B., & Yamashita, J. (2018). Word frequency, collocational frequency, L1 congruency, and proficiency in L2 collocation processing. What accounts for L2 performance? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40, 395–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wonnacott, E. (2011). Balancing generalization and lexical conservatism: An artificial language study with child learners. Journal of Memory and Language, 65, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yamashita, J., & Jiang, N. (2010). L1 influence on the acquisition of L2 collocations: Japanese ESL users and EFL learners acquiring English collocations. TESOL Quarterly, 44, 647–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar