Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-g4j75 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-10T19:24:51.624Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Gender processing in native and nonnative Russian speakers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 March 1999

Roman Taraban  and
Vera Kempe
Roman Taraban*
Affiliation:
Texas Tech University
Vera Kempe
Affiliation:
State University of New York, Oswego
*
Roman Taraban, Department of Psychology, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409-2051. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Traditional computational accounts of gender representation and learning (e.g., Carroll, 1989, 1995) differ radically from cue-based and connectionist accounts. The latter but not the former predicts that access to noun gender will vary depending on the reliability of noun endings (and other sublexical elements and morphological constituents) in marking gender, and that agreement markers can be used strategically to constrain the genders of ambiguously marked nouns. Adult native (L1) speakers of Russian (Experiment 1) and advanced nonnative (L2) speakers (Experiment 2) read Russian sentences on a computer and were asked to choose one of two inflected past tense verbs in a forced choice task. The verbs either matched or mismatched the gender of the subject NP. Half of the target trials used opaque (end-palatalized) subject nouns, which were ambiguously marked for gender, and the other half used transparent (regularly marked) subject nouns. Noun type was crossed with the presence or absence of a gender-marked adjective in the subject NP. When an adjective was present in the subject NP, both L1 and L2 speakers were significantly faster at reading and selecting the correct verb form. L2 but not L1 speakers showed longer reading and choice latencies and made more errors when the subject noun was opaque. The data showed that L2 speakers used adjective inflections to disambiguate the gender of opaque subject nouns and to select gender appropriate verb inflections. The accuracy data for L1 and L2 speakers were tested against several connectionist models. The models' success in accounting for the data suggested that L1 and L2 speakers may depend on a common learning mechanism and thus resemble one another at the computational level, contrary to traditional computational accounts (Carroll, 1989, 1995).

Type
Research Article
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , March 1999 , pp. 119 - 148
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1999

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

Bates, E., Devescovi, A., Pizzamiglio, L., D’Amico, S., & Hernandez, A. (1995). Gender and lexical access in Italian. Perception & Psychophysics, 57, 847–862.Google Scholar
Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1989). The crosslinguistic study of sentence processing. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Braine, M. (1989). Modeling the acquisition of linguistic structure. In Levy, Y., Schlesinger, I., & Braine, M. (Eds.), Categories and processes in language acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. (Ed.). (1982). The mental representation of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Brooks, P., Braine, M., Catalano, L., & Brody, R. (1993). Acquisition of gender-like noun subclasses in an artificial language: The contribution of phonological markers to learning. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 76–95.Google Scholar
Bush, L., Hess, U., & Wolford, G. (1993). Transformations for within-subject designs: A Monte Carlo investigation. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 566–579.Google Scholar
Carroll, S. (1989). Second-language acquisition and the computational paradigm. Language Learning, 39, 535–594.Google Scholar
Carroll, S. (1995). The hidden dangers of computer modelling: Remarks on Sokolik and Smith's connectionist learning model of French gender. Second Language Research, 11, 193–205.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clark, H. (1973). The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy: A critique of language statistics in psychological research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12, 335–359.Google Scholar
Colé, P., & Segui, J. (1994). Grammatical incongruency and vocabulary types. Memory and Cognition, 22, 387–394.Google Scholar
Corbett, G. (1991). Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Corbett, G., & Fraser, N. (1993). Network morphology: A DATR account of Russian nominal inflection. Journal of Linguistics, 29, 113–142.Google Scholar
Ellis, N., & Schmidt, R. (1997). Morphology and longer distance dependencies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 145–171.Google Scholar
Forster, K. (1979). Levels of processing and the structure of the language processor. In Cooper, W. & Walker, E. (Eds.), Sentence processing (pp. 27–85). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Grosjean, F., Dommergues, J., Cornu, E., Guillelmon, D., & Besson, C. (1994). The gender-marking effect in spoken word recognition. Perception & Psychophysics, 56, 590–598.Google Scholar
Gurjanov, M., Lukatela, G., Lukatela, K., Savić, M., & Turvey, M. (1985). Grammatical priming of inflected nouns by the gender of possessive adjectives. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11, 692–701.Google Scholar
Gurjanov, M., Lukatela, G., Moskovljević, J., Savić, M., & Turvey, M. (1985). Grammatical priming of inflected nouns by inflected adjectives. Cognition, 19, 55–71.Google Scholar
Gvozdev, A. N. (1961). Voprosy izuchenija detskoy rechi. Moscow: Izdatelstvo Pedagogicheskikh Nauk.Google Scholar
Kempe, V., & MacWhinney, B. (1998). The acquisition of case marking by adult learners of Russian and German. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 543–588.Google Scholar
Kucera, H., & Monroe, G. (1968). A comparative quantitative phonology of Russian, Czech, and German. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Luce, R. (1959). Individual choice behavior. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Lukatela, G., Kostić, A., Todorović, D., Carello, C., & Turvey, M. (1987). Type and number of violations and the grammatical congruency effect in lexical decision. Psychological Research, 49, 37–43.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (1987a). Applying the competition model to bilingualism. Applied Psycholinguistics, 8, 315–327.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (1987b). The competition model. In MacWhinney, B. (Ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition (pp. 249–308). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (1989). Competition, and lexical categorization. In Corrigan, R., Eckman, F., & Noonan, M. (Eds.), Linguistic categorization (pp. 195–242). Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B., Leinbach, J., Taraban, R., & McDonald, J. (1989). Language learning: Cues or rules? Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 255–277.Google Scholar
Maratsos, M. (1988). The acquisition of formal word classes. In Levy, Y., Schlesinger, I., & Braine, M. (Eds.), Categories and processes in language acquisition (pp. 31–44). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
McClelland, J., & Rumelhart, D. (1988). Explorations in parallel distributed processing: A handbook of models, programs, and exercises. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
McDonald, J., & Heilenman, K. (1991). Determinants of cue strength in adult first and second language speakers of French. Applied Psycholinguistics, 12, 313–348.Google Scholar
Neidle, C. (1982). Case agreement in Russian. In Bresnan, J. (Ed.), The mental representation of grammatical relations (pp. 391–426). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Plaut, D., McClelland, J., Seidenberg, M., & Patterson, K. (1996). Understanding normal and impaired word reading: Computational principles in quasi-regular domains. Psychological Review, 103, 56–115.Google Scholar
Pulkina, I. (1978). A short Russian reference grammar. Moscow: Russian Language Publishers.Google Scholar
Rumelhart, D., Hinton, G., & Williams, R. (1986). Learning internal representations by error propagation. In Rumelhart, D., McClelland, J., & The PDP Research Group (Eds.), Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition (Vol. 1, pp. 318–362). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Schriefers, H. (1992). Lexical access in the production of noun phrases. Cognition, 45, 33–54.Google Scholar
Sokolik, M., & Smith, M. (1992). Assignment of gender to French nouns in primary and secondary language: A connectionist model. Second Language Research, 8, 39–58.Google Scholar
SPSS Inc. (1991). Statistical algorithms. Chicago: Author.Google Scholar
Taraban, R., McDonald, J., & MacWhinney, B. (1989). Category learning in a connectionist model: Learning to decline the German definite article. In Corrigan, R., Eckman, F., & Noonan, M. (Eds.), Linguistic categorization (pp. 163–194). Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Taraban, R., & Roark, B. (1996). Competition in language-based categories. Applied Psycholinguistics, 17, 125–148.Google Scholar
Tucker, G., Lambert, W., & Rigault, A. (1977). The French speaker's skill with grammatical gender: An example of rule-governed behavior. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Winer, B. (1962). Statistical principles in experimental design. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Zasorina, L. (Ed.). (1977). Chastotnyj slovar russkogo jazyka. Moscow: Russkij Jazyk Publishers.Google Scholar
Zubin, D., & Koepcke, K. (1986). Gender and folk taxonomy: The indexical relation between grammatical and lexical categorization. In Craig, C. (Ed.), Noun classes and categorization. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar