Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T00:37:04.529Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of entrenchment and preemption in second language learners’ acceptance of English denominal verbs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 October 2017

XIAOPENG ZHANG  and
CHUNPING MAI
XIAOPENG ZHANG*
Affiliation:
North Minzu University
CHUNPING MAI
Affiliation:
North Minzu University
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Xiaopeng Zhang, School of Foreign Languages and Cultures, North Minzu University, 204 Wenchang North Street, Xixia District, Yinchuan 750021, People's Republic ofChina. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Entrenchment and preemption are theorized to constrain the novel use of well-attested constructions. This study tested the effects of these two mechanisms in second language (L2) learners’ acceptance of English denominal verbs (DVs). Two groups of Chinese English-L2 speakers (fourth-year English major students and teachers of English) judged the acceptability of English locatum (e.g., Lucy watered the rose) and location (e.g., Lisa boxed the apples) DVs. Results based on both corpus and introspective frequencies show that the fourth-year learners’ judgments on the acceptability of all DVs were significantly negatively influenced by the frequency of nominal forms of the DVs, suggesting that entrenchment constrains L2 learners from accepting English DVs. Results based on introspective frequency demonstrate that the teachers’ judgments on the acceptability of all DVs were significantly negatively affected by the frequency of alternative verbs, demonstrating that preemption has a role to play in restricting L2 learners’ acceptance of English DVs. Moreover, the obtained DV frequency based on both corpus and learners’ introspection is a significant factor that helps all the participants’ acceptance of the English DVs, suggesting that the more frequently a DV is used, the more likely L2 learners are to judge it as acceptable.

Keywords

Chinese speakersEnglish denominal verbsentrenchmentpreemptionsecond language development
Type
Original Article
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 39 , Issue 2 , March 2018 , pp. 413 - 436
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

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

Alderson, J. C. (2007). Judging the frequency of English words. Applied Linguistics, 28, 383–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ambridge, B. (2013). How do children restrict their linguistic generalizations? An (un-)grammaticality judgment study. Cognitive Science, 37, 508–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ambridge, B., Bidgood, A., Twomey, E., Pine, J. M., Rowland, C. F. & Freudenthal, D. (2015). Preemption versus entrenchment: Towards a construction-general solution to the problem of the retreat from verb argument structure overgeneralization. PLOS ONE, 10, e0123723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ambridge, B., & Blything, R. P. (2016). A connectionist model of the retreat from verb argument structure overgeneralization. Journal of Child Language, 43, 1245–1276.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ambridge, B., & Brandt, S. (2013). Lisa filled water into the cup: The roles of entrenchment, preemption and verb semantics in German speakers’ acquisition of English locatives. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 61, 245–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ambridge, B., Pine, J. M., & Rowland, C. F. (2011). Children use verb semantics to retreat from overgeneralization errors: A novel verb grammaticality judgment study. Cognitive Linguistics, 22, 303–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ambridge, B., Pine, J. M., & Rowland, C. F. (2012). Semantics versus statistics in the retreat from locative overgeneralization errors. Cognition, 123, 260–279.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ambridge, B., Pine, J. M., Rowland, C. F., Freudenthal, D., & Chang, F. (2014). Avoiding dative overgeneralization errors: Semantics, statistics or both? Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29, 218–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ambridge, B., Pine, J. M., Rowland, C. F., Jones, R. L., & Clark, V. (2009). A semantics-based approach to the “no negative evidence” problem. Cognitive Science, 33, 1301–1316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ambridge, B., Pine, J. M., Rowland, C. F., & Young, C. R. (2008). The effect of verb semantic class and verb frequency (entrenchment) on children's and adults’ graded judgments of argument-structure overgeneralization errors. Cognition, 106, 87–129.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Balcom, P. (1998). These constructions don't acquire easily: Middle constructions and multicompetence. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2, 5–20.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blumenthal-Dramé, A. (2012). Entrenchment in usage-based theories: What corpus data do and do not reveal about the mind. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blything, R. P., Ambridge, B., & Lieven, E. V. M (2014). Children use statistics and semantics in the retreat from overgeneralization. PLOS ONE, 9, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bowerman, M. (1988). The “no negative evidence” problem: How do children avoid constructing an overly general grammar? In Hawkins, J. A. (Ed.), Explaining language universals (pp. 73–101). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Boyd, J. K., & Goldberg, A. E. (2011). Learning what not to say: The role of statistical preemption and categorization in a-adjective production. Language, 87, 55–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braine, M. D. S., & Brooks, P. J. (1995). Verb argument structure and the problem of avoiding an overgeneral grammar. In Tomasello, M. & Merriman, W. E. (Eds.), Beyond names for things: Young children's acquisition of verbs (pp. 352–376). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Brooks, P. J., Tomasello, M., Dodson, K., & Lewis, L. B. (1999). Young children's overgeneralizations with fixed transitivity verbs. Child Development, 70, 1325–1337.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brooks, P. J., & Zizak, O. (2002). Does preemption help children learn verb transitivity? Journal of Child Language, 29, 759–781.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clark, E. V., & Clark, H. H. (1979). When nouns surface as verbs. Language, 55, 767–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
David, B. (1991). Conditioning diagnostics: Collinearity and weak data in regression. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (2013). Age effects in second language learning: Stepping stones toward better understanding. Language Learning, 63, 52–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowman, M. (2000). Addressing the learnability of verb subcategorizations with Bayesian inference. In Gleitman, L. & Joshi, A. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 22nd annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 107–112). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 143–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2009). Constructing a second language: Analyses and computational simulations of the emergence of linguistic constructions from usage. Language Learning, 59, 90–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C., O'Donnell, M. B., & Römer, U. (2014). Second language verb-argument constructions are sensitive to form, function, frequency, contingency, and prototypicality. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 4, 405–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & Sagarra, N. (2010). The bounds of adult language acquisition: Blocking and learned attention. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 553–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & Sagarra, N. (2011). Learned attention in adult language acquisition: A replication and generalization study and meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33, 589–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S., & Selinker, L. (2008). Second language acquisition: An introductory course. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2011). Corpus evidence of the viability of statistical preemption. Cognitive Linguistics, 22, 131–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gong, R. (2007). Influence of cognitive factors on the representation of L2 mental lexicon. Foreign Language World, 1, 39–46.Google Scholar
Hebb, D. O. (1949). The organization of behavior. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Kording, K. P., & Wolpert, D. M. (2011). Bayesian statistics and utility functions in sensorimotor control. In Doy, K., Ishii, S., Pouget, A., & Rao, R. P. N. (Eds.), Bayesian brain: Probabilistic approaches to neural coding (pp. 299–316). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites (Vol. 1). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (1987). The competition model. In MacWhinney, B. & Bates, E. (Eds.), Mechanisms of language acquisition (pp. 249–308). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Matthews, D., Lieven, E., Theakston, A., & Tomasello, M. (2005). The role of frequency in the acquisition of English word order. Cognitive Development, 20, 121–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meara, P. (1983). Word associations in a foreign language: A report on the Birkbeck Vocabulary Project. Nottingham Linguistic Circular, 11, 29–37.Google Scholar
Pajak, B. (2012). Inductive inference in non-native speech processing and learning (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego).Google Scholar
Pajak, B., Fine, A. B., Kleinschmidt, D. F., & Jaeger, T. F. (2016), Learning additional languages as hierarchical probabilistic inference: Insights from first language processing. Language Learning, 66, 900–944.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pinker, S. (1979). Formal models of language learning. Cognition, 7, 217–282.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Core Team, R. (2015). R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Computer software]. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
Robenalt, C., & Goldberg, A. E. (2015). Judgment and frequency evidence for statistical preemption: It is relatively better to vanish than to disappear a rabbit, but a lifeguard can equally well backstroke or swim children to shore. Cognitive Linguistics, 26, 467–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robenalt, C., & Goldberg, A. E. (2016). Nonnative speakers do not take competing alternative expressions into account the way native speakers do. Language Learning, 66, 66–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutherford, W. E. (1989). Preemption and the learning of L2 grammars. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 441–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sagarra, N., & Ellis, N. C. (2013). From seeing adverbs to seeing morphology: Language experience and adult acquisition of L2 tense. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 261–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, N. (2014). Researching vocabulary: A vocabulary research manual. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. D., & Sprouse, R. (1996). L2 cognitive states and the full transfer/full access model. Second Language Research, 12, 40–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10, 209–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shanks, D. R. (1995). The psychology of associative learning. New York: Cambridge University Press CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shibatani, M., & Pardeshi, P. (2002). The causative continuum. Kobe Papers in Linguistics, 3, 136–177.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A. (2011). Constructional preemption by contextual mismatch: A corpus-linguistic investigation. Cognitive Linguistics, 22, 107–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sun, Z. (2012). A corpus-based contrastive study on the different usage of denominal verbs between ENL speakers and Chinese EFL learners (Master's thesis, Donghua University).Google Scholar
Theakston, A. L. (2004). The role of entrenchment in children's and adults’ performance on grammaticality judgment tasks. Cognitive Development, 19, 15–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M., & Brooks, P. (1999). Early syntactic development: A construction grammar approach. In Barrett, M. (Ed.), The development of language (pp. 161–190). London: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Wang, M., & Koda, K. (2005), Commonalities and differences in word identification skills among learners of English as a second language. Language Learning, 55, 71–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wonnacott, E. (2011). Balancing generalization and lexical conservatism: An artificial language study with child learners. Journal of Memory & Language, 65, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wonnacott, E., Newport, E. L., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2008). Acquiring and processing verb argument structure: Distributional learning in a miniature language. Cognitive Psychology, 56, 165–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, H., & Weir, C. (1998). Validation study of the National College English Test. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.Google Scholar
Zhang, X. (2014). The acquisition of English count-mass distinctions by Chinese EFL learners: The perspective shifting hypothesis (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Guangdong University of Foreign Studies).Google Scholar
Zhang, X. (2017). Second language users’ restriction of linguistic generalization errors: The case of English un-prefixation development. Language Learning, 67, 569–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar