Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T18:34:14.755Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The role of L1 and L2 frequency in cross-linguistic structural priming: An artificial language learning study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2021

Merel Muylle*
Affiliation:
Department of Experimental Psychology, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
Sarah Bernolet
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium
Robert J. Hartsuiker
Affiliation:
Department of Experimental Psychology, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
*
Address for correspondence: Merel Muylle Ghent University, Department of Experimental Psychology, Henri Dunantlaan 2, B-9000Gent. E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

We investigated L1 and L2 frequency effects in the sharing of syntax across languages (reflected in cross-linguistic structural priming) using an artificial language (AL) paradigm. Ninety-six Dutch speakers learned an AL with either a prepositional-object (PO) dative bias (PO datives appeared three times as often as double-object [DO] datives) or a DO dative bias (DOs appeared three times as often as POs). Priming was assessed from the AL to Dutch (a strongly PO-biased language). There was weak immediate priming for DOs, but not for POs in both bias conditions. This suggests that L1, but not AL, frequency influenced immediate priming. Furthermore, the DO bias group produced 10% more DOs in Dutch than the PO bias group, showing that cumulative priming was influenced by AL frequency. We discuss the different effects of L1 and AL frequency on cross-linguistic structural priming in terms of lexicalist and implicit learning accounts.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
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.)

References

Audacity. (2018). Audacity ® | Free, open source, cross-platform audio software for multi-track recording and editing. https://doi.org/ISSN Google Scholar
Barr, DJ, Levy, R, Scheepers, C and Tily, HJ (2013) Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language 68(3), 255278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bates, D, Kliegl, R, Vasishth, S and Baayen, RH (2018) Parsimonious mixed models. ArXiv E-Print, under Revision. https://doi.org/arXiv:1506.04967Google Scholar
Bates, D, Mächler, M, Bolker, B and Walker, S (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67(1), 148. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernolet, S, Hartsuiker, RJ and Pickering, MJ (2013) From language-specific to shared syntactic representations: The influence of second language proficiency on syntactic sharing in bilinguals. Cognition 127(3), 287306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.02.005Google ScholarPubMed
Bock, K (1986) Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology 18(3), 355387. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(86)90004-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cai, ZG, Pickering, MJ, Yan, H and Branigan, HP (2011) Lexical and syntactic representations in closely related languages: Evidence from Cantonese–Mandarin bilinguals. Journal of Memory and Language 65(4), 431445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2011.05.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, F, Dell, GS and Bock, K (2006) Becoming syntactic. Psychological Review 113(2), 234272. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.113.2.234CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chang, F, Janciauskas, M and Fitz, H (2012) Language adaptation and learning: Getting explicit about implicit learning. Language and Linguistics Compass 6(5), 259278. https://doi.org/10.1002/lnc3.337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cleland, AA and Pickering, MJ (2003) The use of lexical and syntactic information in language production: Evidence from the priming of noun-phrase structure. Journal of Memory and Language. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-596X(03)00060-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colleman, T and Bernolet, S (2012) Alternation biases in corpora vs. picture description experiments: DO-biased and PD-biased verbs in the Dutch dative alternation. In Divjak, D & Gries, ST (Eds.), Frequency Effects in Language Representation (pp. 87126). https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110274073.87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Rosario-Martinez, H (2013) phia: Post-Hoc Interaction Analysis. Available: http://CRAN.R-Project.Org/Package5phia.Google Scholar
Ellis, NC (2002) Frequency effects in language processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24(2), 143188. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263102002024Google Scholar
Ferreira, VS and Bock, K (2006) The functions of structural priming. Language and Cognitive Processes 21(7–8), 10111029. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960600824609CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fine, AB, Jaeger, TF, Farmer, TA and Qian, T (2013) Rapid expectation adaptation during syntactic comprehension. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0077661CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Flett, S, Branigan, HP and Pickering, MJ (2013) Are non-native structural preferences affected by native language preferences? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 16(4), 751760. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728912000594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartsuiker, RJ, Beerts, S, Loncke, M, Desmet, T and Bernolet, S (2016) Cross-linguistic structural priming in multilinguals: Further evidence for shared syntax. Journal of Memory and Language 90, 1430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2016.03.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartsuiker, RJ and Bernolet, S (2017) The development of shared syntax in second language learning. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 20(2), 219234. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728915000164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartsuiker, RJ, Bernolet, S, Schoonbaert, S, Speybroeck, S and Vanderelst, D (2008) Syntactic priming persists while the lexical boost decays: Evidence from written and spoken dialogue. Journal of Memory and Language 58(2), 214238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.07.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartsuiker, RJ and Pickering, MJ (2008) Language integration in bilingual sentence production. Acta Psychologica 128(3), 479489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2007.08.005CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hartsuiker, RJ, Pickering, MJ and Veltkamp, E (2004) Is syntax separate or shared between languages? Psychological Science 15(6), 409414. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00693.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hartsuiker, RJ and Westenberg, C (2000) Word order priming in written and spoken sentence production. Cognition 75(2), B27B39. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00080-3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jackson, CN and Ruf, HT (2017) The priming of word order in second language German. Applied Psycholinguistics 38(2), 315345. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716416000205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaeger, TF and Snider, NE (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(1), 5783. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.10.013CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaan, E and Chun, E (2018) Priming and adaptation in native speakers and second-language learners. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 21(2), 228242. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728916001231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kantola, L and van Gompel, RPG (2011) Between- and within-language priming is the same: Evidence for shared bilingual syntactic representations. Memory & Cognition 39(2), 276290. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-010-0016-5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaschak, MP, Kutta, TJ and Jones, JL (2011) Structural priming as implicit learning: Cumulative priming effects and individual differences. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-011-0157-yCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaschak, MP, Loney, RA and Borreggine, KL (2006) Recent experience affects the strength of structural priming. Cognition 99(3), B73B82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2005.07.002CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kim, Y and McDonough, K (2008) Learners’ production of passives during syntactic priming activities. Applied Linguistics 29(1), 149154. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amn004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lemhöfer, K and Broersma, M (2012) Introducing LexTALE: A quick and valid Lexical Test for Advanced Learners of English. Behavior Research Methods 44(2), 325343. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0146-0CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Loebell, H and Bock, K (2003) Structural priming across languages. Linguistics 41(5), 791824. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2003.026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacKay, DG (1987) Asymmetries in the relationship between speech perception and production. In Heuer, H and Sanders, AF (eds), Perspectives on perception and action. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 301333.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B (2008) A unified model. In Robinson, P and Ellis, NC (eds), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. New York: Routledge, pp. 341371.Google Scholar
Mahowald, K, James, A, Futrell, R and Gibson, E (2016) A meta-analysis of syntactic priming in language production. Journal of Memory and Language 91, 527. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2016.03.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonough, K (2006) Interaction and syntactic priming: English L2 speakers’ production of dative constructions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28(02). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263106060098CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montero-Melis, G and Jaeger, TF (2019) Changing expectations mediate adaptation in L2 production. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 116. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728919000506Google Scholar
Muylle, M, Bernolet, S and Hartsuiker, RJ (2020) The role of case marking and word order in cross-linguistic structural priming in late L2 acquisition. Language Learning 70(S2), 194220. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muylle, M, Bernolet, S and Hartsuiker, RJ (2021) The development of shared syntactic representations in late L2-learners: Evidence from structural priming in an artificial language. Journal of Memory and Language 119, 104233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2021.104233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muylle, M, Bernolet, S and Hartsuiker, RJ (in press) On the limits of shared syntactic representations: When word order variation blocks priming between an artificial language and Dutch. Accepted for publication in Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muylle, M, Wegner, TGG, Bernolet, S and Hartsuiker, RJ (2020) English norming data for 423 short animated action movie clips. Acta Psychologica 202, 102957. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2019.102957CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nicoladis, E (2006) Cross-linguistic transfer in adjective–noun strings by preschool bilingual children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 9(1), 1532. https://doi.org/10.1017/S136672890500235XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pajak, B, Fine, AB, Kleinschmidt, DF and Jaeger, TF (2016) Learning additional languages as hierarchical probabilistic inference: Insights from first language processing. Language Learning 66(4), 900944. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12168CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peirce, J, Gray, JR, Simpson, S, MacAskill, M, Höchenberger, R, Sogo, H, … Lindeløv, JK (2019) PsychoPy2: Experiments in behavior made easy. Behavior Research Methods. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-01193-yCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pickering, MJ and Branigan, HP (1998) The Representation of Verbs: Evidence from Syntactic Priming in Language Production. Journal of Memory and Language 39(4), 633651. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1998.2592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Development Core Team. (2017) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria. https://doi.org/R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL http://www.R-project.org.Google Scholar
Reitter, D, Keller, F and Moore, JD (2011) A computational cognitive model of syntactic priming. Cognitive Science 35(4), 587637. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01165.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Runnqvist, E, Gollan, TH, Costa, A and Ferreira, VS (2013) A disadvantage in bilingual sentence production modulated by syntactic frequency and similarity across languages. Cognition 129(2), 256263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.07.008CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scheepers, C (2003) Syntactic priming of relative clause attachments: persistence of structural configuration in sentence production. Cognition 89(3), 179205. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(03)00119-7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schoonbaert, S, Hartsuiker, RJ and Pickering, MJ. (2007) The representation of lexical and syntactic information in bilinguals: Evidence from syntactic priming. Journal of Memory and Language 56(2), 153171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.10.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singmann, H, Bolker, B, Westfall, J, Aust, F, Højsgaard, S, Fox, J, … Love, J (2016) afex: analysis of factorial experiments. R package version 0.16-1. R Package Version 0.16-1.Google Scholar
Singmann, H and Kellen, D (2019) An introduction to mixed models for experimental psychology. In Spieler, D and Schumacher, E (eds), New Methods in Cognitive Psychology pp. 431. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429318405-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Gompel, RPG and Arai, M (2018) Structural priming in bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 21(3), 448455. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728917000542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, K, Christiansen, MH, Indefrey, P and Hagoort, P (2019) Primed from the start: Syntactic priming during the first days of language learning. Language Learning 69(1), 198221. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wechsler, D (2008) Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale - Fourth edition administration and scoring manual. San Antonio, TX: Pearson.Google Scholar
Wonnacott, E, Newport, EL and Tanenhaus, MK (2008) Acquiring and processing verb argument structure: Distributional learning in a miniature language. Cognitive Psychology 56(3), 165209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2007.04.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar