scholarly journals The role of case marking and word order in cross-linguistic structural priming in late L2 acquisition

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Merel Muylle ◽  
Bernolet Sarah ◽  
Robert Hartsuiker
Keyword(s):  
Word Order ◽  
Language Variation ◽  
Structural Priming ◽  
Artificial Language ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Learning Paradigm ◽  
Natural Languages ◽  
Case Marking

Several studies found cross-linguistic structural priming with various language combinations. Here, we investigated the role of two important domains of language variation: case marking and word order. We varied these features in an artificial language (AL) learning paradigm, using three different AL versions in a between-subjects design. Priming was assessed between Dutch (no case marking, SVO word order) and a) a baseline version with SVO word order, b) a case marking version, and c) a version with SOV word order. Similar within- language and cross-linguistic priming was found in all versions for transitive sentences, indicating that cross-linguistic structural priming was not hindered. In contrast, for ditransitive sentences we found similar within-language priming for all versions, but no cross-linguistic priming. The finding that cross-linguistic priming is possible between languages that vary in morphological marking or word order, is compatible with studies showing cross-linguistic priming between natural languages that differ on these dimensions.

scholarly journals The Role of Case Marking and Word Order in Cross‐Linguistic Structural Priming in Late L2 Acquisition

2020 ◽  
Vol 70 (S2) ◽  
pp. 194-220 ◽  
Author(s):  
Merel Muylle ◽  
Sarah Bernolet ◽  
Robert J. Hartsuiker
Keyword(s):  
Word Order ◽  
Structural Priming ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Case Marking

scholarly journals On the limits of shared syntactic representations: When word order variation blocks priming between an artificial language and Dutch

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Merel Muylle ◽  
Bernolet Sarah ◽  
Robert Hartsuiker
Keyword(s):  
Word Order ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
Native Language ◽  
Structural Priming ◽  
Artificial Language ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Word Order Variation ◽  
Order Variation ◽  
Early Phases ◽  
Phases Of Learning

Several studies used artificial language (AL) learning paradigms to investigate structural priming between languages in early phases of learning. The presence of such priming would indicate that syntactic representations are shared across these languages. Muylle, Bernolet, and Hartsuiker (2020) found similar priming between Dutch (SVO order) and an AL with either SVO or SOV order. However, it is unclear whether such sharing would occur if the AL allows both the same and different word order as the native language. Indeed, the presence of a (easy to share) similar structure might block the sharing of a less similar structure. Here, we report two experiments that each tested 48 native speakers of Dutch on an AL that allowed both SVO and SOV order in transitive and ditransitive sentences. We assessed both within- AL and AL-Dutch priming. We predicted a) priming of both structure and word order within the AL, and b) that the presence of SVO sentences in the AL would result in weaker priming to Dutch from SOV sentences than from SVO sentences. Indeed, cross-linguistic priming was significantly weaker in the SOV compared to the SVO conditions, in line with our predictions. Unexpectedly, in the absence of a condition with verb overlap between prime and target sentences, no priming was found in AL and Dutch target conditions without verb overlap (Experiment 1), but priming emerged when a verb overlap condition was added (Experiment 2). This finding suggests that lexical overlap conditions are crucial to establish abstract syntactic representations during early L2 acquisition.

UG or not UG, that is the question: a reply to Clahsen and Muysken

1987 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 56-75 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean duPlessis ◽  
Doreen Solin ◽  
Lisa Travis ◽  
Lydia White
Keyword(s):  
Adult Learners ◽  
Learning Strategies ◽  
Word Order ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Additional Data ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Natural Languages ◽  
German Word ◽  
Germanic Languages

In a recent paper, Clahsen and Muysken (1986) argue that adult second lan guage (L2) learners no longer have access to Universal Grammar (UG) and acquire the L2 by means of learning strategies and ad hoc rules. They use evidence from adult L2 acquisition of German word order to argue that the rules that adults use are not natural language rules. In this paper, we argue that this is not the case. We explain properties of Germanic word order in terms of three parameters (to do with head position, proper government and adjunc tion). We reanalyse Clahsen and Muysken's data in terms of these parameters and show that the stages that adult learners go through, the errors that they make and the rules that they adopt are perfectly consistent with a UG incor porating such parameters. We suggest that errors are the result of some of the parameters being set inappropriately for German. The settings chosen are nevertheless those of existing natural languages. We also discuss additional data, from our own research on the acquisition of German and Afrikaans, which support our analysis of adult L2 acquisition of Germanic languages.

The utilization of syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic cues in the assignment of subject role in Arabic

1993 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 299-317 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hassan A. Taman
Keyword(s):  
Word Order ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
Gender Agreement ◽  
Cue Validity ◽  
Case Marking ◽  
Processing Strategies ◽  
Highly Correlated ◽  
Subject Role ◽  
Similar Processing

AbstractThe role of four cues in the assignment of actor role in Arabic was studied. These cues included animacy, case marking, gender agreement, and word order. The cues were set-in-a competing/converging fashion following the framework of the Competition Model of Bates and MacWhinney (1981, 1982, 1987). Fifty-four sentences representing all possible permutations of the cues were presented to 100 native speakers of Arabic, who were asked to identify the actor in each sentence. Subjects relied mainly on gender agreement and case marking in the assignment of the actor role. The results suggested that cue validity is very highly correlated with cue strength. It was also found that cues do not exhibit an additive nature, and that cross-linguistic formal similarities do not warrant similar processing strategies. Order of nouns tended to represent a “latent strategy” to be utilized only when other relevant cues were not available.

Head-initial/head-final parameter in adult Chinese L2 acquisition of English

1985 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 93-117 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Flynn ◽  
I. Espinal
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Word Order ◽  
Empirical Support ◽  
Parameter Setting ◽  
Head Direction ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Complex Sentences ◽  
Subordinate Clauses ◽  
Japanese Speakers

In this study, we investigate the role of the head-initial/head-final parameter in adult second language (L2) acquisition of English. Sixty Chinese speaking adults were tested in their elicited production of complex sentences which involved pre-and postposed adverbial subordinate clauses both with and without pronoun anaphors. Results obtained in this study match those reported earlier for Japanese speakers learning English (Flynn, 1981; 1983a; 1983b; 1984; in press). Both Japanese and Chinese are head-final languages (Kuno, 1973; Huang, 1982). Findings are used to argue for the role of the head-initial/head-final parameter in adult L2 acquisition of pronoun anaphora. They are also used to argue for a model of grammar in which parameters associated with head-direction are differentiated from parameters associated with word order (Travis, 1983; 1984). Results also provide additional empirical support for the parameter setting model of L2 acquisition currently proposed by Flynn (1983a; 1983b, in press; forthcoming).

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

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-12
Author(s):  
Merel Muylle ◽  
Sarah Bernolet ◽  
Robert J. Hartsuiker
Keyword(s):  
Language Learning ◽  
Structural Priming ◽  
Artificial Language ◽  
Double Object ◽  
Frequency Effects ◽  
Artificial Language Learning ◽  
Prepositional Object ◽  
Biased Language ◽  
L1 And L2

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.

APTITUDE AS GRAMMATICAL SENSITIVITY AND THE INITIAL STAGES OF LEARNING JAPANESE AS A L2

2014 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 135-165 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bill VanPatten ◽  
Megan Smith
Keyword(s):  
Word Order ◽  
The Novel ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Language Aptitude ◽  
Modern Language ◽  
Case Marking ◽  
Basic Word ◽  
Grammatical Sensitivity ◽  
Embedded Clauses ◽  
Modern Language Aptitude Test

In this article, we challenge the notion that aptitude—operationalized as grammatical sensitivity as measured by the Words in Sentences section of the Modern Language Aptitude Test—is central to adult second language (L2) acquisition. We present the findings of a study on the acquisition of two properties of Japanese, head-final word order and case marking, by naïve learners of Japanese as a L2 who had no prior knowledge of this language or any other head-final, case-marking language. Participants underwent an input treatment in which they heard and saw basic subject-object-verb sentences in Japanese and were subsequently tested on these basic sentences and also on sentences to which they were not exposed during the treatment (i.e., polar questions and embedded clauses). Reading times on grammatical and ungrammatical sentences served as measures of underlying sensitivity to violations of grammatical word order for both the basic sentences and the novel sentences. Our results yielded three groups of learners: those who showed sensitivity to violations of basic word order, polar questions, and embedded clauses (parameter reset); those who showed sensitivity to violations of basic word order and polar questions only (partial parameter reset); and those who showed sensitivity to violations of basic word order only (no parameter reset). Because our measure of aptitude as grammatical sensitivity did not emerge as a factor distinguishing the three groups from one another, we argue that this component of aptitude is not a factor in whether learners are able to reset parameters. We also found that all participants, regardless of group, demonstrated sensitivity to case-marking violations, suggesting that aptitude as grammatical sensitivity plays no role in the acquisition of underlying features related to case or to the surface-level markings of case in Japanese.

scholarly journals Cross-Linguistic Trade-Offs and Causal Relationships Between Cues to Grammatical Subject and Object, and the Problem of Efficiency-Related Explanations

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Natalia Levshina
Keyword(s):  
Word Order ◽  
Language Evolution ◽  
Linguistic Variables ◽  
Case Marking ◽  
Grammatical Subject ◽  
Trade Offs ◽  
Subject And Object ◽  
Linguistic Behavior ◽  
Grammatical Roles

Cross-linguistic studies focus on inverse correlations (trade-offs) between linguistic variables that reflect different cues to linguistic meanings. For example, if a language has no case marking, it is likely to rely on word order as a cue for identification of grammatical roles. Such inverse correlations are interpreted as manifestations of language users’ tendency to use language efficiently. The present study argues that this interpretation is problematic. Linguistic variables, such as the presence of case, or flexibility of word order, are aggregate properties, which do not represent the use of linguistic cues in context directly. Still, such variables can be useful for circumscribing the potential role of communicative efficiency in language evolution, if we move from cross-linguistic trade-offs to multivariate causal networks. This idea is illustrated by a case study of linguistic variables related to four types of Subject and Object cues: case marking, rigid word order of Subject and Object, tight semantics and verb-medial order. The variables are obtained from online language corpora in thirty languages, annotated with the Universal Dependencies. The causal model suggests that the relationships between the variables can be explained predominantly by sociolinguistic factors, leaving little space for a potential impact of efficient linguistic behavior.

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

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Merel Muylle ◽  
Bernolet Sarah ◽  
Robert Hartsuiker
Keyword(s):  
Language Learning ◽  
Structural Priming ◽  
Artificial Language ◽  
Double Object ◽  
Frequency Effects ◽  
Artificial Language Learning ◽  
Prepositional Object ◽  
Biased Language ◽  
L1 And L2

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.

scholarly journals Communicative pressures shape language during communication (not learning): Evidence from casemarking in artificial languages

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenny Smith ◽  
Jennifer Culbertson
Keyword(s):  
Language Learning ◽  
Good Evidence ◽  
Artificial Language ◽  
World Knowledge ◽  
Communicative Interaction ◽  
Natural Languages ◽  
Case Marking ◽  
Artificial Language Learning ◽  
Efficient Communication ◽  
Object Marking

Natural languages are designed for efficient communication. A classic example is Differential Case Marking, when nouns are marked for their grammatical role only if this information cannot be derived from world knowledge (e.g. only atypical objects need to be linguistically marked as objects). Fedzechkina et al. (2012) present experimental evidence from an artificial language learning paradigm suggesting that biases in learning favour Differential Case Marking: learners exposed to a language with optional casemarking restructure the input, using casemarkers more in situations where marking would reduce ambiguity, despite the fact that they never use the artificial language in a communicative task where ambiguity matters. This is surprising given previous studies suggesting that biases in learning favour simplicity and are agnostic with respect to communicative function. We present 3 experiments investigating whether biases for communicatively-efficient Differential Case Marking exist in learning. Contrary to Fedzechkina et al. (2012), we find no evidence for such a bias in learning: participants’ use of case is impervious to the ambiguity of unmarked objects, and modulated by statistical properties of their input, observations which are inconsistent with their hypothesis and better explained by biases early in learning favouring iconicity in the form-meaning mapping, e.g. whereby atypical meanings are associated with atypical forms. However, we find good evidence that participants’ behaviour in actual communicative interaction are driven by efficient communication considerations: in interaction participants exhibited the expected Differential Object Marking pattern. This suggests that languages adapt to communicative efficiency constraints as a result of being used in communication, rather than due to biases in human learning favouring communicatively-efficient languages.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document