Lexically-specific syntactic restrictions in second-language speakers

IF 2.9 1区 心理学 Q1 LINGUISTICS Journal of memory and language Pub Date : 2023-11-28 DOI:10.1016/j.jml.2023.104470
Mariana Vega-Mendoza , Iva Ivanova , Janet F. McLean , Martin J. Pickering , Holly P. Branigan
{"title":"Lexically-specific syntactic restrictions in second-language speakers","authors":"Mariana Vega-Mendoza ,&nbsp;Iva Ivanova ,&nbsp;Janet F. McLean ,&nbsp;Martin J. Pickering ,&nbsp;Holly P. Branigan","doi":"10.1016/j.jml.2023.104470","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>In two structural priming experiments, we investigated the representations of lexically-specific syntactic restrictions of English verbs for highly proficient and immersed second language (L2) speakers of English. We considered the interplay of two possible mechanisms: generalization from the first language (L1) and statistical learning within the L2 (both of abstract structure and of lexically-specific information). In both experiments, L2 speakers with either Germanic or Romance languages as L1 were primed to produce dispreferred double-object structures involving non-alternating dative verbs. Priming occurred from ungrammatical double-object primes involving different non-alternating verbs (Experiment 1) and from grammatical primes involving alternating verbs (Experiment 2), supporting abstract statistical learning within the L2. However, we found no differences between L1-Germanic speakers (who have the double-object structure in their L1) and L1-Romance speakers (who do not), inconsistent with the prediction for between-group differences of the L1-generalization account. Additionally, L2 speakers in Experiment 2 showed a lexical boost: There was stronger priming after (dispreferred) non-alternating same-verb double-object primes than after (grammatical) alternating different-verb primes. Such lexically-driven persistence was also shown by L1 English speakers (Ivanova, Pickering, McLean, Costa, &amp; Branigan, 2012) and may underlie statistical learning of lexically-dependent structural regularities. We conclude that lexically-specific syntactic restrictions in highly proficient and immersed L2 speakers are shaped by statistical learning (both abstract and lexically-specific) within the L2, but not by generalization from the L1.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":16493,"journal":{"name":"Journal of memory and language","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749596X23000694/pdfft?md5=68cbe1c90d4cd5aa4b5afbc2cb46cbfb&pid=1-s2.0-S0749596X23000694-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of memory and language","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749596X23000694","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In two structural priming experiments, we investigated the representations of lexically-specific syntactic restrictions of English verbs for highly proficient and immersed second language (L2) speakers of English. We considered the interplay of two possible mechanisms: generalization from the first language (L1) and statistical learning within the L2 (both of abstract structure and of lexically-specific information). In both experiments, L2 speakers with either Germanic or Romance languages as L1 were primed to produce dispreferred double-object structures involving non-alternating dative verbs. Priming occurred from ungrammatical double-object primes involving different non-alternating verbs (Experiment 1) and from grammatical primes involving alternating verbs (Experiment 2), supporting abstract statistical learning within the L2. However, we found no differences between L1-Germanic speakers (who have the double-object structure in their L1) and L1-Romance speakers (who do not), inconsistent with the prediction for between-group differences of the L1-generalization account. Additionally, L2 speakers in Experiment 2 showed a lexical boost: There was stronger priming after (dispreferred) non-alternating same-verb double-object primes than after (grammatical) alternating different-verb primes. Such lexically-driven persistence was also shown by L1 English speakers (Ivanova, Pickering, McLean, Costa, & Branigan, 2012) and may underlie statistical learning of lexically-dependent structural regularities. We conclude that lexically-specific syntactic restrictions in highly proficient and immersed L2 speakers are shaped by statistical learning (both abstract and lexically-specific) within the L2, but not by generalization from the L1.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
第二语言使用者的词汇特定句法限制
在两个结构启动实验中,我们研究了英语高度熟练和沉浸式第二语言(L2)使用者对英语动词词汇特定句法限制的表征。我们考虑了两种可能的机制的相互作用:第一语言(L1)的泛化和第二语言(抽象结构和词汇特定信息)中的统计学习。在这两个实验中,以日耳曼语或罗曼语为母语的第二语言使用者被启动产生不受欢迎的双宾语结构,包括非交替动词。启动来自涉及不同非交替动词的非语法双宾语启动(实验1)和涉及交替动词的语法启动(实验2),支持第二语言的抽象统计学习。然而,我们发现L1-日耳曼语使用者(他们的L1语言中有双宾语结构)和L1-罗曼语使用者(他们的L1语言中没有双宾语结构)之间没有差异,这与L1-概括解释的组间差异预测不一致。此外,实验2中的二语说话者表现出词汇量的提升:在(不喜欢的)非交替的相同动词双宾语启动后,他们的启动比(语法的)交替的不同动词启动后的启动更强。这种词汇驱动的坚持在母语为英语的人身上也有体现(Ivanova, Pickering, McLean, Costa, &Branigan, 2012),并且可能是词汇依赖结构规律的统计学习的基础。我们的结论是,高度精通和沉浸式二语使用者的词汇特异性句法限制是由二语中的统计学习(抽象和词汇特异性)形成的,而不是由母语的概括形成的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.70
自引率
14.00%
发文量
49
审稿时长
12.7 weeks
期刊介绍: Articles in the Journal of Memory and Language contribute to the formulation of scientific issues and theories in the areas of memory, language comprehension and production, and cognitive processes. Special emphasis is given to research articles that provide new theoretical insights based on a carefully laid empirical foundation. The journal generally favors articles that provide multiple experiments. In addition, significant theoretical papers without new experimental findings may be published. The Journal of Memory and Language is a valuable tool for cognitive scientists, including psychologists, linguists, and others interested in memory and learning, language, reading, and speech. Research Areas include: • Topics that illuminate aspects of memory or language processing • Linguistics • Neuropsychology.
期刊最新文献
Exogenous spatial attention selects associated novel bindings in working memory Retrieval-induced semantic interference Editorial Board Bidialectal language representation and processing: Evidence from Norwegian ERPs Pragmatic inferencing influences the referential status of all potential referents in word learning
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1