Pub Date : 2023-02-08DOI: 10.1080/10489223.2022.2159828
J. Nel, F. Southwood, M. White
{"title":"The Comprehension and Production of Passive Constructions by Afrikaans and isiXhosa First Language Grade 1 Children","authors":"J. Nel, F. Southwood, M. White","doi":"10.1080/10489223.2022.2159828","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10489223.2022.2159828","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46920,"journal":{"name":"Language Acquisition","volume":"6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2023-02-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"60117420","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-01Epub Date: 2022-05-31DOI: 10.1080/10489223.2022.2069026
Carolyn Quam, Daniel Swingley
Children are adept at learning their language's speech-sound categories, but just how these categories function in their developing lexicon has not been mapped out in detail. Here, we addressed whether, in a language-guided looking procedure, two-year-olds would respond to a mispronunciation of the voicing of the initial consonant of a newly learned word. First, to provide a baseline of mature native-speaker performance, adults were taught a new word under training conditions of low prosodic variability. In a second experiment, 24- and 30-month-olds were taught a new word under training conditions of high or low prosodic variability. Children and adults showed evidence of learning the taught word. Adults' target looking was reduced when the novel word was realized at test with a change in the voicing of the initial consonant, but children did not show any such decrement in target fixation. For both children and adults, most learners did not treat the phonologically distinct variant as a different word. Acoustic-phonetic variability during teaching did not have consistent effects. Thus, under conditions of intensive short-term training, 24- and 30-month-olds did not differentiate a newly learned word from a variant differing only in consonant voicing. High task complexity during training could explain why mispronunciation detection was weaker here than in some prior studies.
{"title":"A Protracted Developmental Trajectory for English-Learning Children's Detection of Consonant Mispronunciations in Newly Learned Words.","authors":"Carolyn Quam, Daniel Swingley","doi":"10.1080/10489223.2022.2069026","DOIUrl":"10.1080/10489223.2022.2069026","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Children are adept at learning their language's speech-sound categories, but just how these categories function in their developing lexicon has not been mapped out in detail. Here, we addressed whether, in a language-guided looking procedure, two-year-olds would respond to a mispronunciation of the voicing of the initial consonant of a newly learned word. First, to provide a baseline of mature native-speaker performance, adults were taught a new word under training conditions of low prosodic variability. In a second experiment, 24- and 30-month-olds were taught a new word under training conditions of high or low prosodic variability. Children and adults showed evidence of learning the taught word. Adults' target looking was reduced when the novel word was realized at test with a change in the voicing of the initial consonant, but children did not show any such decrement in target fixation. For both children and adults, most learners did not treat the phonologically distinct variant as a different word. Acoustic-phonetic variability during teaching did not have consistent effects. Thus, under conditions of intensive short-term training, 24- and 30-month-olds did not differentiate a newly learned word from a variant differing only in consonant voicing. High task complexity during training could explain why mispronunciation detection was weaker here than in some prior studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":46920,"journal":{"name":"Language Acquisition","volume":"30 3-4","pages":"256-276"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10292720/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9781787","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-01Epub Date: 2022-07-04DOI: 10.1080/10489223.2022.2054342
Hadar Karmazyn-Raz, Linda B Smith
The data for early object name learning is often conceptualized as a problem of mapping heard names to referents. However, infants do not hear object names as discrete events but rather in extended interactions organized around goal-directed actions on objects. The present study examined the statistical structure of the nonlinguistic events that surround parent naming of objects. Parents and 12-month -old infants were left alone in a room for 10 minutes with 32 objects available for exploration. Parent and infant handling of objects and parent naming of objects were coded. The four measured statistics were from measures used in the study of coherent discourse: (1) a frequency distribution in which actions were frequently directed to a few objects and more rarely to other objects; (2) repeated returns to the high-frequency objects over the 10-minute play period; (3) clustered repetitions, continuity, of actions on objects; and (4) structured networks of transitions among objects in play that connected all the played-with objects. Parent naming was infrequent but related to the statistics of object-directed actions. The implications of the discourse-like stream of actions are discussed in terms of learning mechanisms that could support rapid learning of object names from relatively few name-object co-occurrences.
{"title":"Discourse with Few Words: Coherence Statistics, Parent-Infant Actions on Objects, and Object Names.","authors":"Hadar Karmazyn-Raz, Linda B Smith","doi":"10.1080/10489223.2022.2054342","DOIUrl":"10.1080/10489223.2022.2054342","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The data for early object name learning is often conceptualized as a problem of mapping heard names to referents. However, infants do not hear object names as discrete events but rather in extended interactions organized around goal-directed actions on objects. The present study examined the statistical structure of the <i>nonlinguistic</i> events that surround parent naming of objects. Parents and 12-month -old infants were left alone in a room for 10 minutes with 32 objects available for exploration. Parent and infant handling of objects and parent naming of objects were coded. The four measured statistics were from measures used in the study of coherent discourse: (1) a frequency distribution in which actions were frequently directed to a few objects and more rarely to other objects; (2) repeated returns to the high-frequency objects over the 10-minute play period; (3) clustered repetitions, continuity, of actions on objects; and (4) structured networks of transitions among objects in play that connected all the played-with objects. Parent naming was infrequent but related to the statistics of object-directed actions. The implications of the discourse-like stream of actions are discussed in terms of learning mechanisms that could support rapid learning of object names from relatively few name-object co-occurrences.</p>","PeriodicalId":46920,"journal":{"name":"Language Acquisition","volume":"30 3-4","pages":"211-229"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10513098/pdf/nihms-1807165.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41171288","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-01DOI: 10.1080/10489223.2023.2216689
J. Trueswell
Two central questions addressed in psycholinguistics pertain to acquisition and process. First, how do children, exposed to a relatively small sample of language use in context, come to acquire a complete linguistic system that can express an almost limitless number of ideas? Second, how do adults access this acquired linguistic knowledge in such an expert manner that they achieve interpretation in real time as the signal unfolds, typically making distinctions on a millisecond timescale? Traditionally these two questions have been addressed separately, with the field taking a divide and conquer approach, often with great success. However, over the past three decades, the distinction between these questions, and their artificial divide in the discipline, have been blurred. Children as young as 24 months have been observed to interpret speech in real time, deploying their albeit incomplete linguistic knowledge almost as quickly as their adult expert counterparts (e.g., de Carvalho et al. 2016; Choi & Trueswell 2010, Lidz et al. 2017, Trueswell & Gleitman 2007). Likewise, adults have been observed to be highly adaptive, learning new patterns of speech, new terms, and new syntax from brief exposures (e.g., Caplan et al. 2021, Fine & Jaeger 2013, Norris et al. 2003, Samuel & Kraljic 2009, Wonnacott et al. 2008). In addition, developmental differences have begun to be uncovered in both language processing (e.g., children’s failure to revise real-time interpretations; Atkinson et al. 2018, Trueswell et al. 1999, Huang & Hollister 2019, Woodard et al. 2016, Weighall 2008) and in learning (e.g., of statistical regularities and rules; Hudson Kam & Newport 2005, Hudson Kam & Chang 2009, Newport 2020). This bridging territory, between processing and acquisition, is fertile ground not only for new research but for new research questions; one must ask how various processing and learning observations of the last three decades coalesce into a more unified theory of language use over the lifetime, and how language learning at any age is shaped by processing considerations. For example, what role does real-time predictive processing play in the acquisition of vocabulary and syntax? Are learning procedures that are designed to facilitate processing the same or different from those designed to acquire linguistic knowledge more generally? This issue of Language Acquisition is the product of a special theme of the 34th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, entitled Language Acquisition and Language Processing: Finding New Connections. That session, and this volume, aimed to bring together researchers investigating the mechanisms of language acquisition and process, seeking further cross-pollination with adult psycholinguistic research. To be clear, it is not the case that the divide and conquer approach prevalent in the subfields of language acquisition and process is ready to be abandoned completely. However, dialogue between these subfields is increas
心理语言学的两个核心问题涉及习得和过程。首先，孩子们是如何在语境中接触到一个相对较小的语言使用样本，从而获得一个可以表达几乎无限想法的完整语言系统的?其次，成年人如何以如此专业的方式获取这些习得的语言知识，从而在信号展开时实现实时解释，通常在毫秒的时间尺度上做出区分?传统上，这两个问题是分开解决的，该领域采取分而治之的方法，往往取得了巨大的成功。然而，在过去的三十年里，这些问题之间的区别，以及它们在学科中人为划分的区别，已经变得模糊了。据观察，24个月大的孩子就能实时解释言语，他们运用自己不完整的语言知识的速度几乎与成年专家一样快(例如，de Carvalho等人，2016;Choi & Trueswell 2010, Lidz et al. 2017, Trueswell & Gleitman 2007)。同样，成年人也被观察到具有高度的适应性，可以从简短的接触中学习新的语言模式、新的术语和新的语法(例如，Caplan等人，2021年;Fine & Jaeger, 2013年;Norris等人，2003年;Samuel & Kraljic, 2009年;Wonnacott等人，2008年)。此外，在语言处理方面的发展差异也开始被发现(例如，儿童无法修改实时口译;Atkinson et al. 2018, Trueswell et al. 1999, Huang & Hollister 2019, Woodard et al. 2016, Weighall 2008)和学习(例如，统计规律和规则;Hudson Kam & Newport 2005, Hudson Kam & Chang 2009, Newport 2020)。这个介于加工和获取之间的桥梁领域，不仅是新研究的沃土，也是新研究问题的沃土;人们必须要问，过去三十年的各种加工和学习观察是如何整合成一个更统一的终身语言使用理论的，以及任何年龄的语言学习是如何被加工考虑所塑造的。例如，实时预测处理在词汇和语法习得中扮演什么角色?为促进语言处理而设计的学习程序与为获得更普遍的语言知识而设计的学习程序是相同的还是不同的?这期《语言习得》是第34届纽约市立大学人类句子处理年会的一个特别主题的产物，题为“语言习得和语言处理:寻找新的联系”。该会议和本卷旨在汇集研究语言习得和过程机制的研究人员，寻求与成人心理语言学研究的进一步交叉授粉。需要明确的是，在语言习得和语言过程的子领域中流行的分而治之的方法并不是完全被抛弃的。然而，这些子领域之间的对话正在增加，以至于一个重要的理论统一即将出现。通过汇集杰出的习得和加工研究人员，我们可以开始更好地理解语言输入的实时处理(以及周围的参照世界)是如何与习得联系在一起的，以及习得过程本身是如何整合到语言加工理论中的。以下是本卷中出现的文章摘要，所有这些文章都与这些问题有关。正如读者将看到的，有一些新的主题与之相关
{"title":"Language acquisition and language processing: Finding new connections","authors":"J. Trueswell","doi":"10.1080/10489223.2023.2216689","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10489223.2023.2216689","url":null,"abstract":"Two central questions addressed in psycholinguistics pertain to acquisition and process. First, how do children, exposed to a relatively small sample of language use in context, come to acquire a complete linguistic system that can express an almost limitless number of ideas? Second, how do adults access this acquired linguistic knowledge in such an expert manner that they achieve interpretation in real time as the signal unfolds, typically making distinctions on a millisecond timescale? Traditionally these two questions have been addressed separately, with the field taking a divide and conquer approach, often with great success. However, over the past three decades, the distinction between these questions, and their artificial divide in the discipline, have been blurred. Children as young as 24 months have been observed to interpret speech in real time, deploying their albeit incomplete linguistic knowledge almost as quickly as their adult expert counterparts (e.g., de Carvalho et al. 2016; Choi & Trueswell 2010, Lidz et al. 2017, Trueswell & Gleitman 2007). Likewise, adults have been observed to be highly adaptive, learning new patterns of speech, new terms, and new syntax from brief exposures (e.g., Caplan et al. 2021, Fine & Jaeger 2013, Norris et al. 2003, Samuel & Kraljic 2009, Wonnacott et al. 2008). In addition, developmental differences have begun to be uncovered in both language processing (e.g., children’s failure to revise real-time interpretations; Atkinson et al. 2018, Trueswell et al. 1999, Huang & Hollister 2019, Woodard et al. 2016, Weighall 2008) and in learning (e.g., of statistical regularities and rules; Hudson Kam & Newport 2005, Hudson Kam & Chang 2009, Newport 2020). This bridging territory, between processing and acquisition, is fertile ground not only for new research but for new research questions; one must ask how various processing and learning observations of the last three decades coalesce into a more unified theory of language use over the lifetime, and how language learning at any age is shaped by processing considerations. For example, what role does real-time predictive processing play in the acquisition of vocabulary and syntax? Are learning procedures that are designed to facilitate processing the same or different from those designed to acquire linguistic knowledge more generally? This issue of Language Acquisition is the product of a special theme of the 34th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, entitled Language Acquisition and Language Processing: Finding New Connections. That session, and this volume, aimed to bring together researchers investigating the mechanisms of language acquisition and process, seeking further cross-pollination with adult psycholinguistic research. To be clear, it is not the case that the divide and conquer approach prevalent in the subfields of language acquisition and process is ready to be abandoned completely. However, dialogue between these subfields is increas","PeriodicalId":46920,"journal":{"name":"Language Acquisition","volume":"55 1","pages":"205 - 210"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"60117464","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-22DOI: 10.1080/10489223.2022.2147839
Haiyan Wang, Haopeng Yu
ABSTRACT This paper attempts to investigate the repetition of Relative Clauses (RCs) in Mandarin children with Developmental Language Disorder (DLD) (aged 4; 5 to 6; 0) and their typically developing (TD) peers. The results of a sentence repetition task indicate that Mandarin children with DLD perform significantly worse than both groups of TD children, and they tend to make errors involving the relativizer DE and are more likely to produce Non-RC responses. Furthermore, the gap type of RC or the adjective’s position does not affect our participants’ recall of the test sentences. We conclude that the symmetric performance of our participants in the subject RC and object RC conditions is because the structural intervention occurs in object RCs, but the linear intervention counts more in subject RCs. The syntactic deficit approach better explained the difficulty experienced by children with DLD in RC repetition. Theoretically, this study demonstrates that the Edge Feature Underspecification Hypothesis captures more characteristics of children with DLD in repeating RCs than previous representational theories.
{"title":"The repetition of relative clauses in Mandarin children with Developmental Language Disorder","authors":"Haiyan Wang, Haopeng Yu","doi":"10.1080/10489223.2022.2147839","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10489223.2022.2147839","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This paper attempts to investigate the repetition of Relative Clauses (RCs) in Mandarin children with Developmental Language Disorder (DLD) (aged 4; 5 to 6; 0) and their typically developing (TD) peers. The results of a sentence repetition task indicate that Mandarin children with DLD perform significantly worse than both groups of TD children, and they tend to make errors involving the relativizer DE and are more likely to produce Non-RC responses. Furthermore, the gap type of RC or the adjective’s position does not affect our participants’ recall of the test sentences. We conclude that the symmetric performance of our participants in the subject RC and object RC conditions is because the structural intervention occurs in object RCs, but the linear intervention counts more in subject RCs. The syntactic deficit approach better explained the difficulty experienced by children with DLD in RC repetition. Theoretically, this study demonstrates that the Edge Feature Underspecification Hypothesis captures more characteristics of children with DLD in repeating RCs than previous representational theories.","PeriodicalId":46920,"journal":{"name":"Language Acquisition","volume":"30 1","pages":"139 - 162"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47505651","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-20DOI: 10.1080/10489223.2022.2147840
J. Lidz
ABSTRACT A fundamental question in psycholinguistics concerns how grammatical structure contributes to real-time sentence parsing and understanding. While many argue that grammatical structure is only loosely related to on-line parsing, others hold the view that the two are tightly linked. Here, I use the incremental growth of grammatical structure in developmental time to demonstrate that as new grammatical knowledge becomes available to children, they use that knowledge in their incremental parsing decisions. Given the tight link between the acquisition of new knowledge and the use of that knowledge in recognizing sentence structure, I argue in favor of a tight link between grammatical structure and parsing mechanics.
{"title":"Parser-grammar transparency and the development of syntactic dependencies","authors":"J. Lidz","doi":"10.1080/10489223.2022.2147840","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10489223.2022.2147840","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT A fundamental question in psycholinguistics concerns how grammatical structure contributes to real-time sentence parsing and understanding. While many argue that grammatical structure is only loosely related to on-line parsing, others hold the view that the two are tightly linked. Here, I use the incremental growth of grammatical structure in developmental time to demonstrate that as new grammatical knowledge becomes available to children, they use that knowledge in their incremental parsing decisions. Given the tight link between the acquisition of new knowledge and the use of that knowledge in recognizing sentence structure, I argue in favor of a tight link between grammatical structure and parsing mechanics.","PeriodicalId":46920,"journal":{"name":"Language Acquisition","volume":"30 1","pages":"311 - 322"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45355398","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-16DOI: 10.1080/10489223.2022.2141634
Luis París, Maria Alejandra Celi, Á. Tabullo, M. Godoy
ABSTRACT The English Resultative Construction (ERC) is a satellite-framed structure with no identical equivalent in Spanish. In a series of studies, we analyzed and compared recognition (acceptability judgment task) and comprehension (sentence comprehension task) of three ERC subtypes with the English Depictive Construction (EDC) (which has a Spanish counterpart) by Spanish speaker learners of English as a Foreign Language (EFL). Results showed that: 1) EDCs were better recognized than ERCs by L2 learners, but highly proficient participants were closer to English native speakers’ performance, 2) Less proficient EFLs comprehended EDCs better than those ERC subtypes that were further from Spanish (ERC Property and Fake Reflexive). We interpret our findings in terms of an interlinguistic distance gradient, where those constructions present (EDC) or closer (ERC-Path) to L1 are more readily acquired. This effect seems more prominent at lower EFL proficiencies, and fades as proficiency increases, evolving towards a more native-like pattern.
{"title":"Not all English Resultative Constructions (ERCs) are equal: The acquisition of ERC by Spanish speakers","authors":"Luis París, Maria Alejandra Celi, Á. Tabullo, M. Godoy","doi":"10.1080/10489223.2022.2141634","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10489223.2022.2141634","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The English Resultative Construction (ERC) is a satellite-framed structure with no identical equivalent in Spanish. In a series of studies, we analyzed and compared recognition (acceptability judgment task) and comprehension (sentence comprehension task) of three ERC subtypes with the English Depictive Construction (EDC) (which has a Spanish counterpart) by Spanish speaker learners of English as a Foreign Language (EFL). Results showed that: 1) EDCs were better recognized than ERCs by L2 learners, but highly proficient participants were closer to English native speakers’ performance, 2) Less proficient EFLs comprehended EDCs better than those ERC subtypes that were further from Spanish (ERC Property and Fake Reflexive). We interpret our findings in terms of an interlinguistic distance gradient, where those constructions present (EDC) or closer (ERC-Path) to L1 are more readily acquired. This effect seems more prominent at lower EFL proficiencies, and fades as proficiency increases, evolving towards a more native-like pattern.","PeriodicalId":46920,"journal":{"name":"Language Acquisition","volume":"144 2","pages":"105 - 138"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41303582","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-01DOI: 10.1080/10489223.2022.2141633
Giada Antonicelli, Stefano Rastelli
ABSTRACT Event-related potentials (ERPs) have become widespread in second language acquisition (SLA) research and a growing body of literature has been produced in recent years. We surveyed 61 SLA papers that use ERPs to study L2 sentence processing in healthy late learners. Our main aim was to provide a critical summary of findings from the decade 2010-2020. The qualitative review reveals that proficiency plays a major role in determining ERP components, but its effect is modulated by language similarity and individual differences. The statistical analysis (a multinomial logistic regression) suggests that ERP components are uniquely predicted by learners’ proficiency level and the linguistic phenomenon at issue, while no effect of language distance is found. We also made a cursive methodological overview, which evidences several gaps in the literature and raises some concerns on the way proficiency is factorized across studies.
{"title":"Event-related potentials in the study of L2 sentence processing: A scoping review of the decade 2010-2020","authors":"Giada Antonicelli, Stefano Rastelli","doi":"10.1080/10489223.2022.2141633","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10489223.2022.2141633","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Event-related potentials (ERPs) have become widespread in second language acquisition (SLA) research and a growing body of literature has been produced in recent years. We surveyed 61 SLA papers that use ERPs to study L2 sentence processing in healthy late learners. Our main aim was to provide a critical summary of findings from the decade 2010-2020. The qualitative review reveals that proficiency plays a major role in determining ERP components, but its effect is modulated by language similarity and individual differences. The statistical analysis (a multinomial logistic regression) suggests that ERP components are uniquely predicted by learners’ proficiency level and the linguistic phenomenon at issue, while no effect of language distance is found. We also made a cursive methodological overview, which evidences several gaps in the literature and raises some concerns on the way proficiency is factorized across studies.","PeriodicalId":46920,"journal":{"name":"Language Acquisition","volume":"30 1","pages":"163 - 200"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49008224","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-11-25DOI: 10.1080/10489223.2022.2137805
Alex de Carvalho, Victor Gomes, J. Trueswell
ABSTRACT We studied English-learning children’s ability to learn the meanings of novel words from sentences containing truth-functional negation (Exp1) and to use the semantics of negation to inform word meaning (Exp2). In Exp1, 22-month-olds (n = 21) heard dialogues introducing a novel verb in either negative-transitive (“Mary didn’t blick the baby”) or negative-intransitive (“Mary didn’t blick”) sentences. When then asked to “Find blicking!” while viewing two-participant versus one-participant actions, children who heard negative-transitive sentences looked longer at the two-participant event than children who heard negative-intransitives. Thus, the mere presence of negation does not disrupt sentence processing and word learning in young children. Experiment 2 tested whether 2-to-4-year-olds (n = 20) use the semantics of negation to restrict the meaning of novel nouns when categorizing objects varying along a perceptual continuum (from 10 to 90% exemplars). Children initially heard “These are blickets” paired with certain exemplars (e.g., yellowish creatures, exemplars 10 and 30%). They then saw additional exemplars (e.g., pinkish creatures, 70 and 90%) while hearing either “These are not blickets” (negative condition) or “These are also blickets” (affirmative condition). At test, when seeing two novel exemplars from the continuum (e.g., creatures 20 and 80%) and asked to find “a blicket,” children in the negative condition selected the exemplar from the bottom of the continuum (i.e., the 20%) more often than children in the affirmative condition. Thus, English-learning children as young as 22-months of age correctly parse negative sentences and 2-to-4-year-olds can use negation to understand the boundaries of a word’s meaning.
摘要：我们研究了英语学习儿童从含有真功能否定的句子中学习新单词的意义的能力（实验1）和利用否定的语义来告知单词含义的能力（试验2）。实验1中，22个月大（n = 21）听对话介绍了一个新颖的动词，用否定及物句（“Mary’t blick the baby”）或否定不及物句（”Mary’t blick“）。然后，当被要求在观看两个参与者与一个参与者的动作时“寻找blicking！”时，听到否定及物句的孩子在两个参与者的事件中比听到否定不及物句的儿童看得更长。因此，否定的存在并不会干扰幼儿的句子处理和单词学习。实验2测试了2-4岁的儿童（n = 20） 在对沿着感知连续体变化的对象（从10%到90%的样本）进行分类时，使用否定语义来限制新名词的含义。孩子们最初听到的“这些是小信号”与某些示例（例如，黄色生物，示例10%和30%）配对。然后，他们看到了额外的样本（例如，粉红色的生物，70%和90%），同时听到“这些不是blickets”（否定条件）或“这些也是blicket”（肯定条件）。在测试中，当看到连续体中的两个新样本（例如，20%和80%的生物）并被要求找到“一个小样本”时，处于否定条件的儿童比处于肯定条件的儿童更经常地从连续体的底部（即20%）选择样本。因此，22个月大的英语学习儿童可以正确解析否定句，2-4岁的儿童可以使用否定来理解单词的含义。
{"title":"English-learning preschoolers can correctly parse and interpret negative sentences to guide their interpretations of novel noun and verb meanings","authors":"Alex de Carvalho, Victor Gomes, J. Trueswell","doi":"10.1080/10489223.2022.2137805","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10489223.2022.2137805","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT We studied English-learning children’s ability to learn the meanings of novel words from sentences containing truth-functional negation (Exp1) and to use the semantics of negation to inform word meaning (Exp2). In Exp1, 22-month-olds (n = 21) heard dialogues introducing a novel verb in either negative-transitive (“Mary didn’t blick the baby”) or negative-intransitive (“Mary didn’t blick”) sentences. When then asked to “Find blicking!” while viewing two-participant versus one-participant actions, children who heard negative-transitive sentences looked longer at the two-participant event than children who heard negative-intransitives. Thus, the mere presence of negation does not disrupt sentence processing and word learning in young children. Experiment 2 tested whether 2-to-4-year-olds (n = 20) use the semantics of negation to restrict the meaning of novel nouns when categorizing objects varying along a perceptual continuum (from 10 to 90% exemplars). Children initially heard “These are blickets” paired with certain exemplars (e.g., yellowish creatures, exemplars 10 and 30%). They then saw additional exemplars (e.g., pinkish creatures, 70 and 90%) while hearing either “These are not blickets” (negative condition) or “These are also blickets” (affirmative condition). At test, when seeing two novel exemplars from the continuum (e.g., creatures 20 and 80%) and asked to find “a blicket,” children in the negative condition selected the exemplar from the bottom of the continuum (i.e., the 20%) more often than children in the affirmative condition. Thus, English-learning children as young as 22-months of age correctly parse negative sentences and 2-to-4-year-olds can use negation to understand the boundaries of a word’s meaning.","PeriodicalId":46920,"journal":{"name":"Language Acquisition","volume":"30 1","pages":"277 - 310"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-11-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46353013","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-10-17DOI: 10.1080/10489223.2022.2115373
A. Aravind, L. Koring
ABSTRACT Children’s understanding of passives of certain mental state predicates appears to lag behind passives of so-called actional predicates, an asymmetry that has posed a major empirical challenge for theories of passive acquisition. This paper argues against the dominant view in the literature that treats the predicate-based asymmetry as theoretically irrelevant. We instead propose a novel account that locates the problem in the syntax of experiencer constructions. Synthesizing theoretical and developmental evidence, we build a case for an early misanalysis of transitive subject-experiencer constructions as unaccusatives – structures that, by design, cannot passivize.
{"title":"Experiencer troubles: A reappraisal of the predicate-based asymmetry in child passives","authors":"A. Aravind, L. Koring","doi":"10.1080/10489223.2022.2115373","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10489223.2022.2115373","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Children’s understanding of passives of certain mental state predicates appears to lag behind passives of so-called actional predicates, an asymmetry that has posed a major empirical challenge for theories of passive acquisition. This paper argues against the dominant view in the literature that treats the predicate-based asymmetry as theoretically irrelevant. We instead propose a novel account that locates the problem in the syntax of experiencer constructions. Synthesizing theoretical and developmental evidence, we build a case for an early misanalysis of transitive subject-experiencer constructions as unaccusatives – structures that, by design, cannot passivize.","PeriodicalId":46920,"journal":{"name":"Language Acquisition","volume":"30 1","pages":"76 - 100"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41607734","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号