1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics
  4. Online First Articles
  5. Online First Article
image of First and second language speakers’ sensitivity to the distributional properties of wh-clauses
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The present study investigates L1 and L2 English speakers’ knowledge of the -clausal construction along the parameters of (a) conventionality, distinguishing between high-frequency conventional and low-frequency unconventional formulations (, and (b) proposition type, differentiating between interrogative versus non-interrogative proposition types ). We also consider the extent to which L2 speakers’ constructional knowledge is influenced by learners’ target language experience, such as L2 proficiency, context of L2 learning (ESL or EFL), and target language exposure. Results from a judgment task revealed nuances in L1-L2 discriminatory capacities, and more importantly, differences in sensitivity to proposition type between the ESL and EFL group, but no L2 differences in sensitivity to conventionality. L2 proficiency, speakers’ length of target immersion experience, and classroom exposure were shown to also impact linguistic sensitivity, highlighting a moderating effect of target language exposure and an important role for classroom instruction.

© 2023 John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/aral.23011.dom
2023-12-08
2024-10-06

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/aral.23011.dom
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Ambridge, B.
    (2013) How do children restrict their linguistic generalizations? An (un-) grammaticality judgment study. Cognitive Science, (), –. 10.1111/cogs.12018
     https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12018 [Google Scholar]
  2. Ambridge, B., Barak, L., Wonnacott, E., Bannard, C., & Sala, G.
    (2018) Effects of both preemption and entrenchment in the retreat from verb overgeneralization errors: Four reanalyses, an extended replication, and a meta-analytic synthesis. Collabra: Psychology, (), . 10.1525/collabra.133
     https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.133 [Google Scholar]
  3. Ambridge, B., & Brandt, S.
    (2013) Lisa filled water into the cup: The roles of entrenchment, pre-emption and verb semantics in German speakers’ L2 acquisition of English locatives. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, (), –. 10.1515/zaa‑2013‑0304
     https://doi.org/10.1515/zaa-2013-0304 [Google Scholar]
  4. Ambridge, B., Pine, J. M., & Rowland, C. F.
    (2012) Semantics versus statistics in the retreat from locative overgeneralization errors. Cognition, (), –. 10.1016/j.cognition.2012.01.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.01.002 [Google Scholar]
  5. Ambridge, B., Pine, J. M., Rowland, C. F., Freudenthal, D., & Chang, F.
    (2014) Avoiding dative overgeneralisation errors: Semantics, statistics or both?Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, (), –. 10.1080/01690965.2012.738300
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2012.738300 [Google Scholar]
  6. Arnon, I., McCauley, S. M., & Christiansen, M. H.
    (2017) Digging up the building blocks of language: Age-of-acquisition effects for multiword phrases. Journal of Memory and Language, , –. 10.1016/j.jml.2016.07.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2016.07.004 [Google Scholar]
  7. 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, (), –. 10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bates, D., Kliegl, R., Vasishth, S., & Baayen, H.
    (2015) Parsimonious mixed models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1506.04967. 10.48550/arXiv.1506.04967
     https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1506.04967 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bloom, L., Merken, S. & Wootten, J.
    (1982) Wh-questions: Linguistic factors that contribute to the sequence of acquisition. Child Development, (), –. 10.2307/1129150
     https://doi.org/10.2307/1129150 [Google Scholar]
  10. Bolibaugh, C., & Foster, P.
    (2021) Implicit statistical learning in naturalistic and instructed morphosyntactic attainment: An aptitude-treatment interaction design. Language Learning, (), –. 10.1111/lang.12465
     https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12465 [Google Scholar]
  11. Boyd, J. K., & Goldberg, A. E.
    (2011) Learning what not to say: The role of statistical preemption and categorization in a-adjective production. Language, , –. 10.1353/lan.2011.0012
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2011.0012 [Google Scholar]
  12. Butters, R. R.
    (1976) More on indirect questions. American Speech, (), –. 10.2307/455355
     https://doi.org/10.2307/455355 [Google Scholar]
  13. Casenhiser, D., & Goldberg, A. E.
    (2005) Fast mapping between a phrasal form and meaning. Developmental Science, (), –. 10.1111/j.1467‑7687.2005.00441.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2005.00441.x [Google Scholar]
  14. Cobb, T.
    (2002, March13). Web Vocabprofile. www.lextutor.ca/vp
     [Google Scholar]
  15. DeKeyser, R. M.
    (2003) Implicit and explicit learning. InC. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp.–). Oxford University Press. 10.1002/9780470756492.ch11
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756492.ch11 [Google Scholar]
  16. DeKeyser, R., Alfi-Shabtay, I., & Ravid, D.
    (2010) Cross-linguistic evidence for the nature of age effects in second language acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics, (), –. 10.1017/S0142716410000056
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716410000056 [Google Scholar]
  17. Diessel, H.
    (2004) The acquisition of complex sentences. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486531
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486531 [Google Scholar]
  18. Ellis, N. C.
    (2006) Language acquisition as rational contingency learning. Applied Linguistics, , –. 10.1093/applin/ami038
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ami038 [Google Scholar]
  19. (2015) Cognitive and social aspects of learning from usage. InT. Cadierno & S. W. Eskildsen (Eds.), Usage-based perspectives on second language learning (pp.–). De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110378528‑005
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110378528-005 [Google Scholar]
  20. Ellis, N. C., & Ferreira-Junior, F.
    (2009) Construction learning as a function of frequency, frequency distribution, and function. The Modern Language Journal, (), –. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2009.00896.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00896.x [Google Scholar]
  21. Futrell, R., & Gibson, E.
    (2017) L2 processing as noisy channel language comprehension. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, (), –. 10.1017/S1366728916001061
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728916001061 [Google Scholar]
  22. Gibson, E., Piantadosi, S., & Fedorenko, K.
    (2011) Using mechanical turk to obtain and analyze English acceptability judgments. Language and Linguistics Compass, (), –. 10.1111/j.1749‑818X.2011.00295.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2011.00295.x [Google Scholar]
  23. Goldberg, A. E.
    (1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. (2016) Partial productivity of linguistic constructions: Dynamic categorization and statistical preemption. Language and Cognition, (), –. 10.1017/langcog.2016.17
     https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2016.17 [Google Scholar]
  25. (2019) Explain me this: Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Goldberg, A. E., Casenhiser, D. M., & Sethuraman, N.
    (2004) Learning argument structure generalizations. Cognitive Linguistics, (), –. 10.1515/cogl.2004.011
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2004.011 [Google Scholar]
  27. Huang, B. H., Chang, Y. H. S., Zhi, M., & Niu, L.
    (2020) The effect of input on bilingual adolescents’ long-term language outcomes in a foreign language instruction context. International Journal of Bilingualism, (), –. 10.1177/1367006918768311
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006918768311 [Google Scholar]
  28. Hulstijn, J. H.
    (2005) Theoretical and empirical issues in the study of implicit and explicit second-language learning: Introduction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, (), –. 10.1017/S0272263105050084
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263105050084 [Google Scholar]
  29. Jaekel, N., Schurig, M., Florian, M., & Ritter, M.
    (2017) From early starters to late finishers? A longitudinal study of early foreign language learning in school. Language Learning, (), –. 10.1111/lang.12242
     https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12242 [Google Scholar]
  30. Larson-Hall, J.
    (2008) Weighing the benefits of studying a foreign language at a younger starting age in a minimal input situation. Second Language Research, (), –. 10.1177/0267658307082981
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658307082981 [Google Scholar]
  31. Lenth, R., Singmann, H., Love, J., Buerkner, P., & Herve, M.
    (2019) Package ‘emmeans’. R package version, ()
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Llanes, À., & Muñoz, C.
    (2013) Age effects in a study abroad context: Children and adults studying abroad and at home. Language Learning, (), –. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2012.00731.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00731.x [Google Scholar]
  33. Muñoz, C.
    (2011) Input and long-term effects of starting age in foreign language learning. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, (), –. 10.1515/iral.2011.006
     https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2011.006 [Google Scholar]
  34. (2014) Starting age and other influential factors: Insights from learner interviews. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, (), –. 10.14746/ssllt.2014.4.3.5
     https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2014.4.3.5 [Google Scholar]
  35. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J.
    (1985) A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Robenalt, C., & Goldberg, A. E.
    (2015) Judgment 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, (), –. 10.1515/cog‑2015‑0004
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2015-0004 [Google Scholar]
  37. (2016) Nonnative speakers do not take competing alternative expressions into account the way native speakers do. Language Learning, , –. 10.1111/lang.12149
     https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12149 [Google Scholar]
  38. Roehr-Brackin, K.
    (2014) Explicit knowledge and processes from a usage-based perspective: The developmental trajectory of an instructed L2 learner. Language Learning, (), –. 10.1111/lang.12081
     https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12081 [Google Scholar]
  39. Rowland, C. F.
    (2007) Explaining errors in children’s questions. Cognition, , –. 10.1016/j.cognition.2006.05.011
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2006.05.011 [Google Scholar]
  40. Saito, K., & Hanzawa, K.
    (2016) Developing second language oral ability in foreign language classrooms: The role of the length and focus of instruction and individual differences. Applied Psycholinguistics, , –. 10.1017/S0142716415000259
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716415000259 [Google Scholar]
  41. Schafer, A. J., Speer, S. R., Warren, P., & White, S. D.
    (2000) Intonational disambiguation in sentence production and comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, , –. 10.1023/A:1005192911512
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005192911512 [Google Scholar]
  42. Snedeker, J., & Trueswell, J.
    (2003) Using prosody to avoid ambiguity: Effects of speaker awareness and referential context. Journal of Memory and language, (), –. 10.1016/S0749‑596X(02)00519‑3
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00519-3 [Google Scholar]
  43. Tachihara, K., & Goldberg, A. E.
    (2020) Reduced competition effects and noisier representations in a second language. Language Learning, , –. 10.1111/lang.12375
     https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12375 [Google Scholar]
  44. Theakston, A. L., & Rowland, C. F.
    (2009) The acquisition of auxiliary syntax: A longitudinal elicitation study. Part 1: Auxiliary BE. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, (), –. 10.1044/1092‑4388(2009/08‑0037)
     https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2009/08-0037) [Google Scholar]
  45. Wickham, H.
    (2016) Data analysis. Inggplot2 (pp.–). Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑24277‑4_9
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24277-4_9 [Google Scholar]
  46. Winter, B.
    (2019) Statistics for linguists: An introduction using R. Routledge. 10.4324/9781315165547
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315165547 [Google Scholar]
  47. Zhang, X.
    (2017) Second language users’ restriction of linguistic generalization errors: The case of English un–prefixation development. Language Learning, (), –. 10.1111/lang.12238
     https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12238 [Google Scholar]
  48. Zhang, X., & Mai, C.
    (2018) Effects of entrenchment and preemption in second language learners’ acceptance of English denominal verbs. Applied Psycholinguistics, (), –. 10.1017/S0142716417000406
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716417000406 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/aral.23011.dom
Loading
First and second language speakers’ sensitivity to the distributional properties of wh-clauses
John Benjamins ; https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.23011.dom
/content/journals/10.1075/aral.23011.dom
/content/journals/10.1075/aral.23011.dom
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: conventionality ; wh-clauses ; ESL ; second language acquisition ; EFL

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error