Volume 169, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0019-0829
  • E-ISSN: 1783-1490
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This study investigated L2 structural alignment, the tendency for interlocutors to re-use a syntactic structure present in recent discourse, focusing on two information-gap interactive tasks. Thirty-four university students from diverse language backgrounds, recruited from different academic programs at a Canadian English-medium university, carried out the two information-gap interactive tasks in dyads. Interaction data were transcribed and coded for instances of structural alignment and the alignment’s characteristics in terms of structure type and accuracy. Results indicated that structural alignment occurred in L2 task-based interaction generated by both tasks. This structural repetition was linked to an improved accuracy of subsequent language production. Furthermore, the two tasks were associated with different structures that were converged on, and with varying degrees of structural alignment. These findings are discussed in terms of effects of task features on structural alignment, and the role of structural alignment in subsequent language production.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Anderson, A. H., Bader, M., Bard, E. G., Boyle, E., Doherty, G., Garrod, S., Isard, S., Kowtko, J., McAllister, J., Miller, J., Sotillo, C., Thompson, H. S., & Weinert, R.
    (1991) The HCRC map task corpus. Language and Speech, 34, 351–366. 10.1177/002383099103400404
    https://doi.org/10.1177/002383099103400404 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bock, J. K.
    (1986) Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 355–387. 10.1016/0010‑0285(86)90004‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(86)90004-6 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bock, J. K., & Griffin, Z. M.
    (2000) The persistence of structural priming: Transient activation or implicit learning?Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129, 177–192. 10.1037/0096‑3445.129.2.177
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.129.2.177 [Google Scholar]
  4. Branigan, H., Pickering, M., & Cleland, A.
    (2000) Syntactic coordination in dialogue. Cognition, 75, 13–25. 10.1016/S0010‑0277(99)00081‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00081-5 [Google Scholar]
  5. Branigan, H., Pickering, M., Person, J., & McLean, J.
    (2010) Linguistic alignment between people and computers. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 2355–2368. 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.012
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.012 [Google Scholar]
  6. Chang, F., Dell, G. S., Bock, J. K., & Griffin, Z. M.
    (2000) Structural priming as implicit learning: A comparison of models of sentence production. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29, 217–229. 10.1023/A:1005101313330
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005101313330 [Google Scholar]
  7. Clark, H.
    (1992) Arenas of language use. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Colina, A. A. & Garcia-Mayo, M. P.
    (2007) Attention to form across collaborative tasks by low-proficiency learners in an EFL setting. InM. P. Garcia-Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning, (pp.91–116). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Collentine, J., & Collentine, K.
    (2013) A corpus approach to studying structural convergence in task-based Spanish L2 interactions. InK. McDonough & A. Mackey (eds.), Second language interaction in diverse educational contexts (pp.167–188). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.34.13ch9
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.34.13ch9 [Google Scholar]
  10. Costa, A., Pickering, M. J. & Sorace, A.
    (2008) Alignment in second language dialogue. Language and Cognitive Process, 23(4), 528–556. 10.1080/01690960801920545
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960801920545 [Google Scholar]
  11. Dao, P., & McDonough, K.
    (2017) The effect of task role on Vietnamese EFL learners’ collaboration in mixed proficiency dyads. System, 65, 15–24. 10.1016/j.system.2016.12.012
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.12.012 [Google Scholar]
  12. Dao, P., Iwashita, N., & Gatbonton, E.
    (2017) Learner attention to form in ACCESS task-based interaction. Language Teaching Research, 21(4), 454–479. 10.1177/1362168816651462
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168816651462 [Google Scholar]
  13. Foster, P. & Skehan, P.
    (1996) The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18 (3), 299–323. 10.1017/S0272263100015047
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100015047 [Google Scholar]
  14. Garrod, S., & Pickering, M. J.
    (2009) Joint action, interactive alignment, and dialog. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 292–304. 10.1111/j.1756‑8765.2009.01020.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2009.01020.x [Google Scholar]
  15. Gass, S.
    (1997) Input, interaction, and second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Goldberg, A. E.
    (1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. (2006) Construction at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Gries, S.
    (2005) Syntactic priming: A corpus-based approach. Journal of psycholinguistic research, 34, 365–399. 10.1007/s10936‑005‑6139‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-005-6139-3 [Google Scholar]
  19. Jiang, L., & Huang, K.
    (2015) The efficacy of structural priming on the acquisition of double object construction by Chinese EFL learners. Higher Education Studies, 5, 38–49. 10.5539/hes.v5n5p38
    https://doi.org/10.5539/hes.v5n5p38 [Google Scholar]
  20. Kim, M., Horton, W., & Bradlow, A.
    (2010) Phonetic convergence in spontaneous conversation as a function of interlocutor language distance. Laboratory Phonology, 2, 125–156.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Kim, Y.
    (2013) Promoting attention to form through task repetition in a Korean EFL context. In: K. McDonough, & A. Mackey (Eds.). Second language interaction in diverse educational context (pp.3–24). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.34.04ch1
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.34.04ch1 [Google Scholar]
  22. Kim, Y., & McDonough, K.
    (2008) The effect of interlocutor proficiency on the collaborative dialogue between Korean as a second language learners. Language Teaching Research, 12, (2), 211–234. 10.1177/1362168807086288
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168807086288 [Google Scholar]
  23. Lambert, C., Philp, J. & Nakamura, S.
    (2017) Learner-generated content and engagement in second language task performance. Language Teaching Research, 21, 665–680. 10.1177/1362168816683559
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168816683559 [Google Scholar]
  24. Levkina, M., & Gilabert, R.
    (2012) The effects of cognitive task complexity on L2 oral production. InA. Housen, F. Kuiken, I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA, (pp.171–198). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.32.08lev
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.32.08lev [Google Scholar]
  25. Long, M. H.
    (1996) The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. InW. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Ed.), Handbook of research on language acquisition (pp.413–468). New York, NY: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Mackey, A.
    (2007) Interaction as practice. InR. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practice in second language learning. Perspective from linguistics and psychology (pp.85–110). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. (2012) Input, interaction and corrective feedback in L2 learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Mackey, A., & Gass, S.
    (2006) Introduction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 169–178. 10.1017/S0272263106060086
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263106060086 [Google Scholar]
  29. McDonough
    McDonough (2014) Using structural priming tasks in an EAP context. Contact, 40, 51–67.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. McDonough, K.
    (2006) Interaction and syntactic priming: English L2 speakers’ production of dative constructions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 179–207. 10.1017/S0272263106060098
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263106060098 [Google Scholar]
  31. McDonough, K.
    (2011) Eliciting wh-questions through collaborative syntactic priming activities during peer interaction. InP. Trofimovich & K. McDonough (Eds.), Applying priming methods to L2 learning, teaching, and research: Insights from psycholinguistics (pp.131–151). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.30.10mcd
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.30.10mcd [Google Scholar]
  32. McDonough, K., & Chaikitmongkol, W.
    (2010) Collaborative syntactic priming activities and EFL learners’ production of wh-questions. Canadian Modern Language Review, 66, 817–841. 10.3138/cmlr.66.6.817
    https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.66.6.817 [Google Scholar]
  33. McDonough, K., & Kim, Y.
    (2009) Syntactic priming, type frequency, and EFL learners’ production of wh-questions. The Modern Language Journal, 93, 386–398. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2009.00897.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00897.x [Google Scholar]
  34. McDonough, K., & Mackey, A.
    (2008) Syntactic priming and ESL question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 31–47. 10.1017/S0272263108080029
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263108080029 [Google Scholar]
  35. McDonough, K., Neumann, H., & Trofimovich, P.
    (2015) Eliciting production of L2 target structures through priming activities. Canadian Modern Language Review, 71(1), 75–95.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Michel, M., & Smith, B.
    (2017) Measuring lexical alignment during L2 chat interaction: An eye-tracking study. InS. M. Gass, P. Spinner, & J. Behney (eds.), Salience in second language acquisition, (pp.246–266). New Yorkk, NY: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Nuevo, A., Adams, R. & Ross-Feldman, R.
    (2011) Task complexity, modified output, and L2 development in learner-learner interaction. InR. Robinsons (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis of language learning and performance, (pp.175–202). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.2.13ch7
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.2.13ch7 [Google Scholar]
  38. Ohta, A. S.
    (2001) Second Language Acquisition Processes in the Classroom: Learning Japanese. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 10.4324/9781410604712
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410604712 [Google Scholar]
  39. Oliver, R.
    (2002) The patterns of negotiation for meaning in child interactions. Modern Language Journal, 86, 97–111. 10.1111/1540‑4781.00138
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4781.00138 [Google Scholar]
  40. Phung, L.
    (2017) Task preference, affective response, and engagement in L2 use in a US university context. Language Teaching Research, 21, 75–766. 10.1177/1362168816683561
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168816683561 [Google Scholar]
  41. Pica, T.
    (1994) Research on negotiation: what does it reveal about second language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes?Language Learning, 44, 493–527. 10.1111/j.1467‑1770.1994.tb01115.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1994.tb01115.x [Google Scholar]
  42. Piccardo, E.
    (2013) Plurilingualism and curriculum design: Toward a synergic vision. TESOL Quarterly, 47, 600–614. 10.1002/tesq.110
    https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.110 [Google Scholar]
  43. Pickering, M. J., & Branigan, H. P.
    (1998) The representation of verbs: Evidence from syntactic priming in language production. Journal of Memory and Language, 39(4), 633–651. 10.1006/jmla.1998.2592
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1998.2592 [Google Scholar]
  44. Pickering, M. & Ferreira
    (2008) Structural priming: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin, 134(3), 427–459. 10.1037/0033‑2909.134.3.427
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.3.427 [Google Scholar]
  45. Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S.
    (2004) Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27, 169–225. 10.1017/S0140525X04000056
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X04000056 [Google Scholar]
  46. (2013) An integrated theory of language production and comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36, 329–392. 10.1017/S0140525X12001495
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X12001495 [Google Scholar]
  47. Reitter, D., & Moore, J. D.
    (2014) Alignment and task success in spoken dialogue. Journal of Memory and Language, 76, 29–46. 10.1016/j.jml.2014.05.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2014.05.008 [Google Scholar]
  48. Savage, C., Lieven, E., Theakston, A., & Tomasello, M.
    (2003) Testing the abstractness of children’s linguistic representations: Lexical and structural priming of syntactic constructions in young children. Developmental Science, 6, 557–567. 10.1111/1467‑7687.00312
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-7687.00312 [Google Scholar]
  49. (2006) Structural priming as implicit learning in language acquisition: The persistence of lexical and structural priming in 4-year-olds. Language Learning and Development, 2, 27–49. 10.1207/s15473341lld0201_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15473341lld0201_2 [Google Scholar]
  50. Shin, J., & Christianson, K.
    (2012) Structural priming and second language learning. Language Learning, 63(3), 931–964. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2011.00657.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00657.x [Google Scholar]
  51. Smith, M., & Wheeldon, L.
    (2001) Syntactic pirming in spoken sentence production: An online study. Cognition, 78(2), 123–164. 10.1016/S0010‑0277(00)00110‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(00)00110-4 [Google Scholar]
  52. Storch, N.
    (2001) How collaborative is pair work? ESL tertiary students composing in pairs. Language Teaching Research, 5, 29–53. 10.1177/136216880100500103
    https://doi.org/10.1177/136216880100500103 [Google Scholar]
  53. Swain, M.
    (1995) Three functions of output in second language learning. InG. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Ed.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H. G. Widdowson (pp.125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. (2005) The output hypothesis: Theory and research. InE. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp.471–484). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Trofimovich, P., McDonough, K., & Neumann, H.
    (2013) Using collaborative tasks to elicit auditory and structural priming. TESOL Quarterly, 47(1), 177–186. 10.1002/tesq.78
    https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.78 [Google Scholar]
  56. Trofimovich, P., & Kennedy, S.
    (2014) Interactive alignment between bilingual interlocutors: Evidence from two information-exchange tasks. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17(4), 822–836. 10.1017/S1366728913000801
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728913000801 [Google Scholar]
  57. Van Engen, K., Baese-Berk, M., Baker, R., Kim, M. & Bradlow, A.
    (2010) The Wildcat corpus of native and foreign-accented English: Communicative efficiency across conversational dyads with varying language alignment profiles. Language & Speech, 53, 510–540. 10.1177/0023830910372495
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830910372495 [Google Scholar]
  58. Watanabe, Y., & Swain, M.
    (2007) Effects of proficiency differences and patterns of pair interaction on second language learning: collaborative dialogue between adult ESL learners. Language Teaching Research, 11, 121–142. 10.1177/136216880607074599
    https://doi.org/10.1177/136216880607074599 [Google Scholar]
  59. Yule, G. & Macdonald, D.
    (1990) Resolving referential conflict in L2 interaction: The effect of proficiency and interactive role. Language Learning40, 539–556. 10.1111/j.1467‑1770.1990.tb00605.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1990.tb00605.x [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

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