1887
Volume 9, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1879-9264
  • E-ISSN: 1879-9272
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Research has indicated that during sentence processing, French native speakers predominantly rely upon lexico-semantic cues (i.e., animacy) while native speakers of English rely upon syntactic cues (i.e., word order). The present study examined sentence production in L1 French/L2 English and L1 English/L2 French sequential bilinguals. Participants used animate and inanimate entities as sentence subjects while describing motion events represented by static pictures. To test a gradual change in animacy cue weighting in second-language sequential bilinguals with different proficiency levels were included. Sentence production of sequential bilinguals was compared against that of simultaneous bilinguals. The results indicated an overall preference for the use of animate subjects for both languages at all proficiency levels. The effect of animacy was stronger for English L2 than French L2 while it did not differ between languages in simultaneous bilinguals. Evidence for potential change in the animacy-cue weighting was only observed for English L2.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/lab.16023.ber
2017-08-09
2019-10-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Abutalebi, J., Cappa, S., & Perani, D.
    (2009) What can functional neuroimaging tell us about the bilingual brain?InJ. Kroll, & A. M. B. De Groot (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism (pp.479–515). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Achard, M.
    (2002) Causation, constructions, and language ecology: An example from French. InM. Shibatani (Ed.), The Grammar of Causation and Causative Manipulation (pp.127–156). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/tsl.48.08ach
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.48.08ach [Google Scholar]
  3. Aissen, J.
    (2003) Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 21(3), 435–483. Available from doi:  10.1023/A:1024109008573
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024109008573 [Google Scholar]
  4. Alexiadou, A., & Schäfer, F.
    (2006) Instrument subjects are agents or causers. InD. Baumer, D. Montero, & M. Scanlon (Eds.), 25th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp44–48). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Available fromwww.lingref.com/cpp/wccfl/25/paper1431.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Altmann, L. J. P., & Kemper, S.
    (2006) Age differences in sensitivity to animacy and order of activation in sentence production. Language and Cognitive Process, 21(1–3), 322–354. doi:  10.1080/0169096054400006
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0169096054400006 [Google Scholar]
  6. Antonijević, S., & Berthaud, S.
    (2009) Verbs of motion and sentence production in second language. Proceedings of Fechner Day, 25(1), 487–492.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Baayen, H., Piepenbrock, R., & van Rijn, H.
    (1993) The CELEX Lexical Database(CD-ROM). Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia, Linguistic Data Consortium.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Barac, R., & Bialystok, E.
    (2012) Bilingual effects on cognitive and linguistic development: Role of language, cultural background, and education. Child Development, 83(2), 413–422. 10.1111/j.1467‑8624.2011.01707.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01707.x [Google Scholar]
  9. Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B.
    (1982) Functionalist approaches to grammar. InE. Wanner, & L. R. Gleitman (Eds.), Language Acquisition: The State of the Art (pp.173–218). New York: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Bates, E., et al.
    (1984) A cross-linguistic study of the development of sentence interpretation strategies. Child Development, 55(2), 341–354. doi:  10.2307/1129947
    https://doi.org/10.2307/1129947 [Google Scholar]
  11. Beavers, J., Levin, B., & Tham, S. W.
    (2010) The typology of motion expressions revisited. Journal of linguistics, 46(02), 331–377. doi:  10.1017/S0022226709990272
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226709990272 [Google Scholar]
  12. Berthaud, S. and Antonijević, S.
    (2012) L2 acquisition of verbal constructions: expressing motion in L2 French and English. InM. Bouveret and D. Legallois (Eds.), French constructions in discourse and development (pp.155–174). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/cal.13.09ber
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.13.09ber [Google Scholar]
  13. Bialystok, E.
    (1999) Cognitive complexity and attentional control in the bilingual. Child Development, 70(3), 636–644. doi:  10.1111/1467‑8624.00046
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00046 [Google Scholar]
  14. (2001) Bilingualism in development: Language, literacy, and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:  10.1017/CBO9780511605963
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511605963 [Google Scholar]
  15. Bialystok, E., & Feng, X.
    (2011) Language proficiency and its implications for monolingual and bilingual children. InA. Y. Durgunoğlu, & C. Goldenberg (Eds.), Language and Literacy Development in Bilingual Settings (pp.121–138). New York: The Guildford Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Bock, J., Loebell, H., & Morey, R.
    (1992) From conceptual roles to structural relations: Bridging the syntactic fcleft. Psychological Review, 99(1), 150–171. doi:  10.1037/0033‑295X.99.1.150
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.99.1.150 [Google Scholar]
  17. Bowerman, M.
    (1973) Early syntactic development: A cross-linguistic study with special reference to Finnish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Branigan, H., Pickering, M., & Tanaka, M.
    (2008) Contributions of animacy to grammatical function assignment and word order during production. Lingua, 118(2), 172–189. doi:  10.1016/j.lingua.2007.02.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2007.02.003 [Google Scholar]
  19. Brown, R.
    (1970) Psycholinguistics: Selected Papers by Roger Brown. New York: Free Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Brown, R., Cazden, C., & Bellugi, U.
    (1973) The child’s grammar from I to III. InC. A. Ferguson, & D. I. Slobin (Eds.), Studies of Child Language Development (pp.295–333). New York: Holt.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Bylund, E., & Athanasopoulos, P.
    (2015) Introduction: Cognition, motion events, and SLA. The Modern Language Journal, 99(1), 1–13. Available from doi:  10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2015.12175.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2015.12175.x [Google Scholar]
  22. Campbell, S.
    (2013) Translation into the second language (2nd ed.). New York:Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Chapman, R., & Miller, J.
    (1975) Word order in early two and three word utterances: Does production precede comprehension?Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 18, 346–354. 10.1044/jshr.1802.355
    https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.1802.355 [Google Scholar]
  24. Clark, E. V.
    (1973) What’s in a word? On the child’s acquisition of semantics in his first language. InT. E. Moore (Ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language (pp.65–110). New York: Academic Press. doi:  10.1016/B978‑0‑12‑505850‑6.50009‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-505850-6.50009-8 [Google Scholar]
  25. Clark, H., & Begun, J.
    (1971) Semantics of sentence subjects. Language and Speech, 14(1), 34–46. doi:  10.1177/002383097101400105
    https://doi.org/10.1177/002383097101400105 [Google Scholar]
  26. Comrie, B.
    (1989) Language Universals and Linguistic Typology: Syntax and Morphology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Cook, V.
    (1999) Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching. TESOL quarterly, 33(2), 185–209. doi:  10.2307/3587717
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3587717 [Google Scholar]
  28. Costa, A., & Caramazza, A.
    (1999) Is the lexical selection in bilingual speech production language-specific? Further evidence from Spanish-English and English-Spanish bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 2(3), 231–244. doi:  10.1017/S1366728999000334
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728999000334 [Google Scholar]
  29. Costa, A., & Sebastián-Gallés, N.
    (2014) How does the bilingual experience sculpt the brain?Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 15(5), 336–345. doi:  10.1038/nrn3709
    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3709 [Google Scholar]
  30. Council of Europe
    Council of Europe (2001) Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching and assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Cruse, D.
    (1973) Some thoughts on agentivity. Journal of Linguistics, 9(1), 11–13. doi:  10.1017/S0022226700003509
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700003509 [Google Scholar]
  32. de Villiers, P., & de Villiers, J.
    (1974) On this, that and the other: Non-egocentrism in very young children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 18(3), 438–447. doi:  10.1016/0022‑0965(74)90122‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0965(74)90122-2 [Google Scholar]
  33. Devescovi, A., D’Amico, S., & Gentille, P.
    (1999) The development of sentence comprehension in Italian: A reaction time study. First Language, 19(56), 129–163. doi:  10.1177/014272379901905601
    https://doi.org/10.1177/014272379901905601 [Google Scholar]
  34. Dong, Y., Gui, S., & Macwhinney, B.
    (2005) Shared and separate meanings in the bilingual mental lexicon. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 8(3), 221–238. doi:  10.1017/S1366728905002270
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728905002270 [Google Scholar]
  35. Doughty, C., & Williams, J.
    (1998) Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Ellis, N. C.
    (2006) Selective attention and transfer phenomena in L2 acquisition: Contingency, cue competition, salience, interference, overshadowing, blocking, and perceptual learning. Applied Linguistics, 27(2), 164–194. doi:  10.1093/applin/aml015
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/aml015 [Google Scholar]
  37. Ferreira, F.
    (1994) Choice of passive voice is affected by verb type and animacy. Journal of Memory and Language, 33(6), 715–736. doi:  10.1006/jmla.1994.1034
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1994.1034 [Google Scholar]
  38. Folli, R., & Harley, H.
    (2005) Flavours of v: Consuming results in Italian and English. InP. Kempchinsky, & R. Slabakova (Eds.), Aspectual Enquiries (pp.95–120). Dordrecht: Springer. doi:  10.1007/1‑4020‑3033‑9_5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3033-9_5 [Google Scholar]
  39. (2007) Causation, obligation and argument structure: On the nature of little v.Linguistic Inquiry, 38(2), 197–238. doi:  10.1162/ling.2007.38.2.197
    https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2007.38.2.197 [Google Scholar]
  40. (2008) Teleology and animacy in external arguments. Lingua, 118(2), 190–202. doi:  10.1016/j.lingua.2007.02.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2007.02.004 [Google Scholar]
  41. Gass, S.
    (1987) The resolution of conflicts among competing systems: A bidirectional perspective. Applied Psycholinguistics, 8(4), 329–350. doi:  10.1017/S0142716400000369
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716400000369 [Google Scholar]
  42. Gennari, S., Mirkovic, J., & MacDonald, M.
    (2012) Animacy and competition in relative clause production: A cross-linguistic investigation. Cognitive Psychology, 65(2), 141–176. doi:  10.1016/j.cogpsych.2012.03.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2012.03.002 [Google Scholar]
  43. Green, D.
    (1998) Mental control of the bilingual lexico-semantic system. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1(2), 67–81. doi:  10.1017/S1366728998000133
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728998000133 [Google Scholar]
  44. Grimm, S.
    (2007) The bounds of subjecthood: Evidence from instruments. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 33(1), 178–189. doi:  10.3765/bls.v33i1.3526
    https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v33i1.3526 [Google Scholar]
  45. Grosjean, F.
    (1989) Neurolinguists, beware! The bilingual is not two monolinguals in one person. Brain and Language, 36(1), 3–15. doi:  10.1016/0093‑934X(89)90048‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0093-934X(89)90048-5 [Google Scholar]
  46. Grosjean, F., & Li, P.
    (2012) The Psycholinguistics of Bilingualism. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Hatim, B.
    (2014) Teaching and Researching Translation (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315832906
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315832906 [Google Scholar]
  48. Hernandez, A., & Bates, E., & Avila, L.
    (1996) Processing across the language boundary: a cross-modal priming study of Spanish-English bilinguals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 22(4), 846–864.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Hervey, S. G., & Higgins, I.
    (2002) Thinking French translation: a course in translation method: French to English (2nd ed). Psychology Press. 10.4324/9780203417973
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203417973 [Google Scholar]
  50. Hickmann, M.
    (2007) Static and dynamic location in French: Developmental and cross-linguistic perspectives. InM. Aurnague, M. Hickmann, & L. Vieu (Eds.), The Categorization of Spatial Entities in Language and Cognition (pp.205–231). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/hcp.20.12hic
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.20.12hic [Google Scholar]
  51. Hickmann, M., & Hendriks, H.
    (2010) Typological constraints on the acquisition of spatial language in French and English. Cognitive Linguistics, 21(2), 189–215. doi:  10.1515/COGL.2010.007
    https://doi.org/10.1515/COGL.2010.007 [Google Scholar]
  52. Hurford, J.
    (1994) Grammar: A Student’s Guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I.
    (2003) What translation tells us about motion: A contrastive study of typologically different languages. IJES, International Journal of English Studies, 3(2), 151–175.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Itagaki, N., & Prideaux, G.
    (1985) Nominal properties as determinants of subject selection. Lingua, 66(23), 125–149.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Kail, M.
    (1999) Linguistic variations and cognitive constraints in the processing and the acquisition of language. InC. Fuchs, & S. Robert (Eds.), Language Diversity and Cognitive Representations (pp.179–195). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/hcp.3.15kai
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.3.15kai [Google Scholar]
  56. Kail, M., & Charvillat, A.
    (1986) Linguistic cues in sentence processing in French children and adults from a cross-linguistic perspective. Advances in Psychology, 39, 349–374. doi:  10.1016/S0166‑4115(09)60145‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(09)60145-X [Google Scholar]
  57. Kroll, J., & Stewart, E.
    (1994) Category interferences in translation and picture naming: Evidence for asymmetric connection between bilingual memory representation. Journal of Memory and Language, 33(2), 149–174. doi:  10.1006/jmla.1994.1008
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1994.1008 [Google Scholar]
  58. Liu, H., Bates, E., & Li, P.
    (1992) Sentence interpretation in bilingual speakers of English and Chinese. Applied Psycholinguistics, 13(4), 451–484. doi:  10.1017/S0142716400005762
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716400005762 [Google Scholar]
  59. MacWhinney, B.
    (2005) A unified model of language acquisition. InJ. F. Kroll, & A. M. B. de Groot (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: psycholinguistic approaches (pp.49–67). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. MacWhinney, B., & Bates, E.
    (1989) The Crosslinguistic Study of Sentence Processing. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. McDonald, J., Bock, J., & Kelly, M.
    (1993) Word and world order: semantic, phonological and metrical determinants of serial position. Cognitive Psychology, 25(2), 188–230. doi:  10.1006/cogp.1993.1005
    https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1993.1005 [Google Scholar]
  62. McDonald, J., & Heilenman, L.
    (1991) Determinants of cue strength in adult first and second language speakers of French. Applied Psycholinguistics, 12(3), 313–348. doi:  10.1017/S0142716400009255
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716400009255 [Google Scholar]
  63. Morett, L., & MacWhinney, B.
    (2013) Syntactic transfer in English-speaking Spanish learners 132–151.. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16(1), 132–151. doi:  10.1017/S1366728912000107
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728912000107 [Google Scholar]
  64. New, B., Pallier, C., Brysbaert, M., & Ferrand, L.
    (2004) Lexique 2: A new French lexical database. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computer, 36(3), 516–524. doi:  10.3758/BF03195598
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195598 [Google Scholar]
  65. New, B., Pallier, C., Ferrand, L., & Matos, R.
    (2001) Une base de données lexicales du français contemporain sur Internet: LEXIQUE. L’Année Psychologique, 101, 447–462. doi:  10.3406/psy.2001.1341
    https://doi.org/10.3406/psy.2001.1341 [Google Scholar]
  66. Ochsenbauer, A., & Engemann, H.
    (2011) The impact of typological factors in monolingual and bilingual first language acquisition: Caused motion expressions in English and French. Language, Interaction and Acquisition/Langage, Interaction et Acquisition, 2(1), 101–128. doi:  10.1075/lia.2.1.05och
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lia.2.1.05och [Google Scholar]
  67. Pavlenko, A.
    (2009) Conceptual representation in the bilingual lexicon and second language vocabulary learning. InA. Pavlenko (Ed.), The Bilingual Mental Lexicon: Interdisciplinary Approaches (pp.125–160). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781847691262‑008
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847691262-008 [Google Scholar]
  68. Papafragou, A., Massey, C., & Gleitman, L.
    (2005) When English proposes what Greek presupposes: The cross-linguistic encoding of motion events. Cognition, 98(3), 75–87. doi:  10.1016/j.cognition.2005.05.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2005.05.005 [Google Scholar]
  69. Pearson, J., Stevenson, R., & Poesio, M.
    (2001) The effects of animacy, thematic role, and surface position on the focusing of entities in discourse. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Pham, G., & Ebert, K. D.
    (2016) A longitudinal analysis of sentence interpretation in bilingual children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 37(2), 461–485. doi:  10.1017/S0142716415000077
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716415000077 [Google Scholar]
  71. Pham, G., & Kohnert, K.
    (2010) Sentence interpretation by typically developing Vietnamese – English bilingual children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 31(3), 507–529. doi:  10.1017/S0142716410000093
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716410000093 [Google Scholar]
  72. Pourcel, S., & Kopecka, A.
    (2005) Motion expression in French: Typological diversity. Durham & Newcastle working papers in linguistics, 11, 139–153.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Prat Sala, M.
    (1997) The Production of Different Word Orders: A Psycholinguistic and Developmental Approach. PhD Dissertation. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh. Available fromftp://ftp.cogsci.ed.ac.uk/pub/CCS/PHD/1997/EUCCS-PHD-1997-6.ps.gz
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Rakison, D. H., & Poulin-Dubois, D.
    (2001) Developmental origin of the animate – inanimate distinction. Psychological Bulletin, 127(2), 209–228. doi:  10.1037/0033‑2909.127.2.209
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.127.2.209 [Google Scholar]
  75. Robinson, P., & Ellis, N.
    (2008) Conclusion: Cognitive Linguistics, Second Language Acquisition and L2 Instruction – Issues for Research. InP. Robinson (Ed.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition (pp.489–545). London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203938560
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203938560 [Google Scholar]
  76. Rosenbach, A.
    (2005) Animacy versus weight as determinants of grammatical variation in English. Language, 81(3), 613–644. doi:  10.1353/lan.2005.0149
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2005.0149 [Google Scholar]
  77. Sasaki, Y.
    (1991) English and Japanese interlanguage comprehension strategies – An analysis based on the Competition Model. Applied Psycholinguistics, 12(1), 47–73. doi:  10.1017/S0142716400009371
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716400009371 [Google Scholar]
  78. Scholfield, P.
    (1995) Quantifying Language: A Researcher’s Guide to Gathering Language Data and Reducing it to Figures. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Slobin, D.
    (1968) Imitation and grammatical development in children. InN. Endler, S. Boulter, & H. Osser (Eds.), Contemporary Issues in Developmental Psychology (pp.437–443). New York: Holt.
    [Google Scholar]
  80. (1996) Two ways to travel: Verbs of motion in English and Spanish. InM. Shibatani, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Grammatical Constructions. Their From and Meaning (pp.195–219). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Slobin, Dan I.
    (2004) The many ways to search for a frog: Linguistic typology and the expression of motion events. InS. Strömqvist, & L. Verhoeven (Eds.), Relating events in narrative: Typological and contextual perspectives (pp.219–258). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Slobin, D. I.
    (2005) Relating narrative events in translation. InD. Ravid & H. B. Shyldkrot (Eds.), Perspectives on language and language development (pp.115–129). Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi:  10.1007/1‑4020‑7911‑7_10
    https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-7911-7_10 [Google Scholar]
  83. Stosic, D., & Sarda, L.
    (2009) The many ways to be located: the expression of fictive motion in French and Serbian. InM. B. Vukanović, & L. G. Grmuša (Eds.), Space and Time in Language and Literature (pp.39–60). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Su, I. -R.
    (2001) Transfer of sentence processing strategies: A comparison of L2 learners of Chinese and English. Applied Psycholinguistics, 22(1), 83–112. doi:  10.1017/S0142716401001059
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716401001059 [Google Scholar]
  85. Talmy, L.
    (2000) Toward a cognitive semantics (Vol.1 & 2). MIT press.
  86. Tremoulet, P. D., & Feldman, J.
    (2000) Perception of animacy from the motion of a single object. Perception, 29(8), 943–951. doi:  10.1068/p3101
    https://doi.org/10.1068/p3101 [Google Scholar]
  87. van Nice, K. & Dietrich, R.
    (2003) Task sensitivity of animacy effects: from German picture descpritions. Linguistics, 41(5), 825–849.
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Vinay, J. P., & Darbelnet, J.
    (1995) Comparative stylistics of French and English: a methodology for translation (Vol.11). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/btl.11
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.11 [Google Scholar]
  89. Wang, J., & Xu, C.
    (2015) Cue Competition between Animacy and Word Order: Acquisition of Chinese Notional Passives by L2 Learners. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 5(2), 213–224. Available from doi:  10.4236/ojml.2015.52017
    https://doi.org/10.4236/ojml.2015.52017 [Google Scholar]
  90. Wolff, P., Geon, G., & Li, Y.
    (2009) Causers in English, Korean and Chinese and the individuation of events. Language and Cognition, 1(2), 165–194. doi:  10.1515/LANGCOG.2009.009
    https://doi.org/10.1515/LANGCOG.2009.009 [Google Scholar]
  91. Wolff, P., Jeon, G., Klettle, B., & Li, Y.
    (2010) Force creation and possible causers across languages. InB. Malt, P. Wolff (Eds.), Words and the Mind: How Words Capture Human Experience (pp.93–110). Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:  10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195311129.003.0006
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195311129.003.0006 [Google Scholar]
  92. Woods, A., Fletcher, P., & Hughes, A.
    (1986) Statistics in Language Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:  10.1017/CBO9781139165891
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165891 [Google Scholar]
  93. Wust, V.
    (2010) L2 French learners’ processing of object clitics: Data from the classroom. L2 Journal, 2(1), 45–72. 10.5070/L2219061
    https://doi.org/10.5070/L2219061 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/lab.16023.ber
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/lab.16023.ber
Loading

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