1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism
  4. Volume 10, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 10, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1879-9264
  • E-ISSN: 1879-9272
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This study investigates processing of passive and active constructions between native speakers (NS) and non-native speakers (NNS) of English using traditional on-line mechanisms such as response time in conjunction with techniques that capitalize on the parallel activation of distributed mental representations during online syntactic processing. In the current study, hand motions captured by a mouse-tracking system were used to index listeners’ cognitive processes while making commitments to different choice alternatives during the processing of English passive and active structures. During data collection, 57 NNS and 43 NS carried out an aural forced-choice picture identification task. Data analysis indicated differences and similarities between NS and NNS participants such that NS participants are faster at responding to passive and active stimuli, travel less distance, and make fewer directional changes when compared to NNS participants. However, all participants showed similar trends for passive processing, suggesting comparable difficulties in processing passive constructions.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/lab.17028.cro
2018-02-22
2025-02-07

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/lab.17028.cro
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Abrams, R., & Balota, D.
    (1991) Mental chronometry: Beyond reaction time. Psychological Science, 2, 153–157. doi:  10.1111/j.1467‑9280.1991.tb00123.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1991.tb00123.x [Google Scholar]
  2. Barca, L., & Pezzulo, G.
    (2012) Unfolding Visual Lexical Decision in Time. PLoS ONE, 7(4), e35932. doi:  10.1371/journal.pone.0035932
     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0035932 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bates, D., Maechler, M., & Bolker, B.
    (2014) lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using s4 classes. R package version 3.3.2.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B.
    (1989) Functionalism and the Competition Model. (pp.3–73) InB. MacWhinney and E. Bates (Eds.), The Crosslinguistic Study of Sentence Processing. Cambridge: Cambridge University press.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Bencini, G., & Valian, V.
    (2008) Abstract sentence representation in 3-year-olds: Evidence from language production and comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 97–113. doi:  10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.007
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.007 [Google Scholar]
  6. Benedet, M., Christiansen, J., & Goodglass, H.
    (1996) A crosslinguistic study of grammatical morphology in Spanish and English speaking agrammatic patients. Cortex, 34, 309–336, doi:  10.1016/S0010‑9452(08)70758‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-9452(08)70758-5 [Google Scholar]
  7. Blanco-Gomez, M. L.
    (2002) Hiding the agent in English and Spanish newspaper articles. InJ. Marin Arrese (Ed.). Conceptualization of events in newspaper discourse. 9–30, Madrid: Universidad Complutense.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Bock, K.
    (1986) Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 355–387. doi:  10.1016/0010‑0285(86)90004‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(86)90004-6 [Google Scholar]
  9. Brown & P. Hagoort
    Eds. The neurocognition of language (pp.83–122). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  10. Coco, M. I., & Duran, N. D.
    (2016) When expectations collide: Action dynamics reveal the interaction between stimulus plausibility and congruency. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23, 1920–1931. doi:  10.3758/s13423‑016‑1033‑6
     https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-016-1033-6 [Google Scholar]
  11. Coco, M. I. & Duran, N. D.
    (2015) Mousetrack: Mouse-Tracking Measures from Trajectory Data. R package version 1.0.0
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Cohen, J.
    (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Dale, R., Kehoe, C., & Spivey, M. J.
    (2007) Graded motor responses in the time course of categorizing atypical exemplars. Memory & Cognition, 35(1), 15–28. doi:  10.3758/BF03195938
     https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195938 [Google Scholar]
  14. Dale, R., Snyder, K., Mccall, R., & Sporns, O.
    (2008) Exploring Action Dynamics as an Index of Paired-Associate Learning. PLoS ONE, 3(3), e1728. doi:  10.1371/journal.pone.0001728
     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0001728 [Google Scholar]
  15. Dale, R., & Duran, N. D.
    (2011) The cognitive dynamics of negated sentence verification. Cognitive Science, 35, 983–996. doi:  10.1111/j.1551‑6709.2010.01164.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01164.x [Google Scholar]
  16. Duran, N. D., Dale, R., & McNamara, D. S.
    (2010) The action dynamics of overcoming the truth. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17, 486–491. doi:  10.3758/PBR.17.4.486
     https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.17.4.486 [Google Scholar]
  17. Duran, N. D., & Dale, R.
    (2014) Perspective-taking in dialogue as self-organization under social constraints. New Ideas in Psychology, 32, 131–146. doi:  10.1016/j.newideapsych.2013.03.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2013.03.004 [Google Scholar]
  18. Diessel, H.
    (2004) The acquisition of complex sentences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:  10.1017/CBO9780511486531
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486531 [Google Scholar]
  19. Farmer, T. A., Anderson, S. E., & Spivey, M. J.
    (2007) Gradiency and visual context in syntactic garden-paths. Journal of Memory & Language, 57, 570–595. doi:  10.1016/j.jml.2007.04.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.04.003 [Google Scholar]
  20. Ferreira, F.
    (2003) The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 47, 164–203. doi:  10.1016/S0010‑0285(03)00005‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0285(03)00005-7 [Google Scholar]
  21. Freeman, J. B., & Ambady, N.
    (2010) MouseTracker: Software for studying real-time mental processing using a computer mouse-tracking method, Behavior Research Methods, 42 (1), 226–241. doi:  10.3758/BRM.42.1.226
     https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.1.226 [Google Scholar]
  22. Freeman, J. B., Dale, R., & Farmer, T. A.
    (2011) Hand in motion reveals mind in motion. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 59. doi:  10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00059
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00059 [Google Scholar]
  23. Gold, J. I., & Shadlen, M. N.
    (2001) Neural computations that underlie decisions about sensory stimuli. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5, 10–16. doi:  10.1016/S1364‑6613(00)01567‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01567-9 [Google Scholar]
  24. Hehman, E., Stolier, R. M., & Freeman, J. B.
    (2015) Advanced mouse-tracking analytic techniques for enhancing psychological science. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 18(3), 384–401. doi:  10.1177/1368430214538325
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430214538325 [Google Scholar]
  25. Incera, S., & McLennan, C. T.
    (2016) Mouse tracking reveals that bilinguals behave like experts. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19, 610–620. doi:  10.1017/S1366728915000218
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728915000218 [Google Scholar]
  26. Johnson, P. C.
    (2014) Extension of Nakagawa & Schielzeth’s R2GLMM to random slopes models. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 5(9), 944–946. doi:  10.1111/2041‑210X.12225
     https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12225 [Google Scholar]
  27. Kim, Y., & McDonough, K.
    (2016) Prime Repetition and Korean EFL Learners’ Comprehension and Production of Passives. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 54, 319–346. doi:  10.1515/iral‑2015‑0028
     https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2015-0028 [Google Scholar]
  28. (2008) Learners’ production of passives during syntactic priming activities. Applied Linguistics, 29, 149–154. doi:  10.1093/applin/amn004
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amn004 [Google Scholar]
  29. Koop, G. J., & Johnson, J. G.
    (2011) Response dynamics: A new window on the decision process. Judgment and Decision Making, 6, 750–758.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Kuperberg, G. R., Kreher, D. A., Sitnikova, T., Caplan, D. N., & Holcomb, P. J.
    (2007) The role of animacy and thematic relationships in processing active English sentences: Evidence from event-related potentials. Brain and language, 100(3), 223–237. doi:  10.1016/j.bandl.2005.12.006
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2005.12.006 [Google Scholar]
  31. MacWhinney, B., & Bates, E.
    (Eds.) (1989) The crosslinguistic study of sentence processing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Magnuson, J.
    (2005) Moving hand reveals dynamics of thought. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(29), 9995–9996.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Marinis, T.
    (2007) On-line processing of passives in L1 and L2 children. InProceedings of the 2nd Conference on Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition North America (GALANA), (pp.265–276), Belikova, A., Meroni, L., & Umeda, M. (Eds.). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Marchman, V., Bates, E., Burkardt, A. & Good, A.
    (1991) Functional constraints of the acquisition of the passive : Toward a model of the competence to perform. First Language, 11, 65–92. doi:  10.1177/014272379101103104
     https://doi.org/10.1177/014272379101103104 [Google Scholar]
  35. McKinstry, C., Dale, R., & Spivey, M. J.
    (2008) Action Dynamics Reveal Parallel Competition in Decision Making. Psychological Science, 19(1), 22–24. doi:  10.1111/j.1467‑9280.2008.02041.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02041.x [Google Scholar]
  36. Messenger, K., Branigan, H., & McLean, J.
    (2012) Is children’s acquisition of the passive a staged process? Evidence from six and nine year olds’ production of passives, Journal of Child Language, 39, 991–1016, doi:  10.1017/S0305000911000377
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000911000377 [Google Scholar]
  37. Mirman, D.
    (2014) Growth Curve Analysis and Visualization Using R. Taylor & Francis.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Morett, L. M., & Macwhinney, B.
    (2012) Syntactic transfer in English-speaking Spanish learners. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16, 132–151. doi:  10.1017/S1366728912000107
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728912000107 [Google Scholar]
  39. O’Hora, D., Dale, R., Piiroinen, P. T., & Connolly, F.
    (2013) Local dynamics in decision making: The evolution of preference within and across decisions. Scientific Reports, 3, 1–9.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Song, J. H., & Nakayama, K.
    (2006) Role of focal attention on latencies and trajectories of visually guided manual pointing. Journal of Vision, 6, 982–995. doi:  10.1167/6.9.11
     https://doi.org/10.1167/6.9.11 [Google Scholar]
  41. Song, J. H., and Nakayama, K.
    (2009) Hidden cognitive states revealed in choice reaching tasks. Trends in Cognitive Science, 13, 360–366. doi:  10.1016/j.tics.2009.04.009
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2009.04.009 [Google Scholar]
  42. Spivey, M. J., Grosjean, M., & Knoblich, G.
    (2005) Continuous attraction toward phonological competitors. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102, 10393–10398. doi:  10.1073/pnas.0503903102
     https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0503903102 [Google Scholar]
  43. Spivey, M. J., & Dale, R.
    (2006) Continuous dynamics in real-time cognition. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15(5), 207–211. doi:  10.1111/j.1467‑8721.2006.00437.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2006.00437.x [Google Scholar]
  44. Tabatabaeian, M., Dale, R., & Duran, N. D.
    (2015) Self-serving dishonest decisions can show facilitated cognitive dynamics. Cognitive Processing, 16, 291–300. doi:  10.1007/s10339‑015‑0660‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-015-0660-6 [Google Scholar]
  45. Tipper, S. P., Howard, L. A., & Houghton, G.
    (1998) Action-based mechanisms of attention. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 353, 1385–1393. doi:  10.1098/rstb.1998.0292
     https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.1998.0292 [Google Scholar]
  46. van der Wel, R. P. R. D., Sebanz, N., & Knoblich, G.
    (2014) Do people automatically track others’ beliefs? Evidence from a continuous measure. Cognition, 130(1), 128–133.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. West, M.
    (1953) A General Service List of English Words, London: Longman
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Wojnowicz, M. T., Ferguson, M. J., Dale, R., & Spivey, M. J.
    (2009) The Self-Organization of Explicit Attitudes. Psychological Science, 20(11), 1428–1435.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Yu, Z., Wang, F., Wang, D., & Bastin, M.
    (2012) Beyond reaction times: Incorporating mouse-tracking measures into the implicit association test to examine its underlying process. Social Cognition, 30(3), 289–306.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/lab.17028.cro
Loading
The action dynamics of native and non-native speakers of English in processing active and passive sentences
Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 10, 58 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.17028.cro
/content/journals/10.1075/lab.17028.cro
/content/journals/10.1075/lab.17028.cro
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): action dynamics; mouse tracking; second language acquisition; syntactic processing

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