Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T00:32:50.342Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

INTEGRATION OF VERBAL AND CONSTRUCTIONAL INFORMATION IN THE SECOND LANGUAGE PROCESSING OF ENGLISH DATIVE CONSTRUCTIONS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 March 2020

Hyunwoo Kim Open the ORCID record for Hyunwoo Kim [Opens in a new window] ,
Gyu-Ho Shin Open the ORCID record for Gyu-Ho Shin [Opens in a new window]  and
Haerim Hwang
Hyunwoo Kim
Affiliation:
Yonsei University
Gyu-Ho Shin*
Affiliation:
University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa
Haerim Hwang
Affiliation:
University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Gyu-Ho Shin, Department of Linguistics, University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa,1890 East-West Road, Honolulu, HI 96822. E-mail: ghshin@hawaii.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study investigated the effects of construction types on Korean-L1 English-L2 learners’ verb–construction integration in online processing by presenting the ditransitive and prepositional dative constructions and manipulating the verb’s association strength within these constructions. Results of a self-paced reading experiment showed that the L2 group spent longer times in the verb–construction integration in the postverbal complement region when processing the ditransitive construction, which is less canonical and highly avoided in the learners’ L1, than when processing the prepositional dative construction, which is more canonical and shares similar structural features with the L1 counterpart. In the following spillover region, L2 learners showed faster reading times as proficiency increased when the verb was strongly associated with the prepositional dative construction. Our findings expand the scope of current models on L2 sentence processing by suggesting that construction types and L2 proficiency may affect the L2 integration of verbal and constructional information.

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 42 , Issue 4 , September 2020 , pp. 825 - 847
Check for updates
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Ahrens, K. V. (1995). The mental representation of verbs (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California.Google Scholar
Akhtar, N. (1999). Acquiring basic word order: Evidence for data-driven learning of syntactic structure. Journal of Child Language, 26, 339–356.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ambridge, B., Kidd, E., Rowland, C. F., & Theakston, A. L. (2015). The ubiquity of frequency effects in first language acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 42, 239–273.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ambridge, B., Pine, J. M., Rowland, C. F., & Young, C. R. (2008). The effect of verb semantic class and verb frequency (entrenchment) on children’s and adults’ graded judgments of argument-structure overgeneralization errors. Cognition, 106, 87–129.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 390–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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, 68, 255–278.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bencini, G. M. L., & Goldberg, A. E. (2000). The contribution of argument structure constructions to sentence meaning. Journal of Memory and Language, 43, 640–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birner, B. J., & Ward, G. (2009). Information structure and syntactic structure. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3, 1167–1187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, J. (2007). Is syntactic knowledge probabilistic? Experiments with the English dative alternation. In Featherston, S. & Sternefeld, W. (Eds.), Roots: Linguistics in search of its evidential base (pp. 77–96). Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Brown, J. D. (1980). Relative merits of four methods for scoring cloze tests. Modern Language Journal, 64, 311–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, M., Savova, V., & Gibson, E. (2012). Syntax encodes information structure: Evidence from on-line reading comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 66, 194–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, A. L., & Tomasello, M. (2001). The acquisition of English dative constructions. Applied Psycholinguistics, 22, 253–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, W., & Almor, A. (2017). The effect of implicit causality and consequentiality on nonnative pronoun resolution. Applied Psycholinguistics, 38, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cho, Y. J., & Jeon, M. G. (2015). hankwuke swuyongseng phantanuy silhempangpeplon pikyo yenkwu [A comparative study of acceptability judgment collection methods in Korean]. The Journal of Linguistics Science, 72, 397–416.Google Scholar
Choi, H.-W. (2009). Ordering a left-branching language: Heaviness vs. givenness. Korean Society for Language and Information, 13, 39–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1982). Some concepts and consequences of the theory of government and binding. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Crossley, S., Kyle, K., & Salsbury, T. (2016). A usage‐based investigation of L2 lexical acquisition: The role of input and output. The Modern Language Journal, 100, 702–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drummond, A. (2013). Ibex Farm. http://spellout.net/ibexfarm/Google Scholar
Dussias, P. E., Valdés Kroff, J. R., Guzzardo Tamargo, R. E., & Gerfen, C. (2013). When gender and looking go hand in hand: Grammatical gender processing in L2 Spanish. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 353–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & Ferreira-Junior, F. (2009). Constructions and their acquisition: Islands and the distinctiveness of their occupancy. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 188–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2009). Constructing a second language: Analyses and computational simulations of the emergence of linguistic constructions from usage. Language Learning, 59, 90–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., & Kay, P. (1999). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language, 64, 501–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2013). Argument structure constructions versus lexical rules or derivational verb templates. Mind & Language, 28, 435–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E., Casenhiser, D. M., & Sethuraman, N. (2004). Learning argument structure generalizations. Cognitive Linguistics, 15, 289–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E., & Jackendoff, R. (2004). The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language, 80, 532–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. T. (2013). 50-something years of work on collocations: What is or should be next…. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 18, 137–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. T., & Stefanowitsch, A. (2004). Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on “alternations.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9, 97–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grüter, T., Rohde, H., & Schafer, A. J. (2017). Coreference and discourse coherence in L2. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 7, 199–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Healy, A. F., & Miller, G. A. (1970). The verb as the main determinant of sentence meaning. Psychonomic Science, 20, 372–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopp, H. (2018). The bilingual mental lexicon in L2 sentence processing. Second Language, 17, 5–27.Google Scholar
Jung, Y.-J. & Miyagawa, S. (2004). Decomposing ditransitive verbs. In Kim, R.-H.-Y. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 6th Seoul International Conference on Generative Grammar (SICGG) (pp. 101–120). Korean Generative Grammar Circle.Google Scholar
Kaan, E. (2014). Predictive sentence processing in L2 and L1: What is different? Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 4, 257–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, H., Hwang, H., & Rah, Y. (2017). Young EFL students’ reliance on path-breaking verbs in the use of English argument structure constructions. Journal of Cognitive Science, 18, 341–366.Google Scholar
Kim, H., & Rah, Y. (2016). Effects of verb semantics and proficiency in second language use of constructional knowledge. The Modern Language Journal, 100, 716–731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koornneef, A. W., & Van Berkum, J. J. (2006). On the use of verb-based implicit causality in sentence comprehension: Evidence from self-paced reading and eye tracking. Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 445–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kyle, K., & Crossley, S. (2017). Assessing syntactic sophistication in L2 writing: A usage-based approach. Language Testing, 34, 513–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ninio, A. (1999). Pathbreaking verbs in syntactic development and the question of prototypical transitivity. Journal of Child Language, 26, 619–653.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Park, K. S. (2014). Information structure and dative word-order alternations in English and Korean: L1 children, L2 children, and L2 adults(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Hawaii.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of verb–argument structure. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Prior, A., Degani, T., Awawdy, S., Yassin, R., & Korem, N. (2017). Is susceptibility to cross-language interference domain specific? Cognition, 165, 10–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ratcliff, R. (1993). Methods for dealing with reaction time outliers. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 510–532.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Team, R Core 2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/Google Scholar
Shin, G-H, & Park, S. (2019, July). Language use matters: Verb-construction fusion in the comprehension of dative constructions in Korean. Paper presented at the 21st Meeting of the International Circle of Korean Linguistics, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
Shin, J. A., & Christianson, K. (2009). Syntactic processing in Korean-English bilingual production: Evidence from cross-linguistic structural priming. Cognition, 112, 175–180.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sohn, H. M. (1999). The Korean language. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Swets, B., Desmet, T., Clifton, C., & Ferreira, F. (2008). Underspecification of syntactic ambiguities: Evidence from self-paced reading. Memory and Cognition, 36, 201–216.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Traxler, M., & Pickering, M. (1996). Plausibility and the processing of unbounded dependencies: An eye-tracking study. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 542–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Garnsey, S. M. (1994). Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 285–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Hell, J. G., & Tanner, D. (2012). Second language proficiency and cross‐language lexical activation. Language Learning, 62, 148–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whong-Barr, M., & Schwartz, B. D. (2002). Morphological and syntactic transfer in child L2 acquisition of the English dative alternation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 579–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Year, J., & Gordon, P. (2009). Korean speakers’ acquisition of the English ditransitive construction: The role of verb prototype, input distribution, and frequency. Modern Language Journal, 93, 399–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yoon, J. (2015). Double nominative and double accusative constructions. In Brown, L. & Yeon, J. (Eds.), The handbook of Korean linguistics (pp. 79–97). John Wiley & Sons.CrossRefGoogle Scholar