Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T04:34:59.543Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Prototype effects in first and second language learners: The case of English transitive semantics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2017

SARUT SUPASIRAPRAPA
SARUT SUPASIRAPRAPA*
Affiliation:
Michigan State University, USA
*
Address for correspondence: Sarut Supasiraprapa, Second Language Studies Program, Department of Linguistics and Languages, Michigan State University, B220 Wells Hall, 619 Red Cedar Road, East Lansing, MI 48824, USAsupasira@msu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

According to usage-based approaches to language acquisition, linguistic constructions should display prototype effects, or graded category membership (e.g., Bybee, 2010). Using the prototype-plus-distortion methodology (Franks & Bransford, 1971), Ibbotson, Theakston, Lieven, and Tomasello (2012) have provided evidence for prototype effects in adult native English speakers, who had false-positive recognition of sentences with prototypical transitive semantics as having been previously encountered after being exposed to non-prototypical transitive semantics. In the current study, I adopted this methodology and investigated whether the effects can be replicated and additionally observed from English-as-a-second-language (ESL) learners. Results from two groups of adult native English speakers (N=20 and N=21), each exposed to a different stimuli set, suggested some, but not strong, effects and revealed the complexity of the use of this methodology with linguistic materials. Moreover, no effects were observed from advanced adult ESL learners (N=22), suggesting possible differences between first and second transitive semantic representations.

Keywords

usage-basedcategorizationprototypeconstruction semanticstransitive construction
Type
Research Article
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 21 , Issue 3 , May 2018 , pp. 618 - 639
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

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.)

Footnotes

Figure 1, Table 8 and Figure 4 are based on Figure 1, Table 2 and Figure 6 in Ibbotson et al. (2012). Permission has been granted by the publisher to reproduce them. They remain copyright © 2012 Cognitive Science Society, Inc. All rights reserved. This permission does not include the right to grant others permission to photocopy or otherwise reproduce this material except for accessible versions made by non-profit organisations serving the blind, visually impaired and other persons with print disabilities (VIPs).

*I would like to thank Aline Godfroid, Debra Hardison, and Sakol Suethanapornkul for their useful suggestions on earlier drafts of the manuscript. I am also grateful to Elizabeth Lavolette and Virginia David for their respective help with stimuli development and participant recruitment. In addition, the manuscript benefited significantly from the insightful and constructive feedback from two anonymous reviewers. Final responsibility for any errors is my own.

References

Abbuhl, R. (2011). Why, when, and how to replicate research. In Mackey, A. & Gass, S. M. (eds.), Research Methods in Second Language Acquisition, pp. 296–312. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Ambridge, B., Noble, C. H., & Lieven, E. V. M. (2014). The semantics of the transitive causative construction: Evidence from a forced-choice pointing study with adults and children. Cognitive Linguistics, 25, 293–311.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. R., Budiu, R., & Reder, L. M. (2001). A theory of sentence memory as part of a general theory of memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 337–367.Google Scholar
Andersen, R., & Shirai, Y. (1996). The primacy of aspect in first and second language acquisition: The Pidgin–Creole connection. In Ritchie, W. & Bhatia, T. (eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, pp. 527–570. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bencini, G. L., & Goldberg, A. E. (2000). The contribution of argument structure constructions to sentence meaning. Journal of Memory and Language, 43, 640–651.Google Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R. (2009). The evolving context of the Fundamental Difference Hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 175–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. (2010). Language, usage and cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Casenhiser, D., & Goldberg, A. E. (2005). Fast mapping between a phrasal form and meaning. Developmental Science, 8, 500–508.Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, E., Rowland, C., & Theakston, A. L. (2009). Children's acquisition of questions with long distance dependencies. Cognitive Linguistics, 20, 571–597.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (2000). The robustness of critical period effects in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 499–533.Google Scholar
Diessel, H., & Tomasello, M. (2005). A new look at the acquisition of relative clauses. Language, 81, 882–906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2008). The dynamics of second language emergence: Cycles of language use, language change, and language acquisition. Modern Language Journal, 92, 232–249.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2011). Frequency-based accounts of SLA. In Gass, S. & Mackey, A. (eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2013). Construction grammar and second language acquisition. In Trousdale, G. & Hoffmann, T. (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, pp.365–378. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & Ferreira-Junior, F. (2009). Construction learning as a function of frequency, frequency distribution, and function. Modern Language Journal, 93, 370–385.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & Laporte, N. (1997). Contexts of acquisition: Effects of formal instruction and naturalistic exposure on second language acquisition. In de Groot, A. M. B. & Kroll, J. F. (eds.), Tutorials in Bilingualism: Psycholinguistic Perspectives, pp. 53–83. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google 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.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & Wulff, S. (2015). Second language acquisition. In Dąbrowska, E., & Divjak, D. (eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, pp. 409–431. Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eskildsen, S. W. (2012). L2 negation constructions at work. Language Learning, 62, 335–372.Google Scholar
Franks, J. J., & Bransford, J. D. (1971). Abstraction of visual patterns. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 90, 65– 74.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1999). The emergence of the semantics of argument structure constructions. In MacWhinney, B. (ed.), Emergence of Language. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2003). Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 219–224.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E., Casenhiser, D. M., & Sethuraman, N. (2004). Learning argument structure generalizations. Cognitive Linguistics, 15, 289–316.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E., Casenhiser, D. M., & White, T. (2007). Constructions as categories of language. New Ideas in Psychology, 25, 70–86.Google Scholar
Goldwater, M. B., & Markman, A. B. (2009). Constructional sources of implicit agents in sentence comprehension. Cognitive Linguistics, 20, 675–702.Google Scholar
Gries, S. Th., & Ellis, N.C. (2015). Statistical measures for usage-based linguistics. Language Learning, 2, 228– 255.Google Scholar
Gries, S. T., & Wulff, S. (2005). Do foreign language learners also have constructions? Evidence from priming, sorting, and corpora. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 3, 182–200.Google Scholar
Ibbotson, P. (2013). The scope of usage-based theory. Frontiers in Psychology, 4. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00255Google Scholar
Ibbotson, P., & Tomasello, M. (2009). Prototype constructions in early language acquisition. Language and Cognition, 1, 59–85.Google Scholar
Ibbotson, P., Theakston, A. L., Lieven, E. V., & Tomasello, M. (2012). Semantics of the transitive construction: Prototype effects and developmental comparisons. Cognitive Science, 36, 1268–1288.Google Scholar
Johnson, M. A., & Goldberg, A. E. (2012). Evidence for automatic accessing of constructional meaning: Jabberwocky sentences prime associated verbs. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28, 1439–1452.Google 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.Google Scholar
Liben, L. S., & Posnansky, C. J. (1977). Inferences on inference: Effects of age, transitive ability, memory load, and lexical factors. Child Development, 48, 1490–1497.Google Scholar
Littlemore, J. (2009). Applying cognitive linguistics to second language learning and teaching. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
McDonough, K., & Nekrasova–Becker, T. (2014). Comparing the effect of skewed and balanced input on English as a foreign language learners’ comprehension of the double-object dative construction. Applied Psycholinguistics, 35, 419–442.Google Scholar
McDonough, K., & Trofimovich, P. (2013). Learning a novel pattern through balanced and skewed input. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16, 654–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mervis, C., & Rosch, E. (1981). Categorization of natural objects. Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 89–115.Google Scholar
Muñoz, C. (2008). Symmetries and asymmetries of age effects in naturalistic and instructed L2 learning. Applied Linguistics, 29, 578–596.Google Scholar
Nakamura, D. (2012). Input skewedness, consistency, and order of frequent verbs in frequency-driven second language construction learning: A replication and extension of Casenhiser and Goldberg (2005) to adult second language acquisition. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 50, 31–67.Google Scholar
Næss, Å. (2007). Prototypical transitivity (typological studies in language). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ortega, L. (2013). SLA for the 21st century: Disciplinary progress, transdisciplinary relevance, and the bi/multilingual turn. Language Learning, 63, 1–24.Google Scholar
Ortega, L., Tyler, A. E., Park, H. E., & Uno, M. (2016). The usage-based study of language learning and multilingualism. Georgetown, Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Paris, S. G., & Mahoney, G. J. (1974). Cognitive integration in children's memory for sentences and pictures. Child Development, 45, 633–643.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pickering, M. J., & Ferreira, V. S. (2008). Structural priming: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 427– 459.Google Scholar
Pyykkönen, P., Matthews, D., & Järvikivi, J. (2009). Three-year-olds are sensitive to semantic prominence during online language comprehension: A visual world study of pronoun resolution. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25, 115–129.Google Scholar
Roehr, K. (2008). Linguistic and metalinguistic categories in second language learning. Cognitive Linguistics, 19, 67–106.Google Scholar
Römer, U., O'Donnell, M. B., & Ellis, N. C. (2014). Second language learner knowledge of verb–argument constructions: Effects of language transfer and typology. Modern Language Journal, 98, 952–975.Google Scholar
Rosch, E. (1983). Prototype classification and logical classification: The two systems. In Scholnick, E. (ed.), New Trends in Conceptual Representation: Challenges to Piaget's Theory?, pp.73–86. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Small, M. Y., & Butterworth, J. (1981). Semantic integration and the development of memory for logical inferences. Child Development, 52, 732–735.Google Scholar
Taylor, J.A., Krakauer, J.W., & Ivry, R.B. (2014). Explicit and implicit contributions to learning in a sensorimotor adaptation task. The Journal of Neuroscience, 34, 3023–3032.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2009). The usage-based theory of language acquisition. In Bavin, E. (ed.), Handbook of Child Language, pp. 69–87. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, A. (2010). Usage-based approaches to language and their applications to second language learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30, 270–291.Google Scholar
Wonnacott, E. (2011). Balancing generalization and lexical conservatism: An artificial language study with child learners. Journal of Memory and Language, 65, 1–14.Google Scholar
Wonnacott, E., Newport, E. L., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2008). Acquiring and processing verb argument structure: Distributional learning in a miniature language. Cognitive Psychology, 56, 165–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wulff, S., Ellis, N. C., Römer, U. T. E., Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Leblanc, C. J. (2009). The acquisition of tense-aspect: Converging evidence from corpora and telicity ratings. Modern Language Journal, 93, 354–369.Google 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
Zhu, B., Chen, C., Loftus, E. F., Lin, C., He, Q., Chen, C., Li, H., Moyzis, R. K., Lessard, J., & Dong, Q. (2010). Individual differences in false memory from misinformation: Cognitive factors. Memory, 18, 543–555.Google Scholar