Hostname: page-component-5d84bcc8dc-6bbr8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-09-11T06:24:38.158Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Forward and backward transfer of sentence processing cues in English and Mandarin Chinese: A call for approximate replication of Liu, Bates, and Li (1992) and Su (2001)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 October 2020

Stephen Skalicky  and
Victoria Chen
Stephen Skalicky*
Affiliation:
School of Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand
Victoria Chen
Affiliation:
School of Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand
*
*Corresponding author. Email: stephen.skalicky@vuw.ac.nz
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Competition Model has served as a functional explanation of cross-linguistic influence and transfer for more than 30 years. A large number of studies have used the Competition Model to frame investigations of sentence processing strategies in different types of bilingual and multilingual speakers. Among the different bilingual speakers investigated, Mandarin Chinese and English bilinguals represent a clear testing ground for the claims of the Competition Model. This is because of purportedly stark contrasts in sentence processing strategies between the two languages. Previous studies investigating sentence processing strategies of English L2 and Mandarin L2 bilinguals suggests forward transfer of L1 cues to the L2, moderated by L2 proficiency. In this paper, we argue for replication of two of these studies, namely Liu, Bates, and Li (1992) and Su (2001). These studies continue to be cited today as evidence of differences between English and Mandarin sentence processing strategies which is in turn taken as support for the predictions of the Competition Model. However, both studies presented methodological limitations in terms of measures of proficiency, participant and stimuli selection, and the statistical analysis. We suggest approximate replication of both of these studies and provide suggestions for how such replications might be conducted.

Information

Type
Replication Research
Information
Language Teaching , Volume 55 , Issue 4 , October 2022 , pp. 574 - 582
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Alonso, R. A. (2020). Crosslinguistic influence in second language acquisition. In Chapelle, C. (Ed.), The concise encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 373–378). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Barr, D. J. (2013). Random effects structure for testing interactions in linear mixed-effects models. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 1–2.10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00328CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48.10.18637/jss.v067.i01CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1981). Second-language acquisition from a functionalist perspective: Pragmatic, semantic, and perceptual strategies. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 379(1 Native Langua), 190–214.10.1111/j.1749-6632.1981.tb42009.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1982). Functionalist approaches to grammar. In Wanner, E. & Gleitman, L. (Eds.), Language acquisition: The state of the art (pp. 173–218). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1987). Competition, variation, and language learning. In MacWhinney, B. (Ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition (pp. 157–193). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Chan, I. L., & Chang, C. B. (2018). LEXTALE_CH: A quick, character-based proficiency test for Mandarin Chinese. In Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 3–5).Google Scholar
Chao, Y. R. (1965). A grammar of spoken Chinese. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2006). Language and mind (3rd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dijkstra, T., & van Heuven, W. J. B. (2002). The architecture of the bilingual word recognition system: From identification to decision. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 5(3), 175–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duguine, I., & Köpke, B. (2019). Processing strategies used by Basque-French bilingual and Basque monolingual children for the production of the subject-agent in Basque. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 9(4–5), 514–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (1998). Emergentism, connectionism and language learning. Language Learning, 48(4), 631–664.10.1111/0023-8333.00063CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. M. (1987). The resolution of conflicts among competing systems: A bidirectional perspective. Applied Psycholinguistics, 8(4), 329–350.10.1017/S0142716400000369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 434–446.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jiang, N. (2000). Lexical representation and development in a second language. Applied Linguistics, 21(1), 47–77.10.1093/applin/21.1.47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keck, C., & Kim, Y. (2014). Pedagogical grammar. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroll, J. F., Bogulski, C. A., & McClain, R. (2012). Psycholinguistic perspectives on second language learning and bilingualism: The course and consequence of cross-language competition. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 2(1), 1–24.10.1075/lab.2.1.01kroCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroll, J. F., Van Hell, J. G., Tokowicz, N., & Green, D. W. (2010). The Revised Hierarchical Model: A critical review and assessment. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13(3), 373–381.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lemhöfer, K., & Broersma, M. (2012). Introducing LexTALE: A quick and valid lexical test for advanced learners of English. Behavior Research Methods, 44(2), 325–343.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Li, C. N., & Thompson, S. A. (1989). Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Li, P., Bates, E., Liu, H., & MacWhinney, B. (1992). Cues as functional constraints on sentence processing in Chinese. In Chen, H. C. & Tzeng, O. J. L. (Eds.), Language processing in Chinese (pp. 207–234). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, P., Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1993). Processing a language without inflections: A reaction time study of sentence interpretation in Chinese. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 169–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, P., & MacWhinney, B. (2012). Competition Model. In Chapelle, C. (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 1–5). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Liu, H., Bates, E., & Li, P. (1992). Sentence interpretation in bilingual speakers of English and Chinese. Applied Psycholinguistics, 13(4), 451–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (1998). Models of the emergence of language. Annual Review of Psychology, 49(1), 199–227.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacWhinney, B. (2005). Extending the Competition Model. International Journal of Bilingualism, 9(1), 69–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2009). The logic of the unified model. In Gass, S. & Mackey, A. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 211–227). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B., & Bates, E. (1989). The crosslinguistic study of sentence processing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Meteyard, L., & Davies, R. A. I. (2020). Best practice guidance for linear mixed-effects models in psychological science. Journal of Memory and Language, 112, 104092.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nichols, J. (1984). Functional theories of grammar. Annual Review of Anthropology, 13, 97–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Odlin, T. (2003). Cross-linguistic influence. In Doughty, C. & Long, M. (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 436–486). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), aac4716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porte, G. (2012). Introduction. In Porte, G. (Ed.), Replication research in applied linguistics (pp. 1–17). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Su, I.-R. (2001). Transfer of sentence processing strategies: A comparison of L2 learners of Chinese and English. Applied Psycholinguistics, 22(1), 83–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tokowicz, N. (2014). Lexical processing and second language acquisition. New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Year, J. (2003). Sentence processing within the Competition Model. Studies in Applied Linguistics & TESOL, 3(1), 1–27.Google Scholar
Yip, P. C., & Rimmington, D. (2006). Chinese: An essential grammar (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar