Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T08:20:02.590Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

INTERACTION AND SYNTACTIC PRIMING: English L2 Speakers' Production of Dative Constructions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 April 2006

Kim McDonough
Kim McDonough
Affiliation:
Northern Arizona University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Interaction research about the role of language production in second language (L2) development has focused largely on modified output, specifically learners' responses to negative feedback (Iwashita, 2001; Loewen & Philp, in press; Mackey & Philp, 1998; McDonough, 2005; McDonough & Mackey, in press; Nobuyoshi & Ellis, 1993; Pica, 1988; Shehadeh, 2001). However, other processes involved in language production might help account for the beneficial relationship between interaction and L2 development. This paper reports the findings of two experiments that examined the occurrence of syntactic priming—a speaker's tendency to produce a previously spoken or heard structure—during interaction between L2 English speakers. Both studies used confederate scripting to elicit dative constructions from advanced English L2 speakers. In experiment 1, the participants (n = 50) were exposed to both prepositional and double-object dative primes. The linear mixed-model analysis indicated that syntactic priming occurred with prepositional datives only. In experiment 2, the English L2 participants (n = 54) received double-object dative primes only; results showed no evidence of syntactic priming. The implications are discussed in terms of the potential role of syntactic priming in driving L2 development in interactive contexts.This research was supported by grants (03135 and 04184) from the campus research board at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. I am grateful to Nick Ellis, Susan Gass, Alison Mackey, and Pavel Trofimovich for their insightful comments on this paper and to Ron Crawford for his assistance with the coding. Any errors, of course, are my own.

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 28 , Issue 2 , June 2006 , pp. 179 - 207
Copyright
© 2006 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.)

References

REFERENCES

Arnold, E., Wasow, T., Losongco, A., & Ginstrom, R. (2000). The effect of structural complexity and discourse status on constituent ordering. Language, 76, 28–55.Google Scholar
Ayoun, D. (2001). The role of negative and positive feedback in the second language acquisition of the passé composé and imparfait. Modern Language Journal, 85, 226–243.Google Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R., & Yoshinaga, N. (1992). Broad and narrow constraints on the English dative alternation: Some fundamental differences between native speakers and foreign language learners. University of Hawai‘i Working Papers in ESL, 11, 157–199.Google Scholar
Bock, K. (1986). Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 355–387.Google Scholar
Bock, K. (1989). Closed-class immanence in sentence production. Cognition, 31, 163–186.Google Scholar
Bock, K. (1990). Structure in language: Creating form in talk. American Psychologist, 45, 1221–1236.Google Scholar
Bock, K. (1995). Sentence production: From mind to mouth. In J. Miller & P. Eimas (Eds.), Speech, language & communication (pp. 181–216). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Bock, K., & Griffin, Z. (2000). The persistence of structural priming: Transient activation or implicit learning? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129, 177–192.Google Scholar
Bock, K., & Loebell, H. (1990). Framing sentences. Cognition, 35, 1–39.Google Scholar
Bock, K., Loebell, H., & Morey, R. (1992). From conceptual roles to structural relations: Bridging the syntactic cleft. Psychological Review, 99, 150–171.Google Scholar
Boyland, J., & Anderson, J. (1998). Evidence that syntactic priming is long-lasting. In M. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Proceedings of the 20th annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (p. 1205). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Branigan, H., Pickering, M., & Cleland, A. (1999). Syntactic priming in written production: Evidence for rapid decay. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 6, 635–640.Google Scholar
Branigan, H., Pickering, M., & Cleland, A. (2000). Syntactic co-ordination in dialogue. Cognition, 75, B13–B25.Google Scholar
Branigan, H., Pickering, M., Liversedge, S., Stewart, A., & Urbach, T. (1995). Syntactic priming: Investigating the mental representation of language. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 24, 489–506.Google Scholar
Branigan, H., Pickering, M., Stewart, A., & McLean, J. (2000). Syntactic priming in spoken production: Linguistic and temporal interference. Memory & Cognition, 28, 1297–1302.Google Scholar
Campbell, A., & Tomasello, M. (2001). The acquisition of English dative constructions. Applied Psycholinguistics, 22, 253–267.Google Scholar
Chang, F., Bock, K., & Goldberg, A. (2003). Can thematic roles leave traces of their places? Cognition, 90, 29–49.Google Scholar
Chang, F., Dell, G., Bock, K., & Griffin, Z. (2000). Structural priming as implicit learning: A comparison of models of sentence production. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29, 217–229.Google Scholar
Childers, J., & Tomasello, M. (2001). The role of pronouns in young children's acquisition of the English transitive construction. Developmental Psychology, 37, 739–748.Google Scholar
Chung, T., & Gordon, P. (1998). The acquisition of Chinese dative constructions. Proceedings of the Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, 22, 109–120.Google Scholar
Dodson, K., & Tomasello, M. (1998). Acquiring the transitive construction in English: The role of animacy and pronouns. Journal of Child Language, 30, 797–821.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. (1998). Emergentism, connectionism, and language learning. Language Learning, 48, 631–664.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. (2002a). Frequency effects in language acquisition: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 143–188.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. (2002b). Reflections on frequency effects in language acquisition: A response to commentaries. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 297–339.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. (2005). At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 305–352.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (1991). The interaction hypothesis: A critical evaluation. In E. Sadtano (Ed.), Language acquisition and the second/foreign language classroom (pp. 179–211). Singapore: Regional English Language Centre.
Fox Tree, J., & Meijer, P. (1999). Building syntactic structure in speaking. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 28, 71–92.Google Scholar
Friederici, A., Schriefers, H., & Lindenberger, U. (1998). Differential age effects on semantic and syntactic priming. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 22, 813–845.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gass, S. M. (2003). Input and interaction. In C. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 224–255). Oxford: Blackwell.
Goldberg, A. (1992). The inherent semantics of argument structure: The case of the English distransive construction. Cognitive Linguistics, 3, 37–74.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Goldberg, A., & Bencini, G. (2005). Support from language processing for a constructional approach to grammar. In A. Tyler, M. Takada, Y. Kim, & D. Marinova (Eds.), Language in use: Cognitive and discourse perspectives on language and language learning (pp. 3–18). Washington, DC: Georgetown University.
Gries, S., & 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
Griffin, Z., & Weinstein-Tull, J. (2003). Conceptual structure modulates structural priming in the production of complex sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 537–555.Google Scholar
Groefsema, M. (2001). The real-world colour of the dative alternation. Language Sciences, 23, 525–550.Google Scholar
Gropen, J., Pinker, S., Hollander, M., & Goldberg, R. (1991). Affectedness and direct objects: The role of lexical semantics in the acquisition of verb argument structure. Cognition, 41, 153–195.Google Scholar
Gropen, J., Pinker, S., Hollander, M., Goldberg, R., & Wilson, R. (1989). The learnability and acquisition of the dative alternation in English. Language, 65, 203–257.Google Scholar
Han, Z. (2002). A study of the impact of recasts on tense consistency in L2 output. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 543–572.Google Scholar
Hare, M., & Goldberg, A. (1999). Structural priming: Purely syntactic? In M. Hahn & S. Stones (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 208–211). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hartsuiker, R., & Kolk, H. (1998). Syntactic persistence in Dutch. Language and Speech, 41, 143–184.Google Scholar
Hartsuiker, R., Kolk, H., & Huiskamp, P. (1999). Priming word order in sentence production. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 52A, 129–147.Google Scholar
Hartsuiker, R., Pickering, M., & Veltkamp, E. (2004). Is syntax separate or shared between languages? Psychological Science, 15, 409–414.Google Scholar
Hartsuiker, R., & Westenberg, C. (2000). Word order priming in written and spoken sentence production. Cognition, 75, B27–B39.Google Scholar
Hawkins, R. (1987). Markedness and the acquisition of the English dative alternation by L2 speakers. Second Language Research, 3, 20–55.Google Scholar
Huttenlocher, J., Vasilyeva, M., Cymerman, E., & Levine, S. (2002). Language input and child syntax. Cognitive Psychology, 45, 337–374.Google Scholar
Huttenlocher, J., Vasilyeva, M., & Shimpi, P. (2004). Syntactic priming in young children. Journal of Memory and Language, 50, 182–195.Google Scholar
Inagaki, S. (1997). Japanese and Chinese learners' acquisition of the narrow-range rules for the dative alternation in English. Language Learning, 47, 637–669.Google Scholar
Iwashita, N. (2001). The effect of learner proficiency on interactional moves and modified output in nonnative-nonnative interaction in Japanese as a foreign language. System, 29, 267–287.Google Scholar
Iwashita, N. (2003). Negative feedback and positive evidence in task-based interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 1–36.Google Scholar
Izumi, S., & Nishimura, A. (2002). Accuracy and explicit knowledge in second language performance: The case of dative alternation for Japanese ESL learners. Sophia Linguistica: Working Papers in Linguistics, 49, 161–189.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1990). On Larson's treatment of the double-object construction. Linguistic Inquiry, 21, 427–456.Google Scholar
Larson, R. (1988). On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry, 19, 335–391.Google Scholar
LeCompagnon, B. (1984). Interference and overgeneralization in second language learning: The acquisition of English dative verbs by native speakers of French. Language Learning, 34, 39–67.Google Scholar
Leeman, J. (2003). Recasts and second language development: Beyond negative evidence. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 37–63.Google Scholar
Lieven, E., Pine, J., & Baldwin, G. (1997). Lexically-based learning and early grammatical development. Journal of Child Language, 19, 287–310.Google Scholar
Loebell, H., & Bock, K. (2003). Structural priming across languages. Linguistics, 41, 791–824.Google Scholar
Loewen, S., & Philp, J., (in press). An in-depth analysis of recasts in the adult L2 classroom. Modern Language Journal.
Lombardi, L., & Potter, M. (1992). The regeneration of syntax in short term memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 713–733.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of language acquisition: Vol. 2. Second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Long, M. H., Inagaki, S., & Ortega, L. (1998). The role of implicit negative feedback in SLA: Models and recasts in Japanese and Spanish. Modern Language Journal, 82, 357–371.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction, and second language development: An empirical study of question formation in ESL. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 557–587.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. (2000, March). Interactional feedback on L2 morpho-syntax: Learners' perceptions and developmental outcomes. Paper presented at the American Association of Applied Linguistics conference, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Mackey, A., (in press). Interaction and second language development: Perspectives from SLA research. In R. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practice in second language learning: Perspectives from linguistics and psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mackey, A., & Oliver, R. (2002). Interactional feedback and children's L2 development. System, 30, 459–477.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings? Modern Language Journal, 82, 338–356.Google Scholar
Matthews, D., Lieven, E., Theakston, A., & Tomasello, M. (2005). The role of frequency in the acquisition of English word order. Cognitive Development, 20, 121–136.Google Scholar
Mazurkewich, I. (1984). The acquisition of the dative alternation by second language learners and linguistic theory. Language Learning, 34, 91–109.Google Scholar
McDonough, K. (2005). Identifying the impact of negative feedback and learners' responses on ESL question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 79–103.Google Scholar
McDonough, K., & Mackey, A., (in press). Responses to recasts: Repetitions, primed production, and linguistic development. Lanaguge Learning.
Nicol, J. (1996). Syntactic priming. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 675–679.Google Scholar
Nobuyoshi, J., & Ellis, R. (1993). Focused communication tasks and second language acquisition. ELT Journal, 47, 203–210.Google Scholar
Pica, T. (1988). Interlanguage adjustments as an outcome of NS-NNS negotiated interaction. Language Learning, 38, 45–73.Google Scholar
Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second-language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language Learning, 44, 493–527.Google Scholar
Pickering, M., & Branigan, H. (1998). The representation of verbs: Evidence from syntactic priming in language production. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 633–651.Google Scholar
Pickering, M., Branigan, H., Cleland, A., & Stewart, A. (2000). Activation of syntactic information during language production. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29, 205–216.Google Scholar
Pickering, M., Branigan, H., & McLean, J. (2002). Constituent structure is formed in one stage. Journal of Memory and Language, 46, 586–605.Google Scholar
Pickering, M., & Garrod, S. (2004a). The interactive-alignment mode: Developments and refinements. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27, 212–219.Google Scholar
Pickering, M., & Garrod, S. (2004b). Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27, 169–226.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M., & Johnston, M. (1987). Factors influencing the development of language proficiency. In D. Nunan (Ed.), Applying second language acquisition research (pp. 45–141). Adelaide, Australia: National Curriculum Resource Centre, AMEP.
Pine, J., Lieven, E., & Rowland, C. (1998). Comparing different models of the development of the English verb category. Linguistics, 36, 807–830.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Potter, M., & Lombardi, L. (1990). Regeneration in the short-term recall of sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 633–654.Google Scholar
Potter, M., & Lombardi, L. (1998). Syntactic priming in immediate recall of sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 38, 265–282.Google Scholar
Savage, C., Lieven, E., Theakston, A., & Tomasello, M. (2003). Testing the abstractness of children's linguistic representations: Lexical and structural priming of syntactic constructions in young children. Developmental Sciences, 6, 557–567.Google Scholar
Sawyer, M. (1996). L1 and L2 sensitivity to semantic constraints on argument structure. Boston University Conference on Language Development Proceedings, 20, 646–657.Google Scholar
Schachter, J. (1986). Three approaches to the study of input. Language Learning, 36, 211–225.Google Scholar
Schachter, J. (1991). Corrective feedback in historical perspective. Second Language Research, 7, 89–102.Google Scholar
Scheepers, C. (2003). Syntactic priming of relative clause attachments: Persistence of structural configuration in sentence production. Cognition, 89, 179–205.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of attention and awareness in learning. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (Tech. Rep. No. 9, pp. 1–63). Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press.
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Shehadeh, A. (2001). Self- and other-initiated modified output during task-based interaction. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 433–457.Google Scholar
Snyder, W. (2001). On the nature of syntactic variation: Evidence from complex predicates and complex word-formation. Language, 77, 324–342.Google Scholar
Snyder, W., & Stromswald, K. (1997). The structure and acquisition of English dative constructions. Linguistic Inquiry, 28, 281–317.Google Scholar
Stromswald, K., & Synder, W. (1995). The acquisition of datives, particles, and related constructions: Evidence for a parametric account. Boston University Conference on Language Development Proceedings, 19, 621–628.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. M. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Swain, M. (1993). The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren't enough. Canadian Modern Language Review, 50, 158–164.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97–114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371–391.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2000). Do young children have adult syntactic competence? Cognition, 74, 209–253.Google Scholar
Trahey, M. (1996). Positive evidence in second language acquisition: Some long term effects. Second Language Research, 12, 111–139.Google Scholar
Trahey, M., & White, L. (1993). Positive evidence and preemption in the second language classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 181–204.Google Scholar
Whong-Barr, M., & Schwartz, B. (2002). Morphological and syntactic transfer in child L2 acquisition of the English dative alternation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 579–616.Google Scholar
Williams, R. (1994). A statistical analysis of English double object alternation. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 5, 37–58.Google Scholar
Wolfe-Quintero, K. (1998). The connection between verbs and argument structures: Native speaker production of the double object dative. Applied Psycholinguistics, 19, 225–257.Google Scholar