Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-fv566 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T06:40:22.580Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

STATISTICAL SENSITIVITY, COGNITIVE APTITUDES, AND PROCESSING OF COLLOCATIONS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 July 2018

Wei Yi
Wei Yi*
Affiliation:
University of Maryland, College Park
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Wei Yi, 3215E Jimenez Hall, University of Maryland, College Park, 20742, Maryland. E-mail: weiyi@umd.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Frequency and contingency (i.e., co-occurrence probability of words in multiword sequences [MWS]) are two driving forces of language acquisition and processing. Previous research has demonstrated that L1 and advanced L2 speakers are sensitive to phrasal frequency and contingency when processing larger-than-word units. However, it remains unclear whether such statistical sensitivity is robust across tasks and among subcategories of MWS. In addition, little is known about whether cognitive aptitudes can moderate such sensitivity. This study examined L1 and advanced L2 speakers’ statistical sensitivity to phrasal frequency and contingency as well as cognitive aptitudes’ moderating effects on such sensitivity when processing English adjective-noun collocations. Participants performed a phrasal acceptability judgment task (PJT). Meanwhile, their aptitude profiles were measured by six aptitude tests, which loaded separately onto implicit language aptitude, explicit language aptitude, and working memory capacity. Linear mixed-effects modeling revealed that both L1 and L2 English speakers were sensitive to phrasal frequency and contingency of collocations, although L2 speakers’ sensitivity was much stronger than that of L1 speakers. None of the aptitudes was found to moderate language users’ statistical sensitivity to either collocation frequency or contingency. Interestingly, disassociation patterns between the PJT performance and the involvement of implicit or explicit language aptitude among the L1 and L2 speakers were found. It was concluded that L1 and L2 speakers differed in terms of the way they processed the collocations, as well as the nature of their collocational knowledge.

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 40 , Issue 4 , December 2018 , pp. 831 - 856
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

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

This article is based on the author’s qualifying paper, supported by the PhD program in Second Language Acquisition at the University of Maryland, College Park. I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisor Dr. Michael Long for his tremendous support for this project. I would also like to thank Drs. Nan Jiang, Robert DeKeyser, and Steven Ross for their insightful suggestions that greatly improved the research. I am immensely grateful to Dr. Gisela Granena for her advice on the use of the LLAMA test, and to Dr. Scott Kaufman for giving me the access to the serial reaction time task. The data collection was generously supported by Lars Bokander, Anxin Bai, and Wenbo Li, and I would like to thank them. I also thank Dr. Stefano Rastelli for his constructive comments, as well as Dr. Michael Long, Nicco Cooper, Jason Struck, and Zhiyuan Deng for their proofreading of the manuscript.

The experiment in this article earned an Open Materials badge for transparent practices. The materials are available at https://www.iris-database.org/iris/app/home/detail?id=york%3a934519&ref=search.

References

REFERENCES

Abrahamsson, N., & Hyltenstam, K. (2008). The robustness of aptitude effects in near-native second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 481–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnon, I., & Snider, N. (2010). More than words: Frequency effects for multi-word phrases. Journal of Memory and Language, 62, 67–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bachman, L. F. (1985). Performance on cloze tests with fixed-ratio and rational deletions. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 535–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baddeley, A. (2007). Working memory, thought, and action. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balota, D. A., Cortese, M. J., Sergent-Marshall, S. D., Spieler, D. H., & Yap, M. J. (2004). Visual word recognition of single-syllable words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 283.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 1–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow, UK: Longman.Google Scholar
Bolibaugh, C., & Foster, P. (2013). Memory-based aptitude for nativelike selection: The role of phonological short-term memory. In Granena, G. & Long, M. (Eds.), Sensitive periods, language aptitude, and ultimate L2 attainment (pp. 205–230). Amsterdam, The Netherlands, and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. (1998). The emergent lexicon. Chicago Linguistic Society, 34, 421–435.Google Scholar
Church, K., Gale, W., Hanks, P., & Hindle, D. (1991). Using statistics in lexical analysis. In Zernik, U. (Ed.), Lexical acquisition: Exploiting on-line resources to build a lexicon (pp. 115–164). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Cop, U., Keuleers, E., Drieghe, D., & Duyck, W. (2015). Frequency effects in monolingual and bilingual natural reading. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22, 1216–1234.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cunnings, I. (2012). An overview of mixed-effects statistical models for second language researchers. Second Language Research, 28, 369–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2000). The robustness of critical period effects in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 499–533.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2007). Skill acquisition theory. In VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 97–113). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Diessel, H. (2007). Frequency effects in language acquisition, language use, and diachronic change. New Ideas in Psychology, 25, 108–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dörnyei, Z., & Skehan, P. (2003). Individual differences in second language learning. In Catherine, D. & Long, M. (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 589–630). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durrant, P., & Doherty, A. (2010). Are high-frequency collocations psychologically real? Investigating the thesis of collocational priming. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 6, 125–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duyck, W., Vanderelst, D., Desmet, T., & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2008). The frequency effect in second-language visual word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 850–855.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ellis, N. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 143–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. (2003). Constructions, chunking, and connectionism: The emergence of second language structure. In Catherine, D. & Long, M. (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 63–103). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. (2006a). Language acquisition as rational contingency learning. Applied Linguistics, 27, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. (2006b). Selective attention and transfer phenomena in L2 acquisition: Contingency, cue competition, salience, interference, overshadowing, blocking, and perceptual learning. Applied Linguistics, 27, 164–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. (2008). Usage-based and form-focused language acquisition: The associative learning of constructions, learned attention, and the limited L2 endstate. In Robinson, P. & Ellis, N. (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 372–405). New York, NY, and London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. (2016). Online processing of verb–argument constructions: Lexical decision and meaningfulness. Language and Cognition, 8, 391–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N., O’Donnell, M., & Römer, U. (2014). Second language verb-argument constructions are sensitive to form, function, frequency, contingency, and prototypicality. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 4, 405–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N., Simpson-Vlach, R., & Maynard, C. (2008). Formulaic language in native and second language speakers: Psycholinguistics, corpus linguistics, and TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 42, 375–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erickson, L. C., & Thiessen, E. D. (2015). Statistical learning of language: theory, validity, and predictions of a statistical learning account of language acquisition. Developmental Review, 37, 66–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erman, B., & Warren, B. (2000). The idiom principle and the open choice principle. Text-Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 20, 29–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ETS. (2017). Understanding your TOEFL iBT® test scores. Retrieved from https://www.ets.org/toefl/ibt/scores/understand/ (accessed December 20, 2017).Google Scholar
Evans, J. L., Saffran, J. R., & Robe-Torres, K. (2009). Statistical learning in children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 52, 321–335.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fletcher, W. H. (2011). Phrases in English (PIE). Retrieved from http://phrasesinenglish.org/ (accessed February 23, 2016).Google Scholar
Forster, K. I., & Forster, J. C. (2003). DMDX: A Windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35, 116–124.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frank, M. C., Goldwater, S., Griffiths, T. L., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2010). Modeling human performance in statistical word segmentation. Cognition, 117, 107–125.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frost, R., Armstrong, B. C., Siegelman, N., & Christiansen, M. H. (2015). Domain generality versus modality specificity: The paradox of statistical learning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19, 117–125.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Gómez, R. L., & Gerken, L. (2000). Infant artificial language learning and language acquisition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 178–186.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Granena, G. (2012). Age differences and cognitive aptitudes for implicit and explicit learning in ultimate second language attainment (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). College Park, MD: University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Granena, G. (2013a). Cognitive aptitudes for second language learning and the LLAMA language aptitude test. In Granena, G. & Long, M. (Eds.), Sensitive periods, language aptitude, and ultimate L2 attainment (pp. 105–129). Amsterdam, The Netherlands, and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granena, G. (2013b). Individual differences in sequence learning ability and second language acquisition in early childhood and adulthood. Language Learning, 63, 665–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granena, G., & Long, M. H. (2013). Age of onset, length of residence, language aptitude, and ultimate L2 attainment in three linguistic domains. Second Language Research, 29, 311–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregory, M. L., Raymond, W. D., Bell, A., Fosler-Lussier, E., & Jurafsky, D. (1999). The effects of collocational strength and contextual predictability in lexical production. Chicago Linguistic Society, 35, 151–166.Google Scholar
Gries, S. T., & Ellis, N. C. (2015). Statistical measures for usage-based linguistics. Language Learning, 65, 228–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamrick, P. (2014). A role for chunk formation in statistical learning of second language syntax. Language Learning, 64, 247–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jurafsky, D. (2003). Probabilistic modeling in psycholinguistics: Linguistic comprehension and production. In Bod, R., Hay, J., & Jannedy, S. (Eds.), Probabilistic linguistics (pp. 39–96). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kanyongo, G. Y. (2005). The influence of reliability on four rules for determining the number of components to retain. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods, 5, 7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaufman, S. B., DeYoung, C. G., Gray, J. R., Jiménez, L., Brown, J., & Mackintosh, N. (2010). Implicit learning as an ability. Cognition, 116, 321–340.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lance, C. E., Butts, M. M., & Michels, L. C. (2006). The sources of four commonly reported cutoff criteria: What did they really say? Organizational Research Methods, 9, 202–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lefcheck, J. S. (2015). piecewiseSEM: Piecewise structural equation modeling in R for ecology, evolution, and systematics. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 7, 573–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, S. (2016). The construct validity of language aptitude: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 801–842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linck, J. A., Osthus, P., Koeth, J. T., & Bunting, M. F. (2014). Working memory and second language comprehension and production: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21, 861–883.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Loewen, S. & Gonulal, T. (2015). Exploratory factor analysis and principal component analysis. In Plonsky, L. (Ed.), Advancing quantitative methods in second language research (pp. 182–212). New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maye, J., Weiss, D. J., & Aslin, R. N. (2008). Statistical phonetic learning in infants: Facilitation and feature generalization. Developmental Science, 11, 122–134.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McDonald, S. A., & Shillcock, R. C. (2003). Low-level predictive inference in reading: The influence of transitional probabilities on eye movements. Vision Research, 43, 1735–1751.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meara, P. (2005). LLAMA language aptitude tests: The manual. Swansea, UK: Lognostics.Google Scholar
Nieuwenhuis, R., te Grotenhuis, H. F., & Pelzer, B. J. (2012). Influence.ME: tools for detecting influential data in mixed effects models. R Journal, 4, 38–47.Google Scholar
Pawley, A., & Syder, F. H. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In Richards, J. & Schmidt, R. (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 191–226). London, UK: Longman.Google Scholar
Rastelli, S. (2014). Discontinuity in second language acquisition: The switch between statistical and grammatical learning. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Core Team. (2015). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org/.Google Scholar
Robinson, P., & Ellis, N. C. (2008). Conclusion: Cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition and L2 instruction–Issues for research. In Robinson, P. & Ellis, N. (Eds.), The handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 489–545). New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, V., Meara, P., Barnett-Legh, T., Curry, C., & Davie, E. (2017). Examining the LLAMA aptitude tests. Journal of the European Second Language Association, 1, 49–60.Google Scholar
Saffran, J. R. (2003). Statistical language learning: Mechanisms and constraints. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12, 110–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saffran, J. R., Aslin, R. N, & Newport, E. (1996). Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants. Science, 274, 1926–1928.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Santolin, C., & Saffran, J. (2017). Constraints on statistical learning across species. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22, 52–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schmidt, J. R. (2012). Human contingency learning. In Seel, N. M. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the sciences of learning (pp. 1455–1456). New York: Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
Siyanova-Chanturia, A., & Spina, S. (2015). Investigation of native speaker and second language learner intuition of collocation frequency. Language Learning, 65, 533–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (2012). Language aptitude. In Gass, S. & Mackey, A. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 381–395). London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Spadaro, K. (2013). Maturational constraints on lexical acquisition in a second language. In Granena, G. & Long, M. (Eds.), Sensitive periods, language aptitude, and ultimate L2 attainment (pp. 43–68). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, J., & Towse, J. (2015). A working memory test battery: Java-based collection of seven working memory tasks. Journal of Open Research Software, 3, 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suzuki, Y. (2017). Validity of new measures of implicit knowledge: Distinguishing implicit knowledge from automatized explicit knowledge. Applied Psycholinguistics, 38, 1229–1261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suzuki, Y., & DeKeyser, R. (2015). Comparing elicited imitation and word monitoring as measures of implicit knowledge. Language Learning, 65, 860–895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suzuki, Y., & DeKeyser, R. (2017). The interface of explicit and implicit knowledge in a second language: Insights from individual differences in cognitive aptitudes. Language Learning, 67, 747–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, S. P., & Newport, E. L. (2007). Statistical learning of syntax: The role of transitional probability. Language Learning and Development, 3, 1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tremblay, A., & Baayen, R. H. (2010). Holistic processing of regular four-word sequences: A behavioral and ERP study of the effects of structure, frequency, and probability on immediate free recall. In Wood, D. (Ed.), Perspectives on formulaic language: acquisition and communication (pp. 151–173). London, UK: Continuum.Google Scholar
Vafaee, P., Suzuki, Y., & Kachisnke, I. (2017). Validating grammaticality judgment tests: Evidence from two new psycholinguistic measures. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39, 59–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webb, S., & Kagimoto, E. (2009). The effects of vocabulary learning on collocation and meaning. TESOL Quarterly, 43, 55–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webb, S., Newton, J., & Chang, A. (2013). Incidental learning of collocation. Language Learning, 63, 91–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, J. N. (2012). Working memory and SLA. In Gass, S. & Mackey, A. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition. (pp. 427–441). London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wolter, B., & Gyllstad, H. (2011). Collocational links in the L2 mental lexicon and the influence of L1 intralexical knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 32, 430–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolter, B., & Gyllstad, H. (2013). Frequency of input and L2 collocational processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 451–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yamashita, J., & Jiang, N. (2010). L1 influence on the acquisition of L2 collocations: Japanese ESL users and EFL learners acquiring English collocations. TESOL Quarterly, 44, 647–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yi, W., Lu, S., & Ma, G. (2017). Frequency, contingency and online processing of multiword sequences: An eye-tracking study. Second Language Research, 33, 519–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhou, Q., & Ross, S. (2017). An investigation of the construct validity of L2 Chinese language proficiency: A multitrait-multimethod approach. Paper presented at the American Association of Applied Linguistics. March 18–21, Portland, OR.Google Scholar
Zuhurudeen, F. M., & Huang, Y. T. (2016). Effects of statistical learning on the acquisition of grammatical categories through Qur’anic memorization: A natural experiment. Cognition, 148, 79–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Yi supplementary material

Appendices 1-4

Download Yi supplementary material(File)
File 119.5 KB