Article published In:
Australian Review of Applied Linguistics: Online-First ArticlesFirst and second language speakers’ sensitivity to the distributional properties of wh-clauses
Effects of proficiency, acquisitional context, and language experience
The present study investigates L1 and L2 English speakers’ knowledge of the wh-clausal construction along the parameters of (a) conventionality, distinguishing between high-frequency conventional and low-frequency unconventional formulations (I asked him why they agreed/why did they agree), and (b) proposition type, differentiating between interrogative versus non-interrogative proposition types (I asked / told him why they agreed). We also consider the extent to which L2 speakers’ constructional knowledge is influenced by learners’ target language experience, such as L2 proficiency, context of L2 learning (ESL or EFL), and target language exposure. Results from a judgment task revealed nuances in L1-L2 discriminatory capacities, and more importantly, differences in sensitivity to proposition type between the ESL and EFL group, but no L2 differences in sensitivity to conventionality. L2 proficiency, speakers’ length of target immersion experience, and classroom exposure were shown to also impact linguistic sensitivity, highlighting a moderating effect of target language exposure and an important role for classroom instruction.
Keywords: conventionality, second language acquisition,
wh-clauses, ESL, EFL
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Literature review
- 2.1L1 and L2 sensitivity to conventionality
- 2.2Context of L2 acquisition
- 2.3The wh-clausal construction
- 3.The present study
- 4.Methodology
- 4.1Participants
- 4.2Design and instruments
- 4.3Data analysis
- 5.Results
- 5.1Descriptive statistics of acceptability judgment
- 5.2Mixed effects models
- 5.2.1Analysis 1: NSs vs. NNSs
- 5.2.2Analysis 2: NNSs: L2 proficiency and acquisitional context
- 5.2.3Analysis 3: NNS contextual variables
- 6.Discussion
- 6.1Results summary
- 6.2L1 and L2 discrimination
- 6.3NNSs: Effects of context and contextual variables on linguistic discrimination
- 7.Conclusion
-
References
References
Ambridge, B.
(2013) How
do children restrict their linguistic generalizations? An (un-) grammaticality judgment
study. Cognitive
Science,
37
(3), 508–543. 
Ambridge, B., Barak, L., Wonnacott, E., Bannard, C., & Sala, G.
(2018) Effects
of both preemption and entrenchment in the retreat from verb overgeneralization errors: Four reanalyses, an extended
replication, and a meta-analytic synthesis. Collabra:
Psychology,
4
(1), 23.
Ambridge, B., & Brandt, S.
(2013) Lisa
filled water into the cup: The roles of entrenchment, pre-emption and verb semantics in German speakers’ L2 acquisition of
English locatives. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und
Amerikanistik,
61
(3), 245–263.
Ambridge, B., Pine, J. M., & Rowland, C. F.
(2012) Semantics
versus statistics in the retreat from locative overgeneralization
errors. Cognition,
123
(2), 260–279.
Ambridge, B., Pine, J. M., Rowland, C. F., Freudenthal, D., & Chang, F.
(2014) Avoiding
dative overgeneralisation errors: Semantics, statistics or both? Language, Cognition and
Neuroscience,
29
(2), 218–243.
Arnon, I., McCauley, S. M., & Christiansen, M. H.
(2017) Digging
up the building blocks of language: Age-of-acquisition effects for multiword phrases. Journal
of Memory and
Language,
92
1, 265–280.
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
(3), 255–278.
Bates, D., Kliegl, R., Vasishth, S., & Baayen, H.
(2015) Parsimonious
mixed models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1506.04967.
Bloom, L., Merken, S. & Wootten, J.
(1982) Wh-questions:
Linguistic factors that contribute to the sequence of acquisition. Child
Development,
53
(4), 1084–1092.
Bolibaugh, C., & Foster, P.
(2021) Implicit
statistical learning in naturalistic and instructed morphosyntactic attainment: An aptitude-treatment interaction
design. Language
Learning,
71
(4), 959–1003.
Boyd, J. K., & Goldberg, A. E.
(2011) Learning
what not to say: The role of statistical preemption and categorization in a-adjective
production. Language,
87
1, 55–83.
Butters, R. R.
(1976) More
on indirect questions. American
Speech,
51
(1/2), 57–62.
Casenhiser, D., & Goldberg, A. E.
(2005) Fast
mapping between a phrasal form and meaning. Developmental
Science,
8
(6), 500–508.
Cobb, T.
DeKeyser, R. M.
(2003) Implicit
and explicit learning. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), Handbook
of second language
acquisition (pp. 313–348). Oxford University Press.
DeKeyser, R., Alfi-Shabtay, I., & Ravid, D.
(2010) Cross-linguistic
evidence for the nature of age effects in second language acquisition. Applied
Psycholinguistics,
31
(3), 413–438.
Diessel, H.
(2004) The
acquisition of complex sentences. Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, N. C.
(2006) Language
acquisition as rational contingency learning. Applied
Linguistics,
27
1, 1–24.
(2015) Cognitive
and social aspects of learning from usage. In T. Cadierno & S. W. Eskildsen (Eds.), Usage-based
perspectives on second language
learning (pp. 49–74). De Gruyter Mouton.
Ellis, N. C., & Ferreira-Junior, F.
(2009) Construction
learning as a function of frequency, frequency distribution, and function. The Modern Language
Journal,
93
(3), 370–385.
Futrell, R., & Gibson, E.
(2017) L2
processing as noisy channel language comprehension. Bilingualism: Language and
Cognition,
20
(4), 683–684.
Gibson, E., Piantadosi, S., & Fedorenko, K.
(2011) Using
mechanical turk to obtain and analyze English acceptability judgments. Language and Linguistics
Compass,
5
(8), 509–524.
Goldberg, A. E.
(1995) Constructions:
A construction grammar approach to argument structure. University of Chicago Press.
(2016) Partial
productivity of linguistic constructions: Dynamic categorization and statistical
preemption. Language and
Cognition,
8
(3), 369–390.
(2019) Explain
me this: Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton University Press.
Goldberg, A. E., Casenhiser, D. M., & Sethuraman, N.
(2004) Learning
argument structure generalizations. Cognitive
Linguistics,
15
(3), 289–316.
Huang, B. H., Chang, Y. H. S., Zhi, M., & Niu, L.
(2020) The
effect of input on bilingual adolescents’ long-term language outcomes in a foreign language instruction
context. International Journal of
Bilingualism,
24
(1), 8–25.
Hulstijn, J. H.
(2005) Theoretical
and empirical issues in the study of implicit and explicit second-language learning:
Introduction. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition,
27
(2), 129–140.
Jaekel, N., Schurig, M., Florian, M., & Ritter, M.
(2017) From
early starters to late finishers? A longitudinal study of early foreign language learning in
school. Language
Learning,
67
(3), 631–664.
Larson-Hall, J.
(2008) Weighing
the benefits of studying a foreign language at a younger starting age in a minimal input
situation. Second Language
Research,
24
(1), 35–63.
Lenth, R., Singmann, H., Love, J., Buerkner, P., & Herve, M.
(2019) Package
‘emmeans’. R package
version,
1
(
3.2
)
Llanes, À., & Muñoz, C.
(2013) Age
effects in a study abroad context: Children and adults studying abroad and at home. Language
Learning,
63
(1), 63–90.
Muñoz, C.
(2011) Input
and long-term effects of starting age in foreign language learning. International Review of
Applied Linguistics in Language
Teaching,
49
(2), 113–133.
(2014) Starting
age and other influential factors: Insights from learner interviews. Studies in Second Language
Learning and
Teaching,
4
(3), 465–484.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J.
(1985) A
comprehensive grammar of the English
language. Longman.
Robenalt, C., & Goldberg, A. E.
(2015) Judgment
evidence for statistical preemption: It is relatively better to vanish than to disappear a rabbit, but a lifeguard can equally
well backstroke or swim children to shore. Cognitive
Linguistics,
26
(3), 467–503.
(2016) Nonnative
speakers do not take competing alternative expressions into account the way native speakers
do. Language
Learning,
66
1, 60–93.
Roehr-Brackin, K.
(2014) Explicit
knowledge and processes from a usage-based perspective: The developmental trajectory of an instructed L2
learner. Language
Learning,
64
(4), 771–808.
Rowland, C. F.
(2007) Explaining
errors in children’s
questions. Cognition,
104
1, 106–134.
Saito, K., & Hanzawa, K.
(2016) Developing
second language oral ability in foreign language classrooms: The role of the length and focus of instruction and individual
differences. Applied
Psycholinguistics,
37
1, 813–840.
Schafer, A. J., Speer, S. R., Warren, P., & White, S. D.
(2000) Intonational
disambiguation in sentence production and comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic
Research,
29
1, 169–182.
Snedeker, J., & Trueswell, J.
(2003) Using
prosody to avoid ambiguity: Effects of speaker awareness and referential context. Journal of
Memory and
language,
48
(1), 103–130.
Tachihara, K., & Goldberg, A. E.
(2020) Reduced
competition effects and noisier representations in a second language. Language
Learning,
70
1, 219–265.
Theakston, A. L., & Rowland, C. F.
(2009) The
acquisition of auxiliary syntax: A longitudinal elicitation study. Part 1: Auxiliary
BE. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing
Research,
52
(6), 1449–1470.
Wickham, H.
(2016) Data
analysis. In ggplot2 (pp. 189–201). Springer.
Winter, B.
(2019) Statistics
for linguists: An introduction using R. Routledge.
Zhang, X.
(2017) Second
language users’ restriction of linguistic generalization errors: The case of English un–prefixation
development. Language
Learning,
67
(3), 569–598.
Zhang, X., & Mai, C.
(2018) Effects
of entrenchment and preemption in second language learners’ acceptance of English denominal
verbs. Applied
Psycholinguistics,
39
(2), 413–436.