Article published in:
Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism
Vol. 8:5 (2018) ► pp. 561–605

Quantifying cross-linguistic influence with a computational model

A study of case-marking comprehension

| Tilburg Center for Cognition and Communication (TiCC), Tilburg University
| Tilburg University
| Tilburg University
Cross-linguistic influence (CLI) is one of the key phenomena in bilingual and second language learning. We propose a method for quantifying CLI in the use of linguistic constructions with the help of a computational model, which acquires constructions in two languages from bilingual input. We focus on the acquisition of case-marking cues in Russian and German and simulate two experiments that employ a picture-choice task tapping into the mechanisms of sentence interpretation. Our model yields behavioral patterns similar to human, and these patterns can be explained by the amount of CLI: the negative CLI in high amounts leads to the misinterpretation of participant roles in Russian and German object-verb-subject sentences. Finally, we make two novel predictions about the acquisition of case-marking cues in Russian and German. Most importantly, our simulations suggest that the high degree of positive CLI may facilitate the interpretation of object-verb-subject sentences.
Keywords: cross-linguistic influence, computational model, case marking
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Quantifying cross-linguistic influence
    • 1.2Interpretation of transitive sentences
  • 2.Target studies on case-marking comprehension
    • 2.1Picture-choice task
    • 2.2Bilingual and monolingual Russian children
    • 2.3Adult L2 learners of Russian and German
  • 3.Computational model
    • 3.1Model overview
    • 3.2Input to the model
      • 3.2.1Input representations
      • 3.2.2Data collection
    • 3.3Learning process
      • 3.3.1Key components
      • 3.3.2Interpreting instances
    • 3.4Simulated picture-choice task
    • 3.5Measuring the amount of CLI
  • 4.Simulations and results
    • 4.1Simulation set 1
      • 4.1.1Simulation details
      • 4.1.2Results
      • 4.1.3Analysis of CLI
    • 4.2Simulation set 2
      • 4.2.1Simulation details
      • 4.2.2Results
      • 4.2.3Analysis of CLI
    • 4.3Novel simulations
      • 4.3.1Bilingual Russian-German children
      • 4.3.2Bilingual and monolingual German children
  • 5.Discussion
    • 5.1Quantifying the effect of CLI
    • 5.2CLI and “agent-first” in case-marking cue comprehension
    • 5.3CLI in argument structure constructions
    • 5.4Limitations of the study
    • 5.5Computational modeling: methodological implications
    • 5.6Modeling bilingual populations
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 02 November 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.16038.mat
References
Alishahi, A., & Stevenson, S.
(2008) A computational model of early argument structure acquisition. Cognitive Science, 321, 789–834. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2010) A computational model of learning semantic roles from child-directed language. Language and Cognitive Processes, 251, 50–93. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J. R.
(1991) The adaptive nature of human categorization. Psychological Review, 981, 409–429. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bar-Shalom, E., & Snyder, W.
(1996) Optional infinitives in Russian and their implications for the pro-drop debate. In M. Lindseth & S. Franks (Eds.), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Indiana Meeting (pp. 38–47). Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Behrens, H.
(2006) The input-output relationship in first language acquisition. Language and Cognitive Processes, 211, 2–24. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bernolet, S., Hartsuiker, R. J., & Pickering, M. J.
(2013) From language-specific to shared syntactic representations: The influence of second language proficiency on syntactic sharing in bilinguals. Cognition, 1271, 287–306. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Born, R.
(1985) Error types and negative transfer in compositions of third, fourth, and fifth semester German students. Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German, 181, 246–253. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cappelle, B.
(2006) Particle placement and the case for “allostructions”. Constructions, Special Volume 1. Retrieved from http://​journals​.linguisticsociety​.org​/elanguage​/constructions​/article​/view​/22​.html
De Angelis, G., & Selinker, L.
(2001) Interlanguage transfer and competing linguistic systems in the multilingual mind. In J. Cenoz, B. Hufeisen, & U. Jessner (Eds.), Crosslinguistic Influence in Third Language Acquisition: Psycholinguistic Perspectives (pp. 42–58). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dittmar, M., Abbot-Smith, K., Lieven, E. V. M., & Tomasello, M.
(2008) German children’s comprehension of word order and case marking in causative sentences. Child Development, 791, 1152–1167. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. M.
(1987) The resolution of conflicts among competing systems: A bidirectional perspective. Applied Psycholinguistics, 81, 329–350. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E.
(1995) Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E., Casenhiser, D. M., and Sethuraman, N.
(2004) Learning argument structure generalizations. Cognitive Linguistics, 151, 289–316. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, S., So, W. C., Özyürek, A., & Mylander, C.
(2008) The natural order of events: How speakers of different languages represent events nonverbally. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 1051, 9163–9168. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grauberg, W.
(1971) An error analysis in German of first-year university students. In G. Perren & J. L. M. Trim (Eds.), Applications of Linguistics (pp. 257–263). London: The University Press.Google Scholar
Grosjean, F.
(1998) Studying bilinguals: Methodological and conceptual issues. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 11, 131–149. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grünloh, T., Lieven, E. V. M., & Tomasello, M.
(2011) German children use prosody to identify participant roles in transitive sentences. Cognitive Linguistics, 221, 393–419. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hanson, S., Aroline, E., & Carlson, M. T.
(2014) The roles of first language and proficiency in L2 processing of Spanish clitics: Global effects. Language Learning, 641, 310–342. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Higby, E., Vargas, I., Pérez, S., Ramirez, W., Varela, E., Campoverde, G., …, Obler, L. K.
(2016) The bilingual’s mental grammar system: Language-specific syntax is shared by both languages. Poster presented at Cognitive Neuroscience Society Annual Meeting, April 4, New York, NY.
Hulk, A.
(2004) The acquisition of the French DP in a bilingual context. In P. Prévost & J. Paradis (Eds.), Language Acquisition and Language Disorders (pp. 243–274). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Isabelli, C. A.
(2008) First Noun Principle or L1 Transfer Principle in SLA? Hispania, 911, 465–478. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Janssen, B. E.
(2016) The Acquisition of Gender and Case in Polish and Russian: A Study of Monolingual and Bilingual Children. Amsterdam: Uitgeverij Pegasus.Google Scholar
Janssen, B. E., Meir, N., Baker, A., & Armon-Lotem, S.
(2015) On-line comprehension of Russian case cues in monolingual Russian and bilingual Russian-Dutch and Russian-Hebrew children. In E. Grillo & K. Jepson (Eds.), Proceedings of the 39th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 266–278). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Jarvis, S.
(2000) Methodological rigor in the study of transfer: Identifying L1 influence in the interlanguage lexicon. Language Learning, 501, 245–309. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jarvis, S., & Pavlenko, A.
(2008) Crosslinguistic Influence in Language and Cognition. New York, NY: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jeong, H., Sugiura, M., & Sassa, Y.
(2007) Cross-linguistic influence on brain activation during second language processing: An fMRI study. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 101, 175–187. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jordens, P.
(1977) Rules, grammatical intuitions and strategies in foreign language learning. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin, 21, 5–76.Google Scholar
Kempe, V., & MacWhinney, B.
(1998) The acquisition of case marking by adult learners of Russian and German. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 201, 543–587. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kilborn, K., & Cooreman, A.
(1987) Sentence interpretation strategies in adult Dutch-English bilinguals. Applied Psycholinguistics, 81, 415–431. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kim, S., O’Grady, W., & Cho, S.
(1995) The acquisition of case and word order in Korean: A note on the role of context. Language Research, 311, 687–695.Google Scholar
Lee, J. F., & Malovrh, P. A.
(2009) Linguistic and non-linguistic factors affecting OVS processing of accusative and dative case pronouns by advanced L2 learners of Spanish. In J. Collentine, M. García, B. Lafford, & F. Marcos-Marín (Eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 11th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium (pp. 105–116). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B.
(2000) The CHILDES Project: Tools for Analyzing Talk (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
(2012) The logic of the unified model. In S. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 211–227). London: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Matusevych, Y., Alishahi, A., & Backus, A.
(2016a) Learning Constructions from Bilingual Exposure: Computational Studies of Argument Structure Acquisition. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
(2016b) Modelling verb selection within argument structure constructions. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 311, 1215–1244. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2017) The impact of first and second language exposure on learning second language constructions. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 201, 128–149. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, J. L.
(1987) Sentence interpretation in bilingual speakers of English and Dutch. Applied Psycholinguistics, 81, 379–413. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Meisel, J. M.
(1986) Word order and case marking in early child language. Evidence from simultaneous acquisition of two first languages: French and German. Linguistics, 241, 123–184. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Miller, G. A.
(1995) WordNet: A lexical database for English. Communications of the ACM, 381, 39–41. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Miller, M.
(1979) The Logic of Language Development in Early Childhood. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mimica, I., Sullivan, M., & Smith, S.
(1994) An on-line study of sentence interpretation in native Croatian speakers. Applied Psycholinguistics, 151, 237–261. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Morett, L. M., & MacWhinney, B.
(2013) Syntactic transfer in English-speaking Spanish learners. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 161, 132–151. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Morgenstern, A., & Parisse, C.
(2012) The Paris Corpus. Journal of French Language Studies, 221, 7–12. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Morgenstern, A., Parisse, C., Sekali, M., Bourdoux, F., & Caet, S.
(2004) French Paris Corpus [Electronic database]. Retrieved from http://​childes​.psy​.cmu​.edu​/data​/Romance​/French​-MOR​/Paris​.zip
O’Shannessy, C.
(2011) Competition between word order and case-marking in interpreting grammatical relations: A case study in multilingual acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 381, 763–792. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Palmberg, R.
(1976) A select bibliography of error analysis and related topics. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin, 11, 340–389.Google Scholar
Perek, F.
(2015) Argument Structure in Usage-based Construction Grammar: Experimental and Corpus-based Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pléh, C., Jarovinskij, A., & Balajan, A.
(1987) Sentence comprehension in Hungarian-Russian bilingual and monolingual preschool children. Journal of Child Language, 141, 587–603. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Protassova, E.
(2004) Russian Protassova Corpus [Electronic database]. Retrieved from http://​childes​.psy​.cmu​.edu​/data​/Slavic​/Russian​/Protassova​.zip
Salamoura, A., & Williams, J. N.
(2007) Processing verb argument structure across languages: Evidence for shared representations in the bilingual lexicon. Applied Psycholinguistics, 281, 627–660. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schaner-Wolles, C.
(1989) Strategies in acquiring grammatical relations in German: Word order or case marking. Folia Linguistica, 231, 131–156.Google Scholar
Schmid, H.-J.
(2016) A framework for understanding linguistic entrenchment and its psychological foundations. In H.-J. Schmid (Ed.), Entrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning: How We Reorganize and Adapt Linguistic Knowledge (pp. 9–36). Washington, DC: De Gruyter Mouton and American Psychological Association. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schmitz, K.
(2006) Indirect objects and dative case in monolingual German and bilingual German/Romance language acquisition. In D. Hole, A. Meinunger, & W. Abraham (Eds.), Datives and Other Cases: Between Argument Structure and Event Structure (pp. 239–268). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shook, A., & Marian, V.
(2013) The bilingual language interaction network for comprehension of speech. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 161, 304–324. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Smolík, F.
(2015) Word order and information structure in Czech 3-and 4-year-olds’ comprehension. First Language, 351, 237–253. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Theakston, A. L., Lieven, E. V. M., Pine, J. M., & Rowland, C. F.
(2001) The role of performance limitations in the acquisition of verb-argument structure: an alternative account. Journal of Child Language, 281, 127–152. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B.
(1996) Input Processing and Grammar Instruction in Second Language Acquisition. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
(2012) Input processing. In S. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 268–281). London: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015a) Foundations of processing instruction. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 531, 91–109. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015b) Input processing in adult SLA. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in Second Language Acquisition: An Introduction (2nd ed., pp. 113–134). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
von Stutterheim, C.
(2004) German Caroline Corpus [Electronic database]. Retrieved from http://​childes​.psy​.cmu​.edu​/data​-xml​/Germanic​/German​/Caroline​.zip
Weinreich, U.
(1968) Languages in Contact: Findings and Problems (6th ed.). The Hague: Mouton Publishers.Google Scholar
Yasunaga, D., Yano, M., Yasugi, Y., & Koizumi, M.
(2015) Is the subject-before-object preference universal? An event-related potential study in the Kaqchikel Mayan language. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 301, 1209–1229. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yokoyama, S., Kim, J., Uchida, S., Miyamoto, T., Yoshimoto, K., & Kawashima, R.
(2013) Cross-linguistic influence of first language writing systems on brain responses to second language word reading in late bilinguals. Brain and Behavior, 31, 525–531. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yoshimura, Y., & MacWhinney, B.
(2010) The use of pronominal case in English sentence interpretation. Applied Psycholinguistics, 311, 619–633. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zhao, X., & Li, P.
(2010) Bilingual lexical interactions in an unsupervised neural network model. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 131, 505–524. CrossrefGoogle Scholar