Article published in:
Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism
Vol. 10:1 (2020) ► pp. 58–85

The action dynamics of native and non-native speakers of English in processing active and passive sentences

| Georgia State University
| Arizona State University
| Georgia State University
| Brenau University
| Instituto Cervantes, Apostólica
This study investigates processing of passive and active constructions between native speakers (NS) and non-native speakers (NNS) of English using traditional on-line mechanisms such as response time in conjunction with techniques that capitalize on the parallel activation of distributed mental representations during online syntactic processing. In the current study, hand motions captured by a mouse-tracking system were used to index listeners’ cognitive processes while making commitments to different choice alternatives during the processing of English passive and active structures. During data collection, 57 NNS and 43 NS carried out an aural forced-choice picture identification task. Data analysis indicated differences and similarities between NS and NNS participants such that NS participants are faster at responding to passive and active stimuli, travel less distance, and make fewer directional changes when compared to NNS participants. However, all participants showed similar trends for passive processing, suggesting comparable difficulties in processing passive constructions.
Keywords: second language acquisition, syntactic processing, action dynamics, mouse tracking
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Syntactic processing of passive constructions
  • 3.Language processing and action dynamics: Methodological advantages
  • 4.Current study
  • 5.Method
    • 5.1Participants
    • 5.2Materials and study design
    • 5.3Apparatus and procedure
    • 5.4Mouse-trajectory properties
      • Latency time
      • Motion time
      • Velocity (max and max onset)
      • Distance
      • Area under the curve (AUC)
      • Directional change
  • 6.Data analyses
  • 7.Results
  • 8.Summary
  • 9.Discussion
  • 10.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Note
  • References
Published online: 22 February 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.17028.cro
References
Abrams, R., & Balota, D.
(1991) Mental chronometry: Beyond reaction time. Psychological Science, 21, 153–157. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barca, L., & Pezzulo, G.
(2012) Unfolding Visual Lexical Decision in Time. PLoS ONE, 7(4), e35932. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bates, D., Maechler, M., & Bolker, B.
(2014) lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using s4 classes. R package version 3.3.2.Google Scholar
Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B.
(1989) Functionalism and the Competition Model. (pp. 3–73) In B. MacWhinney and E. Bates (Eds.), The Crosslinguistic Study of Sentence Processing. Cambridge: Cambridge University press.Google Scholar
Bencini, G., & Valian, V.
(2008) Abstract sentence representation in 3-year-olds: Evidence from language production and comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 591, 97–113. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Benedet, M., Christiansen, J., & Goodglass, H.
(1996) A crosslinguistic study of grammatical morphology in Spanish and English speaking agrammatic patients. Cortex, 341, 309–336, CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Blanco-Gomez, M. L.
(2002) Hiding the agent in English and Spanish newspaper articles. In J. Marin Arrese (Ed.). Conceptualization of events in newspaper discourse. 9–30, Madrid: Universidad Complutense.Google Scholar
Bock, K.
(1986) Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology, 181, 355–387. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brown & P. Hagoort
Eds. The neurocognition of language pp. 83 122 Oxford Oxford University Press
Coco, M. I., & Duran, N. D.
(2016) When expectations collide: Action dynamics reveal the interaction between stimulus plausibility and congruency. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 231, 1920–1931. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Coco, M. I. & Duran, N. D.
(2015) Mousetrack: Mouse-Tracking Measures from Trajectory Data. R package version 1.0.0Google Scholar
Cohen, J.
(1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Dale, R., Kehoe, C., & Spivey, M. J.
(2007) Graded motor responses in the time course of categorizing atypical exemplars. Memory & Cognition, 35(1), 15–28. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dale, R., Snyder, K., Mccall, R., & Sporns, O.
(2008) Exploring Action Dynamics as an Index of Paired-Associate Learning. PLoS ONE, 3(3), e1728. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dale, R., & Duran, N. D.
(2011) The cognitive dynamics of negated sentence verification. Cognitive Science, 351, 983–996. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Duran, N. D., Dale, R., & McNamara, D. S.
(2010) The action dynamics of overcoming the truth. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 171, 486–491. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Duran, N. D., & Dale, R.
(2014) Perspective-taking in dialogue as self-organization under social constraints. New Ideas in Psychology, 321, 131–146. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H.
(2004) The acquisition of complex sentences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Farmer, T. A., Anderson, S. E., & Spivey, M. J.
(2007) Gradiency and visual context in syntactic garden-paths. Journal of Memory & Language, 571, 570–595. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, F.
(2003) The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 471, 164–203. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Freeman, J. B., & Ambady, N.
(2010) MouseTracker: Software for studying real-time mental processing using a computer mouse-tracking method, Behavior Research Methods, 42 (1), 226–241. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Freeman, J. B., Dale, R., & Farmer, T. A.
(2011) Hand in motion reveals mind in motion. Frontiers in Psychology, 21, 59. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gold, J. I., & Shadlen, M. N.
(2001) Neural computations that underlie decisions about sensory stimuli. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 51, 10–16. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hehman, E., Stolier, R. M., & Freeman, J. B.
(2015) Advanced mouse-tracking analytic techniques for enhancing psychological science. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 18(3), 384–401. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Incera, S., & McLennan, C. T.
(2016) Mouse tracking reveals that bilinguals behave like experts. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 191, 610–620. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, P. C.
(2014) Extension of Nakagawa & Schielzeth’s R2GLMM to random slopes models. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 5(9), 944–946. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Y., & McDonough, K.
(2016) Prime Repetition and Korean EFL Learners’ Comprehension and Production of Passives. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 541, 319–346. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008) Learners’ production of passives during syntactic priming activities. Applied Linguistics, 291, 149–154. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Koop, G. J., & Johnson, J. G.
(2011) Response dynamics: A new window on the decision process. Judgment and Decision Making, 61, 750–758.Google Scholar
Kuperberg, G. R., Kreher, D. A., Sitnikova, T., Caplan, D. N., & Holcomb, P. J.
(2007) The role of animacy and thematic relationships in processing active English sentences: Evidence from event-related potentials. Brain and language, 100(3), 223–237. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B., & Bates, E.
(Eds.) (1989) The crosslinguistic study of sentence processing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Magnuson, J.
(2005) Moving hand reveals dynamics of thought. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(29), 9995–9996.Google Scholar
Marinis, T.
(2007) On-line processing of passives in L1 and L2 children. In Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition North America (GALANA), (pp. 265–276), Belikova, A., Meroni, L., & Umeda, M. (Eds.). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Marchman, V., Bates, E., Burkardt, A. & Good, A.
(1991) Functional constraints of the acquisition of the passive : Toward a model of the competence to perform. First Language, 111, 65–92. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McKinstry, C., Dale, R., & Spivey, M. J.
(2008) Action Dynamics Reveal Parallel Competition in Decision Making. Psychological Science, 19(1), 22–24. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Messenger, K., Branigan, H., & McLean, J.
(2012) Is children’s acquisition of the passive a staged process? Evidence from six and nine year olds’ production of passives, Journal of Child Language, 391, 991–1016, CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mirman, D.
(2014) Growth Curve Analysis and Visualization Using R. Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Morett, L. M., & Macwhinney, B.
(2012) Syntactic transfer in English-speaking Spanish learners. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 161, 132–151. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
O’Hora, D., Dale, R., Piiroinen, P. T., & Connolly, F.
(2013) Local dynamics in decision making: The evolution of preference within and across decisions. Scientific Reports, 31, 1–9.Google Scholar
Song, J. H., & Nakayama, K.
(2006) Role of focal attention on latencies and trajectories of visually guided manual pointing. Journal of Vision, 61, 982–995. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Song, J. H., and Nakayama, K.
(2009) Hidden cognitive states revealed in choice reaching tasks. Trends in Cognitive Science, 131, 360–366. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Spivey, M. J., Grosjean, M., & Knoblich, G.
(2005) Continuous attraction toward phonological competitors. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 1021, 10393–10398. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Spivey, M. J., & Dale, R.
(2006) Continuous dynamics in real-time cognition. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15(5), 207–211. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tabatabaeian, M., Dale, R., & Duran, N. D.
(2015) Self-serving dishonest decisions can show facilitated cognitive dynamics. Cognitive Processing, 161, 291–300. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tipper, S. P., Howard, L. A., & Houghton, G.
(1998) Action-based mechanisms of attention. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 3531, 1385–1393. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van der Wel, R. P. R. D., Sebanz, N., & Knoblich, G.
(2014) Do people automatically track others’ beliefs? Evidence from a continuous measure. Cognition, 130(1), 128–133.Google Scholar
West, M.
(1953) A General Service List of English Words, London: LongmanGoogle Scholar
Wojnowicz, M. T., Ferguson, M. J., Dale, R., & Spivey, M. J.
(2009) The Self-Organization of Explicit Attitudes. Psychological Science, 20(11), 1428–1435.Google Scholar
Yu, Z., Wang, F., Wang, D., & Bastin, M.
(2012) Beyond reaction times: Incorporating mouse-tracking measures into the implicit association test to examine its underlying process. Social Cognition, 30(3), 289–306.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 3 other publications

Ferguson, Ashley M., Jennifer M. Roche & Hayley S. Arnold
2019. Social Judgments of Digitally Manipulated Stuttered Speech: An Evaluation of Self-Disclosure on Cognition. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 62:11 ► pp. 3986 ff. Crossref logo
Nuzzo, Regina L.
2020. Principles for Writing about Quantitative Research. PM&R 12:4 ► pp. 420 ff. Crossref logo
Rivollier, Guillaume, Jean-Charles Quinton, Corentin Gonthier & Annique Smeding
2021. Looking with the (computer) mouse: How to unveil problem-solving strategies in matrix reasoning without eye-tracking. Behavior Research Methods 53:3 ► pp. 1081 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 23 april 2022. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.