Phrase frequency, proficiency and grammaticality interact in non-native processing: Implications for theories of SLA

Abstract

This study reports on a self-paced reading experiment in which native and non-native speakers of English read sentences designed to evaluate the predictions of usage-based and rule-based approaches to second language acquisition (SLA). Critical stimuli were four-word sequences embedded into sentences in which phrase frequency and grammaticality were crossed in order to examine whether grammatical processing is modulated by phrase frequency. The magnitude of grammaticality effects for native speakers did not differ by phrase frequency, indicating that phrase frequency does not modulate native grammatical processing. Phrase frequency did, however, modulate the magnitude of non-native grammaticality effects. This modulating effect of phrase frequency on grammatical processing for non-native speakers depended on proficiency, showing a u-shaped change in the size of grammaticality effects relative to speaker proficiency. The overall pattern of change in grammaticality effects suggests a gradual developmental shift in grammatical processing from an initial reliance on phrase frequency to an eventual abstraction of generalizable rules from the linguistic input once sufficient experience has accumulated. Results suggest that second language (L2) grammatical development relies on a combination of both usage-based and rule-based knowledge and processing, rather than exclusive reliance on one or the other.

The Generative Approach to Sla and Its Place in Modern Second Language Studies

“…Moreover, generative approaches are better at connecting properties that are superficially unrelated but underlyingly linked to the same parameter, for example, properties that emerge at the same time in development (Snyder, 2001), precisely because the granularity of the formal theory employed can account for this and, in fact, even predicts this. There remain plenty of properties that allow a head-to-head framework comparison, see specifically Shantz (2017) and Zyzik (2017) for some good examples. Where we differ incommensurably is in delineating the parts of language that are claimed to be truly universal and otherwise unacquirable, that is, PoS properties illustrating the logical problem of acquisition.…”

Introduction: Convergence and divergence in functional and formal approaches to SLA

“…This special issue includes two articles taking a formal approach (Yang and Montrul, 2017, this issue; Bardovi-Harlig and Stringer, 2017, this issue), two articles taking a functional approach (Zyzik, 2017, this issue; Paquot, 2017, this issue), and one article testing both approaches (Shantz, 2017, this issue).…”

“…Another linguistic area of where research is converging is what is called ‘semi-productive’ linguistic units, such as idioms, formulaic expressions, or lexical bundles. Three articles in the special issue investigate this domain (Bardovi-Harlig and Stringer, 2007, this issue; Shantz, 2017, this issue; Paquot, 2017, this issue). This area has been important because the formal (generative) approach mostly presumes a dichotomy between rules and lexical items, which are memory-based (e.g.…”

“…Such healthy competition will advance our knowledge greatly, which is already happening in the domain of dative alternation as noted above. Perhaps a researcher who is uncommitted to either approach (such as Shantz, 2017, this issue) should, or a research team consisting of researchers from both approaches could, attempt to investigate which hypothesis fits the data better, and how their hypotheses can be improved.…”

How Does Modification Affect the Processing of Formulaic Language? Evidence from L1 and L2 Speakers of Chinese

“…Among the existing studies on L2 formulaic language processing, researchers have found a number of factors that may influence the processing. These potential factors include language proficiency (e.g., Shantz, 2017;Siyanova-Chanturia, Conklin, & van Heuvan, 2011b; and L1 backgrounds (e.g., Carrol, Conklin, & Gyllstad, 2016;Sonbul & El-Dakhs, 2020;Wolter & Gyllstad, 2011). However, how these potential factors affect L2 formulaic language processing remains extremely unclear.…”