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.
ArnonIClarkEV (2011) Why brush your teeth is better than teeth—Children’s word production is facilitated in familiar sentence-frames. Language Learning and Development7: 107–29.
2.
ArnonICohen PrivaU (2013) More than words: The effects of multi-word frequency and constituency on phonetic duration. Language and Speech56: 349–71.
3.
ArnonICohen PrivaU (2014) Time and again: The changing effect of word and multiword frequency on phonetic duration for highly frequent sequences. The Mental Lexicon9: 377–400.
4.
ArnonISniderN (2010) More than words: Frequency effects for multi-word phrases. Journal of Memory and Language62: 67–82.
5.
AslinRNNewportEL (2012) Statistical learning: From acquiring specific items to forming general rules. Current Directions in Psychological Science21: 170–76.
6.
BaayenRHDavidsonDJBatesDM (2008) Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subject and items. Journal of Memory and Language59: 390–412.
7.
BaayenRHVasishthSBatesDKlieglR (2015) Out of the cage of shadows. Manuscript submitted for publication. arXiv. Electronic publication ahead of print version. arXiv:1511.03120.
8.
BarrDJLevyRScheepersCTilyHJ (2013) Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keeping it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language68: 255–78.
9.
BatesDKlieglRVasishthSBaayenH (2015) Parsimonious mixed models. Manuscript submitted for publication. arXiv. Electronic publication ahead of print version. arXiv:1506.04967.
10.
BatesDMaechlerMBolkerB. (2015) lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4: R package version 1.1–9 [software package]. Retrieved from: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/lme4/index.html (accessed August 2015).
11.
BiberDJohanssonSLeechGConradSFineganE (1999) Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Longman.
12.
Bley-VromanR (1990) The logical problem of second language learning. Linguistic Analysis20: 3–49.
13.
BybeeJL (2006) From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language82:711–33.
14.
BybeeJScheibmanJ (1999) The effect of usage on degrees of constituency: The reduction of don’t in English. Linguistics37: 575–96.
15.
ChomskyN (1965) Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
16.
ClahsenHFelserC (2006) Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics27: 3–42.
17.
CohenJ (1983) The cost of dichotomization. Applied Psychological Measurement7: 249–54.
18.
DaviesM (2008) The corpus of contemporary American English: 450 million words, 1990–present. Available at: http://corpus.byu.edu/coca (accessed January 2015).
19.
EllisNC (2007) The associative-cognitive CREED. In: VanPattenBWilliamsJ (eds) Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 77–95.
20.
EllisNCLarsen-FreemanD (2009) Constructing a second language: Analyses and computational simulations of the emergence of linguistic constructions from usage. Language Learning59: 90–125.
21.
EllisNCSimpson-VlachRMaynardC (2008) Formulaic language in native and second-language speakers: Psycholinguistics, corpus linguistics, and TESOL. TESOL Quarterly42: 375–96.
22.
GelmanAHillJ (2007) Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. New York: Cambridge University Press.
23.
HarrellFEJr. (2001) Regression modeling strategies: With applications to linear models, logistic regression, and survival analysis. New York: Springer.
24.
HawkinsRChanCY (1997) The partial availability of Universal Grammar in second language acquisition: The ‘failed functional features hypothesis’. Second Language Research13: 187–226.
25.
HawkinsRLiszkaS (2004) Locating the source of defective past tense marking in advanced L2 English speakers. In: Van HoutRHulkAKuikenF. (eds) The interface between syntax and lexicon in second language acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 21–44.
26.
HoppH (2010) Ultimate attainment in L2 inflection: Performance similarities between non native and native speakers. Lingua120: 901–31.
27.
JanssenNBarberHA (2012) Phrase frequency effects in language production. PloS one7: e33202.
28.
JiangNNekrasovaTM (2007) The processing of formulaic sequences by second language speakers. The Modern Language Journal91: 433–45.
29.
JolsvaiHMcCauleySMChristiansenMH (2013) Meaning overrides frequency in idiomatic and compositional multiword chunks. In: KnaufMPauenMSebanzNWachsmuthI (eds), Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society, pp. 692–97.
30.
KimSHKimJH (2012) Frequency effects in L2 multiword unit processing: Evidence from self-paced reading. TESOL Quarterly46, 831–41.
31.
LardiereD (2008) Feature-assembly in second language acquisition. In: LicerasJGoodluckH (eds) The role of features in second language acquisition. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 106–40.
32.
LardiereD (2009) Some thoughts on the contrastive analysis of features in second language acquisition. Second Language Research25: 173–227.
33.
MacWhinneyB (1987) The competition model. In: MacWhinneyB (ed.) Mechanisms of language acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 249–308.
34.
MacWhinneyB (2008) A unified model. In: EllisNRobinsonP (eds) Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition. New York: Routledge, pp. 341–71.
35.
McDonaldJ (2006) Beyond the critical period: Processing-based explanations for poor grammaticality judgment performance by late second language learners. Journal of Memory and Language55: 381–401.
36.
McDonaldSAShillcockRC (2003) Eye movements reveal the on-line computation of lexical probabilities during reading. Psychological Science14: 648–52.
37.
MillarN (2011) The processing of malformed formulaic language. Applied Linguistics32: 129–48.
38.
MitchellDC (2004) On-line methods in language processing: Introduction and historical review. In: CarreirasMCliftonCJr. (eds) The on-line study of sentence comprehension: Eyetracking, ERPs and beyond. New York: Psychology Press, pp. 15–32.
39.
O’GradyW (2005) Syntactic carpentry: An emergentist approach to syntax. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
40.
Perception Research Systems (2007) Paradigm stimulus presentation. Available at: http://www.paradigmexperiments.com (accessed January 2015).
41.
PinkerS (1999) Words and rules: The ingredients of language. New York: Harper Perennial.
42.
PinkerS (2001) Four decades of rules and associations, or whatever happened to the past tense debate? In: DupouxE (ed.) Language, the brain, and cognitive development: Papers in honor of Jacques Mehler. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 157–79.
43.
PlunkettKJuolaP (1999) A connectionist model of English past tense and plural morphology. Cognitive Science23: 463–90.
44.
PlunkettKMarchmanV (1991) U-shaped learning and frequency effects in a multi-layered perceptron: Implications for child language acquisition. Cognition38: 43–102.
45.
PlunkettKMarchmanV (1993) From rote learning to system building: Acquiring verb morphology in children and connectionist nets. Cognition48: 1–49.
46.
PrévostPWhiteL (2000) Missing surface inflection or impairment in second language acquisition? Evidence from tense and agreement. Second Language Research16: 103–33.
47.
R Core Team (2015) R: A language and environment for statistical computing: R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Version 3.2.2 [computer software]. Vienna. Available at: http://www.R-project.org (accessed August 2015).
48.
RealiFChristiansenMH (2007) Word chunk frequencies affect the processing of pronominal object-relative clauses. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology60: 161–70.
49.
RumelhartDEMcClellandJL (1986) On learning the past tense of English verbs. In: RumelhartDEMcClellandJL and the PDP Research Group (eds) Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructures of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books, pp. 216–71.
50.
SchwartzBDSprouseR (1996) L2 cognitive states and the Full Transfer / Full Access model. Second Language Research12: 40–72.
51.
SiyanovaASchmittN (2008) L2 learner production and processing of collocation: A multi-study perspective. Canadian Modern Language Review64: 429–58.
52.
Siyanova-ChanturiaAConklinKVan HeuvenW (2011) Seeing a phrase ‘time and again’ matters: The role of phrasal frequency in the processing of multi-word sequences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Language, Memory, and Cognition37: 776–84.
53.
Siyanova-ChanturiaASpinaS (2015) Investigation of native speaker and second language learner intuition of collocation frequency. Language Learning65: 533–62.
54.
SosaAVMacFarlaneJ (2002) Evidence for frequency-based constituents in the mental lexicon: collocations involving the word of. Brain and Language83: 227–36.
55.
TomaselloM (2003) Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
56.
TremblayATuckerBV (2011) The effects of n-gram probabilistic measures on the recognition and production of four-word sequences. The Mental Lexicon6: 302–24.
57.
TremblayADerwingBLibbenGWestburyC (2011) Processing advantages of lexical bundles: Evidence from self-paced reading experiments, word and sentence recall tasks, and offline semantic ratings. Language Learning61: 569–613.
58.
TsimpliIDimitrakopoulouM (2007) The interpretability hypothesis: Evidence from wh-interrogatives in second language acquisition. Second Language Research23: 215–42.
59.
UllmanMT (2001) A neurocognitive perspective on language: The declarative/procedural model. Nature Reviews Neuroscience2: 717–26.
60.
WhiteL (2003) Second language acquisition and Universal Grammar. Cambridge, MA: University Press.
