Structural priming and cross-linguistic influence in L2 comprehension of Dutch relative clauses and PP-attachments: Differences between German and English learners of Dutch

Abstract

Aims and Objectives/Purpose/Research Questions:

This study investigated cross-linguistic influence and structural priming in L2 learners’ comprehension of Dutch relative clauses (RCs) and PP-attachments. While PP-attachments are structurally ambiguous in all three languages, RCs are structurally ambiguous in Dutch and German, but not in English.

Design/Methodology/Approach:

L1 speakers of German (n = 18) and English (n = 19) completed a structural priming task in their L2 Dutch with a pre-test, a priming phase, an immediate post-test, and a delayed post-test 1 day later.

Data and Analysis:

The data were analysed using t tests and repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA). In the pre-test, L1 speakers of German showed a clear parsing preference for subject RCs and a slight preference for VP-attachment, whereas L1 speakers of English showed a clear parsing preference for object RCs and a slight preference for NP-attachment. The English L1 speakers were sensitive to structural priming, but only when primed with subject RCs and VP-attachments. This priming was still visible 1 day later. The German L1 speakers were not sensitive to the priming manipulation.

Findings/Conclusion:

The pre-test showed that L1 parsing preferences influence L2 processing; the structural priming effects in the English L1 speakers showed an inverse frequency effect that is based on experiences from both L1 and L2; the delayed post-test showed that structural priming can be seen as a form of implicit learning.

Originality:

This is the first structural priming study that compared two groups of L2 speakers on two different structures.

Significance/Implications:

Structural priming can be seen as a form of implicit learning in which experienced frequencies from both L1 and L2 give rise to a developing shared syntax.

Keywords

Structural priming L2 comprehension relative clauses PP-attachments

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bernolet

Hartsuiker

R. J.

(2010). Does verb bias modulate syntactic priming? Cognition, 114(3), 455–461.

Bernolet

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, 127(3), 287–306.

Bock

J. K.

(1986). Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology, 18(3), 355–387.

Bock

Dell

G. S.

Chang

Onishi

K. H.

(2007). Persistent structural priming from language comprehension to language production. Cognition, 104(3), 437–458.

Bock

Griffin

Z. M.

(2000). The persistence of structural priming: Transient activation or implicit learning? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129(2), 177–192.

Branigan

H. P.

Pickering

M. J.

McLean

J. F.

(2005). Priming prepositional-phrase attachment during comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(3), 468–481.

Brysbaert

(2019). How many participants do we have to include in properly powered experiments? A tutorial of power analysis with reference tables. Journal of Cognition, 2(1), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.72

Chang

Dell

G. S.

Bock

(2006). Becoming syntactic. Psychological Review, 113(2), 234–272.

Clahsen

Felser

(2006). Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27(1), 3–42.

10.

Ferreira

V. S.

Bock

(2006). The functions of structural priming. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21(7–8), 1011–1029.

11.

Flett

Branigan

H. P.

Pickering

M. J.

(2013). Are non-native structural preferences affected by native language preferences? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16(4), 751–760.

12.

Frazier

(1987). Syntactic processing: Evidence from Dutch. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 5(4), 519–559.

13.

Gries

S. T.

Kootstra

G. J.

(2017). Structural priming within and across languages: A corpus-based perspective. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 20(2), 235–250.

14.

Hartsuiker

R. J.

Bernolet

(2017). The development of shared syntax in second language learning. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 20(2), 219–234.

15.

Heyselaar

Segaert

(2021). Structural priming persists for one month in young adults. PsyArXiv. https://psyarxiv.com/9gdqr/

16.

Hwang

Shin

J. A.

Hartsuiker

R. J.

(2018). Late bilinguals share syntax unsparingly between L1 and L2: Evidence from crosslinguistically similar and different constructions. Language Learning, 68(1), 177–205.

17.

Jackson

C. N.

(2018). Second language structural priming: A critical review and directions for future research. Second Language Research, 34(4), 539–552.

18.

Jackson

C. N.

Ruf

H. T.

(2017). The priming of word order in second language German. Applied Psycholinguistics, 38(2), 315–345.

19.

Jaeger

T. F.

Snider

N. E.

(2013). Alignment as a consequence of expectation adaptation: Syntactic priming is affected by the prime’s prediction error given both prior and recent experience. Cognition, 127(1), 57–83.

20.

Jarvis

Pavlenko

(2008). Crosslinguistic influence in language and cognition. Routledge.

21.

Kaan

Chun

(2018). Priming and adaptation in native speakers and second-language learners. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 21(2), 228–242.

22.

Kantola

van Gompel

R. P.

(2011). Between-and within-language priming is the same: Evidence for shared bilingual syntactic representations. Memory & Cognition, 39(2), 276–290.

23.

Kaschak

M. P.

Kutta

T. J.

Coyle

J. M.

(2014). Long and short term cumulative structural priming effects. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29(6), 728–743.

24.

Kaschak

M. P.

Kutta

T. J.

Schatschneider

(2011). Long-term cumulative structural priming persists for (at least) one week. Memory & Cognition, 39(3), 381–388.

25.

Kidd

Chan

Chiu

(2015). Cross-linguistic influence in simultaneous Cantonese–English bilingual children’s comprehension of relative clauses. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 18(3), 438–452.

26.

Konieczny

Hemforth

Scheepers

Strube

(1997). The role of lexical heads in parsing: Evidence from German. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12(2–3), 307–348.

27.

Kootstra

G. J

Unsworth

(in preparation). Adaptive processing of syntactic structures by bilingual children: Evidence from within- and between-language priming of prepositional-phrase attachment. Radboud University Nijmegen.

28.

Kootstra

G. J.

Doedens

W. J.

(2016). How multiple sources of experience influence bilingual syntactic choice: Immediate and cumulative cross-language effects of structural priming, verb bias, and language dominance. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19(4), 710–732.

29.

Lemhöfer

Broersma

(2012). Introducing LexTALE: A quick and valid lexical test for advanced learners of English. Behavior Research Methods, 44(2), 325–343.

30.

MacWhinney

(2012). Competition model. In Chapelle

C. A.

(Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0168

31.

McDonough

(2006). Interaction and syntactic priming: English L2 speakers’ production of dative constructions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 179–207.

32.

Nitschke

Kidd

Serratrice

(2010). First language transfer and long-term structural priming in comprehension. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25(1), 94–114.

33.

Peter

Chang

Pine

J. M.

Blything

Rowland

C. F.

(2015). When and how do children develop knowledge of verb argument structure? Evidence from verb bias effects in a structural priming task. Journal of Memory and Language, 81, 1–15.

34.

Pickering

M. J.

Ferreira

V. S.

(2008). Structural priming: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin, 134(3), 427–459.

35.

Schriefers

Friederici

A. D.

Kuhn

(1995). The processing of locally ambiguous relative clauses in German. Journal of Memory and Language, 34(4), 499–520.

36.

Schütze

C. T.

Gibson

(1999). Argumenthood and English prepositional phrase attachment. Journal of Memory and Language, 40(3), 409–431.

37.

Shin

J. A.

Christianson

(2012). Structural priming and second language learning. Language Learning, 62(3), 931–964.

38.

Tanenhaus

M. K.

Boland

J. E.

Mauner

Carlson

G. N.

(1993). More on combinatory lexical information: Thematic structure in parsing and interpretation. In Shillcock

Altmann

(Eds.), Cognitive models of speech processing: The second Sperlonga meeting (pp. 297–319). Lawrence Erlbaum.

39.

Van Dijk

Van Wonderen

Koutamanis

Kootstra

G. J.

Dijkstra

Unsworth

. (2022). Cross-linguistic influence in simultaneous and early sequential bilingual children: A meta-analysis. Journal of Child Language, 49, 897–929.

40.

Van Gompel

R. P.

Arai

. (2018). Structural priming in bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 21(3), 448–455.

41.

Volk

(2006). How bad is the problem of PP-attachment?: A comparison of English, German and Swedish. In B. Arsenijević, T. Baldwin, & Beata Trawínski (Eds.), Proceedings of the Third ACL-SIGSEM Workshop on Prepositions (pp. 81–88). Association for Computational Linguistics.

42.

Wei

Boland

J. E.

Cai

Z. G.

Yuan

Wang

(2019). Persistent structural priming during online second-language comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 45(2), 349–359.