The present study investigates whether lexical frequency can be increased experimentally, and whether an increase in lexical frequency facilitates L2 morphological processing.
Design:
English L2 learners of Spanish were randomly assigned to either a treatment or control group. Both groups completed a pre/post lexical decision task containing L2 words with either two or three morphemes, and a pre/post lexical frequency task. In addition, the treatment group completed four sessions in which they read texts containing low frequency words.
Data/analysis:
Linear mixed models and Bayes factors were used to analyze participants’ performance.
Findings/Conclusions:
Both groups took significantly longer to process morphologically complex words with three than with two morphemes at pretest. While this pattern was observed also at posttest for the control group, the treatment group took roughly the same to process both types of words following training. Taken together, the findings suggest that an increased exposure to low-frequency L2 words switches learners’ morphological computation strategies from decomposition to whole word processing.
Originality:
While previous cross-sectional studies have assessed the role of frequency on L2 morphological decomposition, this has not been confirmed by longitudinal data.
Significance/Implications:
The results support hybrid word recognition models claiming that frequency modulates morphological computation.
AhnH. D.HwangJ. B.JeonM.AhnH. D.HwangJ. B.JeonM. (2014). Decomposition of morphologically complex words in L1 and L2: Evidence from masked and cross-modal priming experiments of a Korean verbal suffix. Foreign Languages Education, 21(3), 333–353.
2.
BatesD.MaechlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48.
3.
BeyersmannE.DuñabeitiaJ. A.CarreirasM.ColtheartM.CastlesA. (2013). Early morphological decomposition of suffixed words: Masked priming evidence with transposed-letter nonword primes. Applied Psycholinguistics, 34(5), 869–892.
4.
BrysbaertM.ManderaP.KeuleersE. (2018). The word frequency effect in word processing: An updated review. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27(1), 45–50.
5.
BuraniC.CaramazzaA. (1987). Representation and processing of derived words. Language and cognitive processes, 2(3-4), 217-227.
6.
BuraniC.LaudannaA. (1992). Units of representation for derived words in the lexicon. In FrostR.KatzL. (Eds.), Orthography, phonology, morphology and meaning (pp. 361–376). North-Holland.
ButterworthB. (1983). Lexical representation. In ButterworthB. (Ed.), Language production (pp. 257–294). London, England: Academic Press.
9.
CaramazzaA.LaudannaA.RomaniC. (1988). Lexical access and inflectional morphology. Cognition, 28(3), 297–332.
10.
ChenS.MiaoX.FangJ. (2007). An experimental study on the storage units of English words in English-Chinese bilingual mental lexicon. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 40(1), 51–55.
11.
ClahsenH.FelserC. (2006). Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27(1), 3–42.
12.
ClahsenH.FelserC. (2018). Some notes on the shallow structure hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40(3), 693–706.
13.
CoughlinC. E.TremblayA. (2015). Morphological decomposition in native and non-native French speakers. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 18(3), 524–542.
14.
De GrauweS.LemhöferK.WillemsR. M.SchriefersH. (2014). L2 speakers decompose morphologically complex verbs: fMRI evidence from priming of transparent derived verbs. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, Article 802.
15.
DomínguezA.De VegaM.BarberH. (2004). Event-related brain potentials elicited by morphological, homographic, orthographic, and semantic priming. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16(4), 598–608.
16.
DuñabeitiaJ. A.PereaM.CarreirasM. (2007). Do transposed-letter similarity effects occur at a morpheme level? Evidence for morpho-orthographic decomposition. Cognition, 105(3), 691–703.
EllisN. C. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(2), 143–188.
19.
EstivaletG. L.MeunierF. (2019). Bilingual processing on French verbs: Lexicon organization and morphological structures. Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 6(5), 46–57.
20.
FooteR. (2017). The storage and processing of morphologically complex words in L2 Spanish. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39(4), 735–767.
21.
GuaschM.BoadaR.FerréP.Sánchez-CasasR. (2013). NIM: A Web-based Swiss army knife to select stimuli for psycholinguistic studies. Behavior Research Methods, 45(3), 765–771.
22.
GürelA. (1999). Decomposition: To what extent? The case of Turkish. Brain and Language, 68, 218–224.
23.
GürelA.UygunS. (2013) Representation of multimorphemic words in the mental lexicon: Implications for second language acquisition of morphology. In BaizSGoldmanNHawkesR, (eds), Proceedings of the 37th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development. Sommerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, pp. 123–133.
24.
JacobG.ŞafakD. F.DemirO.KırkıcıB. (2019). Preserved morphological processing in heritage speakers: A masked priming study on Turkish. Second Language Research, 35(2), 173–194.
KuznetsovaA.BrockhoffP. B.ChristensenR. H. B. (2017). LmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13), 1–26.
27.
LehtonenM.HulténA.Rodríguez-FornellsA.CunilleraT.TuomainenJ.LaineM. (2012). Differences in word recognition between early bilinguals and monolinguals: Behavioral and ERP evidence. Neuropsychologia, 50(7), 1362–1371.
28.
LehtonenM.LaineM. (2003). How word frequency affects morphological processing in monolinguals and bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 6(3), 213–225.
29.
LehtonenM.NiskaH.WandeE.NiemiJ.LaineM. (2006). Recognition of inflected words in a morphologically limited language: Frequency effects in monolinguals and bilinguals. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 35(2), 121–146.
30.
LewisG.SolomyakO.MarantzA. (2011). The neural basis of obligatory decomposition of suffixed words. Brain and Language, 118(3), 118–127.
31.
LiangL.ChenB. (2014). Processing morphologically complex words in second-language learners: The effect of proficiency. Acta Psychologica, 150, 69–79.
32.
LongtinC. M.MeunierF. (2005). Morphological decomposition in early visual word processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 53(1), 26–41.
33.
MarianV.BlumenfeldH. K.KaushanskayaM. (2007). The Language Experience and Proficiency Questionnaire (LEAP–Q): Assessing language profiles in bilinguals and multilinguals. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50, 940–967.
34.
PeirceJ. W. (2007). PsychoPy—psychophysics software in Python. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 162(1–2), 8–13.
35.
PortinM.LaineM. (2001). Processing cost associated with inflectional morphology in bilingual speakers. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4(1), 55–62.
36.
PortinM.LehtonenM.LaineM. (2007). Processing of inflected nouns in late bilinguals. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28(1), 135–156.
37.
RastleK.DavisM. H.Marslen-WilsonW. D.TylerL. K. (2000). Morphological and semantic effects in visual word recognition: A time-course study. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15(4–5), 507–537.
38.
R Core Team. (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.r-project.org/
39.
RStudio Team. (2016). RStudio: Integrated development for R. RStudio, Inc. http://www.rstudio.com/
40.
SlabakovaR.KempchinskyP.RothmanJ. (2012). Clitic-doubled left dislocation and focus fronting in L2 Spanish: A case of successful acquisition at the syntax–discourse interface. Second Language Research, 28(3), 319–343.
41.
SoveriA.LehtonenM.LaineM. J. (2007). Word frequency and morphological processing in Finnish revisited. The Mental Lexicon, 2(3), 359–385.
42.
StockallL.MarantzA. (2006). A single route, full decomposition model of morphological complexity: MEG evidence. The Mental Lexicon, 1(1), 85–123.
43.
TaftM. (1979). Recognition of affixed words and the word-frequency effect. Memory and Cognition, 7, 263–272.
44.
TaftM. (1994). Interactive activation as a framework for understanding morphological processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 9, 271–294.
45.
TaftM. (2004). Morphological decomposition and the reverse base frequency effect. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 57(4), 745–765.
TaftM.ForsterK. I. (1975). Lexical storage and retrieval of prefixed words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14(6), 638–647.
48.
UllmanM. T. (2004). Contributions of memory circuits to language: The declarative/procedural model. Cognition, 92(1–2), 231–270.
49.
UllmanM. T. (2005). A cognitive neuroscience perspective on second language acquisition: The declarative/procedural model. In SanzC. (Ed.), Mind and context in adult second language acquisition: Methods, Theory, and Practice (pp. 141–178). Georgetown University Press.
50.
UllmanM. T. (2016). The declarative/procedural model: A neurobiological model of language learning, knowledge, and use. In HickokG.SmallS. (Eds.), Neurobiology of language (pp. 953–968). Academic Press.
51.
UygunS.GürelA. (2016). Processing morphology in L2 Turkish. Second Language Acquisition of Turkish, 59, 251–279.
52.
VannestJ.BertramR.JärvikiviJ.NiemiJ. (2002). Counterintuitive cross-linguistic differences: More morphological computation in English than in Finnish. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 31(2), 83–106.
53.
VitevitchM. S.LuceP. A. (2004). A web-based interface to calculate phonotactic probability for words and nonwords in English. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(3), 481–487.
