This study investigated the roles of frequency, chunk meaningfulness, and individual differences in cognitive abilities (i.e., working memory and declarative memory) in processing three different types of L2 multiword sequences.
Methodology:
A phrasal decision task was administered to 23 bilingual speakers of English with idiomatic expressions, compositional phrases, and fragments as critical stimuli. In addition, the participants completed two memory tests: the operation span task and the continuous visual memory task.
Data and analysis:
The response time results were analyzed using a linear mixed-effects model.
Findings:
Results showed that L2 speakers demonstrated sensitivity to whole-string frequencies across all item types. However, the findings suggest that their sensitivity to chunk meaningfulness may vary across item types, with meaningfulness effects observed for idioms and fragments but not for compositional phrases. In addition, while working memory did not play a significant role in L2 speakers’ processing of multiword sequences, declarative memory was found to facilitate processing speed for compositional phrases only.
Originality:
This is the first study investigating the role of meaning in multiword processing among advanced bilinguals. It also examines the influence of individual cognitive differences, such as working memory and declarative memory, which have received little attention in previous research.
Implications:
Extending the earlier findings related to native language, the current findings highlight the significant influence of both frequency and meaning on the acquisition and processing of L2 multiword sequences. These results are largely consistent with usage-based and construction-based approaches.
AldersonJ. C.HuhtaA. (2005). The development of a suite of computer-based diagnostic tests based on the Common European Framework. Language Testing, 22(3), 301–320.
2.
ArnonI.McCauleyS. M.ChristiansenM. H. (2017). Digging up the building blocks of language: Age of-acquisition effect for multiword phrases. Journal of Memory and Language, 92, 265–280.
3.
ArnonI.SniderN. (2010). More than words: Frequency effects for multi-word phrases. Journal of Memory and Language, 62(1), 67–82.
4.
BaayenR. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge University Press.
5.
BaddeleyA. (2003). Working memory: Looking back and looking forward. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 4(10), 829–893.
6.
BaddeleyA. D.HitchG. J. (1974). Working memory. In BowerG. H. (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 47–89). Academic Press.
BatesD.MaechlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). lme4: Linear mixed effects models using Eigen and S4 (R package version 1.1-9). http://CRAN.Rproject.org/package=lme4
9.
BenjaminiY.HochbergY. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 57(1), 289–300.
10.
BoersF.LindstrombergS. (2012). Experimental and intervention studies on formulaic sequences in a second language. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 83–110.
11.
BuffingtonJ.Morgan-ShortK. (2019). Declarative and procedural memory as individual differences in second language aptitude. In WenZ.SkehanP.BiedrońA.LiS.SparksR. (Eds.), Language aptitude: Advancing theory, testing, research and practice (pp. 215–237). Routledge.
12.
BybeeJ. (2008). Usage-based grammar and second language acquisition. In RobinsonP.EllisN. (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and secondlanguage acquisition (pp. 216–236). Routledge.
13.
CieriC.GraffD.KimballO.MillerD.WalkerK. (2004). Fisher English training speech (part 1) transcripts. Linguistic Data Consortium.
14.
CieriC.GraffD.KimballO.MillerD.WalkerK. (2005). Fisher English training speech (part 2) transcripts. Linguistic Data Consortium.
15.
ColumbusG. (2010). Processing MWUs: Are MWU subtypes psycholinguistically real?. In WoodD. (Ed.), Perspectives on formulaic language: Acquisition and communication (pp. 194–210). Continuum.
16.
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge University Press.
17.
CowanN. (2012). Working memory capacity. Psychology Press.
18.
DąbrowskaE. (2014). Recycling utterances: A speaker’s guide to sentence processing. Cognitive Linguistics, 25, 617–653.
19.
DagenbachD.CarrT. H.BarnhardtT. M. (1990). Inhibitory semantic priming of lexical decisions due to failure to retrieve weakly activated codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16(2), 328–340.
20.
DanemanM.MerikleP. M. (1996). Working memory and language comprehension: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3(4), 422–433.
21.
DeKeyserR. (2007). Skill acquisition theory. In VanPattenB.WilliamsJ. (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 97–113). Routledge.
22.
EllisN. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 143–188.
23.
EllisN. C. (1996). Working memory in the acquisition of vocabulary and syntax: Putting language in good order. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 49(1), 234–250.
24.
ErmanB.WarrenB. (2000). The idiom principle and the open choice principle. Text Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 20(1), 29–62.
25.
FangN.ZhangP. (2021). L1 congruency, word frequency, collocational frequency, L2proficiency, and their combined effects on Chinese–English bilinguals’ L2 collocational processing. International Journal of Bilingualism, 25(5), 1429–1445.
26.
FillmoreC.KayP.O’ConnorM. K. (1988). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language, 64, 501–538.
27.
ForsterK. I.ForsterJ. C. (2003). DMDX: A Windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35(1), 116–124.
28.
GreenP.MacLeodC. J. (2016). SIMR: An R package for power analysis of generalized linear mixed models by simulation. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 7, 493–498.
29.
GriesS. T.EllisN. C. (2015). Statistical measures for usage-based linguistics. Language Learning, 65(S1), 228–255.
30.
GyllstadH.WolterB. (2016). Collocational processing in light of the phraseological continuum model: Does semantic transparency matter?Language Learning, 66(2), 296–323.
31.
HamrickP.GraffC.FinchB. (2019). Contributions of episodic memory to novel word learning. The Mental Lexicon, 14(3), 381–398.
32.
HamrickP.LumJ. A. G.UllmanM. T. (2018). Child first language and adult second language are both tied to general-purpose learning systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 115, 1487–1492.
33.
JeongH.JiangN. (2019). Representation and processing of lexical bundles: Evidence from word monitoring. System, 80, 188–198.
34.
JolsvaiH.McCauleyS. M.ChristiansenM. H. (2020). Meaningfulness beats frequency in multiword chunk processing. Cognitive Science, 44(10), Article e12885.
35.
KimS. H.KimJ. H. (2012). Frequency effects in L2 multiword unit processing: Evidence from self-paced reading. TESOL Quarterly, 46(4), 831–841.
36.
KosakaT. (2024). The multiword processing by low-proficiency Japanese English learners: Meaningfulness and constructions. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 34(2), 672–691.
37.
KuznetsovaA.BrockhoffP. B.ChristensenR. H. B.JensenS. P. (2020). lmerTest: Tests in linear mixed effects models (R package version 31-3).
38.
LangackerR. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford University Press.
LinckJ. A.OsthusP.KoethJ. T.BuntingM. F. (2014). Working memory and second language comprehension and production: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21, 861–883.
41.
MakaiA.BoatnerM. T.GatesJ. E. (1991). Handbook of commonly used American idioms. Barron’s Educational Series.
42.
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(4), 940–967.
43.
MartinK. I.EllisN. C. (2012). The roles of phonological short-term memory and working memory in L2 grammar and vocabulary learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34(3), 379–413.
44.
MartinezR.MurphyV. A. (2011). Effect of frequency and idiomaticity on second language reading comprehension. TESOL Quarterly, 45(2), 267–290.
45.
MatuschekH.KlieglR.VasishthS.BaayenH.BatesD. (2017). Balancing Type I error and power in linear mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 94, 305–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2017.01.001
46.
MisyakJ. B.ChristiansenM. H. (2012). Statistical learning and language: An individual differences study. Language Learning, 62(1), 302–331.
47.
MurphyJ.MillerR.HamrickP. (2021). Contributions of declarative memory and prior knowledge to incidental L2 vocabulary learning. The Mental Lexicon, 16, 49–68.
48.
ÖksüzD.BrezinaV.RebuschatP. (2021). Collocational processing in L1 and L2: The effects of word frequency, collocational frequency, and association. Language Learning, 71(1), 55–98.
49.
PulidoM. F.DussiasP. E. (2020). Desirable difficulties while learning collocations in a second language: Conditions that induce L1 interference improve learning. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 23(3), 652–667.
50.
QiaoX.ForsterK. I. (2013). Novel word lexicalization and the prime lexicality effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition, 39(4), 1064–1074.
51.
QiaoX.ForsterK. I.WitzelN. (2009). Is BANARA really a word?Cognition, 113, 254–257.
52.
R Core Development Team. (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.Rproject.org/
53.
ReppenR.IdeN.SudermanK. (2005). American national corpus (ANC): Second release. Linguistic Data Consortium.
54.
RuizS.RebuschatP.MeurersD. (2021). The effects of working memory and declarative memory on instructed second language vocabulary learning: Insights from intelligent CALL. Language Teaching Research, 25(4), 510–539.
55.
Siyanova-ChanturiaA.ConklinK.vanHeuvenW. J. (2011). Seeing a phrase “time and again” matters: The role of phrasal frequency in the processing of multiword sequences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 776–784.
56.
SkehanP. (2016). Foreign language aptitude, acquisitional sequences, and psycholinguistic processes. In GranenaG.JacksonD.YilmazY. (Eds.), Cognitive individualdifferences in L2 processing and acquisition (pp. 15–38). John Benjamins.
57.
SniderN.ArnonI. (2012). A unified lexicon and grammar? Compositional and noncompositional phrases in the lexicon. In GriesS.DivjakD. (Eds.), Frequency effects in language (pp. 127–163). Mouton de Gruyter.
58.
SonbulS. (2015). Fatal mistake, awful mistake, or extreme mistake? Frequency effects on off-line/on-line collocational processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 18(3), 419–437.
59.
SpearsR. A. (2008). Essential American idioms dictionary. McGraw-Hill.
60.
SquireL. R. (2004). Memory systems of the brain: A brief history and current perspective. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 82, 171–177.
61.
StoneJ. M.TowseJ. (2015). A working memory test battery: Java-based collection of seven working memory tasks. Journal of Open Research Software, 3(1), Article e5.
62.
SupasiraprapaS. (2019). Frequency effects on first and second language compositional phrase comprehension and production. Applied Psycholinguistics, 40(4), 987–1017.
63.
SwinneyD.CutlerA. (1979). The access and processing of idiomatic expressions. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 523–534.
TremblayA.BaayenR. H. (2010). Holistic processing of regular four-word sequences: A behavioral and ERP study of the effects of structure, frequency, and probability on immediate free recall. In WoodD. (Ed.), Perspectives on formulaic language: Acquisition and communication (pp. 151–173). Continuum International.
66.
TremblayA.DerwingB.LibbenG.WestburyC. (2011). Processing advantages of lexical bundles: Evidence from self-paced reading and sentence recall tasks. Language Learning, 61(2), 569–613.
67.
TremblayA.TuckerB. V. (2011). The effects of N-gram probabilistic measures on the recognition and production of four-word sequences. The Mental Lexicon, 6(2), 302–324.
68.
TurnerM. L.EngleR. W. (1989). Is working memory capacity task dependent?Journal of Memory and Language, 28(2), 127–154.
69.
UllmanM. T. (2004). Contributions of memory circuits to language: The declarative/procedural model. Cognition, 92, 231–270.
70.
UllmanM. T. (2015). The declarative/procedural model: A neurobiologically motivated theory of first and second language. In VanPattenB.WilliamsJ. (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (2nd ed., pp. 135–158). Routledge.
71.
UllmanM. T. (2016). The declarative/procedural model: A neurobiological model of language learning, knowledge, and use. In HickokG.SmallS. A. (Eds.), Neurobiology of language (pp. 953–968). Elsevier.
72.
UllmanM. T.LovelettJ. T. (2018). Implications of the declarative/procedural model for improving second language learning: The role of memory enhancement techniques. Second Language Research, 34, 39–65.
73.
WalkerN.MonaghanP.SchoetensackC.RebuschatP. (2020). Distinctions in the acquisition of vocabulary and grammar: An individual differences approach. Language Learning, 70(S2), 221–254.
74.
WenZ. E. (2016). Working memory and second language learning: Towards an integrated approach. Multilingual Matters.
75.
WolterB.GyllstadH. (2013). Frequency of input and L2 collocational processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35(03), 451–482.
76.
WolterB.YamashitaJ. (2018). Word frequency, collocational frequency, L1 congruency, and proficiency in L2 collocational processing: What accounts for L2 performance?Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40(2), 395–416.
77.
WoodD. (2009). Effects of focused instruction of formulaic sequences on fluent expression in second language narratives: A case study. The Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 12(1), 39–57.
78.
WrayA. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge University Press.
79.
WrayA. (2008). Formulaic language: Pushing the boundaries. Oxford University Press.
80.
YiW. (2018). Statistical sensitivity, cognitive aptitudes, and processing of collocations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40(4), 831–856.
81.
YiW.LuS.MaG. (2017). Frequency, contingency and online processing of multiword sequences: An eye-tracking study. Second Language Research, 33, 519–549.
82.
YiW.ZhongY. (2024). The processing advantage of multiword sequences: A meta- analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 46(2), 427–452.
83.
ZhangY.RidchenkoM.HayashiA.HamrickP. (2021). Episodic memory contributions to second language lexical development persist at higher proficiencies. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 35(5), 1356–1361.
