Structural Priming On Sec Lang Learning

Language Learning
ISSN 0023-8333
Structural Priming and Second Language Learning

Jeong-Ah Shin
Seoul National University
Kiel Christianson
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Structural priming (or syntactic priming) is a speakers tendency to reuse the same structural pattern as one that was previously encountered (Bock, 1986). This study investigated (a) whether the implicit learning processes involved in long-lag structural priming lead to differential second language (L2) improvement in producing two structural types (complex, double-object dative and simple, separated phrasal-verb structures) compared to more explicit memory processes involved in no-lag structural priming and (b) whether additional explicit instruction leads to increased production of target structures than either implicit learning or explicit memory processes alone. Learners showed an overall increase in target structure production in a picture description task and marginal improvement in grammaticality judgment tests after the structural priming session. Results revealed that explicit instruction combined with structural priming speeded short-term improvement more than implicit instruction involving implicit learning alone in the form of long-lag structural priming. However, only implicit learning via long-lag structural priming resulted in increased production of the complex structure during a second testing session 1 day later. This study is the rst to directly compare explicit instruction to implicit instruction in a structural priming paradigm, taking into account both the complexity of structures and the long-term effects of instruction on L2 production.
The research and preparation of the manuscript were supported in part by a UIUC Campus Research Board award to Kiel Christianson and Beckman Institute Cognitive Science and Articial Intelligence Award to Jeong-Ah Shin. We thank undergraduate research assistants for helping run the experiments and score cloze tests, and Kay Bock, James Yoon, Tania Ionin, and anonymous reviewers for helpful suggestions and comments on earlier versions of the manuscript, which comprised a portion of the rst authors Ph.D. dissertation. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jeong-Ah Shin, College English Program, Faculty of Liberal Education, Seoul National University, 599 Gwanak-ro Gwanak-gu, Seoul, 151742, Republic of Korea. Internet: jashin@snu.ac.kr or jashin@gmail.com
Language Learning 62:3, September 2012, pp. 931964 C 2011 Language Learning Research Club, University of Michigan DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00657.x
931
Shin and Christianson
Structural Priming and L2 Learning
Keywords structural priming; implicit learning; explicit instruction; syntactic priming
Introduction People learn to recognize and produce grammatical sentences in their native language even though they are not able to articulate the grammar rules that are involved in doing so (Dienes & Berry, 1997). This type of learning is called implicit learning. Implicit learning is typically construed as automatic acquisition of the structure of a fairly complex stimulus without necessarily intending to do so, and the resulting knowledge (usually implicit knowledge) is difcult to express. Implicit learning can be contrasted with explicit learning, which is hypothesis-driven and fully conscious, and the resulting knowledge (usually explicit knowledge) can be expressed verbally (Cleeremans, Destrebecqz, & Boyer, 1998; Dienes & Berry, 1997; Stadler & Frensch, 1998). In second language (L2) learning circumstances, implicit learning can take place while L2 learners comprehend and produce words and sentences without paying conscious attention to meaning negotiation and sentence construction (N. C. Ellis, 2005). Because it takes a long time for adults to implicitly learn a new language, implicit learning has received relatively less attention in the L2 literature compared to explicit learning via explicit instruction, which involves presenting or explaining rules and making use of metalinguistic knowledge (DeKeyser, 1995). Explicit learning (and/or instruction) has also generally been considered more effective than implicit learning (and/or instruction), in that it can speed up L2 learning (Norris & Ortega, 2000). Although adult L2 learners have generally been exposed to a great deal of explicit instruction, they often experience difculties in conveying ideas in the L2. The difculties have been argued to stem in part from a lack of automaticity or implicit knowledge in production (Segalowitz & Hulstijn, 2005) as well as a lack of full-edged abstract syntactic knowledge (N. C. Ellis, 2005). If this assessment is correct, implicit learning could play a role in enhancing L2 prociency: Implicit learning can facilitate automatic processing and promote L2 production (Segalowitz, 2003), and it progresses along the usual route of learning from formulas through limited scope patterns to creative construction, leading to the acquisition of abstract linguistic knowledge (N. C. Ellis, 2005). Another relevant issue for implicit learning in the second language acquisition (SLA) literature is whether explicit and implicit knowledge can cooperate or interact in L2 learning (N. C. Ellis, 2005). R. Ellis (2005) distinguished implicit from explicit knowledge on the basis of awareness, type of knowledge,
Language Learning 62:3, September 2012, pp. 931964 932
systematicity, accessibility, use of L2 knowledge, self-report, and learnability. Open questions remain as to whether having explicit knowledge might boost implicit learning (i.e., the acquisition of implicit knowledge) and whether implicit and explicit knowledge in learning interact in L2 processing (N. C. Ellis, 2002, 2005). A substantial body of processing instruction research has touched on the issue of whether explicit grammar instruction that precedes implicit input processing promotes L2 learning (VanPatten, 1996, 2002). In processing instruction, explicit knowledge about sentence processing strategies is provided to students in order to help them process sentences that are different from their native language systems. Although the benets of processing instruction are still controversial (DeKeyser & Sokalski, 1996), processing instruction is an example of how to deal with problematic processing strategies via overt instruction. Another controversial issue is the relationship between implicit and explicit learning and between simple and complex structures. Some SLA researchers have argued that explicit learning is signicantly more effective than implicit learning for any structure (DeKeyser, 2003; Spada & Tomita, 2010), whereas others have claimed that implicit learning can be ultimately more effective for complex structures (Krashen, 1982, 1994; Reber, 1989). Simple structures, such as optional subject-verb inversion after adverbials in English, might be easily learned via explicit instruction, in contrast to complex structures such as pseudoclefts of location (Robinson, 1996). These results have been obtained primarily with written grammaticality judgment tests. The study reported here seeks to provide relevant data primarily from production research, which remains quite rare in the literature. Specically, the present research exploits the phenomenon of structural priming in sentence production to measure the extent to which implicit versus explicit instruction affects the accurate production of double-object and phrasal-verb constructions in English by Korean L2 English speakers. Structural Priming Structural (or syntactic) priming1 refers to the tendency of speakers to reuse the same structural pattern as one that was previously encountered (Bock, 1986). For example, when a sentence such as The lawyer gave his client the document is spoken or heard, the same structure is often used to describe a transfer event in a subsequent utterance such as The girl sent her dad a letter, instead of the alternate structure The girl sent a letter to her dad. Structural priming has been
933 Language Learning 62:3, September 2012, pp. 931964
discussed in the rst-language (L1) literature as evidence for an underlying cognitive mechanism in language production, comprehension, and processing (Pickering & Ferreira, 2008), and it has been investigated to assess its own cognitive functions as a language processing and learning mechanism (Ferreira & Bock, 2006). In addition, several recent studies have examined the bilingual mind using structural priming across languages, focusing on whether bilingual syntactic processing is shared or separate (Bernolet, Hartsuiker, & Pickering, 2007; Desmet & Declercq, 2006; Hartsuiker, Pickering, & Veltkamp, 2004; Salamoura & Williams, 2006, 2007; Schoonbaert, Hartsuiker, & Pickering, 2007; Shin & Christianson, 2009). Structural Priming in the L1 Literature To explain structural priming effects, there have been two accounts in the L1 literature: a lexicalist residual activation account (Pickering & Branigan, 1998) and an implicit-learning account (Bock & Grifn, 2000; Chang, Dell, & Bock, 2006; Chang, Dell, Bock, & Grifn, 2000). We explain each of these accounts briey in what follows. The lexicalist residual activation account holds that structural priming can occur due to the residual activation of a prime that immediately precedes the target in explicit memory.2 Under this account, processing a prime sentence activates a lexical-syntactic node (i.e., combinatorial node, roughly corresponding to the argument structures of a word), and then the link between the relevant lemma and combinatorial node becomes more active. The combinatorial nodes residual activation in explicit memory leads to an increased probability that the same syntactic structure will be selected in subsequent production. For example, when the sentence The lawyer gave his client the document is spoken or heard, the lemma of gave and its combinatorial node [V NP NP] are activated. The residual activation increases the probability of production of the sentence The girl sent her dad a letter in a subsequent utterance that shares the same combinatorial node, instead of the alternate structure The girl sent a letter to her dad. According to this account, explicit memory of the prime sentences surface structure can cause structural repetition (Bock & Grifn, 2000; Chang et al., 2006; Hartsuiker, Bernolet, Schoonbaert, Speybroeck, & Vanderelst, 2008). Prime sentences serve as a retrieval cue, so that speakers are likely to recall from memory and reuse the prime sentences structure. In particular, the lexicalist residual activation account explains the so-called lexical boost observed in short-term priming (i.e., when an identical verb is used in both prime and target, the occurrence of the structural priming increases). If the target sentence
has the same verb as the prime sentence, the extra activation from verb to combinatorial node via the active link between repeated verb lemma nodes and combinatorial nodes increases the priming effect over and above the combinatorial nodes residual activation. Moreover, Bock, Loebell, and Morey (1992) found that providing instruction to participants inuenced structural priming; greater structural priming was observed among participants instructed to remember syntax than among participants instructed to remember meaning. Ferreira and Bock (2006) argued that this result suggests that structural priming is sensitive to explicit memory for syntax, which in turn is consistent with the possibility that structural priming might be due to explicit-memory functioning (p. 1020). The implicit-learning account of structural priming is based on empirical evidence involving priming over several trials or lags (Bock & Grifn, 2000; Chang et al., 2006; Hartsuiker et al., 2008), long-lasting structural priming lasting over 20 minutes (Boyland & Anderson, 1998), long-term structural priming after training (Kaschak & Borreggine, 2008), and child language acquisition over a block of trials (Huttenlocher, Vasilyeva, & Shimpi, 2004). In addition, people in this camp argue that structural priming also meets the three criteria of implicit learning and therefore is a form of implicit learning. These criteria are (a) syntactic processing normally occurs outside of awareness in the assembly of sentences (Bock, 1982), (b) people produce fairly complex sentences (Bock & Loebell, 1990), and (c) the tendency to repeat syntactic structure is procedural and unintentional (Bock & Grifn, 2000). In particular, Bock and Grifn (2000) argued that structural repetition is explained as an implicit learning mechanism as well as a simple explicit memory phenomenon. They examined priming effects when the prime sentence immediately preceded the target picture (lag 0) and when there were 1, 2, 4, or 10 intervening ller sentences between prime and target (lags 1, 2, 4, and 10, respectively). They found that the structural priming effect was not inuenced by lags between prime and target, and structural priming even endured over 10 intervening sentences (i.e., lag 10). They argued that their results could not be accounted for by the short-term activation account from a memory representation of a priming structure alone. Instead, the results constituted evidence for a procedural or implicit-learning account in which there is longer-term adaptation in the cognitive learning mechanisms for sentence creation. They also showed that participants produced the primed sentence and generalized the same structure to new utterances without any explicit attention to the form of the priming sentences. Hence, Bock and Grifn suggested that structural priming involves learning processes themselves within a system that is organized for learning how to produce sequences of words to express messages.
Recently, a combined account of the mechanisms responsible for structural priming has been proposed with multiple factors underlying structural priming (a so-called multifactorial account), including both residual activation in explicit memory and implicit-learning processes (Ferreira & Bock, 2006; Hartsuiker et al., 2008). Hartsuiker et al. (2008) found that the lexical boost is short-lived, whereas structural priming can be long-lived. In other words, structural priming can be accounted for in both explicit memory and implicitlearning processes. In long-lag conditions, structural priming involves implicit learning rather than explicit memory; in no-lag or short-lag conditions, structural priming might involve both, relying on explicit memory alone for lexical repetition. We return to these theories and their relevance to the results reported here in both the Method and Discussion sections. Structural Priming in the L2 Literature In the SLA literature, McDonough and Tromovich (2009) suggested that structural priming methods are useful in doing research on L2 processing and learning. Recently, a few SLA studies have employed structural priming to examine interaction activities in L2 development. McDonough (2006) investigated whether structural priming is benecial for L2 development in interactive contexts, using a confederate script technique (Branigan, Pickering, & Cleland, 2000). McDonough observed structural priming with prepositional-object datives in L2 English learners. The participants produced more prepositionalobject datives when they had previously heard or produced the prepositionalobject structure themselves than when they had not. Likewise, Kim and McDonough (2008) investigated the same research question with English active and passive structures and found that structural priming plays a benecial role in L2 development. McDonough and Mackey (2006, 2008) examined the benets of structural priming on English-as-a-second-language (ESL) question development. They assumed that L2 learners might have two alternations in English question forms: incomplete interlanguage (i.e., the learners developing L2 knowledge; Selinker, 1972) and some knowledge of developmentally advanced question forms. The authors thus hypothesized that hearing or producing the advanced form might encourage the subsequent use of that form as opposed to the less advanced form. In both studies, they found that learners showing structural priming were more likely to advance to a higher stage in the developmental sequence, indicating that structural priming is associated with ESL question formation. These studies all focused on L2 speakers interaction with interlocutors (teachers) and L2 development. Unlike the present study, these investigations
did not address the issue of learners internal cognitive processes related to implicit and explicit learning via structural priming through long-lag priming. Nor did this earlier work examine the long-term effects of structural priming on production or compare implicit instruction in the form of structural priming to explicit instruction and/or the combination of both forms of instruction. All of these outstanding issues are addressed in the present study. The Study The goals of this study were to compare the cognitive benets of implicit learning implemented through structural priming to the benets of explicit instruction in the context of L2 production. At the same time, we investigated how structural complexity modulates structural priming in L2 production. Specically, we rst investigated whether structural priming involving implicit-learning processes alone (i.e., long-lag priming) improves L2 production compared to structural priming involving primarily explicit memory processes (i.e., no-lag priming). Next, we investigated whether structural priming involving mainly explicit memory processes (no-lag priming) combined with explicit learning processes reinforced by explicit instruction might be more benecial for the improvement of L2 production than more implicit instruction (i.e., long-lag priming). We also examined long-term priming effects in each condition by administering a delayed posttest 1 day later. Finally, we investigated how the results might differ depending on the relative complexity of structures. In order to measure immediate, short-term, and long-term effects of priming, this study employed a pretest-priming-posttest design by using performance in picture description and grammaticality judgment pretests as baselines. A priming session involved three conditions with respect to no-lag/long-lag structural priming and implicit/explicit instruction. Performance in the priming session can show immediate priming effects based on each priming condition compared to the baseline pretests. Immediate picture description and grammaticality judgment posttests (Posttest 1) can measure cumulative short-term effects of structural priming, and a delayed picture description posttest on the following day (Posttest 2) measured cumulative long-term effects of structural priming. Using these measures, the study addresses the following major research questions, which have not yet been addressed in the existing literature: Research Question 1: Does purely implicit learning (measured by long-lag structural priming) lead to differential improvement of L2 compared to explicit memory processes (measured by no-lag structural priming)?
Research Question 2: Does additional explicit knowledge instruction lead to more L2 improvement than implicit instruction involving either implicitlearning or explicit memory processes alone? Research Question 3: Do structural priming effects generated by purely implicit learning (long-lag structural priming) persist in L2 production longer than effects generated by explicit memory processes (no-lag structural priming) or explicit instruction? Research Question 4: Do any observed short-term or long-term priming effects vary as a function of structural complexity? Following the multifactorial account of structural priming discussed earlier (e.g., Ferreira & Bock, 2006), we assumed the following: (a) Long-lag structural priming involves purely implicit-learning processes alone; (b) no-lag structural priming, including lexical repetition, involves mainly explicit memory processes; and (c) explicit instruction plus no-lag structural priming, including lexical repetition, involves explicit-learning processes in addition to explicit memory processes. Based on these assumptions, which were motivated by the theories outlined earlier, we predicted that L2 learners production of the complex structure would be affected most rapidly by explicit instruction. However, implicit instruction in the form of long-lag priming was expected to produce the most perseverant effects on production 1 day after initial instruction. For the more simple structure, we predicted little difference between implicit and explicit instructional conditions, both immediately after instruction and the following day.
Method Participants Forty-eight participants were recruited from the University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign community. All were native speakers of Korean and were learning English as their L2. According to their detailed language background information, which was obtained after the experiment, all participants had received formal instruction in English for at least 6 years; the average number of years living in countries speaking English as an ofcial language was three (range: 18). The mean age was 29 (range: 1940). Three participants incomplete data were discarded (one participant failed to appear on the second day of the experiment, and the production of two participants was inadvertently not recorded on the digital recorder), leaving 45 participants whose data were analyzed. Participants received $15 for their participation in the 2-day experiment.
Target Structures The target structures were double-object dative (e.g., The boy is handing the singer a guitar) and separated phrasal-verb constructions involving a postobject particle (e.g., The man is putting the re out). These two structures were chosen as target structures because they have both similarities and differences in L2 learners use and two languages. First, the two structures are similar in that Korean L2 English learners often have difculties in producing them and thus do not frequently use them. Shin (2008, 2010) found that bilinguals with low L2 prociency (low-level L2 learners) had problems in syntactic processing during L2 English double-object dative sentence production. Specically, ordering problems arose, leading to ungrammatical sentences such as The coach read the rules the team, The lawyer took his girlfriend to spaghetti, and The old man rented to his neighbors apartment. Like the double-object datives, the ordering problems of L2 learners have also been observed in phrasal-verb constructions such as He will call up me this evening (Kadia, 1988). In addition to this kind of error, the phrasal-verb structure is less frequent in L2 production (Liao & Fukuya, 2004), similar to double-object datives (McDonough, 2006). In addition, both structures have syntactic alternations: prepositional-object dative sentences (e.g., The boy is handing a guitar to the singer) and unseparated phrasal-verb sentences involving a postverb particle, with the particle located after the verb (e.g., The man is putting out the re), respectively. The availability of two structural alternations makes it possible to use a structural priming paradigm (Bock, 1986; Konopka & Bock, 2009). The participants might produce either target or alternate structures. If these structures have been primed and priming effects have accumulated through the priming session, then participants might produce the target structures instead of the alternate structures. In these respects, both target structures (e.g., The boy is handing the singer a guitar and The man is putting the re out) are suitable for investigations of structural priming as well as learning. The target structures, however, display important differences. First, although Korean has both double-object and postpositional-object datives, which are equivalent to English double-object and prepositional-object dative structures, respectively (Shin & Christianson, 2011), there are no equivalent structures for phrasal-verb constructions (e.g., put out) in Korean; instead, Korean has one-word equivalents like extinguish. Korean learners of English would thus be expected to have similar difculty in learning these structures as, for example, Chinese learners of English (Liao & Fukuya, 2004) because Chinese does not have equivalent phrasal-verb constructions either.
Most importantly, as noted earlier, the target structures are different in terms of cognitive complexity. Hulstijn and de Graaff (1994) suggested criteria to divide structures into complex and simple in order to explain structural difference in language learning. They argued that complex structures have multiple components, which involve abstract structural and procedural knowledge in learning, whereas simple structures do not. It can therefore be argued that the dative structure, which involves different lexical content and different caseassignment schemes (Larson, 1988), is more complex and more dependent on abstract syntax than the phrasal-verb structure, which involves simple functional lexical items. If there are any differences in participants performance between the target double-object dative and separated phrasal-verb structures in production, it might be due to effects of either L1 equivalents or structural complexity. Depending on the direction of any observed difference, we might be able to adjudicate between the two inuences. Materials Target sentences and pictures (line drawings) depicting those sentences were constructed using 72 target verbs: 36 dative and 36 phrasal verbs (see the appendix3 ). Grammaticality judgment and picture description pretests included 12 double-object dative and 12 separated phrasal-verb constructions, which were presented as grammatical sentences and which were elicited by pictures (line drawings of simple events), respectively. These two tasks were employed in pretest and posttest sessions in order to test L2 production and receptive knowledge of syntactic structures, respectively. The research questions of the current study, however, focused on L2 production, and picture description results will be highlighted rather than grammaticality judgment results,4 although grammaticality judgment results will be briey presented. Each grammaticality judgment test item included the same verbs as the picture description test items, but the sentences were different. The other 24 ller items in the grammaticality judgment test were created with 12 grammatical sentences and 12 ungrammatical ones. Another 12 pictures in the picture description test served as llers, and 2 others served as practice items. The events in these pictures were described with intransitive sentences (e.g., A man is ying) or transitive sentences (e.g., A man is riding a bicycle). In the priming session, 12 dative and 12 phrasal verbs were used to create two sets of prime sentences and pictures (two different items per verb). Moreover, an additional set of pictures with the target verbs used in the pretest items (12 dative and 12 phrasal verbs) was constructed to elicit the participants own productionsthat is, the priming session shared the target verbs with the
Table 1 Overview of the experiment Day 1 Session Pretest Priming Posttest 1 2 Posttest 2 Questionnaire Prociency test Task Picture description Auditory grammaticality judgment Picture description and repetition Picture description Auditory grammaticality judgment Picture description Language background questionnaire Cloze test
pretest. None of the pictures were reused in other phases, although the target verbs were reused in other phases. Three pairs of sentences and pictures irrelevant to the target structures were also created for practice trials. None of the 60 llers or the practice sentences contained the target structures. The immediate posttests also consisted of a sentence-picture set of 12 double-object dative and 12 separated phrasal-verb constructions. It shared six dative and six phrasal verbs with the priming session, and it included an additional 12 new lexical items (six dative and six phrasal verbs), which were less frequent than those used in the pretest and priming session5 (Bresnan, Cueni, Nikitina, & Baayen, 2007; Deshmukh, Ganapathiraju, Hamaker, & Picone, 1998). In the delayed posttest session, the other set of verbs used during the priming session was used in addition to six new double-object dative and six new separated phrasal-verb lexical items. Only the picture description task was administered because this study was more interested in productionthe picture descriptionthan grammatical judgments.
Procedure The experiment was individually carried out in front of a PC in a soundattenuated room over sessions separated by 1 day. A schematic representation of the procedure is provided in Table 1. On the rst day of the experiment, participants were randomly and equally assigned to one of three priming conditions (see the next subsection for details of priming conditions). Participants in all conditions rst performed a picture description pretest for 5 minutes. Before the test, they were instructed to describe pictures using words presented below the pictures in one sentence as quickly as possible and to press a space bar after production to proceed to the
next item. Then they performed an auditory grammaticality judgment pretest6 for another 5 minutes. In the following priming session the participants were informed that they were going to see pictures with spoken sentences describing the pictures and were asked to repeat what they had heard when they saw the same pictures with yellow frames. Additionally, they were told that they would sometimes see pictures with yellow frames without spoken sentences and were asked to describe the pictures using the word(s) presented below the pictures. The priming session was self-paced and lasted approximately 3540 minutes, varying slightly by individual, with the explicit condition taking somewhat longer than the other two. After the priming session, the participants in all three conditions performed immediate posttests (another picture description and auditory grammaticality judgment tests) for 10 minutes. Each individual rst-day session (including pretests, priming, and immediate posttests) lasted a total of approximately 60 minutes. On the second day of the study, the same participants performed the delayed posttest (picture description) for 5 minutes. They then lled out a language background questionnaire and took an English prociency (cloze) test7 for 1015 minutes. Each individual second-day session lasted approximately 30 minutes.
Priming Conditions In the priming session, the repetition task was used as the priming trial; listening to the prime sentences and repeating them was predicted to promote structural priming in the target elicitation because repeating sentences triggers structural priming (Konopka & Bock, 2009). The priming conditions, however, differed depending on whether the prime trials were provided immediately before the target trial and whether explicit instruction was provided. There were thus three conditions: no-lag comparison, long-lag implicit, and explicitly reinforced. Examples of each condition are provided in Table 2. In the no-lag comparison condition, the target trial immediately followed the prime trial. This is termed a no-lag condition because of the immediate prime-target sequence without placeholder llers in between. The no-lag immediate prime-target condition has been used in previous studies to demonstrate structural priming involving explicit memory processes and to increase the possibility of priming (Bock & Grifn, 2000). The basic function of this condition, including lexical repetition, involves primarily explicit memory processes8 (Pickering & Ferreira, 2008). Thus, the present study used the
Table 2 Examples of the three conditions in both structures Double-object dative The girl is climbing the stairs The babies are playing football The man is getting angry The boy is reading the girl a booka The man is reading his grandson a story The woman is showing the man a dress The boy is reading the girl a book [other llers or phrasal-verb target trials]b The man is reading his grandson a story The girl is climbing the stairs The babies are playing football The man is getting angry The man is riding the bike The woman is showing the man a dress The girl is climbing the stairs The babies are playing football The man is getting angry The boy is reading the girl a book The man is reading his grandson a story The woman is showing the man a dress Word Order Note (Explicit Instruction) Separated phrasal-verb The girl is climbing the stairs The babies are playing football The man is getting angry The man is wiping the table off The woman is wiping the window off The girl is turning the heater down. The man is wiping the table off [other llers or dative target trials] The woman is wiping the window off The girl is climbing the stairs The babies are playing football The man is getting angry The man is riding the bike The girl is turning the heater down. The girl is climbing the stairs The babies are playing football The man is getting angry The man is wiping the table off The woman is wiping the window off The girl is turning the heater down. Word Order Note (Explicit Instruction)
Condition No-lag comparison
Long-lag implicit
Reinforced explicit
Prime sentences are in bold; target sentences are in bold italics. Separated phrasal-verb sentences served as llers for double-object dative target trials, and double-object dative sentences also served as llers for phrasal-verb target trials. In other words, they were intertwined with each other in the long-lag implicit condition; therefore, the total number of items was identical among the three conditions.
b
943
Language Learning 62:3, September 2012, pp. 931964
immediate prime-target condition as a baseline no-lag comparison, comparing it to the long-lag implicit condition and the explicitly reinforced condition. In each no-lag comparison trial, participants were provided with two consecutive prime spoken sentence-picture pairs and then with an experimental picture with no spoken sentence. All of the prime items (i.e., two pictures and spoken sentences) in each no-lag comparison trial used the identical verb mainly to involve explicit memory processes and to maximize the structural effects, as previous studies (e.g., Hartsuiker et al., 2008) have shown that lexical repetition boosts immediate structural priming effects. The verb was always presented below the picture and the particle was below the verb in the case of the separated phrasal-verb structure. Then the second prime picture was repeated in a yellow frame with the verb below the picture to trigger sentence repetition. After repeating the second prime sentence, one of the experimental pictures randomly appeared with a verb (and a particle in the case of the separated phrasal-verb structure) to elicit the target sentence, and participants then described it. One example trial of the no-lag comparison condition is illustrated in Figure 1. The long-lag implicit condition, on the other hand, had four to ve llers between the prime and target trials. Participants in this condition did not hear or produce any prime sentences right before target production. Instead, they only heard neutral ller sentences, with ller pictures that were irrelevant to the target structures, preceding target elicitation with the experiment picture. Thus, the long-lag implicit condition involves purely implicit-learning processes, because residual activation in explicit memory cannot persist over four to ve ller sentences (Bock & Grifn, 2000). The total number of experimental pictures and sentences was the same as in the no-lag comparison condition; that is, they had the same number of the same pictures and sentences over the whole priming session as the no-lag comparison condition; only the presentation order differed between the two priming conditions. Finally, in the explicitly reinforced condition, the general sequence of each experimental trial was identical to the sequence in the no-lag comparison condition, with no lag between prime and target, but an explicit instructional presentation was added to this condition in the form of rule explanation (DeKeyser, 1995). This is in contrast to the other conditions, which did not include any explicit instruction and can therefore be considered implicit. The participants in the explicitly reinforced condition were additionally instructed that they would sometimes see grammar notes after their production and should pay attention to the notes and utilize the information later when it was necessary. Immediately after target elicitation with every experimental picture, there
Figure 1 One example priming trial of DO structures for the no-lag comparison condition. The frames around elicited picture descriptions were yellow in the experiment but are illustrated here in gray so that they can be seen more easily.
appeared word order notes, which provided explicit word order knowledge. The word order notes consisted of a target structure template and an alternate structure. The template was presented word-by-word and highlighted with a different color to draw participants attention to the target structure. After that, a possible alternate structure template (i.e., the prepositional-object dative
Figure 2 Word order notes for two structures in the explicitly reinforced condition.
and unseparated phrasal-verb structures) was presented all at once underneath the target structure template. Two additional structures, passives and relative clauses, were also presented in the word order notes for ller items. Examples of the grammar notes used in the explicitly reinforced condition are provided in Figure 2.
Scoring Verbal responses were recorded on an Olympus VN-4100PC digital voice recorder, and button responses were recorded by the computer, using E-Prime experiment presentation and data collection software (Schneider, Eschman, & Zuccolotto, 2002). All of the verbal responses such as sentence repetition and elicited picture description during all the sessions (priming, pretest, and posttest sessions) were transcribed and were used for coding and scoring. The production of the picture description was scored as target (double-object dative and separated phrasal-verb constructions), alternate (prepositional-object dative and unseparated phrasal-verb constructions), and other (other structures or incomplete sentences). Coding was carried out by two native speakers of American English who were undergraduate linguistics majors. Coding was checked by the rst author for accuracy and agreement. Interrater reliability calculated by the Pearson correlation was 95%, and the remaining 5% were resolved after discussion. In the case of dative sentences, the production was scored as target if the ditransitive verb was followed by a noun phrase with the thematic role of recipient/goal followed by another noun phrase with the thematic role of theme. The production was scored as alternate if the ditransitive verb was followed by a noun phrase with the thematic role of theme and then a prepositional phrase with the preposition to or for and the thematic role of recipient. In the case of phrasal-verb constructions, the production was scored as target if the phrasal verb and the particle were separated by a noun phrasethat is, the phrasal verb was followed by a noun phrase and then a particle (i.e., postnoun phrasal-verb constructions). The production was scored as alternate if the phrasal verb was followed by a particle and then a noun phrase (i.e., postverb phrasal-verb constructions). Otherwise, all other descriptions (e.g., single-object structures like Parents are teaching the child) were scored as other and were excluded from the data analysis. The pretest and posttest items of the auditory grammaticality judgment test were scored as correct or incorrect, measuring the accuracy of response. Cloze tests were scored by a native speaker of English. A response judged both syntactically and semantically appropriate in a given blank was scored as correct, even if the response was not the exact word that had been removed from the original text. Data Analyses The scores from the production data and the grammaticality judgment data were submitted to repeated measures in two separate ANCOVAs with three
main factors (i.e., the rst-day sessions and two structure types as two withinsubjects factors and three priming conditions as a between-subjects factor) and prociency (i.e., cloze test scores) as a covariate to partial out any variance in performance due to individual variation. One additional repeated measures ANCOVA was performed in the production data with posttests (immediate and delayed) and two structure types as two within-subjects factors, three priming conditions as a between-subjects factor, and prociency (i.e., cloze test scores) as a covariate. Then in order to answer the main research questions, planned pairwise comparisons were performed on each session by structure type. With respect to the rst research question, the long-lag implicit condition was compared to the no-lag comparison condition by structure type. With respect to the second research question, the explicitly reinforced condition group was compared to either the no-lag comparison or long-lag condition by structure type. The effect sizepartial eta squared ( p 2 )is also reported in the major comparisons. The picture description results in the priming session were interpreted as an index of immediate priming effects. The immediate posttest (Posttest 1) results were interpreted as an index of cumulative priming effects (i.e., the shortterm cumulative effects of priming during the priming session). The delayed posttest (Posttest 2) data were interpreted as that of delayed long-term priming effects affected by the immediate and cumulative priming effects during priming session and Posttest 1 on the previous day. Results Picture Description It will be remembered that each participant performed a picture description task four times: the pretest, the priming session, the immediate posttest, and the delayed posttest. During the priming session, the experimental pictures elicited the participants production after a picture and description using prime sentences. The participants in the no-lag comparison and explicitly reinforced conditions were provided with the experimental pictures promptly after repeating the prime sentences, whereas the participants in the long-lag implicit condition were provided with the experimental pictures after hearing or repeating irrelevant sentences. The descriptive statistics for production frequencies are reported in Table 3. Out of 1,080 items, 157 other responses (14.5%) that did not meet the scoring criteria were excluded from the data analysis; the dependent variable was the ratio of the target structure to the sum of target plus alternate structures. The
949
Table 3 Response frequencies in the picture description task Priming Session Target 31.20% (39) 23.85% (31) 56.86% (87) 68.82% (117) 49.41% (84) 78.86% (138) 31.18% (53) 50.59% (86) 21.14% (37) 78.31% (130) 74.57% (129) 83.93% (141) 21.69% (36) 25.43% (44) 16.07% (27) 68.80% (86) 76.15% (99) 43.14% (66) 55.56% (40) 57.73% (56) 79.79% (75) 44.44% (32) 42.27% (41) 20.21% (19) 30.65% (19) 59.80% (61) 63.74% (58) 71.95% (118) 76.88% (133) 89.41% (152) Alternate Target Alternate Target Posttest 1 Posttest 2 Alternate 69.35% (43) 40.20% (41) 36.26% (33) 28.05% (46) 23.12% (40) 10.59% (18)
Session
Pretest
Condition
Target
Alternate
Dative verb No-lag comparison Long-lag implicit Explicitly reinforced Phrasal verb No-lag comparison Long-lag implicit Explicitly reinforced
3.06% (3) 3.97% (5) 3.85% (4)
96.93% (95) 96.03% (121) 96.15% (100)
12.50% (19) 15.09% (24) 9.27% (14)
87.50% (133) 84.91% (135) 90.73% (137)
Note. The raw numbers are provided in parentheses. The total number of utterances on each session was 180. The remaining numbers are other responses.
Figure 3 Overall picture description performance.
overall repeated measures ANCOVA results showed signicant differences in sessions, F (3, 123) = 3.704, p <.05, p 2 = .083, in structure types, F (1, 41) = 5.021, p <.05, p 2 = .109, and among conditions, F (2, 41) = 5.770, p <.01, p 2 = .220. Additionally, a marginal interaction between sessions and conditions was found, F (6, 123) = 2.025, p = .067, p 2 = .090. The ANCOVA yielded no effect of prociency, as measured by the cloze test, nor any interaction between priming conditions and prociency (F s <1). Figure 3 shows overall patterns of the target structure production in the conditions across the pretest, priming session, immediate posttest, and delayed posttest in the two target structures. Pretest In the pretest, no signicant difference was found among the three condition groups (F s < 1), showing that the baseline was equivalent across the groups.9 There was a signicant difference between structure types, t(44) = 2.89, p <.01, however. This indicates that participants produced more targetlike sentences in the separated phrasal-verb condition (M = 12%, SD = 0.20) than in the doubleobject dative sentence condition (M = 3%, SD = 0.06) compared to each alternative sentence regardless of condition group. Because of the difference between the two structural types from the pretest as well as in the main effect in the overall ANCOVA results, two separate analyses were performed on each structure type, and the results are separately reported below for each structure type, according to the research questions.
Priming Effects Overall priming effects (i.e., immediate priming effects) were observed in the use of target structures, but the pattern of the priming effects differed by structure type and condition. The repeated measures ANCOVA yielded main effects of priming, F (1, 41) = 4.391, p < 0.05, p 2 = .097, and an interaction between priming and condition, F (2, 41) = 5.395, p < 0.01, p 2 = .208. This indicates that the participants in the three conditions produced more primed sentence structures than in the neutral baseline pretest, but the extent to which primed sentence structures increased was different depending on the conditions. One-way ANOVA results for the priming session showed differences among the three condition groups in both double-object dative, F (2, 42) = 4.99, p <.05, and separated phrasal-verb structures, F (2, 42) = 4.70, p <.05. The planned pairwise comparisons showed that in the case of the doubleobject dative structure, no difference was found between the long-lag implicit condition and no-lag comparison condition, whereas the explicitly reinforced condition was signicantly different from both the no-lag comparison condition, t(28) = 2.35, p <.05, and the long-lag implicit condition, t(28) = 3.14, p <.01. In other words, the explicitly reinforced condition group produced more double-object dative target sentences than the comparison condition and the long-lag implicit condition, whereas the long-lag implicit group did not show any difference from the no-lag comparison condition with respect to production of the dative target structure during the priming session. In the case of the separated phrasal-verb structure, planned pairwise comparisons revealed a marginal difference between the long-lag implicit condition and the no-lag comparison condition, t(28) = 1.94, p <.10. The explicitly reinforced group produced signicantly more separated phrasal-verb target sentences than the long-lag implicit group, t(28) = 3.05, p <.01, but not more than the no-lag comparison condition. This indicates that the explicitly reinforced group displayed more priming than the long-lag implicit group, but the explicitly reinforced group did not differ signicantly from the no-lag comparison group with respect to the priming effect on the separated phrasal-verb structure. Immediate Posttest Cumulative priming effects in the immediate posttest were also found in every condition group, although their magnitude differed by structure type and condition. The repeated measures ANCOVA yielded main effects of Pretest 1 to Posttest 1 improvement, F (1, 41) = 8.262, p < 0.01, p 2 = .168, but neither main effects of condition nor interaction between Posttest 1 and condition.
This indicates that the participants in the three conditions produced more target sentence structures due to their use in the priming session than in the neutral baseline pretest, but no difference was found among conditions. With respect to the relative structural complexity of the two structures, planned pairwise comparisons showed a signicant difference between the explicitly reinforced group and no-lag comparison conditions in the doubleobject dative structure, t(28) = 2.48, p < 0.05the explicitly reinforced group produced signicantly more double-object dative target sentences than the no-lag comparison groupbut no signicant difference between the long-lag implicit and no-lag comparison conditions. This means that the long-lag implicit condition showed a similar cumulative effect to the no-lag condition; however, cumulative priming occurred more in the explicitly reinforced condition than in the no-lag comparison condition. On the other hand, in the case of the phrasalverb structure, no signicant difference was found in cumulative priming effects among the three condition groups. In other words, the participants produced separated phrasal-verb target sentences in a similar way regardless of priming condition. Delayed Posttest The overall trends of the long-term priming effects (i.e., maintenance of the previous effects) on the next day were quite different by structure type and condition. The repeated measures ANCOVA yielded signicant differences between Posttest 1 and Posttest 2, F (1, 41) = 5.620, p <.05, p 2 = .121 performance dropped in Posttest 2 compared to that in Posttest 1and among conditions, F (2, 41) = 3.66, p <.05, p 2 = .151, but no interaction effect between condition and posttests. Planned pairwise comparisons revealed a marginal difference between the long-lag implicit and no-lag comparison conditions in the double-object dative structure, t(28) = 1.79, p = 0.084, and a signicant difference between the explicitly reinforced and no-lag comparison conditions, t(28) = 3.20, p < 0.01. The long-lag implicit condition showed somewhat more long-term priming than did the no-lag comparison condition. Performance in the explicitly reinforced condition was maintained better than the no-lag comparison condition; however, the explicitly reinforced condition fared no better than the long-lag implicit condition by the second day. Both the no-lag comparison and explicitly reinforced groups showed a sharp decrease from Posttest 1 to Posttest 2, whereas only the long-lag implicit group maintained the improved performance observed on the previous day. As for the separated phrasal-verb structure, no signicant difference was found in cumulative priming effects. The participants
Table 4 Accuracy on grammaticality judgment tests Double-object dative Condition No-lag comparison Long-lag implicit Explicitly reinforced condition Pretest 72.78% (0.20) 78.33% (0.17) 75.00% (0.17) Posttest
a
Phrasal verb Pretest 78.89% (0.17) 75.00% (0.22) 84.44% (0.14) Posttesta 91.11% (0.10) 89.44% (0.16) 96.11% (0.05)
80.00% (0.18) 85.56% (0.15) 86.11% (0.13)
Note. Mean values are presented in percentages and standard deviations are provided in parentheses. a The grammaticality judgment posttest was only administered once, as an immediate posttest.
produced separated phrasal-verb target sentences in a similar way irrespective of priming conditions. Grammaticality Judgments Although it was not the main focus of the study, the grammaticality judgment task was included to enable comparisons with other studies, as previous research in the L2 literature on implicit learning has typically reported the results of grammaticality judgment tasks. Out of 2,160 items, 1,783 (82.5%) items were coded as correct. The accuracy of the auditory grammaticality judgment task on the pretest and posttest are reported in Table 4. The repeated measures ANCOVA yielded a marginal overall main effect of pretest to posttest improvements, F (1, 42) = 3.77, p = .059, p 2 = .084, but there were no main effects of structure type or condition. There was no interaction effect between pretest to posttest improvement and priming conditions; that is, the judgments by participants in every condition improved similarly. Discussion and Conclusion The results of the novel, 2-day structural priming experiment reported here showed overall improvement in production of target structures after the structural priming session. This indicates that exposure to structural priming conditions of all types used here helped L2 learners use the target in their L2 production. Overall, priming effects in production were observed in the longlag implicit condition as well as the no-lag comparison condition. This indicates
that structural priming in L2 learners involves not only explicit memory representations but also implicit learning of abstract structural representations. Moreover, implicit learning was benecial for L2 production in the long run, especially in the case of structurally complex double-object datives, compared to explicit memory processes and explicit instruction. Furthermore, explicitly reinforced knowledge was effective for short-term training. All of these results were consistent with our predictions. With respect to the grammaticality judgment task results, on the other hand, only a marginally signicant improvement was found between the pretest and posttest, and no distinctive differences were observed among the priming conditions. The discrepancy between the picture description and grammaticality judgment results might be due to participants different types of knowledge: productive and receptive knowledge. Grammaticality judgment tasks involve receptive knowledge and metalinguistic awareness, not productive or implicit procedural knowledge. The priming task was mainly designed to improve productive or procedural knowledge through production. Thus, although the priming task was expected to lead indirectly to some improvement in metalinguistic grammaticality judgment tasks, it is not particularly surprising that improvement was not large enough to reach statistical signicance. In terms of the rst research question, which asked whether purely implicit learning (measured by long-lag structural priming) leads to differential improvement of L2 compared to explicit memory processes (measured by no-lag structural priming), the results differed by structural type (also related to the fourth research question). In the case of the double-object dative structure, explicit memory processes and implicit learning led to similar performance on the rst day, whereas they differed on the following day: The long-lag implicit condition involving implicit learning alone maintained improved performance on the second day, whereas the no-lag comparison condition involving explicit memory processes did not. In the case of the separated phrasal-verb structure, by contrast, explicit memory processes led to better performance during the priming session in a shorter period of time than implicit learning; however, the long-lag implicit condition involving implicit learning alone did not differ in ultimate performance from the no-lag comparision condition involving explicit memory processes. With regard to the second research question, which asked whether additional explicit knowledge instruction leads to additional improvement in L2 production, the results for double-object dative items were distinct from those for the phrasal-verb items (also related to the fourth research question). In the
case of the double-object dative structure, the explicitly reinforced condition outperformed the no-lag comparison condition in all sessions, whereas it outperformed the long-lag implicit condition only during the priming session. By contrast, in the case of the phrasal-verb structure, the explicitly reinforced condition showed similar performance to the no-lag comparison condition in all sessions, whereas it outperformed the long-lag implicit condition only during the priming session and did not show any difference elsewhere. In other words, the explicitly reinforced condition showed immediate improvement after the priming session on the use of the dative target structure, indicating that explicit instruction affects production for a short time. In the phrasal-verb structure, the explicitly reinforced condition produced no signicant difference from the long-lag implicit condition except for a relatively larger increase in the priming session (78.9% compared to 49.4%). Regarding the third research question, which addressed the issue of longterm priming effects among no-lag, long-lag, and explicitly reinforced conditions, the results showed that relatively slow learning took place in the long-lag implicit condition compared to the no-lag comparison condition and the explicitly reinforced condition; however, it revealed that performance in the long-lag implicit condition was similar to that in the no-lag comparison condition on the immediate posttest. More strikingly, the effect of implicit learning persisted longer than in the no-lag comparison condition, showing no decrease during the delayed posttest 1 day later. This suggests that the explicit memory processes are not necessarily required for long-term implicit learning. In other words, the explicit memory processes help in the short term, but not the long term for more complex, arguably procedural knowledge. On the other hand, with respect to the priming effect combined with explicit instruction, the explicitly reinforced condition resulted in more rapid changes in production patterns, outperforming the no-lag comparison condition in every session with double-object dative items but not with phrasal-verb items (also related to the fourth research question). This was likely because explicit instruction helped clarify complicated rules or structures, whereas in the case of separated phrasal-verb structure, the no-lag comparison condition involving immediate repetition of target forms was sufcient to bring the less complex separated phrasal-verb structure into attentional focus (Schmidt, 1990). However, like the no-lag comparison condition, in the case of the double-object dative structure, the explicit condition displayed a sharp decrease 1 day after the priming session. This result shows a loss of the immediate priming effect, resulting in nal performance similar to the long-lag implicit condition.
This result is consistent with major ndings in the SLA literature that implicit learning is a slow process, and explicit learning is benecial with respect to speeding up learning (Robinson, 1997). In particular, an explicit learning effect was found in the priming session and in the immediate posttest; however, the delayed posttest production results showed that implicit learning of the complex structure can catch up with explicit learning in the long run. Depending on the structure type, the priming conditions showed different learning patterns in the delayed posttest. All three priming conditions showed similar performance in the separated phrasal-verb structure, apparently approaching ceiling, whereas in the double-object dative sentence production, only an effect of implicit learning was found 1 day after the priming session. The results showed that the phrasal-verb sentences were easier to learn and produce than the double-object dative sentences, though the phrasal-verb sentences do not exist in the participants native language. As speculated above, the difference between structure types might be due to differences in cognitive complexity (Hulstijn & de Graaff, 1994). According to Hulstijin and de Graaffs criteria, the double-object dative structure can be considered complex because it involves multiple thematic arguments, whereas the phrasal-verb structure is simple in that it has just two components, one of which is a function word. Thus, in the case of complex rules or structures, because explicit instruction may save learners considerable effort and time in discovering their intricacies (N. C. Ellis, 2005; Hulstijn & de Graaff, 1994), explicit instruction can speed priming and short-term learning more than purely implicit learning. On the other hand, the simplicity of the phrasal-verb structure might have led to ceiling effects in all three conditions on the posttests, although the implicit condition was still slow during the priming session and the no-lag comparison condition showed a small drop on the delayed posttest. The results can also be related to Ullmans (2001) declarative/procedural model. Simple lexical learning, such as that required for phrasal-verb targets, arguably involves only (or primarily) the declarative memory system, so both the explicitly reinforced condition and the no-lag comparison condition reached ceiling in the priming session. More complex structures like the double-object targets, on the other hand, arguably involve procedural memory. Thus, it was the long-lag implicit condition that maintained performance 1 day after the priming session. What might be the mechanism underlying this maintenance of implicit procedural learning (to the extent that these results can be characterized as such)? One possible explanation is that grammatical generalizations through purely implicit-learning processes (i.e., without explicit instruction or lexical repetition) are consolidated during periods of sleep, as has been
observed in other instances of procedural learning. For example, Fenn, Nusbaum, and Margoliash (2003) found that people who implicitly learned new mappings from complex patterns were better able to generalize those mappings to new stimuli after a period of sleep compared to people who had not slept between learning and generalization phases. Fenn et al. thus argued that in the case of procedural learning, sleep can consolidate memories by protecting them against subsequent interference or decay (p. 616). In the current study, the long-lag implicit condition group was not provided with immediate repetition of the target sentences nor explicit knowledge instruction and produced target sentences through purely implicit processes. This might have resulted in continued procedual learning via consolidation of the double-object dative structure input during sleep, in contrast to the explicitly reinforced condition and no-lag comparison condition, which experienced decrements in performance in the delayed posttest session. Admittedly, we have no way of knowing for certain whether participants in the present study slept between immediate posttest and delayed posttest sessions on the following day; however, we are quite condent that most (if not all) participants did sleep at some point during the 24 hours between the two posttests. Furthermore, if some portion of participants were in fact insomniacs, we would expect them to have been randomly distributed among the three conditions. The L2 learners production results here are also in line with Ferreira, Bock, Wilson, and Cohen (2008) in terms of providing converging evidence for the implicit, procedural learning account in a different population. Ferreira et al. found that syntactic persistence is maintained by procedural-memory mechanisms in amnesic speakers whose recognition memory was profoundly impaired and whose production must therefore be based on implicit processes. Similar to amnesic speakers, L2 learners, who might not have explicit syntactic knowledge of what they produce (McDonough, 2006), showed structural priming over time. This also suggests that structural priming itself has a cognitive function in L2 learning as a form of implicit learning, yielding implications for L2 learning/acquisition theories. Structural priming is a kind of repetition syntactic repetitionbut it is different from simple shadowing repetition in that it does not require lexical repetition. Unlike mere repetition of lexical forms or specic sentences, structural priming can thus be a possible source of L2 development as structural learning rather than item learning. As further evidence, McDonough and Mackey (2008) found that output opportunities appear to have promoted L2 development when learners generated new sentences that contained the modeled form but not when they simply repeated many of the lexical items in the model.
The underlying function of structural priming can be accounted for in light of DeKeysers (1998) cognitive-psychological view of L2 learning. From this perspective, structural priming is a kind of skill acquisition (i.e., automatizing or ne-tuning procedural knowledge) like learning other skills such as riding a bicycle or playing the violin. Repetition of the modeled form in new sentences might be seen as undergoing practice for proceduralization of knowledge independent of individual lexical items. As DeKeyser (2001) argued, automaticity (dened as fast, unconscious, and effortless processing) is of great importance in L2 learning. In this regard, structural priming can yield insights for SLA theory about the underlying mechanisms of proceduralization and automatization.
Revised version accepted 23 March 2011
Notes
1 We use structural priming because it does not imply any lexical facilitation, whereas syntactic priming does (Pickering & Ferreira, 2008). 2 Explicit memory (also called declarative memory) involves conscious remembering of prior episodes and recollection of things or facts, and its subtypes are episodic and semantic memory (Stadler & Frensch, 1998). 3 The frequency of the target verbs was carefully considered and exploited in the design. As McDonough (2006) suggested, in terms of specic target items, L2 learners learn the double-object dative form almost exclusively with a limited range of specic lexical items such as give and pass; if they produce the double-object structures with specic lexical items, they are more likely to produce those structures in the context of structural priming. More specically, in the pretest session, this study examined whether the participants had limited knowledge associated with specic lexical items on an auditory grammatical judgment pretest and whether they were able to use target and alternate structures without any primes on a picture description pretest. If the participants have knowledge associated with specic lexical items, especially with frequently used lexical items such as give in the case of the double-object structures, then they might produce or judge the target items associated with those verbs as grammatical. On the other hand, they might not produce the target items associated with less frequently used verbs such as lease as often and/or not judge them to be as grammatical. 4 We did not expect a large improvement in the grammaticality judgment task because priming in comprehension is far less well demonstrated in the literature than priming in production. Furthermore, such tasks require explicit, metalinguistic skill, whereas we argue that priming requires implicit procedural skill; thus, we did not expect or predict large gains in the explicit, metalinguistic, receptive task after
5 6
training involving structural priming. However, we did use an auditory grammaticality judgment task because the picture description recall task involved listening and speaking and we thought that the way the stimuli were presented should be consistent in order to see if there were any unexpected gains in the grammaticality judgment task. Moreover, the grammaticality judgment task presumably did not explicitly draw participants attention to the target structures because participants in the long-lag implicit group did not notice what the target structures in this experiment were when interviewed after the experiment (for details, see Shin, 2008). This was done in order to reduce the possibility that subjects might have previous awareness of these items. To prevent any possible long-term comprehension-to-production priming effects (Bock, Chang, Dell, & Onishi, 2007) from the grammatical judgment test to the picture description test, the picture description test was conducted before the auditory grammatical judgment test in the pretest and posttest phases. Additionally, to prevent total avoidance of all the phrasal-verb constructions in grammaticality judgment tasks (Liao & Fukuya, 2004), a couple of inseparable phrasal-verbs (e.g., look at) were also included in the pretest as grammatical items. The results showed that no avoidance was found in terms of judgments. The English cloze test and language history questionnaire were adapted from ones shared with us by Paola Dussias at Pennsylvania State University. We are grateful for her generous assistance. The English cloze test showed that scores of participants in the long-lag implicit group (M = 53.5%, SD = 0.17) were lower than participants scores in the no-lag comparison group (M = 69.7%, SD = 0.17) and the explicitly reinforced group (M = 69.5%, SD = 0.09). The cloze scores were used as a covariate in the ANCOVA analysis in order to partial out any variance in production performance that might be attributable to prociency as measured by the cloze test. No-lag structural priming possibly involves both implicit-learning and explicit memory processes, but in the case of lexical repetition, structural priming primarily involves residual activation in explicit memory (Hartsuiker et al., 2008). Priming effects are measured in terms of increased production of less frequent structures; it is hard to measure priming of preferred or highly frequent structures, as their production is already at ceiling.
References
Bernolet, S., Hartsuiker, R. J., & Pickering, M. J. (2007). Shared syntactic representations in bilinguals: Evidence for the role of word-order repetition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 931949. Bock, J. K. (1982). Toward a cognitive psychology of syntax: Information processing contributions to sentence formulation. Psychological Review, 89, 147.
Bock, J. K., Chang, F., Dell, G. S., & Onishi, K. H. (2007). Persistent structural priming from language comprehension to language production. Cognition, 104, 437 458. Bock, J. K. (1986). Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 355387. Bock, J. K., & Grifn, Z. M. (2000). The persistence of structural priming: Transient activation or implicit learning? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129, 177192. Bock, J. K., & Loebell, H. (1990). Framing sentences. Cognition, 35, 139. Bock, J. K., Loebell, H., & Morey, R. (1992). From conceptual roles to structural relations: Bridging the syntactic cleft. Psychological Review, 99, 150171. Boyland, J. T., & Anderson, J. A. (1998). Evidence that syntactic priming is long-lasting. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 20th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Hillsdale, NJ. Branigan, H. P., Pickering, M. J., & Cleland, A. A. (2000). Syntactic co-ordination in dialogue. Cognition, 75, B13B25. Bresnan, J., Cueni, A., Nikitina, T., & Baayen, R. H. (2007). Predicting the dative alternation. In G. Bouma, I. Kraemer, & J. Zwarts (Eds.), Cognitive foundations of interpretation (pp. 6994). Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences. Chang, F., Dell, G. S., & Bock, J. K. (2006). Becoming syntactic. Psychological Review, 113, 234272. Chang, F., Dell, G. S., Bock, J. K., & Grifn, Z. M. (2000). Structural priming as implicit learning: A comparison of models of sentence production. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29, 217229. Cleeremans, A., Destrebecqz, A., & Boyer, M. (1998). Implicit learning: News from the front. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2, 406416. DeKeyser, R. M. (1995). Learning second language grammar rules: An experiment with a miniature linguistic system. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 379410. DeKeyser, R. M. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. In C. J. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in second language acquisition (pp. 4263). New York: Cambridge University Press. DeKeyser, R. M. (2001). Automaticity and automatization. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 125151). New York: Cambridege University Press. DeKeyser, R. M. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 313348). Malden, MA: Blackwell. DeKeyser, R. M., & Sokalski, K. J. (1996). The differential role of comprehension and production practice. Language Learning, 46, 613642.
Deshmukh, N. A., Ganapathiraju, A., Hamaker, J., & Picone, J. (1998). Resegmentation of Switchboard. In R. H. Mannel & J. Robert-Ribes (Eds.), Processings of ICSLP (pp. 15431546). Sydney: Australian Speech Science and Technology Association. Desmet, T., & Declercq, M. (2006). Cross-lingustic priming of syntactic hierarchical conguration information. Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 610632. Dienes, Z., & Berry, D. C. (1997). Implicit learning: Below the subjective threshold. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 115, 163196. Ellis, N. C. (2002). Frequency effects in language acquisition: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 143188. Ellis, N. C. (2005). At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 305352. Ellis, R. (2005). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 141172. Fenn, K. M., Nusbaum, H. C., & Margoliash, D. (2003). Consolidation during sleep of perceptual learning of spoken language. Nature, 425, 614616. Ferreira, V . S., & Bock, J. K. (2006). The functions of structural priming. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21, 10111029. Ferreira, V . S., Bock, J. K., Wilson, M. P., & Cohen, N. J. (2008). Memory for syntax despite amnesia. Psychological Science, 19, 940946. Hartsuiker, R. J., Bernolet, S., Schoonbaert, S., Speybroeck, S., & Vanderelst, D. (2008). Syntactic priming persists while the lexical boost decays: Evidence from written and spoken dialogue. Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 214238. Hartsuiker, R. J., Pickering, M. J., & Veltkamp, E. (2004). Is syntax separate or shared between languages? Cross-linguistic syntactic priming in Spanish-English bilinguals. Psychological Science, 15, 409414. Hulstijn, J., & de Graaff, R. (1994). Under what conditions does explicit knowledge of a second language facilitate the acquisition of implicit knowledge? A research proposal. AILA Review, 11, 97112. Huttenlocher, J., Vasilyeva, M., & Shimpi, P. (2004). Syntactic priming in young children. Journal of Memory and Language, 50, 182195. Kadia, K. (1988). The effect of formal instruction on monitored and on spontaneous naturalistic interlanguage performance: A case study. TESOL Quarterly, 22, 509515. Kaschak, M. P., & Borreggine, K. L. (2008). Is long-term structural priming affected by patterns of experience with individual verbs? Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 862878. Kim, Y., & McDonough, K. (2008). Learners production of passives during syntactic priming activities. Applied Linguistics, 29, 149154. Konopka, A. E., & Bock, J. K. (2009). Lexical or syntactic control of sentence formulation? Structural generalizations from idiom production. Cognitive Psychology, 58, 68101.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon. Krashen, S. (1994). The input hypothesis and its rivals. In N. C. Ellis (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 4578). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Larson, R. K. (1988). On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry, 19, 335391. Liao, Y., & Fukuya, Y. J. (2004). Avoidance of phrasal verbs: The case of Chinese learners of English. Language Learning, 54, 193226. McDonough, K. (2006). Interaction and syntactic priming: English L2 speakers production of dative constructions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 179207. McDonough, K., & Mackey, A. (2006). Responses to recasts: Repetitions, primed production, and linguistic development. Language Learning, 56, 693 720. McDonough, K., & Mackey, A. (2008). Syntactic priming and ESL question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 3147. McDonough, K., & Tromovich, P. (2009). Using priming methods in second language research. New York: Routledge. Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417528. Pickering, M. J., & Branigan, H. P. (1998). The representation of verbs: Evidence from syntactic priming in language production. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 733751. Pickering, M. J., & Ferreira, V . S. (2008). Structural priming: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 427459. Reber, A. S. (1989). Implicit learning and tacit knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118, 219235. Robinson, P. (1996). Learning simple and complex second language rules under implicit, incidental, rule-search, and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 2767. Robinson, P. (1997). Generalizability and automaticity of second language learning under implicit, incidental, enhanced, and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 223247. Salamoura, A., & Williams, J. N. (2006). Lexical activation of cross-language syntactic priming. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 9, 299307. Salamoura, A., & Williams, J. N. (2007). Processing verb argument structure across languages: Evidence for shared representations in the bilingual lexicon. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28, 627660. Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 206226. Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-Prime 1.0. Pittsburgh, PA: Psychological Software Tools.
Schoonbaert, S., Hartsuiker, R. J., & Pickering, M. J. (2007). The representation of lexical and syntactic information in bilinguals: Evidence from syntactic priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 56, 153171. Segalowitz, N. (2003). Automaticity and second languages. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 382408). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Segalowitz, N., & Hulstijn, J. (2005). Automaticity in bilingualism and second language learning. In J. F. Kroll & A. M. B. De Groot (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches (pp. 371388). New York: Oxford University Press. Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10, 209231. Shin, J.-A. (2008). Structural priming in bilingual language processing and second language learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Shin, J.-A. (2010). Structural priming and L2 prociency effects on bilingual syntactic processing in production. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics, 10, 499518. Shin, J.-A., & Christianson, K. (2009). Syntactic processing in Korean-English bilingual production: Evidence from cross-linguistic syntactic priming. Cognition, 112, 175180. Shin, J.-A., & Christianson, K. (2011). The status of dative constructions in Korean, English, and in the minds of Korean-English bilinguals. In H. Yamashita, J. Packard, & Y. Hirose (Eds.), Processing and producing head-nal structures (pp. 153169). New York: Springer. Spada, N., & Tomita, Y. (2010). Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 263308. Stadler, M. A., & Frensch, P. A. (Eds.). (1998). Handbook of implicit learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ullman, M. T. (2001). The neural basis of lexicon and grammar in rst and second language: The declarative/procedural model. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4, 105122. VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction in second language acquisition. Westport, CT: Ablex. VanPatten, B. (2002). Processing instruction: An update. Language Learning, 52, 755803.
963
Appendix Experimental Items

Verb type Dative verb Pretest give pay sell send show throw teach loan bring mail write pass wake up shut down take off put on pull out plug in look up turn down switch off try on put out tie up Priming Session toss cook draw make lend hand feed award serve read offer assign lace up put down wipe off push over pour out pull apart ll up knock down check off ip over take out clear away Posttest 1 feed award serve read offer assign pitch bake paint knit lease issue ll up knock down check off ip over take out clear away pin up lay down brush off tip over blow out kick in Posttest 2 toss cook draw make lend hand pitch bake paint knit lease issue lace up put down wipe off push over pour out pull apart pin up lay down brush off tip over blow out kick in
Phrasal verb
964
Copyright of Language Learning is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Structural Priming On Sec Lang Learning

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Structural Priming On Sec Lang Learning

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Language Learning

Structural Priming and Second Language Learning

Shin and Christianson

Structural Priming and L2 Learning

Keywords structural priming; implicit learning; explicit instruction; syntactic priming

Shin and Christianson

Structural Priming and L2 Learning

Shin and Christianson

Structural Priming and L2 Learning

Shin and Christianson

Structural Priming and L2 Learning

Shin and Christianson

Structural Priming and L2 Learning

Shin and Christianson

Structural Priming and L2 Learning

Shin and Christianson

Structural Priming and L2 Learning

Shin and Christianson

Structural Priming and L2 Learning

Shin and Christianson

Structural Priming and L2 Learning

Shin and Christianson

Structural Priming and L2 Learning

Shin and Christianson

Structural Priming and L2 Learning

Shin and Christianson

Structural Priming and L2 Learning

Condition No-lag comparison

Language Learning 62:3, September 2012, pp. 931964

Shin and Christianson

Structural Priming and L2 Learning

Shin and Christianson

Structural Priming and L2 Learning

Shin and Christianson

Structural Priming and L2 Learning

Shin and Christianson

Structural Priming and L2 Learning

Shin and Christianson

Structural Priming and L2 Learning

Shin and Christianson

3.06% (3) 3.97% (5) 3.85% (4)

96.93% (95) 96.03% (121) 96.15% (100)

12.50% (19) 15.09% (24) 9.27% (14)

87.50% (133) 84.91% (135) 90.73% (137)

Language Learning 62:3, September 2012, pp. 931964

Structural Priming and L2 Learning

Shin and Christianson

Structural Priming and L2 Learning

Figure 3 Overall picture description performance.

Shin and Christianson

Structural Priming and L2 Learning

Shin and Christianson

Structural Priming and L2 Learning

Shin and Christianson

Structural Priming and L2 Learning

80.00% (0.18) 85.56% (0.15) 86.11% (0.13)

Shin and Christianson

Structural Priming and L2 Learning

Shin and Christianson

Structural Priming and L2 Learning

Shin and Christianson

Structural Priming and L2 Learning