Search

Several studies used artificial language (AL) learning paradigms to investigate structural priming between languages in early phases of learning. The presence of such priming would indicate that these languages share syntactic representations. Muylle et al. (2020a) found similar priming of transitives and ditransitives between Dutch (SVO order) and an AL with either SVO or SOV order. However, it is unclear whether such sharing would occur if the AL allows both the same and different word order as the L1. Indeed, the presence of a (easy to share) similar structure might block (i.e., impede) sharing of a less similar structure. Here, we report 2 experiments that each tested 48 Dutch native speakers on an AL that allowed both SVO and SOV order in transitive and ditransitive sentences. We assessed both within-AL and AL-Dutch priming. We predicted (a) priming of both structure and word order within the AL, and (b) weaker AL-Dutch priming from SOV versus SVO sentences due to the presence of SVO sentences in the AL. Indeed, cross-linguistic priming was significantly weaker in SOV versus SVO conditions, but the blocking hypothesis was only supported by the transitive results. Unexpectedly, in the absence of a condition with verb overlap between prime and target sentences, no priming was found in AL and Dutch target conditions without verb overlap (Experiment 1), but priming emerged when a verb overlap condition was added (Experiment 2). This finding suggests that lexical repetition across sentences is crucial to establish abstract syntactic representations during early L2 acquisition.

Several studies found cross-linguistic structural priming with various language combinations. Here, we investigated the role of two important domains of language variation: case marking and word order, for transitive and ditransitive structures. We varied these features in an artificial language learning paradigm, using three different artificial language versions in a between-subjects design. Priming was assessed between Dutch (no overt case marking, SVO word order) and (a) an SVO order version, (b) a case marking version, and (c) an SOV order version. Similar within-language and cross-linguistic priming was found in all versions for transitives, indicating that cross-linguistic structural priming was not hindered. In contrast, for ditransitives we found similar within-language priming for all versions, but no cross-linguistic priming. The finding that cross-linguistic priming is possible between languages that vary in morphological marking or word order, is compatible with studies showing cross-linguistic priming between natural languages that differ on these dimensions.

This article examines how master's students consult and process sources in source-based writing tasks in L1 and L2. Two hundred eighty master's students wrote a text in their L1 (Dutch) and L2 (English) at the beginning and end of the academic year. They wrote these texts based on three sources: a report, a web text, and a newspaper article. Their writing processes were registered using the Inputlog keylogging program. This allowed us to determine how much time the students spent reading the sources, when they did so, which sources they consulted most frequently, and how often they switched between the various (types of) sources. The quality of the texts was assessed holistically using pairwise comparisons (D-pac). Confirmative factor analysis showed three components to be relevant to describe source use in L1 and L2 writing: (a) initial reading time, (b) interaction with sources, and (c) the degree of variance in source use throughout the writing process. Individual text quality remained stable in L1 and L2 throughout the academic year. Structural equation modeling showed that the approach in source use, especially source interaction, is correlated with text quality, but in L1 only.

We studied the role of discourse coherence relations on structure formulation in sentence production by examining whether a connective, an essential signal of coherence relations, modulates the tendency for speakers to reuse sentence structures (i.e., structural priming). We further examined three possible modulating factors: the type of connectives (additive vs. adversative connective), event similarity (similar event vs. different event), and topic cohesion (with or without available anaphoric antecedent). In four structural priming experiments, native Dutch participants were asked to read either a Dutch double object sentence or a prepositional object sentence and describe pictures that depicted ditransitive events. Critically, the prime and the target either were linked by a connective (en "and" or maar "but") or were not linked. The verb overlap between the prime and the target was also manipulated. In Experiment 1, the presence of en facilitated structural priming, but only when the verbs were different. In Experiment 2, maar reduced structural priming when the verbs were repeated. Experiment 3 replicated the findings of Experiments 1 and 2 in a within-subjects design. In Experiment 4, there was no referential link between the sentences. Now there was no connective effect on structural priming. Taken together, we demonstrated that the insertion of a connective influences syntactic persistence. The connective effects vary across semantic properties of the connectives, event similarity, and referential continuity, suggesting that the production of sentence structure is modulated by speakers' prediction about listeners' inference of coherence relations between consecutive utterances. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article, we report on a study that investigates how master's students consult external sources for reading-to-write integrated tasks in their L1 (Dutch), L2 (English), and L3 (French). Two hundred and eighty master's students in professional communication wrote synthesis texts based on three external sources, including a report, a web text, and a newspaper article in their L1 (Dutch), and in L2 (English), or L3 (French) at two moments of measurement, which were separated by an interval of 6 months. Their source use activities during the writing process were registered using Inputlog - a keylogging program. Inputlog enabled us to determine the amount of time the writers spent composing their main texts and consulting the sources (when the source consultation activities took place during the writing process, which sources were consulted most frequently, and how frequently the writers transitioned between the various sources). Final text quality was assessed holistically using pairwise comparisons (D-pac, now Comproved). Confirmatory factor analysis indicated three components that could describe source use processes in L1, L2, and L3 writing: (a) initial reading time, (b) source interaction, and (c) variance of source use throughout the writing process. Within-subject comparisons revealed that there were no improvements in the students' text quality in L1, L2, and L3 over an academic year. Structural equation modeling indicated that the source use approach, particularly source interaction, is related to text quality, but only in L1 and L3. We provide further explanations for this variation based on language proficiency, temporal distribution of writing process, and individual differences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examined the role of lexical processing in phrase structure building in sentence production. We asked whether speakers exploit a lexical cue as a lexical guide (i.e. the cued word occurs earlier in the sentence) and as a retrieval cue (i.e. a cue facilitates the retrieval of a memorised structure). In two experiments, participants recalled Dutch genitive sentences. In some recall trials, they received a lexical cue that repeated one argument of the to-be-recalled sentence. In two further experiments, participants read a genitive sentence and then generated a new one from a visually-presented triplet of arguments. The visual salience of the arguments and lexical overlap were manipulated. In all four experiments, speakers consistently started the phrase with the cued word. There was no evidence of a lexical cueing effect on structure retrieval. The findings suggest that speakers mainly exploit lexical information as a lexical guide when formulating phrase structures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

According to Hartsuiker et al.'s (2004) shared-syntax account bilinguals share syntactic representations across languages whenever these representations are similar enough. But how does such a system develop in the course of second language (L2) learning? We will review recent work on cross-linguistic structural priming, which considered priming in early second language learners and late second language learners as a function of proficiency. We will then sketch our account of L2 syntactic acquisition. We assume an early phase in which the learner relies on transfer from L1 and imitation, followed by phases in which language- and item-specific syntactic representations are added and in which such representations become increasingly abstract. We argue that structural priming effects in L2 (and between L1 and L2) depend on the structure of this developing network but also on explicit memory processes. We speculate that these memory processes might aid the formation of new representations. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]