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]

Studies on cross-linguistic syntactic priming suggest that bilinguals can share syntactic representations across languages (e.g., Hartsuiker, Pickering, & Veltkamp, 2004). But how are these representations established in late learners of a second language? Specifically, are representations of syntactic structures in a second language (L2) immediately collapsed with similar structures of the first language (L1), or are they initially represented separately? In order to investigate this, we primed the use of English genitives with Dutch (Experiment 1) and English (Experiment 2) genitives (e.g., "het hemd van de jongen/the shirt of the boy" vs. "de jongen zijn hemd/the boy's shirt") in late Dutch-English bilinguals with varying levels of proficiency in English (their L2). The head nouns of prime and target constructions either had the same meaning ("hemd/shirt--shirt") or a different meaning "(duim/thumb--shirt"), in order to test whether the use of both genitives was generalized across nouns. Experiment 1 found stronger between-language priming for more than less proficient bilinguals in both conditions, thus suggesting a shift from language-specific to shared syntactic representations. Experiment 2 suggests that these early, language-specific syntactic representations might be item-specific: Less proficient bilinguals showed much weaker priming when the heads of prime and target constructions had different meanings than when they were repeated. (Contains 6 tables and 8 figures.)

Research on word production in bilinguals has often shown an advantage for cognate words. According to some accounts, this cognate effect is caused by feedback from a level that represents information about phonemes (or graphemes) to a level concerned with the word. In order to investigate whether phonological feedback influences the selection of words and syntactic constructions in late bilinguals, we investigated syntactic priming between Dutch and English genitive constructions (e.g., "the fork of the girl" vs. "the girl's fork"). The head nouns of prime and target constructions were always translation equivalents. Half of these were Dutch-English cognates with a large phonological overlap (e.g., "vork-fork"), the other half were non-cognates that had very few phonemes in common (e.g., "eend-duck"). Cognate status boosted between-language syntactic priming. Further analyses showed a continuous effect of phonological overlap for cognates and non-cognates, indicating that this boost was at least partly caused by feedback from the translation equivalents' shared phonemes.

In a corpus analysis of spontaneous speech Jaeger and Snider (2007) found that the strength of structural priming is correlated with verb alternation bias. This finding is consistent with an implicit learning account of syntactic priming: because the implicit learning model implemented by Chang (2002), Chang, Dell, and Bock (2006), and Chang, Dell, Bock, and Griffin (2000) uses probabilistic information about different verb-structure combinations to predict the form of sentences, it predicts that primes exert stronger priming when they are less expected, given the syntactic preference of their main verb. We tested this claim experimentally by comparing the strength of double-object dative priming (DO) and prepositional object dative priming (PO) between dative verbs with differing syntactic preferences in a syntactic priming experiment. The syntactic preferences of the prime and target verbs were first measured in a picture description experiment. Consistent with an implicit learning account, the results showed a verb-specific effect of inverse preference: the strength of DO-priming was modulated by the alternation bias of the dative verbs that were used in the primes. (Contains 3 figures and 2 tables.)

This study investigates the way in which speakers determine which aspects of an utterance to emphasize and how this affects the form of utterances. To do this, we ask whether the binding between emphasis and thematic roles persists between utterances. In one within-language (Dutch-Dutch) and three cross-linguistic (Dutch-English) structural priming experiments, we measured persistence effects for four different Dutch transitives (actives, PP-initial passives, PP-medial passives, and PP-final passives). Whereas English allows only one passive (PP-final passive), Dutch allows three different variants with the same functional assignment, but different constituent structures. Additionally, the degree of emphasis on the agent differs significantly between the PP-initial passive and the other passives (Experiment 1). Experiment 2 showed persistence of actives, PP-medial, and PP-final passives in Dutch, but no priming between passives with different constituent structures. Experiments 3 and 4, however, showed that both PP-medial and PP-final passives prime the use of English passives. Experiment 5 confirmed that the emphasis on thematic roles persists: the proportion of passives in the PP-initial passive condition fell midway between the proportions produced in the active and PP-medial passive condition. (Contains 1 table and 7 figures.)

Four experiments in written and spoken dialogue tested the predictions of two distinct accounts of syntactic encoding in sentence production: a lexicalist, residual activation account and an implicit-learning account. Experiments 1 and 2 showed syntactic priming (i.e., the tendency to reuse the syntactic structure of a prime sentence in the production of a target sentence) and a lexical boost of syntactic priming (i.e., an enhanced priming effect when the verb in prime and target was the same). Experiments 3 and 4 varied the number of filler sentences between prime and target (lag) and showed that lexical enhancement of priming is short-lived, whereas the priming effect is much more long-lived. These results did not depend on whether the modality of prime and target was written or spoken. The persistence of priming supports the view that syntactic priming is a form of implicit learning. However, only a multi-factorial account, in which lexically-based, short-term mechanisms operate in tandem with abstract, longer-term learning mechanisms can explain the full pattern of results.

Studies on syntactic priming strongly suggest that bilinguals can store a single integrated representation of constructions that are similar in both languages (e.g., Spanish and English passives; R. J. Hartsuiker, M. J. Pickering, & E. Veltkamp, 2004). However, they may store 2 separate representations of constructions that involve different word orders (e.g., German and English passives; H. Loebell & K. Bock, 2003). In 5 experiments, the authors investigated within- and between-languages priming of Dutch, English, and German relative clauses. The authors found priming within Dutch (Experiment 1) and within English as a 2nd language (Experiments 2 and 4). An important finding is that priming occurred from Dutch to German (Experiment 5), which both have verb-final relative clauses; but it did not occur between Dutch and English (Experiments 3 and 4), which differ in relative-clause word order. The results suggest that word-order repetition is needed for the construction of integrated syntactic representations.

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]