Processing strategies used by Basque-French bilingual and Basque monolingual children for the production of the subject-agent in Basque

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (4-5) ◽  
pp. 514-541 ◽  
Author(s):  
Isabelle Duguine ◽  
Barbara Köpke
Keyword(s):  
Longitudinal Study ◽  
Word Order ◽  
Language Production ◽  
Competition Model ◽  
Bilingual Children ◽  
Cue Validity ◽  
Processing Strategies ◽  
Case Marker ◽  
Different Ages ◽  
The Subject

Abstract We sought to describe the strategies used by 2L1 and L2 Basque-French bilingual children and monolingual Basque children to express subject-agent function in a free elicitation context in Basque. Based on a three-year longitudinal study, the analysis focused on transitive constructions requiring a subject-agent noun marked for ergative case. The results showed that the children mastered production of the ergative case marker at different ages, and used different psycholinguistic strategies to refer to the subject-agent. The majority of the bilingual children favoured topological strategy (i.e., marking of the subject-agent in the first position through subject-verb-object word order). However, the children with L1 Basque seemed to engage more in morphological strategy, through the use of the nominal ergative suffix. These data allowed us to discuss variations in the performance of bilingual children in light of the cue cost and cue validity concepts elaborated by the Competition Model applied to language production.

Objects in the German prefield

2020 ◽  
pp. 15-39
Author(s):  
Markus Bader
Keyword(s):  
Word Order ◽  
Language Production ◽  
Initial Position ◽  
Experimental Investigations ◽  
Demonstrative Pronoun ◽  
New Findings ◽  
The Subject ◽  
New Speakers ◽  
Referential Form ◽  
Free Word

From the perspective of language production, this chapter discusses the question of whether to move the subject or the object to the clause-initial position in a German Verb Second clause. A review of experimental investigations of language production shows that speakers of German tend to order arguments in such a way that the most accessible argument comes first, with accessibility defined in terms like animacy (‘animate before inanimate’) and discourse status (e.g. ‘given before new’). Speakers of German thus obey the same ordering principles that have been found to be at work in English and other languages. Despite the relative free word order of German, speakers rarely produce sentences with object-before-subject word order in experimental investigations. Instead, they behave like speakers of English and mostly use passivization in order to bring the underlying object argument in front of the underlying subject argument when the object is more accessible than the subject. Corpus data, however, show that object-initial clauses are not so infrequent after all. The second part of the chapter, therefore, discusses new findings concerning the discourse conditions that favour the production of object-initial clauses. These findings indicate, among other things, that the clausal position of an object is affected not only by its referent’s discourse status but also by its referential form. Objects occur in clause-initial position most frequently when referring to a given referent in the form of a demonstrative pronoun or NP.

Object–verb and verb–object in Basque and Spanish monolinguals and bilinguals

2012 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 337-356 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andoni Barreña ◽  
Margareta Almgren
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Word Order ◽  
Bilingual Children ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Everyday Language ◽  
Formal Instruction ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Preschool Setting

The aim of this article is to analyse the acquisition of object–verb/verb–object word order in Spanish and Basque by monolinguals (L1), early simultaneous bilinguals (2L1) and successive bilinguals, exposed to their second language before ages 5–6 (child L2). In this study, the second language (child L2) is acquired naturalistically, in a preschool setting with no formal instruction for the Basque L2 speakers and by environmental contact for the Spanish L2 speakers. Spanish and Basque are differentiated by their canonical word order as subject–verb–object and subject–object–verb, respectively. In Spanish, the subject–verb–object order is predominant (almost exclusive) in narrative contexts, whereas in Basque, both object–verb and verb–object word orders are possible in these contexts for pragmatic reasons, with a similar use in everyday language. The productions of a few L1 and 2L1 subjects are analysed longitudinally within the 1;06–3;00 age span. Cross-sectional data from 49 subjects who developed a child L2 are analysed at ages 5 and 8. The results reveal that the bilingual children apply the same syntactic patterns as the monolinguals in their respective languages independently of 2L1 or child L2 acquisition.

The utilization of syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic cues in the assignment of subject role in Arabic

1993 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 299-317 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hassan A. Taman
Keyword(s):  
Word Order ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
Gender Agreement ◽  
Cue Validity ◽  
Case Marking ◽  
Processing Strategies ◽  
Highly Correlated ◽  
Subject Role ◽  
Similar Processing

AbstractThe role of four cues in the assignment of actor role in Arabic was studied. These cues included animacy, case marking, gender agreement, and word order. The cues were set-in-a competing/converging fashion following the framework of the Competition Model of Bates and MacWhinney (1981, 1982, 1987). Fifty-four sentences representing all possible permutations of the cues were presented to 100 native speakers of Arabic, who were asked to identify the actor in each sentence. Subjects relied mainly on gender agreement and case marking in the assignment of the actor role. The results suggested that cue validity is very highly correlated with cue strength. It was also found that cues do not exhibit an additive nature, and that cross-linguistic formal similarities do not warrant similar processing strategies. Order of nouns tended to represent a “latent strategy” to be utilized only when other relevant cues were not available.

Processing transfer: Language-specific processing strategies as a source of interlanguage variation

1987 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 351-377 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Harrington
Keyword(s):  
Word Order ◽  
Speech Processing ◽  
Order Effects ◽  
Response Patterns ◽  
English Sentence ◽  
Processing Strategies ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Left And Right ◽  
Simple Sentences

ABSTRACTA sentence interpretation experiment based on the functionalist Competition Model of speech processing (Bates & MacWhinney, 1982) was administered to three groups of university-age English L1, Japanese ESL, and Japanese L1 subjects (n = 12 per group) in an attempt to elicit evidence for (1) processing strategies characteristic of the Japanese and English L1 groups and, (2) transfer/influence of Japanese L1 strategies on the English sentence interpretations of the Japanese ESL group. Subjects selected the subject/actor of simple sentences incorporating word order, animacy, and stress cues in random converging and competing orders. The English L1 and ESL groups were tested on English sentences and the Japanese L1 group tested on Japanese sentences. The Japanese L1 interpretations were most heavily influenced by animacy cues, while the English L1 group showed a higher overall sensitivity to word order manipulations. The ESL group resembled the Japanese L1 group in reliance on animacy cues, with the exception of allowing inanimate nouns to act as subjects. While the ESL group showed greater sensitivity to word order effects than the Japanese L1 group, no “second-noun” strategy (i.e., systematically interpreting the NNV and VNN orders as left- and right-dislocated SOV and VOS orders) was evident.Although the findings were generally consistent with previous research, the presence of contrasting response patterns in the English L1 group suggests caution in attempting to typify languages on the basis of processing strategies drawn from probablistic tendencies evident in grouped data, and leaves open the role of such processing strategy typologies as a potential source of variation in inter-language.

Paths of Processing Strategy Transfers in Learning Japanese and English as Foreign Languages

1994 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-72 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yoshinori Sasaki
Keyword(s):  
Sentence Processing ◽  
Word Order ◽  
Model Experiment ◽  
Foreign Languages ◽  
Processing Strategy ◽  
Processing Strategies ◽  
Japanese Word ◽  
Case Marker ◽  
English Speaking ◽  
Sentence Subject

This paper reports on a competition model experiment designed to investigate the sentence-processing strategies of English-speaking learners of Japanese (JFL learners) and Japanese-speaking learners of English. The participants were required to identify the sentence subject of a series of English and Japanese word strings, each consisting of one verb and two nouns, in which noun-animacy, word-order, and case-marking cues either competed or were consistent with each other. The results indicated a correlation between learners' proficiency in Japanese and case-marker dependency in Japanese strings. JFL learners primarily resorted to animacy cues to interpret Japanese strings, suggesting a prepotent role for lexical semantics. There was little evidence of transfer of surface word order, although some JFL learners resorted to the Japanese canonical SOV order to a greater extent than the native Japanese.

scholarly journals What can wh-questions tell us about real-time language production: Evidence from English and Mandarin

2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 46
Author(s):  
Monica Do ◽  
Elsi Kaiser ◽  
Pengchen Zhao
Keyword(s):  
Eye Movements ◽  
Eye Tracking ◽  
Word Order ◽  
Language Production ◽  
Time Window ◽  
Initial Experiment ◽  
Role Assignment ◽  
Wh Questions ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Information Focus

We present two visual-world eye-tracking experiments investigating how speakers begin structuring their messages for linguistic utterances, a process known as linguistic encoding. Specifically, we focus on when speakers first linearize the abstract elements of their messages (positional processing) and when they first assign a grammatical role to those elements (functional processing). Experiment 1 de-coupled the process of linearization from grammatical role assignment using English object wh-questions, where the subject is no longer sentence initial. Experiment 2 used Mandarin declaratives and questions, which have the same word order, to test the extent to which findings from Experiment 1 were linked to information focus associated with wh-questions. We find evidence of both grammatical role assignment and linearization emerging around 400-600 ms, but we do not find evidence of the +/- wh distinction influencing eye-movements during that same time window.

On-line sentence processing in Swedish: cross-linguistic developmental comparisons with French

2011 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 28-60 ◽  
Author(s):  
MICHÈLE KAIL ◽  
MARIA KIHLSTEDT ◽  
PHILIPPE BONNET
Keyword(s):  
Sentence Processing ◽  
Word Order ◽  
Age Groups ◽  
Linguistic Analysis ◽  
Competition Model ◽  
Adult Group ◽  
Cue Validity ◽  
Processing Abilities ◽  
On Line ◽  
Cost Factors

ABSTRACTThis study examined on-line processing of Swedish sentences in a grammaticality-judgement experiment within the framework of the Competition Model. Three age groups from 6 to 11 and an adult group were asked to detect grammatical violations as quickly as possible. Three factors concerning cue cost were studied: violation position (early vs. late), violation span (intraphrasal vs. interphrasal) and violation type (agreement vs. word order). Developmental results showed that children were always slower at detecting grammatical violations. Irrespective of age, participants were faster at judging sentences with late violations, especially in the younger groups. Intraphrasal violations were more rapidly detected than interphrasal ones, particularly in adults. Finally, agreement violations and word order ones did not differ. The hierarchy of cue cost factors indicated that violation span was the dominant one. A cross-linguistic analysis with French (Kail, 2004) underlines the developmental processing abilities and the interdependence between cue cost and cue validity.

scholarly journals The Development of Subject Position in Dutch-Dominant Heritage Speakers of Spanish: From Age 9 to Adulthood

Languages ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 88
Author(s):  
van Osch ◽  
García González ◽  
Hulk ◽  
Sleeman ◽  
Aalberse
Keyword(s):  
Word Order ◽  
Exploratory Study ◽  
Heritage Language ◽  
Age Groups ◽  
Judgment Task ◽  
Subject Position ◽  
Bilingual Children ◽  
Heritage Speakers ◽  
Heritage Speakers Of Spanish ◽  
Language Literature

This exploratory study investigates the knowledge of word order in intransitive sentences by heritage speakers of Spanish of different age groups: 9-year-olds, 13-year-olds and adults. In doing so, we aim to fill a gap in the heritage language literature, which, to date, has mainly focused on adult heritage speakers and preschool bilingual children. The results from a judgment task reveal that child- and adolescent heritage speakers do not entirely resemble monolingual age-matched children in the acquisition of subjects in Spanish, nor do they assimilate adult heritage speakers. The data suggest that several different processes can occur simultaneously in the acquisition of word order in heritage speakers: monolingual-like acquisition, delayed acquisition, and attrition. An analysis of the influence of extraneous variables suggests that most of these effects are likely to be the consequence of quantitatively reduced input in the heritage language and increased input in the majority language.

Connective use in the narratives of bilingual children and monolingual children with SLI

2015 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 98-113 ◽  
Author(s):  
ELENA TRIBUSHININA ◽  
WILLEM M. MAK ◽  
ELIZAVETA ANDREIUSHINA ◽  
ELENA DUBINKINA ◽  
TED SANDERS
Keyword(s):  
Structural Properties ◽  
Language Production ◽  
Error Rates ◽  
Bilingual Children ◽  
Typically Developing ◽  
Input Quantity ◽  
Frequency Distributions ◽  
Bilingual Group ◽  
Crosslinguistic Influence ◽  
Discourse Connectives

Differences between monolinguals and bilinguals are often attributed to crosslinguistic influence. This paper compares production of discourse connectives by Dutch–Russian bilinguals (Dutch-dominant), typically-developing Dutch/Russian monolinguals and Russian-speaking children with SLI. If non-target-like production in bilinguals is due to crosslinguistic influence, bilinguals should perform differently from both impaired and unimpaired monolinguals. However, if differences between bilinguals and monolinguals are due to other factors (e.g., input quantity, processing capacities), bilinguals’ language production might be similar to that of children with SLI. The results demonstrate that language dominance determines the direction of crosslinguistic influence. In terms of frequency distributions of Russian connectives across pragmatic contexts, the bilingual group performed differently from both monolingual groups and the differences were compatible with the structural properties of Dutch. However, based on error rates and types bilinguals could not be distinguished from the SLI group, suggesting that factors other than crosslinguistic influence may also be at play.

Is word-order similarity necessary for cross-linguistic structural priming?

2013 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 375-389 ◽  
Author(s):  
Baoguo Chen ◽  
Yuefang Jia ◽  
Zhu Wang ◽  
Susan Dunlap ◽  
Jeong-Ah Shin
Keyword(s):  
Word Order ◽  
Language Production ◽  
Structural Priming ◽  
Stage Model ◽  
Syntactic Priming ◽  
Two Stage ◽  
Chinese And English

This article presents two experiments employing two structural priming paradigms that investigated whether cross-linguistic syntactic priming occurred in Chinese and English passive sentences that differ in word order (production-to-production priming in Experiment 1 and comprehension-to-production priming in Experiment 2). Results revealed that cross-linguistic syntactic priming occurred in Chinese and English passive sentences, regardless of production of primes or comprehension of primes and language direction (L1–L2 or L2–L1). Our findings indicate that word-order similarity between languages is not necessary for cross-linguistic structural priming, supporting the view of a two-stage model of language production.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document