Word Frequency Effects and Plurality in L2 Word Recognition—A Preliminary Study—/CELES2015

Tamura, Y., & Nishimura, Y. (2015). Word frequency effects and plurality in L2 word recognition: A preliminary study. Paper presented at the 45th Annual Conference of the Chubu English Language Education Society (CELES 2015). Wakayama, Japan.

Transcript

1. Word Frequency Effects and Plurality in L2 Word Recognition —A Preliminary Study– June 28, 2015 45th CELES Wakayama University 1
2. Overview • Introduction • Background • The Present Study • Results • Discussion • Conclusion 2
3. • Morphology • Inflectional morphology • -ed, -ing, 3rd-person -s, plural -s • Derivational morphology • prefix • pro- (e.g., proactive), re- (e.g., reactive) • suffix • -ness (e.g., kindness), -ly (e.g., kindly) Introduction 3 Morphological Processing
4. • Morphology • Inflectional morphology • -ed, -ing, 3rd-person -s, plural -s • Derivational morphology • prefix • pro- (e.g., proactive), re- (e.g., reactive) • suffix • -ness (e.g., kindness), -ly (e.g., kindly) Introduction 4 Morphological Processing
5. • Recognition process • Visual word recognition • How morphology is processed in reading • Auditory word recognition • How morphology is processed in listening Introduction 5 Morphological Processing
6. • Recognition process • Visual word recognition • How morphology is processed in reading • Auditory word recognition • How morphology is processed in listening Introduction 6 Morphological Processing
7. Findings of This Study • Task characteristics change the process of morphological processing • Only plural-dominant nouns have a strong connection to concepts 7 Introduction
8. Yu TAMURA (Graduate School, Nagoua Univ.) Yoshito NISHIMURA (Graduate School, Nagoua Univ.) 8
9. Overview • Introduction • Background • The Present Study • Results • Discussion • Conclusion 9
10. • Word Association Hypothesis Background 10 Bilingual Mental Lexicon L2 L1 Concepts
11. • Conceptual Mediation Hypothesis Background 11 Bilingual Mental Lexicon L2 L1 Concepts
12. • the Revised Hierarchical Model (Kroll & Stewart, 1994) Background 12 Bilingual Mental Lexicon L2 L1 Concepts
13. • The developmental hypothesis • the more proficiency develops, the stronger the connection between concepts and L2 becomes (e.g., Kawakami, 1994) • the more proficiency develops, the less interference effects of L1 occur (e.g., Sunderman & Kroll, 2006) • conceptual links and processing skills gradually develop (e.g., Yamashita, 2007) Background 13 Bilingual Mental Lexicon
14. • Factors affecting the connections • Frequency • high frequency L2 words activate conceptual links (e.g., Habuchi, 2005) • Concreteness • concrete and high frequency words processed through concept mediation (e.g., Nakagawa, 2009) Background 14 Bilingual Mental Lexicon
15. • Used to approach the issue of morphological processing and its storage • For reception (e.g., Baayen, Dijkstra, & Schreuder, 1997; Baayen, Lieber, & Schreuder, 1997; Sereno & Jongman, 1997; Taft, 2004) • For production (e.g., Baayen, Levelt, Schreuder, & Ernestus, 2008; New, Brysbaert, Segui, Ferrand, & Rastle, 2004; Beyersmanna , Dutton, Amer, Schiller, & Britta, 2015) Background 15 Frequency Effects
16. • Regularly inflected forms • High frequency -> full-form storage • Low frequency -> morphological decomposition (e.g., Stemberger & MacWhinny, 1991) Background 16 Frequency Effects
17. • Two types of number features • conceptual number • “the numerosity of the subject’s referent in the speaker’s mental model” (Humphreys & Bock, 2005) • e.g., scissors, [bacon and eggs] • grammatical number • linguistically expressed number • e.g., plural marker -s in English Background 17 Plurality
18. • Conceptual plural information disturbs number agreement process (e.g., Eberhard, 1999; Humphreys & Bock, 2005; Vigliocco, Butterworth, & Semenza, 1995; Vigliocco, Hartsuiker, Jarema, & Kolk, 1996) • Plurality is psycholinguistically marked (e.g., Bock & Miller, 1991) • High frequency plurals (plural-dominant plurals) might have a strong connection to plurality (Barker & Nicol, 2000) • L2 learners may be able to represent conceptual plurality (Kusanagi, Tamura, & Fukuta, 2015) Background 18 Plurality
19. • Researching in word recognition process… • frequency • concreteness • grammatical information <-this should also be stored with L2 words and used in processing • As a preliminary study • this study focused on plurality (number information) Background 19 Motivation of the study
20. • High frequency -> conceptual links • Plural-dominant plurals -> strong link to plurality • L2 learners’ use of conceptual plurality • Plural dominant-plurals might be processed through conceptual link? • This advantage might not be found through L1 route <- Japanese doesn’t mark number morphologically. Background 20 Hypothesis
21. • Plural-dominant plurals • Singular-dominant singulars Background 21 Hypothesis L2 L1 Concepts
22. • At least high frequent plurals might be represented with number information either semantically or morphologically. Background 22 Hypothesis
23. Overview • Introduction • Background • The Present Study • Results • Discussion • Conclusion 23
24. • 32 Japanese undergraduate and graduate students • 58% had some experience in staying in English-speaking countries (Min = 2 weeks, Max = 54 months) Table 1. Background Information of the Participants The Present Study 24 Participants Age TOEIC Score N M SD M SD Participants 32 24.77 5.34 824.22 113.12
25. 1. Frequency list of nouns (both singular and plural forms) from British National Corpus (BNC) 2. 12 words which double or triple in frequency of singular form compared to plural form -> singular- dominant words The Present Study 25 Stimuli
26. 3. 12 words which double or triple in frequency of plural form compared to singular form -> plural dominant words 4. 12 words whose frequency of singular and plural form was almost same. -> control words The Present Study 26 Stimuli
27. • The base frequency (sig + pl) was controlled among the three groups Table 2. Mean Frequency and SD in Parentheses The Present Study 27 Stimuli n singular plural base sig-domminant 12 25.55 (15.26) 10.38 (6.82) 35.93 (21.52) pl-dominant 12 9.23 (5.71) 21.84 (16.52) 31.06 (21.63) control 12 18.50 (9.89) 18.08 (10.32) 36.58 (19.45) Note. frequency is based on per million
28. The Present Study 28 Stimuli sig-dominant pl-dominant control camera dragon engine salad ship train bowl carpet cat eagle photo sword biscuit leaf nail shoe sock toy bean flower glove lip potato soldier cloud goat monkey nurse pig ticket bee ear egg key mountain rabbit Table 3. List of Test Items
29. • Norming study • Participants: • 3 Japanese graduate students • Task: • Picture naming in English and Japanese • Results: • All the test pictures correctly named as target L2 and L1 • All the filler pictures elicited non-target words -> NO responses could work The Present Study 29 Stimuli
30. •Picture-matching Task on PC The Present Study 30 Experiment + 1000ms cat + 500ms 1000ms 500ms
31. •L1-matching Task on PC The Present Study 31 Experiment + 1000ms cat + ೣ 500ms 1000ms 500ms
32. • judge whether the target L2 words matched L1 translation / picture • 36 test items (12*3) presented either in singular or plural form • 18 test items (6*3) per task • Carefully counterbalanced • 18 test items -> always YES response • 36 filler items -> YES: 18 items, NO: 18 items The Present Study 32 Experiment
33. • The order of the tasks counterbalanced: • Pic -> L1, L1 -> Pic • After the two tasks • Familiarity questionnaire (instructions are in Japanese) • 5-point Likert scale • 36 items (singular or plural form) which the participants did not see in the matching tasks • “How much have you seen or heard the words?” (1: I’ve never seen – 5: I’ve often seen ) The Present Study 33 Experiment
34. • Erroneous responses removed (L1-matching: 5%, Pic-matching: 4%) • Log transformation (base = 2) • Outliers (M +/- 2SD of each participant) removed (L1-matching: 4%, Pic-matching: 5%) The Present Study 34 Analysis
35. • 2*3*2 ANOVA (within participants) • Task type (2 levels) : L1/ picture matching • Noun type (3 levels) : singular-dominant, plural-dominant, control • Presentation condition(2 levels): singular/ plural form • Statistically significant three-way interaction • F (2, 62) = 3.41, p < .05 The Present Study 35 Analysis
36. • 3*2 ANOVA (within participants) for each task • Noun type (3 levels) • singular-dominant, plural-dominant, control • Presentation condition(2 levels) • singular/ plural form The Present Study 36 Analysis
37. Overview • Introduction • Background • The Present Study • Results • Discussion • Conclusion 37
38. 38 Overall Accuracy Scores Results k M SD 95%CI Picture-mathing 18 .94 .06 [.92, .96] L1-matching 18 .96 .05 [.94, .98] Table 4. Descriptive Statistics of Overall Mean Accuracy Scores N = 32
39. 39 L1 Matching Results k M SD 95%CI sig-domminant sig 3 573 217 [498, 648] pl 3 616 237 [534, 698] pl-dominant sig 3 551 207 [479, 623] pl 3 584 166 [526, 641] control sig 3 575 183 [511, 638] pl 3 563 191 [500, 625] Table 5. Descriptive Statistics of Reading Time in L1-matching task(ms) N = 32
40. Results 40 8.6 8.8 9.0 9.2 9.4 Log Transformed Mean RT (ms) singular−dominant plural−dominant control singular plural L1-matching (Log RT) Note. Error bar represents 95%CI Almost significant interaction F(1, 53) = 2.58, p = .09, ηp2 = .08
41. Results 41 8.6 8.8 9.0 9.2 9.4 Log Transformed Mean RT (ms) singular−dominant plural−dominant control singular plural L1-matching (Log RT) Note. Error bar represents 95%CI Significant simple main effects F(1, 31) = 5.54, p = .03, ηp2 = .15
42. Results 42 8.6 8.8 9.0 9.2 9.4 Log Transformed Mean RT (ms) singular−dominant plural−dominant control singular plural L1-matching (Log RT) Note. Error bar represents 95%CI Significant simple main effects F(1, 31) = 5.05, p = .03, ηp2 = .14
43. Results 43 8.6 8.8 9.0 9.2 9.4 Log Transformed Mean RT (ms) singular−dominant plural−dominant control singular plural L1-matching (Log RT) Note. Error bar represents 95%CI a No significant simple main effects F(1, 31) = 0.27, p = .60, ηp2 = .01
44. Results 44 8.6 8.8 9.0 9.2 9.4 Log Transformed Mean RT (ms) singular−dominant plural−dominant control singular plural L1-matching (Log RT) Note. Error bar represents 95%CI Almost significant interaction F(2, 62) = 2.40, p = .10, ηp2 = .07
45. Results 45 8.6 8.8 9.0 9.2 9.4 Log Transformed Mean RT (ms) singular−dominant plural−dominant control singular plural L1-matching (Log RT) Note. Error bar represents 95%CI Almost significant interaction F(2, 62) = 2.40, p = .10, ηp2 = .07 But no meaningful differences
46. 46 Picture Matching Results K M SD 95%CI sig-domminant sig 3 619 185 [554, 683] pl 3 652 202 [582, 722] pl-dominant sig 3 650 210 [578, 723] pl 3 580 203 [509, 650] control sig 3 592 158 [537, 646] pl 3 584 180 [522, 646] Table 6. Descriptive Statistics of Reading Time in Picture-matching task(ms) N = 32
47. Results 47 8.6 8.8 9.0 9.2 9.4 Log Transformed Mean RT (ms) singular−dominant plural−dominant control singular plural Picture-matching (Log RT) Note. Error bar represents 95%CI Significant interaction F(2, 62) = 4.28, p = .02, ηp2 = .12
48. Results 48 8.6 8.8 9.0 9.2 9.4 Log Transformed Mean RT (ms) singular−dominant plural−dominant control singular plural Picture-matching (Log RT) Note. Error bar represents 95%CI No significant simple main effects F(1, 31) = 2.23, p = .15, ηp2 = .07
49. Results 49 8.6 8.8 9.0 9.2 9.4 Log Transformed Mean RT (ms) singular−dominant plural−dominant control singular plural Picture-matching (Log RT) Note. Error bar represents 95%CI Significant simple main effects F(1, 31) = 6.97, p = .01, ηp2 = .18
50. Results 50 8.6 8.8 9.0 9.2 9.4 Log Transformed Mean RT (ms) singular−dominant plural−dominant control singular plural Picture-matching (Log RT) Note. Error bar represents 95%CI No significant simple main effects F(1, 31) = 0.06, p = .81, ηp2 = .002
51. Results 51 8.6 8.8 9.0 9.2 9.4 Log Transformed Mean RT (ms) singular−dominant plural−dominant control singular plural Picture-matching (Log RT) Note. Error bar represents 95%CI sig > pl (t [31] = 2.88, p = .001)
52. Results 52 8.6 8.8 9.0 9.2 9.4 Log Transformed Mean RT (ms) singular−dominant plural−dominant control singular plural Picture-matching (Log RT) Note. Error bar represents 95%CI sig > ctrl (t [31] = 2.58, p = .015)
53. Results 53 8.6 8.8 9.0 9.2 9.4 Log Transformed Mean RT (ms) singular−dominant plural−dominant control singular plural Picture-matching (Log RT) Note. Error bar represents 95%CI pl = ctrl (t [31] = 0.66, p = .514)
54. 54 Familiarity Questionnaire Results k M SD 95%CI sig-domminant sig 6 4.44 0.59 [4.24, 4.65] pl 6 4.47 0.56 [4.27, 4.66] pl-dominant sig 6 4.40 0.67 [4.16, 4.63] pl 6 4.55 0.53 [4.36, 4.73] control sig 6 4.51 0.55 [4.32, 4.70] pl 6 4.49 0.71 [4.24, 4.73] Table 7. Descriptive Statistics of the Results of the Familiarity Questionnaire N = 32, 5-point Likert scale
55. Overview • Introduction • Background • The Present Study • Results • Discussion • Conclusion 55
56. • singular-dominant • singular form (e.g., cat) • plural form (e.g., cats) • plural-dominant • singular form (e.g., bean) • plural form (e.g., beans) Discussion 56 L1 Matching
57. • singular-dominant • singular form (e.g., cat) -> faster • plural form (e.g., cats) • plural-dominant • singular form (e.g., bean) -> faster • plural form (e.g., beans) Discussion 57 L1 Matching
58. • singular forms • singular-dominant (e.g., cat) • plural-dominant (e.g., bean) • plural-forms • singular-dominant (e.g., cats) • plural-dominant (e.g., beans) Discussion 58 L1 Matching
59. • singular forms • singular-dominant (e.g., cat) • plural-dominant (e.g., bean) • plural forms • singular-dominant (e.g., cats) • plural-dominant (e.g., beans) Discussion 59 L1 Matching No significant difference No significant difference
60. • Frequency effects • if plural-dominant plurals are processed faster than singular-dominant plurals… • if singular-dominant singulars are processed faster than plural dominant singulars… -> frequency effects • However, this was not the case in L1 matching condition. • Both plurals were processed through morphological decomposition Discussion 60 L1 Matching
61. • singular-dominant • singular form (e.g., cat) • plural form (e.g., cats) • plural-dominant • singular form (e.g., bean) • plural form (e.g., beans) Discussion 61 Picture Matching
62. • singular-dominant • singular form (e.g., cat) • plural form (e.g., cats) • plural-dominant • singular form (e.g., bean) • plural form (e.g., beans) -> faster Discussion 62 Picture Matching -> No significant difference
63. • singular forms • singular-dominant (e.g., cat) • plural-dominant (e.g., bean) • plural forms • singular-dominant (e.g., cats) • plural-dominant (e.g., beans) Discussion 63 Picture Matching
64. • singular forms • singular-dominant (e.g., cat) • plural-dominant (e.g., bean) • plural forms • singular-dominant (e.g., cats) • plural dominant (e.g., beans) -> faster Discussion 64 Picture Matching No significant difference
65. • Frequency Effects • Singular-dominant singulars -> NO • Plural-dominant plurals -> YES Discussion 65 Picture Matching
66. • L1 matching task • L2 words -> semantic information (L1) • No number information needed to process • Always morphological decomposition irrespective of frequency • Picture matching • L2 words -> conceptual information (Picture) • Strong connection between plural-dominant plurals and plurality may result in making faster processing route to concepts Discussion 66 Assymetrical Frequency Effects?
67. • Plural-dominant plurals • Picture-matching condition • frequency effects -> full-form storage? • L1-matching condition • task effects (L2 -> L1) led the learners to process through morphological decomposition • Singular-dominant singulars • Picture-matching condition • no frequency advantage -> enough time for singular-dominant plurals to be decomposed? Discussion 67 Assymetrical Frequency Effects?
68. • Singular-dominant singulars • Plural-dominant singulars • Plural-dominant plurals • Singular-dominant plurals Discussion 68 Processing Routes L2 L1 Concepts decomposition full-form
69. • Number of test items • Difficulty in controlling base frequency and frequency dominance • Only concretes items can be used • Intervals between the recognition of L2 and L1 or Picture • How can we handle plural forms of abstract nouns? • What if the picture would have been multilple objects? Discussion 69 Limitations
70. Overview • Introduction • Background • The Present Study • Results • Discussion • Conclusion 70
71. • Plurals with high frequency • direct access to concepts • full-form processing • Singulars with high frequency • no firm evidence of frequency effects • singular is always easy to process irrespective of frequency? • Future research • different type of nouns • not only reception but production 71 Frequency and Plurality Conclusion
72. Baayen, R. H., Lieber, R., & Schreuder, R. (1997). The morphological complexity of simplex nouns. Linguistics, 35, 861–877. doi:10.1515/ling.1997.35.5.861 Baayen, R., Levelt, W., Schreuder, R., & Ernestus, M. (2007). Paradigmatic structure in speech production. Proceedings from the Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 43, 1–29. Retrieved from http:// www.ingentaconnect.com/content/cls/pcls/2007/00000043/00000001/art00001 Barker, J., & Nicol, J. (2000). Word frequency effects on the processing of subject-verb number agreement. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29, 99–106. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/ 10723714 Beyersmann, E., Dutton, E. M., Amer, S., Schiller, N. O., & Biedermann, B. (2015). The production of singular- and plural-dominant nouns in Dutch. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30, 867–876. doi: 10.1080/23273798.2015.1027236 Biedermann, B., Beyersmann, E., Mason, C., & Nickels, L. (2013). Does plural dominance play a role in spoken picture naming? A comparison of unimpaired and impaired speakers. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 26, 712– 736. doi:10.1016/j.jneuroling.2013.05.001 Bock, K., & Miller, C. A. (1991). Broken agreement. Cognitive Psychology, 23, 45–93. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(91)90003-7 Eberhard, K. M. (1999). The Accessibility of Conceptual Number to the Processes of Subject–Verb Agreement in English. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 560–578. doi:10.1006/jmla.1999.2662 Habuchi, Y. (2005). Daini gengo gakusyu-sya no tango syori ni oyobosu goi to gainen no rengo-kyodo no eikyo [The effects of associative strength between lexical and conceptual representations on word processing in second language learners]. The Japanese Journal of Psychology, 76,1–9. Humphreys, K. R., & Bock, K. (2005). Notional number agreement in English. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 689–95. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16447383 References 72
73. Kawakami, A. (1994). Goi-Gainen-kankei ni okeru daini gengo no syujyukudo no eikyo [The effect of proficiency in a second language on lexical-conceptual representation]. The Japanese Journal of Psychology, 64, 426–433. Kroll, J. F., & De Groot, A. M. (Eds.). (2005). Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches. Oxford University Press. Kusanagi, K., Tamura, Y., & Fukuta, J. (2015). The notional number attraction in English as a foreign language: A self-paced reading study. Journal of the Japan Society for Speech Sciences, 16, 77–96. Nakagawa, C. (2009). Examination of the developmental hypothesis on the revised hierarchical model. Annual Review of English Language Education in Japan, 20, 121–130. New, B., Brysbaert, M., Segui, J., Ferrand, L., & Rastle, K. (2004). The processing of singular and plural nouns in French and English. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 568–585. Sereno, J. A., & Jongman, A. (1997). Processing of English inflectional morphology. Memory & Cognition, 25, 425– 437. doi:10.3758/BF03201119 Stemberger, J. P., & MacWhinney, B. (1986). Frequency and the lexical storage of regularly inflected forms. Memory & Cognition, 14, 17–26. doi:10.3758/BF03209225 Taft, M. (2004). Morphological decomposition and the reverse base frequency effect. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. A, Human Experimental Psychology, 57, 745–765. Vigliocco, G., Butterworth, B., & Semenza, C. (1995). Constructing Subject-verb agreement in speech: The role of semantic and morphological factors. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 186–215. doi:10.1006/jmla. 1995.1009 Vigliocco, G., Hartsuiker, R. J., & Kolk, H. H. J. (1996). One or More Labels on the Bottles ? Notional Concord in Dutch and French. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 407–442. Yamashita, J. (2007). Investigating asymmetry in EFL Learners’ mental lexicon: Connections between lexical and Conceptual representations in Ll and L2. JACET Journal, 45, 63–79. References 73
74. Word Frequency Effects and Plurality in L2 Word Recognition –A Preliminary Study– contact info Yu Tamura Graduate School, Nagoya University yutamura@nagoya-u.jp http://www.tamurayu.wordpress.com/ 8.6 8.8 9.0 9.2 9.4 Log Transformed Mean RT (ms) singular−dominant plural−dominant control singular plural 8.6 8.8 9.0 9.2 9.4 Log Transformed Mean RT (ms) singular−dominant plural−dominant control singular plural L1-matching Picture-matching 74
75. Results 75 400 500 600 700 Mean RT (ms) singular−dominant plural−dominant control singular plural L1-matching (Raw RT) Note. Error bar represents 95%CI
76. Results 76 singular−dominant plural−dominant control singular plural Mean RT (ms) 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 L1-matching (Raw RT) Note. Error bar represents 95%CI
77. Results 77 400 500 600 700 Mean RT (ms) singular−dominant plural−dominant control singular plural Picture-matching (Raw RT) Note. Error bar represents 95%CI
78. Results 78 singular−dominant plural−dominant control singular plural Mean RT (ms) 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Picture-matching (Raw RT) Note. Error bar represents 95%CI
79. Results 79 0 500 1000 1500 0 500 1000 1500 singular−dominant singular form plural form L1 Pic 0 500 1000 1500 0 500 1000 1500 plural−dominant singular form plural form L1 Pic 0 500 1000 1500 0 500 1000 1500 control singular form plural form L1 Pic Mean Raw RT Plot (N = 32)