$30 off During Our Annual Pro Sale. View Details »

Is Acquiring Knowledge of Verb Subcategorization in English Easier? A Partial Replication of Jiang (2007) /PacSLRF2016

Yu Tamura
September 10, 2016

Is Acquiring Knowledge of Verb Subcategorization in English Easier? A Partial Replication of Jiang (2007) /PacSLRF2016

Tamura, Y. (2016). Is acquiring knowledge of verb subcategorization in English easier? A partial replication of Jiang (2007). Paper presented at PacSLRF2016. Chuo University, Tokyo, Japan.

Yu Tamura

September 10, 2016
Tweet

More Decks by Yu Tamura

Other Decks in Research

Transcript

  1. Is Acquiring Knowledge of Verb
    Subcategorization in English Easier?
    A Partial Replication of Jiang (2007)
    September 11, 2016
    PacSLRF 2016
    Chuo University, Tokyo, Japan
    1

    View Slide

  2. Overview
    • Brief overview of Jiang (2007)
    • Problems with Jiang (2007)
    • The present study
    • Participants
    • Materials and procedures
    • Results
    • Discussion
    2

    View Slide

  3. Overview
    • Brief overview of Jiang (2007)
    • Problems with Jiang (2007)
    • The present study
    • Participants
    • Materials and procedures
    • Results
    • Discussion
    3

    View Slide

  4. • Purpose
    • To investigate integrated knowledge of adult L2
    learners of English
    • How?
    • Using self-paced reading task
    • Findings
    • plural -s: ☓ , verb subcategorization: ̋
    Brief overview of Jiang (2007)
    4

    View Slide

  5. • Purpose
    • To investigate integrated knowledge of adult L2
    learners of English
    • How?
    • Using self-paced reading task
    • Findings
    • plural -s: ☓ , verb subcategorization: ̋
    Brief overview of Jiang (2007)
    5

    View Slide

  6. Yu TAMURA
    Graduate School, Nagoya University
    Japan Society for the Promotion of Science
    6

    View Slide

  7. • Integrated knowledge
    • Used spontaneously both in comprehension and
    production
    • Unconsciously activated
    • With minimal cognitive resource
    • With no or less attention to accuracy
    • Integrated knowledge <-> automatized
    performance
    Brief overview of Jiang (2007)
    7

    View Slide

  8. • Why is automatized performance important?
    • It’s the ultimate goal of second language
    acquisition/instruction
    • SLA is the process of knowledge integration
    Brief overview of Jiang (2007)
    8

    View Slide

  9. • Selective integration
    • The difference between child’s L1 acquisition and
    adult’s L2 acquisition
    • Some structures are more likely to be fossilized or
    less likely to be integrated
    • ESL learner’s knowledge of inflectional morphology
    never reaches at the level of native speakers
    • No matter what process it might be, integration of
    linguistic knowledge has to be selective
    • Ease of integration depends on linguistic structures
    Brief overview of Jiang (2007)
    9

    View Slide

  10. • Purpose
    • To investigate integrated knowledge of adult L2
    learners of English
    • How?
    • Using self-paced reading task
    • Findings
    • plural -s: ☓ , verb subcategorization: ̋
    Brief overview of Jiang (2007)
    10

    View Slide

  11. • Self-paced reading task
    • Required to read as fast as possible
    • Focus on meaning
    • Native speakers take longer time to read when they
    encounter grammatical errors.
    • Even without instruction
    • Even when the errors do not prevent comprehension
    • The delay is the evidence of possessing integrated
    knowledge
    Brief overview of Jiang (2007)
    11

    View Slide

  12. • Self-paced reading task
    • Explicit knowledge cannot work as monitor during
    the task
    • Whether or not the learners have integrated
    knowledge can be measured as whether there is
    a delay in reading
    Brief overview of Jiang (2007)
    12

    View Slide

  13. • Participants
    • Chinese ESL learners (N = 26)
    • Native speakers of English (N = 26)
    • Materials
    • plural morphemes : 32 items
    • verb subcategorization: 32 items
    • SVO + NP (10 items)
    • The mayor promised to offer/*keep the returning advisor a better
    position soon.
    • SVO + to infinitives (12 items)
    • The teacher wanted/*insisted the students to start all over again.
    • SVO + PP (6 items)
    • Her parents later married/*found her to a millionaire in Thailand.
    • SVO + adj (2 items)
    • Everyone considered/*believed the girl innocent after they had heard
    the story.
    Brief overview of Jiang (2007)
    13

    View Slide

  14. • Participants
    • Chinese ESL learners (N = 26)
    • Native speakers of English (N = 26)
    • Materials
    • plural morphemes : 32 items
    • verb subcategorization: 32 items
    • SVO + NP (10 items)
    • The mayor promised to offer/*keep the returning advisor a better
    position soon.
    • SVO + to infinitives (12 items)
    • The teacher wanted/*insisted the students to start all over again.
    • SVO + PP (6 items)
    • Her parents later married/*found her to a millionaire in Thailand.
    • SVO + adj (2 items)
    • Everyone considered/*believed the girl innocent after they had heard
    the story.
    Brief overview of Jiang (2007)
    14

    View Slide

  15. • Results
    • NS
    • significant RT differences in both structures
    • NNS
    • significant RT differences in only verb
    subcategorization
    Brief overview of Jiang (2007)
    15

    View Slide

  16. • Discussion
    • Compatible to the results of Jiang (2004)
    • Why?
    • L1 influence
    • Teachability Hypothesis (Pienemann, 1989)
    • Weak Interface Hypothesis (R. Ellis, 1997)
    • Starting age (DeKeyser, 2000)
    • Frequency (N. Ellis, 2002)
    • However, none of the above factors can fully explain the
    results
    Brief overview of Jiang (2007)
    16

    View Slide

  17. Overview
    • Brief overview of Jiang (2007)
    • Problems with Jiang (2007)
    • The present study
    • Participants
    • Materials and procedures
    • Results
    • Discussion
    17

    View Slide

  18. Overview
    • Brief overview of Jiang (2007)
    • Problems with Jiang (2007)
    • The present study
    • Participants
    • Materials and procedures
    • Results
    • Discussion
    18

    View Slide

  19. • Is the delay really the evidence of using integrated
    knowledge of verb subcategorization?
    • Ungrammatical version of the test items seemed
    not to be as much plausible as grammatical
    versions
    • ex. An attempt was made to persuade/*give the
    school board to change the policy.
    Problems with Jiang (2007)
    19

    View Slide

  20. • L2 learners tend to use meaning-driven processing
    mechanism if the task does not require them to use
    syntactic processing (e.g., Lim and Christianson,
    2013)
    • The RT differences obtained in Jiang (2007) might
    be due to breakdown of processing meaning
    Problems with Jiang (2007)
    20

    View Slide

  21. Overview
    • Brief overview of Jiang (2007)
    • Problems with Jiang (2007)
    • The present study
    • Participants
    • Materials and procedures
    • Results
    • Discussion
    21

    View Slide

  22. • Purpose of the Present Study
    • To investigate the effect of comprehensibility of
    the test items used in Jiang (2007)
    The Present Study
    22

    View Slide

  23. Overview
    • Brief overview of Jiang (2007)
    • Problems with Jiang (2007)
    • The present study
    • Participants
    • Materials and procedures
    • Results
    • Discussion
    23

    View Slide

  24. • Japanese undergraduate and graduate students (N
    = 32)
    Table 1.
    Demographic Information of the Participants
    Participants
    n M SD Min Max
    Age 31 24.77 5.35 20 40
    TOEIC 32 824.22 113.12 550 990
    Note. One participant did not report their age.
    24

    View Slide

  25. Overview
    • Brief overview of Jiang (2007)
    • Problems with Jiang (2007)
    • The present study
    • Participants
    • Materials and procedures
    • Results
    • Discussion
    25

    View Slide

  26. • On the basis of the test items used in Jiang (2004, 2007)
    • Slightly modified some difficult vocabularies on the basis of
    JACET 8000
    • millionaire -> rich; unwise ->ridiculous etc.
    • They had to teach the employees Chinese before sending
    them to China (Grammatical)
    • *They had to train the employees Chinese before sending
    them to China (Ungrammatical)
    • 64 test items (G: 32, UG:32) in total
    • Half of the items was followed by yes-no comprehension
    questions
    Materials and Procedures
    26

    View Slide

  27. • How to identify the target regions?
    • Jiang (2007)
    • The teacher wanted the student to start all over again.
    • *The teacher insisted the student to start all over again.
    • “reading times for ‘start’ were compared” (p.13)
    • Shouldn’t it be “to”?
    • However, in some other items, two words after the target verb should be
    the target region
    • We all called him captain at the time.
    • *We all needed him captain at the time.
    • They had done little to make their children happy and successful in life.
    • * They had done little to provide their children happy and successful in life.
    Materials and Procedures
    27
    1 2 3 4
    significant RT
    differences were
    reported in 3 and 4
    How could these items
    be treated equally?
    1 2 3 4
    1 2 3 4

    View Slide

  28. • How to identify the target regions?
    • In Jiang (2007)
    • It seems the target regions were different across the test
    items, although the comparison is minimum within each
    pair
    • In this study
    • Target regions were set to be where the
    ungrammaticality first arises
    • *The teacher insisted the student to start all over again.
    • *We all needed him captain at the time.
    • * They had done little to provide their children happy and successful in life.
    Materials and Procedures
    28
    1 2 3
    1 2 3
    1 2 3

    View Slide

  29. ____ ___ ________ _____ ___ _____ _____ ___ __ ____ _____
    The ___ ________ _____ ___ _____ _____ ___ __ ____ _____
    ___ teacher ________ _____ ___ _____ _____ ___ __ ____ _____
    ____ ___ wanted _____ ___ _____ _____ ___ __ ____ _____
    ____ ___ ______ _____ ___ _____ _____ ___ __ ____ _____
    ____ ___ ______ _____ ___ _____ _____ ___ __ ____ _____
    ____ ___ ______ _____ ___ _____ _____ ___ __ ____ _____
    ____ ___ ______ _____ ___ _____ _____ ___ __ ____ _____
    ____ ___ ______ _____ ___ _____ _____ ___ __ ____ _____
    ____ ___ ______ _____ ___ _____ _____ ___ __ again. _____
    ____ ___ ______ _____ ___ _____ _____ ___ __ ____ ࣍΁
    Materials and Procedures
    Computer-based self-paced reading task
    • Moving window version
    • Word-by-word manner
    29

    View Slide

  30. • Two counterbalanced forms (A and B) and two
    sessions
    • A1, B1: 16 sentences (G:8, UG:8) + 28 fillers
    • A2, B2: 16 sentences (G:8, UG:8) + 28 fillers
    • The order of the items was randomized
    • The order of the two sessions was counterbalanced
    Materials and Procedures
    30

    View Slide

  31. • Comprehensibility questionnaire
    • Instructions were all written in Japanese
    • Five-point Likert scale
    • 1: ҙຯ͕·ͬͨ͘Θ͔Βͳ͍ (I don’t get the meaning of
    the sentence at all) — 5: ҙຯ͕ͱͯ΋Α͘Θ͔Δ (I get
    the meaning of the sentence very well)
    • The participants answered the questionnaire after they
    completed the self-paced reading task
    • The participants did not see the same items which they saw
    in the self-paced reading task
    Materials and Procedures
    31

    View Slide

  32. • Analysis
    • Outliers removed (4.5%):
    • Responses below 200ms
    • Responses above the Mean RT+3SD of each
    participant in each condition
    • t1 = where the ungrammaticality first arises
    • t2 and t3 = for spill-over effects
    Materials and Procedures
    32

    View Slide

  33. • Analysis
    • A series of Generalized linear mixed-effects models
    (GLMM)
    • Response variables: Raw RT
    • Explanatory variables:
    • grammaticality (condition): 2 levels
    • comprehensibility: centered around grand mean
    • word length: centered around grand mean
    • Gamma distribution and identity link function
    Materials and Procedures
    33

    View Slide

  34. Overview
    • Brief overview of Jiang (2007)
    • Problems with Jiang (2007)
    • The present study
    • Participants
    • Materials and procedures
    • Results
    • Discussion
    34

    View Slide

  35. Results
    Table 2.
    Mean RTs (ms) and SDs (in parentheses) in each condition
    N = 32
    35
    t1 t2 ̓3
    G
    557
    (144)
    522
    (112)
    511
    (110)
    UG
    546
    (128)
    555
    (135)
    534
    (112)
    t 0.69 1.77 1.16
    p 0.50 0.09 0.25
    Correlation 0.78 0.64 0.49
    d -0.08 0.27 0.21
    d (paired) -0.12 0.32 0.21

    View Slide

  36. 200
    250
    300
    350
    400
    450
    500
    550
    600
    t1 t2 t3
    G
    UG
    36
    GLMM including only the main effect of
    condition found significant RT differences

    View Slide

  37. Results
    Table 3.
    The Results of Paired sample t-tests of the comprehensibility
    questionnaire
    N = 32
    G UG
    M 4.12 3.80
    SD 0.45 0.56
    t1 t = 4.43, p < .001
    t2 t = 2.20, p = .04
    G UG
    0 1 2 3 4 5

























    ● ●





    ● ●
    ● ●

    ●●






























    Figure 2.
    Box plot of the results of
    comprehensibility questionnaire.
    Red points indicate each
    participant’s mean score and blue
    points indicate mean scores in each
    condition.
    37
    Cohen’s d for item analysis
    d = 0.54 [0.04, 1.08]

    View Slide

  38. Results
    Table 4.
    The Results of GLMM (region t1)
    38
    Random effects
    Fixed effects By Subject By Items
    Parameters Estimate SE t p SD SD
    Intercept 584.71 15.29 38.24 <.001 80.17 55.85
    Condition -7.81 13.92 -0.56 .57 51.70 50.93
    comprehensibility 1.28 14.11 0.09 .92 46.22 —
    word length 23.17 5.92 3.91 <.001 — —
    Interaction 39.08 19.81 1.97 .048 — —
    Note. Number of observations: 999, N = 32, K =32

    View Slide

  39. Interaction between
    condition and comprehensibility
    Region t1
    39
    condition*c.comp in t1
    c.comp
    rt
    500
    520
    540
    560
    580
    600
    620
    640
    −1.0 −0.8 −0.6 −0.4 −0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4
    condition
    G UG
    Note. grey and pink areas show 95%CI

    View Slide

  40. Results
    Table 5.
    The Results of GLMM (region t2)
    40
    Random effects
    Fixed effects By Subject By Items
    Parameters Estimate SE t p SD SD
    Intercept 559.69 15.74 35.55 <.001 68.41 44.90
    Condition 43.392 14.81 2.93 <.01 63.53 52.71
    comprehensibility 2.61 12.99 0.20 .840 48.78 12.32
    word length 25.57 5.54 4.62 <.001 — —
    Interaction 35.56 14.12 2.52 .011 — —
    Note. Number of observations: 993, N = 32, K =32

    View Slide

  41. Interaction between
    condition and comprehensibility
    Region t2
    41
    condition*c.comp in t2
    c.comp
    rt
    500
    520
    540
    560
    580
    600
    620
    −1.0 −0.8 −0.6 −0.4 −0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4
    condition
    G UG
    Note. grey and pink areas show 95%CI

    View Slide

  42. Results
    Table 6.
    The Results of GLMM (region t3)
    42
    Random effects
    Fixed effects By Subject By Items
    Parameters Estimat
    e
    SE t p SD SD
    Intercept 522.25 14.49 36.04 <.001 59.12 36.84
    Condition 20.91 12.71 1.65 .10 50.17 42.90
    comprehensibility -15.27 12.49 -1.22 .221 41.49 15.71
    word length 25.594 4.28 5.98 <.001 — —
    Interaction -29.19 16.00 -1.82 .068 — —
    Note. Number of observations: 998, N = 32, K =32

    View Slide

  43. Interaction between
    condition and comprehensibility
    Region t3
    43
    condition*c.comp in t3
    c.comp
    rt
    480
    500
    520
    540
    560
    580
    600
    −1.0 −0.8 −0.6 −0.4 −0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4
    condition
    G UG
    Note. grey and pink areas show 95%CI

    View Slide

  44. Overview
    • Brief overview of Jiang (2007)
    • Problems with Jiang (2007)
    • The present study
    • Participants
    • Materials and procedures
    • Results
    • Discussion
    44

    View Slide

  45. Findings
    • Comprehensibility of the test items
    • Overall, the grammatical items were rated more
    comprehensible than the ungrammatical ones
    • However, some of the grammatical items were rated worse
    than their ungrammatical counterparts (see Appendix)
    • Those items were not acquired yet?
    • The effects of grammaticality and comprehensibility on RT
    • Possible interaction between grammaticality and
    comprehensibility
    • Grammaticality and comprehensibility might not be in a linear
    relationship
    Discussion
    45

    View Slide

  46. Findings
    • Comprehensibility of the test items
    • Overall, the grammatical items were rated more
    comprehensible than the ungrammatical ones
    • However, some of the grammatical ones were rated worse
    than their ungrammatical counterparts (see Appendix)
    • Those items were not acquired yet?
    • The effects of grammaticality and comprehensibility on RT
    • Possible interaction between grammaticality and
    comprehensibility
    • Grammaticality and comprehensibility might not be in a linear
    relationship
    Discussion
    46

    View Slide

  47. • Possible interaction between grammaticality and
    comprehensibility
    • In region t2
    • The more comprehensible, the larger the effect of
    grammaticality
    • Learners’ sensitivity to the errors were found only if the
    sentences were comprehensible
    • No strong main effect of comprehensibility to the delay of
    RT
    • In region t1 and t3
    • The less comprehensible, the larger the effect of
    grammaticality
    Discussion
    47
    condition*c.comp in t2
    c.comp
    rt
    500
    520
    540
    560
    580
    600
    620
    −1.0 −0.8 −0.6 −0.4 −0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4
    condition
    G UG
    condition*c.comp in t3
    c.comp
    rt
    480
    500
    520
    540
    560
    580
    600
    −1.0 −0.8 −0.6 −0.4 −0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4
    condition
    G UG

    View Slide

  48. Findings
    • Comprehensibility of the test items
    • Overall, the grammatical items were rated more
    comprehensible than the ungrammatical ones
    • However, some of the grammatical ones were rated worse
    than their ungrammatical counterparts (see Appendix)
    • Those items were not acquired yet?
    • The effects of grammaticality and comprehensibility on RT
    • Possible interaction between grammaticality and
    comprehensibility
    • Grammaticality and comprehensibility might not be in a linear
    relationship
    Discussion
    48

    View Slide

  49. • Grammaticality and comprehensibility might not be
    in a linear relationship
    • The effect of grammaticality was influenced by
    the comprehensibility of the test items
    • L2 learners use both meaning driven and
    syntactic-driven processing dynamically during
    self-paced reading
    • RT differences observed in the study might not be
    all due to the fact that L2 learners automatized
    the knowledge of verb-subcategorization
    Discussion
    49

    View Slide

  50. • The test items used in Jiang (2007) need a careful revision to examine the
    knowledge of verb-subcategorization
    • Syntactic position of the target regions should be controlled across the
    sentences
    • Ideally, the types of constructions (e.g., SVO + to V, SVO + PP, etc.) should
    also be controlled
    • Selective integration?
    • Number agreement -> less effect of ungrammaticality to the meaning
    • Subcategorization -> more effect of ungrammaticality to the meaning
    • These two types of grammatical knowledge should not be directly compared
    • GLMM would be preferable
    • to take into account word length
    • to take into account participants’ and items’ variance
    • to see the interaction between meaning and syntactic processing
    Discussion
    50

    View Slide

  51. • Limitations
    • The participants in Jiang (2007)’s study were
    more proficient
    • Determination of the target regions might be
    different than the original study
    Discussion
    51

    View Slide

  52. Jiang, N. (2007). Selective integration of linguistic knowledge in adult
    second language learning. Language Learning, 57, 1–33. doi:
    10.1111/j.1467-9922.2007.00397.x
    Lim, J. H., & Christianson, K. (2013). Integrating meaning and
    structure in L1–L2 and L2–L1 translations. Second Language
    Research, 29, 233–256. doi:10.1177/0267658312462019
    References
    52

    View Slide

  53. Is Acquiring Knowledge of Verb Subcategorization in
    English Easier? A Partial Replication of Jiang (2007)
    contact info Yu Tamura
    Graduate School, Nagoya University
    [email protected]
    http://www.tamurayu.wordpress.com/
    200
    250
    300
    350
    400
    450
    500
    550
    600
    t1 t2 t3
    G
    UG
    • The test items and
    the analyses should
    be revised
    • The effect of
    grammaticality was
    influenced by
    comprehensibility of
    the items
    53
    condition*c.comp in t1
    c.comp
    rt
    500
    520
    540
    560
    580
    600
    620
    640
    −1.0 −0.8 −0.6 −0.4 −0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4
    condition
    G UG
    condition*c.comp in t2
    c.comp
    rt
    500
    520
    540
    560
    580
    600
    620
    −1.0 −0.8 −0.6 −0.4 −0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4
    condition
    G UG
    condition*c.comp in t3
    c.comp
    rt
    480
    500
    520
    540
    560
    580
    600
    −1.0 −0.8 −0.6 −0.4 −0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4
    condition
    G UG

    View Slide

  54. 54
    comprehensibility condition k t1 t2 t3
    G>UG G 9 569 526 504
    UG 9 546 557 544
    UG>G G 23 528 510 523
    UG 23 548 548 508
    All G 32 557 522 510
    UG 32 546 555 534
    Table 7.
    Mean RTs (ms) across three types of items in each condition

    View Slide

  55. 55

    View Slide