Structural Priming on Sec Lang Learning

8/13/2019 Structural Priming on Sec Lang Learning

1/35

Language Learning ISSN 0023-8333

Structural Priming and Second LanguageLearning

Jeong-Ah Shin

Seoul National University

Kiel Christianson

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Structural priming (or syntactic priming) is a speakers tendency to reuse the same

structural pattern as one that was previously encountered (Bock, 1986). This study in-

vestigated (a) whether the implicit learning processes involved in long-lag structural

priming lead to differential second language (L2) improvement in producing two struc-

tural types (complex, double-object dative and simple, separated phrasal-verb structures)

compared to more explicit memory processes involved in no-lag structural priming

and (b) whether additional explicit instruction leads to increased production of target

structures than either implicit learning or explicit memory processes alone. Learnersshowed an overall increase in target structure production in a picture description task

and marginal improvement in grammaticality judgment tests after the structural prim-

ing session. Results revealed that explicit instruction combined with structural priming

speeded short-term improvement more than implicit instruction involving implicit learn-

ing alone in the form of long-lag structural priming. However, only implicit learning via

long-lag structural priming resulted in increased production of the complex structure

during a second testing session 1 day later. This study is the first to directly compare

explicit instruction to implicit instruction in a structural priming paradigm, taking into

account both the complexity of structures and the long-term effects of instruction on L2production.

The research and preparation of the manuscript were supported in part by a UIUC Campus

Research Board award to Kiel Christianson and Beckman Institute Cognitive Science and Artificial

Intelligence Award to Jeong-Ah Shin. We thank undergraduate research assistants for helping run

the experiments and score cloze tests, and Kay Bock, James Yoon, Tania Ionin, and anonymous

reviewers for helpful suggestions and comments on earlier versions of the manuscript, which

comprised a portion of the first authors Ph.D. dissertation.Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jeong-Ah Shin, College English

Program Faculty of Liberal Education Seoul National University 599 Gwanak ro Gwanak gu


2/35

Shin and Christianson Structural Priming and L2 Learning

Keywords structural priming; implicit learning; explicit instruction; syntactic priming

Introduction

People learn to recognize and produce grammatical sentences in their native

language even though they are not able to articulate the grammar rules that are

involved in doing so (Dienes & Berry, 1997). This type of learning is called

implicit learning. Implicit learning is typically construed as automatic acquisi-

tion of the structure of a fairly complex stimulus without necessarily intending

to do so, and the resulting knowledge (usually implicit knowledge) is difficult

to express. Implicit learning can be contrasted with explicit learning, which

is hypothesis-driven and fully conscious, and the resulting knowledge (usually

explicit knowledge) can be expressed verbally (Cleeremans, Destrebecqz, &

Boyer, 1998; Dienes & Berry, 1997; Stadler & Frensch, 1998).

In second language (L2) learning circumstances, implicit learning can take

place while L2 learners comprehend and produce words and sentences without

paying conscious attention to meaning negotiation and sentence construction

(N. C. Ellis, 2005). Because it takes a long time for adults to implicitly learn a

new language, implicit learning has received relatively less attention in the L2literature compared to explicit learning via explicit instruction, which involves

presenting or explaining rules and making use of metalinguistic knowledge

(DeKeyser, 1995). Explicit learning (and/or instruction) has also generally

been considered more effective than implicit learning (and/or instruction), in

that it can speed up L2 learning (Norris & Ortega, 2000).

Although adult L2 learners have generally been exposed to a great deal of

explicit instruction, they often experience difficulties in conveying ideas in the

L2. The difficulties have been argued to stem in part from a lack of automaticityor implicit knowledge in production (Segalowitz & Hulstijn, 2005) as well as

a lack of full-fledged abstract syntactic knowledge (N. C. Ellis, 2005). If this

assessment is correct, implicit learning could play a role in enhancing L2

proficiency: Implicit learning can facilitate automatic processing and promote

L2 production (Segalowitz, 2003), and it progresses along the usual route of

learning from formulas through limited scope patterns to creative construction,

leading to the acquisition of abstract linguistic knowledge (N. C. Ellis, 2005).

Another relevant issue for implicit learning in the second language acquisi-

tion (SLA) literature is whether explicit and implicit knowledge can cooperate

or interact in L2 learning (N C Ellis 2005) R Ellis (2005) distinguished


3/35


systematicity, accessibility, use of L2 knowledge, self-report, and learnability.

Open questions remain as to whether having explicit knowledge might boost

implicit learning (i.e., the acquisition of implicit knowledge) and whether im-plicit and explicit knowledge in learning interact in L2 processing (N. C. Ellis,

2002, 2005).

A substantial body of processing instruction research has touched on the

issue of whether explicit grammar instruction that precedes implicit input pro-

cessing promotes L2 learning (VanPatten, 1996, 2002). In processing instruc-

tion, explicit knowledge about sentence processing strategies is provided to

students in order to help them process sentences that are different from their

native language systems. Although the benefits of processing instruction are

still controversial (DeKeyser & Sokalski, 1996), processing instruction is an

example of how to deal with problematic processing strategies via overt in-

struction.

Another controversial issue is the relationship between implicit and explicit

learning and between simple and complex structures. Some SLA researchers

have argued that explicit learning is significantly more effective than implicit

learning for any structure (DeKeyser, 2003; Spada & Tomita, 2010), whereas

others have claimed that implicit learning can be ultimately more effective

for complex structures (Krashen, 1982, 1994; Reber, 1989). Simple structures,such as optional subject-verb inversion after adverbials in English, might be

easily learned via explicit instruction, in contrast to complex structures such as

pseudoclefts of location (Robinson, 1996). These results have been obtained

primarily with written grammaticality judgment tests. The study reported here

seeks to provide relevant data primarily from production research, which re-

mains quite rare in the literature. Specifically, the present research exploits the

phenomenon of structural priming in sentence production to measure the extent

to which implicit versus explicit instruction affects the accurate production ofdouble-object and phrasal-verb constructions in English by Korean L2 English

speakers.

Structural Priming

Structural (or syntactic) priming1 refers to the tendency of speakers to reuse the

same structural pattern as one that was previously encountered (Bock, 1986).

For example, when a sentence such asThe lawyer gave his client the document

is spoken or heard, the same structure is often used to describe a transfer event

in a subsequent utterance such as The girl sent her dad a letter instead of the


4/35


discussed in the first-language (L1) literature as evidence for an underlying

cognitive mechanism in language production, comprehension, and processing

(Pickering & Ferreira, 2008), and it has been investigated to assess its owncognitive functions as a language processing and learning mechanism (Ferreira

& Bock, 2006). In addition, several recent studies have examined the bilingual

mind using structural priming across languages, focusing on whether bilingual

syntactic processing is shared or separate (Bernolet, Hartsuiker, & Pickering,

2007; Desmet & Declercq, 2006; Hartsuiker, Pickering, & Veltkamp, 2004;

Salamoura & Williams, 2006, 2007; Schoonbaert, Hartsuiker, & Pickering,

2007; Shin & Christianson, 2009).

Structural Priming in the L1 Literature

To explain structural priming effects, there have been two accounts in the L1

literature: a lexicalist residual activation account (Pickering & Branigan, 1998)

and an implicit-learning account (Bock & Griffin, 2000; Chang, Dell, & Bock,

2006; Chang, Dell, Bock, & Griffin, 2000). We explain each of these accounts

briefly in what follows.

The lexicalist residual activation account holds that structural priming can

occur due to the residual activation of a prime that immediately precedes the

target in explicit memory.2 Under this account, processing a prime sentenceactivates a lexical-syntactic node (i.e., combinatorial node, roughly correspond-

ing to the argument structures of a word), and then the link between the relevant

lemma and combinatorial node becomes more active. The combinatorial nodes

residual activation in explicit memory leads to an increased probability that the

same syntactic structure will be selected in subsequent production. For exam-

ple, when the sentenceThe lawyer gave his client the documentis spoken or

heard, the lemma ofgaveand its combinatorial node [V NP NP] are activated.

The residual activation increases the probability of production of the sentenceThe girl sent her dad a letterin a subsequent utterance that shares the same

combinatorial node, instead of the alternate structure The girl sent a letter to

her dad.

According to this account, explicit memory of the prime sentences surface

structure can cause structural repetition (Bock & Griffin, 2000; Chang et al.,

2006; Hartsuiker, Bernolet, Schoonbaert, Speybroeck, & Vanderelst, 2008).

Prime sentences serve as a retrieval cue, so that speakers are likely to recall

from memory and reuse the prime sentences structure. In particular, the lexi-

calist residual activation account explains the so-calledlexical boostobserved

in short-term priming (i e when an identical verb is used in both prime and


5/35


has the same verb as the prime sentence, the extra activation from verb to com-

binatorial node via the active link between repeated verb lemma nodes and com-

binatorial nodes increases the priming effect over and above the combinatorialnodes residual activation. Moreover, Bock, Loebell, and Morey (1992) found

that providing instruction to participants influenced structural priming; greater

structural priming was observed among participants instructed to remember

syntax than among participants instructed to remember meaning. Ferreira and

Bock (2006) argued that this result suggests that structural priming is sensitive

to explicit memory for syntax, which in turn is consistent with the possibility

that structural priming might be due to explicit-memory functioning (p. 1020).

The implicit-learning account of structural priming is based on empirical

evidence involving priming over several trials or lags (Bock & Griffin, 2000;

Chang et al., 2006; Hartsuiker et al., 2008), long-lasting structural priming last-

ing over 20 minutes (Boyland & Anderson, 1998), long-term structural priming

after training (Kaschak & Borreggine, 2008), and child language acquisition

over a block of trials (Huttenlocher, Vasilyeva, & Shimpi, 2004). In addition,

people in this camp argue that structural priming also meets the three criteria

of implicit learning and therefore is a form of implicit learning. These criteria

are (a) syntactic processing normally occurs outside of awareness in the assem-

bly of sentences (Bock, 1982), (b) people produce fairly complex sentences(Bock & Loebell, 1990), and (c) the tendency to repeat syntactic structure is

procedural and unintentional (Bock & Griffin, 2000).

In particular, Bock and Griffin (2000) argued that structural repetition is

explained as an implicit learning mechanism as well as a simple explicit mem-

ory phenomenon. They examined priming effects when the prime sentence

immediately preceded the target picture (lag 0) and when there were 1, 2, 4, or

10 intervening filler sentences between prime and target (lags 1, 2, 4, and 10,

respectively). They found that the structural priming effect was not influencedby lags between prime and target, and structural priming even endured over

10 intervening sentences (i.e., lag 10). They argued that their results could not

be accounted for by the short-term activation account from a memory repre-

sentation of a priming structure alone. Instead, the results constituted evidence

for a procedural or implicit-learning account in which there is longer-term

adaptation in the cognitive learning mechanisms for sentence creation. They

also showed that participants produced the primed sentence and generalized the

same structure to new utterances without any explicit attention to the form of

the priming sentences. Hence, Bock and Griffin suggested that structural prim-

ing involves learning processes themselves within a system that is organized


6/35


Recently, a combined account of the mechanisms responsible for struc-

tural priming has been proposed with multiple factors underlying structural

priming (a so-called multifactorial account), including both residual activationin explicit memory and implicit-learning processes (Ferreira & Bock, 2006;

Hartsuiker et al., 2008). Hartsuiker et al. (2008) found that the lexical boost

is short-lived, whereas structural priming can be long-lived. In other words,

structural priming can be accounted for in both explicit memory and implicit-

learning processes. In long-lag conditions, structural priming involves implicit

learning rather than explicit memory; in no-lag or short-lag conditions, struc-

tural priming might involve both, relying on explicit memory alone for lexical

repetition. We return to these theories and their relevance to the results reported

here in both the Method and Discussion sections.

Structural Priming in the L2 Literature

In the SLA literature, McDonough and Trofimovich (2009) suggested that

structural priming methods are useful in doing research on L2 processing and

learning. Recently, a few SLA studies have employed structural priming to

examine interaction activities in L2 development. McDonough (2006) investi-

gated whether structural priming is beneficial for L2 development in interactive

contexts, using a confederate script technique (Branigan, Pickering, & Cle-land, 2000). McDonough observed structural priming with prepositional-object

datives in L2 English learners. The participants produced more prepositional-

object datives when they had previously heard or produced the prepositional-

object structure themselves than when they had not. Likewise, Kim and

McDonough (2008) investigated the same research question with English ac-

tive and passive structures and found that structural priming plays a beneficial

role in L2 development.

McDonough and Mackey (2006, 2008) examined the benefits of struc-tural priming on English-as-a-second-language (ESL) question development.

They assumed that L2 learners might have two alternations in English question

forms: incomplete interlanguage (i.e., the learners developing L2 knowledge;

Selinker, 1972) and some knowledge of developmentally advanced question

forms. The authors thus hypothesized that hearing or producing the advanced

form might encourage the subsequent use of that form as opposed to the less

advanced form. In both studies, they found that learners showing structural

priming were more likely to advance to a higher stage in the developmental

sequence, indicating that structural priming is associated with ESL question for-

mation These studies all focused on L2 speakers interaction with interlocutors


7/35


did not address the issue of learners internal cognitive processes related to

implicit and explicit learning via structural priming through long-lag priming.

Nor did this earlier work examine the long-term effects of structural primingon production or compare implicit instruction in the form of structural priming

to explicit instruction and/or the combination of both forms of instruction. All

of these outstanding issues are addressed in the present study.

The Study

The goals of this study were to compare the cognitive benefits of implicit

learning implemented through structural priming to the benefits of explicit

instruction in the context of L2 production. At the same time, we investigatedhow structural complexity modulates structural priming in L2 production.

Specifically, we first investigated whether structural priming involving

implicit-learning processes alone (i.e., long-lag priming) improves L2 pro-

duction compared to structural priming involving primarily explicit memory

processes (i.e., no-lag priming). Next, we investigated whether structural prim-

ing involving mainly explicit memory processes (no-lag priming) combined

with explicit learning processes reinforced by explicit instruction might be

more beneficial for the improvement of L2 production than more implicit in-struction (i.e., long-lag priming). We also examined long-term priming effects

in each condition by administering a delayed posttest 1 day later. Finally, we

investigated how the results might differ depending on the relative complexity

of structures.

In order to measure immediate, short-term, and long-term effects of prim-

ing, this study employed a pretest-priming-posttest design by using perfor-

mance in picture description and grammaticality judgment pretests as baselines.

A priming session involved three conditions with respect to no-lag/long-lag

structural priming and implicit/explicit instruction. Performance in the priming

session can show immediate priming effects based on each priming condition

compared to the baseline pretests. Immediate picture description and gram-

maticality judgment posttests (Posttest 1) can measure cumulative short-term

effects of structural priming, and a delayed picture description posttest on the

following day (Posttest 2) measured cumulative long-term effects of struc-

tural priming. Using these measures, the study addresses the following major

research questions, which have not yet been addressed in the existing literature:

Research Question 1: Does purely implicit learning (measured by long-lag

structural priming) lead to differential improvement of L2 compared to


8/35


Research Question 2: Does additional explicit knowledge instruction lead

to more L2 improvement than implicit instruction involving either implicit-

learning or explicit memory processes alone?Research Question 3: Do structural priming effects generated by purely

implicit learning (long-lag structural priming) persist in L2 production

longer than effects generated by explicit memory processes (no-lag struc-

tural priming) or explicit instruction?

Research Question 4: Do any observed short-term or long-term priming

effects vary as a function of structural complexity?

Following the multifactorial account of structural priming discussed earlier

(e.g., Ferreira & Bock, 2006), we assumed the following: (a) Long-lag structuralpriming involves purely implicit-learning processes alone; (b) no-lag structural

priming, including lexical repetition, involves mainly explicit memory pro-

cesses; and (c) explicit instruction plus no-lag structural priming, including

lexical repetition, involves explicit-learning processes in addition to explicit

memory processes. Based on these assumptions, which were motivated by the

theories outlined earlier, we predicted that L2 learners production of the com-

plex structure would be affected most rapidly by explicit instruction. However,

implicit instruction in the form of long-lag priming was expected to producethe most perseverant effects on production 1 day after initial instruction. For

the more simple structure, we predicted little difference between implicit and

explicit instructional conditions, both immediately after instruction and the

following day.

Method

ParticipantsForty-eight participants were recruited from the University of Illinois at Urbana-

Champaign community. All were native speakers of Korean and were learning

English as their L2. According to their detailed language background infor-

mation, which was obtained after the experiment, all participants had received

formal instruction in English for at least 6 years; the average number of years

living in countries speaking English as an official language was three (range:

18). The mean age was 29 (range: 1940). Three participants incomplete data

were discarded (one participant failed to appear on the second day of the exper-

iment, and the production of two participants was inadvertently not recorded

on the digital recorder) leaving 45 participants whose data were analyzed


9/35


Target Structures

The target structures were double-object dative (e.g., The boy is handing the

singer a guitar) and separated phrasal-verb constructions involving a postobjectparticle (e.g., The man is putting the fire out). These two structures were chosen

as target structures because they have both similarities and differences in L2

learners use and two languages. First, the two structures are similar in that

Korean L2 English learners often have difficulties in producing them and thus

do not frequently use them. Shin (2008, 2010) found that bilinguals with low

L2 proficiency (low-level L2 learners) had problems in syntactic processing

during L2 English double-object dative sentence production. Specifically, or-

dering problems arose, leading to ungrammatical sentences such asThe coach

read the rules the team, The lawyer took his girlfriend to spaghetti, andThe

old man rented to his neighbors apartment. Like the double-object datives,

the ordering problems of L2 learners have also been observed in phrasal-verb

constructions such asHe will call up me this evening(Kadia, 1988). In addition

to this kind of error, the phrasal-verb structure is less frequent in L2 produc-

tion (Liao & Fukuya, 2004), similar to double-object datives (McDonough,

2006).

In addition, both structures have syntactic alternations: prepositional-object

dative sentences (e.g., The boy is handing a guitar to the singer) and unsep-arated phrasal-verb sentences involving a postverb particle, with the particle

located after the verb (e.g., The man is putting out the fire), respectively. The

availability of two structural alternations makes it possible to use a structural

priming paradigm (Bock, 1986; Konopka & Bock, 2009). The participants

might produce either target or alternate structures. If these structures have been

primed and priming effects have accumulated through the priming session,

then participants might produce the target structures instead of the alternate

structures. In these respects, both target structures (e.g., The boy is handing thesinger a guitarandThe man is putting the fire out) are suitable for investigations

of structural priming as well as learning.

The target structures, however, display important differences. First, al-

though Korean has both double-object and postpositional-object datives, which

are equivalent to English double-object and prepositional-object dative struc-

tures, respectively (Shin & Christianson, 2011), there are no equivalent struc-

tures for phrasal-verb constructions (e.g., put out) in Korean; instead, Korean

has one-word equivalents like extinguish. Korean learners of English would

thus be expected to have similar difficulty in learning these structures as, for

example Chinese learners of English (Liao & Fukuya 2004) because Chinese


10/35


Most importantly, as noted earlier, the target structures are different in

terms of cognitive complexity. Hulstijn and de Graaff (1994) suggested crite-

ria to divide structures into complex and simple in order to explain structuraldifference in language learning. They argued that complex structures have mul-

tiple components, which involve abstract structural and procedural knowledge

in learning, whereas simple structures do not. It can therefore be argued that

the dative structure, which involves different lexical content and different case-

assignment schemes (Larson, 1988), is more complex and more dependent on

abstract syntax than the phrasal-verb structure, which involves simple func-

tional lexical items. If there are any differences in participants performance

between the target double-object dative and separated phrasal-verb structures

in production, it might be due to effects of either L1 equivalents or structural

complexity. Depending on the direction of any observed difference, we might

be able to adjudicate between the two influences.

Materials

Target sentences and pictures (line drawings) depicting those sentences were

constructed using 72 target verbs: 36 dative and 36 phrasal verbs (see the ap-

pendix3). Grammaticality judgment and picture description pretests included

12 double-object dative and 12 separated phrasal-verb constructions, whichwere presented as grammatical sentences and which were elicited by pictures

(line drawings of simple events), respectively. These two tasks were employed

in pretest and posttest sessions in order to test L2 production and receptive

knowledge of syntactic structures, respectively. The research questions of the

current study, however, focused on L2 production, and picture description re-

sults will be highlighted rather than grammaticality judgment results,4 although

grammaticality judgment results will be briefly presented.

Each grammaticality judgment test item included the same verbs as thepicture description test items, but the sentences were different. The other 24

filler items in the grammaticality judgment test were created with 12 grammat-

ical sentences and 12 ungrammatical ones. Another 12 pictures in the picture

description test served as fillers, and 2 others served as practice items. The

events in these pictures were described with intransitive sentences (e.g., A man

is flying) or transitive sentences (e.g., A man is riding a bicycle).

In the priming session, 12 dative and 12 phrasal verbs were used to cre-

ate two sets of prime sentences and pictures (two different items per verb).

Moreover, an additional set of pictures with the target verbs used in the pretest

items (12 dative and 12 phrasal verbs) was constructed to elicit the participants


11/35


Table 1 Overview of the experiment

Day Session Task

1 Pretest Picture description

Auditory grammaticality judgment

Priming Picture description and repetition

Posttest 1 Picture description

Auditory grammaticality judgment

2 Posttest 2 Picture description

Questionnaire Language background questionnaire

Proficiency test Cloze test

pretest. None of the pictures were reused in other phases, although the target

verbs were reused in other phases. Three pairs of sentences and pictures irrel-

evant to the target structures were also created for practice trials. None of the

60 fillers or the practice sentences contained the target structures.

The immediate posttests also consisted of a sentence-picture set of 12

double-object dative and 12 separated phrasal-verb constructions. It shared

six dative and six phrasal verbs with the priming session, and it included

an additional 12 new lexical items (six dative and six phrasal verbs), which

were less frequent than those used in the pretest and priming session5 (Bres-

nan, Cueni, Nikitina, & Baayen, 2007; Deshmukh, Ganapathiraju, Hamaker, &

Picone, 1998). In the delayed posttest session, the other set of verbs used during

the priming session was used in addition to six new double-object dative and

six new separated phrasal-verb lexical items. Only the picture description task

was administered because this study was more interested in productionthe

picture descriptionthan grammatical judgments.

Procedure

The experiment was individually carried out in front of a PC in a sound-

attenuated room over sessions separated by 1 day. A schematic representation

of the procedure is provided in Table 1.

On the first day of the experiment, participants were randomly and equally

assigned to one of three priming conditions (see the next subsection for details

of priming conditions). Participants in all conditions first performed a picture

description pretest for 5 minutes. Before the test, they were instructed to de-

scribe pictures using words presented below the pictures in one sentence as


12/35


next item. Then they performed an auditory grammaticality judgment pretest6

for another 5 minutes.

In the following priming session the participants were informed that theywere going to see pictures with spoken sentences describing the pictures and

were asked to repeat what they had heard when they saw the same pictures

with yellow frames. Additionally, they were told that they would sometimes

see pictures with yellow frames without spoken sentences and were asked to

describe the pictures using the word(s) presented below the pictures. The prim-

ing session was self-paced and lasted approximately 3540 minutes, varying

slightly by individual, with the explicit condition taking somewhat longer than

the other two. After the priming session, the participants in all three condi-

tions performed immediate posttests (another picture description and auditory

grammaticality judgment tests) for 10 minutes. Each individual first-day ses-

sion (including pretests, priming, and immediate posttests) lasted a total of

approximately 60 minutes.

On the second day of the study, the same participants performed the de-

layed posttest (picture description) for 5 minutes. They then filled out a lan-

guage background questionnaire and took an English proficiency (cloze) test7

for 1015 minutes. Each individual second-day session lasted approximately

30 minutes.

Priming Conditions

In the priming session, the repetition task was used as the priming trial; listening

to the prime sentences and repeating them was predicted to promote structural

priming in the target elicitation because repeating sentences triggers structural

priming (Konopka & Bock, 2009). The priming conditions, however, differed

depending on whether the prime trials were provided immediately before thetarget trial and whether explicit instruction was provided. There were thus three

conditions: no-lag comparison, long-lag implicit, and explicitly reinforced.

Examples of each condition are provided in Table 2.

In the no-lag comparison condition, the target trial immediately followed

the prime trial. This is termed a no-lag condition because of the immedi-

ate prime-target sequence without placeholder fillers in between. The no-lag

immediate prime-target condition has been used in previous studies to demon-

strate structural priming involving explicit memory processes and to increase

the possibility of priming (Bock & Griffin, 2000). The basic function of

this condition including lexical repetition involves primarily explicit mem-


13/35


Table 2 Examples of the three conditions in both structures

Double-object Separated

Condition dative phrasal-verb

No-lag com-

parison

The girl is climbing the stairs

The babies are playing football

The man is getting angry

The boy is reading the girl a

booka

The man is reading his

grandson a story

The woman is showing the man

a dress




The man is wiping the table off

The woman is wiping the

window off

The girl is turning the heater

down.

Long-lag

implicit


book[other fillers or

phrasal-verb target trials]b


grandson a story




The man is riding the bike


a dress


[other fillers or dative target

trials]


window off




The man is riding the bike


down.

Reinforced

explicit





book


grandson a story


a dress

Word Order Note (Explicit

Instruction)






window off


down.

Word Order Note (Explicit

Instruction)

aPrime sentences are inbold; target sentences are inbold italics.bSeparated phrasal-verb sentences served as fillers for double-object dative target trials,

and double-object dative sentences also served as fillers for phrasal-verb target trials. In

other words, they were intertwined with each other in the long-lag implicit condition;therefore, the total number of items was identical among the three conditions.


14/35


immediate prime-target condition as a baseline no-lag comparison, comparing

it to the long-lag implicit condition and the explicitly reinforced condition.

In each no-lag comparison trial, participants were provided with two con-secutive prime spoken sentence-picture pairs and then with an experimental

picture with no spoken sentence. All of the prime items (i.e., two pictures

and spoken sentences) in each no-lag comparison trial used the identical verb

mainly to involve explicit memory processes and to maximize the structural

effects, as previous studies (e.g., Hartsuiker et al., 2008) have shown that lexi-

cal repetition boosts immediate structural priming effects. The verb was always

presented below the picture and the particle was below the verb in the case

of the separated phrasal-verb structure. Then the second prime picture was

repeated in a yellow frame with the verb below the picture to trigger sentence

repetition. After repeating the second prime sentence, one of the experimental

pictures randomly appeared with a verb (and a particle in the case of the sepa-

rated phrasal-verb structure) to elicit the target sentence, and participants then

described it. One example trial of the no-lag comparison condition is illustrated

in Figure 1.

The long-lag implicit condition, on the other hand, had four to five fillers

between the prime and target trials. Participants in this condition did not hear

or produce any prime sentences right before target production. Instead, theyonly heard neutral filler sentences, with filler pictures that were irrelevant to the

target structures, preceding target elicitation with the experiment picture. Thus,

the long-lag implicit condition involves purely implicit-learning processes,

because residual activation in explicit memory cannot persist over four to

five filler sentences (Bock & Griffin, 2000). The total number of experimental

pictures and sentences was the same as in the no-lag comparison condition; that

is, they had the same number of the same pictures and sentences over the whole

priming session as the no-lag comparison condition; only the presentation orderdiffered between the two priming conditions.

Finally, in the explicitly reinforced condition, the general sequence of each

experimental trial was identical to the sequence in the no-lag comparison con-

dition, with no lag between prime and target, but an explicit instructional pre-

sentation was added to this condition in the form of rule explanation (DeKeyser,

1995). This is in contrast to the other conditions, which did not include any

explicit instruction and can therefore be considered implicit. The participants

in the explicitly reinforced condition were additionally instructed that they

would sometimes see grammar notes after their production and should pay

attention to the notes and utilize the information later when it was neces-


15/35


Figure 1 One example priming trial of DO structures for the no-lag comparison condi-

tion. The frames around elicited picture descriptions were yellow in the experiment but

are illustrated here in gray so that they can be seen more easily.

appeared word order notes, which provided explicit word order knowledge.

The word order notes consisted of a target structure template and an alter-

nate structure. The template was presented word-by-word and highlighted with

a different color to draw participants attention to the target structure After


16/35


Figure 2 Word order notes for two structures in the explicitly reinforced condition.

and unseparated phrasal-verb structures) was presented all at once underneath

the target structure template. Two additional structures, passives and relative

clauses, were also presented in the word order notes for filler items. Examples

of the grammar notes used in the explicitly reinforced condition are provided in


17/35


Scoring

Verbal responses were recorded on an Olympus VN-4100PC digital voice

recorder, and button responses were recorded by the computer, using E-Primeexperiment presentation and data collection software (Schneider, Eschman,

& Zuccolotto, 2002). All of the verbal responses such as sentence repetition

and elicited picture description during all the sessions (priming, pretest, and

posttest sessions) were transcribed and were used for coding and scoring. The

production of the picture description was scored as target(double-object da-

tive and separated phrasal-verb constructions), alternate(prepositional-object

dative and unseparated phrasal-verb constructions), andother(other structures

or incomplete sentences). Coding was carried out by two native speakers of

American English who were undergraduate linguistics majors. Coding was

checked by the first author for accuracy and agreement. Interrater reliability

calculated by the Pearson correlation was 95%, and the remaining 5% were

resolved after discussion.

In the case of dative sentences, the production was scored as targetif the

ditransitive verb was followed by a noun phrase with the thematic role of re-

cipient/goal followed by another noun phrase with the thematic role of theme.

The production was scored as alternate if the ditransitive verb was followed

by a noun phrase with the thematic role of theme and then a prepositionalphrase with the prepositiontoorforand the thematic role of recipient. In the

case of phrasal-verb constructions, the production was scored as targetif the

phrasal verb and the particle were separated by a noun phrasethat is, the

phrasal verb was followed by a noun phrase and then a particle (i.e., post-

noun phrasal-verb constructions). The production was scored as alternate if

the phrasal verb was followed by a particle and then a noun phrase (i.e.,

postverb phrasal-verb constructions). Otherwise, all other descriptions (e.g.,

single-object structures like Parents are teaching the child) were scored asotherand were excluded from the data analysis.

The pretest and posttest items of the auditory grammaticality judgment

test were scored as corrector incorrect, measuring the accuracy of response.

Cloze tests were scored by a native speaker of English. A response judged

both syntactically and semantically appropriate in a given blank was scored as

correct, even if the response was not the exact word that had been removed

from the original text.

Data Analyses

The scores from the production data and the grammaticality judgment data


18/35


main factors (i.e., the first-day sessions and two structure types as two within-

subjects factors and three priming conditions as a between-subjects factor) and

proficiency (i.e., cloze test scores) as a covariate to partial out any variancein performance due to individual variation. One additional repeated measures

ANCOVA was performed in the production data with posttests (immediate

and delayed) and two structure types as two within-subjects factors, three

priming conditions as a between-subjects factor, and proficiency (i.e., cloze

test scores) as a covariate. Then in order to answer the main research questions,

planned pairwise comparisons were performed on each session by structure

type. With respect to the first research question, the long-lag implicit condition

was compared to the no-lag comparison condition by structure type. With

respect to the second research question, the explicitly reinforced condition

group was compared to either the no-lag comparison or long-lag condition by

structure type. The effect sizepartial eta squared (p2)is also reported in

the major comparisons.

The picture description results in the priming session were interpreted as an

index of immediate priming effects. The immediate posttest (Posttest 1) results

were interpreted as an index of cumulative priming effects (i.e., the short-

term cumulative effects of priming during the priming session). The delayed

posttest (Posttest 2) data were interpreted as that of delayed long-term primingeffects affected by the immediate and cumulative priming effects during priming

session and Posttest 1 on the previous day.

Results

Picture Description

It will be remembered that each participant performed a picture description

task four times: the pretest, the priming session, the immediate posttest, andthe delayed posttest. During the priming session, the experimental pictures

elicited the participants production after a picture and description using prime

sentences. The participants in the no-lag comparison and explicitly reinforced

conditions were provided with the experimental pictures promptly after re-

peating the prime sentences, whereas the participants in the long-lag implicit

condition were provided with the experimental pictures after hearing or repeat-

ing irrelevant sentences.

The descriptive statistics for production frequencies are reported in Table 3.

Out of 1,080 items, 157 other responses (14.5%) that did not meet the scoring

criteria were excluded from the data analysis; the dependent variable was the


19/35


le3R

esponsefrequenciesinthepic

turedescriptiontask

ssion

Pretest

PrimingSes

sion

Posttest1

Posttest2

ondition

Target

A

lternate

Target

A

lternate

Target

A

lternate

Target

A

lternate

ativeverb

No-lag

3.

06%

9

6.

93%

31

.

20%

6

8.

80%

55

.

56%

4

4.

44%

30

.

65%

6

9.

35%

com

parison

(3)

(95)

(39)

(86)

(40)

(32)

(19)

(43)

Long-lag

3.

97%

9

6.

03%

23

.

85%

7

6.

15%

57

.

73%

4

2.

27%

59

.

80%

4

0.

20%

imp

licit

(5)

(121)

(31)

(99)

(56)

(41)

(61)

(41)

Explic

itly

3.

85%

9

6.

15%

56

.

86%

4

3.

14%

79

.

79%

2

0.

21%

63

.

74%

3

6.

26%

rein

forced

(4)

(100)

(87)

(66)

(75)

(19)

(58)

(33)

rasalv

erb

No-lag

12

.

50%

8

7.

50%

68

.

82%

3

1.

18%

78

.

31%

2

1.

69%

71

.

95%

2

8.

05%

com

parison

(19)

(133)

(117)

(53)

(130)

(36)

(118)

(46)

Long-lag

15

.

09%

8

4.

91%

49

.

41%

5

0.

59%

74

.

57%

2

5.

43%

76

.

88%

2

3.

12%

imp

licit

(24)

(135)

(84)

(86)

(129)

(44)

(133)

(40)

Explic

itly

9.

27%

9

0.

73%

78

.

86%

2

1.

14%

83

.

93%

1

6.

07%

89

.

41%

1

0.

59%

rein

forced

(14)

(137)

(138)

(37)

(141)

(27)

(152)

(18)

e.

The

raw

numbersareprovidedin

parentheses.Thetotalnumberofutterancesoneachsession

was180.

Theremainingnum

bersare

herresponses.


20/35


Figure 3 Overall picture description performance.

overall repeated measures ANCOVA results showed significant differences in

sessions,F(3, 123) = 3.704,p


21/35


Priming Effects

Overall priming effects (i.e., immediate priming effects) were observed in

the use of target structures, but the pattern of the priming effects differed bystructure type and condition. The repeated measures ANCOVA yielded main

effects of priming,F(1, 41) = 4.391,p


22/35


This indicates that the participants in the three conditions produced more target

sentence structures due to their use in the priming session than in the neutral

baseline pretest, but no difference was found among conditions.With respect to the relative structural complexity of the two structures,

planned pairwise comparisons showed a significant difference between the

explicitly reinforced group and no-lag comparison conditions in the double-

object dative structure,t(28) = 2.48,p


23/35


Table 4 Accuracy on grammaticality judgment tests

Double-object dative Phrasal verb

Condition Pretest Posttesta Pretest Posttesta

No-lag

comparison

72.78% (0.20) 80.00% (0.18) 78.89% (0.17) 91.11% (0.10)

Long-lag

implicit

78.33% (0.17) 85.56% (0.15) 75.00% (0.22) 89.44% (0.16)

Explicitly

reinforced

condition

75.00% (0.17) 86.11% (0.13) 84.44% (0.14) 96.11% (0.05)

Note.Mean values are presented in percentages and standard deviations are provided inparentheses.aThe grammaticality judgment posttest was only administered once, as an immediate

posttest.

produced separated phrasal-verb target sentences in a similar way irrespective

of priming conditions.

Grammaticality Judgments

Although it was not the main focus of the study, the grammaticality judgmenttask was included to enable comparisons with other studies, as previous research

in the L2 literature on implicit learning has typically reported the results of

grammaticality judgment tasks. Out of 2,160 items, 1,783 (82.5%) items were

coded as correct. The accuracy of the auditory grammaticality judgment task

on the pretest and posttest are reported in Table 4.

The repeated measures ANCOVA yielded a marginal overall main effect of

pretest to posttest improvements,F(1, 42) = 3.77, p = .059, p2 = .084, but

there were no main effects of structure type or condition. There was no inter-action effect between pretest to posttest improvement and priming conditions;

that is, the judgments by participants in every condition improved similarly.

Discussion and Conclusion

The results of the novel, 2-day structural priming experiment reported here

showed overall improvement in production of target structures after the struc-

tural priming session. This indicates that exposure to structural priming con-

ditions of all types used here helped L2 learners use the target in their L2

production Overall priming effects in production were observed in the long-


24/35


that structural priming in L2 learners involves not only explicit memory rep-

resentations but also implicit learning of abstract structural representations.

Moreover, implicit learning was beneficial for L2 production in the long run,especially in the case of structurally complex double-object datives, compared

to explicit memory processes and explicit instruction. Furthermore, explicitly

reinforced knowledge was effective for short-term training. All of these results

were consistent with our predictions.

With respect to the grammaticality judgment task results, on the other

hand, only a marginally significant improvement was found between the pretest

and posttest, and no distinctive differences were observed among the prim-

ing conditions. The discrepancy between the picture description and gram-

maticality judgment results might be due to participants different types of

knowledge: productive and receptive knowledge. Grammaticality judgment

tasks involve receptive knowledge and metalinguistic awareness, not pro-

ductive or implicit procedural knowledge. The priming task was mainly de-

signed to improve productive or procedural knowledge through production.

Thus, although the priming task was expected to lead indirectly to some im-

provement in metalinguistic grammaticality judgment tasks, it is not partic-

ularly surprising that improvement was not large enough to reach statistical

significance.In terms of the first research question, which asked whether purely implicit

learning (measured by long-lag structural priming) leads to differential im-

provement of L2 compared to explicit memory processes (measured by no-lag

structural priming), the results differed by structural type (also related to the

fourth research question). In the case of the double-object dative structure,

explicit memory processes and implicit learning led to similar performance on

the first day, whereas they differed on the following day: The long-lag implicit

condition involving implicit learning alone maintained improved performanceon the second day, whereas the no-lag comparison condition involving explicit

memory processes did not. In the case of the separated phrasal-verb structure,

by contrast, explicit memory processes led to better performance during the

priming session in a shorter period of time than implicit learning; however, the

long-lag implicit condition involving implicit learning alone did not differ in

ultimate performance from the no-lag comparision condition involving explicit

memory processes.

With regard to the second research question, which asked whether addi-

tional explicit knowledge instruction leads to additional improvement in L2

production the results for double-object dative items were distinct from those


25/35


case of the double-object dative structure, the explicitly reinforced condition

outperformed the no-lag comparison condition in all sessions, whereas it out-

performed the long-lag implicit condition only during the priming session. Bycontrast, in the case of the phrasal-verb structure, the explicitly reinforced con-

dition showed similar performance to the no-lag comparison condition in all

sessions, whereas it outperformed the long-lag implicit condition only during

the priming session and did not show any difference elsewhere. In other words,

the explicitly reinforced condition showed immediate improvement after the

priming session on the use of the dative target structure, indicating that explicit

instruction affects production for a short time. In the phrasal-verb structure,

the explicitly reinforced condition produced no significant difference from the

long-lag implicit condition except for a relatively larger increase in the priming

session (78.9% compared to 49.4%).

Regarding the third research question, which addressed the issue of long-

term priming effects among no-lag, long-lag, and explicitly reinforced condi-

tions, the results showed that relatively slow learning took place in the long-lag

implicit condition compared to the no-lag comparison condition and the explic-

itly reinforced condition; however, it revealed that performance in the long-lag

implicit condition was similar to that in the no-lag comparison condition on

the immediate posttest. More strikingly, the effect of implicit learning persistedlonger than in the no-lag comparison condition, showing no decrease during the

delayed posttest 1 day later. This suggests that the explicit memory processes

are not necessarily required for long-term implicit learning. In other words, the

explicit memory processes help in the short term, but not the long term for

more complex, arguably procedural knowledge.

On the other hand, with respect to the priming effect combined with ex-

plicit instruction, the explicitly reinforced condition resulted in more rapid

changes in production patterns, outperforming the no-lag comparison condi-tion in every session with double-object dative items but not with phrasal-verb

items (also related to the fourth research question). This was likely because

explicit instruction helped clarify complicated rules or structures, whereas in

the case of separated phrasal-verb structure, the no-lag comparison condi-

tion involving immediate repetition of target forms was sufficient to bring the

less complex separated phrasal-verb structure into attentional focus (Schmidt,

1990). However, like the no-lag comparison condition, in the case of the

double-object dative structure, the explicit condition displayed a sharp decrease

1 day after the priming session. This result shows a loss of the immediate

priming effect resulting in final performance similar to the long-lag implicit


26/35


27/35


observed in other instances of procedural learning. For example, Fenn,

Nusbaum, and Margoliash (2003) found that people who implicitly learned

new mappings from complex patterns were better able to generalize those map-pings to new stimuli after a period of sleep compared to people who had not

slept between learning and generalization phases. Fenn et al. thus argued that in

the case of procedural learning, sleep can consolidate memories by protecting

them against subsequent interference or decay (p. 616). In the current study,

the long-lag implicit condition group was not provided with immediate repe-

tition of the target sentences nor explicit knowledge instruction and produced

target sentences through purely implicit processes. This might have resulted

in continued procedual learning via consolidation of the double-object dative

structure input during sleep, in contrast to the explicitly reinforced condition

and no-lag comparison condition, which experienced decrements in perfor-

mance in the delayed posttest session. Admittedly, we have no way of knowing

for certain whether participants in the present study slept between immediate

posttest and delayed posttest sessions on the following day; however, we are

quite confident that most (if not all) participants did sleep at some point during

the 24 hours between the two posttests. Furthermore, if some portion of partic-

ipants were in fact insomniacs, we would expect them to have been randomly

distributed among the three conditions.The L2 learners production results here are also in line with Ferreira,

Bock, Wilson, and Cohen (2008) in terms of providing converging evidence

for the implicit, procedural learning account in a different population. Ferreira

et al. found that syntactic persistence is maintained by procedural-memory

mechanisms in amnesic speakers whose recognition memory was profoundly

impaired and whose production must therefore be based on implicit processes.

Similar to amnesic speakers, L2 learners, who might not have explicit syntactic

knowledge of what they produce (McDonough, 2006), showed structural prim-ing over time. This also suggests that structural priming itself has a cognitive

function in L2 learning as a form of implicit learning, yielding implications for

L2 learning/acquisition theories. Structural priming is a kind of repetition

syntactic repetitionbut it is different from simple shadowing repetition in that

it does not require lexical repetition. Unlike mere repetition of lexical forms

or specific sentences, structural priming can thus be a possible source of L2

development as structural learning rather than item learning. As further evi-

dence, McDonough and Mackey (2008) found that output opportunities appear

to have promoted L2 development when learners generated new sentences that

contained the modeled form but not when they simply repeated many of the


28/35


The underlying function of structural priming can be accounted for in light

of DeKeysers (1998) cognitive-psychological view of L2 learning. From this

perspective, structural priming is a kind of skill acquisition (i.e., automatiz-ing or fine-tuning procedural knowledge) like learning other skills such as

riding a bicycle or playing the violin. Repetition of the modeled form in new

sentences might be seen as undergoing practice for proceduralization of knowl-

edge independent of individual lexical items. As DeKeyser (2001) argued, au-

tomaticity (defined as fast, unconscious, and effortless processing) is of great

importance in L2 learning. In this regard, structural priming can yield insights

for SLA theory about the underlying mechanisms of proceduralization and

automatization.

Revised version accepted 23 March 2011

Notes

1 We usestructural primingbecause it does not imply any lexical facilitation,

whereassyntactic primingdoes (Pickering & Ferreira, 2008).

2 Explicit memory (also called declarative memory) involves conscious remembering

of prior episodes and recollection of things or facts, and its subtypes are episodicand semantic memory (Stadler & Frensch, 1998).

3 The frequency of the target verbs was carefully considered and exploited in the

design. As McDonough (2006) suggested, in terms of specific target items, L2

learners learn the double-object dative form almost exclusively with a limited range

of specific lexical items such as giveandpass; if they produce the double-object

structures with specific lexical items, they are more likely to produce those

structures in the context of structural priming. More specifically, in the pretest

session, this study examined whether the participants had limited knowledge

associated with specific lexical items on an auditory grammatical judgment pretestand whether they were able to use target and alternate structures without any primes

on a picture description pretest. If the participants have knowledge associated with

specific lexical items, especially with frequently used lexical items such asgivein

the case of the double-object structures, then they might produce or judge the target

items associated with those verbs as grammatical. On the other hand, they might not

produce the target items associated with less frequently used verbs such as leaseas

often and/or not judge them to be as grammatical.

4 We did not expect a large improvement in the grammaticality judgment task

because priming in comprehension is far less well demonstrated in the literaturethan priming in production. Furthermore, such tasks require explicit, metalinguistic

skill whereas we argue that priming requires implicit procedural skill; thus we did


29/35


training involving structural priming. However, we did use an auditory

grammaticality judgment task because the picture description recall task involved

listening and speaking and we thought that the way the stimuli were presented

should be consistent in order to see if there were any unexpected gains in the

grammaticality judgment task. Moreover, the grammaticality judgment task

presumably did not explicitly draw participants attention to the target structures

because participants in the long-lag implicit group did not notice what the target

structures in this experiment were when interviewed after the experiment (for

details, see Shin, 2008).

5 This was done in order to reduce the possibility that subjects might have previous

awareness of these items.

6 To prevent any possible long-term comprehension-to-production priming effects

(Bock, Chang, Dell, & Onishi, 2007) from the grammatical judgment test to the

picture description test, the picture description test was conducted before the

auditory grammatical judgment test in the pretest and posttest phases. Additionally,

to prevent total avoidance of all the phrasal-verb constructions in grammaticality

judgment tasks (Liao & Fukuya, 2004), a couple of inseparable phrasal-verbs (e.g.,

look at) were also included in the pretest as grammatical items. The results showed

that no avoidance was found in terms of judgments.

7 The English cloze test and language history questionnaire were adapted from ones

shared with us by Paola Dussias at Pennsylvania State University. We are grateful for

her generous assistance. The English cloze test showed that scores of participants in

the long-lag implicit group (M= 53.5%,SD = 0.17) were lower than participants

scores in the no-lag comparison group (M= 69.7%,SD = 0.17) and the explicitly

reinforced group (M= 69.5%,SD = 0.09). The cloze scores were used as a

covariate in the ANCOVA analysis in order to partial out any variance in production

performance that might be attributable to proficiency as measured by the cloze test.

8 No-lag structural priming possibly involves both implicit-learning and explicit

memory processes, but in the case of lexical repetition, structural priming primarily

involves residual activation in explicit memory (Hartsuiker et al., 2008).

9 Priming effects are measured in terms of increased production of less frequent

structures; it is hard to measure priming of preferred or highly frequent structures,

as their production is already at ceiling.

References

Bernolet, S., Hartsuiker, R. J., & Pickering, M. J. (2007). Shared syntactic

representations in bilinguals: Evidence for the role of word-order repetition. Journalof Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,33, 931949.

Bock J K (1982) Toward a cognitive psychology of syntax: Information processing


30/35


Bock, J. K., Chang, F., Dell, G. S., & Onishi, K. H. (2007). Persistent structural priming

from language comprehension to language production. Cognition,104, 437

458.

Bock, J. K. (1986). Syntactic persistence in language production.Cognitive

Psychology,18, 355387.

Bock, J. K., & Griffin, Z. M. (2000). The persistence of structural priming: Transient

activation or implicit learning?Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,129,

177192.

Bock, J. K., & Loebell, H. (1990). Framing sentences. Cognition,35, 139.

Bock, J. K., Loebell, H., & Morey, R. (1992). From conceptual roles to structural

relations: Bridging the syntactic cleft. Psychological Review,99, 150171.

Boyland, J. T., & Anderson, J. A. (1998).Evidence that syntactic priming is

long-lasting. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 20th Annual Conference of

the Cognitive Science Society, Hillsdale, NJ.

Branigan, H. P., Pickering, M. J., & Cleland, A. A. (2000). Syntactic co-ordination in

dialogue.Cognition,75, B13B25.

Bresnan, J., Cueni, A., Nikitina, T., & Baayen, R. H. (2007). Predicting the dative

alternation. In G. Bouma, I. Kraemer, & J. Zwarts (Eds.), Cognitive foundations of

interpretation (pp. 6994). Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and

Sciences.

Chang, F., Dell, G. S., & Bock, J. K. (2006). Becoming syntactic. Psychological

Review,113, 234272.

Chang, F., Dell, G. S., Bock, J. K., & Griffin, Z. M. (2000). Structural priming as

implicit learning: A comparison of models of sentence production. Journal of

Psycholinguistic Research,29, 217229.

Cleeremans, A., Destrebecqz, A., & Boyer, M. (1998). Implicit learning: News from

the front.Trends in Cognitive Sciences,2, 406416.

DeKeyser, R. M. (1995). Learning second language grammar rules: An experiment

with a miniature linguistic system.Studies in Second Language Acquisition,17,

379410.

DeKeyser, R. M. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning

and practicing second language grammar. In C. J. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.),

Focus on form in second language acquisition(pp. 4263). New York: Cambridge

University Press.

DeKeyser, R. M. (2001). Automaticity and automatization. In P. Robinson (Ed.),

Cognition and second language instruction(pp. 125151). New York: Cambridege

University Press.

DeKeyser, R. M. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long

(Eds.),The handbook of second language acquisition(pp. 313348). Malden, MA:

Blackwell.

DeKeyser, R. M., & Sokalski, K. J. (1996). The differential role of comprehension and


31/35


32/35


Krashen, S. (1982).Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford:

Pergamon.

Krashen, S. (1994). The input hypothesis and its rivals. In N. C. Ellis (Ed.), Implicit

and explicit learning of languages(pp. 4578). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Larson, R. K. (1988). On the double object construction.Linguistic Inquiry,19,

335391.

Liao, Y., & Fukuya, Y. J. (2004). Avoidance of phrasal verbs: The case of Chinese

learners of English.Language Learning,54, 193226.

McDonough, K. (2006). Interaction and syntactic priming: English L2 speakers

production of dative constructions.Studies in Second Language Acquisition,28,

179207.

McDonough, K., & Mackey, A. (2006). Responses to recasts: Repetitions, primed

production, and linguistic development.Language Learning,56, 693

720.

McDonough, K., & Mackey, A. (2008). Syntactic priming and ESL question

development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,30, 3147.

McDonough, K., & Trofimovich, P. (2009). Using priming methods in second

language research. New York: Routledge.

Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis

and quantitative meta-analysis.Language Learning,50, 417528.

Pickering, M. J., & Branigan, H. P. (1998). The representation of verbs: Evidence from

syntactic priming in language production. Journal of Memory and Language,39,

733751.

Pickering, M. J., & Ferreira, V. S. (2008). Structural priming: A critical review.

Psychological Bulletin,134, 427459.

Reber, A. S. (1989). Implicit learning and tacit knowledge. Journal of Experimental

Psychology: General,118, 219235.

Robinson, P. (1996). Learning simple and complex second language rules under

implicit, incidental, rule-search, and instructed conditions. Studies in Second

Language Acquisition,18, 2767.

Robinson, P. (1997). Generalizability and automaticity of second language learning

under implicit, incidental, enhanced, and instructed conditions. Studies in Second

Language Acquisition,19, 223247.

Salamoura, A., & Williams, J. N. (2006). Lexical activation of cross-language

syntactic priming.Bilingualism: Language and Cognition,9, 299307.

Salamoura, A., & Williams, J. N. (2007). Processing verb argument structure across

languages: Evidence for shared representations in the bilingual lexicon. Applied

Psycholinguistics,28, 627660.

Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning.Applied

Linguistics,11, 206226.

Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-Prime 1 0. Pittsburgh, PA:


33/35


Schoonbaert, S., Hartsuiker, R. J., & Pickering, M. J. (2007). The representation of

lexical and syntactic information in bilinguals: Evidence from syntactic priming.

Journal of Memory and Language,56, 153171.

Segalowitz, N. (2003). Automaticity and second languages. In C. J. Doughty &

M. H. Long (Eds.),The handbook of second language acquisition(pp. 382408).

Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Segalowitz, N., & Hulstijn, J. (2005). Automaticity in bilingualism and second

language learning. In J. F. Kroll & A. M. B. De Groot (Eds.), Handbook of

bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches(pp. 371388). New York: Oxford

University Press.

Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage.International Review of Applied Linguistics,10,

209231.

Shin, J.-A. (2008).Structural priming in bilingual language processing and second

language learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at

Urbana-Champaign.

Shin, J.-A. (2010). Structural priming and L2 proficiency effects on bilingual syntactic

processing in production.Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics,10,

499518.

Shin, J.-A., & Christianson, K. (2009). Syntactic processing in Korean-English

bilingual production: Evidence from cross-linguistic syntactic priming.Cognition,

112, 175180.

Shin, J.-A., & Christianson, K. (2011). The status of dative constructions in Korean,

English, and in the minds of Korean-English bilinguals. In H. Yamashita, J. Packard,

& Y. Hirose (Eds.),Processing and producing head-final structures(pp. 153169).

New York: Springer.

Spada, N., & Tomita, Y. (2010). Interactions between type of instruction and type of

language feature: A meta-analysis.Language Learning,60, 263308.

Stadler, M. A., & Frensch, P. A. (Eds.). (1998).Handbook of implicit learning.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ullman, M. T. (2001). The neural basis of lexicon and grammar in first and second

language: The declarative/procedural model.Bilingualism: Language and

Cognition,4, 105122.

VanPatten, B. (1996).Input processing and grammar instruction in second language

acquisition. Westport, CT: Ablex.

VanPatten, B. (2002). Processing instruction: An update. Language Learning,52,

755803.


34/35


35/35

Copyright of Language Learning is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or

emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.

However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Structural Priming on Sec Lang Learning

Documents

Transcript of Structural Priming on Sec Lang Learning