Nonnative Speakers Do Not Take Competing Alternative Expressions Into Account the Way Native Speakers Do
We are very grateful to Pavel Trofimovich for his advice as associate editor and also to three anonymous referees for this journal. We are also appreciative of Bodo Winter and Stefan Gries’ statistical advice and Einstein Foundation of Berlin for funding this project.
Abstract
When native speakers judge the acceptability of novel sentences, they appear to implicitly take competing formulations into account, judging novel sentences with a readily available alternative formulation to be less acceptable than novel sentences with no competing alternative. Moreover, novel sentences with a competing alternative are more strongly dispreferred when they contain high‐ compared to low‐frequency verbs. We replicate these findings with a group of native speakers and extend the paradigm to second language (L2) users. Previous work has found that compared to native speakers, L2 users are less able to generate online expectations during language processing, implying a reduced ability to differentiate between novel sentences with and without a competing alternative. We test this prediction and confirm that, while L2 speakers learn from positive exemplars, they show no evidence of taking competing grammatical alternatives into account, except at the highest quartile of speaking proficiency, where L2 judgments align with native speaker judgments.
Open Practices
This article has been awarded Open Materials and Open Data badges. All materials and data are publicly accessible via the Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/f3dh6. Learn more about the Open Practices badges from the Center for Open Science: https://osf.io/tvyxz/wiki.
Number of times cited: 8
- Sarah Schimke, Israel la Fuente, Barbara Hemforth and Saveria Colonna, First Language Influence on Second Language Offline and Online Ambiguous Pronoun Resolution, Language Learning, 68, 3, (744-779), (2018).
- Thomas Herbst, Collo-Creativity and Blending: Recognizing Creativity Requires Lexical Storage in Constructional Slots, Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 10.1515/zaa-2018-0027, 66, 3, (309-328), (2018).
- Lourdes Ortega, Sang-Ki Lee and Munehiko Miyata, Chapter 9. What is happened? Your amazon.com order has shipped, Language Learning, Discourse and Cognition, 10.1075/hcp.64.10ort, (213-247), (2018).
- Yasuhiro Shirai and Alan Juffs, Introduction: Convergence and divergence in functional and formal approaches to SLA, Second Language Research, 10.1177/0267658316681046, 33, 1, (3-12), (2017).
- Xiaopeng Zhang, Second Language Users’ Restriction of Linguistic Generalization Errors: The Case of English Un– Prefixation Development, Language Learning, 67, 3, (569-598), (2017).
- XIAOPENG ZHANG and XIAOLI DONG, Revisiting Zipfian Frequency: L2 Acquisition of English Prenominal Past Participles, The Modern Language Journal, 100, 2, (404-427), (2016).
- ADELE E. GOLDBERG, Partial productivity of linguistic constructions: Dynamic categorization and statistical preemption, Language and Cognition, 10.1017/langcog.2016.17, 8, 03, (369-390), (2016).
- Ben Ambridge, Libby Barak, Elizabeth Wonnacott, Colin Bannard and Giovanni Sala, Effects of Both Preemption and Entrenchment in the Retreat from Verb Overgeneralization Errors: Four Reanalyses, an Extended Replication, and a Meta-Analytic Synthesis, Collabra: Psychology, 10.1525/collabra.133, 4, 1, (19), (2018).
