This paper reports on a study in which two models proposed to explain the influence of cognitive task complexity on linguistic performance in L2 are tested and compared. The two models are Robinson’s Cognition Hypothesis (Robinson 2001a, 2001b) and Skehan and Foster’s Limited Attentional Capacity Model (Skehan 1998, Skehan and Foster 2001). Sixty-two Dutch university students of Italian performed two writing tasks with prompts of differing cognitive complexity. Linguistic performance was operationalized in terms of syntactic complexity, lexical variation and accuracy. The study provides partial support for the Cognition Hypothesis, in so far as the written products of the cognitively more demandings task turned out to be more accurate, with significantly lower error ratios per T-unit than those of the cognitively less demanding task. In addition stronger effects of cognitive task complexity were found for high-proficiency learners than for low-proficiency learners. No effects could be observed on measures of syntactic complexity or lexical variation.
This article presents two experimental studies investigating the impact of language errors in online dating profiles on impression formation. A first study examined whether language errors have a negative effect on perceptions of attraction and dating intention and whether this effect is moderated by the presence of visual information, that is, the profile picture. This 2 (Language Errors/No Language Errors) × 2 (Visible/Blurred Picture) experiment revealed that language errors negatively affect perceptions of social and romantic attraction and that a visible picture on a profile positively affects perceptions of physical attraction. Study 2 focused on mechanical, rule-based, and informal language errors, which can each be attributed to different personality traits. Mechanical and rule-based errors lead to lower scores on, respectively, perceived attentiveness and intelligence, which in turn lead to lower attraction and dating intention scores. These results highlight the importance of error-free language use as a cue for attractiveness.
Although the way tones are acquired by second or foreign language learners has attracted some scholarly attention, detailed knowledge of the factors that promote efficient learning is lacking. In this article, we look at the effect of visual cues (comparing audio-only with audio-visual presentations) and speaking style (comparing a natural speaking style with a teaching speaking style) on the perception of Mandarin tones by non-native listeners, looking both at the relative strength of these two factors and their possible interactions. Both the accuracy and reaction time of the listeners were measured in a task of tone identification. Results showed that participants in the audio-visual condition distinguished tones more accurately than participants in the audio-only condition. Interestingly, this varied as a function of speaking style, but only for stimuli from specific speakers. Additionally, some tones (notably tone 3) were recognized more quickly and accurately than others.
In online hotel reviews, reviewers use both direct and indirect positive and negative evaluations (e.g. 'good', 'not bad', 'bad', 'not good'). In four studies, we examined the effects of these wording alternatives. In Study 1, participants rated hotel reviews that were manipulated with respect to the wording. In positive reviews, direct evaluations ('good') received higher evaluations than indirect wordings ('not bad'). In negative reviews, however, no such difference was observed between direct and indirect expressions ('not good'/'bad'). These results apply to evaluations of the hotel, text and reviewer alike. Study 2 showed that this pattern of results generalizes to restaurant reviews. To investigate an underlying cause for the effects in Study 1 and 2, we manipulated participants' a priori expectation of the attitude object (hotel) in two subsequent studies. The lack of an interaction effect between the wording and expectation manipulations shows that the pattern of results may be attributed to Verbal Politeness: wordings like 'not bad' convey a weakened meaning as compared to 'good', whereas the use of 'not good' instead of 'bad' is interpreted as expressing the same evaluation, albeit in a more polite way.
a b st r a c t While theories on predictive processing posit that predictions are based on one's prior experiences, experimental work has effectively ignored the fact that people differ from each other in their linguistic experiences and, consequently, in the predictions they generate. We examine usagebased variation by means of three groups of participants (recruiters, job-seekers, and people not (yet) looking for a job), two stimuli sets (word sequences characteristic of either job ads or news reports), and two experiments (a Completion task and a Voice Onset Time task). We show that differences in experiences with a particular register result in different expectations regarding word sequences characteristic of that register, thus pointing to differences in mental representations v e r h a g e n e t a l . 330of language. Subsequently, we investigate to what extent different operationalizations of word predictability are accurate predictors of voice onset times. A measure of a participant's own expectations proves to be a significant predictor of processing speed over and above word predictability measures based on amalgamated data. These findings point to actual individual differences and highlight the merits of going beyond amalgamated data. We thus demonstrate that is it feasible to empirically assess the variation implied in usage-based theories, and we advocate exploiting this opportunity.k e y w o r d s : individual differences, surprisal, cloze probabilities, completion task, voice onset times.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.