English norming data for 423 short animated action movie clips

Muylle, Merel; Wegner, Thomas G. G.; Bernolet, Sarah; Hartsuiker, Robert J.

doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2019.102957

Cited by 7 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 44 publications

(49 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In a recent study, Muylle et al (2020a) aimed to isolate the role of word order in structural priming, using an artificial language (AL) learning paradigm. Participants acquired the AL by means of pictures and action movie clips (from the normed set of Muylle et al, 2020). More concretely, priming was assessed between the native language (L1), in this case Dutch (that has SVO order in the main clause, but see below for a more detailed discussion of Dutch word order) and an AL version that had either SVO (e.g., “dettus zwifsi fuipam” [clown kisses cook]) or SOV word order (e.g., “dettus fuipam zwifsi” [clown cook kisses]) in the main clause (there was also a third AL version that had SVO order and case marking, which we will not further discuss here).…”

Section: The Role Of Word Ordermentioning

confidence: 99%

On the limits of shared syntactic representations: When word order variation blocks priming between an artificial language and Dutch.

Muylle¹,

Bernolet²,

Hartsuiker³

2021

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Several studies used artificial language (AL) learning paradigms to investigate structural priming between languages in early phases of learning. The presence of such priming would indicate that syntactic representations are shared across these languages. found similar priming between Dutch (SVO order) and an AL with either SVO or SOV order. However, it is unclear whether such sharing would occur if the AL allows both the same and different word order as the native language. Indeed, the presence of a (easy to share) similar structure might block the sharing of a less similar structure. Here, we report two experiments that each tested 48 native speakers of Dutch on an AL that allowed both SVO and SOV order in transitive and ditransitive sentences. We assessed both within-AL and AL-Dutch priming. We predicted a) priming of both structure and word order within the AL, and b) that the presence of SVO sentences in the AL would result in weaker priming to Dutch from SOV sentences than from SVO sentences. Indeed, cross-linguistic priming was significantly weaker in the SOV compared to the SVO conditions, in line with our predictions. Unexpectedly, in the absence of a condition with verb overlap between prime and target sentences, no priming was found in AL and Dutch target conditions without verb overlap (Experiment 1), but priming emerged when a verb overlap condition was added (Experiment 2). This finding suggests that lexical overlap conditions are crucial to establish abstract syntactic representations during early L2 acquisition.

show abstract

Section: The Role Of Word Ordermentioning

confidence: 99%

On the limits of shared syntactic representations: When word order variation blocks priming between an artificial language and Dutch.

Muylle¹,

Bernolet²,

Hartsuiker³

2021

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The participants learned to describe six different actions in the AL, consisting of two intransitive (i.e., run and wave), two transitive (i.e., kiss and shoot) and two ditransitive actions (i.e., give and show). These actions were depicted in short animated action movie clips of 3 s (Muylle, Wegner, Bernolet & Hartsuiker, 2020). An example of each type of structure can be found in Table 1.…”

Section: Materials and Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of L1 and L2 frequency in cross-linguistic structural priming: An artificial language learning study

2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigated L1 and L2 frequency effects in the sharing of syntax across languages (reflected in cross-linguistic structural priming) using an artificial language (AL) paradigm. Ninety-six Dutch speakers learned an AL with either a prepositional-object (PO) dative bias (PO datives appeared three times as often as double-object [DO] datives) or a DO dative bias (DOs appeared three times as often as POs). Priming was assessed from the AL to Dutch (a strongly PO-biased language). There was weak immediate priming for DOs, but not for POs in both bias conditions. This suggests that L1, but not AL, frequency influenced immediate priming. Furthermore, the DO bias group produced 10% more DOs in Dutch than the PO bias group, showing that cumulative priming was influenced by AL frequency. We discuss the different effects of L1 and AL frequency on cross-linguistic structural priming in terms of lexicalist and implicit learning accounts.

show abstract

“…The rst task was a vocabulary learning task in which participants learned the AL nouns to describe depicted human gurines (e.g., cook, witch) and objects (e.g., ball, hat). Next, they watched short action movie clips (taken from the normed stimulus set by Muylle, Wegner, et al, 2020) in which the human gurines interacted with each other and with objects, while listening to a sentence in the AL that described these actions. Following this exposure task, participants did a movie-sentence matching task in which they were asked to watch two movie clips on the screen and match a presented AL sentence with the correct movie clip.…”

Section: The Pp02 Learning Paradigmmentioning

confidence: 99%

Individual differences in the acquisition of shared syntactic representations: A re-analysis of studies using an artificial language learning paradigm

Muylle,

Bernolet,

Hartsuiker

2024

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A series of artificial language (AL) learning studies investigated the development of shared syntactic representations during early stages of second language (L2) acquisition. In this paradigm, the sharing of syntax is measured by means of structural priming: if structures are shared between two languages, a sentence in one language (e.g., the AL) should prime the structure of a sentence in another language (e.g., Dutch) and vice versa. According to Hartsuiker and Bernolet’s (2017) developmental theory, syntactic representations evolve gradually from item-specific to more abstract with increasing L2 proficiency. The current study tested this hypothesis by focusing on individual differences in AL proficiency during the first day of acquisition in a re-analysis of three AL studies. We predicted that individuals with higher AL proficiency levels show more cross-linguistic priming than those with lower levels. AL proficiency was indeed related to the magnitude of structural priming, although the strongest evidence for modulation of priming by proficiency was obtained for item-specific priming. Additionally, we observed that working memory (WM) capacity and L1 proficiency predicted AL proficiency and priming in general. Finally, WM capacity predicted the magnitude of priming in ditransitive sentences, but not in transitive sentences, suggesting a larger role for WM in ditransitive vs. transitive priming.

show abstract

English norming data for 423 short animated action movie clips

Cited by 7 publications

References 44 publications

On the limits of shared syntactic representations: When word order variation blocks priming between an artificial language and Dutch.

On the limits of shared syntactic representations: When word order variation blocks priming between an artificial language and Dutch.

The role of L1 and L2 frequency in cross-linguistic structural priming: An artificial language learning study

Individual differences in the acquisition of shared syntactic representations: A re-analysis of studies using an artificial language learning paradigm

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About