More lexically-specific knowledge and individual differences in adult native speakers' processing of the English passive

Street, James A.

doi:10.1016/j.langsci.2019.101254

Cited by 5 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 33 publications

(38 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Contrastingly, people who read less could only interpret lexically-specific passive constructions, i.e., verbs that prototypically occur in the passive construction. A similar finding was obtained in Street (2020), where reading experience modulated reaction times to passives with prototypical and non-prototypical items in the group that read less.…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 79%

“…Experience with written language is also interconnected to literacy or education. Previous linguistic studies have shown a link between performing poorly on various constructions in English and having a low academic attainment (LAA, 12 years of formal education on average); whereas high academic attainment (HAA, 17 years of formal education on average) participants always outperformed LAA participants on tasks requiring knowledge of passives, relative clauses, and quantifiers (Dąbrowska, 2014(Dąbrowska, , 2018Street, 2017Street, , 2020. This is because education and print exposure are tightly connected, as people who continue higher education will read more written materials, or will have social circles that read more.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…For instance, Dąbrowska (2008) shows that L1 Polish speakers displayed varying levels of rule extraction for the Polish dative, and speakers that read more in Polish appeared to extract an across-the-board rule, whereas those that do not read as much extract local generalizations that only apply to a certain class of nouns, and gender. This has been argued to be a result of the facilitatory effect of print exposure, because written language contains more varied language than spoken language (e.g., Roland, Dick, & Elman, 2007), and enhances linguistic knowledge in L1 on various levels, e.g., vocabulary (e.g., Stanovich & Cunningham, 1992), collocations (Dąbrowska, 2014(Dąbrowska, , 2018, morphosyntax (Dąbrowska, Pascual & Gómez-Estern, 2022;Dąbrowska, 2018;Street, 2017Street, , 2020, and production of passives, subject and object relatives (Montag & MacDonald, 2015). Indeed, L1 Turkish speakers also show IDs in their grammatical knowledge.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Individual Differences in the Turkish Aorist

Gedik¹

2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Several studies have established that not all native speakers extract the same generalization for a given construction due to speaker internal or external reasons, challenging a widely held assumption. While there is a considerable number of studies investigating individual differences in grammatical knowledge, very little is known about how L1 Turkish speakers might manifest such differences in their linguistic knowledge. This is the first study to examine individual differences in the constructional representation of the Turkish aorist in adult L1 Turkish speakers. The aorist is known to be irregular and pose acquisition problems, especially when combined with monosyllabic sonorant ending verbs. The variants of the Turkish aorist have different corpus frequencies across spoken and written modalities. The study investigates to what extent differences in print exposure would lead to differences in how L1 Turkish speakers would apply the construction to monosyllabic-sonorant ending nonce-verbs. Based on the results, people with more written language experience extracted a more sensitive rule that applies to monosyllabic-sonorant ending nonce-verbs, and such people produced more -Ir than -Ar. Contrastingly, people who read less used more -Ar (r= -.35), and print exposure accounted for roughly 12% of the variance. Our findings are compatible with usage-based approaches, and suggest that print exposure-borne differences are pervasive in linguistic knowledge adding to the growing body of evidence that challenge the convergence hypothesis.

show abstract

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 79%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Individual Differences in the Turkish Aorist

Gedik¹

2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Accumulating evidence suggests that reading experience may be an important source of individual differences in various aspects of language processing. Reading experience predicts individual differences in vocabulary size 15 , 16 , lexical decision times 17 , verbal fluency 15 , sentence production 18 , 19 and various aspects of sentence comprehension 20 – 31 . One proposed hypothesis for the observed effects of reading experience on sentence comprehension is greater experience with a subset of sentence types that are more frequent in written language, such as passives 24 , 31 , relative clauses 20 , 23 , 30 , or constructions containing connectives such as however or since 29 , 32 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Reading experience predicts individual differences in vocabulary size 15 , 16 , lexical decision times 17 , verbal fluency 15 , sentence production 18 , 19 and various aspects of sentence comprehension 20 – 31 . One proposed hypothesis for the observed effects of reading experience on sentence comprehension is greater experience with a subset of sentence types that are more frequent in written language, such as passives 24 , 31 , relative clauses 20 , 23 , 30 , or constructions containing connectives such as however or since 29 , 32 . Our approach is to link the statistical properties of speech and text to observed patterns of sentence processing.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of individual differences in text exposure on sentence comprehension

Stoops,

Montag

2023

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Linguistic experience plays a clear role in accounting for variability in sentence comprehension behavior across individuals and across sentence types. We aimed to understand how individual differences in reading experience predict reading behavior. Corpus analyses revealed the frequencies with which our experimental items appeared in written and spoken language. We hypothesized that reading experience should affect sentence comprehension most substantially for sentence types that individuals primarily encounter through written language. Readers with more text exposure were faster and more accurate readers overall, but they read sentence types biased to written language particularly faster than did readers with less text exposure. We see clear effects of text exposure on sentence comprehension in ways that allow explicit links between written and spoken corpus statistics and behavior. We discuss theoretical implications of effects of text exposure for experience-based approaches to sentence processing.

show abstract

Print exposure leads to individual differences in the Turkish aorist

Gedik

2024

Language Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

More lexically-specific knowledge and individual differences in adult native speakers' processing of the English passive

Abstract: More lexically-specific knowledge and individual differences in adult native speakers' processing of the English passive

Cited by 5 publications

References 33 publications

Individual Differences in the Turkish Aorist

Individual Differences in the Turkish Aorist

Effects of individual differences in text exposure on sentence comprehension

Print exposure leads to individual differences in the Turkish aorist

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About