Word Frequency Effects and Plurality in L2 Word Recognition
—A Preliminary Study–June 28, 201545th CELES
Wakayama University1
• Morphology• Inflectional morphology
• -ed, -ing, 3rd-person -s, plural -s
• Derivational morphology• prefix
• pro- (e.g., proactive), re- (e.g., reactive) • suffix
• -ness (e.g., kindness), -ly (e.g., kindly)
Introduction6
Morphological Processing
• Morphology• Inflectional morphology
• -ed, -ing, 3rd-person -s, plural -s
• Derivational morphology• prefix
• pro- (e.g., proactive), re- (e.g., reactive) • suffix
• -ness (e.g., kindness), -ly (e.g., kindly)
Introduction7
Morphological Processing
• Morphology• Inflectional morphology
• -ed, -ing, 3rd-person -s, plural -s
• Derivational morphology• prefix
• pro- (e.g., proactive), re- (e.g., reactive) • suffix
• -ness (e.g., kindness), -ly (e.g., kindly)
Introduction8
Morphological Processing
• Recognition process• Visual word recognition
• How morphology is processed in reading• Auditory word recognition
• How morphology is processed in listening
Introduction9
Morphological Processing
• Recognition process• Visual word recognition
• How morphology is processed in reading• Auditory word recognition
• How morphology is processed in listening
Introduction10
Morphological Processing
Findings of This Study• Task characteristics change the
process of morphological processing
• Only plural-dominant nouns have a strong connection to concepts
11Introduction
• the Revised Hierarchical Model (Kroll & Stewart, 1994)
Background17
Bilingual Mental Lexicon
L2L1
Concepts
• The developmental hypothesis• the more proficiency develops, the stronger the
connection between concepts and L2 becomes (e.g., Kawakami, 1994)
• the more proficiency develops, the less interference effects of L1 occur (e.g., Sunderman & Kroll, 2006)
• conceptual links and processing skills gradually develop (e.g., Yamashita, 2007)
Background18
Bilingual Mental Lexicon
• Factors affecting the connections• Frequency
• high frequency L2 words activate conceptual links (e.g., Habuchi, 2005)
• Concreteness• concrete and high frequency words
processed through concept mediation (e.g., Nakagawa, 2009)
Background19
Bilingual Mental Lexicon
• Used to approach the issue of morphological processing and its storage • For reception (e.g., Baayen, Dijkstra, &
Schreuder, 1997; Baayen, Lieber, & Schreuder, 1997; Sereno & Jongman, 1997; Taft, 2004)
• For production (e.g., Baayen, Levelt, Schreuder, & Ernestus, 2008; New, Brysbaert, Segui, Ferrand, & Rastle, 2004; Beyersmanna, Dutton, Amer, Schiller, & Britta, 2015)
Background20
Frequency Effects
• Regularly inflected forms • High frequency -> full-form storage• Low frequency -> morphological decomposition
(e.g., Stemberger & MacWhinny, 1991)
Background21
Frequency Effects
• Two types of number features• conceptual number
• “the numerosity of the subject’s referent in the speaker’s mental model” (Humphreys & Bock, 2005)
• e.g., scissors, [bacon and eggs]• grammatical number
• linguistically expressed number• e.g., plural marker -s in English
Background22
Plurality
• Conceptual plural information disturbs number agreement process (e.g., Eberhard, 1999; Humphreys & Bock, 2005; Vigliocco, Butterworth, & Semenza, 1995; Vigliocco, Hartsuiker, Jarema, & Kolk, 1996)
• Plurality is psycholinguistically marked (e.g., Bock & Miller, 1991)
• High frequency plurals (plural-dominant plurals) might have a strong connection to plurality (Barker & Nicol, 2000)
• L2 learners may be able to represent conceptual plurality (Kusanagi, Tamura, & Fukuta, 2015)
Background23
Plurality
• Researching in word recognition process…• frequency• concreteness
Background24
Motivation of the study
• Researching in word recognition process…• frequency• concreteness• grammatical information <-this should also be
stored with L2 words and used in processing
• As a preliminary study• this study focused on plurality (number
information)
Background25
Motivation of the study
• High frequency -> conceptual links• Plural-dominant plurals -> strong link to plurality• L2 learners’ use of conceptual plurality
• Plural dominant-plurals might be processed through conceptual link?
Background26
Hypothesis
• High frequency -> conceptual links• Plural-dominant plurals -> strong link to plurality• L2 learners’ use of conceptual plurality
• Plural dominant-plurals might be processed through conceptual link?
• This advantage might not be found through L1 route <- Japanese doesn’t mark number morphologically.
Background27
Hypothesis
• At least high frequent plurals might be represented with number information either semantically or morphologically.
Background29
Hypothesis
• 32 Japanese undergraduate and graduate students
• 58% had some experience in staying in English-speaking countries(Min = 2 weeks, Max = 54 months)
Table 1. Background Information of the Participants
The Present Study32
Participants
Age TOEIC ScoreN M SD M SD
Participants 32 24.77 5.34 824.22 113.12
1. Frequency list of nouns (both singular and plural forms) from British National Corpus (BNC)
2. 12 words which double or triple in frequency of singular form compared to plural form -> singular-dominant words
The Present Study33
Stimuli
3. 12 words which double or triple in frequency of plural form compared to singular form -> plural dominant words
4. 12 words whose frequency of singular and plural form was almost same. -> control words
The Present Study34
Stimuli
• The base frequency (sig + pl) was controlled among the three groups
Table 2. Mean Frequency and SD in Parentheses
The Present Study35
Stimuli
singular plural base
sig-domminant 25.55(15.26)
10.38(6.82)
35.93(21.52)
pl-dominant 9.23(5.71)
21.84(16.52)
31.06(21.63)
control 18.50(9.89)
18.08(10.32)
36.58(19.45)
The Present Study36
Stimuli
sig-dominant pl-dominant controlcameradragonenginesaladshiptrainbowl
carpetcat
eaglephotosword
biscuitleafnail
shoesocktoy
beanflowerglove
lippotatosoldier
cloudgoat
monkeynurse
pigticketbeeeareggkey
mountainrabbit
Table 3. List of Test Items
• Norming study• Participants:
• 3 Japanese graduate students• Task:
• Picture naming in English and Japanese• Results:
• All the test pictures correctly named as target L2 and L1
• All the filler pictures elicited non-target words -> NO responses could work
The Present Study37
Stimuli
• judge whether the target L2 words matched L1 translation / picture
• 36 test items (12*3) presented either in singular or plural form
• 18 test items (6*3) per task
• Carefully counterbalanced
• 18 test items -> always YES response
• 36 filler items -> YES: 18 items, NO: 18 items
The Present Study40
Experiment
• The order of the tasks counterbalanced: • Pic -> L1, L1 -> Pic
• After the two tasks• Familiarity questionnaire (instructions are in
Japanese)
• 5-point Likert scale
• 36 items (singular or plural form) which the participants did not see in the matching tasks
• “How much have you seen or heard the words?” (1: I’ve never seen – 5: I’ve often seen )
The Present Study41
Experiment
• Erroneous responses removed (L1-matching: 5%, Pic-matching: 4%)
• Log transformation (base = 2)• Outliers (M +/- 2SD of each participant) removed
(L1-matching: 4%, Pic-matching: 5%)
The Present Study42
Analysis
• 2*3*2 ANOVA (within participants)• Task type (2 levels) : L1/ picture matching• Noun type (3 levels) : singular-dominant,
plural-dominant, control• Presentation condition(2 levels): singular/
plural form• Statistically significant three-way interaction• F (2, 62) = 3.41, p < .05
The Present Study43
Analysis
• 3*2 ANOVA (within participants) for each task• Noun type (3 levels)
• singular-dominant, plural-dominant, control• Presentation condition(2 levels)
• singular/ plural form
The Present Study44
Analysis
47
Overall Accuracy Scores
Results
k M SD 95%CIPicture-mathing 18 .94 .06 [.92, .96]
L1-matching 18 .96 .05 [.94, .98]
Table 4. Descriptive Statistics of Overall Mean Accuracy Scores
N = 32
48
L1 Matching
Results
k M SD 95%CI
sig-domminantsig 3 573 217 [498, 648]pl 3 616 237 [534, 698]
pl-dominantsig 3 551 207 [479, 623]pl 3 584 166 [526, 641]
controlsig 3 575 183 [511, 638]pl 3 563 191 [500, 625]
Table 5. Descriptive Statistics of Reading Time in L1-matching task(ms)
N = 32
Results49
8.6
8.8
9.0
9.2
9.4
Log
Tran
sfor
med
Mea
n RT
(ms)
singular−dominant plural−dominant control
singularplural
L1-matching (Log RT)
Note. Error bar represents 95%CI
Results50
8.6
8.8
9.0
9.2
9.4
Log
Tran
sfor
med
Mea
n RT
(ms)
singular−dominant plural−dominant control
singularplural
L1-matching (Log RT)
Note. Error bar represents 95%CI
Almost significant interactionF(1, 53) = 2.58, p = .09, ηp2 = .08
Results51
8.6
8.8
9.0
9.2
9.4
Log
Tran
sfor
med
Mea
n RT
(ms)
singular−dominant plural−dominant control
singularplural
L1-matching (Log RT)
Note. Error bar represents 95%CI
Significant simple main effectsF(1, 31) = 5.54, p = .03, ηp2 = .15
Results52
8.6
8.8
9.0
9.2
9.4
Log
Tran
sfor
med
Mea
n RT
(ms)
singular−dominant plural−dominant control
singularplural
L1-matching (Log RT)
Note. Error bar represents 95%CI
Significant simple main effectsF(1, 31) = 5.05, p = .03, ηp2 = .14
Results53
8.6
8.8
9.0
9.2
9.4
Log
Tran
sfor
med
Mea
n RT
(ms)
singular−dominant plural−dominant control
singularplural
L1-matching (Log RT)
Note. Error bar represents 95%CI
a
No significant simple main effectsF(1, 31) = 0.27, p = .60, ηp2 = .01
Results54
8.6
8.8
9.0
9.2
9.4
Log
Tran
sfor
med
Mea
n RT
(ms)
singular−dominant plural−dominant control
singularplural
L1-matching (Log RT)
Note. Error bar represents 95%CI
Almost significant interactionF(2, 62) = 2.40, p = .10, ηp2 = .07
Results55
8.6
8.8
9.0
9.2
9.4
Log
Tran
sfor
med
Mea
n RT
(ms)
singular−dominant plural−dominant control
singularplural
L1-matching (Log RT)
Note. Error bar represents 95%CI
Almost significant interactionF(2, 62) = 2.40, p = .10, ηp2 = .07
But no meaningful differences
56
Picture Matching
Results
K M SD 95%CI
sig-domminantsig 3 619 185 [554, 683]pl 3 652 202 [582, 722]
pl-dominantsig 3 650 210 [578, 723]pl 3 580 203 [509, 650]
controlsig 3 592 158 [537, 646]pl 3 584 180 [522, 646]
Table 6. Descriptive Statistics of Reading Time in Picture-matching task(ms)
N = 32
Results57
8.6
8.8
9.0
9.2
9.4
Log
Tran
sfor
med
Mea
n RT
(ms)
singular−dominant plural−dominant control
singularplural
Picture-matching (Log RT)
Note. Error bar represents 95%CI
Results58
8.6
8.8
9.0
9.2
9.4
Log
Tran
sfor
med
Mea
n RT
(ms)
singular−dominant plural−dominant control
singularplural
Picture-matching (Log RT)
Note. Error bar represents 95%CI
Significant interactionF(2, 62) = 4.28, p = .02, ηp2 = .12
Results59
8.6
8.8
9.0
9.2
9.4
Log
Tran
sfor
med
Mea
n RT
(ms)
singular−dominant plural−dominant control
singularplural
Picture-matching (Log RT)
Note. Error bar represents 95%CI
No significant simple main effectsF(1, 31) = 2.23, p = .15, ηp2 = .07
Results60
8.6
8.8
9.0
9.2
9.4
Log
Tran
sfor
med
Mea
n RT
(ms)
singular−dominant plural−dominant control
singularplural
Picture-matching (Log RT)
Note. Error bar represents 95%CI
Significant simple main effectsF(1, 31) = 6.97, p = .01, ηp2 = .18
Results61
8.6
8.8
9.0
9.2
9.4
Log
Tran
sfor
med
Mea
n RT
(ms)
singular−dominant plural−dominant control
singularplural
Picture-matching (Log RT)
Note. Error bar represents 95%CI
No significant simple main effectsF(1, 31) = 0.06, p = .81, ηp2 = .002
Results62
8.6
8.8
9.0
9.2
9.4
Log
Tran
sfor
med
Mea
n RT
(ms)
singular−dominant plural−dominant control
singularplural
Picture-matching (Log RT)
Note. Error bar represents 95%CI
sig > pl (t [31] = 2.88, p = .001)
Results63
8.6
8.8
9.0
9.2
9.4
Log
Tran
sfor
med
Mea
n RT
(ms)
singular−dominant plural−dominant control
singularplural
Picture-matching (Log RT)
Note. Error bar represents 95%CI
sig > ctrl (t [31] = 2.58, p = .015)
Results64
8.6
8.8
9.0
9.2
9.4
Log
Tran
sfor
med
Mea
n RT
(ms)
singular−dominant plural−dominant control
singularplural
Picture-matching (Log RT)
Note. Error bar represents 95%CI
pl = ctrl (t [31] = 0.66, p = .514)
65
Familiarity Questionnaire
Results
k M SD 95%CI
sig-domminantsig 6 4.44 0.59 [4.24, 4.65]pl 6 4.47 0.56 [4.27, 4.66]
pl-dominantsig 6 4.40 0.67 [4.16, 4.63]pl 6 4.55 0.53 [4.36, 4.73]
controlsig 6 4.51 0.55 [4.32, 4.70]pl 6 4.49 0.71 [4.24, 4.73]
Table 7. Descriptive Statistics of the Results of the Familiarity Questionnaire
N = 32, 5-point Likert scale
• singular-dominant• singular form (e.g., cat) • plural form (e.g., cats)
• plural-dominant• singular form (e.g., bean)• plural form (e.g., beans)
Discussion68
L1 Matching
• singular-dominant• singular form (e.g., cat) -> faster• plural form (e.g., cats)
• plural-dominant• singular form (e.g., bean) -> faster• plural form (e.g., beans)
Discussion69
L1 Matching
• singular forms• singular-dominant (e.g., cat) • plural-dominant (e.g., bean)
• plural-forms• singular-dominant (e.g., cats) • plural-dominant (e.g., beans)
Discussion70
L1 Matching
• singular forms• singular-dominant (e.g., cat) • plural-dominant (e.g., bean)
• plural forms• singular-dominant (e.g., cats) • plural-dominant (e.g., beans)
Discussion71
L1 Matching
No significant difference
No significant difference
• Frequency effects• if plural-dominant plurals are processed faster
than singular-dominant plurals…• if singular-dominant singulars are processed
faster than plural dominant singulars…-> frequency effects
• However, this was not the case in L1 matching condition.
• Both plurals were processed through morphological decomposition
Discussion72
L1 Matching
• singular-dominant• singular form (e.g., cat) • plural form (e.g., cats)
• plural-dominant• singular form (e.g., bean)• plural form (e.g., beans)
Discussion73
Picture Matching
• singular-dominant• singular form (e.g., cat)• plural form (e.g., cats)
• plural-dominant• singular form (e.g., bean)• plural form (e.g., beans) -> faster
Discussion74
Picture Matching
-> No significant difference
• singular forms• singular-dominant (e.g., cat) • plural-dominant (e.g., bean)
• plural forms• singular-dominant (e.g., cats) • plural-dominant (e.g., beans)
Discussion75
Picture Matching
• singular forms• singular-dominant (e.g., cat) • plural-dominant (e.g., bean)
• plural forms• singular-dominant (e.g., cats) • plural dominant (e.g., beans) -> faster
Discussion76
Picture Matching
No significant difference
• Frequency Effects• Singular-dominant singulars -> NO• Plural-dominant plurals -> YES
Discussion77
Picture Matching
• L1 matching task• L2 words -> semantic information (L1)• No number information needed to process• Always morphological decomposition
irrespective of frequency• Picture matching
• L2 words -> conceptual information (Picture)• Strong connection between plural-dominant
plurals and plurality may result in making faster processing route to concepts
Discussion78
Assymetrical Frequency Effects?
• Plural-dominant plurals• Picture-matching condition
• frequency effects -> full-form storage?• L1-matching condition
• task effects (L2 -> L1) led the learners to process through morphological decomposition
• Singular-dominant singulars• Picture-matching condition
• no frequency advantage -> enough time for singular-dominant plurals to be decomposed?
Discussion79
Assymetrical Frequency Effects?
• Singular-dominant singulars• Plural-dominant singulars• Plural-dominant plurals• Singular-dominant plurals
Discussion80
Processing Routes
L2L1
Concepts
decomposition
full-form
• Number of test items• Difficulty in controlling base frequency and
frequency dominance• Only concretes items can be used
• Intervals between the recognition of L2 and L1 or Picture
• How can we handle plural forms of abstract nouns?
• What if the picture would have been multilple objects?
Discussion81
Limitations
• Plurals with high frequency• direct access to concepts• full-form processing
• Singulars with high frequency• no firm evidence of frequency effects• singular is always easy to process irrespective of
frequency?• Future research
• different type of nouns• not only reception but production
84
Frequency and Plurality
Conclusion
Baayen, R. H., Lieber, R., & Schreuder, R. (1997). The morphological complexity of simplex nouns. Linguistics, 35, 861–877. doi:10.1515/ling.1997.35.5.861
Baayen, R., Levelt, W., Schreuder, R., & Ernestus, M. (2007). Paradigmatic structure in speech production. Proceedings from the Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 43, 1–29. Retrieved from http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/cls/pcls/2007/00000043/00000001/art00001
Barker, J., & Nicol, J. (2000). Word frequency effects on the processing of subject-verb number agreement. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29, 99–106. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10723714
Beyersmann, E., Dutton, E. M., Amer, S., Schiller, N. O., & Biedermann, B. (2015). The production of singular- and plural-dominant nouns in Dutch. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30, 867–876. doi:10.1080/23273798.2015.1027236
Biedermann, B., Beyersmann, E., Mason, C., & Nickels, L. (2013). Does plural dominance play a role in spoken picture naming? A comparison of unimpaired and impaired speakers. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 26, 712–736. doi:10.1016/j.jneuroling.2013.05.001
Bock, K., & Miller, C. A. (1991). Broken agreement. Cognitive Psychology, 23, 45–93. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(91)90003-7
Eberhard, K. M. (1999). The Accessibility of Conceptual Number to the Processes of Subject–Verb Agreement in English. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 560–578. doi:10.1006/jmla.1999.2662
Habuchi, Y. (2005). Daini gengo gakusyu-sya no tango syori ni oyobosu goi to gainen no rengo-kyodo no eikyo [The effects of associative strength between lexical and conceptual representations on word processing in second language learners]. The Japanese Journal of Psychology, 76,1–9.
Humphreys, K. R., & Bock, K. (2005). Notional number agreement in English. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 689–95. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16447383
References85
Kawakami, A. (1994). Goi-Gainen-kankei ni okeru daini gengo no syujyukudo no eikyo [The effect of proficiency in a second language on lexical-conceptual representation]. The Japanese Journal of Psychology, 64, 426–433.
Kroll, J. F., & De Groot, A. M. (Eds.). (2005). Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches. Oxford University Press.
Kusanagi, K., Tamura, Y., & Fukuta, J. (2015). The notional number attraction in English as a foreign language: A self-paced reading study. Journal of the Japan Society for Speech Sciences, 16, 77–96.
Nakagawa, C. (2009). Examination of the developmental hypothesis on the revised hierarchical model. Annual Review of English Language Education in Japan, 20, 121–130.
New, B., Brysbaert, M., Segui, J., Ferrand, L., & Rastle, K. (2004). The processing of singular and plural nouns in French and English. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 568–585.
Sereno, J. A., & Jongman, A. (1997). Processing of English inflectional morphology. Memory & Cognition, 25, 425–437. doi:10.3758/BF03201119
Stemberger, J. P., & MacWhinney, B. (1986). Frequency and the lexical storage of regularly inflected forms. Memory & Cognition, 14, 17–26. doi:10.3758/BF03209225
Taft, M. (2004). Morphological decomposition and the reverse base frequency effect. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. A, Human Experimental Psychology, 57, 745–765.
Vigliocco, G., Butterworth, B., & Semenza, C. (1995). Constructing Subject-verb agreement in speech: The role of semantic and morphological factors. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 186–215. doi:10.1006/jmla.1995.1009
Vigliocco, G., Hartsuiker, R. J., & Kolk, H. H. J. (1996). One or More Labels on the Bottles ? Notional Concord in Dutch and French. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 407–442.
Yamashita, J. (2007). Investigating asymmetry in EFL Learners’ mental lexicon: Connections between lexical and Conceptual representations in Ll and L2. JACET Journal, 45, 63–79.
References86
Word Frequency Effects and Plurality in L2 Word Recognition–A Preliminary Study–
contact info Yu TamuraGraduate School, Nagoya [email protected]
http://www.tamurayu.wordpress.com/
8.6
8.8
9.0
9.2
9.4
Log
Tran
sfor
med
Mea
n RT
(ms)
singular−dominant plural−dominant control
singularplural
8.6
8.8
9.0
9.2
9.4
Log
Tran
sfor
med
Mea
n RT
(ms)
singular−dominant plural−dominant control
singularplural
L1-matching
Picture-matching
87
Results88
400
500
600
700
Mea
n RT
(ms)
singular−dominant plural−dominant control
singularplural
L1-matching (Raw RT)
Note. Error bar represents 95%CI
Results89
singular−dominant plural−dominant control
singularplural
Mea
n RT
(ms)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
L1-matching (Raw RT)
Note. Error bar represents 95%CI
Results90
400
500
600
700
Mea
n RT
(ms)
singular−dominant plural−dominant control
singularplural
Picture-matching (Raw RT)
Note. Error bar represents 95%CI
Results91
singular−dominant plural−dominant control
singularplural
Mean
RT (
ms)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Picture-matching (Raw RT)
Note. Error bar represents 95%CI