Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching

Ed. by Jordens, Peter / Roberts, Leah


IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 0.667
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 1.296

CiteScore 2018: 1.02

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.891
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 1.341

Online
ISSN
1613-4141
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 54, Issue 4

Issues

Prime Repetition and Korean EFL Learners’ Comprehension and Production of Passives

YouJin Kim
  • Corresponding author
  • Department of Applied Linguistics and ESL, Georgia State University, 25 Park Place, Suite 1500, Atlanta, GA 30303, USA
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Kim McDonough
Published Online: 2016-11-11 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2015-0028

Abstract

The occurrence of structural priming in second language (L2) speech production has received increased attention over the last decade (McDonough and Trofimovich, 2009; Trofimovich and McDonough, 2011). Although L2 researchers have implemented a variety of priming methods, few studies to date have investigated whether repeating prime sentences affects L2 speakers’ understanding and use of target structures. Therefore, the current study investigated whether prime repetition facilitates English L2 speakers’ comprehension and production of passive constructions. Korean EFL learners (N=50) were randomly assigned to carry out communicative tasks under three conditions: passive prime sentences with repetition, passive prime sentences without repetition, or active prime sentences (active comparison). All groups completed three comprehension and oral production tests and two priming sessions over a four-week period. The results indicated that repeating passive primes facilitated subsequent production of passives, but was not more effective at promoting comprehension. The results are discussed in terms of the potential role of prime repetition in promoting L2 learners’ comprehension and production of target structures.

Keywords: structural priming; interaction-driven learning; English passives; prime repetition

References

  • Adler, Elizabeth. 2012. Investigating L1 Arabic and L1 Korean acquisition of the passive voice in L2 English. Unpublished MA thesis. University of Pittsburg, PA.Google Scholar

  • Baumann, John & Brent Culligan. 1995. Adapted General Service List (GSL; West, 1953) [Data file]. http://jbauman.com/aboutgsl.html.

  • Bencini, Giulia & Virginia Valian. 2008. Abstract sentence representation in 3-year-olds: Evidence from language production and comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 59. 97–113.Google Scholar

  • Bock, Kathryn. 1986. Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology 18. 355–387.Google Scholar

  • Bock, Kathryn, Gary Dell, Franklin Chang & Kristine Onishi. 2007. Persistent structural priming from language comprehension to language production. Cognition 104. 437–458.Google Scholar

  • Bock, Kathryn & Zenzi Griffin. 2000. The persistence of structural priming: transient activation or implicit learning? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 129. 177–192.Google Scholar

  • Bock, Kathryn, Helga Loebell & Randal Morey. 1992. From conceptual roles to structural relations: Bridging the syntactic cleft. Psychological Review 99. 150–171.Google Scholar

  • Branigan, Holly, Martin Pickering & Alexandra Cleland. 1999. Syntactic priming in written production: Evidence for rapid decay. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 6. 635–640.Google Scholar

  • Branigan, Holly, Martin Pickering & Alexandra Cleland. 2000. Syntactic co-ordination in dialogue. Cognition 75. B13–B25.Google Scholar

  • Branigan, Holly, Martin Pickering, Simon Liversedge, Andrew Stewart & Rhomas Urbach. 1995. Syntactic priming: Investigating the mental representation of language. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 24. 489–506.Google Scholar

  • Brooks, Patricia & Michael Tomasello. 1999. Young children learn to produce passive with nonce verbs. Developmental Psychology 35. 29–44.Google Scholar

  • Brown, J.D. 2008. Effect size and eta squared. JALT Testing and Evaluation SIG Newsletter 12. 38–43.Google Scholar

  • Chang, Franklin. 2009. Learning to order words: A connectionist model of heavy NP shift and accessibility effects in Japanese and English. Journal of Memory and Language 61. 374–397.Google Scholar

  • Chang, Franklin, Gary Dell & Kathryn Bock. 2006. Becoming syntactic. Psychological Review 113. 234–272.Google Scholar

  • Chang, Franklin, Gary Dell, Kathryn Bock & Zenzi Griffin. 2000. Structural priming as implicit learning: A comparison of models of sentence production. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 29. 217–229.Google Scholar

  • Chang, Franklin, Marius Janciauskas & Hatmut Fitz. 2012. Language adaptation and learning: Getting explicit about implicit learning. Language and Linguistics Compass 6. 259–278.Google Scholar

  • DeKeyser, Robert. 2007. Skill acquisition theory. In Jessica Williams & Bill VanPatten (eds.), Theories in Second Language Acquisition: An introduction, 97–113. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

  • Ellis, Nick. 2002. Frequency effects in language processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24. 143–188.Google Scholar

  • Gries, Stefan. 2005. Syntactic priming: A corpus-based approach. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 34. 365–399.Google Scholar

  • Gries, Stefan & Stefanie Wulff. 2005. Do foreign language learners also have constructions? Evidence from priming, sorting and corpora. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 3. 182–200.Google Scholar

  • Hartsuiker, Robert, Sarah Bernolet, Sofie Schoonbaert, Sara Speybroeck & Dieter Vanderelst. 2008. Syntactic priming persists while the lexical boost decays: Evidence from written and spoken dialogue. Journal of Memory and Language 58. 214–238.Google Scholar

  • Hartsuiker, Robert & Herman Kolk. 1998. Syntactic persistence in Dutch. Language & Speech 41. 143–184.Google Scholar

  • Hartsuiker, Robert, Herman Kolk & Philippine Huiskamp. 1999. Priming word order in sentence production. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 52(A). 129–147.Google Scholar

  • Huttenlocher, Janellen, Marina Vasilyeva & Priya Shimpi. 2004. Syntactic priming in young children. Journal of Memory and Language 50. 182–195.Google Scholar

  • Kaschak, Michael, Timothy Kutta & John Jones. 2011a. Structural priming as implicit learning: Cumulative priming effects and individual differences. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 18. 1133–1139.Google Scholar

  • Kaschak, Michael, Timothy Kutta & Christopher Schatschneider. 2011b. Long-term cumulative structural priming persists for (at least) one week. Memory & Cognition 39. 381–388.Google Scholar

  • Kidd, Evan. 2012. Individual differences in syntactic priming in language acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics 33. 393–418.Google Scholar

  • Kim, YouJin, & Kim, McDonough. 2008. The effect of interlocutor proficiency on the collaborative dialogue between Korean as a second language learners. Language Teaching Research 12. 211–234.Google Scholar

  • Lee, Iksop & Robert Ramsey. 2000. The Korean Language. New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar

  • Loebell, Heilga & Kathryn Bock. 2003. Structural priming across languages. Linguistics 41. 791–824.Google Scholar

  • Marsden, E, Gerry Altmann & Michelle St. Claire. 2013. Priming of verb inflections in L1 and L2 French: A comparison of ‘redundant’ versus ‘non-redundant’ training conditions. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 51. 271–298.Google Scholar

  • McDonough, Kim, & Pavel Trofimovich. 2009. Using priming methods in second language research. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • McDonough, Kim & YouJin, Kim. 2009. Syntactic priming, type frequency, and EFL learners’ production of wh-questions. Modern Language Journal 93. 386–398.Google Scholar

  • McDonough, Kim & Jindarat De, Vleeschauwer. 2012. Prompt type frequency, auditory pattern discrimination, and EFL learners’ production of wh-questions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 34. 355–377.Google Scholar

  • McDonough, Kim, Pavel, Trofimovich, Heike Neumann. 2015. Eliciting production of L2 target structures through priming activities. Canadian Modern Language Review 71. 75–95.Google Scholar

  • McDonough, Kim & YouJin Kim. in press. Working Memory and L2 English Speakers’ Primed and Subsequent Production of Passives. In Granena G., Jackson, D. & Yilmaz, Y. (eds.), Cognitive Individual Differences in L2 Processing and Acquisition.

  • Messenger, Katherine, Holly Branigan & Janet McLean. 2012. Is children’s acquisition of the passive a staged process? Evidence from six- and nine-year-olds’ production of passives. Journal of Child Language 39. 991–1016.Google Scholar

  • Obee, Bob. 1999. The grammar activity book. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Pickering, Martin, Holly Branigan, Alexandra Cleland & Andrew Stewart. 2000. Syntactic activation in language production. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 29. 205–216.Google Scholar

  • Pickering, Martin & Victor Ferreira. 2008. Structural priming: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin 134. 427–259.Google Scholar

  • Rowland, Caroline, Franklin Chang, Ben Ambridge, Julian Pine & Elena Lieven. 2012. The development of abstract syntax: Evidence from structural priming and the lexical boost. Cognition 125. 49–63Google Scholar

  • Savage, Ceri, Elena Lieven, Anna Theakston & Michael Tomasello. 2003. Testing the abstractness of children’s linguistic representations: Lexical and structural priming of syntactic constructions in young children. Developmental Science 6. 557–567.Google Scholar

  • Savage, Ceri, Elena Lieven, Anna Theakston & Michael Tomasello. 2006. Structural priming as implicit learning in language acquisition: The persistence of lexical and structural priming in 4-year-olds. Language Learning and Development 2. 27–50.Google Scholar

  • Shimpi, Priya, Perla Gámez, Janellen Huttenlocher & Marina Vasilyeva. 2007. Syntactic priming in 3- and 4-year-old children: Evidence for abstract representations of transitive and dative forms. Developmental Psychology 43. 1334–1346.Google Scholar

  • Sohn, Ho-Min. 1999. The Korean Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Shin, Jeong-Ah & Kiel Christianson. 2012. Structural priming and second language learning. Language Learning 62. 931–964.Google Scholar

  • Trofimovich, Pavel & Kim, McDonough (eds.). 2011. Applying priming methods to L2 learning, teaching, and research: Insights from psycholinguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Trofimovich, Pavel & McDonough Kim & Heike Neumann. 2013. Using collaborative tasks to elicit auditory and structural priming. TESOL Quarterly 47. 177–186.Google Scholar

  • Zaorob Maria & Elizabeth Chin. 2001. Games for grammar practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2016-11-11

Published in Print: 2016-11-01


Citation Information: International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, Volume 54, Issue 4, Pages 319–346, ISSN (Online) 1613-4141, ISSN (Print) 0019-042X, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2015-0028.

Export Citation

©2016 by De Gruyter Mouton.Get Permission

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[1]
Loes Abrahams, Robert J. Hartsuiker, Filip De Fruyt, and M. Teresa Bajo
Acta Psychologica, 2019, Volume 199, Page 102906
[2]
Marije Michel and Marco Cappellini
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 2019, Volume 39, Page 189
[3]
Scott Crossley, Nicholas D. Duran, YouJin Kim, Tiffany Lester, and Samual Clark
Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 2018

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in