The effects of input on the processing of formulaic sequences in l2

機構典藏 > College of Foreign Languages and Literature > Graduate Institute & Department of English > Thesis > Item 987654321/30020

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://tkuir.lib.tku.edu.tw/dspace/handle/987654321/30020

Title:	The effects of input on the processing of formulaic sequences in l2
Other Titles:	語言輸入對於第二語言詞組處理的影響
Authors:	黃平宇;Huang, Ping-yu
Contributors:	淡江大學英文學系博士班衛友賢;Wible, David;范瑞玲;Fahn, Rueih-lirng
Keywords:	詞組;眼動追蹤;第二語言處理;頻繁輸入;顯著輸入;formulaic sequences;Eye tracking;L2 processing;frequent input;salient input
Date:	2009
Issue Date:	2010-01-10 23:16:59 (UTC+8)
Abstract:	在應用語言學的研究裡，詞組（例如：on the other hand及as a matter of fact）長久以來被認為比依據語法即時產生的語言在語言處理上享有內在處理的優勢（processing advantage）。Pawley and Syder（1983）指出，詞組能夠減輕工作記憶的負擔，讓語言使用者流暢且有效率地產生與理解語言訊息。在近幾年內，已經有一些心理語言學實驗開始研究這項處理優勢是否存在，且大多數的實驗都提供了其存在的證據，並指出第一語言與第二語言使用者皆能夠展現這項內在處理優勢（Conklin and Schmitt，2008； Jiang and Nekrasova，2007；Underwood，Schmitt and Galpin，2004）。然而，這些實驗卻未探討一項重要的研究議題；即，這項處理優勢是如何在語言學習過程中發展出來。雖然有少部分的研究使用了眼動追蹤技術（eye tracking），這些實驗皆未研究語言輸入對於詞組學習的影響，且未探究何種語言輸入能夠最有效地幫助詞組學習。本研究的主要目的即在於探討語言輸入對於第二語言詞組處理與學習的影響，並試圖了解何種語言輸入有較大的幫助。在前測與後測的兩項實驗裡，我使用了眼球移動追蹤技術記錄學習者對於詞組的內在處理，並觀察顯著輸入（salient input）亦或頻繁輸入（frequent input）對於加速詞組內在處理有較強的影響。這項研究主要包含三個步驟。首先，在前測實驗裡，我蒐集十四位以英文為第一語言使用者與三十位以英文為第二語言學習者的眼動資料。我將二十五條詞組（例如：on the other hand）、詞組的最後一個字（例如：hand）、與控制的非詞組（例如：on the other case）置於句子裡，並觀察記錄受試者在閱讀這些實驗材料時的眼動模式與處理時間。實驗的結果顯現了許多第一語言與第二語言使用者對於詞組處理的共同點與相異處。舉例來說，這兩組受試者在閱讀時都展現了詞組的內在處理優勢，明顯地處理詞組比非詞組快。而相異點則在於，比起第二語言學習者，第一語言使用者在閱讀時能夠較快發現到他們在處理一條詞組。在前測實驗結束後，第二語言學習者進行語言輸入學習活動。在這項過程裡，語言輸入的材料主要包含七條在前測實驗裡許多學習者未顯現處理優勢的詞組。學習者在此活動接受了兩種類別的語言輸入：（1）頻繁輸入：即提供較多包含這些詞組的句子讓學習者閱讀，與（2）顯著輸入：即在句子裡特別標示詞組的部分，以讓學習者注意。隨後，學習者再次進行眼動實驗，針對他們對於詞組與非詞組的閱讀與處理蒐集眼動資料。後測實驗結果顯示，相較起顯著輸入，頻繁輸入較為有效地促進學習者對於詞組的處理。換言之，在頻繁地接觸語言輸入裡的詞組之後，受試的學習者開始將詞組處理為固定的單位，而非即時地以語法來處理、分析這些語言形式。此外，後測實驗也蒐集了一些英文程度較高學習者的眼動資料。但這些資料顯示，兩種語言輸入的方式都無法讓他們展現更類似第一語言使用者處理詞組時的效率及模式。例如，在閱讀時，這些較高階的學習者仍然比第一語言使用者較慢注意到他們在處理一條詞組。整體而言，本研究提出兩項主要發現：（1）頻繁的語言輸入能夠有效地幫助第二語言詞組學習並促進其內在處理優勢的形成；（2）即使接受過語言輸入的訓練，第二語言學習者在處理詞組上仍然與第一語言使用者有顯著的差別。根據這些研究發現，本研究也對頻率為主的語言學習理論及強調注意力的詞組學習方式提出具體的建議。此外，依據後測實驗裡高階學習者的資料，本研究也能夠對於探究第二語言最終習得狀態的研究提出貢獻。 It has long been assumed in applied linguistics that formulaic sequences (e.g. on the other hand and as a matter of fact) entail an advantage over creatively produced language in real-time language processing. Formulaic language is claimed to ease the burden of working memory, enabling language speakers to produce and comprehend a language fluently (Pawley and Syder, 1983). In the past few years, some psycholinguistic experiments have been conducted to verify the existence of such an advantage, with most of them presenting confirmative evidence and showing that both L1 and L2 speakers enjoy it (Conklin and Schmitt, 2008; Jiang and Nekrasova, 2007; Underwood, Schmitt and Galpin, 2004). These experiments, however, leave one crucial research question unaddressed. That is, none of these studies investigate what contributes to the development of the processing advantage. While some studies use eye tracking, none of them examine the effects of input containing formulaic expressions and how such input may effect language learners’ learning of formulaic sequences. The purpose of this study, accordingly, is to investigate whether and how input of varying types might influence L2 learners’ processing of formulaic sequences. An eye-tracking technique was implemented in pretests and posttests to see whether salient input or frequent input was more effective in facilitating formulaic language processing. The study involved three main phases. First, in the pretest, fourteen English L1 speakers and thirty L2 learners’ eye movements were recorded during their reading of formulaic sequences (e.g. on the other hand), final words of formulas in non-formulaic contexts (e.g. ‘hand’ in neutral contexts), and matched non-formulaic sequences (e.g. on the other case). The results revealed various significant similarities and differences between L1 and L2 subjects. For instance, while both groups showed the processing advantage with formulaic sequences by reading them more quickly than the matched non-formulaic strings, the L1 subjects were found to recognize the formulaic sequences one word position earlier than the L2 learners. Following the pretest, the L2 learners underwent the input training task, which targeted seven formulaic sequences in which two sub-groups of L2 learners did not show the processing advantage in the pretest. The learners received two types of input in the task: frequent input (providing more sentences containing the target formulas) vs. salient input (using textual enhancement to highlight the formulas). Subsequently the learners’ eye-movement data were collected again. According to the posttest results, frequent input more effectively facilitated the learners’ processing of formulas; after encountering the formulas frequently in input, the L2 learners began processing them as fixed units, rather than as sequences constructed creatively. The posttest data from some higher-level L2 learners, however, demonstrated that neither type of input treatment helped them to move closer to nativelike performance. For example, they still recognized formulas one word later than the L1 subjects. Taking all the results together, the present study suggests: (1) frequency of exposure better fosters L2 learning of formulaic sequences and facilitates their processing advantage, and (2) fundamental differences remain between L1 and higher-level L2 speakers’ processing even after the L2 learners receive input training. Implications of the present study for frequency-based approaches of language acquisition and attention-based accounts of formulaic language learning are discussed, as well as how the study might contribute to the L2 research which studies the ultimate attainment of post-pubertal L2 acquisition.
Appears in Collections:	[Graduate Institute & Department of English] Thesis

Files in This Item:

File	Size	Format
	0Kb	Unknown	302	View/Open

Loading...