Collocational Processing in L1 and L2: The Effects of Word Frequency, Collocational Frequency, and Association

Doğuş Öksüz,Vaclav Brezina,Patrick Rebuschat

doi:10.1111/lang.12427

Doğuş Öksüz, Vaclav Brezina + Show 1 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12427

Copy DOI

Abstract

AbstractThis study investigated the effects of individual word frequency, collocational frequency, and association on L1 and L2 collocational processing. An acceptability judgment task was administered to L1 and L2 speakers of English. Response times were analyzed using mixed‐effects modeling for 3 types of adjective–noun pairs: (a) high‐frequency, (b) low‐frequency, and (c) baseline items. This study extends previous research by examining whether the effects of individual word and collocation frequency counts differ for L1 and L2 speakers’ processing of collocations. This study also compared the extent to which L1 and L2 speakers’ response times are affected by mutual information and log Dice scores, which are corpus‐derived association measures. Both groups of participants demonstrated sensitivity to individual word and collocation frequency counts. However, there was a reduced effect of individual word frequency counts for processing high‐frequency collocations compared to low‐frequency collocations. Both groups of participants were similarly sensitive to the association measures used.

Highlights

There has been a growing interest in research dedicated to the processing and use of multiword sequences (MWS)
This study investigated the effects of individual word frequency, collocational frequency and association on L1 and L2 collocational processing
Even though this study focuses on L1 and L2 speakers’ sensitivity to MI and Log Dice (LD) measures which highlight the exclusivity of collocations, we should be aware of alternative association measures that capture other dimensions of collocational association

Summary

Introduction

There has been a growing interest in research dedicated to the processing and use of multiword sequences (MWS). In addition to corpus evidence, there is substantial psycholinguistic evidence that both children (Arnon & Clark, 2011; Bannard & Matthews, 2008) and adults (Arnon & Snider, 2010; Jolsvai, McCauley & Christiansen, 2013; Tremblay, Derwing, Libben & Westbury, 2011) are sensitive to MWS during comprehension and production tasks Both first language (L1) and second language (L2) speakers appear to process MWS faster than matched control phrases (Siyanova-Chanturia, Conklin & van Heuven, 2011; Wolter & Yamashita, 2018). These findings provide empirical evidence that MWS are processed faster than matched novel phrases, due to their phrasal frequency, and predictability This is consonant with usage-based approaches to language acquisition (Barlow & Kemmer, 2000; Ellis, 2002; Christiansen & Chater, 2016; Tomasello, 2003). Regarding the processing and acquisition of MWS two types of statistical information play important role, namely frequency and association (Ellis & Gries, 2015; Yi, 2018)

Objectives

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion