Effects of Semantics and Syntax on Chinese and Spanish Native - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Effects of Semantics and Syntax on Chinese and Spanish Native Speakers‘ Chinese Sentence Comprehension Yu-Tzu Chang Georgetown University

• How do people process sentences? • L1 = L2 = Ln? Introduction • Different L1 Ln language combinations? (L1 CH L3 JP = L1 CH L2 EN ) syntax syntax Ln speakers L1 speakers 2

Purpose • Processing strategy in Chinese: Spanish Vs. Chinese native speakers • Which language processing theory? – Shallow Structure Hypothesis (SSH; Clahsen & Felser, 2006) – Competition Model (MacWhinney 1997) – Good Enough Representation (Ferreira, 2003)

3 processing models Mandarin Differences between sentence structure LITERATURE REVIEW

Shallow Structure Hypothesis ( Clahsen and Felser, 2006) Methods Complex sentences e.g. ambiguous & syntactic dependencies Results 1. Native speakers can process sentences with deep and complete sentence representations 2. Foreign language learners usually ignore syntactic cues and use shallow structure when comprehending sentences Problems 1. L1ers process with shallow and incomplete & representation? Questions 2. Don’t foreign language learners have opportunities to use deep and complete representation? 3. Will experiments using simple sentences as material instead of complex sentences produce different 5 results?

Good Enough Hypothesis (Ferreira, 2003) Findings adults can process language both algorithmically and heuristically Response Adult native speakers do not always perform complete to representation when processing language. C&F They often miscomprehend many sentences because of the default NVN heuristics 6

Competition Model (MacWhinney ， Bates ， and Kligel ， 1984) Purpose To investigate language users’ reliance on different linguistic cues in development , such as word order and semantic features (animacy, plausibility) Results Learners are more likely to use both semantic and syntactic cues as their proficiency increases • Beginner: use L1 cues to process L2 • Advanced: use L2 cues to achieve more native-like proficiency Response The processing of foreign languages can achieve native- to C&F like level with the use of L2 cues

Mandarin sentence processing Semantics > Syntax Syntax > Semantics Miao (1981); Miao, Chen, & Chen & Hsu(2017); Hsu (to Ying (1986); Li et al. (1993) appear) Purpose explored the role animacy cue plays when two L1 groups of speakers comprehend Mandarin. Results native Mandarin speakers NVN heuristics: participants relied more on with different proficiency semantic cues than syntactic cues. Examples Ball kicks away the sister Ball kicks away the sister 球踢走了妹妹 球踢走了妹妹 8

Differences & Similarities between Mandarin & Spanish Mandarin Spanish similarities 1. Function of Chinese ‘ba’ (patient marker) & Spanish ‘a’ (to): N1 agent 、 N2 patient N ‘Ba’ NV N V ‘a’ N 2. Passive structures: N1 patient 、 N2 agent N ‘Bei’ (agent marker) NV N ‘Ser’ (be verb) VN Differences- 1. ‘Ba’= an object being 1. ‘a’= pointing out the 1.meaning affected, dealt with direction of the object, which 2.Word order 2. Patient+ ‘bei’ +V (NV) does not necessarily have the meaning of affectedness 2. Se (syntactic marker)+ V + patient (VN) • Syntactic rules with high frequency, credibility and validity in Spanish and Mandarin Ø linguistic cues for Spanish and Chinese: Syntax > Semantics 9

Research Questions • For the L1 Spanish L3 Chinese learners, what similarities or differences exist between low-proficiency and high-proficiency, in terms of accuracy and response times, during Chinese sentence comprehension? • What cues do L1 Spanish and L1 Mandarin speakers rely on when processing sentences in L3/L1 Mandarin? • Which language processing theory?

METHODS

Participants 48 50 L1 Spanish L1 Mandarin L3 Mandarin speakers speakers 14 beginners- currently learning text book ‘Contemporary Chinese’ Book 3 Lesson 10 to Book 4 34 intermediate-high : passed HSK 3.4/TOCFL A2.B1 12

Material Sentence Animacy structures 13

Material presentation Who is the doer j f Implausible IA SVO Space Coffee kicked away the sister 14

Order of Material • Order of animacy, sentence structures, and plausibility: random 48 'Ba' (agent marker) 48 96 total: or SVO fillers 192 48 'Bei' (patient marker) SVO 'Ba' 'Ba' AI filler IA filler filler AI P IP IP 15

Procedure • L1 Mandarin Language formal Practice Background experiment • 10 trials • L1 Spanish formal Language Vocabulary Practice experime Background Review nt • 10 trials 16

RESULTS & DISCUSSION

Statistics L1 processing & L3 processing L1 vs. L3 Accuracy • logistic mixed model • fixed effects: (R) language • fixed effects: animacy, sentence proficiency structure, plausibility • random effects: participants, items Response • Generalized Linear Models • fixed effects: time (three-way ANOVA with mixed effect language modeling) proficiency (SPSS 、 • fixed effects: animacy, sentence Excel) structure, plausibility • random effects: participants, items 18

L1 Mandarin speakers • Accuracy: implausible reverse NVN = Plausible reverse NVN My sister was kicked by the coffee 我妹妹被咖啡踢了 • RT: passive > S ba OV > SVO Mary was hit by Jane > Jane Ba Mary hit > Jane hit Mary 小明被小王打傷了 > 小王把小明打傷了 > 小王打傷了小王 ∵ 1) NVN heuristics (SVO & Ba) faster than reverse NVN heuristics (pasive) 2) Animacy is not significant 3) Plausibility do not influence accuracy Ø Preference in NVN heuristics Ø Syntactic cues are dominant ∵ reverse NVN cost more time

L3 Mandarin L1 Spanish speakers RT: Accuracy: low- level learners: animacy high-level learners = L1 Mandarin IA > AA speakers The alarm clock wakes me up > Mary hit Jane low-level learners: animacy high- level learners: plausibility & sentence structure AI> IA>AA (1) passive structure < ‘ba’ construction < SVO Mary drinks the coffee > Mary was hit by Jane < Jane Ba Mary hit < Jane hit Mary The alarm clock wakes me up > 小明被小王打傷了 < 小王把小明打傷了 < 小王打傷了小明 Mary hit Jane ∵ a. similar passive structure in Spanish & Mandarin Accuracy & reaction time : b. semantic differences between ‘Ba’ and “a” Plausible AA passive (only syntactic preference in syntactic markers over NVN heuristics cues) = syntactic + semantics cues (imPlausible IA passive) (2) implausible SVO < plausible SVO Mary was hit by Jane = The coffee drinks Mary < Mary drinks the coffee Coffee was cooked by the cat 咖啡喝了小明 < 小明喝了咖啡 小明被小王打傷了 = if syntactic markers are present, implausibility disappeared 咖啡被小貓煮了 ‘ba’ & ‘bei’ were not significant under implausible conditions Ø Preference in syntactic markers over plausibility

Conclusion 1) Not support C&F’s Shallow Structure hypothesis ： • Mandarin language learners are still capable of comprehending the sentences with only syntactic cues 2) Not fully consistent with the Good Enough Representation model ： • Mandarin native speakers’ reaction time: passive structure (violates NVN) > ba’ & SVO (doer-receiver NVN) -> NVN heuristics as a language processing strategy • High-level learners: plausible sentences- passive structure (reverse doer-receiver pattern ) < ‘ba’ < SVO -> relied more on syntactic markers than NVN heuristics. 3) Supports competition model, but the dominant cue of Mandarin is syntax not semantics ： • Mandarin native speakers tended to rely on syntactic cues, while native Spanish speakers relied more on animacy cues in the beginning of the learning process, but as their proficiency level increases, their reliance on syntactic cues enhanced 21

Thank You!