Dependency distance reflects L2 processing difficulty: Evidence from the relationship between dependency distance,L2 processing speed,and L2 proficiency

Abstract

Aims and objectives:

This study aims to investigate whether dependency distance (DD) can reflect L2 processing difficulty by exploring the relationship between DD, L2 processing speed, and L2 proficiency.

Methodology:

The sentences in a maze task were annotated based on dependency syntax to indicate L2 processing difficulty. The maze task then was used to capture the word-level and sentence-level processing speed. The task was successfully performed by 62 Chinese learners of English, who were assigned into an intermediate-level group and an advanced-level group according to their scores on an elicited imitation task (EIT) and a vocabulary and grammar test.

Data and analysis:

Reaction time (RT) data of processing word-level and sentence-level items were collected from the maze task. The DD-based estimates of word-level and sentence-level processing difficulty were calculated. Generalized linear regression models (GLMs) were employed to inspect the relationship between the DD-based estimate of processing difficulty, L2 processing speed, and L2 proficiency.

Findings:

Our results showed that DD significantly predicted L2 processing speed at both word and sentence levels, irrespective of participants’ L2 proficiency. As DD increased, advanced learners’ word-level processing time grew significantly slower than that of intermediate learners.

Originality:

Using psycholinguistic experiments, the study is one of the first attempts to empirically validate the effectiveness of DD in capturing L2 processing difficulty.

Significance:

Our findings suggest that DD is useful in predicting L2 processing difficulty, and the extent to which learners are able to efficiently process dependencies with increasing distance can differentiate their L2 proficiency levels.

Keywords

Dependency distance L2 processing difficulty L2 proficiency maze task

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alderson

J. C.

(2005). Diagnosing foreign language proficiency: The interface between learning and assessment. Continuum.

Alderson

J. C.

Huhta

(2005). The development of a suite of computer-based diagnostic tests based on the Common European Framework. Language Testing, 22(3), 301–320. https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532205lt310oa

Baddeley

A. D.

Hitch

(1974). Working memory. In Bower

G. A.

(Ed.), Recent advances in learning and motivation (pp. 47–89). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60452-1

Balling

L. W.

Kizach

(2017). Effects of surprisal and locality on Danish sentence processing: An eye-tracking investigation. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 46(5), 1119–1136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-017-9482-2

Bartek

Lewis

R. L.

Vasishth

Smith

M. R.

(2011). In search of on-line locality effects in sentence comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 37(5), 1178–1198. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024194

Bley-Vroman

Chaudron

(1994). Elicited imitation as a measure of second-language competence. In Tarone

E. E.

Gass

S. M.

Cohen

A. D.

(Eds.), Research methodology in second-language acquisition (pp. 245–261). Lawrence Erlbaum.

Boyce

Futrell

Levy

R. P.

(2020). Maze made easy: Better and easier measurement of incremental processing difficulty. Journal of Memory and Language, 111, 104082. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2019.104082

Chen

Ning

Dunlap

(2008). Chinese subject-relative clauses are more difficult to process than the object-relative clauses. Acta Psychologica, 129(1), 61–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2008.04.005

Cobb

(n.d.). Compleat Web VP (version 2.6) [Computer software]. https://www.lextutor.ca/vp/comp/

10.

Cowan

(2000). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 87–185. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X01003922

11.

de Marneffe

Nivre

. (2019). Dependency grammar. Annual Review of Linguistics, 5, 197–218. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011718-011842

12.

Duran-Karaoz

Tavakoli

(2020). Predicting L2 fluency from L1 fluency behaviour: The case of L1 Turkish and L2 English speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 42, 671–695. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263119000755

13.

Enkin

(2016). Second language learning with the story maze task: Examining the training effect of weaving through stories. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19(1), 1–21.

14.

Fang

Liu

(2021). An analysis of computational indicators for measuring cognitive complexity of syntactic structure. Journal of Nanjing Normal University, 6, 126–137. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1001-4608.2021.06.014

15.

Fedorenko

Piantadosi

Gibson

(2012). Processing relative clauses in supportive contexts. Cognitive Science, 36(3), 471–497. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2011.01217.x

16.

Futrell

Gibson

Tily

Blank

Vishnevetsky

Piantadosi

S. T.

Fedorenko

(2021). A reading-time corpus of English texts containing rare syntactic constructions. Language Resources & Evaluation, 55, 63–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10579-020-09503-7

17.

Futrell

Mahowald

Gibson

(2015). Large-scale evidence of dependency length minimization in 37 languages. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112(33), 10336–10341. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1502134112

18.

Gibson

. (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68(1), 1–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(98)00034-1

19.

Gibson

. (2000). The dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. In Marantz

Miyashita

O’Neil

(Eds.), Image, language, brain: Papers from the first mind articulation project symposium (pp. 94–126). The MIT Press.

20.

Grodner

D. J.

Gibson

(2005). Consequences of the serial nature of linguistic input for sentential complexity. Cognitive Science, 29, 261–290. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0000_7

21.

Hao

Wang

Lin

(2022). Dependency distance and its probability distribution: Are they the universals for measuring second language learners’ language proficiency? Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 29, 485–509. https://doi.org/10.1080/09296174.2021.1991684

22.

Heringer

Bruno

Rainer

(1980). Syntax: Fragen, lösungen, alternativen [Syntax: Issues, solutions, alternatives]. Wilhelm Fink Verlag.

23.

Hudson

(1990). English word grammar. Blackwell.

24.

Hudson

(2007). Language networks: The new word grammar. Oxford University Press.

25.

Hudson

(2010). An introduction to word grammar. Cambridge University Press.

26.

Jiang

Ouyang

(2017). Dependency distance: A new perspective on the syntactic development in second language acquisition. Physics of Life Reviews, 21, 209–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2017.06.018

27.

Jiang

Liu

(2019). Does scale-free syntactic network emerge in second language learning? Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00925

28.

Kempen

Hoenkamp

(1987). An incremental procedural grammar for sentence formulation. Cognitive Science, 11, 201–258. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1102_5

29.

Levelt

(1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. MIT Press.

30.

Levy

Fedorenko

Gibson

(2013). The syntactic complexity of Russian relative clauses. Journal of Memory and Language, 69(4), 461–495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.10.005

31.

Levy

Keller

. (2013). Expectation and locality effects in German verb-final structures. Journal of Memory & Language, 68(2), 199–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.02.005

32.

Yan

(2021). Probability distribution of dependency distance based on a treebank of Japanese EFL learners’ interlanguage. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 28(2), 172–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/09296174.2020.1754611

33.

Liu

(2008). Dependency distance as a metric of language comprehension difficulty. Journal of Cognitive Science, 9(2), 159–191. https://doi.org/10.17791/jcs.2008.9.2.159

34.

Liu

(2010). Dependency direction as a means of word-order typology: A method based on dependency treebanks. Lingua, 120(6), 1567–1578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2009.10.001

35.

Liu

Liang

(2017). Dependency distance: A new perspective on syntactic patterns in natural languages. Physics of Life Reviews, 21, 171–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2017.03.002

36.

Andrew

(2015). To transform or not to transform: Using generalized linear mixed models to analyse reaction time data. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article 1171. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01171

37.

Mel’čuk

(1988). Dependency syntax: Theory and practice. State University of New York Press.

38.

Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China. (2011). English curriculum standards for compulsory education (2011 Edition). https://www-moe-gov-cn.web.bisu.edu.cn/srcsite/A26/s8001/201112/W020220418401378728645.pdf

39.

Nicol

J. L.

Forster

K. I.

Veres

(1997). Subject-verb agreement processes in comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 36(4), 569–587.

40.

Niu

Liu

(2022). Effects of syntactic distance and word order on language processing: An investigation based on a psycholinguistic treebank of English. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 15, 1043–1062. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-022-09878-4

41.

Ortega

Iwashita

Norris

J. M.

Rabie

(2002). An investigation of elicited imitation tasks in crosslinguistic SLA research [Paper presentation]. 20th Second Language Research Forum, Toronto, October 3–6, 2002 [Unpublished handout retrieved from IRIS].

42.

Ouyang

Jiang

(2018). Can the probability distribution of dependency distance measure language proficiency of second language learners? Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 25(4), 295–313. https://doi.org/10.1080/09296174.2017.1373991

43.

Ouyang

Jiang

Liu

(2022). Dependency distance measures in assessing L2 writing proficiency. Assessing Writing, 51, 100603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2021.100603

44.

Peirce

Gray

J. R.

Simpson

MacAskill

Höchenberger

Sogo

Kastman

Lindeløv

J. K.

(2019). PsychoPy2: Experiments in behavior made easy. Behavior Research Methods, 51(1), 195–203. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-01193-y

45.

R Development Core Team. (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing.

46.

Slavkov

(2015). Long-distance wh-movement and long-distance wh-movement avoidance in L2 English: Evidence from French and Bulgarian speakers. Second Language Research, 31(2), 211–237. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658314554939

47.

Suzuki

Kormos

(2023). The multidimensionality of second language oral fluency: Interfacing cognitive fluency and utterance fluency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 45(1), 38–64. https://doi.org/DOI:10.1017/S0272263121000899

48.

Suzuki

Sunada

(2018). Automatization in second language sentence processing: Relationship between elicited imitation and maze tasks. Bilingualism, 21(1), 32–46. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728916000857

49.

Tesnière

(1959). Eléments de la syntaxe structurale [Elements of structural syntax]. Klincksieck.

50.

S. L.

Tio

Y. P.

Ortega

(2022). Elicited imitation as a measure of L2 proficiency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 44(1), 271–300. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263121000103