Presentation based on an article for psycholinguistic class at Concordia University

1. Eliciting wh-questions through collaborative
syntactic priming activities during peer
interaction
Kim McDonough
presented by Takashi Oba
APLI 624 October 16th

2. Dr. Kim McDonough
• Effects of face-to-face interaction on L2
performance through feedback, modified
output, and syntactic priming tasks
• Psycholinguistic methods
• Task-based second language teaching
and assessment
Source: http://education.concordia.ca/~kim.mcdonough/index.html

3. Outline
• Background and importance of the study
• Literature review
• Previous studies
• The present study: lexical boost
• Research question and hypothesis
• Method
• Analysis & results
• Discussion and implication
• Discussion questions

4. Background of the study
• Previous studies have examined the most effective
task types, features & complexity to elicit peer
interaction with feedback, modified output and
attention to form
• Recent research has indicated that collaborative
syntactic priming activities may be effective in
eliciting L2 subsequent production of target form
(McDonough & Kim, 2009;McDonough &Mackey, 2008; McDonough &
Chaikitmongkol, 2010)

5. Importance of the present study
• Task feature of syntactic priming activities
→lexical boost (prime & prompt components)
• Eliciting L2 production of target form in classroom

6. Effects of syntactic priming
- Convergence: ”residual activation” will lead speakers to
produce the same structure encountered in the recent
discourse (prime) rather than generating a new structure
(Pickering & Branigan, 1998; Collentine, & Collentine, 2013)
- Implicit learning: unconsciously associate form and
meaning (form-meaning mapping) to facilitate the
subsequent use of L2 (Bock & Griffin, 2000)

7. L2 syntactic priming
previous studies
• Information-exchanging tasks with prime and lexical
prompts (i.e. “what benefit / vitamins”)
- Ex.1 Lab-based studies: McDonough & Kim (2009);McDonough &Mackey (2008)
- Ex. 2 Classroom-based study: McDonough & Chaikitmongkol (2010)
• Indicated that collaborative syntactic priming
significantly influenced on L2 learners’ subsequent
production of wh-questions with supplied auxiliary
verbs

8. The present study
Then, what kind of task features are most effective to
maximizing the effects of syntactic priming?

9. The primary focus of syntactic priming tasks is eliciting the
production of target form rather than alternative form in
interlanguage L2 development
↓
Implementing “lexical boost” in the priming tasks will elicit
larger amounts of prompt-generated questions using the
same lexical items in prime questions

10. What is the “lexical boost” and why using it?

11. • The “lexical boost” is the repetition of an open-class
lexical item (verb and/or noun) in the prime and
prompt
Prime: “the father gave the ball to his son”
Prompt: lexical prompt : give (x pass, hand)
Expected production: “the student gave an apple to the teacher”

12. • Syntactic priming…
- not explicitly require lexical repetition for L2 learners
- but its effect will be greater if the same verb and
noun appears in both the prime and the prompt

13. Research question and hypothesis
• RQ:
Do syntactic priming activities with the lexical boost elicit
greater production of wh-questions with supplied auxiliary?
• Hypothesis:
Learner-learner interaction during collaborative syntactic
priming tasks with the lexical boost will elicit greater
production of target form (wh-questions) than tasks without
lexical boost

14. Method
• Participants
- 33 Thai EFL learners (average age:18.6)
- Majors: medical science, engineering, industry, & business
- EFL skill integrated course: travel, alternative medicine, and
advertising

15. • Materials
- Four collaborative syntactic activities
- Short reading passages & partially completed tables followed by set of
question primes and prompts
- Topic: “alternative medicine”
(1) Lexical boost: the health problems, massage therapies
(2) No lexical boost: alternative therapies activities, the nutrition quiz
- In lexical boost, same verbs or nouns were used in both prime and
prompt (ex. “cause”, “have”, “provide” appeared in pairs)
- Prompts pattern: (wh-/verb), (wh-/noun), (wh- /verb/noun)

16. Nutrition quiz (no lexical boost)
Learner A: fruits and vegetables Learner B: vitamins

17. Nutrition quiz (no lexical boost)
Learner A: fruits and vegetables Learner B: vitamins
Prompt Prime

18. Example (1) collaborative dialogue during the priming activities

19. • Procedure
- 6-7/15 weeks course
4/10 classes
(75mins)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
4
1
5
- Instruction for the activities + vocabulary presentation
Self-select the pair who has different reading text
collaborative syntactic priming activities (10-15 mins)
mp3 recording

20. Analysis: production of wh-questions
- Interaction during the tasks was audio-recorded and transcribed
- The transcript was analysed in terms of, (1) accuracy of primes,
(2) amount of wh-questions, (3) proportion scores of each wh-question
type

21. Results
Prompt-generated questions
- Total # of wh-questions : lexical boost > non-lexical boost
- wh-questions with supplied aux verb : lexical boost > non-lexical boost

22. Lexical
boost!
Proportion of target wh-questions by activity and feature (n=15)
- Proportions of target structure production by15 learners
target form (wh-questions with supplied aux. verbs)
total wh-questions
- Proportion scores =
- Production of wh-questions with supplied aux. verbs
Lexical boost group >> no lexical repetition group (p<.01; r=.88)

23. Syntactic priming activities with lexical boost will be
effective on eliciting more L2 production of the target
language (wh-questions with aux. verbs) compared to
activities without lexical repetition

24. However, will the activities with the lexical boost
(repetition) positively influence on L2 learners’
subsequent production of the target form?
- Short-term effect? (Hartsuiker et al, 2008)
- Lexical diversity (no lexical boost/repetition) will more facilitate
subsequent L2 production? (McDonough & Kim, 2009 etc)

25. Post-hoc: correlation between subsequent production and
syntactic priming activities
- Two oral posttests (info-exchanging activities without primes):
one week & five after the activities
- Priming activities with no lexical boost (lexical diversity) may have
positively influenced on subsequent production of target form

26. Key findings
• A task feature, lexical boost / repetition, may have
positively impacted on prompt-generated questions
(production of target structure)
• However, unlike activities with lexical diversity,
activities with lexical boost / repetition negatively
associated with the L2 learners’ subsequent
production

27. Other factors??

28. Discussion & implication
• Other factors…
- Task format
- Length and difficulty of the reading texts
- Task sequencing (ordering of primes and prompts)
- Proficiency level (Nakagawa et al, 2011; Morishita et al, 2013; Collentine, & Collentine, 2013)
- Cognitive load (Morishita, 2013)

29. No questions from
prompts !!
First time to use prompt!!

30. • Not only QUAN, but also QUALI impact on L2
development (considering “lexical diversity” effects)
• Need to investigate the effect of syntactic priming on
not only production, but also comprehension of L2
learners
• More tightly controlled classroom-based research with
diverse constructions, languages, modality
(spoken/written) of primes, and proficiency level will be
required

31. Finally…
Syntactic priming activities with lexical diverse (no
lexical boost) elicited very few target structure, but
were positively correlated with the learners’
subsequent production.
- Why did it occur?
- What the role of priming effect in the process of L2
learning?

32. Do you think some other activities may be more useful
for “pushing” learners to produce L2 and enhance L2
development?

33. Two aspects of L2 processing
(Segalowitz et.al 2011,pp.172-173 )
Easier for FonF
(cognitive load ↓)
Reduced lexical
competition（AB↓）
attentional resources
(cognitive load ↑）
Greater lexical
Recruitment of
while using L2
competition (AB↑）

34. Skehan’s “dual coding system”
(Skehan, 1998)
Rule-based
system
Exemplar-based
system
controlled practice
(focused task)
communicative
practice
(un-focused task)
language
awareness
spontaneous
production

35. Final comments
• Use both types of learning tasks; “repetition-rich” and “open-ended”
types,and promote “automaticity” and “attention-based”
processing (lexical boost → no lexical boost)
• Low proficient learners (reduced competition) need more form-focused
type (repetion-rich) to enhance automaticity of their
lexical access (i.e. training via syntactic priming tasks?)
• Engaged in more meaning-rich, cognitively demanding
communicative tasks, requiring use of greater lexical items, to
further facilitate attention-based processing (no lexical boost)

36. Your turn! Discussion Questions
Q1. How can we effectively incorporate the syntactic priming
tasks in the classroom-based L2 learning? (Ex. Do you have
brilliant ideas to better alter the sequence of the syntactic priming
tasks ?)
Q2. Do you think syntactic priming activities will equally elicit
low- and high-proficiency learners’ production of target
structures? Does the proficiency level affect the result?
Q3. Can adult L2 learners, unlike children, implicitly construct
or restructure complex structures? When they encounter
language problems in producing L2, how can they sort them
out?

37. References
Bock, K., & Griffin, Z. (2000). The persistence of structural priming: Transient activation or implicit learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
General, 129, 177–192.
Collentine, J., & Collentine, K. (2013). A corpus approach to studying structural convergence in task-based Spanish L2 interactions. In K.
McDonough & A. Mackey (Eds.), Second language interaction in diverse educational contexts (pp. 167-188). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gatbonton, E., & Segalowitz, N. (2005). Rethinking communicative language teaching: a focus on access to fluency. Canadian Modern
Language Review, 61, 325–353.
Hartsuiker, R., Bernolet, S., Schoonbaert, S., Speybroeck, S., & Vanderelst, D. (2008). Syntactic priming persists while the lexical boost
decays: Evidence from written and spoken dialogue. Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 214–238.
McDonough, K. (2011). Eliciting wh-questions through collaborative syntactic priming activities during peer interaction. In P. Trofimovich & K.
McDonough (Eds.), Insights from psycholinguistics: Applying priming research to L2 learning and teaching (pp.131-151). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
McDonough, K., & Chaikitmongkol, W. (2010). Collaborative syntactic priming activities and EFL learners’ production of wh-questions.
Canadian Modern Language Review, 66, 811–835.
McDonough, K., & Kim, Y. (2009). Syntactic priming, type frequency, and EFL learners’ production of wh-questions. The Modern Language
Journal, 93, 386–398
McDonough, K., & Mackey, A. (2008). Syntactic priming and ESL question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 31–47.
Morishita, M. (2011). How the difference in modality aflrects language production: A syntactic experiment using spoken and written sentence
completion tasks. JACET Journal. 53, 75-91.
Morishita, M. (2013). The effects of interaction on syntactic priming: A psycholinguistic study using scripted interaction tasks. Annual Review of
English Language Education in Japan. 24. 141-156.
Morishita, M, & Yamamoto, T. (2013). How syntactic processing training affects oral production of elementary level Japanese EFL learners.
Linguistic Research. 30-3, 435-452.
Nakagawa, E, Morishita, M. & Yokokawa, H. (2013). The effects of lexical processing and proficiency on syntactic priming during sentence
production by Japanese learners of English. Annual Review of English Language Education in Japan. 24. 189-204
Pickering, M., & Branigan, H. (1998). The representation of verbs: Evidence from syntactic priming in language production. Journal of Memory
and Language, 39, 633–651.
Segalowitz , N., Lacroix, G. L., & Job, J. (2011). The L2 semantic attentional blink: Implications for L2 learning. In P. Trofimovich & K.
McDonough (Eds.), Insights from psycholinguistics: Applying priming research to L2 learning and teaching (pp.155-178). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Skehan, P. (1988). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.