Animacy effects in the English genitive alternation: comparing native speakers and EFL learner judgments with corpus data

Tanguy Dubois*, Jason Grafmiller, Magali Paquot, Benedikt Szmrecsanyi

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

6 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Recent years have seen a heightened interest in the interface between language use and cognition in language learners. In this study, we investigate this interface further by conducting a rating task experiment on the intuitions of 25 native speakers and 101 low–intermediate to advanced learners of English as a Foreign Language regarding the acceptability of the genitive variants (the beauty of nature/nature’s beauty) in different contexts. These ratings were then compared against existing corpus-based statistical models that predict which variant is most likely in spoken language use with two mixed-effects linear regression models. The first model focused on the animacy of the possessor in particular, which has been found to have a different effect on native speakers and EFL learners in language use, whereas the second model tested how the ratings relate to the predictions as a whole. Results show that there is a larger discrepancy between language use and intuitions of low-proficiency learners compared to native speakers, which is partially because animate, collective, and inanimate possessors affect the intuitions and the language use of learners differently.
Original languageEnglish
JournalLanguage and Cognition
Early online date29 Nov 2023
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 29 Nov 2023

Bibliographical note

Financial support:
This work was supported by the Fonds de la Recherche Scientifique - FNRS under Grant(s) n° 40005897.

Keywords

  • rating task experiment
  • EFL learners
  • genitive alternation
  • usage-based SLA

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Animacy effects in the English genitive alternation: comparing native speakers and EFL learner judgments with corpus data'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this