Skip to main content Accesibility Help
×
×
Home

Comparing the effect of skewed and balanced input on English as a foreign language learners’ comprehension of the double-object dative construction

  • KIM McDONOUGH (a1) and TATIANA NEKRASOVA-BECKER (a2)
Abstract

According to usage-based approaches to acquisition, the detection of a construction may be facilitated when input contains numerous exemplars with a shared lexical item, which is referred to as skewed input. First language studies have shown that skewed input is more beneficial for the acquisition of novel constructions than balanced input, in which a small set of lexical verbs occurs an equal number of times. However, a second language (L2) study of datives found no advantage for skewed input compared to balanced input. The present study compared the effectiveness of skewed and balanced input at facilitating the comprehension of the double-object dative construction in L2 English. Over a 2-week period, Thai English as foreign language learners (N = 78) completed comprehension tests and a treatment activity that provided either skewed first, skewed random, or balanced input. The results indicated that balanced input was most effective at promoting comprehension of double-object datives. The implications are discussed in terms of the benefits of different types of input for L2 learners.

Copyright
Corresponding author
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Kim McDonough, Department of Education, Concordia University (LB-583-1), 1455 de Maisonneuve Boulevard West, Montréal, QC H3G 1M8, Canada. E-mail: kim.mcdonough@concordia.ca
References
Hide All
Akhtar, N. (1999). Acquiring basic word order: Evidence for data-driven learning of syntactic structure. Journal of Child Language, 26, 339356.
Ambridge, B., Pine, J. M., Rowland, C. F., & Young, C. R. (2008). The effect of verb semantic class and verb frequency (entrenchment) on children's and adults’ graded judgments of argument-structure overgeneralization errors. Cognition, 106, 87129.
Ambridge, B., Rowland, C., Theakston, A., & Tomasello, M. (2006). Comparing different accounts of inversion errors in children's non-subject wh-questions: What experimental data can tell us? Journal of Child Language, 33, 519557.
Arnold, E. J., Waswo, T., Losongco, A., & Ginstrom, R. (2000). The effect of structural complexity and discourse status on constituent ordering. Language, 76, 2855.
Baumann, J., & Culligan, B. (1995). Adapted general service list. Retrieved October 10, 2008, from http://jbauman.com/aboutgsl.html
Bencini, G., & Goldberg, A. E. (2000). The contribution of argument structure constructions to sentence meaning. Journal of Memory and Language, 43, 640651.
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). The Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.
Bley-Vroman, R., & Yoshinaga, N. (1992). Broad and narrow constraints on the English dative alternation: Some fundamental difference between native speakers and foreign language learners. University of Hawai'i Working Papers in ESL, 11, 157199.
Boyd, J. K., & Goldberg, A. E. (2009). Input effects within a constructionist framework. Modern Language Journal, 93, 418429.
Bresnan, J. (2007). Is syntactic knowledge probabilistic? Experiments with the English dative alternation. In Featherston, S. & Sternefeld, W. (Eds.), Studies in generative grammar (pp. 7596). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Bresnan, J., Cueni, A., Nikitina, T., & Baayen, R. H. (2007). Predicting the dative alternation. In Bouma, G., Kraemer, I., & Zwarts, J. (Eds.), Cognitive foundations of interpretation (pp. 6994). Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science.
Bresnan, J., & Hay, S. (2008). Gradient grammar: An effect of animacy on the syntax of give in New Zealand and American English. Lingua, 118, 245–59.
Bybee, J. (2006). From usage to grammar: The mind's response to repetition. Language, 82, 711733.
Bybee, J. (2008). Usage-based grammar and second language acquisition. In Robinson, P. & Ellis, N. (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 216236). New York: Routledge.
Cameron-Faulkner, T., Lieven, E., & Theakston, A. (2007). What part of no do children not understand? A usage-based account of multi-word negation. Journal of Child Language, 34, 251282.
Campbell, A., & Tomasello, M. (2001). The acquisition of English dative constructions. Applied Psycholinguistics, 22, 253267.
Casenhiser, D., & Goldberg, A. E. (2005). Fast mapping between a phrasal form and meaning. Developmental Science, 8, 500508.
Chan, A. (2010). The Cantonese double object construction with ‘bei2’ give in bilingual children: The role of input. International Journal of Bilingualism, 14, 6585.
Childers, J., & Tomasello, M. (2001). The role of pronouns in young children's acquisition of the English transitive construction. Developmental Psychology 37, 739748.
Collins, P. (1995). The indirect object construction in English: An informational approach. Linguistics 33, 3549.
Ellis, N. (2006). Language acquisition as rational contingency learning. Applied Linguistics, 27, 124.
Ellis, N., & Cadierno, T. (2009). Constructing a second language: Introduction to the special section. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 111139.
Ellis, N., & Ferreira-Junior, F. (2009). Construction learning as a function of frequency, frequency distribution, and function. Modern Language Journal, 93, 370385.
Ferreira, F. (1996). Is it better to give than to donate? Syntactic flexibility in language production. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 715736.
Goldberg, A. E. (1992). The inherent semantics of argument structure: The case of the English ditransitive construction. Cognitive Linguistics, 37, 3774.
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goldberg, A. E. (2009). The nature of generalization in language. Cognitive Linguistics, 20, 93127.
Goldberg, A. E., & Casenhiser, D. M. (2008). Construction learning and second language acquisition. In Robinson, P. & Ellis, N. (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 197215). New York: Routledge.
Goldberg, A. E., Casenhiser, D. M., & Sethuraman, N. (2004). Learning argument structure generalizations. Cognitive Linguistics, 15, 289316.
Goldberg, A. E., Casenhiser, D. M., & Sethuraman, N. (2005). The role of prediction in construction learning. Journal of Child Language, 32, 407426.
Goldberg, A., Casenhiser, D., & White, T. (2007). Constructions as categories of language. New Ideas in Psychology, 25, 7086.
Goldschneider, J., & DeKeyser, R. (2001). Explaining the “natural order of L2 morpheme acquisition” in English: A meta-analysis of multiple determinants. Language Learning, 51, 150.
Gries, S. T. (2003). Towards a corpus-based identification of prototypical instances of constructions. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 127.
Gries, S. T. (2005). Syntactic priming: A corpus-based approach. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 34, 365399.
Groefsema, M. (2001). The real-world colour of the dative alternation. Language Sciences, 23, 525550.
Gropen, J., Pinker, S., Hollander, M., Goldberg, R., & Wilson, R. (1989). The learnability and acquisition of the dative alternation in English. Language, 65, 203257.
Hawkins, R. (1987). Markedness and the acquisition of the English dative alternation by L2 speakers. Second Language Research, 3, 2155.
Hollmann, W. (2007). From language-specific constraints to implicational universals: A cognitive-typological view of the dative alternation. Functions of Language, 14, 5778.
Inagaki, S. (1997). Japanese and Chinese learners’ acquisition of the narrow-range rules for the dative alternation in English. Language Learning, 47, 637669.
Izumi, S., & Nishimura, A. (2002). Accuracy and explicit knowledge in second language performance: The case of dative alternation for Japanese ESL learners. Sophia Linguistica: Working Papers in Linguistics, 49, 161189.
Jackendoff, R. (1990). Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kidd, E., Lieven, E., Tomasello, M. (2006). Examining the role of lexical frequency in children's acquisition of sentential complements. Cognitive Development, 21, 93107.
Kidd, E., Lieven, E., Tomasello, M. (2010). Lexical frequency and exemplar-based learning effects in language acquisition: Evidence from sentential complements. Language Sciences 32, 132142.
Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2008). Children's first language acquisition from a usage-based perspective. In Robinson, P. & Ellis, N. (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 168196). New York: Routledge.
Maguire, M. J., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Golinkoff, R. M., & Brandone, A. C. (2008). Focusing on the relation: Fewer exemplars facilitate children's initial verb learning and extension. Developmental Science, 11, 628634.
Marefat, H. (2005). The impact of information structure as a discourse factor on the acquisition of dative alternation by L2 learners. Studia Linguistica, 59, 6682.
Matthews, D., Lieven, E., Theakston, A., & Tomasello, M. (2007). French children's use and correction of weird word orders: A constructivist account. Journal of Child Language, 34, 381409.
Mazurkewich, I. (1984). The acquisition of the dative alternation by second language learners and linguistic theory. Language Learning, 34, 91109.
Mazurkewich, I., & White, L. (1984). The acquisition of the dative alternation: Unlearning overgeneralizations. Cognition, 16, 261283.
McDonough, K., & Kim, Y. (2009). Syntactic priming, type frequency, and EFL learners’ production of wh-questions. Modern Language Journal, 93, 386398.
McDonough, K., & Trofimovich, P. (in press). Learning a novel pattern from balanced and skewed input. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition.
Oh, E. (2010). Recovery from first-language transfer: The second language acquisition of English double objects by Korean speakers. Second Language Research, 26, 407439.
Park, H., & Zhang, L. (2002). Native vs. non-native knowledge of the effects of discourse status on word order. In Skarabela, B., Fish, S, & Do, A. H. J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 521532). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla.
Reeder, P. A., Newport, E. L., & Aslin, R. N. (2009). The role of distributional information in linguistic category formation. In Taatgen, N. & van Rijn, H. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 25642569). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
Reeder, P. A., Newport, E. L., & Aslin, R. N. (2010). Novel words in novel contexts: The role of distributional information in form-class category learning. In Ohlsson, S. & Catrambone, R. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 20632068). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
Rowland, C. (2007). Explaining errors in children's questions. Cognition, 104, 106134.
Sawyer, M. (1996). L1 and L2 sensitivity to semantic constraints on argument structure. In Stringfellow, A., Cahana-Amitay, D., Hughes, E., & Zukowski, A. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 20th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 646657). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla.
Snyder, W., & Stromswald, K. (1997). The structure and acquisition of the English dative construction. Linguistic Inquiry, 28, 281317.
Tanaka, S. (1987). The selective use of specific exemplars in second-language performance: The case of the dative alternation. Language Learning, 37, 6388.
Thepkanjana, K., & Uehara, S. (2008). The verb of giving in Thai and Mandarin Chinese as a case of polysemy: A comparative study. Language Sciences, 30, 621651.
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Whong-Barr, M., & Schwartz, B. (2002). Morphological and syntactic transfer in child L2 acquisition of the English dative alternation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 579–561.
Wolfe-Quintero, K. (1998). The connection between verbs and argument structures: Native speaker production of the double object dative. Applied Psycholinguistics, 19, 225257.
Wonnacott, E., Newport, E. L., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2008). Acquiring and processing verb argument structure: Distributional learning in a miniature language. Cognitive Psychology, 56, 165209.
Wulff, S., Ellis, N., Romer, U., Bardovi-Harlig, K., & LeBlanc, C. (2009). The acquisition of tense-aspect: Converging evidence from corpora, cognition, and learner constructions. Modern Language Journal, 93, 354369.
Yap, F., & Iwasaki, S. (1998). “Give” construction in Malay, Thai and Mandarin Chinese: A polygrammaticization perspective. Chicago Linguistic Society, 34, 421437.
Year, J. (2009). Korean speakers’ acquisition of the English ditransitive construction: The role of input frequency and distribution. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbia University.
Year, J., & Gordon, P. (2009). Korean speakers’ acquisition of the English ditransitive construction: The role of verb prototype, input distribution, and frequency. Modern Language Journal, 93, 399417.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Applied Psycholinguistics
  • ISSN: 0142-7164
  • EISSN: 1469-1817
  • URL: /core/journals/applied-psycholinguistics
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed