Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-684899dbb8-662rr Total loading time: 0.282 Render date: 2022-05-26T10:30:40.693Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true }

Learning a novel pattern through balanced and skewed input*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 November 2012

KIM MCDONOUGH*
Affiliation:
Concordia University
PAVEL TROFIMOVICH
Affiliation:
Concordia University
*
Address for correspondence: Kim McDonough, Department of Education, Concordia University (LB-579), 1455 de Maisonneuve Blvd. W., Montréal, Québec, CanadaH3G 1M8Kim.McDonough@concordia.ca

Abstract

This study compared the effectiveness of balanced and skewed input at facilitating the acquisition of the transitive construction in Esperanto, characterized by the accusative suffix -n and variable word order (SVO, OVS). Thai university students (N = 98) listened to 24 sentences under skewed (one noun with high token frequency) or balanced (equally-low token frequency) presentation following either inductive (rule not given) or deductive (rule given) instructions. In the testing phase, they heard 20 sentences (10 SVO, 10 OVS) with new nouns and identified the object. Only the group that received balanced input and deductive instructions detected the novel pattern.

Type
Research Notes
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

This study was supported by a standard research grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. We are grateful to Amélie Bissonnette and Teresa Hernández-González for their help with creating study materials and to Adele Goldberg and anonymous BLC reviewers for their helpful input and feedback on the content of this manuscript.

References

Bybee, J. (2006). From usage to grammar: The mind's response to repetition. Language, 82, 711733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. (2008). Usage-based grammar and second language acquisition. In Robinson & Ellis (eds.), pp. 216–236.Google Scholar
Casenhiser, D. M., & Goldberg, A. E. (2005). Fast mapping between a phrasal form and meaning. Developmental Science, 8, 500508.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cox, G. (2011). The international auxiliary language Esperanto grammar and commentary (4th edn.). London: British Esperanto Association Incorporated. [Project Guttenberg ebook: http://www.archive.org/stream/theinternational35815gut/35815-0.txt]Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition, pp. 4263. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning. In Doughty, C. & Long, M. H. (eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition, pp. 313348. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2006a). Language acquisition as rational contingency learning. Applied Linguistics, 27, 124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2006b). Selective attention and transfer phenomena in SLA: Contingency, cue competition, salience, interference, overshadowing, blocking, and perceptual learning. Applied Linguistics, 27, 164194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2008). Usage-based and form-focused language acquisition: The associative learning of constructions, learned attention, and the limited L2 endstate. In Robinson & Ellis (eds.), pp. 372–405.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & Sagarra, N. (2010). The bounds of adult language acquisition: Blocking and learned attention. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 553580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & Sagarra, N. (2011). Learned attention on adult second language acquisition: A replication and meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33, 589624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erlam, R. (2003). The effects of deductive and inductive instruction on the acquisition of direct object pronouns in French as a second language. Modern Language Journal, 87, 242260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2009). The nature of generalization in language. Cognitive Linguistics, 20, 93127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E., & Casenhiser, D. M. (2008). Construction learning and second language acquisition. In Robinson & Ellis (eds.), pp. 197–215.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E., Casenhiser, D. M., & Sethuraman, N. (2004). Learning argument structure generalizations. Cognitive Linguistics, 15, 289316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E., Casenhiser, D. M., & White, T. (2007). Constructions as categories of language. New Ideas in Psychology, 25, 7086.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haight, C., Herron, C., & Cole, S. P. (2007). The effects of inductive and deductive instructional approaches on the learning of grammar in the elementary foreign language classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 40, 288311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harlow, D. (1995). The sixteen rules of Esperanto grammar. http://donh.best.vwh.net/Esperanto/rules.html (retrieved April 18, 2011).Google Scholar
Herron, C., & Tomasello, M. (1992). Acquiring grammar structures by guided induction. The French Review, 65, 708718.Google Scholar
Macmillan, N. A., & Creelman, C. D. (2005). Detection theory: A user's guide (2nd edn.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2008). A unified model. In Robinson & Ellis (eds.), pp. 341–371.Google Scholar
McDonough, K., & Nekrasova-Becker, T. (in press). Comparing the effect of skewed and balanced input on EFL learners’ comprehension of the double-object dative construction. Applied Psycholinguistics.Google Scholar
Nakamura, D. (2012). Input skewedness, consistency, and order of frequent verbs in frequency-driven second language construction learning: A replication and extension of Casenhiser and Goldberg (2005) to adult second language acquisition. International Review of Applied Linguistics (IRAL), 50, 3167.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (1996). Learning simple and complex second language rules under implicit, incidental, rule-search, and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 2777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P., & Ellis, N. C. (eds.) (2008). Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rosa, E., & O'Neill, M. D. (1999). Explicitness, intake, and the issue of awareness: Another piece to the puzzle. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 511556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction in second language acquisition. Westport, CT: Ablex.Google Scholar
Vogel, S., Herron, C., Cole, S., & York, H. (2011). Effectiveness of a guided inductive versus a deductive approach on the learning of grammar in the intermediate-level college French classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 44, 353380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Year, J., & Gordon, P. (2009). Korean speakers’ acquisition of the English ditransitive construction: The role of verb prototype, input distribution, and frequency. The Modern Language Journal, 93, 399417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zipf, G. K. (1935). The psycho-biology of language: An introduction to dynamic philology. Cambridge: MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
21
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Learning a novel pattern through balanced and skewed input*
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Learning a novel pattern through balanced and skewed input*
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Learning a novel pattern through balanced and skewed input*
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *