Hostname: page-component-784d4fb959-2wsk2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-07-15T17:41:12.549Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Learning a novel pattern through balanced and skewed input*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 November 2012

KIM MCDONOUGH  and
PAVEL TROFIMOVICH
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
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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.

Keywords

skewed inputconstruction learningtransitive constructionlow-variability inputEsperanto

Information

Type
Research Notes
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 16 , Issue 3 , July 2013 , pp. 654 - 662
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

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, 711–733.Google 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, 500–508.Google 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. 42–63. 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. 313–348. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2006a). Language acquisition as rational contingency learning. Applied Linguistics, 27, 1–24.Google 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, 164–194.Google 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, 553–580.Google 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, 589–624.Google 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, 242–260.Google 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, 93–127.Google 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, 289–316.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E., Casenhiser, D. M., & White, T. (2007). Constructions as categories of language. New Ideas in Psychology, 25, 70–86.Google 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, 288–311.Google 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, 708–718.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, 31–67.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, 27–77.Google 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, 511–556.Google 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, 353–380.Google 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, 399–417.Google Scholar
Zipf, G. K. (1935). The psycho-biology of language: An introduction to dynamic philology. Cambridge: MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar