Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T10:40:36.614Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 November 2012

KIM McDONOUGH  and
TATIANA NEKRASOVA-BECKER
KIM McDONOUGH*
Affiliation:
Concordia University
TATIANA NEKRASOVA-BECKER
Affiliation:
Second Language Testing, Inc.
*
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: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 35 , Issue 2 , March 2014 , pp. 419 - 442
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.)

References

REFERENCES

Akhtar, N. (1999). Acquiring basic word order: Evidence for data-driven learning of syntactic structure. Journal of Child Language, 26, 339–356.Google Scholar
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, 87–129.Google Scholar
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, 519–557.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arnold, E. J., Waswo, T., Losongco, A., & Ginstrom, R. (2000). The effect of structural complexity and discourse status on constituent ordering. Language, 76, 28–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumann, J., & Culligan, B. (1995). Adapted general service list. Retrieved October 10, 2008, from http://jbauman.com/aboutgsl.html Google Scholar
Bencini, G., & Goldberg, A. E. (2000). The contribution of argument structure constructions to sentence meaning. Journal of Memory and Language, 43, 640–651.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). The Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
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, 157–199.Google Scholar
Boyd, J. K., & Goldberg, A. E. (2009). Input effects within a constructionist framework. Modern Language Journal, 93, 418–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, J. (2007). Is syntactic knowledge probabilistic? Experiments with the English dative alternation. In Featherston, S. & Sternefeld, W. (Eds.), Studies in generative grammar (pp. 75–96). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
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. 69–94). Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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, P. & Ellis, N. (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 216–236). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
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, 251–282.Google Scholar
Campbell, A., & Tomasello, M. (2001). The acquisition of English dative constructions. Applied Psycholinguistics, 22, 253–267.Google Scholar
Casenhiser, D., & Goldberg, A. E. (2005). Fast mapping between a phrasal form and meaning. Developmental Science, 8, 500–508.Google Scholar
Chan, A. (2010). The Cantonese double object construction with ‘bei2’ give in bilingual children: The role of input. International Journal of Bilingualism, 14, 65–85.Google Scholar
Childers, J., & Tomasello, M. (2001). The role of pronouns in young children's acquisition of the English transitive construction. Developmental Psychology 37, 739–748.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Collins, P. (1995). The indirect object construction in English: An informational approach. Linguistics 33, 35–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. (2006). Language acquisition as rational contingency learning. Applied Linguistics, 27, 1–24.Google Scholar
Ellis, N., & Cadierno, T. (2009). Constructing a second language: Introduction to the special section. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 111–139.Google Scholar
Ellis, N., & Ferreira-Junior, F. (2009). Construction learning as a function of frequency, frequency distribution, and function. Modern Language Journal, 93, 370–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, F. (1996). Is it better to give than to donate? Syntactic flexibility in language production. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 715–736.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1992). The inherent semantics of argument structure: The case of the English ditransitive construction. Cognitive Linguistics, 37, 37–74.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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. 197–215). New York: Routledge.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., & Sethuraman, N. (2005). The role of prediction in construction learning. Journal of Child Language, 32, 407–426.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A., Casenhiser, D., & White, T. (2007). Constructions as categories of language. New Ideas in Psychology, 25, 70–86.Google Scholar
Goldschneider, J., & DeKeyser, R. (2001). Explaining the “natural order of L2 morpheme acquisition” in English: A meta-analysis of multiple determinants. Language Learning, 51, 1–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. T. (2003). Towards a corpus-based identification of prototypical instances of constructions. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 1–27.Google Scholar
Gries, S. T. (2005). Syntactic priming: A corpus-based approach. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 34, 365–399.Google Scholar
Groefsema, M. (2001). The real-world colour of the dative alternation. Language Sciences, 23, 525–550.Google Scholar
Gropen, J., Pinker, S., Hollander, M., Goldberg, R., & Wilson, R. (1989). The learnability and acquisition of the dative alternation in English. Language, 65, 203–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, R. (1987). Markedness and the acquisition of the English dative alternation by L2 speakers. Second Language Research, 3, 21–55.Google Scholar
Hollmann, W. (2007). From language-specific constraints to implicational universals: A cognitive-typological view of the dative alternation. Functions of Language, 14, 57–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inagaki, S. (1997). Japanese and Chinese learners’ acquisition of the narrow-range rules for the dative alternation in English. Language Learning, 47, 637–669.Google Scholar
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, 161–189.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1990). Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kidd, E., Lieven, E., Tomasello, M. (2006). Examining the role of lexical frequency in children's acquisition of sentential complements. Cognitive Development, 21, 93–107.Google Scholar
Kidd, E., Lieven, E., Tomasello, M. (2010). Lexical frequency and exemplar-based learning effects in language acquisition: Evidence from sentential complements. Language Sciences 32, 132–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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. 168–196). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
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, 628–634.Google Scholar
Marefat, H. (2005). The impact of information structure as a discourse factor on the acquisition of dative alternation by L2 learners. Studia Linguistica, 59, 66–82.Google Scholar
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, 381–409.Google Scholar
Mazurkewich, I. (1984). The acquisition of the dative alternation by second language learners and linguistic theory. Language Learning, 34, 91–109.Google Scholar
Mazurkewich, I., & White, L. (1984). The acquisition of the dative alternation: Unlearning overgeneralizations. Cognition, 16, 261–283.Google Scholar
McDonough, K., & Kim, Y. (2009). Syntactic priming, type frequency, and EFL learners’ production of wh-questions. Modern Language Journal, 93, 386–398.Google Scholar
McDonough, K., & Trofimovich, P. (in press). Learning a novel pattern from balanced and skewed input. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition.Google Scholar
Oh, E. (2010). Recovery from first-language transfer: The second language acquisition of English double objects by Korean speakers. Second Language Research, 26, 407–439.Google Scholar
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. 521–532). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla.Google Scholar
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. 2564–2569). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
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. 2063–2068). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Rowland, C. (2007). Explaining errors in children's questions. Cognition, 104, 106–134.Google Scholar
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. 646–657). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla.Google Scholar
Snyder, W., & Stromswald, K. (1997). The structure and acquisition of the English dative construction. Linguistic Inquiry, 28, 281–317.Google Scholar
Tanaka, S. (1987). The selective use of specific exemplars in second-language performance: The case of the dative alternation. Language Learning, 37, 63–88.Google Scholar
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, 621–651.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Wolfe-Quintero, K. (1998). The connection between verbs and argument structures: Native speaker production of the double object dative. Applied Psycholinguistics, 19, 225–257.Google Scholar
Wonnacott, E., Newport, E. L., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2008). Acquiring and processing verb argument structure: Distributional learning in a miniature language. Cognitive Psychology, 56, 165–209.Google Scholar
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, 354–369.Google Scholar
Yap, F., & Iwasaki, S. (1998). “Give” construction in Malay, Thai and Mandarin Chinese: A polygrammaticization perspective. Chicago Linguistic Society, 34, 421–437.Google Scholar
Year, J. (2009). Korean speakers’ acquisition of the English ditransitive construction: The role of input frequency and distribution. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbia University.Google Scholar
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, 399–417.Google Scholar