The interaction between input frequency and constructional interference receives little attention in second language (L2) research. Two studies were conducted to test the effect of this interaction. Study 1 examined effects of both Zipfian frequency (ZF) and balanced frequency (BF) on L2 learning of English subject-extracted relative clauses (SRs). Participants learned SRs and finished a picture description task at pretest, posttest and delayed posttest. Results suggest that ZF was not superior to BF for learners to use SRs. Study 2 tested effects of ZF and BF on L2 learning of English object-extracted relative clauses (ORs). The learning and testing procedures were the same as those in Study 1, but different from Study 1 participants either with or without previous exposure to SRs learned ORs. Results show that ZF was not superior to BF for learners without previous exposure to SRs to use ORs, but more beneficial than BF for those with previous exposure to SRs to use ORs to describe pictures. These findings demonstrate that ZF was more effective than BF in inhibiting SR interference.
Abbot-SmithKBehrensH (2006) How known constructions influence the acquisition of other constructions: The German passive and future constructions. Cognitive Science30: 995–1026.
2.
AmbridgeBBidgoodATwomeyKE, et al. (2015) Preemption vs. entrenchment: Towards a construction general solution to the problem of the retreat from verb argument structure overgeneralization. PLoS ONE10: 1–20.
3.
BarrDJLevyRScheepersCTilyHJ (2013) Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language68: 255–78.
4.
BybeeJ (2008) Usage-based grammar and second language acquisition. In: RobinsonPEllisNC (eds) Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 216–36). New York: Routledge.
5.
CaiJWuY (2006) Accessibility hierarchy hypothesis and acquisition of English relative clauses. Modern Foreign Language29: 56–65.
6.
CasenhiserDGoldbergA (2005) Fast mapping between a phrasal form and meaning. Developmental Science8: 500–08.
7.
ClarkEClarkH (1979) When nouns surface as verbs. Language55: 767–811.
8.
CrossleySSubtireluNSalsburyT (2013) Frequency effects or context effects in second language word learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition35: 727–55.
9.
DongXZhangX (2017) Effects of different frequency distributions on L2 development of two English constructions. Modern Foreign Languages40: 540–51.
10.
EckmanFR (1984) Universals, typologies and interlanguage. In: RutherfordW (ed) Language universals and second language acquisition (pp. 79–105). Amsterdam / Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
11.
ElioRAndersonJ (1984) The effects of information order and learning mode on schema abstraction. Memory and Cognition12: 20–30.
12.
EllisN (2002) Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition24: 143–88.
13.
EllisN (2006a) Language acquisition as rational contingency learning. Applied Linguistics27: 1–24.
14.
EllisN (2006b) Cognitive perspectives on SLA: The associative-cognitive CREED. AILA Review19: 100–21.
15.
EllisNCadiernoT (2009) Constructing a second language. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics7: 111–290.
16.
EllisNCollinsL (2009) Input and second language acquisition: The roles of frequency, form, and function. Introduction to the special issue. Modern Language Journal93: 329–35.
17.
EllisNFerreira-JuniorF (2009) Construction learning as a function of frequency, frequency distribution, and function. Modern Language Journal93: 370–85.
18.
EllisNCSagarraN (2011) Learned attention in adult language acquisition: A replication and generalization study and meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition33: 589–624.
19.
EllisNO’DonnellMRömerU (2013) Usage-based language: Investigating the latent structures that underpin acquisition. Language Learning63: 25–51.
20.
FulgaAMcDonoughK (2016) The impact of first language background and visual information on the effectiveness of low-variability input. Applied Psycholinguistics37: 265–83.
21.
GassS (1979) Language transfer and universal grammatical relations. Language Learning29: 327–44.
22.
GoldbergAE (2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
23.
GoldbergAECasenhiserD (2008) Construction learning and second language acquisition. In: RobinsonPEllisNC (eds) Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 197–215). New York: Routledge.
GoldbergAECasenhiserDWhiteTR (2007) Constructions as categories of language. New Ideas in Psychology25: 70–86.
26.
IzumiSBigelowM (2000) Does output promote noticing and second language acquisition?TESOL Quarterly34: 239–78.
27.
KeenanEComrieB (1977) Noun phrase accessibility and Universal Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry8: 63–99.
28.
KiddELievenETomaselloM (2006) Examining the role of lexical frequency in the acquisition and processing of sentential complements. Cognitive Development21: 93–107.
29.
KrajewskiGSiebenbornA-KLievenEVM (2011) The shape of frequency distribution and novel construction learning. Unpublished paper presented at the Boston University Conference on Language Development, Boston, MA, USA.
30.
Larsen-FreemanD (2013) Transfer of learning transformed. Language Learning63: 107–29.
31.
McDonoughKNekrasova-BeckerT (2014) Comparing the effect of skewed and balanced input on English as a foreign language learners’ comprehension of the double-object dative construction. Applied Psycholinguistics35: 419–42.
32.
McDonoughKTrofimovichP (2013) Learning a novel pattern through balanced and skewed input. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition16: 654–62.
33.
MecklingerASchriefersHSteinhauerKFriedericiAD (1995) Processing relative clauses varying on syntactic and semantic dimensions: An analysis with event-related potentials. Memory and Cognition23: 477–94.
34.
MorrisWCCottrellGWElmanJL (2000) A connectionist simulation of the empirical acquisition of grammatical relations. In: WermterSSunR (eds) Hybrid neural symbolic integration (pp. 175–93). Berlin: Springer.
35.
NakamuraD (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 in Language Teaching50: 31–67.
36.
PajakBFineABKleinschmidtDFJaegerTF (2016) Learning additional languages as hierarchical probabilistic inference: Insights from first language processing. Language Learning66: 900–44.
37.
R Core Team (2015) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
38.
RichardsJC (1971) A non-contrastive approach to error analysis. English Language Teaching Journal25: 204–19.
39.
SchachterJCelce-MurciaM (1977) Some reservations concerning error analysis. TESOL Quarterly11: 441–51.
40.
ScovelT (2001) Learning new languages: A guide to second language acquisition. Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle.
41.
TomaselloM (2003) Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
WilsonTHoustonCEtlingKBrekkeN (1996) A new look at anchoring effects: Basic anchoring and its antecedents. Journal of Experiment Psychology: General125: 387–402.
44.
WulffSEllisNCRömerUBardovi-HarligKLeBlancCJ (2009) The acquisition of tense–aspect: Converging evidence from corpora and telicity ratings. Modern Language Journal93: 354–69.
45.
YearJGordonP (2009) Korean speakers’ acquisition of the English ditransitive construction: The role of verb prototype, input distribution, and frequency. Modern Language Journal93: 389–417.
46.
ZhangXDongX (2016) Revisiting Zipfian frequency: L2 acquisition of English prenominal past participles. Modern Language Journal100: 404–27.
47.
ZhangXMaW (2014) The effect of frequency distribution of language input on the acquisition of English phrasal construction by Chinese EFL learners. Modern Foreign Language37: 78–88.
48.
ZipfG (1935) The psycho-biology of language: An introduction to dynamic philology. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
