This article reports on two studies, testing how three different types of input (skewed first, skewed random and balanced) affect second language (L2) learning of English present counterfactual (IF-Is) and past counterfactual (IF-IIs) conditionals, two constructions differing in complexity. The experiment included a proficiency test, a pretest, a posttest and a delayed posttest for both IF-Is and IF-IIs. Results suggest that the three types of input did not affect learning gains within the two complexity conditions. However, there was a difference in learning gains between the two conditions, namely that more gains were made in the simpler condition (i.e. IF-Is). In a follow-up study, effects of intralingual influence were tested. Participants who had studied IF-Is were taught the more complex construction, IF-IIs. Again, there were three different types of input (skewed first, skewed random and balanced). Results suggest that participants who received skewed input had higher gains and were less influenced by IF-Is they had learned before. Based on this, we concluded that skewed first input was able to effectively reduce the influence of IF-Is on IF-IIs during L2 learning.
BarrD.J.LevyR.ScheepersC.TilyH. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 255–278.
2.
BatesD.MaechlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 1–48.
3.
BerentG.P. (1985). Markedness considerations in the acquisition of conditional sentences. Language Learning, 35, 337–372.
4.
BoydJ.K.GoldbergA.E. (2009). Input effects within a constructionist framework. Modern Language Journal, 93, 418–429.
5.
BultéB.HousenA. (2012). Defining and operationalising L2 complexity. In HousenA.KuikenF.VedderI. (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Investigating complexity, accuracy, and fluency in SLA (pp. 21–46). Amsterdam: John Benjamin.
6.
BybeeJ.ThompsonS. (2000). Three frequency effects in syntax. Berkeley Linguistic Society, 23, 65–85.
7.
CasenhiserD.GoldbergA. (2005). Fast mapping between a phrasal form and meaning. Developmental Science, 8, 500–508.
8.
Celce-MurciaM.Larsen-FreemanD. (1999). The grammar book: An ESL/EFL teacher’s course. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
9.
ChouC.L. (2000). Chinese speakers’ acquisition of english conditionals: Acquisition order and L1 transfer effects. Second Language Studies, 19, 57–98.
10.
ClarkE.ClarkH. (1979). When nouns surface as verbs. Language, 55, 767–811.
11.
CordesA.-K. (2014). The role of frequency in children’s learning of novel morphology. Tübingen: Narr Francke Attempto.
12.
CrossleyS.SubtireluN.SalsburyT. (2013). Frequency effects or context effects in second language word learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 727–755.
13.
CrutchleyA. (2013). Structure of child and adult past counterfactuals, and implications for acquisition of the construction. Journal of Child Language, 40, 438–468.
14.
DeKeyserR.M. (2005). What makes learning second-language grammar difficult? A review of issues. Language Learning, 55, 1–25.
15.
EllisN.C. (2002). Frequency effects in language acquisition: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 143–188.
16.
EllisN.C. (2003). Constructions, chunking, and connectionism: The emergence of second language structure. In DoughtyC.LongM.H. (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 33–68). Oxford: Blackwell.
17.
EllisN.C. (2012). Learned attention and blocking. In RobinsonP. (Ed.) The Routledge encyclopedia of SLA (pp. 370–372). New York: Routledge.
18.
EllisN.C. (2016) Frequency in language learning and language change. In BehrensH.PfänderS. (Eds.), Experience counts: Frequency effects in language (pp. 239–256). Berlin: de Gruyter.
19.
EllisN.CadiernoT. (2009). Constructing a second language. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 111–290.
20.
EllisN.C.O’DonnellM.RömerU. (2013). Usage-based language: Investigating the latent structures that underpin acquisition. Language Learning, 63, 25–51.
21.
EllisN.C.RömerU.O’DonnellM.B. (2016). Usage-based approaches to language acquisition and processing: Cognitive and corpus investigations of construction grammar. Malden, MA: Wiley.
22.
FulgaA.McDonoughK. (2016). The impact of first language background and visual information on the effectiveness of low-variability input. Applied Psycholinguistics, 37, 265–283.
23.
GoldbergA.E. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
24.
GoldbergA.E.CasenhiserD. (2008). Construction learning and second language acquisition. In RobinsonP.EllisN. (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 197–215). New York: Routledge.
GoldbergA.CasenhiserD.WhiteT. (2007). Constructions as categories of language. New Ideas in Psychology, 25, 70–86.
27.
GoldstoneR.L. (1994). The role of similarity in categorization: Providing a groundwork. Cognition, 52, 125–157.
28.
HousenA.SimoensH. (2016). Introduction: Cognitive perspectives on difficulty and complexity in L2 acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 163–175.
29.
IzumiS.BigelowM. (2000). Does output promote noticing and second language acquisition?TESOL Quarterly, 34, 239–278.
30.
KiddE.LievenE.TomaselloM. (2006). Examining the role of lexical frequency in the acquisition and processing of sentential complements. Cognitive Development, 21, 93–107.
Larsen-FreemanD. (2013). Transfer of learning transformed. Language Learning, 63, 107–129.
33.
LiuH. (2011). Second language acquisition of If-conditionals in English. Unpublished MA thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei City, Taiwan.
34.
MadlenerK. (2015). Frequency effects in instructed second language acquisition. Berlin: De Gruyter.
35.
MadlenerK. (2016). Input optimization: Effects of type and token frequency manipulations in instructed second language learning. In BehrensH.PfänderS. (Eds.), Experience counts: Frequency effects in language (pp. 133–173). Berlin: De Gruyter.
36.
MaguireM.J.Hirsh-PasekK.GolinkoffR.M.BrandoneA.C. (2008). Focusing on the relation: Fewer exemplars facilitate children’s initial verb learning and extension. Developmental Science, 11, 628–634.
37.
McDonoughK.Nekrasova-BeckerT. (2014). Comparing the effect of skewed andbalanced input on English as a foreign language learners’ comprehension of the double-object dative construction. Applied Psycholinguistics, 35, 419–442.
38.
McDonoughK.TrofimovichP. (2013). Learning a novel pattern through balanced and skewed input. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16, 654–662.
39.
MintzT.H.NewportE.L.BeverT. (2002). The distributional structure of grammatical categories in speech to young children. Cognitive Science, 26, 393–424.
40.
MorrisW.C.CottrellG.W.ElmanJ.L. (2000). A connectionist simulation of the empirical acquisition of grammatical relations. In WermterS.SunR. (Eds.), Hybrid neural symbolic integration (pp. 175–193). Berlin: Springer.
41.
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, 50, 31–67.
42.
NinioA. (1999). Pathbreaking verbs in syntactic development and the question of prototypical transitivity. Journal of Child Language, 26, 619–653.
43.
O’GradyW. (1997). Syntactic development. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
44.
PerkinsD.N.SalomonG. (2012). Knowledge to go: A motivational and dispositional view of transfer. Educational Psychologist, 47, 248–258.
45.
PosnerM.I.MitchellR.F. (1967). Chronometric analysis of classification. Psychological Review, 74, 392–409.
46.
R Core Team. (2013). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing, Version 4.0.0 [Computer software manual]. Vienna. Retrieved from: http://www.R-project.org (accessed December 2020).
47.
RehderN. (2001). Interference between cognitive skills. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 27, 451–469.
48.
SagiE.GentnerD.LovettA. (2012). What difference reveals about similarity. Cognitive Science, 36, 1019–1050.
49.
ScovelT. (2001). Learning new languages: A guide to second language acquisition. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
50.
SingleyM.AndersonJ. (1989). The transfer of cognitive skill. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
51.
SkehanP. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
52.
TaylorJ.R. (2003). Linguistic categorization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
53.
UngererF.SchmidH.-J. (2006). An introduction to cognitive linguistics. Harlow: Pearson Education.
54.
VanPattenB. (2015). Input processing in adult second language acquisition. In VanPattenB.WilliamsJ. (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 113–134). New York: Routledge.
55.
WulffS.EllisN.C.RömerU.Bardovi-HarligK.LeBlancC.J. (2009). The acquisition of tense–aspect: Converging evidence from corpora and telicity ratings. Modern Language Journal, 93, 354–369.
56.
XinS. (2017). Effects of continuation task condition on L2 grammatical structure acquisition. Modern Foreign Languages, 40, 507–517.
57.
YearJ.GordonP. (2009). Korean speakers’ acquisition of the English ditransitive construction: The role of verb prototype, input distribution, and frequency. Modern Language Journal, 93, 399–417.
58.
ZhangX.MaW. (2014). The effect of frequency distribution of language input on the acquisition of English phrasal construction by Chinese EFL learners. Modern Foreign Languages, 37, 74–84.
59.
ZhangX.DongX. (2016). Revisiting Zipfian frequency: L2 acquisition of English prenominal past participles. The Modern Language Journal, 100, 404–427.
60.
ZipfG.K. (1935). The psycho-biology of language: An introduction to dynamic philology. Cambridge, MA: 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.
