Korean Speakers' Acquisition of the English Ditransitive Construction: The Role of Verb Prototype, Input Distribution, and Frequency

Recent studies in usage-based linguistics have found that construction learning is more effective when input is skewed toward a prototypical exemplar of the construction, thereby reflecting the frequency distribution in natural language. This study investigates the extent to which a prototypical ditransitive verb with high frequency ( give) facilitates the acquisition of the English ditransitive construction in Korean children learning English in a community in which exposure to English is rare outside of the formal classroom setting. Six classes were randomly assigned to either a skewed frequency group, where the input was skewed toward give, or a balanced frequency group, where the input was evenly distributed among the training ditransitive verbs. This experiment found little evidence for the facilitative effects of skewed input on construction learning. Instead, the results suggest that construction learning in this situation is superior with a more balanced set of verbs rather than a focus on a single prototype. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

[1]  A. Ninio Pathbreaking verbs in syntactic development and the question of prototypical transitivity , 1999, Journal of Child Language.

[2]  B. D. Schwartz,et al.  MORPHOLOGICAL AND SYNTACTIC TRANSFER IN CHILD L2 ACQUISITION OF THE ENGLISH DATIVE ALTERNATION , 2002, Studies in Second Language Acquisition.

[3]  Kidd Ej,et al.  Examining the role of lexical frequency in children's acquisition and processing of sentential complements. , 2006 .

[4]  Mark K. Johansen,et al.  Are there representational shifts during category learning? , 2002, Cognitive Psychology.

[5]  G. Murphy,et al.  The Big Book of Concepts , 2002 .

[6]  Adele E. Goldberg,et al.  CONSTRUCTION LEARNING AND SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION , 2008 .

[7]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Alternatives to the combinatorial paradigm of linguistic theory based on domain general principles of human cognition , 2005 .

[8]  S. Pinker Learnability and Cognition: The Acquisition of Argument Structure , 1989 .

[9]  A. Goldberg Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language , 2006 .

[10]  Joan L. Bybee,et al.  USAGE-BASED GRAMMAR AND SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION , 2008 .

[11]  Ronald W. Langacker,et al.  COGNITIVE GRAMMAR AS A BASIS FOR LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION , 2008 .

[12]  M. Braine Children's First Word Combinations. , 1976 .

[13]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  वाक्यविन्यास का सैद्धान्तिक पक्ष = Aspects of the theory of syntax , 1965 .

[14]  M Moscovitch,et al.  Rule-based and exemplar-based classification in artificial grammar learning , 1985, Memory & cognition.

[15]  Adele E. Goldberg,et al.  Learning argument structure generalizations , 2004 .

[16]  A. Goldberg Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure , 1995 .

[17]  R. Ellis MEASURING IMPLICIT AND EXPLICIT KNOWLEDGE OF A SECOND LANGUAGE: A Psychometric Study , 2005, Studies in Second Language Acquisition.

[18]  김두식,et al.  English Verb Classes and Alternations , 2006 .

[19]  Anna L. Theakston,et al.  The distributed learning effect for children's acquisition of an abstract grammatical construction , 2006 .

[20]  Joan L. Bybee,et al.  Frequency of Use and the Organization of Language , 2006 .

[21]  J. Bresnan,et al.  The Gradience of the Dative Alternation , 2008 .

[22]  Michael Barlow,et al.  Usage-based models of language , 2000 .

[23]  Gregory L. Murphy The study of concepts inside and outside of the laboratory: Medin verus Medin , 2005 .

[24]  B. MacWhinney,et al.  Functionalism and the competition model , 1989 .

[25]  R. Leow The Effects of Amount and Type of Exposure on Adult Learners' L2 Development in SLA , 1998 .

[26]  Michael Tomasello,et al.  Children Extend Both Words and Non-Verbal Actions to Novel Exemplars , 2003 .

[27]  R. Jackendoff Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution , 2002 .

[28]  Nick C. Ellis,et al.  Construction Learning as a Function of Frequency, Frequency Distribution, and Function. , 2009 .

[29]  The Acquisition of Tense , 2004 .

[30]  Yasuhiro Shirai,et al.  The Acquisition of Tense-Aspect Morphology: A Prototype Account. , 1995 .

[31]  Stefanie Wulff,et al.  The acquisition of tense-aspect: Converging evidence from corpora and telicity ratings , 2009 .

[32]  A. L. Campbell,et al.  The acquisition of English dative constructions , 2001, Applied Psycholinguistics.

[33]  YouJin Kim,et al.  Syntactic Priming, Type Frequency, and EFL Learners' Production of Wh-Questions , 2009 .

[34]  Adele E. Goldberg,et al.  Constructions as categories of language , 2007 .

[35]  William O'Grady,et al.  Categories and case , 1991 .

[36]  J. Fodor,et al.  The red herring and the pet fish: why concepts still can't be prototypes , 1996, Cognition.

[37]  Douglas L. Medin,et al.  Context theory of classification learning. , 1978 .

[38]  B. MacWhinney A UNIFIED MODEL , 2007 .

[39]  J. D. Smith,et al.  Thirty categorization results in search of a model. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[40]  Devin M. Casenhiser,et al.  Fast mapping between a phrasal form and meaning. , 2005, Developmental science.

[41]  Z. Harris,et al.  Foundations of language , 1941 .

[42]  Nick C. Ellis,et al.  Chapter 19. Conclusion: Cognitive Linguistics, Second Language Acquisition and L2 Instruction—Issues for Research , 2008 .

[43]  Andrew C. Connolly,et al.  Why stereotypes don’t even make good defaults , 2007, Cognition.

[44]  John R. Anderson,et al.  The effects of information order and learning mode on schema abstraction , 1984, Memory & cognition.

[45]  Nick C. Ellis,et al.  USAGE-BASED AND FORM-FOCUSED LANGUAGE ACQUISITION: The associative learning of constructions, learned attention, and the limited L2 endstate , 2008 .

[46]  Michael Tomasello,et al.  Examining the role of lexical frequency in the acquisition and processing of sentential complements , 2006 .

[47]  Joan L. Bybee,et al.  Regular morphology and the lexicon. , 1995 .