Article

입력 빈도 분포 유형이 제2언어 구문 학습에 미치는 영향

신유나1, 이상기2,*
Yuna Shin1, Sang-Ki Lee2,*
Author Information & Copylight
1평산초등학교
1한국교원대학교
1Pyeongsan Elementary School
1Korea National University of Education
*Corresponding Author : 교수, 영어교육과, 한국교원대학교 충북 청주시 흥덕구 강내면 태성탑연로 250, E-mail: slee@knue.ac.kr

ⓒ Copyright 2018 Language Education Institute, Seoul National University. This is an Open-Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Received: Oct 31, 2018 ; Revised: Dec 05, 2018 ; Accepted: Dec 16, 2018

Published Online: Dec 31, 2018

ABSTRACT

English is taught and learned as a foreign language in Korea, which results in an inadequate amount of natural input, which, in turn, makes it imperative that language input be manipulated in ways that would lead to better learning outcomes. In this quasi-experimental study, 91 Korean elementary school students were randomly assigned into one of the five input frequency distribution conditions (one balanced distribution condition, three skewed-first distribution conditions with three different levels of skewedness, and one control condition) and exposed to a novel construction in English. The results showed overall that frequency did work and that the more skewed the distribution was, the more learning outcomes were observed (in terms of the extent of construction learning as well as the generalizability of the learned knowledge). The findings are discussed in light of the input-driven usage-based and frequency-based approaches to language learning.

Keywords: input frequency distribution; usage-based approach to language learning; cognitive linguistics; construction learning

References

1.

이상기. (2014). 입력 빈도와 입력 분포의 유형이 제2언어습득에 미치는 영향. 권오량(편), 현대 영어교육학 연구의 지평 (pp. 247-273). 서울: 서울대학교 출판문화원.

2.

이혜윤. (2016). 입력 분포 유형이 초등 영어 학습자의 이중목적어 구문 습득에 미치는 영향. 미출간석사학위논문, 한국교원대학교, 충북.

3.

Ambridge, B., Kidd, E., Rowland, C. F. and Theakston, A. L. (2015). The ubiquity of frequency effects in first language acquisition. Journal of Child Language 42, 239-273.

4.

Behrens, H. and Pfänder, S. (2016). Experience Counts: Frequency Effects in Language. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

5.

Boyd, J. K. and Goldberg, A. E. (2012). Young children fail to fully generalize a novel argument structure construction when exposed to the same input as older learners. Journal of Child Language 39(3), 457-481.

6.

Brooks, P. J. and Tomasello, M. (1999). How children constrain their argument structure constructions. Language 75, 720-738.

7.

Bybee, J. (2008). Usage-based grammar and second language acquisition. In P. Robinson and N. C. Ellis, eds., Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition 216-236. New York: Routledge.

8.

Bybee, J. and Hopper, R. eds. (2001). Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

9.

Cadierno, T. and Eskildsen, S. W. (2015). Usage-Based Perspectives on Second Language Learning. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

10.

Casenhiser, D. and Goldberg, A. E. (2005). Fast mapping between a phrasal form and meaning. Developmental Science 8(6), 500-508.

11.

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

12.

Ellis, N. C. (2009). Optimizing the input: Frequency and sampling in usage-based and form-focused learning. In M. H. Long and C. J. Doughty, eds., The Handbook of Language Teaching 139-157. Oxford: Blackwell.

13.

Ellis, N. C. and Robinson, P. (2008). An introduction to cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition, and language instruction. In P. Robinson and N. C. Ellis, eds., Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition 3-24. New York: Routledge.

14.

Ellis, N. C., Römer, U. and O'Donnell, M. B. (2016). Usage-Based Approaches to Language Acquisition and Processing: Cognitive and Corpus Investigations of Construction Grammar. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

15.

Goldberg, A. E., Casenhiser, D. M. and Sethuraman, N. (2004). Learning argument structure generalizations. Cognitive Linguistics 15(3), 289-316.

16.

Goldberg, A. E., Casenhiser, D. and White, T. R. (2007). Constructions as categories of language. New Ideas in Psychology 25(2), 70-86.

17.

Goldschneider, J. M. and DeKeyser, R. M. (2001). Explaining the "natural order of L2 morpheme acquisition" in English: A Meta‐analysis of multiple determinants. Language Learning 51(1), 1-50.

18.

Langacker, R. W. (2000). A dynamic usage-based model. In M. Barlow and S. Kemmer, eds., Usage-Based Models of Language 1-63. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.

19.

Lee, J. F. (2002). The incidental acquisition of Spanish: Future tense morphology through reading in a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 55-80.

20.

Lee, S.-K. (2008). Salience, Frequency, and Aptitude in the Learning of Unaccusativity in a Second Language: An Input Enhancement Study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu.

21.

Lee, S.-K., Miyata, M. and Ortega, L. (2008). A usage-based approach to overpassivization: The role of input and conceptualization biases. Paper presented at the 26th Second Language Research Forum, Honolulu, HI. October 17-19.

22.

Lieven, E. (2016). Usage-based approaches to language development: Where do we go from here? Language and Cognition 8, 346-368.

23.

Littlemore, J. (2009). Applying Cognitive Linguistics to Second Language Learning and Teaching. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

24.

MacWhinney, B. (2002). Extending the competition model. In R. R. Heredia and J. Altarriba, eds., Bilingual Sentence Processing 31-57. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

25.

MacWhinney, B. (2015). Multidimensional SLA. In T. Cadierno and S. W. Eskildsen, eds., Usage-Based Perspectives on Second Language Learning 19-48. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

26.

McDonough, K., and Nekrasova-Becker, T. (2012). Comparing the effect of skewed and balanced input on English as a foreign language learners' comprehension of the double- object dative construction. Applied Psycholinguistics 35(2), 419-442.

27.

McDonough, K. and Trofimovich, P. (2013). Learning a novel pattern through balanced and skewed input. Bilingualism 16, 654-662.

28.

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 in Language Teaching 50(1), 1-37.

29.

Ortega, L., Tyler, A., Park, H. I., and Uno, M., eds. (2016). The Usage-Based Study of Language Learning and Multilingualism. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

30.

Rott, S. (1999). The effect of exposure frequency on intermediate language learners' incidental vocabulary acquisition and retention through reading. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21, 589-619.

31.

Rott, S. (2007). The effect of frequency of input‐enhancements on word learning and text comprehension. Language Learning 57, 165-199.

32.

Shin, S.-W. and Lee, S.-K. (2015). Effects of syntactic priming and types of input distribution on grammar learning. English Teaching 70(2), 133-154.

33.

Sung, M.-J. and Lee, S.-K. (2013). Effects of types of input distribution on the learning of grammatical rules by Korean elementary school students. Paper presented at the 2013 KATE International Conference, Seoul. July 5-6.

34.

Year, J. and 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(3), 399-417.

35.

Zyzik, E. (2006). Transitivity alternations and sequencing learning: Insights from L2 Spanish production data. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28, 449-485.