Construction Learning as a Function of Frequency, Frequency Distribution, and Function

Abstract

This article considers effects of construction frequency, form, function, and prototypicality on second language acquisition (SLA). It investigates these relationships by focusing on naturalistic SLA in the European Science Foundation corpus (Perdue, 1993) of the English verb-argument constructions (VACs): verb locative (VL), verb object locative (VOL), and ditransitive (VOO). Goldberg (2006) argued that Zipfian type/token frequency distributions (Zipf, 1935) in natural language constructions might optimize learning by providing one very high-frequency exemplar that is also prototypical in meaning. This article tests and confirms this proposal for naturalistic English as a second language. We show that VAC type/token distribution in the input is Zipfian and that learners first use the most frequent, prototypical, and generic exemplar (e.g., put in the VOL VAC, give in the VOO ditransitive, etc.). Learning is driven by the frequency and frequency distribution of exemplars within constructions and by the match of their meaning to the construction prototype.HERE WE EXPLORE SECOND LANGUAGE (L2) acquisition of verb-argument constructions (VACs) from a cognitive linguistic, constructionist perspective. We investigate the degree to which three linguistic constructions-verb locative (VL), verb object locative (VOL), and ditransitive (VOO)-are acquired following general cognitive principles of category learning, with abstract schematic constructions being induced from concrete exemplars.

Frequency effects and second language lexical acquisition

“…We then used these observed frequency values to examine if the 50 most common words shared between both NS interlocutors and L2 learners exhibited Zipfian distributions (cf. Ellis & Ferreira-Junior 2009). We then computed word frequency scores for the input and output of the collected speech samples using external frequency values calculated from the CELEX database (Baayen et al 1995) and the British National Corpus (BNC 2007).…”

Form and function in Irish child directed speech

“…That is, the input sample analysed in the present study also contains a number of non-frame utterances, which no doubt add to the structural richness and diversity of the sample. Secondly, a number of recent studies have highlighted the value of Zipfian distributions and skewed input frequencies in the acquisition of more schematic representations of argument structure (e.g., Ellis and Ferreira-Junior 2009;Goldberg 2006;Ninio 2006). Typically, such studies have highlighted the fact that for each argument structure construction, one particular verb occurs with a much higher frequency in the input than others, resulting in a skewed input distribution (e.g., Goldberg 2006).…”

Cross-linguistic influence and formulaic language

“…Frequency effects are central in current second language research and theory but they have often been restricted to effects of input or L1 frequency (e.g. Ellis 2002;Ellis & Ferreira-Junior 2009). Results provide empirical evidence to support the claim that L1 frequency deserves a more prominent position in usage-based approaches to second language acquisition (Paquot 2013b).…”