Hostname: page-component-7f64f4797f-7vqc4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-11-04T06:26:13.104Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

FREQUENCY EFFECTS OR CONTEXT EFFECTS IN SECOND LANGUAGE WORD LEARNING

What Predicts Early Lexical Production?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 August 2013

Scott A. Crossley ,
Nicholas Subtirelu  and
Tom Salsbury
Scott A. Crossley*
Affiliation:
Georgia State University
Nicholas Subtirelu
Affiliation:
Georgia State University
Tom Salsbury
Affiliation:
Washington State University
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Scott A. Crossley, Department of Applied Linguistics and ESL, Georgia State University, 34 Peachtree Street, Suite 1200, One Park Tower Building, Atlanta, GA 30303. E-mail: sacrossley@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study examines frequency, contextual diversity, and contextual distinctiveness effects in predicting produced versus not-produced frequent nouns and verbs by early second language (L2) learners of English. The study analyzes whether word frequency is the strongest predictor of early L2 word production independent of contextual diversity and distinctiveness and whether differences exist in the lexical properties of nouns and verbs that can help explain beginning-level L2 word production. The study uses machine learning algorithms to develop models that predict produced and unproduced words in L2 oral discourse. The results demonstrate that word frequency is the strongest classifier of whether a noun is produced or not produced in beginning L2 oral discourse, whereas contextual diversity is the strongest classifier of whether a verb is produced or not produced. Post hoc tests reveal that nouns are more concrete, meaningful, imageable, specific, and unambiguous than verbs, which indicates that lexical properties may explain differences in noun and verb production. Thus, whereas distributional properties of nouns may allow lexical acquisition on the basis of association through exposure alone (i.e., nouns may adhere to frequency effects), the abstractness and ambiguity found in verbs make them difficult to acquire based solely on repetition. Therefore, verb acquisition may follow a principle of likely need characterized by contextual diversity effects.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 35 , Issue 4 , December 2013 , pp. 727 - 755
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Adelman, J. S., Brown, G. D. A., & Quesada, J. F. (2006). Contextual diversity, not word frequency, determines word-naming and lexical decision times. Psychological Science, 17, 814–823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J. R., & Milson, R. (1989). Human memory: An adaptive perspective. Psychological Review, 96, 703–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J. R., & Schooler, L. J. (1991). Reflections of the environment in memory. Psychological Science, 2, 396–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balota, D. A., Cortese, M. J., Sergent-Marshall, S. D., Spieler, D. H., & Yap, M. (2004). Visual word recognition of single-syllable words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 283–316.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barry, C., & Seymour, P. H. K. (1988). Lexical priming and sound-to-spelling contingency effects in nonword spelling. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Section A, 40, 5–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyd, J. K., & Goldberg, A. E. (2009). Input effects within a constructionist framework. Modern Language Journal, 93, 418–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The British National Corpus (Version 2). (2001). Distributed by Oxford University Computing Services on behalf of the BNC Consortium. Retrieved fromhttp://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/Google Scholar
Brown, G., & Watson, F. (1987). First in, first out: Word learning age and spoken word frequency as predictors of word familiarity and word naming latency. Memory & Cognition, 15, 208–216.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, R. (1958). How shall a thing be called? Psychological Review, 65, 14–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brysbaert, M., & New, B. (2009). Moving beyond Kučera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 977–990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Connine, C. M., Mullennix, J., Shernoff, E., & Yelen, J. (1990). Word familiarity and frequency in visual and auditory word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 1084–1096.Google ScholarPubMed
Crossley, S. A., & Salsbury, T. (2010). Using lexical indices to predict produced and not produced words in second language learners. The Mental Lexicon, 5, 115–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crossley, S. A., Salsbury, T., & McNamara, D. (2009). Measuring L2 lexical growth using hypernymic relationships. Language Learning, 59, 307–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crossley, S. A., Salsbury, T., & McNamara, D. (2010). The development of polysemy and frequency use in English second language speakers. Language Learning, 60, 573–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crossley, S. A., Salsbury, T., & McNamara, D. S. (2012). Predicting the proficiency level of language learners using lexical indices. Language Testing, 29, 240–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crossley, S. A., Salsbury, T., McNamara, D. S., & Jarvis, S. (2011a). Predicting lexical proficiency in language learner texts using computational indices. Language Testing, 28, 561–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crossley, S. A., Salsbury, T., McNamara, D. S., & Jarvis, S. (2011b). What is lexical proficiency? Some answers from computational models of speech data. TESOL Quarterly, 45, 182–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 143–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2006). Cognitive perspectives on SLA: The associative-cognitive CREED. AILA Review, 19, 100–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N., & Collins, L. (2009). Input and second language acquisition: The roles of frequency, form, and function—Introduction to the special issue. Modern Language Journal, 93, 329–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & Ferreira-Junior, F. (2009). Construction learning as a function of frequency, frequency distribution, and function. Modern Language Journal, 93, 370–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fellbaum, C. (1998). WordNet: An electronic lexical database. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forster, K. I. (1976). Accessing the mental lexicon. In Wales, R. J. & Walker, E. (Eds.), New approaches to language mechanisms (pp. 257–287). Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Forster, K. I., & Chambers, S. M. (1973). Lexical access and naming time. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12, 627–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frederiksen, J. R., & Kroll, J. F. (1976). Spelling and sound: Approaches to the internal lexicon. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2, 361–379.Google Scholar
Gernsbacher, M. A. (1984). Resolving 20 years of inconsistent interactions between lexical familiarity and orthography, concreteness, and polysemy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 256–281.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gilhooly, K., & Logie, R. (1980). Age-of-acquisition, imagery, concreteness, familiarity, and ambiguity measures for 1,944 words. Behavior Research Methods, 12, 395–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glenberg, A. M. (1976). Monotonic and nonmonotonic lag effects in paired-associate and recognition memory paradigms. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 15, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glenberg, A. (1979). Component-levels theory of the effects of spacing of repetitions on recall and recognition. Memory & Cognition, 7, 95–112.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gries, S. T. (2008). Dispersions and adjusted frequencies in corpora. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 13, 403–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hulme, C., Stuart, G., Brown, G., & Morin, C. (2003). High- and low-frequency words are recalled equally well in alternating lists: Evidence for associative effects in serial recall. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 500–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johns, B. T., & Jones, M. N. (2008). Predicting word-naming and lexical decision times from a semantic space model. In Sloutsky, V., Love, B., & McRae, K. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th Cognitive Science Society Meeting (pp. 279–284). Washington, DC: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Kirsner, K. (1994). Implicit processes in second language learning. In Ellis, N. C. (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 283–312). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Landauer, T. K., & Dumais, S. T. (1997). A solution to Plato’s problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104, 211–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landauer, T. K., Foltz, P. W., & Laham, D. (1998). An introduction to latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processes, 25, 259–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laufer, B., & Nation, P. (1995). Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 written production. Applied Linguistics, 16, 307–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lemaire, B., Denhiere, G., Bellissens, C., & Jhean-Larose, S. (2006). A computational model for stimulating text comprehension. Behavior Research Methods, 38, 628–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (1997). Second language acquisition and the completion model. In de Groot, A. M. B. & Kroll, J. F. (Eds.), Tutorials in bilingualism: Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 113–142). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
McDonald, S. A., & Shillcock, R. C. (2001). Rethinking the word frequency effect: The neglected role of distributional information in lexical processing. Language and Speech, 44, 295–322.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, G. A., Beckwith, R., Fellbaum, C., Gross, D., & Miller, K. (1993). Five papers on WordNet (Report No. 43). Cognitive Science Laboratory, Princeton University. Retrieved fromhttp://wordnetcode.princeton.edu/5papers.pdfGoogle Scholar
Mintz, T. H., Newport, E. L., & Bever, T. G. (2002). The distributional structure of grammatical categories in speech to young children. Cognitive Science, 26, 393–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, G. L. (2004). The big book of concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Nelson, D. L., McEvoy, C. L., & Schreiber, T. A. (1998). The University of South Florida word association, rhyme, and word fragment norms. Retrieved fromhttp://www.usf.edu/FreeAssociation/Google Scholar
Paivio, A., Yuille, J. C., & Madigan, S. A. (1968). Concreteness, imagery, and meaningfulness values for 925 nouns. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 76, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Salsbury, T. (2000). The acquisitional grammaticalization of unreal conditionals and modality in L2 English: A longitudinal perspective (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Indiana University, Bloomington.Google Scholar
Salsbury, T., Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2011). Psycholinguistic word information in second language oral discourse. Second Language Research, 27, 343–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, N., & Meara, P. (1997). Researching vocabulary through a word knowledge framework. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 17–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, M. (2004). WordSmith tools. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stadthagen-Gonzalez, H., & Davis, C. (2006). The Bristol norms for age of acquisition, imageability, and familiarity. Behavior Research Methods, 38, 598–605.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Steyvers, M., & Malmberg, K. J. (2003). The effect of normative context variability on recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 760–766.Google ScholarPubMed
Toglia, M. P., & Battig, W. F. (1978). Handbook of semantic word norms. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Verkoeijen, P. P. J. L., Rikers, R. M. J. P., & Schmidt, H. G. (2004). Detrimental influence of contextual change on spacing effects in free recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 796–800.Google ScholarPubMed
Wilson, M. (1988). MRC psycholinguistic database: Machine-usable dictionary, version 2.00. Behavior Research Methods, 20, 6–10.Google Scholar
Wolter, B. (2009). Meaning-last vocabulary acquisition and collocational productivity. In Fitzpatrick, T. & Barfield, A. (Eds.), Lexical processing in second language learners: Papers and perspectives in honour of Paul Meara (pp. 111–127). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Wulff, S., Ellis, N. C., Römer, U., Bardovi-Harlig, K., & LeBlanc, C. J. (2009). The acquisition of tense-aspect: Converging evidence from corpora and telicity ratings. Modern Language Journal, 93, 354–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zipf, G. K. (1935). The psycho-biology of language. New York: Houghton-Mifflin.Google Scholar