Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T05:05:50.786Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ABSOLUTE FREQUENCY EFFECTS IN SECOND LANGUAGE LEXICAL ACQUISITION

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2019

Scott A. Crossley ,
Stephen Skalicky ,
Kristopher Kyle  and
Katia Monteiro
Scott A. Crossley*
Affiliation:
Georgia State University
Stephen Skalicky
Affiliation:
Georgia State University
Kristopher Kyle
Affiliation:
University of Hawai’i Manoa
Katia Monteiro
Affiliation:
Georgia State University
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Scott A. Crossley, Department of Applied Linguistics/ESL, Georgia State University, 25 Park Place, Suite 1500, Atlanta, GA 30303. E-mail: sacrossley@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A number of longitudinal studies of L2 production have reported frequency effects wherein learners' produce more frequent words as a function of time. The current study investigated the spoken output of English L2 learners over a four-month period of time using both native and non-native English speaker frequency norms for both word types and word tokens. The study also controlled for individual differences such as first language distance, English proficiency, gender, and age. Results demonstrated that lower level L2 learners produced more infrequent tokens at the beginning of the study and that high intermediate learners, when compared to advanced learners, produced more infrequent tokens at the beginning of the study and more frequent tokens toward the end of the study. Main effects were also reported for proficiency level, age, and language distance. These results provide further evidence that L2 production may not follow expected frequency trends (i.e., that more infrequent tokens are produced as a function of time).

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 41 , Issue 4 , September 2019 , pp. 721 - 744
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

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.)

Footnotes

We very much appreciate the feedback from the anonymous reviewers and from those that attended our presentation at the 2018 American Association for Applied Linguistics conference. Specifically, we thank Nick Ellis for his sage advice to read the transcripts.

References

REFERENCES

Baker, S. C., & MacIntyre, P. D. (2000). The role of gender and immersion in communication and second language orientations. Language Learning, 50, 311–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 1–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckner, C., Blythe, R., Bybee, J., Christiansen, M. H., Croft, W., Ellis, N. C., & Schoenemann, T. (2009). Language is a complex adaptive system. Language Learning, 59 (Suppl. 1), 1–26.Google Scholar
Bell, H. M. (2003). Using frequency lists to assess L2 texts (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Wales Swansea. Retrieved from EThoS (https://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.636075).Google Scholar
Bestgen, Y. (2017). Beyond single-word measures: L2 writing assessment, lexical richness and formulaic competence. System, 69, 65–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birdsong, D., & Molis, M. (2001). On the evidence for maturational constraints in second-language acquisition. Journal of Memory and Language, 44, 235–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blanchard, D., Tetreault, J., Higgins, D., Cahill, A., & Chodorow, M. (2013). TOEFL11: A corpus of non-native English. ETS Research Report Series, 2, 1–15.Google Scholar
Boyd, J. K., & Goldberg, A. E. (2009). Input effects within a constructionist framework. The Modern Language Journal, 93, 418–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cenoz, J. (2001). The effect of linguistic distance, L2 status, and age on cross-linguistic influence in third language acquisition. In Cenoz, J., Hufeisen, B., & Jessner, U. (Eds.), Cross-linguistic influence in third language acquisition: Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 8–20). Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cenoz, J. (2011). Toward a multilingual approach in the study of multilingualism in school contexts. Modern Language Journal, 95, 339–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapelle, C. A. (1994). Are C-tests valid measures for L2 vocabulary research? Second Language Research, 10, 157–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2012). Predicting second language writing proficiency: The roles of cohesion and linguistic sophistication. Journal of Research in Reading, 35, 115–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2013). Applications of text analysis tools for spoken response grading. Language Learning & Technology, 17, 171–192.Google Scholar
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., Kyle, K., & Salsbury, T. (2016). A usage-based investigation of L2 lexical acquisition: The role of input and output. The Modern Language Journal, 100, 702–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crossley, S. A., Salsbury, T., & McNamara, D. S. (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., & Jarvis, S. (2011a). Predicting lexical proficiency in language learners 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
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., Titak, A., & McNamara, D. S. (2014). Frequency effects and second language lexical acquisition: Word types, word tokens, and word production. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 19, 301–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crossley, S. A., & Skalicky, S. (in press). Examining lexical development in second language learners: An approximate replication of Salsbury, Crossley & McNamara (2011). Language Teaching.Google Scholar
Crossley, S. A., Subtirelu, N., & Salsbury, T. (2013). Frequency effects or context effects in second language word learning: What predicts early lexical production? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 727–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dabbagh, A., & Enayat, M. (in press). The role of vocabulary breadth and depth in predicting second language descriptive writing performance. The Language Learning Journal.Google Scholar
Daller, H., Milton, J., & Treffers-Daller, J. (Eds.). (2007). Modelling and assessing vocabulary knowledge. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daller, H., & Xue, H. (2007). Lexical richness and the oral proficiency of Chinese EFL students. In Daller, H., Milton, J., & Treffers-Daller, J. (Eds.), Modelling and assessing vocabulary knowledge (pp. 150–164). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, M. (2008). The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 560 million words, 1990-present. Available online at https://corpus.byu.edu/coca/.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (2000). The robustness of critical period effects in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 499–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (2012). Age effects in second language learning. In Gass, S. & Mackey, A. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 442–460). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Diessel, H. (2017). Usage-based linguistics. In Aronoff, M. (Ed.), Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dóczi, B., & Kormos, J. (2016). Longitudinal developments in vocabulary knowledge and lexical organization. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dörnyei, Z., & Skehan, P. (2003). Individual differences in second language learning. In Doughty, C. & Long, M. (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 589–630). Malden, MA: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2002a). Frequency effects in language processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 143–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2002b). Reflections on frequency effects in language processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 297–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2006a). Cognitive perspectives on SLA: The associative-cognitive CREED. AILA Review, 19, 100–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2006b). Language acquisition as rational contingency learning. Applied Linguistics, 27, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2012). What can we count in language, and what counts in language acquisition, cognition, and use? In Gries, S. T. & Divjak, D. S. (Eds.), Frequency effects in language learning and processing (pp. 7–34). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & Collins, L. (2009). Input and second language acquisition: The roles of frequency, form, and function introduction to the special issue. The Modern Language Journal, 93, 329–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & Ferreira-Junior, F. (2009a). Construction learning as a function of frequency, frequency distribution, and function. The Modern Language Journal, 93, 370–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & Ferreira-Junior, F. (2009b). Constructions and their acquisition: Islands and the distinctiveness of their occupancy. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 188–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). Language emergence: Implications for applied linguistics (introduction to the special issue). Applied Linguistics, 27, 558–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (Eds.). (2009). Language as a complex adaptive system. Boston, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C., O’Donnell, M. B., & Römer, U. (2013). Usage-based language: Investigating the latent structures that underpin acquisition. Language Learning, 63, 25–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C., O’Donnell, M. B., & Römer, U. (2014). Second language processing of verb‐argument constructions is sensitive to form, function, frequency, contingency, and prototypicality. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 4, 405–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C., O’Donnell, M. B., & Römer, U. (2015). Usage-based language learning. In MacWhinney, B. & Grady, W. (Eds), The handbook of language emergence (pp. 163–180). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C., Römer, U., & O’Donnell, M. B. (Eds.). (2016). Usage-based approaches to language acquisition and processing: Cognitive and corpus investigations of construction grammar. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Limited.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & Wulff, S. (2015). Usage-based approaches to SLA. In VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 75–93). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fox, J. (2003). Effect displays in R for generalised linear models. Journal of Statistical Software, 8, 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garnier, M., & Schmitt, N. (2016). Picking up polysemous phrasal verbs: How many do learners know and what facilitates this knowledge? System, 59, 29–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2003). Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 219–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. T. (2018). Operationalizations of domain-general mechanisms cognitive linguists often rely on: A perspective from quantitative corpus linguistics. In Engelberg, S., Lobin, H., Steyer, K., & Wolfer, S. (Eds.), Wortschätze: Dynamik, Muster, Komplexität (pp. 75–90). Berlin and Boston, MA: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hothorn, T., Bretz, F., & Westfall, P. (2008). Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. Biometrical Journal, 50, 346–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyltenstam, K., & Abrahamsson, N. (2003). Maturational constraints in SLA. In Doughty, C. & Long, M. (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 539–588). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Jarvis, S. (2000). Methodological rigor in the study of transfer: Identifying L1 influence in the interlanguage lexicon. Language Learning, 50, 245–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarvis, S. (2013). Defining and measuring lexical diversity. Vocabulary Knowledge: Human Ratings and Automated Measures, 47, 13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jiang, N. (2000). Lexical representation and development in a second language. Applied Linguistics, 21, 47–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, J. S., & Newport, E. L. (1989). Critical period effects in second language learning: The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 60–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, M., Crossley, S. A., & Kyle, K. (2018). Lexical sophistication as a multidimensional phenomenon: Relations to second language lexical proficiency, development, and writing quality. The Modern Language Journal, 102, 120–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, B., & Christensen, H. B. (2016). lmerTest: Tests in linear mixed effects models. R package version 2.0-32. Retrieved from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lmerTest.Google Scholar
Kyle, K., & Crossley, S. A. (2015). Automatically assessing lexical sophistication: Indices, tools, findings, and application. TESOL Quarterly, 49, 757–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kyle, K., & Crossley, S. A. (2016). The relationship between lexical sophistication and independent and source-based writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 34, 12–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kyle, K., Crossley, S., & Berger, C. (2018). The tool for the automatic analysis of lexical sophistication (TAALES): Version 2.0. Behavior Research Methods, 50, 1030–1046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laufer, B., & Nation, P. (1995). Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 written production. Applied Linguistics, 16, 307–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lu, X. (2012). The relationship of lexical richness to the quality of ESL learners’ oral narratives. The Modern Language Journal, 96, 190–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (1997). Second language acquisition and the competition model. In De Groot, A. M. B. & Kroll, J. F. (Eds.), Tutorials in bilingualism: Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 113–142). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
McDonald, J. L. (2000). Grammaticality judgments in a second language: Influences of age of acquisition and native language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 21, 395–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meara, P. (1996). The dimensions of lexical competence. In Brown, G., Malmkjaer, K., & Williams, J. (Eds.), Performance and competence in second language acquisition (pp. 35–53). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Meara, P., & Bell, H. (2001). P_Lex: A simple and effective way of describing the lexical characteristics of short L2 texts. Prospect, 16, 5–19.Google Scholar
Miller, P. W., & Chiswick, B. R. (2005). Linguistic distance: A quantitative measure of the distance between English and other languages. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 26, 1–11.Google Scholar
Milton, J. (2009). Measuring second language vocabulary acquisition. Toronto, ON: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nakagawa, S., & Schielzeth, H. (2013). A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 4, 133–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nation, I. S. P. (1983). Testing and teaching vocabulary. Guidelines, 5, 12–25.Google Scholar
Nation, I. S. P. (1990). Teaching and learning vocabulary. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.Google Scholar
Odlin, T. (2003). Cross-linguistic influence. In Doughty, C. & Long, M. (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 436–486). Malden, MA: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palfreyman, D., & Karaki, S. (in press). Lexical sophistication across languages: A preliminary study of undergraduate writing in Arabic (L1) and English (L2). International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism.Google Scholar
Paquot, M. (2017). L1 frequency in foreign language acquisition: Recurrent word combinations in French and Spanish EFL writing. Second Language Research, 33, 13–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pavlenko, A., & Piller, I. (2008). Language education and gender. In Hornberger, N. H. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and education (pp. 57–69). Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Core Team. (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/.Google Scholar
Read, J. (2000). Assessing vocabulary. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ringbom, H., & Jarvis, S. (2011). The importance of cross-linguistic similarity in foreign language learning. In Long, M. & Doughty, C. (Eds.), The handbook of language teaching (pp. 106–118). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Robinson, P., & Ellis, N. C. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition. New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Römer, U., Roberson, A., O’Donnell, M. B., & Ellis, N. C. (2014). Linking learner corpus and experimental data in studying second language learners’ knowledge of verb-argument constructions. ICAME Journal, 38, 115–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Römer, U., Skalicky, S., & Ellis, N. (in press). Verb-argument constructions in L2 English learner production: Insights from corpora and psycholinguistic experiments. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory.Google Scholar
Roquet, H., Llopis, J., & Pérez-Vidal, C. (2016). Does gender have an impact on the potential benefits learners may achieve in two contexts compared: Formal instruction and formal instruction + content and language integrated learning? International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 19, 370–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saito, K., Webb, S., Trofimovich, P., & Isaacs, T. (2016). Lexical profiles of comprehensible second language speech: The role of appropriateness, fluency, variation, sophistication, abstractness, and sense relations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 677–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salsbury, T. (2000). The acquisitional grammaticalization of unreal conditionals and modality in L2 English: A longitudinal perspective (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University.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
Sunderland, J. (2000). Issues of language and gender in second and foreign language education. Language Teaching, 33, 203–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2000). First steps toward a usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cognitive Linguistics, 11, 61–82.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. The Modern Language Journal, 93, 354–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yoon, H. J. (2017). Linguistic complexity in L2 writing revisited: Issues of topic, proficiency, and construct multidimensionality. System, 66, 130–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, X., & Lu, X. (2013). A longitudinal study of receptive vocabulary breadth knowledge growth and vocabulary fluency development. Applied Linguistics, 35, 283–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zheng, Y. (2016). The complex, dynamic development of L2 lexical use: A longitudinal study on Chinese learners of English. System, 56, 40–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar