Your browser does not support the PubReader view.
Go to this page to see a list of supporting browsers.
The Korean Association for the Study of English Language and Linguistics
[ Article ]
Korea Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 23, No. 0, pp.658-681
ISSN: 1598-1398 (Print) 2586-7474 (Online)
Print publication date 30 Jan 2023
Received 14 Aug 2023 Revised 27 Aug 2023 Accepted 09 Sep 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.23..202309.658

입력 빈도 분포의 다양한 유형이 초등 영어 학습자의 구문 학습에 미치는 영향

성민주 ; 이상기
한국교원대학교
한국교원대학교
Different types of input frequency distribution: Their effects on construction learning by elementary English learners in Korea
Sung, Min-Ju ; Sang-Ki Lee
(1st author) Graduate Student, Dept. of English Education, Korea National Univ. of Education awesome7315@gmail.com
(corresponding author) Professor, Dept. of English Education, Korea National Univ. of Education, Tel: 043-230-3513 slee@knue.ac.kr


© 2023 KASELL All rights reserved
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons License, which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Following a usage-based approach, this study examined whether different types of input frequency distribution (skewed first, skewed random, and balanced) would have differential effects on construction learning. Four classes of fifth-year elementary school students (n = 65) were randomly assigned to one of three treatment groups or one control group. Three tests were utilized to measure the learning effects and generalizability of the learned knowledge (a video clip selection task, an argument selection task, and a sentence selection task), immediately after the treatment and again one week later. Additionally, two aptitude measures were administered to assess the students’ language analytic ability and working memory capacity. The results showed that only the group exposed to a skewed first distribution retained the learned knowledge until the delayed posttest session. In terms of the aptitude measures, only working memory performance weakly correlated with the posttest comprehension scores. These findings suggest that English teachers could enhance the learning of grammatical rules by providing students with appropriate input that optimizes some important features such as frequency, input distribution, and students’ aptitude.

Keywords:

usage-based approach, input frequency distribution, construction learning, working memory capacity, language learning aptitude

References

  • 박혜미·이상기(Park, H.-M. and S.-K. Lee). 2022. 입력 빈도 분포의 유형과 작업 기억 능력이 초등 영어 학습자의 문법 학습에 미치는 영향(Effects of types of input frequency distribution and working memory capacity on Korean elementary English learners’ grammar learning). ≪초등영어교육≫(Primary English Education) 28-3, 5-25.
  • 신선화·이상기(Shin, S. and S.-K. Lee). 2015. 통사 점화와 입력 분포 유형이 문법 학습에 미치는 영향(Effects of syntactic priming and types of input distribution on grammar learning). ≪영어교육≫(English Teaching) 70-2, 133-154.
  • 신유나·이상기(Shin, Y. and S.-K. Lee). 2018. 입력 빈도 분포 유형이 제2언어 구문 학습에 미치는 영향(Effects of types of input frequency distribution on second language construction learning). ≪어학연구≫(Language Research) 54-3, 509-529.
  • 이상기(Lee, S.-K.). 2014. 인지언어학적 관점에서의 문법 수업 설계(Designing grammar lessons based on the cognitive linguistic perspectives). 양은미·이정원·전영주·김현진·허근·이상기·하명정·정숙경·김경한·김정태·이효신편(Yang, E.-M., J. Lee, Y.-J. Jeon, H. J. Kim, K. Huh, S.-K. Lee, M.-J. Ha, S. K. Jung, K.-H. Kim, J. Kim and H. Lee, eds.), 『영어 수업지도안 작성의 이론과 실제』(Planning English Lessons: From Theory to Practice), 245-305. 한국문화사(Hankookmunhwasa).
  • 이정현·이상기(Rhee, J.-H. and S.-K. Lee). 2020. 입력 빈도 분포 유형 및 형태초점접근 교수 기법의 명시성의 정도가 제2언어 문법학습에 미치는 영향(Effects of types of input frequency distribution and degrees of explicitness of focus-on-form techniques on second language grammar learning). ≪영어교육≫(English Teaching) 75-2, 111-134.
  • 이혜윤(Lee, H.). 2015. 입력 분포 유형이 초등 영어 학습자의 이중목적어 구문 습득에 미치는 영향(Effects of input distribution on the acquisition of the ditransitive construction by Korean elementary school English learners). 석사학위논문(Master’s thesis), 한국교원대학교, 충북.
  • Baddeley, A. D. 2000. The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends in Cognitive Science 4, 417-423. [https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01538-2]
  • Baddeley, A. D. and G. J. Hitch. 1974. Working memory. In G. A. Bower, ed., Recent advances in learning and motivation, 47-90. New York: Academic Press. [https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60452-1]
  • Baddeley, A. D., C. Papagno and G. Vallar. 1988. When long-term learning depends on short-term storage. Journal of Memory and Language 27, 586-595. [https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(88)90028-9]
  • Brooks, P. J. and M. Tomasello. 1999. How children constrain their argument structure constructions. Language 75, 720-738. [https://doi.org/10.2307/417731]
  • 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.
  • Bybee, J. 2010. Language, usage, and cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750526]
  • Bybee, J. and J. L. McClelland. 2005. Alternatives to the combinatorial paradigm of linguistic theory based on domain general principles of human cognition. Linguistic Review 22, 381-410. [https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.2005.22.2-4.381]
  • Casenhiser, D. and A. E. Goldberg. 2005. Fast mapping between a phrasal form and meaning. Developmental Science 8(6), 500-508. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2005.00441.x]
  • Dörnyei, Z. and P. Skehan. 2003. Individual differences in second language learning. In C. J. Doughty and M. H. Long, eds., The handbook of second language acquisition, 589-630. Malden, MA: Blackwell. [https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756492.ch18]
  • Gathercole, S. E. and A. D. Baddeley. 1989. Evaluation of the role of phonological STM in the development of vocabulary in children: A longitudinal study. Journal of Memory and Language 28, 200-213. [https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(89)90044-2]
  • Gathercole, S. E. and A. D. Baddeley. 1990. Phonological memory deficits in language disordered children: Is there a causal connection? Journal of Memory and Language Disorders 29, 336-360. [https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(90)90004-J]
  • Goldberg, A. E. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Goldberg, A. E., D. Casenhiser and N. Sethuraman. 2004. Learning argument structure generalization. Cognitive Linguistics 15(3), 289-316. [https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2004.011]
  • Goldberg, A. E., D. Casenhiser and T. R. White. 2007. Constructions as categories of language. New Ideas in Psychology 25, 70-86. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2007.02.004]
  • Goldschneider, J. M. and R. DeKeyser. 2001. Explaining the "natural order of L2 morpheme acquisition" in English: A meta-analysis of multiple determinants. Language Learning 51, 1-50. [https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00147]
  • Harley, B. and D. Hart. 1997. Language aptitude and second-language proficiency in classroom learners of different starting ages. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19, 379-400. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263197003045]
  • Lee, J. 2006. Rules, instances and second language acquisition: The teachability of the English causative alternation. Doctoral dissertation, University of Hawaii, Manoa, Honolulu, USA.
  • Lee, S.-K. 2008. Salience, frequency, and aptitude in the learning of unaccusativity in a second language: An input enhancement study. Doctoral dissertation, University of Hawaii, Manoa, Honolulu, USA.
  • Lee, S.-K., M. Miyata and L. Ortega. 2008. A usage-based approach to overpassivization: The role of input and conceptualization biases. Proceedings of the 26th Second Language Research Forum, Honolulu, HI. October 17-19.
  • Li, S. 2013. The interactions between the effects of implicit and explicit feedback and individual differences in language analytic ability and working memory. The Modern Language Journal 97(3), 634-654. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.12030.x]
  • Mackey, A., J. Philp, T. Egi, A. Fujii and T. Tatsumi. 2002. Individual differences in working memory, noticing of interactional feedback and L2 development. In P. Robinson, ed., Individual differences and instructed language learning, 184-210. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. [https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.2.12mac]
  • MacWhinney, B. 2008. A unified model. In P. Robinson and N. C. Ellis, eds., Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition, 341-371. New York: Routledge.
  • Martin, K. I. and N. C. Ellis. 2012. The roles of phonological short-term memory and working memory in L2 grammar and vocabulary learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 34, 379-413. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263112000125]
  • Masoura, E. V. and S. E. Gathercole. 2005. Contrasting contributions of phonological short-term memory and long-term knowledge to vocabulary learning in a foreign language. Memory 13, 422-429. [https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210344000323]
  • McDonough, K. and T. Nekrasova-Becker. 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, 419-442. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716412000446]
  • McDonough, K. and P. Trofimovich. 2013. Learning a novel pattern through balanced and skewed input. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 16(3), 654-662. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728912000557]
  • 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. [https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2012-0001]
  • Ortega, L. 2009. Understanding second language acquisition. London: Arnold.
  • Ruiz, S., P. Rebuschat and D. Meurers. 2021. The effects of working memory and declarative memory on instructed second language vocabulary learning: Insights from intelligent CALL. Language Teaching Research 25(4), 510-539. [https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168819872859]
  • Sagarra, N. and J. Herschensohn. 2010. The role of proficiency and working memory in gender and number agreement processing in L1 and L2 Spanish. Lingua 120, 2022-2039. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2010.02.004]
  • Sawyer, M. and L. Ranta. 2001. Aptitude, individual differences, and instructional design. In P. Robinson, ed., Cognition and second language instruction, 319-353. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524780.013]
  • Sheen, Y. 2007. The effects of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners' acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly 41(2), 255-283. [https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00059.x]
  • Tomasello, M. 2003. Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Year, J. and P. Gordon. 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. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00898.x]
  • Yilmaz, Y. 2013. Relative effects of explicit and implicit feedback: The role of working memory capacity and language analytic ability. Applied Linguistics 34(3), 344-368. [https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ams044]