Cover not available
Part of
Usage-inspired L2 Instruction: Researched pedagogy
Edited by Andrea E. Tyler, Lourdes Ortega, Mariko Uno and Hae In Park
[Language Learning & Language Teaching 49] 2018
► pp. 211–234

Chapter 10
Do findings from artificial language learning generalize to second language classrooms?

| University of Basel

Usage-based approaches assume that language acquisition proceeds predominantly incidentally and implicitly, based on the processing of meaningful input during contextualized social interaction. By contrast, there is a tradition of investigating the mechanisms of second language (L2) processing and learning through tightly controlled artificial language learning studies in the laboratory. This raises the question to what extent and under which conditions findings from such artificial language learning studies generalize to (instructed) L2 acquisition (and may therefore inform L2 pedagogy). I present and discuss convergent and divergent findings across several domains, including brain imaging, learned attention, and frequency effects. The latter are given special attention, as they are crucial to a usage-based perspective. Comparisons between prior laboratory and classroom studies and data from current classroom research (Madlener, 2015) suggest that (1) not all task types used in artificial language learning studies reliably generalize to (classroom) L2 learning and that (2) artificial language learning models some aspects of L2 acquisition more readily than others.

Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Definition and types of artificial language learning experiments
  • Rationales for and against generalizing from artificial to natural languages
  • Converging evidence
  • Diverging evidence
    • Type frequency effects
    • Skewed input effects
  • Summary: Maximal generalization from minimal input
  • Understanding the limits of the generalizability from artificial language learning to SLA: Explanatory factors
    • General effects of laboratory settings
    • Learning mode and test mode
    • Interactions of variables
    • Meaning(fulness) and context(ualization)
  • Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
Published online: 13 February 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.49.10mad
References
Ambridge, B., Kidd, E., Rowland, C. F., & Theakston, A. L.
(2015) The ubiquity of frequency effects in first language acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 42, 239–273. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boyd, J., & 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, 457–481. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boyd, J., Gottschalk, E. A., & Goldberg, A. E.
(2009) Linking rule acquisition in novel phrasal constructions. Language Learning, 59(Suppl. 1), 64–89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J.
(2008) Usage-based grammar and second language acquisition. In P. Robinson & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 216–236). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2013) Usage-based theory and exemplar representations of constructions. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp. 49–69). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Casenhiser, D. M., & Goldberg, A. E.
(2005) Fast mapping between a phrasal form and meaning. Developmental Science, 8, 500–508. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Bot, K., & Larsen-Freeman, D.
(2011) Researching second language development from a dynamic systems theory perspective. In M. H. Verspoor, K. de Bot, & W. Lowie (Eds.), A Dynamic approach to second language acquisition (pp. 5–23). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Jong, N.
(2005) Can second language grammar be learned through listening? An experimental study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 205–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Vries, M. H.
(2009) Implicit learning of artificial grammars: Its neural mechanisms and its implications for natural language research. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität, Münster, Germany.Google Scholar
Diessel, H.
(2013) Construction grammar and first language acquisition. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp. 347–364). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2015) Usage-based construction grammar. In E. Dabrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 296–322). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Elio, R., & Anderson, J. R.
(1984) The effects of information order and learning mode on schema abstraction. Memory & Cognition, 12, 20–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C.
(2006) Selective attention and transfer phenomena in L2 acquisition: Contingency, cue competition, salience, interference, overshadowing, blocking, and perceptual learning. Applied Linguistics, 27, 164–194. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007) The weak interface, consciousness, and form-focused instruction: Mind the doors. In S. Fotos & H. Nassaji (Eds.), Form-focused instruction and teacher education: Studies in honour of Rod Ellis (pp. 17–33), Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2009) Optimizing the input: Frequency and sampling in usage-based and form-focused learning. In M. H. Long & C. J. Doughty (Eds.), The handbook of language teaching (pp. 139–157). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011) Implicit and explicit SLA and their interface. In C. Sanz & R. P. Leow (Eds.), Implicit and explicit language learning: Conditions, processes, and knowledge in SLA & Bilingualism (pp. 35–47). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
(2013) Construction grammar and second language acquisition. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp. 365–378). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & Cadierno, T.
(2009) Constructing a second language. Introduction to the special section. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 111–139. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & Sagarra, N.
(2010) Learned attention effects in L2 temporal reference: The first hour and the next eight semesters. Language Learning, 60 (Suppl. 2), 85–108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011) Learned attention in adult language acquisition: A replication and generalization study and meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33, 589–624. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R.
(2006) Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 339–368. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ettlinger, M., Morgan-Short, K., Faretta-Stutenberg, M., & Wong, P. C. M.
(2016) The relationship between artificial and second language learning. Cognitive Science, 40, 822–847. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fedor, A., Varga, M., & Szathmáry, E.
(2012) Semantics boosts syntax in artificial grammar learning tasks with recursion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38, 776–782.Google Scholar
Folia, V., Uddén, J., De Vries, M. H., Forkstam, C., & Petersson, K. M.
(2010) Artificial language learning in adults and children. Language Learning, 60 (Suppl. 2), 188–220. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. M., Mackey, A., & Ross-Feldman, L.
(2005) Task-based interactions in classroom and laboratory settings. Language Learning, 55, 575–611. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E.
(2013) Constructionist approaches. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp. 15–31). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E., & Casenhiser, D. M.
(2008) Construction learning and second language acquisition. In P. Robinson & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 197–215). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E., Casenhiser, D. M., & Sethuraman, N.
(2004) Learning argument structure generalizations. Cognitive Linguistics, 15, 289–316. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E., Casenhiser, D. M., & White, T. R.
(2007) Constructions as categories of language. New Ideas in Psychology, 25, 70–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gomez, R., & Gerken, L.
(2000) Infant artificial language learning and language acquisition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 178–186. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goo, J., & Mackey, A.
(2013) The case against the case against recasts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 127–165. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grey, S., Williams, J. N., & Rebuschat, P.
(2014) Incidental exposure and L3 learning of morphosyntax. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36, 611–645. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Handwerker, B., & Madlener, K.
(2013) Multimedia-Chunks für Deutsch als Fremdsprache. Theoretischer Hintergrund und Prototyp einer multimedialen Lernumgebung. 2nd ed. Baltmannsweiler: Schneider Verlag.Google Scholar
Hirakawa, M. & Suzuki, K.
(2014) Is the dog ‘frightened’ or ‘frightening’? Psych adjectives in L2 English by speakers of Japanese and Spanish. In R. T. Miller, K. I. Martin, C. M. Eddington, A. Henery, N. Marcos Miguel, A. M. Tseng, A. Tuninetti, & D. Walter (Eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 2012 Second Language Research Forum (pp. 134–144). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Li, S.
(2010) The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 309–365. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015) Working memory, language analytical ability and L2 recasts. In Z. Wen, M. Borges Mota, & A. McNeill (Eds.), Working memory in second language acquisition and processing (pp. 139–159). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Lieven, E. V. M.
(2010) Input and first language acquisition: Evaluating the role of frequency. Lingua, 120, 2546–2556. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A.
(2012) Input, interaction, and corrective feedback in L2 learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B.
(2008) A unified model. In P. Robinson & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 341–371). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Madlener, K.
(2015) Frequency effects in instructed second language acquisition. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matthews, D., & Krajewski, G.
(2015) First language acquisition. In E. Dąbrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 389–409). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McDonough, K., & De Vleeschauwer, J.
(2012) Prompt-type frequency, auditory pattern discrimination, and EFL learners’ production of wh-questions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 355–377. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McDonough, K., & Kim, Y.
(2009) Syntactic priming, type frequency, and EFL learners’ production of wh-questions. Modern Language Journal, 93, 386–398. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McDonough, K., & Nekrasova-Becker, T.
(2014) 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McDonough, K., & Trofimovich, P.
(2013) Learning a novel pattern from balanced and skewed input. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16, 654–662. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morgan-Short, K., Deng, Z., Brill-Schuetz, K. A., Faretta-Stutenberg, M., Wong, P. C. M., & Wong, F. C. K.
(2015) A view of the neural representation of second language syntax through artificial language learning under implicit contexts of exposure. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37, 383–419. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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, 50, 1–37.Google Scholar
Nicholas, H., Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N.
(2001) Recasts as feedback to language learners. Language Learning, 51, 719–758. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ortega, L.
(2015) Usage-based SLA: A research habitus whose time has come. In T. Cadierno & S. W. Eskildsen (Eds.), Usage-based perspectives on second language learning (pp. 353–373). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Porte, G.
(2013) Who needs replication? CALICO Journal, 30(1), 10–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rebuschat, P.
(2013) Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge in second language research. Language Learning, 63, 595–626. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rebuschat, P. & Williams, J. N.
(2012) Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 33, 829–856. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P.
(2005) Cognitive abilities, chunk-strength, and frequency effects in implicit artificial grammar and incidental L2 learning: Replications of Reber, Walkenfeld, and Hernstadt (1991) and Knowlton and Squire (1996) and their relevance for SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 235–268. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008) Replication studies in language learning and teaching: Questions and answers. Language Teaching, 41, 1–14.Google Scholar
(2010) Implicit artificial grammar and incidental natural second language learning: How comparable are they? Language Learning, 60 (Suppl. 2), 245–263. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sagarra, N., & Ellis, Nick C.
(2013) From seeing adverbs to seeing verbal morphology. Language experience and adult acquisition of L2 tense. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 261–290. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Suttle, L., & Goldberg, A. E.
(2011) The partial productivity of constructions as induction. Linguistics, 49, 1237–1269. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taylor, J. R.
(2012) The mental corpus. How language is represented in the mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verspoor, M. H., & Nguyen, H. T. P.
(2015) A dynamic usage-based approach to second language teaching. In T. Cadierno & S. W. Eskildsen (Eds.), Usage-based perspectives on second language learning (pp. 305–327). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Williams, J. N.
(2010) Initial incidental acquisition of word order regularities: Is it just sequence learning? Language Learning, 60 (Suppl. 2), 221–244. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wonnacott, E., Boyd, J. K., Thomson, J., & Goldberg, A. E.
(2012) Input effects on the acquisition of a novel phrasal construction. Journal of Memory and Language, 66, 458–478. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wonnacott, E., Newport, E. L. & Tanenhaus, M. K.
(2008) Acquiring and processing verb argument structure: Distributional learning in a miniature language. Cognitive Psychology, 56, 165–209. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Year, J., & Gordon, P.
(2009) Korean speakers’ acquisition of the English ditransitive construction: The role of verb prototype, input distribution, and frequency. Modern Language Journal, 93, 399–417. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 3 other publications

Alonso-Aparicio, Irene
2018. Chapter 7. The impact of prior knowledge on second language grammar practice. In Usage-inspired L2 Instruction [Language Learning & Language Teaching, 49], ► pp. 143 ff. DOI logo
HU, CHIEH–FANG & CHEYENNE MAECHTLE
2021. Construction Learning by Child Learners of Foreign Language: Input Distribution and Learner Factors. The Modern Language Journal 105:1 ► pp. 335 ff. DOI logo
Tyler, Andrea E. & Lourdes Ortega
2018. Chapter 14. Usage-inspired L2 instruction. In Usage-inspired L2 Instruction [Language Learning & Language Teaching, 49], ► pp. 315 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 april 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.