Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T19:34:53.528Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Learning grammatical gender: The use of rules by novice learners

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 December 2012

NORA PRESSON ,
BRIAN MacWHINNEY  and
NATASHA TOKOWICZ
NORA PRESSON*
Affiliation:
Carnegie Mellon University
BRIAN MacWHINNEY
Affiliation:
Carnegie Mellon University
NATASHA TOKOWICZ
Affiliation:
University of Pittsburgh
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Nora Presson, Learning Research and Development Center, University of Pittsburgh, 3939 O'Hara Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15213. E-mail: presson@pitt.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Two experiments successfully trained novices to categorize French nouns by grammatical gender, resulting in high levels of performance after delay. Training with a frequent exemplar and training with a more diverse exemplar set led to equivalent learning. However, providing explicit rules with correctness feedback led to better generalization and retention than did correctness feedback alone or feature focusing without explicit rule information. This suggests that, at least for some grammar tasks, explicit information about form–function mappings improves learning. Moreover, the advantage of rule instruction was robust to testing and training under time pressure. Thus, rule instruction may be helpful even when speeded performance is required, supporting the prediction that practice leads to proceduralization of declarative grammatical knowledge.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 35 , Issue 4 , July 2014 , pp. 709 - 737
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012 

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Anderson, J., & Fincham, J. M. (1994). Acquisition of procedural skills from examples. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 1322–1340.Google Scholar
Armstrong, S. L., Gleitman, L. R., & Gleitman, H. (1983). What some concepts might not be. Cognition, 13, 263–308.Google Scholar
Bartning, I. (2000). Gender agreement in L2 French: Preadvanced vs. advanced learners. Studia Linguistica, 54, 225–237.Google Scholar
Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1982). Functionalist approaches to grammar. In Wanner, E. & Gleitman, L. (Eds.), Language acquisition: The state of the art (pp. 173–218). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Besnter, D., Coltheart, M., & Davelaar, E. J. (1984). Basic processes in reading: Computation of abstract letter identities. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 38, 126–134.Google Scholar
Cahill, L., Haier, R., Fallon, J., Alkire, M., Tang, C., Keator, D., et al. (1996). Amygdala activity at encoding correlated with long-term free recall of emotional information. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 93, 8016–8021.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carroll, S. (2005). Input and SLA: Adults’ sensitivity to different sorts of cues to French gender. Language Learning, 55, 79–138.Google Scholar
Chan, A., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2009). Children's understanding of the agent–patient relations in the transitive construction: Cross-linguistic comparisons between Cantonese, German, and English. Cognitive Linguistics, 20, 267–300.Google Scholar
de Graaff, R. (1997). The eXperanto experiment: Effects of explicit instruction on second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 249–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R., & Larson-Hall, J. (2005). What does the critical period really mean? In Kroll, J. F. & de Groot, A. M. B. (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dewaele, J.-M. (1994). Variation synchronique des taux d'exactitude: Analyze de fréquence des erreurs morpholexiques des trois styles d'interlangue française. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 33, 275–300.Google Scholar
Dewaele, J.-M., & Véronique, D. (2001). Gender assignment and gender agreement in advanced French interlanguage: A cross-sectional study. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4, 275–297.Google Scholar
Ducroquet, L. (1979). The dictation—An outdated exercise? System, 7, 125–129.Google Scholar
Elio, R., & Anderson, J. (1984). The effects of information order and learning mode on schema abstraction. Memory and Cognition, 12, 20–30.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. (1994). Consciousness in second language learning: Psychological perspectives on the role of conscious processes in vocabulary acquisition. AILA Review, 11, 37–56.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 143–188.Google Scholar
Ellis, N., & Sagarra, N. (2010). Learned attention effects in L2 temporal reference: The first hour and the next eight semesters. Language Learning, 60, 85–108.Google 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.Google Scholar
Ericsson, K. A., Chase, W. G., & Faloon, S. (1980). Acquisition of a memory skill. Science, 208, 1181–1182.Google Scholar
Gentner, D., & Medina, J. (1998). Similarity and the development of rules. Cognition, 65, 263–297.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. (1999). The emergence of the semantics of argument structure constructions. In MacWhinney, B. (Ed.), The emergence of language (pp. 197–213). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A., Casenhiser, D., & Sethuraman, N. (2004). Learning argument struture generalizations. Cognitive Linguistics, 15, 289–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grevisse, M., & Goosse, A. (2007). Le bon usage: Grammaire Française. Paris: Duculot.Google Scholar
Gullberg, M., Roberts, L., Dimroth, C., Veroude, K., & Indefrey, P. (2010). Adult language learning after minimal exposure to an unknown natural language. Language Learning, 60, 5–24.Google Scholar
Hardison, D. M. (1992). Acquisition of grammatical gender in French: L2 learner accuracy and strategies. Canadian Modern Language Review, 48, 715–728.Google Scholar
Harley, B. (1998). The role of form-focused tasks in promoting child L2 acquisition. In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 156–174). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Holmes, V. M., & Segui, J. (2004). Sublexical and lexical influences on gender assignment in French. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 33, 425–457.Google Scholar
Hulstijn, J. (2001). Intentional and incidental second language vocabulary learning: A reappraisal of elaboration, rehearsal, and automaticity. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 258–286). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hulstijn, J., & Laufer, B. (2001). Some empirical evidence for the involvement load hypothesis in vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 51, 539–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jafarpur, A., & Yamini, M. (1993). Does practice with dictation improve language skills? System, 21, 359–369.Google Scholar
Jordan, T. R., Redwood, M., & Patchings, G. R. (2003). Effects of form familiarity on perception of words, pseudowords, and nonwords in the two cerebral hemispheres. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15, 537–548.Google Scholar
Kilborn, K., & Ito, T. (1989). Sentence processing in Japanese–English and Dutch–English bilinguals. In MacWhinney, B. & Bates, E. (Eds.), The crosslinguistic study of sentence processing (pp. 257–291). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1994). The input hypothesis and its rivals. In Ellis, N. C. (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 45–78). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, J. D., & Elman, J. (2001). Learnability and the statistical structure of language: Poverty of stimulus arguments revisited. Paper presented at the 26th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development.Google Scholar
L'Huillier, M. (1999). Advanced French grammar. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (1990). Focus-on-form and corrective feedback in communicative language teaching. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 429–448.Google Scholar
Lindsay, S., & Gaskell, M. (2010). A complementary systems account of word learning in L1 and L2. Language Learning, 60, 45–63.Google Scholar
Long, M. (2000). Focus on form in task-based language teaching. In Lambert, R. & Shohamy, E. (Eds.), Language policy and pedagogy: Essays in honor of A. Ronald Walton (pp. 179–192). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (2004a). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 399–432.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (2004b). Research on form-focused instruction in immersion classrooms: Implications for theory and practice. French Language Studies, 14, 321–341.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (2006). Predictability in French gender attribution: A corpus analysis. French Language Studies, 16, 69–92.Google Scholar
Lyster, R., & Izquierdo, J. (2010). Prompts versus recasts in dyadic interaction. Language Learning, 59, 453–498.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. (2006). Feedback, noticing, and instructed second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 27, 405–430.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (1982). Basic syntactic processes. In Kuczaj, S. (Ed.), Language acquisition: Vol. 1. Syntax and semantics (pp. 73–136). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (1997). Implicit and explicit processes. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 277–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2000). Lexicalist connectionism. In Broeder, P. & Murre, J. (Eds.), Models of language acquisition: Inductive and deductive approaches (pp. 9–32). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2011). The logic of the unified model. In Gass, S. & Mackey, A. (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (in press). Item-based patterns in early syntactic development. In Herbst, T. (Ed.), Valency relations. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Manning, P. (1996). Exploratory teaching of grammar rules and CALL. ReCALL, 8, 24–30.Google Scholar
McClelland, A., & Rogers, T. (2004). Semantic cognition: A parallel distributed processing approach. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Merriman, W. (1999). Competition, attention, and young children's lexical processing. In MacWhinney, B. (Ed.), The emergence of language (pp. 331–358). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Ninio, A. (1999). Pathbreaking verbs in syntactic development and the question of prototypical transitivity. Journal of Child Language, 26, 619–653.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417–528.Google Scholar
Paradis, M. (2004). A neurolinguistic theory of bilingualism. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Pavlik, P. I. Jr., Presson, N., Dozzi, G., Wu, S., MacWhinney, B., & Koedinger, K. (2007). The FaCT (Fact and Concept Training) System: A new tool linking Cognitive Science with educators. Unpublished manuscript, Cognitive Science Society. Retrieved from http://csjarchive.cogsci.rpi.edu/proceedings/2007/docs/p1379.pdfGoogle Scholar
PavlikP. I., Jr. P. I., Jr., Presson, N. & Koedinger, K. (2007). Optimizing knowledge component learning using a dynamic structural model of practice. In Lewis, R. & Polk, T. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference of Cognitive Modeling. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Perfetti, C. A., Bell, L. C., & Delaney, S. M. (1988). Automatic (prelexical) phonetic activation in silent word reading: Evidence from backward masking. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 59–70.Google Scholar
Pica, T. (1985). Second-language acquisition, social interaction, and the classroom. Applied Linguistics, 8, 3–21.Google Scholar
Pimsleur, P. (1967). A memory schedule. Modern Language Journal, 51, 73–75.Google Scholar
Posner, M., & Keele, S. (1970). Retention of abstract ideas. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 83, 304–308.Google Scholar
Price, G. (2008). A comprehensive French grammar. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Rast, R. (2010). The role of linguistic input in the first hours of adult language learning. Language Learning, 60, 64–84.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (1995). Attention, memory, and the “noticing” hypothesis. Language Learning, 45, 285–331.Google 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.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2010). Implicit artificial grammar and incidental natural second language learning: How comparable are they? Language Learning, 60, 245–263.Google Scholar
Rutherford, W., & Sharwood-Smith, M. (1985). Consciousness raising and universal grammar. Applied Linguistics, 6, 274–282.Google Scholar
Sanz, C., & Morgan-Short, K. (2004). Positive evidence versus explicit rule presentation and explicit negative feedback: A computer-assisted study. Language Learning, 54, 35–78.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1993). Awareness and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 206–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1994). Implicit learning and the cognitive unconscious: Of artificial grammars and SLA. In Ellis, N. C. (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 165–210). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Schneider, W., & Chein, J. (2003). Controlled and automatic processing: Behavior, theory, and biological mechanisms. Cognitive Science, 27, 525–559.Google Scholar
Segalowitz, N., & Segalowitz, S. (1993). Skilled performance, practice, and the differentiation of speed-up from automatization effects: Evidence from second language word recognition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 14, 369–385.Google Scholar
Spada, N., & Tomita, Y. (2010). Interactions between type of instruction and type of language features: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 263–308.Google Scholar
Tucker, R., Lambert, W., & Rigault, A. (1977). The French speaker's skill with grammatical gender: An example of rule-governed behavior. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Ullman, M. (2001a). The declarative/procedural model of lexicon and grammar. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 30, 37–69.Google Scholar
Ullman, M. (2001b). A neurocognitive perspective on language: The declarative/procedural model. Nature Reviews: Neuroscience, 2, 717–722.Google Scholar
Walker, J. (n.d.). Le truc de genres. Retrieved from http://www.fourmilab.ch/francais/gender.htmlGoogle Scholar
Wittenberg, G., Sullivan, M., & Tsien, J. (2002). Synaptic reentry reinforcement-based network model for long-term memory consolidation. Hippocampus, 12, 637–647.Google Scholar