Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-30T16:15:14.888Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The role of learner and input variables in learning inflectional morphology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2006

PATRICIA J. BROOKS ,
VERA KEMPE  and
ARIEL SIONOV
PATRICIA J. BROOKS
Affiliation:
College of Staten Island and Graduate Center, City University of New York
VERA KEMPE
Affiliation:
University of Stirling
ARIEL SIONOV
Affiliation:
College of Staten Island, City University of New York
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

To examine effects of input and learner characteristics on morphology acquisition, 60 adult English speakers learned to inflect masculine and feminine Russian nouns in nominative, dative, and genitive cases. By varying training vocabulary size (i.e., type variability), holding constant the number of learning trials, we tested whether learners required a “critical mass” of vocabulary to generalize case marking patterns to new nouns. Cattell's Culture-Fair IQ Test mediated the effect of type variability on success in generalizing case marking to new vocabulary: only participants with above-median Culture-Fair Test scores showed the predicted critical mass effect of better generalization with larger training vocabulary. These results demonstrate how individual differences in central executive functioning and attention allocation capacity can affect adult second language learning.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 27 , Issue 2 , April 2006 , pp. 185 - 209
Copyright
2006 Cambridge University Press

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

Adams A.-M., & Gathercole S. E.2000. Limitations in working memory: Implications for language development. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 35, 95– 116.Google Scholar
Baddeley A., Gathercole S. E., & Papagno C.1998. The phonological loop as a language learning device. Psychological Review, 105, 158– 173.Google Scholar
Bates E., & Goodman J. C.1997. On the inseparability of grammar and the lexicon: Evidence from acquisition, aphasia, and real-time processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12, 507– 584.Google Scholar
Braine M. D. S.1987. What is learned in acquiring word classes—A step toward an acquisition theory. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition (pp. 65– 87). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Braine M. D. S., Brody R. E., Brooks P. J., Sudhalter V., Ross J., Catalano L., et al. 1990. Exploring language acquisition in children through the use of a miniature artificial language: Effects of item and pattern frequency, arbitrary subclasses, and correction. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 591– 610.Google Scholar
Brooks P. J., Braine M. D. S., Catalano L., Brody R. E., & Sudhalter V.1993. Acquisition of gender-like noun subclasses in an artificial language: The contribution of phonological markers to learning. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 76– 95.Google Scholar
Bybee J.1995. Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 10, 425– 255.Google Scholar
Bybee J., & Hopper P. (Eds.). 2001. Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Cattell R. B.1971. Abilities: Their structure, growth and action. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
Cattell R. B., & Cattell H. E. P.1973. Measuring Intelligence with the Culture-Fair Tests. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.
Cohen J., MacWhinney B., Flatt M., & Provost J.1993. PsyScope: An interactive graphical system for designing and controlling experiments in the psychology laboratory using Macintosh computers. Behavioral Research Methods, Instrumentation, and Computation, 25, 257– 271.Google Scholar
Conway A. R. A., Cowan N., Bunting M. F., Therriault D. J., & Minkoff S. R. B.2002. A latent variable analysis of working memory capacity, short-term memory capacity, processing speed, and general fluid intelligence. Intelligence, 30, 163– 183.Google Scholar
Cowan N.2000. The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 87– 185.Google Scholar
Daneman M., & Carpenter P. A.1980. Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 450– 466.Google Scholar
Dempster F. N.1992. The rise and fall of the inhibitory mechanism: Toward a unified theory of cognitive development and aging. Developmental Review, 12, 45– 75.Google Scholar
Dionne G., Dale P. S., Boivin M., & Plomin R.2003. Genetic evidence for bidirectional effects of early lexical and grammatical development. Child Development, 74, 394– 412.Google Scholar
Duncan J., Emslie H., Williams P., Johnson R., & Freer C.1996. Intelligence and the frontal lobe: The organization of goal-directed behavior. Cognitive Psychology, 30, 257– 303.Google Scholar
Ellis N. (Ed.). 1994. Implicit and explicit learning of languages. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Ellis N.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.Google Scholar
Ellis N., & Schmidt R.1998. Morphology and longer distance dependencies: Laboratory research illuminating the A in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 145– 171.Google Scholar
Ellis R.1994. The study of second language acquisition. Oxford University Press.
Engle R. W., Tuholski S. W., Laughlin J. E., & Conway A. R. A.1999. Working memory, short-term memory, and general fluid intelligence: A latent-variable approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 128, 309– 331.Google Scholar
Frenck-Mestre C. A., Foucart A., & Caetano-Nunes E.2004. Accessing grammatical gender in a second language: Native language influences. Abstracts of the Psychonomic Society, 45th Annual Meeting, 9, 47.Google Scholar
Fry A. F., & Hale S.1996. Processing speed, working memory, and fluid intelligence: Evidence for a developmental cascade. Psychological Science, 7, 237– 241.Google Scholar
Fry A. F., & Hale S.2000. Relationships among processing speed, working memory, and fluid intelligence in children. Biological Psychology, 54, 1– 34.Google Scholar
Gathercole S. E., Hitch G. J., Service E., & Martin A. J.1997. Phonological short-term memory and new word learning in children. Developmental Psychology, 33, 966– 979.Google Scholar
Gesi Blanchard A. T.1998. Transfer effects of first language proficiency on second language reading. In A. F. Healy & L. E. Bourne Jr., (Eds.), Foreign language learning: Psycholinguistic studies on training and retention (pp. 291– 314). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gomez R. L.2002. Variability and detection of invariant structure. Psychological Science, 13, 431– 436.Google Scholar
Gomez R. L., & Gerkin L. A.2000. Infant artificial language learning and language acquisition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 178– 186.Google Scholar
Grigorenko E. L., Sternberg R. J., & Ehrman M. E.2000. A theory-based approach to the measurement of foreign language learning ability: The Canal-F theory and test. The Modern Language Journal, 84, 390– 405.Google Scholar
Hernandez A., Li P., & MacWhinney B.2005. The emergence of competing modules in bilingualism. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 220– 225.Google Scholar
Hupet M., Desmette D., & Schelstraete M.-A.1997. What does Daneman and Carpenter's Reading Span really measure? Perceptual and Motor Skills, 84, 603– 608.Google Scholar
Just M. A., & Carpenter P. A.1992. A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99, 122– 149.Google Scholar
Kane M. J., & Engle R. A.2002. The role of prefrontal cortex in working-memory capacity, executive attention, and general fluid intelligence: An individual-differences perspective. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 9, 637– 671.Google Scholar
Kempe V., & Brooks P. J.2001. The role of diminutives in the acquisition of Russian gender: Can elements of child-directed speech aid in learning morphology? Language Learning, 51, 221– 256.Google Scholar
Lakoff G.1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
MacWhinney B.1992. Transfer and competition in second language learning. In: Harris R. J. (Ed.), Cognitive processing in bilinguals (pp. 371– 390). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Marchman V. A., & Bates E.1994. Continuity in lexical and morphological development: A test of the critical mass hypothesis. Journal of Child Language, 21, 339– 366.Google Scholar
Miyake A.2001. Individual differences in working memory: Introduction to special section. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 163– 168.Google Scholar
Miyake A., & Friedman N. P.1998. Individual differences in second language proficiency: Working memory as language aptitude. In Healy A. F., Bourne L. E. Jr., (Eds.), Foreign language learning: Psycholinguistic studies on training and retention (pp. 339– 364). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Miyake A., Friedman N. P., & Emerson M. J.2000. The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “frontal lobe” tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cogntive Psychology, 41, 49– 100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newport E. L., & Aslin R. N.2004. Learning at a distance I: Statistical learning of non-adjacent dependencies. Cognitive Psychology, 48, 127– 162.Google Scholar
Norris J., & Ortega L.2000. Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417– 528.Google Scholar
Plunkett K., & Juola P.1999. A connectionist model of English past tense and plural morphology. Cognitive Science, 23, 463– 490.Google Scholar
Price L.2004. Individual differences in learning: Cognitive control, cognitive style, and learning style. Journal of Educational Psychology, 24, 681– 698.Google Scholar
Robinson P.1995. Attention, memory, and the “noticing” hypothesis. Language Learning, 45, 283– 331.Google Scholar
Sasaki M.1996. Second language proficiency, foreign language aptitude, and intelligence. Baltimore, MD: Peter Lang.
Schmidt R.1990. The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Psycholinguistics, 11, 129– 158.Google Scholar
Shah P., & Miyake A.1996. The separability of working memory resources for spatial thinking and language processing: An individual differences approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 125, 4– 27.Google Scholar
Skehan P.1989. Individual differences in second-language learning. London: Edward Arnold.
Snodgrass J. G., & Vanderwart M.1980. A standardized set of 260 pictures: Norms for name agreement, image agreement, and visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6, 174– 215.Google Scholar
Taraban R.2004. Drawing learners' attention to syntactic context aids gender-like category induction. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 202– 216.Google Scholar
Tomasello M.2003. Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Winke P. M.2005. Individual differences in adult Chinese second language acquisition: The relationship among aptitude, memory and strategies for learning. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Georgetown University.