Language Acquisition as Rational Contingency Learning
Abstract
This paper considers how fluent language users are rational in their language processing, their unconscious language representation systems optimally prepared for comprehension and production, how language learners are intuitive statisticians, and how acquisition can be understood as contingency learning. But there are important aspects of second language acquisition that do not appear to be rational, where input fails to become intake. The paper describes the types of situation where cognition deviates from rationality and it introduces how the apparent irrationalities of L2 acquisition result from standard phenomena of associative learning as encapsulated in the models of Rescorla and Wagner (1972) and Cheng and Holyoak (1995), which describe how cue salience, outcome importance, and the history of learning from multiple probabilistic cues affect the development of ‘learned selective attention’ and transfer.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Contingency learning is central to the competition model, a psycholinguistic theory of language acquisition and sentence processing.
“Contingency learning is central to the competition model, a psycholinguistic theory of language acquisition and sentence processing (MacWhinney, 1987;MacWhinney & Bates, 1989), as well as to other psycholinguistic models of construction learning such as the rational learning of form-function contingencies (N.C. Ellis, 2006).”
From Effects of Availability, Contingency, and Formulaicity on the Accuracy of English Grammatical Morphemes in Second Language Writing (2022) · cites this paper as N.C. Ellis, 2006
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 120 · Cited by 559
- Authors
- Ellis, N. C.
- Affiliations
- University of Michigan (US)
- Corresponding author
- Ellis, Nick C.
- ORCID
- Ellis, Nick C.
- Venue
- Applied Linguistics
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2006-03-01
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-24
- ISSN
- 0142-6001 (ISSN-L)
- 1477-450X
- OpenAlex
- W2163539051
- Cited by
- 559
- References
- 120
- Citations by year
- 2026: 44 · 2025: 35 · 2024: 54 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 35 · 2019: 43 · 2018: 30 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 38 · 2015: 63 · 2014: 27 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 20
- FWCI
- 88.03
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Applied Linguistics (publishedVersion)
- Deep Blue (University of Michigan) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
- Keywords
- second language acquisition, contingency learning, rationality, associative learning, Rescorla-Wagner model, cue salience, transfer, probabilistic cues, linguistic representation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review