CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 12Second Language Acquisition and LearningEFL/ESL Teaching and LearningLanguage Development and Disorders

Language Usage and Second Language Morphosyntax: Effects of Availability, Reliability, and Formulaicity

Open access
Guo, Rundi, Ellis, Nick C.·2021·Frontiers in Psychology
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.582259PMC PMC8116661
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

A large body of psycholinguistic research demonstrates that both language processing and language acquisition are sensitive to the distributions of linguistic constructions in usage. Here we investigate how statistical distributions at different linguistic levels – morphological and lexical (Experiments 1 and 2), and phrasal (Experiment 2) – contribute to the ease with which morphosyntax is processed and produced by second language learners. We analyze Chinese ESL learners’ knowledge of four English inflectional morphemes:-ed,-ing, and third-person-son verbs, and plural-son nouns. In Elicited Imitation Tasks, participants listened to length- and difficulty-matched sentences each containing one target morpheme and typed the whole sentence as accurately as they could after a short delay. Experiment 1 investigated lexical and morphemic levels, testing the hypotheses that a morpheme is expected to be more easily processed when it is (1) highlyavailable(i.e., occurring in frequent word-forms), and (2) highlyreliable(i.e., occurring in lemma words that are consistently conjugated in the form containing this morpheme). Thirty sentences were made for each morpheme, divided into three Availability-Reliability Distribution (ARD) groups on the basis of corpus analysis in the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA; Davies, 2008 -): 10 target words high in availability, 10 high in reliability, and 10 low in both reliability and availability. Responses were scored on whether the target morpheme was accurately reproduced given the provision of the correct lemma. A generalized linear mixed-effects logit model (GLMM) revealed fixed effects of morpheme type, availability, and reliability on the accuracy of morpheme provision. There were no effects of lemma frequency. Experiment 2 successfully replicated these results and extended the investigation to explore phrasal formulaicity by manipulating the frequency of the four-word strings in which the morpheme was embedded. GLMMs replicated the effects of word-form availability and reliability and additionally revealed independentphrase-superiority effectswhere morphemes were better reproduced in contexts of higher string-frequency. Taken together, these findings demonstrate that morpheme acquisition reflects the distributional properties of learners’ experience and the mappings therein between lexis, morphology, phraseology, and semantics. These conclusions support an emergentist view of the statistical symbolic learning of morphology where language acquisition involves the satisfaction of competing constraints across multiple grain-sizes of units.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.582259

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • In Guo and Ellis's (2021) two experiments, there were no effects of lemma frequency.

    “3. there were no effects of lemma frequency;”

    From Effects of Availability, Contingency, and Formulaicity on the Accuracy of English Grammatical Morphemes in Second Language Writing (2022) · cites this paper as Guo and Ellis (2021)

    Experiment 1 Results report that lemma frequency was not a significant predictor of morpheme-production accuracy (p = 0.97). Experiment 2 Results list the predictors tested but do not report a separate lemma-frequency test, so our copy does not establish that this finding held in both experiments. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The recognition and preservation of the correct form of target words in EIT is influenced by the forces of availability, contingency, and formulaicity.

    “and likewise here too the recognition and preservation of the correct form of target words in EIT is influenced by the forces of availability, contingency, and formulaicity.”

    From Effects of Availability, Contingency, and Formulaicity on the Accuracy of English Grammatical Morphemes in Second Language Writing (2022) · cites this paper as Guo and Ellis (2021)

    The Experiment 1 process analysis says recognition and preservation of correct target-word forms in EIT are *likely* influenced by availability, reliability, and formulaicity. The Introduction explains that measuring reliability entails estimating contingency, and the Conclusion reports EIT effects for all three factors. The claim is close in substance but states the proposed effect on recognition and preservation as a fact rather than a likelihood. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • In Guo and Ellis's (2021) two experiments, reliability (contingency) had highly significant effects on the accuracy of provision, particularly of plural -s, third-person present-tense -s, and progressive -ing.

    “1. there were highly significant effects of reliability (i.e., contingency) on the accuracy of provision (particularly of plural -s, third-person present-tense -s, and progressive -ing);”

    From Effects of Availability, Contingency, and Formulaicity on the Accuracy of English Grammatical Morphemes in Second Language Writing (2022) · cites this paper as Guo and Ellis (2021)

    In the Experiment 1 and Experiment 2 Results, reliability was a highly significant overall predictor of provision accuracy in both experiments (p = 0.000). The morpheme-specific claim needs qualification: Experiment 1 found a significant effect for plural -s, a marginal effect for third-person -s, and no significant effect for progressive -ing. Experiment 2 found significant effects for all three, although the progressive -ing effect was p = 0.047. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The perception and comprehension encoding stages involve three parts: (a) taking word-forms into an auditory/lexical buffer, (b) linking lexical items syntactically, and (c) constructing a meaningful interpretation of the sentence.

    “The perception and comprehension encoding stages involve three parts: (a) taking word-forms into an auditory/lexical buffer, (b) linking lexical items syntactically, and (c) constructing a meaningful interpretation of the sentence.”

    From Effects of Availability, Contingency, and Formulaicity on the Accuracy of English Grammatical Morphemes in Second Language Writing (2022) · cites this paper as Guo and Ellis (2021)

    The Experiment 1 section, “A Process Analysis of EIT as It Relates to Morpheme Production,” lists all three parts almost verbatim. It specifies that this account concerns the perception and comprehension encoding stages *in EIT*; the citing sentence omits that task-specific qualification. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Guo and Ellis (2021) simply replaced pronoun contexts with proper-noun contexts, a blunt instrument that would have caused large reductions in formulaicity however it was measured.

    “Guo and Ellis (2021) simply replaced pronoun contexts with proper-noun contexts, a blunt instrument that would have caused large reductions in formulaicity however it was measured.”

    From Effects of Availability, Contingency, and Formulaicity on the Accuracy of English Grammatical Morphemes in Second Language Writing (2022) · cites this paper as Guo and Ellis (2021)

    Experiment 2’s Method (page unavailable) says the authors replaced pronouns with person names for the three verbal morphemes, and the resulting four-word strings typically had a corpus frequency of zero. But for noun plurals they inserted adjectives instead. The paper supports a large reduction in its four-word string-frequency measure, not the claim that the replacement was the entire manipulation or would reduce formulaicity however measured. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 86

  1. Andersen R. W. (1984). The one-to-one principle of interlanguage construction. Lang. Learn. 34 77– 95. 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1984.tb00353.x · DOI
  2. Andersen R. W. Shirai Y. (1996). “ The primacy of aspect in first and second language acquisition: the pidgin-creole connection,” in Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, eds Ritchie W. Bhatia T. (Leiden: Brill), 527– 570. 10.1016/b978-012589042-7/50018-9 · DOI
  3. Bannard C. Matthews D. (2008). Stored word sequences in language learning: the effect of familiarity on Children’s repetition of four-word combinations. Psychol. Sci. 19 241– 248. 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02075.x 18315796 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Bardovi-Harlig K. Comajoan-Colomé L. (2020). The Aspect Hypothesis and the acquisition of L2 past morphology in the last 20 years: a state of the scholarship review. Stud. Second. Lang. Acquis. 42 1137– 1167. 10.1017/S0272263120000194 · DOI
  5. Bates D. Mächler M. Bolker B. Walker S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Softw. 67: 115553. 10.18637/jss.v067.i01 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Beckner C. Blythe R. Bybee J. Christiansen M. H. Croft W. Ellis N. C. (2009). Language is a complex adaptive system: position paper. Lang. Learn. 59 1– 26. 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00533.x · DOI
  7. Bod R. Hay J. Jannedy S. (2003). Probabilistic Linguistics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  8. Braine M. D. S. Brody R. E. Brooks P. J. Sudhalter V. Ross J. A. Catalano L. (1990). Exploring language acquisition in children with a miniature artificial language: effects of item and pattern frequency, arbitrary subclasses, and correction. J. Mem. Lang. 29 591– 610. 10.1016/0749-596X(90)90054-4 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Brown R. (1973). A First Language: The Early Stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  10. Bybee J. (2010). Language, Usage, and Cognition. Cambridge University Press.
  11. Bybee J. L. (1985). Morphology: A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 10.1075/tsl.9 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Bybee J. L. (2006). From usage to grammar: the mind’s response to repetition. Language 82 711– 733. 10.1353/lan.2006.0186 · DOI
  13. Bybee J. L. Hopper P. J. (2001). Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 10.1075/tsl.45 · DOI
  14. Childers J. B. Tomasello M. (2001). The role of pronouns in young children’s acquisition of the English transitive construction. Dev. Psychol. 37 739– 748. 10.1037/0012-1649.37.6.739 11699749 · DOI
  15. Christiansen M. H. Chater N. (2016). The now-or-never bottleneck: a fundamental constraint on language. Behav. Brain Sci. 39: e62. 10.1017/S0140525X1500031X 25869618 · DOI
  16. Comrie B. (1976). Aspect: An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and Related Problems. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.
  17. Conklin K. Schmitt N. (2008). Formulaic sequences: are they processed more quickly than nonformulaic language by native and nonnative speakers? Appl. Ling. 29 72– 89. 10.1093/applin/amm022 · DOI
  18. Corder S. P. (1967). The significance of learner’s errors. Int. Rev. Appl. Ling. Lang. Teach. 5 161– 170. 10.1515/iral.1967.5.1-4.161 · DOI
  19. Ellis N. C. (1996). Sequencing in SLA: phonological memory, chunking, and points of order. Stud. Sec. Lang. Acq. 18 91– 126. 10.1017/S0272263100014698 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Ellis N. C. (2006a). Language acquisition as rational contingency learning. Appl. Ling. 27 1– 24. 10.1093/applin/ami038 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Ellis N. C. (2006b). Selective attention and transfer phenomena in L2 acquisition: contingency, cue competition, salience, interference, overshadowing, blocking, and perceptual learning. Appl. Ling. 27 164– 194. 10.1093/applin/aml015 · DOI
  22. Ellis N. C. (2011). “ Frequency-based accounts of SLA,” in Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, eds Gass S. Mackey A. (London: Routledge), 193– 210. 10.1515/9783110550443-022 · DOI
  23. Ellis N. C. (2012a). “ What can we count in language, and what counts in language acquisition, cognition, and use?,” in Frequency Effects in Language Learning and Processing, eds Gries S. T. Divjak D. (Berlin: De Gruyter), 10.1515/9783110274059.7 · DOI
  24. Ellis N. C. (2012b). Formulaic language and second language acquisition: Zipf and the phrasal teddy bear. Annu. Rev. Appl. Ling. 32 17– 44. 10.1017/S0267190512000025 · DOI
  25. Ellis N. C. (2017). “ Chunking,” in The Changing English Language: Psycholinguistic Perspectives, eds Hundt M. Mollin S. Pfenninger S. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 113– 147.
  26. Ellis N. C. Römer U. O’Donnell M. B. (2016). Usage-Based Approaches to Language Acquisition and Processing: Cognitive and Corpus Investigations of Construction Grammar. Malden, MA: Wiley.
  27. Ellis N. C. Sagarra N. (2010). The bounds of adult language acquisition. Stud. Sec. Lang. Acq. 32 553– 580. 10.1017/S0272263110000264 · DOI
  28. Elman J. L. (1990). Finding structure in time. Cogn. Sci. 14 179– 211. 10.1207/s15516709cog1402_1 · DOI · Paper page
  29. Erlam R. (2006). Elicited imitation as a measure of L2 implicit knowledge: an empirical validation study. Appl. Ling. 27 464– 491. 10.1093/applin/aml001 · DOI
  30. Erman B. Warren B. (2000). The idiom principle and the open choice principle. Text 20 29– 62. 10.1515/text.1.2000.20.1.29 · DOI · Paper page
  31. Finley S. (2015). “ Frequency effects in morpheme segmentation,” in Proceedings of the 37th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, (Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society), 704– 709.
  32. Finley S. (2018). Cognitive and linguistic biases in morphology learning. WIREs Cogn. Sci. 9: e1467. 10.1002/wcs.1467 29847013 · DOI · Paper page
  33. Forster K. I. Chambers S. M. (1973). Lexical access and naming time. J. Verb. Learn. Verb. Behav. 12 627– 635. 10.1016/S0022-5371(73)80042-8 · DOI · Paper page
  34. Gaillard S. Tremblay A. (2016). Linguistic proficiency assessment in second language acquisition research: the elicited imitation task: elicited imitation. Lang. Learn. 66 419– 447. 10.1111/lang.12157 · DOI
  35. Goldberg A. E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago, CA: University of Chicago Press.
  36. Goldberg A. E. (2006). Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  37. Goldschneider J. M. DeKeyser R. M. (2001). Explaining the “Natural Order of L2 morpheme acquisition” in English: a meta-analysis of multiple determinants. Lang. Learn. 51 1– 50. 10.1111/1467-9922.00147 · DOI · Paper page
  38. Gries S. T. (2009). Quantitative Corpus Linguistics with R: A Practical Introduction. 1. publ. New York, NY: Routledge.
  39. Gries S. T. (2015). More (old and new) misunderstandings of collostructional analysis: on Schmid and Küchenhoff (2013). Cogn. Ling. 26 505– 536. 10.1515/cog-2014-0092 · DOI
  40. Gries S. T. Ellis N. C. (2015). Statistical measures for usage-based linguistics: statistical measures for usage-based linguistics. Lang. Learn. 65 228– 255. 10.1111/lang.12119 · DOI · Paper page
  41. Gries S. T. Stefanowitsch A. (2004). Extending collostructional analysis: a corpus-based perspective on “alternations”. Int. J. Corpus Ling. 9 97– 129. 10.1075/ijcl.9.1.06gri 33486653 · DOI · Paper page
  42. Hay J. (2001). Lexical frequency in morphology: is everything relative? Linguistics 39 1041– 1070. 10.1515/ling.2001.041 · DOI · Paper page
  43. Hoffmann T. Trousdale G. (2013). The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.001.0001 · DOI
  44. Janssen N. Barber H. A. (2012). Phrase frequency effects in language production. PLoS One 7: e33202. 10.1371/journal.pone.0033202 22479370 PMC3314013 · DOI
  45. Jarvis S. Pavlenko A. (2008). Crosslinguistic Influence in Language and Cognition. Routledge.
  46. Jia G. Fuse A. (2007). Acquisition of English grammatical morphology by native Mandarin-speaking children and adolescents: age-related differences. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 50 1280. 10.1044/1092-4388(2007/090) 17905912 · DOI
  47. Jiang N. (2004). Morphological insensitivity in second language processing. Appl. Psycholing. 25 603– 634. 10.1017/S0142716404001298 · DOI
  48. Jiang N. Nekrasova T. M. (2007). The processing of formulaic sequences by second language speakers. Mod. Lang. J. 91 433– 445. 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00589.x · DOI
  49. Larsen-Freeman D. E. (1976). An explanation for the morpheme acquisition order of second language learners. Lang. Learn. 26 125– 134. 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1976.tb00264.x · DOI · Paper page
  50. Levelt W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From Intention to Articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  51. Lim H. Godfroid A. (2015). Automatization in second language sentence processing: a partial, conceptual replication of Hulstijn, Van Gelderen, and Schoonen’s 2009 study. Appl. Psycholinguist. 36, 1247– 1282. 10.1017/S0142716414000137 · DOI
  52. Luce P. A. (1986). A computational analysis of uniqueness points in auditory word recognition. Percept. Psychophys. 39 155– 158. 10.3758/BF03212485 3737339 · DOI · Paper page
  53. Luk Z. P. Shirai Y. (2009). Is the acquisition order of grammatical morphemes impervious to L1 knowledge? Evidence from the acquisition of plural – s, articles, and possessive’s. Lang. Learn. 59 721– 754. 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00524.x · DOI
  54. MacWhinney B. (2001). “ The competition model: the input, the context, and the brain,” in Cognition and Second Language Instruction, ed. Robinson P. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 69– 90. 10.1017/CBO9781139524780.005 · DOI
  55. MacWhinney B. Bates E. (1989). The Crosslinguistic Study of Sentence Processing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  56. MacWhinney B. O’Grady W. (2014). The Handbook of Language Emergence. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
  57. Marchman V. A. (1997). Children’s productivity in the English past tense: the role of frequency, phonology, and neighborhood structure. Cogn. Sci. 21 283– 304. 10.1207/s15516709cog2103_2 · DOI
  58. McClelland J. L. Rumelhart D. E. (1981). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: I. An account of basic findings. Psychol. Rev. 88 375– 407. 10.1037/0033-295X.88.5.375 7058229 · DOI · Paper page
  59. McDonald A. S. Shillcock R. C. (2003). Eye movements reveal the on-line computation of lexical probabilities during reading. Psychol. Sci. 14 648– 652. 10.1046/j.0956-7976.2003.psci_1480.x 14629701 · DOI
  60. Mintz T. H. (2003). Frequent frames as a cue for grammatical categories in child directed speech. Cognition 90 91– 117. 10.1016/S0010-0277(03)00140-9 14597271 · DOI · Paper page
  61. Mintz T. H. Wang F. H. Li J. (2014). Word categorization from distributional information: frames confer more than the sum of their (Bigram) parts. Cogn. Psychol. 75 1– 27. 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2014.07.003 25164244 PMC4252487 · DOI
  62. Murakami A. Alexopoulou T. (2016). L1 influence on the acquisition order of English grammatical morphemes. Stud. Sec. Lang. Acq. 38 365– 401. 10.1017/S0272263115000352 · DOI
  63. Naigles L. R. Hoff-Ginsberg E. (1998). Why are some verbs learned before other verbs? Effects of input frequency and structure on children’s early verb use. J. Child Lang. 25 95– 120. 10.1017/s0305000997003358 9604570 · DOI
  64. Pawley A. Syder F. (1983). “ Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency,” in Language and Communication, eds Richards J. C. Schmidt R. W. (Milton Park: Taylor & Francis), 34.
  65. Peirce J. W. (2007). PsychoPy psychophysics software in python. J. Neurosci. Methods 162, 8– 13. 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2006.11.017 17254636 PMC2018741 · DOI
  66. Pollatsek A. Treiman R. Yap M. J. Balota D. A. (2015). “ Visual word recognition,” in The Oxford Handbook of Reading, eds Pollatsek A. Treiman R. (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199324576.013.4 · DOI
  67. Räsänen S. H. M. Ambridge B. Pine J. M. (2016). An elicited-production study of inflectional verb morphology in child Finnish. Cogn. Sci. 40 1704– 1738. 10.1111/cogs.12305 26548453 · DOI
  68. Ren Y. (2011). A study of the washback effects of the college English test (band 4) on teaching and learning English at tertiary level in China. Int. J. Pedagogies Learn. 6 243– 259. 10.5172/ijpl.2011.6.3.243 · DOI
  69. Schmid H.-J. (2020). The Dynamics of the Linguistic System: Usage, Conventionalization, and Entrenchment. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  70. Seidenberg M. S. McClelland J. L. (1989). A distributed, developmental model of word recognition and naming. Psychol. Rev. 96 523– 568. 10.1037/0033-295X.96.4.523 2798649 · DOI · Paper page
  71. Seidenberg M. S. Plaut D. C. (2014). Quasiregularity and its discontents: the legacy of the past tense debate. Cogn. Sci. 38 1190– 1228. 10.1111/cogs.12147 25104139 · DOI
  72. Sereno J. A. Jongman A. (1997). Processing of English inflectional morphology. Mem. Cogn. 25 425– 437. 10.3758/BF03201119 9259621 · DOI
  73. Shanks D. R. (1995). The Psychology of Associative Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  74. Sinclair J. (1995). Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. 3. impr. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  75. Siyanova-Chanturia A. Pellicer-Sanchez A. (2018). Understanding Formulaic Language: A Second Language Acquisition Perspective. New York, NY: Routledge.
  76. Slobin D. I (1996). “ From ‘thought and language’ to ‘thinking for speaking,” in Rethinking Linguistic Relativity, eds Gumperz J. Levinson S. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
  77. Stefanowitsch A. Gries S. T. (2003). Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. IJCL 8 209– 243. 10.1075/ijcl.8.2.03ste 33486653 · DOI · Paper page
  78. Tatsumi T. Ambridge B. Pine J. M. (2018). Disentangling effects of input frequency and morphophonological complexity on children’s acquisition of verb inflection: an elicited production study of Japanese. Cogn. Sci. 42 555– 577. 10.1111/cogs.12554 29023860 PMC6001619 · DOI
  79. Tremblay A. Derwing B. Libben G. Westbury C. (2011). Processing advantages of lexical bundles: evidence from self-paced reading and sentence recall tasks: lexical bundle processing. Lang. Learn. 61 569– 613. 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00622.x · DOI · Paper page
  80. Tsimpli I. M. Dimitrakopoulou M. (2007). The interpretability hypothesis: evidence from wh-interrogatives in second language acquisition. Sec. Lang. Res. 23 215– 242. 10.1177/0267658307076546 · DOI · Paper page
  81. Wheeler D. D. (1970). Processes in word recognition. Cogn. Psychol. 1 59– 85. 10.1016/0010-0285(70)90005-8 · DOI · Paper page
  82. Wulff S. (2019). “ Acquisition of formulaic language from a usage-based perspective,” in Understanding Formulaic Language: A Second Language Acquisition Perspective, eds Siyanova-Chanturia A. Pellicer-Sánchez A. (New York, NY: Routledge).
  83. Wulff S. Ellis N. C. (2018). “ Usage-based approaches to second language acquisition,” in Studies in Bilingualism, eds Miller D. Bayram F. Rothman J. Serratrice L. (Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company), 37– 56. 10.1075/sibil.54.03wul · DOI
  84. Xu F. Tenenbaum J. B. (2007). Word learning as Bayesian inference. Psychol. Rev. 114 245– 272. 10.1037/0033-295X.114.2.245 17500627 · DOI
  85. Yap M. J. Balota D. A. (2014). “ Visual word recognition,” in The Oxford Handbook of Reading, eds Plllatsek A. Treiman R. (Oxford University Press), 26– 43.
  86. Yeh Y.-F. Joshi R. M. Ji X. R. (2015). The development of morphological awareness in Chinese ESL students. Contem. Educ. Psychol. 43 51– 60. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.10.002 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Guo, R., & Ellis, N. C.
Affiliations
University of Michigan (US)
Corresponding author
Guo, Rundi
ORCID
Ellis, Nick C.
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2021-04-29
Volume
12
Pages
582259-582259
ISSN
1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3389/fpsyg.2021.582259
PMC
PMC8116661
OpenAlex
W3157088778
Cited by
12
References
13
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3
FWCI
3.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
Keywords
inflectional morphology, formulaicity, statistical learning, Chinese learners of English, English as a second language, phraseology, morpheme acquisition, elicited imitation

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