The Role of Input Frequency and Different Proficiency Levels on the Perception of English Nominal Suffixes by L1 Thai Learners: A Case of the Usage-Based Account
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This study investigated how input frequency (i.e., type frequency and token frequency) and proficiency levels enhanced the perception of English nominal suffixes by first language (L1) Thai learners. Based on the Usage-based Account (Tomasello, 2003), it was hypothesized that input frequency, i.e., token frequency (frequency of derived forms containing the particular suffix) and type frequency (suffix frequency), facilitates SLA. A Grammaticality Judgement Test (GJT) was administered to 60 L1 Thai learners at the intermediate and the advanced proficiency levels, 30 per group. The four frequency conditions were as follows: Condition 1 (HH) – high type and high token frequency (e.g., ‘alteration’); Condition 2 (HL) – high type and low token frequency (e.g., ‘chemist’); Condition 3 (LH) – low type and high token frequency (e.g., ‘dependence’); and Condition 4 (LL) – low type and low token frequency (e.g., ‘partnership’). The results showed significant effects of input frequency and proficiency levels. However, the interaction between them was not significant. The study also revealed that the intermediate group perceived Condition 3 (LH) most accurately, whereas Condition 1 (HH) was perceived most accurately by the advanced group. The findings supported the Usage-based Account, indicating that input frequency influenced SLA of English nominal suffixes, with token frequency having a greater impact than type frequency.
Article Details
References
Almulla, N. (2015). The role of frequency in L2 structure accuracy: Acquiring the English infinitive-gerund construction by Arabic L1 speakers [Master’s thesis, California State University, Long Beach]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
Alotaibi, M. A., & Alotaibi, A. M. (2017). On the acquisition of derivational suffixes by Kuwaiti EFL learners. European Scientific Journal, 13(17), 223–238. https://doi.org/10.19044/esj.2017.v13n17p223
Bertram, R., Laine, M., & Virkkala, M. (2000). The role of derivational morphology in vocabulary acquisition: Get by with a little help from my morpheme friends. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 41(1), 287–296. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9450.0020
Bybee, J. L. (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 University Press.
Bybee, J. L., & Beckner, C. (2010). Usage-based theory. In B. Heine & H. Narrog (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis (pp. 827–855). Oxford University Press.
Bybee, J. L., & Thompson, S. (1997). Three frequency effects in syntax. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 23(1), 378–388. https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v23i1.1293
Charnchairerk, C. (2021). Predictive validity of the CU-TEP as an indicator of students’ academic achievement in English. PASAA, 62, 29–60. https://doi.org/10.58837/CHULA.PASAA.62.1.2
Chiarakiat, C. (2019). The role of input frequency on the acquisition of English adjectival suffixes by L1 Thai learners [Master’s thesis, Chulalongkorn University]. Chulalongkorn University Theses and Dissertations (Chula ETD).
Croft, W., & Cruse, D. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge University Press.
Dąbrowska, E. (2004). Language, mind and brain. Edinburgh University Press.
Ellis, N. C., & Collins, L. (2009). Input and second language acquisition: The roles of frequency, form, and function introduction to the special issue. The Modern Language Journal, 93(3), 329–335. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00893.x
Ellis, N. C., Simpson-Vlach, R., & Maynard, C. (2008). Formulaic language in native and second language speakers: Psycholinguistics, corpus linguistics, and TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 42(3), 375–396. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2008.tb00137.x
Eskildsen, S. W., & Cadierno, T. (2007). Are recurring multi-word expressions really syntactic freezes? Second language acquisition from the perspective of usage-based linguistics. Collocations and Idioms, 1, 86–89.
Fromkin, V., Rodman, R., & Hyams, N. (2018). Introduction to language (11th ed.). Cengage Learning.
Grainger, J., O’Regan, J. K., Jacobs, A. M., & Segui, J. (1989). On the role of competing word units in visual word recognition: The neighborhood frequency effect. Perception & Psychophysics, 45(3), 189–195. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03210696
Hamawand, Z. (2011). Morphology in English: Word formation in cognitive grammar. Continuum.
Hay, J., & Baayen, H. (2003). Phonotactics, parsing and productivity. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 15(1), 99–130.
Iwasaki, S., & Ingkaphirom, P. (2005). A reference grammar of Thai. Cambridge University Press.
Jarmulowicz, L. D. (2002). English derivational suffix frequency and children’s stress judgments. Brain and Language, 81(1-3), 192–204. https://doi.org/10.1006/brln.2001.2517
Laws, J. C., & Ryder, C. (2014). Getting the measure of derivational morphology in adult speech: A corpus analysis using MorphoQuantics. Language Studies Working Papers: University of Reading, 6, 3–17.
Leontjev, D., Huhta, A., & Mäntylä, K. (2016). Word derivational knowledge and writing proficiency: How do they link? System, 59, 73–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.03.013
Menut, A., Brysbaert, M., & Casalis, S. (2023). Derivational awareness in late bilinguals increases along with proficiency without a clear influence of the suffixes shared with L1. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 26(1), 138–151. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728922000402
Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge University Press.
Norouzian, R., & Plonsky, L. (2017). Eta- and partial eta-squared in L2 research: A cautionary review and guide to more appropriate usage. Second Language Research, 34(2), 257–271. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658316684904
Pierrehumbert, J. B. (2001). Exemplar dynamics: Word frequency, lenition and contrast. In J. Bybee & P. Hoppe (Eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure (pp. 137–157). John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.45.08pie
Prasithrathsint, A. (1996). Stylistic differentiation of /kaan/ and /khwaam/ nominalization in Standard Thai. In S. Burusphat (Ed.), Pan-Asiatic Linguistics: Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Languages and Linguistics (Vol. 4, pp. 1206–1216).
Prasithrathsint, A. (1997). The emergence and development of abstract nominalization in Standard Thai. In S. Burusphat & T. Ratitamkul (Eds.), Southeast Asian Linguistic Studies in Honour of Vichin Panupong (pp. 179–190).
Prasithrathsint, A. (2005). Nominalization and categorization of verbs in Thai. Proceedings of SEALS, 15, 73–81.
Richards, C., & Schmidt, R. (2013). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics (4 ed.). Routledge.
Sayer, I. M., & Abdulsalam, S. (2018). The acquisition of derivational suffixes by students of English at the University of Human Development. Journal of University of Human Development, 4(4), 55–60. https://doi.org/10.21928/juhd.v4n4y2018.pp55-60
Schmitt, N., & Zimmerman, C. B. (2002). Derivative word forms: What do learners know? TESOL Quarterly, 36(2), 145–171. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588328
Smyth, D. (2002). Thai: An essential Grammar. Routledge.
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a Language. Cambridge University Press.
Wudthayagorn, J. (2018). Mapping the CU-TEP to the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR). LEARN Journal: Language Education and Acquisition Research Network, 11(2), 163–180.
Yuldashev, A., Fernandez, J., & Thorne, S. L. (2013). Second language learners’ contiguous and discontiguous multi‐word unit use over time. The Modern Language Journal, 97(S1), 31–45. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2012.01420.x
Zhao, H., & Le, F. (2016). Measuring L2 explicit knowledge of English verb-particle constructions: Frequency and semantic transparency at two proficiency levels. In L. Sánchez & R. P. Leow (Eds.), The Usage-Based Study of Language Learning and Multilingualism (1st ed., pp. 171–185). Georgetown University Press.
Zyzik, E. (2009). The role of input revisited: Nativist versus usage-based models. L2 Journal, 1(1), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.5070/l2.v1i1.9056