Usage-based approaches to L1 acquisition

From a cognitive linguistics perspective, first language acquisition involves the acquisition of constructions that map linguistic form and function from language usage and experience with specific exemplars of constructions. In this sense, language is acquired from actual instances of language use in their full contextual understanding (Ellis & Cadierno, 2009; Goldberg, 1995; Langacker, 2000). From this perspective, competence and performance emerge from the memorised exemplars of the use of these constructions (N. Ellis, 2002, 2003; Tomasello, 2003), with competence being the integrated collection of previous usage and performance being its contextualised activation (N. Ellis, 2006). Previous studies have revealed evidence of the extent to which language users retain specific information about their experience with the language (for reviews see Bod et al., 2003; Barlow & Kemmer, 2000; Bybee & Hopper, 2001; McRae et al., 1994; N. Ellis, 2002). Language acquisition, thus, involves the learning of constructions on the basis of input together with general cognitive processes (Goldberg & Casenhiser, 2008).

In this respect, a distinction must be made between token and type frequency. Token frequency represents the number of times a linguistic unit appears in the input, such as a particular consonant [s], a syllable [ba], a word [cat], a phrase [take a break] or even a sentence such as I do not know (Bybee, 1995, 2008). Type frequency is a different kind of count, in that only patterns of language have type frequency because this refers to how many distinct items are represented by the pattern. Type frequency might apply to phonotactic sequences as it would be the count of the number of words that start with [sp].

49

It also applies to morphological patterns such as stem + affix combinations. For example, the English past tense pattern in verbs such as break, broke, blow, blew have a lower type frequency compared to the regular past tense pattern that requires an addition of the -ed suffix. Syntactic patterns, or constructions, have type frequency as well. For example, the type frequency of the ditransitive construction in English is normally thought of as being based on the inventory of verbs that can be used in this construction (She gave me the book, She offered me the book, She sent me the book, and so on). N. Ellis (2002) proposed that token frequency leads to the entrenchment of a particular form, while type frequency drives the productivity of a particular pattern (see also Bybee 1985, who this suggestion ultimately goes back to). Type frequency promotes the process of generalisation by signifying to the learners that within the context of the same construction (pattern) other concrete items may serve the same function (a detailed discussion on the nature of generalisation will be presented below).

As mentioned earlier, these constructions (linguistic units) are form-function pairings that are learnt on the basis of their frequency in the input. They are gradually entrenched and modified over time by exposure to new experiences (e.g. Tomasello, 2003). As such, the more frequently a construction is encountered in the input, the more likely it is for this construction to be acquired and hence ready for use (Bybee, 1985, 2001, 2006; Langacker, 1987, 2000; Tomasello, 2003). Studies of children’s speech have found that the more frequently children hear a particular linguistic unit (e.g., morpheme or word) in the language used by adults to address them, the earlier they acquire it (Theakston et al., 2004, 2005; Tomasello, 2002, 2003, 2006; Wilson, 2003). Moreover, the effect of frequency has been found to extend to children’s development of complex syntax (e.g., relative clauses), since children are found to have a tendency to stick closely to and use

50

patterns that they have heard frequently (Levine, 2002; Matthews et al., 2005, 2007; Tomasello, 2002, 2003).

Usage-based approaches to first language acquisition (L1) hold that knowledge of grammar emerges as children create linguistic constructions from their analysis of recurring sequences of language (Ambridge & Lieven, 2011; Theakston & Lieven, 2017; Tomasello, 2003). After observing how children use language to communicate, Theakston and Lieven (2017) argue that much of child language can be described in terms of the reuse of multiword strings, which they hear in the speech of their caregivers. The researchers observed how children rely on multiword strings by looking into children’s error patterns, such as when children make more me-for-I errors (e.g. Me do it) when their caregivers frequently use sentences in which me appears pre-verbally (e.g. Let me do it). Their observations highlight the significance of learning abstractions over these sequences, which results in slot-and-frame type schemas (e.g. generalizing Where’s mommy? to Where’s PERSON?).

N. Ellis and Ogden (2017) were interested in testing the usage-based claim that multiword expressions are learned as patterns of language from language usage and that knowledge of these patterns underlies language processing. The authors explored these claims by looking at verb-argument constructions such as “Verb about noun phrase”, as theses constructions bind syntax, lexis and semantics. Ellis and Ogden then reported the results of corpus analyses showing that children’s use of these constructions closely matched the frequency with which they occurred in the speech heard by them from the adults around them. The authors argue that this construction is highly patterned in usage, this patterning drives language acquisition and language processing is sensitive to its forms and distributional statistics. They also argue that langue users have rich implicit knowledge of the frequency of multiword sequences. In this regard, the present study explores if this

51

claim is evident in language users’ sensitivity to the appropriate use of the target constructions, since the focus constructions consist of multiword sequences.

Children create and learn form-function mappings as a result of repeated exposure to many incidents of language use, in which they go through a process of comprehending and producing language (Tomasello, 2000). Input frequency has been shown to be one of the most important factors in explaining the pattern of children’s linguistic development. However, although frequency is a main factor in the acquisition of language in a cognitive linguistic account, it is not just the frequency of encounter of a construction that determines its acquisition (Ellis, 2008). Consistency of form is another factor that is found to have a role in the language acquisition process. Consistency refers to the reliability of the form as a predictor of an interpretation, which in turn contributes to its acquisition (Ellis, 2007; Goldberg & Casenhiser, 2008; Levine & Tomasello, 2006; MacWhinney, 1987). Thus, if one function maps to many forms or if one form has different functions, this is likely to cause problems in the acquisition of the target construction (Bates & MacWhinney, 1989; Levine & Tomasello, 2008). For example, the use of verb + -ed is presented when a speaker intends to indicate past tense. This consistent use of such a cue to indicate a past event is likely to encourage a form-function mapping in the mind of the child hearing the form (Levine & Tomasello, 2008). On the other hand, an unreliable mapping between form and function is likely to cause some sort of difficulty in the process of language acquisition, which in turn motivates the application of general learning mechanisms in order to deal with such difficulty (Ellis, 2006; Shanks, 1995). An example is found in the use of word + -s in English, as in its interpretations as plural -s ‘books’, or third-person singular present - s ‘Sam likes books’ and possessive -s ‘Sam’s book’.

From a usage-based approach to language acquisition, constructions can be acquired regardless of their length, with the process being strongly dependent on context and

52

language users' communicative needs (Tomasello, 2003). Once the constructions are acquired, knowledge about language is stored in the form of a rich interconnected network (Goldberg & Casenhiser, 2008). In this respect, the combination of lexical items into sentences is controlled by the stored constructions (Goldberg, 2006; Lieven & Tomasello, 2008), as they form patterns that specify how predicates (verb, adjectives) can combine with their arguments (MacWhinney, 2005). For example, the adjective ‘nice’ is linked to the construction: [nice X]. This item-based construction can be combined with other lexical items to produce full productivity in language, as in “my nice kitty” (for detailed explanation of item-based learning, see MacWhinney, 2005).

According to the constructionist perspective, abstract constructions (combinations of form and meaning) are argued to be learnt as generalisations over item-specific utterances (Langacker, 1987; Olguin & Tomasello, 1993; Tomasello, 2003). In other words, usage-based accounts emphasise that generalisations are made over learnt instances (Goldberg, 1995; Langacker, 2000; Tomasello, 2002, 2003). Thus, generalisation is part and parcel of learning a language in the cognitive linguistic account (Goldberg & Casenhiser, 2008; Robinson & Ellis. 2008, p. 198). Goldberg & Casenhiser (2008) argue that speakers of a language have some idea of what an utterance might mean even without knowing the meaning of the novel verb in this utterance. For example:

(20) She bliked him.

(21) She bliked him something. (22) She bliked him silly.

(Robinson & Ellis, 2008, p. 198) In these examples above, speakers could infer that the first utterance refers to an action in which a female acts as the agent and a male acts as a patient, that the second sentence is

53

likely to mean that she gave him something, and the last sentence that she did something to cause him to become silly. Goldberg and Casenhiser (2008) also argued that in order for children to make generalisations over utterances they hear in order to produce and understand new utterances, they need to learn the constructions of their language (i.e., to learn how meaning is expressed formally in their language). It has been shown that children and adults alike are able to recognise the form and meaning of a novel construction with quite minimal training, which has been taken to suggest evidence of generalisation over previously acquired knowledge about the constructions of the language (Casenhiser & Goldberg, 2005; Goldberg, 1995; Goldberg et al., 2004; Goldberg & Casenhiser, 2008; Levine & Tomasello, 2008; Tomasello, 2002, 2003).

As has been mentioned above, children acquire the constructions of their language as a result of frequency and generalisation about incidents of use. However, the forms they identify and the functions that they are mapped to may not initially be similar to those of the adult language (Levine & Tomasello, 2008). According to usage-based accounts, the difference between children’s language and that of adults is thought to involve a difference in the amount of experience with the language in use (Tomasello, 2003). As such, the ability of children to quickly generalise when learning novel constructions by mapping form and meaning is a developmental achievement that is largely dependent on the amount of input and learnt instances (Tomasello, 2002, 2003). In this regard, it should not be expected to find quicker generalisations in older children than younger children, if they are all exposed to the same amount of input.

It has been shown that learners of different ages (old and young) have equal abilities to generalise when they are exposed to the same amount of input (Goldberg & Casenhiser, 2008). Moreover, children’s ability to learn complex sentences in later stages is an indication of their linguistic development, as they build up their knowledge from previously

54

learnt constructions (Diessel & Tomasello, 2000, 2005; Tomasello, 2000). Diessel and Tomasello (2000) suggest that relative clauses are acquired by children through assimilating a new structure to structures they already have in their construction inventory. For example, they claim that children are likely to attach relative clauses to predicate nominals of a copula construction, which children have been producing for many months (Here’s a mouse) and the relative clause modifying this (Here’s the mouse go sleep).

As has been shown so far, first language acquisition is based on language use, in that children learning their first language are able to extract expressions from the language they hear around them (Tomasello, 2003). Most important in this process, is that children use their intention-reading skills (i.e., their ability to work out from the context what meaning the person addressing them is trying to convey) to infer form-meaning pairings (constructions). They also use their pattern-finding skills to infer different sorts of constructions to which they are exposed (Littlemore, 2009). As such, the acquisition of ‘grammar’ consists of the constructions (form and meaning pairs) that children have found in the language input that they have frequently encountered (Goldberg, 1995; Littlemore, 2009, p. 33; Tomasello, 2000). According to the cognitive linguistic account, these types of pattern-finding skills that L1 learners employ are also available for second language learners (N. Ellis, 2002, 2003).

Also, for learning an L2, there are usage-based approaches that build on the idea that frequency is an important factor (N. Ellis, 2002, 2003). Using a phrasal decision task and four-word combinations (I have to say), Hernández et al. (2016) examined phrase frequency effects in L1 speakers and L2 learners. The findings indicated that L1 speakers were found to be sensitive to multiword frequency. Crucially, L2 learners demonstrated multiword frequency effects similar to natives, irrespective of their English language proficiency (advanced or intermediate), suggesting parallels between phrasal processing in

55

L1 and L2 speakers. However, SLA has been found to be less successful than first language acquisition due to some special factors that are presented below (N. Ellis, 2002, 2003).