Balanced vs. Skewed Input in L2 Argument Construction Learning: A Replication and Extension of Casenhiser and Goldberg (2005)

Agnieszka Kaleta

doi:10.31261/TAPSLA.17859

Published: 2026-05-19

2026

Balanced vs. Skewed Input in L2 Argument Construction Learning: A Replication and Extension of Casenhiser and Goldberg (2005)

Agnieszka Kaleta

Section: Articles

https://doi.org/10.31261/TAPSLA.17859

Abstract

The paper compares the effectiveness of balanced and skewed input at facilitating the acquisition of a novel construction by learners of English as a foreign language. The study replicates and extends Casenhiser and Godberg’s (2005) seminal paper on L1 construction acquisition. The study argues that the previous research did not pay sufficient attention to the frequency-prototypicality connection, as observed in natural language usage, and makes an attempt to overcome this limitation by adopting a more principled approach to this issue, which takes into consideration the frequency effects. Polish university students (N = 80) were randomly assigned either to skewed frequency groups, where the input was skewed towards the prototypical exemplars of the novel appearance construction, or a balanced frequency group, where the input was evenly distributed among the exemplars of this construction. Both groups were tested on comprehension of the target structure. The results suggest a facilitative effect of balanced input, as compared to the skewed input. This result was found to be correlated with the degree of cognitive/experiential entrenchment of the situations coded by the test exemplars, that is, the balanced frequency group significantly outperformed the control group only on tasks depicting highly familiar and frequently encountered scenes.

Keywords:

balanced input , token frequency , type frequency , skewed input , usage-based grammar

Download files

PDF

Citation rules

Kaleta, A. (2026). Balanced vs. Skewed Input in L2 Argument Construction Learning: A Replication and Extension of Casenhiser and Goldberg (2005). Theory and Practice of Second Language Acquisition, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.31261/TAPSLA.17859

Cited by / Share

Licence

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

The Copyright Holders of the submitted texts are the Authors. The Reader is granted the rights to use the material available in the TAPSLA websites and pdf documents under the provisions of the Creative Commons 4.0 International License: Attribution - Share Alike (CC BY-SA 4.0). The user is free to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format, and to remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.

1. License

The University of Silesia Press provides immediate open access to journal’s content under the Creative Commons BY-SA 4.0 license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/). Authors who publish with this journal retain all copyrights and agree to the terms of the above-mentioned CC BY-SA 4.0 license.

2. Author’s Warranties

The author warrants that the article is original, written by stated author/s, has not been published before, contains no unlawful statements, does not infringe the rights of others, is subject to copyright that is vested exclusively in the author and free of any third party rights, and that any necessary written permissions to quote from other sources have been obtained by the author/s.

If the article contains illustrative material (drawings, photos, graphs, maps), the author declares that the said works are of his authorship, they do not infringe the rights of the third party (including personal rights, i.a. the authorization to reproduce physical likeness) and the author holds exclusive proprietary copyrights. The author publishes the above works as part of the article under the licence "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International".

ATTENTION! When the legal situation of the illustrative material has not been determined and the necessary consent has not been granted by the proprietary copyrights holders, the submitted material will not be accepted for editorial process. At the same time the author takes full responsibility for providing false data (this also regards covering the costs incurred by the University of Silesia Press and financial claims of the third party).

3. User Rights

Under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license, the users are free to share (copy, distribute and transmit the contribution) and adapt (remix, transform, and build upon the material) the article for any purpose, provided they attribute the contribution in the manner specified by the author or licensor.

4. Co-Authorship

If the article was prepared jointly with other authors, the signatory of this form warrants that he/she has been authorized by all co-authors to sign this agreement on their behalf, and agrees to inform his/her co-authors of the terms of this agreement.

I hereby declare that in the event of withdrawal of the text from the publishing process or submitting it to another publisher without agreement from the editorial office, I agree to cover all costs incurred by the University of Silesia in connection with my application.

References

Anderson, J. R. (1992). Automaticity and the ACT* theory. American Journal of Psychology, 105, 165–180.
Google Scholar

Bybee, J. (2001). Phonology and language use. Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar

Bybee, J. (2006). From usage to grammar. The mind’s response to repetition. Language, 82, 711–733.
Google Scholar

Bybee, J. (2007). Frequency of use and the organisation of language. Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar

Bybee, J. (2008). Usage-based grammar and second language acquisition. In P. Robison & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 216–236). Routledge.
Google Scholar

Bybee, J. (2010). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar

Bybee, J., & Beckner, C. (2010). Usage-based theory. In H. Narrog & B. Heine (Eds.), Handbook of linguistic analysis (pp. 827–856). Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar

Bybee, J., & Thompson, S. (2000). Three frequency effects in syntax. Berkeley Linguistic Society, 23, 65–85.
Google Scholar

Casenhiser, D., & Goldberg, A. E. (2005). Fast mapping between a phrasal form and meaning. Developmental Science, 8(6), 500–508.
Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1980). Rules and representations. Columbia University Press.
Google Scholar

Croft, W. (2001). Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar

Diessel, H. (2004). The acquisition of complex sentences. Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar

Diessel, H. (2007). Frequency effects in language acquisition: Language use and diachronic change. New Ideas in Psychology, 25, 108–127.
Google Scholar

Ellis, N. C. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing: A review with commentaries for explicit and implicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(2), 143–188.
Google Scholar

Ellis, N. C. (2009). Optimizing the input. Frequency and sampling in usage-based and form-focused learning. In M. H. Long & C. J. Doughty (Eds.), The handbook of language teaching (pp. 139–158). Wiley–Blackwell Publishing.
Google Scholar

Ellis, N. C. (2013). Construction grammar and second language acquisition. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp. 365–378). Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar

Ellis, N. C., & Cadierno, T. (2009). Constructing a second language. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 111–139.
Google Scholar

Ellis, N. C., & Ferreira-Junior, F. (2009). Constructions and their acquisition: Islands and the distinctiveness of their occupancy. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7(1), 188–221.
Google Scholar

Ellis, N. C., & O’Donnell, M. (2012). Statistical construction learning: Does a Zipfian problem space ensure robust language learning? In J. Rebuschat & J. Williams (Eds.), Statistical learning and language acquisition (pp. 265–304). De Gruyter Mouton.
Google Scholar

Ellis, N. C., & Ogden, D. C. (2017). Thinking about multiword constructions: Usage-based approaches to acquisition and processing. Topics in Cognitive Science, 9, 604–620.
Google Scholar

Ellis, N. C., & Wulff, S. (2014). Usage-based approaches to SLA. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (2nd. ed.). Routledge.
Google Scholar

Ellis, N. C., Römer, U., & O’Donnell, M. Brook. (2016). Usage-based approaches to language acquisition and processing: Cognitive and corpus investigations of construction grammar. Language Learning Monograph Series. Wiley–Blackwell.
Google Scholar

Fillmore, C. J., & Kay, P. (1993). Construction grammar coursebook. Unpublished manuscript. Department of Linguistics. University of California Press.
Google Scholar

Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar

Goldberg, A. E. (2019). Explain me this. Creativity, competition and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton University Press.
Google Scholar

Goldberg, A. E., Casenhiser, D., & Sethuraman, N. (2004). Learning argument structure generalizations. Cognitive Linguistics, 14, 289–316.
Google Scholar

Goldberg, A. E., Casenhiser, D., & White, T. R. (2007). Constructions as categories of language. New Ideas in Psychology, 25, 70–86.
Google Scholar

Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar: Volume 1. Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford University Press.
Google Scholar

Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar

Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2008). Children’s first language acquisition from a usage-based perspective. In P. Robinson & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 168–196). Routledge–Taylor & Francis Group.
Google Scholar

McDonough, K., & Nekrasova-Becker, T. (2012). Comparing the effect of skewed and balanced input on EFL learners’ comprehension of the double-object dative construction. Applied Psycholinguistics, 35(2), 419–442.
Google Scholar

McDonough, K., & Trofimovich, P. (2013). Learning a novel pattern through balanced and skewed input. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16, 654–662.
Google Scholar

Nakamura, D. (2012). Input skewedness, consistency, and order of frequent verbs in frequency driven second language construction learning: A replication and extension of Casenhiser and Goldberg (2005) to adult second language acquisition. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 50, 31–67.
Google Scholar

Ninio, A. (1999). Pathbreaking verbs in syntactic development and the question of prototypical transitivity. Journal of Child Language, 26(3), 619–653. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000999003931
Google Scholar

O’Donnell, M., & Ellis, N. C. (2010). Towards an inventory of English verb argument constructions. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Extracting and Using Constructions in Computational Linguistics, 11th Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 9–16). Association for Computational Linguistics.
Google Scholar

Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S. Th. (2003). Collostructions: Investigating the interaction between words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8(2), 209–243.
Google Scholar

Taylor, J. R. (2002). Cognitive grammar. Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar

Tomasello, M. (2000). The item-based nature of children’s early syntactic development. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 156–163.
Google Scholar

Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A Usage-based theory of language Acquisition. Harvard University Press.
Google Scholar

Tomasello, M. (2012). The usage-based theory of language acquisition. In E. L. Bavin & L. R. Naigles (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of child language (pp. 89–106). Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar

Year, J., & Gordon, P. (2009). Korean speakers’ acquisition of the English ditransitive construction: The role of verb prototype, input distribution, and frequency. The Modern Language Journal, 93(3), 399–417. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00898.x
Google Scholar

Zipf, G. K. (1935). The psycho-biology of language: An introduction to dynamic philology. Houghton Mifflin.
Google Scholar

2026
Published: 2022-05-31

ISSN: 2450-5455

eISSN: 2451-2125

10.31261/tapsla

Publisher

Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego | University of Silesia Press

Licence CC

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Submit

Balanced vs. Skewed Input in L2 Argument Construction Learning: A Replication and Extension of Casenhiser and Goldberg (2005)

Abstract

Keywords:

Agnieszka Kaleta

Information