Explaining the “Natural Order of L2 Morpheme Acquisition” in English: A Meta-analysis of Multiple Determinants

By Jennifer M. Goldschneider, R. Dekeyser. 2001

631 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Language and Linguistics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/5368980f1664bfbf038ffe04a59cbd24900394a8

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

In Language and Linguistics

Citations in the corpus

Selective Attention and Transfer Phenomena in L2 Acquisition: Contingency, Cue Competition, Salience, Interference, Overshadowing, Blocking, and Perceptual Learning (2006, methodology): “Goldschneider and DeKeyser (2001) performed a detailed meta-analysis of the 12 'morpheme order studies' that, in the 25 years following Brown's (1973) descriptions of L1 acquisition, investigated the order of L2 acquisition of the grammatical functors, progressive '-ing', plural '-s', possessive…”
THE BOUNDS OF ADULT LANGUAGE ACQUISITION (2010, background): “This low salience and low reliability tends to make grammatical cues less learnable (N. C. Ellis, 2006d ; Goldschneider & DeKeyser, 2001 ) and could underlie late learners’ diffi culty in processing and producing L2 verbal morphology (Jiang, 2004 ; Sato & Felser, 2008 ; Zobl & Liceras, 1994 ).”
FREQUENCY EFFECTS IN LANGUAGE PROCESSING (2002, neutral): “Whereas frequency explains some of the variance of morpheme acquisition order, it does so in interaction with other determinants such as perceptual salience, semantic complexity, morphophonological regularity, and syntactic category (Goldschneider & DeKeyser, 2001).”
Language Is a Complex Adaptive System: Position Paper (2009, background): “…Zipfian profiles of construction token and type frequencies (Ellis, 2002; Larsen-Freeman, 1976), cue reliabilities (MacWhinney, 1997), and the salience of the cue and the importance of its outcome in the interpretation of the utterance as a whole (Ellis, 2006; Goldschneider & DeKeyser, 2001).”
The role of teacher’s corrective feedback in improving Iranian EFL learners’ writing accuracy over time: is learner’s mother tongue relevant? (2009, background): “In fact, it is believed that the L2 learner’s knowledge of grammar would improve when the class activities are orientated towards communication of meaning and the teacher’s feedback basically addresses the content and the meaning of the learner’s language rather than its grammatical structure (Cook,”
Cognitive Perspectives on SLA: The Associative-Cognitive CREED (2006, background): “…perspectives of linguistics (Bod, Hay, & Jannedy 2003; Bybee & Hopper 2001), natural language processing (Jurafsky & Martin 2000; Manning & Schuetze 1999), and first and second language acquisition (Bates & MacWhinney 1987; Ellis in press-c; Goldschneider & DeKeyser 2001; MacWhinney 1987a, 1997).”
REFLECTIONS ON FREQUENCY EFFECTS IN LANGUAGE PROCESSING (2002, background): “As we have seen, for the morpheme acquisition studies at least, frequency and salience seem to play a large role in determining these sequences (Goldschneider & DeKeyser, 2001).”
Language as a Complex Adaptive System (2000, background): “We see that some of the same mechanisms have been put to work as for emergent sound systems: Reinforcement learning, because the environment gives feedback on which categories are distinctive and this is used to maintain or eliminate them, and selectionism, because the spontaneously generated…”
Lexical bundles in university spoken and written registers (2007, background): “Research in SLA has argued for the importance of both frequency and salience as two basic parameters influencing the acquisition of language features (see, e.g., Ellis, 2002; Goldschneider & DeKeyser, 2001).”
Morphological Structure in Native and Nonnative Language Processing (2010, background): “One factor that may make certain morphemes harder to process than others is their perceptual salience (compare, e.g., Goldschneider & DeKeyser, 2001).”