Language processing is intimately tuned to input frequency across phonology, phonotactics, reading, spelling, lexis, morphosyntax, formulaic language, comprehension, grammaticality, sentence production, and syntax¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · reviewr?·q2
Currency · newest study 2002 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · overdue for a recheck since 2007: baselines and conditions change
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q2 i? Frequency effects in language processing are documented across a wide range of processing domains, including phonology, lexis, morphosyntax, and syntax. → Nick C. Ellis 2002
Evidence¶
Nick C. Ellis 2002¶
Nick C. Ellis. (2002). Frequency Effects in Language Processing: A Review with Implications for Theories of Implicit and Explicit Language Acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, Volume 24, Issue 2. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263102002024
q2 · i? · review · r?
The review announces its scope as documenting frequency effects across eleven named processing domains, stating that "Examples are given of frequency effects in the processing of phonology" through syntax. No pooled effect sizes are printed in the available text.
"Examples are given of frequency effects in the processing of phonology, phonotactics, reading, spelling, lexis, morphosyntax, formulaic language, language comprehension, grammaticality, sentence production, and syntax."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Korean EFL learners sort sentences increasingly by construction rather than by verb as grade level increases — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it
- Constructions typically emerge developmentally from formula, through low-scope pattern, to construction — related
- Learners' sensitivity to frequency has implications for theories of implicit and explicit learning and their interactions — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
- Comprehensible input alone is insufficient for acquisition of high levels of grammatical proficiency — related
- There is no direct evidence that comprehensible input is necessary for L2 acquisition; the input hypothesis remains untested — related
- Processing instruction produces significant gains in both sentence-level comprehension and production — related
- The phonological loop plays a significant role in vocabulary acquisition and second language learning — related
- Frequency plays a large part in explaining sociolinguistic variation and language change
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
frequency-tuning-across-language-processing-domains |
title |
Language processing is intimately tuned to input frequency across phonology, phonotactics, reading, spelling, lexis, morphosyntax, formulaic language, comprehension, grammaticality, sentence production, and syntax |
description |
Language processing is intimately tuned to input frequency across phonology, phonotactics, reading, spelling, lexis, morphosyntax, formulaic language, comprehension, grammaticality, sentence production, and syntax |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
weak |
newest_evidence |
2002 |
recheck_by |
2007 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-15 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — nick-c-ellis-2002 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.