The Impact of Input Frequency on Chinese EFL Learners, Acceptability Judgments of English Passive Constructions
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54097/061n6g92Keywords:
Passive Voice, EFL, Usage-Based Approach, Acceptability Judgment Task.Abstract
Based on the Usage-Based Approach, this study employs the Acceptability Judgment Task (AJT) to explore the influence of input frequency on Chinese learners' acquisition of English passive structures. By researching 30 Chinese English learners’ judgment on the “naturalness” of 20 target passive sentences, this study analysed that the high-frequency passive structures are generally high, with the score distribution concentrated in the 6-8 point range, indicating stable performance; while the scores for low-frequency structures fluctuate significantly, with some sentences having significantly lower scores, mostly concentrated in the 5-6 point range. The box plot and ranking chart further reveal that the median and interquartile range of the high-frequency group are higher than those of the low-frequency group, and the low-frequency group has more extreme low values. Based on the results, this research argues that frequency would greatly impact on second-language learners’ acquisition of certain grammatical structures, especially English passive voice. This finding may also provide further support for the input frequency of diverse grammar for textbook compilation and language teaching.
Downloads
References
[1] Ellis, N. C., Römer, U., & O’Donnell, M. B. (2016). Constructions and usage-based approaches to language acquisition. Language Learning, 66(1), 23–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12150
[2] Li, S. (2014). An investigation into the influence of Chinese topic-prominent features on Chinese EFL learners’ acquisition of passive voice. https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.1494
[3] Wang, Y., & Pongpairoj, N. (2021). Avoidance of the English passive construction by L1 Chinese learners. LEARN Journal: Language Education and Acquisition Research Network, 14(1), 294–316. https://so04.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/LEARN/article/view/248692
[4] Ellis, N. C. (2006). Language acquisition as rational contingency learning. Applied Linguistics, 27(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ami038
[5] Ellis, N. C. (2012). What can we count in language, and what counts in language acquisition, cognition, and use? In S. Th. Gries & D. Divjak (Eds.), Frequency effects in language learning and processing (pp. 7–34). De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110274059.7
[6] Ellis, N. C. (2015). Implicit and explicit language learning: Their dynamic interface and complexity. In P. Rebuschat (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 1–24). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.48
[7] Bybee, J., & Eddington, D. (2006). A usage-based approach to Spanish verbs of "becoming." Language, 82(2), 323–355. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4490159
[8] Hakimov, N., & Backus, A. (2021). Usage-based contact linguistics: Effects of frequency and similarity in language contact. Journal of Language Contact, 13(3), 459–481. https://doi.org/10.1163/19552629-13030009
[9] Xiao, R. (2015). Contrastive corpus linguistic studies of English and Chinese: The cases of passive constructions and classifiers. Journal of Chinese Linguistics Monograph Series, 25, 82–114. https://www.airitilibrary.com/Article/Detail?DocID=P20181128001-201512-201811280012-201811280012-82-114
[10] Duan, H., Zhao, H., & Lum, J. (2025). Native and nonnative speakers’ preferences for preposition pied-piping versus stranding in English wh-relative clauses. Language Learning. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12712
[11] Domazetoska, I., & Zhao, H. (2025). Distributional cues in construction acquisition: A comparative study of native and nonnative English speakers using the as-predicative construction. Language Learning. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12710
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Journal of Education and Educational Research
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
