Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This response addresses the following points raised in the commentaries: (a) complementary learning mechanisms, the distinction between explicit and implicit memory, and the neuroscience of “noticing”; (b) what must and what need not be noticed for learning; (c) when frequency fails to drive learning, which addresses factors such as failing to notice cues, perseveration, transfer from L1, developmental readiness, thinking too hard, pedagogical input, and practicing; (d) attention and form-focused instruction; (e) conscious and unconscious knowledge of frequency; (f) sequences of acquisition—from formula, through low-scope pattern, to construction; (g) the Fundamental Difference hypothesis; (h) the blind faith of categorical grammar; (i) Labovian variationist perspectives; (j) parsimony and theory testing; (k) universals and predispositions; and (l) wanna -contractions. It concludes by emphasizing that language acquisition is a process of dynamic emergence and that learners' language is a product of their history of usage in communicative interaction.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nick C. Ellis (2002) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: