Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T17:44:27.721Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

HOW EXPLICIT KNOWLEDGE AFFECTS ONLINE L2 PROCESSING

Evidence from Differential Object Marking Acquisition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2015

Sible Andringa  and
Maja Curcic
Sible Andringa*
Affiliation:
University of Amsterdam
Maja Curcic
Affiliation:
University of Amsterdam
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Sible Andringa, Amsterdam Center for Language and Communication, University of Amsterdam, Spuistraat 134, 1012 VB, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Form-focused instruction studies generally report larger gains for explicit types of instruction over implicit types on measures of controlled production. Studies that used online processing measures—which do not readily allow for the application of explicit knowledge—however, suggest that this advantage occurs primarily when the target structure is similar in the first language (L1) and the second language (L2). This study investigated how explicit knowledge of a structure that does not exist in the L1 affects the initial stage of adult L2 acquisition. Fifty-one Dutch L1 speakers received a short auditory exposure (instruction) to a new language that included differential object marking (DOM), in which animate but not inanimate direct objects are preceded by a preposition. For 26 learners, the instruction was complemented by a brief rule explanation. Afterward, learners’ online processing and explicit knowledge of DOM were measured by means of eye-tracking (visual world paradigm) and oral grammaticality judgments. Results show that metalinguistic information promoted learners’ performance on the grammaticality judgment task. Although differences between the groups were also found on the eye-tracking measure, learners were not able to use DOM to predict the following object.

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 37 , Special Issue 2: New Directions in the Study of Implicit and Explicit Learning , June 2015 , pp. 237 - 268
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Altmann, G. T. M. (2011). The mediation of eye movements by spoken language. In Liversedge, S. P., Gilchrist, I. D., & Everling, S. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of eye movements (pp. 979–1004). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Andringa, S., de Glopper, K., & Hacquebord, H. (2011). Effect of explicit and implicit instruction on free written response task performance. Language Learning, 61, 868–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 255–278.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bates, D., Maechler, M., & Bolker, B. (2011). Lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes (R package version 0.999375–42 ed.) [Computer software]. Retrieved from: http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/lme4/index.htmlGoogle Scholar
Batterink, L., & Neville, H. J. (2013). Implicit and explicit second language training recruit common neural mechanisms for syntactic processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 25, 936–951.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bialystok, E. (1989). Psycholinguistic dimensions of second language proficiency. In Rutherford, W. & Sharwood Smith, M. A. (Eds.), Grammar and second language teaching: A book of readings (pp. 31–50). New York, NY: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Bialystok, E. (1994). Analysis and control in the development of second language proficiency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 157–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowles, M. (2011). Measuring implicit and explicit linguistic knowledge: What can heritage language learners contribute? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33, 247–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyd, J. K., & Goldberg, A. E. (2009). Input effects within a constructionist framework. Modern Language Journal, 93, 418–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curcic, M., Rivera, N., & Andringa, S. (2015). How Spanish native speakers process differential object marking: An eye-tracking study. Manuscript in preparation.Google Scholar
Dahan, D., Magnuson, J. S., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Hogan, E. M. (2001). Subcategorical mismatches and the time course of lexical access: Evidence for lexical competition. Language and Cognitive Processes, 16, 507–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahan, D., Swingley, D., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Magnuson, J. S. (2000). Linguistic gender and spoken-word recognition in French. Journal of Memory and Language, 42, 465–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, D. J., & Indefrey, P. (2009). An event-related potential study on changes of violation and error responses during morphosyntactic learning. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21, 433–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Day, E. M., & Shapson, S. M. (2001). Integrating formal and functional approaches to language teaching in French immersion: An experimental study. Language Learning, 51(Suppl. 1), 47–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing in L2 grammar. In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 42–63). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning. In Doughty, C. & Long, M. H. (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 313–348). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2007). Introduction: Situating the concept of practice. In DeKeyser, R. (Ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 1–18). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dienes, Z., & Scott, R. (2005). Measuring unconscious knowledge: Distinguishing structural knowledge and judgment knowledge. Psychological Research, 69, 338–351.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Doughty, C. (2003). Instructed SLA: Constraints, compensation and enhancement. In Doughty, C. & Long, M. H. (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 256–310). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dowens, M. G., Vergara, M., Barber, H. A., & Carreiras, M. (2010). Morphosyntactic processing in late second-language learners. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22, 1870–1887.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dussias, P. E., Valdés Kroff, J. R., Guzzardo, R. E., & Gerfen, C. (2013). When gender and looking go hand in hand: Grammatical gender processing in L2 Spanish. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2005). At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 305–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (1997). SLA research and language teaching. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2002). Does form-focused instruction affect the acquisition of implicit knowledge? A review of the research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 223–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2004). The definition and measurement of explicit knowledge. Language Learning, 54, 227–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2005). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 141–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2006). Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 83–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godfroid, A., Loewen, S., Jung, S., Park, J.-H., Gass, S., & Ellis, R. (this issue). Timed and untimed grammaticality judgments measure distinct types of knowledge: Evidence from eye-movement patterns. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godfroid, A., & Winke, P. (in press). Investigating implicit and explicit processing using L2 learners’ eye-movement data. In Rebuschat, P. (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E., Casenhiser, D. M., & Sethuraman, N. (2004). Learning argument structure generalizations. Cognitive Linguistics, 15, 289–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grüter, T., Lew-Williams, C., & Fernald, A. (2012). Grammatical gender in L2: A production or a real-time processing problem? Second Language Research, 28, 191–215.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guijarro-Fuentes, P. (2012). The acquisition of interpretable features in L2 Spanish: Personal a. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15, 701–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Han, Y., & Ellis, R. (1998). Implicit knowledge, explicit knowledge and general proficiency. Language Teaching Research, 2, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hernández, T. A. (2011). Re-examining the role of explicit instruction and input flood on the acquisition of Spanish discourse markers. Language Teaching Research, 15, 159–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopp, H. (2013). Grammatical gender in adult L2 acquisition: Relations between lexical and syntactic variability. Second Language Research, 29, 33–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huettig, F., Rommers, J., & Meyer, A. (2011). Using the visual world paradigm to study language processing: A review and critical evaluation. Acta Psychologica, 137, 151–171.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hulstijn, J. H. (1999). Vaardigheid zonder kennis? [Skill without knowledge?]. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Vossiuspers AUP.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. Lincolnwood, IL: Laredo.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1994). The input hypothesis and its rivals. In Ellis, N. C. (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 45–77). London, UK: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lentz, T. (2011). Phonotactic illegality and probability in speech perception: Evidence from second language listeners. Utrecht, the Netherlands: LOT.Google Scholar
Lew-Williams, C., & Fernald, A. (2007). Young children learning Spanish make rapid use of grammatical gender in spoken word recognition. Psychological Science, 18, 193–198.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lew-Williams, C., & Fernald, A. (2010). Real-time processing of gender-marked articles by native and non-native Spanish speakers. Journal of Memory and Language, 6, 447–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loerts, H., Wieling, M., & Schmid, M. (2013). Neuter is not common in Dutch: Eye movements reveal asymmetrical gender processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 42, 551–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A., & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings? Modern Language Journal, 82, 338–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mirman, D., Dixon, J. A., & Magnuson, J. S. (2008). Statistical and computational models of the visual world paradigm: Growth curves and individual differences. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 475–494.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morgan-Short, K., Faretta-Stutenberg, M., & Bartlett-Hsu, L. (in press). Contributions of event-related potential research to issues in explicit and implicit second language acquisition. In Rebuschat, P. (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Morgan-Short, K., Sanz, C., Steinhauer, K., & Ullman, M. T. (2010). Second language acquisition of gender agreement in explicit and implicit training conditions: An event-related potential study. Language Learning, 60, 154–193.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morgan-Short, K., Steinhauer, K., Sanz, C., & Ullman, M. T. (2012). Explicit and implicit second language training differentially affect the achievement of native-like brain activation patterns. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 24, 933–947.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Muranoi, H. (2000). Focus on form through interaction enhancement: Integrating formal instruction into a communicative task in EFL classrooms. Language Learning, 50, 617–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U., & Walker, C. (1987). Some applications of cognitive theory to second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9, 287–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osterhout, L., McLaughlin, J., Pitkanen, I., Frenck-Mestre, C., & Molinaro, N. (2006). Novice learners, longitudinal designs, and event-related potentials: A means for exploring the neurocognition of second language processing. Language Learning, 57, 199–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osterhout, L., Poliakov, A., Inoue, K., McLaughlin, J., Valentine, G., Pitkanen, I.,... Hirshensohn, J. (2008). Second-language learning and changes in the brain. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 21, 509–521.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
R Development Core Team. (2011). R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Computer software]. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
Sabourin, L., & Stowe, L. (2008). Second language processing: When are first and second languages processed similarly? Second Language Research, 24, 397–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanz, C., & Morgan-Short, K. (2004). Positive evidence versus explicit rule presentation and explicit negative feedback: A computer-assisted study. Language Learning, 54, 35–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of attention and awareness in learning. In Schmidt, R. (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 1–64). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai‘i, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center.Google Scholar
Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-Prime reference guide. Pittsburgh, PA: Psychology Software Tools.Google Scholar
Spada, N., & Tomita, Y. (2010). Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 263–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tokowicz, N., & MacWhinney, B. (2005). Implicit and explicit measures of sensitivity to violations in second language grammar: An event-related potential investigation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 173–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tokowicz, N., & Warren, T. (2010). Beginning adult L2 learners’ sensitivity to morphosyntactic violations: A self-paced reading study. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 22, 1097–1106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B., & Sanz, C. (1995). From input to output: Processing instruction and communicative tasks. In Eckman, F. R., Highland, D., Lee, P. W., Mileham, J., & Rutkowski Weber, R. (Eds.), Second language acquisition theory and pedagogy (pp. 169–185). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Williams, J., & Evans, J. (1998). What kind of focus and on which forms? In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 139–155). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zyzik, E., & Marqués Pascual, L. (2012). Spanish differential object marking: An empirical study of implicit and explicit instruction. Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics, 5, 387–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar