Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T04:08:03.281Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

COGNITIVE ABILITIES, CHUNK-STRENGTH, AND FREQUENCY EFFECTS IN IMPLICIT ARTIFICIAL GRAMMAR AND INCIDENTAL L2 LEARNING: REPLICATIONS OF REBER, WALKENFELD, AND HERNSTADT (1991) AND KNOWLTON AND SQUIRE (1996) AND THEIR RELEVANCE FOR SLA

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 June 2005

Peter Robinson
Peter Robinson
Affiliation:
Aoyama Gakuin University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper reports replications of studies of implicit artificial grammar (AG) learning and explicit series-solution learning with experienced second language learners in order to examine their population and content generalizability. As found by Reber, Walkenfeld, and Hernstadt (1991), there was significantly greater variance in explicit compared to implicit learning. In contrast to Reber et al.'s findings, intelligence quotient (IQ) was significantly negatively related to implicit learning. As found by Knowlton and Squire (1996), chunks that appeared with high frequency (high chunk-strength) in AG training influenced incorrect acceptance of ungrammatical transfer test items containing them but did not affect the judgments of grammatical items. In a third experiment, learners semantically processed sentences in Samoan, a novel language for this population. This experiment found little evidence for the content generalizability of these AG findings to the incidental learning of Samoan. Implicit AG and incidental Samoan learning had different patterns of correlation with cognitive abilities (IQ, working memory, and aptitude) and differed in sensitivity to chunk-strength. As found for AG learning, high chunk-strength negatively affected correct rejection of ungrammatical Samoan transfer test items. Additionally, high chunk-strength negatively affected correct acceptance of grammatical items. For these grammatical items, the number of chunks they contained—not their frequency during training—positively influenced grammaticality judgments.I gratefully acknowledge the helpful comments and advice on this paper given by the editors of this special issue, Jan Hulstijn and Rod Ellis, and also by Nick Ellis, Barbara Knowlton, and two anonymous SSLA reviewers.

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 27 , Issue 2 , June 2005 , pp. 235 - 268
Copyright
© 2005 Cambridge University Press

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

Abrams, M., & Reber, A. S. (1989). Implicit learning: Robustness in the face of psychiatric disorders. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 17, 425–439.Google Scholar
Brooker, B. H., & Cyr, J. J. (1986). Tables for clinicians to use to convert WAIS-R short forms. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 42, 982–986.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. B., & Sapon, S. (1959). The Modern Language Aptitude Test. Washington, DC: Second Language Testing Incorporated.
Chua, K., & Chun, M. (2003). Implicit scene learning is viewpoint dependent. Perception & Psychophysics, 65, 72–80.Google Scholar
Craik, F., & Tulving, E. (1975). Depth of processing and retention of words in episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104, 268–294.Google Scholar
Cyr, J. J., & Brooker, B. H. (1984). Use of appropriate formulas for selecting WAIS-R short forms. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 52, 903–905.Google Scholar
Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (Eds.). (1998). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, N. C. (2001). Memory for language. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 33–66). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, N. C. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 143–188.Google Scholar
Graf, P., & Ryan, L. (1990). Transfer-appropriate processing for implicit and explicit memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 16, 978–992.Google Scholar
Higham, P. A. (1997). Chunks are not enough: The insufficiency of feature frequency-based explanations of artificial grammar learning. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 51, 126–137.Google Scholar
Hsiao, A., & Reber, A. S. (1998). The role of attention in implicit sequence learning: Exploring the limits of the cognitive unconscious. In M. Stadler & P. Frensch (Eds.), Handbook of implicit learning (pp. 495–531). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kline, P. (2000). Handbook of psychological testing ( 2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Knowlton, B., & Squire, L. (1994). The information acquired during artificial grammar learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 70–91.Google Scholar
Knowlton, B., & Squire, L. (1996). Artificial grammar learning depends on implicit acquisition of both abstract and exemplar-specific information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 22, 169–181.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.
Logan, G. D. (1988). Towards an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review, 95, 492–527.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., Philp, J., Egi, T., Fujii, A., & Tatsumi, T. (2002). Individual differences in working memory, noticing of interactional feedback, and L2 development. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 181–210). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Mintz, T. H. (2003). Frequent frames as a cue for grammatical categories in child directed speech. Cognition, 90, 91–117.Google Scholar
Neal, A., & Hesketh, B. (1997). Episodic knowledge and implicit learning. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 4, 24–37.Google Scholar
Osaka, M., & Osaka, N. (1992). Language-independent working memory as measured by Japanese and English reading span tests. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 30, 287–289.Google Scholar
Perruchet, P., & Pacteau, P. (1990). Synthetic grammar learning: Implicit rule abstraction or fragmentary knowledge? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119, 264–275.Google Scholar
Perruchet, P., & Vintner, A. (2002). The self-organizing consciousness: A framework for implicit learning. In R. French & A. Cleeremans (Eds.), Implicit learning and consciousness (pp. 41–67). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
Pothos, E. (in press). The rules versus similarity distinction. Behavioral and Brain Sciences.
Reber, A. S. (1976). Implicit learning of synthetic languages: The role of instructional set. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 2, 88–94.Google Scholar
Reber, A. S. (1993). Implicit learning and tacit knowledge: An essay on the cognitive unconscious. Oxford: Clarendon.
Reber, A. S., & Allen, R. (2000). Individual differences in implicit learning: Implications for the evolution of consciousness. In R. Kunzendorf & B. Wallace (Eds.), Individual differences in conscious experience (pp. 227–250). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Reber, A. S., Walkenfeld, F., & Hernstadt, R. (1991). Implicit and explicit learning: Individual differences and IQ. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17, 888–896.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (1989). Procedural vocabulary and language learning. Journal of Pragmatics, 13, 523–546.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (1990). Metaphors for the description of acquisition data: From constituency “trees” to dependency “frames.” International Review of Applied Linguistics, 28, 272–291.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (1994). Universals of word formation processes: Noun-incorporation in the acquisition of Samoan as a second language. Language Learning, 44, 569–615.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (1995). Attention, memory, and the noticing hypothesis. Language Learning, 45, 283–331.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (1996). Consciousness, rules, and instructed second language acquisition. New York: Peter Lang.
Robinson, P. (1997a). Generalizability and automaticity of second language learning under implicit, incidental, enhanced, and rule-search conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 223–247.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (1997b). Individual differences and the fundamental similarity of implicit and explicit second language learning. Language Learning, 47, 45–99.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2001). Individual differences, cognitive abilities, aptitude complexes, and learning conditions in SLA. Second Language Research, 17, 368–392.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2002a). Effects of individual differences in intelligence, aptitude, and working memory on adult incidental SLA: A replication and extension of Reber, Walkenfeld, and Hernstadt, 1991. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 211–266). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Robinson, P. (2002b). Learning conditions, aptitude complexes, and SLA: A framework for research and pedagogy. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 113–135). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Robinson, P., & Ha, M. (1993). Instance theory and second language rule learning under explicit conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 413–438.Google Scholar
Saffran, J., Newport, E., Aslin, R., Tunick, R., & Barrueco, S. (1997). Incidental language learning: Listening (and learning) out of the corner of your ear. Psychological Science, 8, 101–195.Google Scholar
Sasaki, M. (1996). Second language proficiency, foreign language aptitude, and intelligence. New York: Peter Lang.
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 1–32). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Servan-Schreiber, E., & Anderson, J. R. (1990). Learning artificial grammars with competitive chunking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 592–608.Google Scholar
Shinagawa, F., Kobayashi, S., Fujita, K., & Mayekawa, H. (1990). Manual of the Japanese Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised. Tokyo: The Psychological Corporation.
White, L. (2003). Universal Grammar in second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Whittlesea, B. W. A., & Wright, R. L. (1997). Implicit (and explicit) learning: Acting adaptively without knowing the consequences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 23, 181–200.Google Scholar
Zobl, H. (1995). Converging evidence for the acquisition learning distinction. Applied Linguistics, 16, 35–57.Google Scholar