Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T20:24:33.015Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

EPILOGUE

EVIDENCE FOR THE VALIDITY OF IMPLICIT APTITUDE AND THE NEED FOR CONSTRUCT VALIDATION

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2021

Robert DeKeyser  and
Shaofeng Li Open the ORCID record for Shaofeng Li [Opens in a new window]
Robert DeKeyser*
Affiliation:
University of Maryland
Shaofeng Li*
Affiliation:
Florida State University
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Shaofeng Li, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida32306. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this commentary, we summarize the findings of the seven included studies that examined implicit language aptitude from various perspectives and highlight issues to be resolved in the validation of this new construct in second language research. We start by providing an overview of the contributions of the studies. We then identify the lack of convergent validity of the measures of implicit aptitude reported in the included studies and problematize the equally varied nature of the measurement of implicit knowledge—the outcome variable of aptitude research—and related concepts. In particular, by drawing on empirical evidence and theoretical claims, we attempt to clarify the relationships between implicit and explicit knowledge, implicit and explicit learning, and implicit and explicit instruction. Next, we draw attention to the interactions reported by the included studies between aptitude and outcome measures and between aptitude and instruction type, emphasizing the value and importance of interactional research. We conclude by making recommendations for future research.

Type
Critical Commentary
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 43 , Special Issue 3: Implicit Language Aptitude: Conceptualizing the Construct, Validating the Measures, and Examining the Evidence , July 2021 , pp. 692 - 697
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by 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

DeKeyser, R. M. (1995). Learning second language grammar rules: An experiment with a miniature linguistic system. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 379–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2019a). Aptitude-treatment interaction in second language learning. Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Second Language Studies, 2, 165–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2019b). The future of aptitude research. In Wen, Z., Skehan, P., Biedron, A., Li, S., & Sparks, R. L. (Eds.), Language aptitude: Advancing theory, testing, research, and practice (pp. 317–329). Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R., Skehan, P., Li, S., Shintani, N., & Lambert, C. (2020). Task-based language teaching: Theory and practice. Cambridge University.Google Scholar
Jiang, N. (2012). Conducting reaction time research in second language studies. Routledge.Google Scholar
Li, S. (2017). Cognitive differences and ISLA. In Loewen, S. & Sato, M. (Eds.), Handbook of instructed second language learning (pp. 396–417). Routledge.Google Scholar
Li, S. (2018). Language aptitude. In Burns, A. & Richards, J. (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to learning English as a second language (pp. 63–72). Cambridge University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, S., Ellis, R., & Zhu, Y. (2016). Task-based versus task-supported language instruction: An experimental study. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 205–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. (2015). Task-based language learning. Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Suzuki, Y. (2017). Validity of new measures of implicit knowledge: Distinguishing implicit knowledge from automatized explicit knowledge. Applied Psycholinguistics, 38, 1229–1261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suzuki, Y., & DeKeyser, R. (2015). Does elicited imitation measure implicit knowledge? Evidence from the word-monitoring task. Language Learning, 65, 860–895. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suzuki, Y., & DeKeyser, R. (2017). The interface of explicit and implicit knowledge in a second language. Language Learning, 67, 747–779. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wen, Z., & Li, S. (2019). Working memory in L2 learning and processing. In Schwieter, J. & Benati, A. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of language learning (pp. 365–389). Cambridge University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar