Hostname: page-component-6587cd75c8-cpvbf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-24T00:34:21.790Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Learning Second Language Grammar Rules

An Experiment With a Miniature Linguistic System

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Robert M. DeKeyser
Robert M. DeKeyser
Affiliation:
University of Pittsburgh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This is a report on a computerized experiment with a miniature linguistic system, consisting of five morphological rules and a lexicon of 98 words. Two hypotheses derived from the literature in cognitive psychology and psycholinguistics were tested: that explicit-deductive learning would be better than implicit-inductive learning for straightforward (“categorical”) rules, and that implicit-inductive learning would be better than explicit-deductive learning for fuzzy rules (“prototypicality patterns”). Implicit-inductive learning was implemented by pairing sentences with color pictures; explicit-deductive learning was implemented by means of traditional grammar rule presentation, followed by picture-sentence pairing. The findings were in the expected direction for both hypotheses, but only the first one could be confirmed through statistically significant results.

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 17 , Issue 3 , September 1995 , pp. 379 - 410
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Alanen, R. A. (1992). Input enhancement and rule presentation in second language acquisition. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Hawaii at Manoa.Google Scholar
Andersen, R. W., & Shirai, Y. (1994). Discourse motivations for some cognitive acquisition principles. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 133–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J. R. (1993). Rules of the mind. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Ausubel, D. (1963). The psychology of meaningful learning. New York: Grune & Stratton.Google Scholar
Barsalou, L. W. (1992). Cognitive psychology: An overview for cognitive scientists. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Berry, D., & Broadbent, D. (1984). On the relationship between task performance and associated verbalizable knowledge. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 36, 209–231.Google Scholar
Bialystok, E. (1979). Explicit and implicit judgments of L2 grammatically. Language Learning, 29, 81–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooks, L. (1978). Nonanalytic concept formation and memory for instances. In Rosch, E. & Lloyd, B. (Eds.), Cognition and categorization (pp. 169–211). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Brooks, L. R., & Vokey, J. R. (1991). Abstract analogies and abstracted grammars: Comments on Reber (1989) and Mathews et al. (1989), Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 120, 316–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J., & Moder, C. (1983). Morphological classes as natural categories. Language, 59, 251–270.Google Scholar
Bybee, J., & Slobin, D. (1982). Rules and schemas in the development and use of the English past tense. Language, 58, 265–289.Google Scholar
Carr, T. H., & Curran, T. (1994). Cognitive factors in learning about structured sequences: Applications to syntax. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 205–230.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. B. (1964). Language and thought. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. B., & Sapon, S. (1959). Modern Language Aptitude Test. Form A. New York: The Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Cleeremans, A. (1993). Mechanisms of implicit learning: Connectionist models of sequence processing. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cleeremans, A., & McClelland, J. L. (1991). Learning the structure of event sequences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 120, 235–253.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crookes, G., & Schmidt, R. W. (1991). Motivation: Reopening the research agenda. Language Learning, 41, 469–512.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (1994a). How implicit can adult second language learning be? AILA Review, 11, 83–96.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (1994b). Implicit and explicit learning of L2 grammar: A pilot study. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 188–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dienes, Z., Broadbent, D., & Berry, D. (1991). Implicit and explicit knowledge bases in artificial grammar learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 17, 875–887.Google Scholar
Doughty, C. (1991). Second language instruction does make a difference: Evidence from an empirical study of SL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 431–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dulany, D., Carlson, R., & Dewey, G. (1984). A case of syntactical learning and judgment: How conscious and how abstract? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 541–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dulany, D., Carlson, R., & Dewey, G. (1985). On consciousness in syntactic learning and judgment: A reply to Reber, Allen and Regan. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 114, 25–32.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. (1993). Rules and instances in foreign language learning: Interactions of explicit and implicit knowledge. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 5, 289–318.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (1993). The structural syllabus and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 91–113.Google Scholar
Furey, P. (1987). The relationship between advanced ESL learners' explicit rule knowledge of five English grammar patterns and performance on a grammar production task. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
Green, P., & Hecht, K. (1992). Implicit and explicit grammar: An empirical study. Applied Linguistics, 13, 168–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harley, B. (1993). Instructional strategies and SLA in early French immersion. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 245–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harley, B. (1994). Appealing to consciousness in the L2 classroom. AILA Review, 11, 57–68.Google Scholar
Hulstijn, J. H., & de Graaff, R. (1994). Under what conditions does explicit knowledge of a second language facilitate the acquisition of implicit knowledge? A research proposal. AILA Review, 11, 97–112.Google Scholar
Kelly, M. H. (1992). Using sound to solve syntactic problems: The role of phonology in grammatical category assignments. Psychological Review, 99, 349–364.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Köpcke, K., & Zubin, D. (1983). Die kognitive Organisation der Genuszuweisung zu den einsilbigen Nomen der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik, 11, 166–182.Google Scholar
Köpeke, K., & Zubin, D. (1984). Sechs Prinzipien für die Genuszuweisung im Deutschen: Ein Beitrag zur natürlichen Klassifikation. Linguistische Berichte, 93, 26–50.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. D. (1981a). Aptitude and attitude in relation to second language acquisition and learning. In Diller, K. C. (Ed.), Individual differences and universals in language learning aptitude (pp. 155–175). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. D. (1981b). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. H. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition research. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Levin, L. (1969). Implicit and explicit: A synopsis of three parallel experiments in applied psycholinguistics. Assessing different methods of teaching grammatical structures in English as a foreign language (School of Education Research Bulletin No. 1). Gothenburg, Sweden: University of Gothenburg.Google Scholar
Lewicki, P., Czyzewska, M., & Hoffman, H. (1987). Unconscious acquisition of complex procedural knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 13, 523–530.Google Scholar
Lewicki, P., Hill, T., & Bizot, E. (1988). Acquisition of procedural knowledge about a pattern of stimuli that cannot be articulated. Cognitive Psychology, 20, 24–37.Google Scholar
Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (1990). Focus-on-form and corrective feedback in communicative language teaching: Effects on second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 429–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H. (1983). Does second language instruction make a difference? TESOL Quarterly, 17, 359–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H. (1988). Instructed interlanguage development. In Beebe, L. (Ed.), Issues in second language acquisition: Multiple perspectives (pp. 115–141). New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In de Bot, K., Coste, D., Ginsberg, R., & Kramsch, C. (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39–52). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B., Leinbach, J., Taraban, R., & McDonald, J. (1989). Language learning: Cues or rules? Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 255–277.Google Scholar
Marcus, G. F., Pinker, S., Ullman, M., Hollander, M., Rosen, T. J., & Xu, F. (1992). Overregularization in language acquisition. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 57(4, Serial No. 228).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mathews, R., Buss, R., Stanley, W., Blanchard-Fields, F., Cho, J. R., & Druhan, B. (1989). Role of implicit and explicit processes in learning from examples: A synergistic effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 15, 1083–1100.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, B. (1990). “Conscious” versus “unconscious” learning. TESOL Quarterly, 24, 617–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nation, R., & McLaughlin, B. (1986). Novices and experts: An information processing approach to the “good language learner” problem. Applied Psycholinguistics, 7, 41–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perruchet, P., & Pacteau, C. (1990). Synthetic grammar learning: Implicit rule abstraction or explicit fragmentary knowledge? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119, 264–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perruchet, P., & Pacteau, C. (1991). Implicit acquisition of abstract knowledge about artificial grammar: Some methodological and conceptual issues. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 120, 112–116.Google Scholar
Reber, A. S. (1976). Implicit learning of synthetic languages: The role ol instructional set. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 2, 88–94.Google Scholar
Reber, A. S. (1989). Implicit learning and tacit knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118, 219–235.Google Scholar
Reber, A. S. (1993). Implicit learning and tacit knowledge: An essay on the cognitive unconscious. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Reber, A. S., Allen, R., & Regan, S. (1985). Syntactical learning and judgment, still unconscious and still abstract. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 114, 17–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reber, A. S., Kassin, S., Lewis, S., & Cantor, G. (1980). On the relationship between implicit and explicit modes in the learning of a complex rule structure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6, 492–502.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (1994). Implicit knowledge, second language learning, and syllabus construction. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 161–166.Google Scholar
Rosen, E. (1973). On the internal structure of perceptual and semantic categories. In Moore, T. (Ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language (pp. 111–144). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Rumelhart, D., & McClelland, J. (1986). On learning the past tenses of English verbs. In McClelland, J. & Rumelhart, D. (Eds.), Parallel distributed processing (pp. 217–271). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rumelhart, D. E. (1989). The architecture of mind: A connectionist approach. In Posner, M. I. (Ed.), Foundations of cognitive science (pp. 133–159). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. W. (1994a). Deconstructing consciousness in search of useful definitions for applied linguistics. AILA Review, 11, 11–26.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. W. (1994b). Implicit learning and the cognitive unconscious: Of artificial grammars and SLA. in Ellis, N. (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 165–209). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. D. (1993). On explicit and negative data effecting and affecting competence and linguistic behavior. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 147–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, V. M. (1989). An empirical study of explicit and implicit teaching strategies in French. The Modern Language Journal, 73, 14–22.Google Scholar
Seger, C. A. (1994). Implicit learning. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 163–196.Google Scholar
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
Shaffer, C. (1989). A comparison of inductive and deductive approaches to teaching foreign languages. The Modern Language Journal, 73, 395–403.Google Scholar
Shanks, D. R., & St. John, M. F. (1994). Characteristics of dissociable human learning systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 17, 367–395.Google Scholar
Sharwood, Smith M. (1981). Consciousness-raising and the second language learner. Applied Linguistics, 2, 159–168.Google Scholar
Sharwood, Smith M. (1993). Input enhancement in instructed SLA: Theoretical bases. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 165–179.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (1989). Individual differences in second language learning. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Sokolik, M., & Smith, M. (1992). Assignment of gender to French nouns in primary and secondary language: A connectionist model. Second Language Research, 8, 39–58.Google Scholar
Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. M. (1993). Instruction and the development of questions in L2 classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 205–224.Google Scholar
Stern, H. H. (1990). Analysis and experience as variables in second language pedagogy. In Harley, B., Allen, P., Cummins, J., & Swain, M. (Eds.), The development of second language proficiency (pp. 93–109). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stern, H. H. (1992). Issues and options in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In Gass, S. M. & Madden, C. G. (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Tanaka, S. (1987). The selective use of specific exemplars in second-language performance: The case of the dative alternation. Language Learning, 37, 63–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tucker, G. R., Lambert, W., & Rigault, A. (1968). Students' acquisition of French gender distinctions: A pilot investigation. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 6, 51–55.Google Scholar
Tucker, G. R., Lambert, W., & Rigault, A. (1977). The French speaker's skill with grammatical gender: An example of rule-governed behavior. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (1994). Evaluating the role of consciousness in second language acquisition: Terms, linguistic features and research methodology. AILA Review, 11, 27–36.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B., & Cadierno, T. (1993a). Explicit instruction and input processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 225–243.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B., & Cadierno, T. (1993b). Input processing and second language acquisition: A role for instruction. The Modern Language Journal, 77, 45–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vokey, J. R., & Brooks, L. R. (1992). Salience of item knowledge in learning artificial grammars. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 18, 328–344.Google Scholar
White, L. (1991). Adverb placement in second language acquisition: Some effects of positive and negative evidence in the classroom. Second Language Research, 7, 133–161.Google Scholar
White, L., Spada, N., Lightbown, P., & Ranta, L. (1991). Input enhancement and L2 question formation. Applied Linguistics, 12, 416–432.Google Scholar
Yamaoka, T. (1988). A semantic and prototype discussion of the ‘be easy to V’ structure: A possible explanation of its acquisition process. Applied Linguistics, 9, 385–401.Google Scholar