Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T20:24:58.676Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

WHY IS THE COMPONENTIAL CONSTRUCT OF IMPLICIT LANGUAGE APTITUDE SO DIFFICULT TO CAPTURE?

A COMMENTARY ON THE SPECIAL ISSUE

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2021

Pierre Perruchet Open the ORCID record for Pierre Perruchet [Opens in a new window]
Pierre Perruchet*
Affiliation:
Université de Bourgogne
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Pierre Perruchet, LEAD/CNRS, Pole AAFE, Université de Bourgogne, 21000Dijon, France. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Although this special issue reveals some promising achievements, most of the contributions show that tasks of implicit learning are not or are only weakly correlated with each other, and they have inconsistent predictive power on L2 acquisition. This commentary examines four possible explanations for this surprising pattern: The (suboptimal) selection of tasks, the low reliability of measures, the deep influence of the starting level even for nominally “new” implicit tasks, and the fact that the mastery of L2 may involve other implicit processes than implicit learning measured through laboratory tasks.

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. 677 - 691
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

Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. R. (1993). Rules of mind. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bokander, L. (2020). Language aptitude and crosslinguistic influence in initial L2 learning. Journal of the European Second Language Association, 4, 35–44. https://doi.org/10.22599/jesla.69 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bokander, L., & Bylund, E. (2020). Probing the internal validity of the LLAMA language aptitude tests. Language Learning, 70, 11–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chun, M. M., & Jiang, Y. H. (1998). Contextual cueing: Implicit learning and memory of visual context guides spatial attention. Cognitive Psychology, 36, 28–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DeKeyser, R. (2020). Skill acquisition theory. In VanPatten, B., Keating, G., & Wulff, S. (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 83–104). Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitts, P. M. (1951). Engineering psychology and equipment design. In Stevens, S. S. (Ed.), Handbook of experimental psychology. Wiley.Google Scholar
Fitts, P. M., & Posner, M. I. (1967). Human performance. Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Fleischman, E. A., & Rich, S. (1963). Role of kinesthetic and spatial-visual abilities in perceptual-motor learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66, 6–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gebauer, G. F., & Mackintosh, N. J. (2007). Psychometric intelligence dissociates implicit and explicit learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 34–54. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.33.1.34 Google ScholarPubMed
Growns, B., Siegelman, N., & Martire, K. A. (2020). The multi-faceted nature of visual statistical learning: Individual differences in learning conditional and distributional regularities across time and space. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 27, 1291–1299. https://doi-org.insb.bib.cnrs.fr/10.3758/s13423-020-01781-0 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hedge, C., Powell, G., & Sumner, P. (2018). The reliability paradox: Why robust cognitive tasks do not produce reliable individual differences. Behavior Research and Methods, 50, 1166–1186. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0935-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemp, N., & Bryant, P. (2003). Do beez buzz? Rule-based and frequency-based knowledge in learning to spell plural-s. Child Development, 74, 63–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kolers, P. A., & Roediger, H. L. III (1984). Procedures of mind. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 425–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, S., Ellis, R., & Zhu, Y. (2019). The associations between cognitive ability and L2 development under five different instructional conditions. Applied Psycholinguistics, 40, 693–722. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716418000796 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Logan, G. D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review, 95, 492–527. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.95.4.492 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGeorge, P., & Burton, A. M. (1990). Semantic processing in an incidental learning task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 42A, 597–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNemar, Q. (1962). Psychological statistics (3rd ed.). Wiley.Google Scholar
Pacton, S., Fayol, M., Nys, M., & Peereman, R. (2019). Implicit statistical learning of graphotactic knowledge and lexical orthographic acquisition. In Perret, C. & Olive, T. (Eds.), Spelling and writing words (Vol. 39, pp. 40–66). Brill.Google Scholar
Parshina, O., Obeid, R., Che, E. S., Ricker, T. J., & Brooks, P. J. (2018). SRT and ASRT: Similar tasks tapping distinct learning mechanisms? In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2202–2207). Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Perruchet, P. (2019). What mechanisms underlie implicit statistical learning? Transitional probabilities versus chunks in language learning. Topics in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 520–535. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12403 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perruchet, P., & Baveux, P. (1989). Correlational analyses of explicit and implicit memory. Memory and Cognition, 17, 77–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perruchet, P., & Tillmann, B. (2010). Exploiting multiple sources of information in learning an artificial language: Human data and modeling. Cognitive Science, 34, 255–285.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perruchet, P., Vinter, A., & Gallego, J. (1997). Implicit learning shapes new conscious percepts and representations. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 4, 43–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rey, A., Bogaerts, L., Tosatto, A., Bonafos, G., Franco, A., & Favre, B. (2020). Detection of regularities in a random environment. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 73, 2106–2118. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021820941356 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saffran, J., Aslin, R., & Newport, E. (1996). Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants. Science, 274, 1926–1928.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schneider, W., & Fisk, A. D. (1982). Degree of consistent training: Improvements in search performance and automatic process development. Perception & Psychophysics, 31, 160–168.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schneider, W., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: 1. Detection, search, and attention. Psychological Review, 84, 1–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shukla, M., Nespor, M., & Mehler, J. (2007). An interaction between prosody and statistics in the segmentation of fluent speech. Cognitive Psychology, 54, 1–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Siegelman, N., Bogaerts, L., Christiansen, M. H., & Frost, R. (2017). Towards a theory of individual differences in statistical learning. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 372, 20160059. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2016.0059 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, E. B., Langston, C., & Nisbett, R. E. (1992). The case for rules in reasoning. Cognitive Science, 16, 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szmalec, A., Duyck, W., Vandierendonck, A., Mata, A. B., & Page, M. P. A. (2009). The Hebb repetition effect as a laboratory analogue of novel word learning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 435–443.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thevenot, C., & Barrouillet, P. (2020). Are small additions solved by direct retrieval from memory or automated counting procedures? A rejoinder to Chen and Campbell (2018). Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 27, 1416–1418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yalçin, S., & Spada, N. (2016). Language aptitude and grammatical difficulty: An EFL classroom-based study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 239–263. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263115000509 CrossRefGoogle Scholar