Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-jtdwj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T03:07:03.063Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

OF MOVING TARGETS AND CHAMELEONS

Why the Concept of Difficulty Is So Hard to Pin Down

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 May 2016

Robert DeKeyser
Robert DeKeyser*
Affiliation:
University of Maryland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this short article I try to present a taxonomy of sources of difficulty, in particular complexity. I emphasize how these factors interact with each other and with individual differences and treatments, before illustrating some of these interactions and the methodological issues involved in studying them with examples from the empirical studies in this issue. Finally, I make some suggestions for future research.

Information

Type
Commentaries
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 38 , Special Issue 2: Cognitive Perspectives on Difficulty and Complexity in SLA , June 2016 , pp. 353 - 363
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

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

Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1987). Markedness and salience in second-language acquisition. Language Learning, 37, 385–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 8–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, L., Trofimovich, P., White, J., Cardoso, W., & Horst, M. (2009). Some input on the easy/difficult grammar question: An empirical study. The Modern Language Journal, 93, 336–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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. M. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning. In Doughty, C. & Long, M. (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 313–348). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (2005). What makes learning second-language grammar difficult? A review of issues. Language Learning, 55 (Suppl. 1), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (2010). Monitoring processes in Spanish as a second language during a study abroad program. Foreign Language Annals, 43, 80–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (2012). Interactions between individual differences, treatments, and structures in SLA. Language Learning, 62 (Suppl. 2), 189–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M., & Koeth, J. (2011). Cognitive aptitudes for second language learning. In Hinkel, E. (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (Vol. 2, pp. 395–406). London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M., & Prieto Botana, G. (2015). The effectiveness of processing instruction in L2 grammar acquisition: A narrative review. Applied Linguistics, 36, 290–305. doi:10.1093/applin/amu071 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dussias, P. E., Valdés Kroff, J. R., Guzzardo Tamargo, 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, 353–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erlam, R. (2005). Language aptitude and its relationship to instructional effectiveness in second language acquisition. Language Teaching Research, 9, 147–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foucart, A., & Frenck-Mestre, C. (2011). Grammatical gender processing in L2: Electrophysiological evidence of the effect of L1-L2 syntactic similarity. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 14, 379–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldschneider, J. M., & DeKeyser, R. M. (2001). Explaining the “natural order of L2 morpheme acquisition” in English: A meta-analysis of multiple determinants. Language Learning, 51, 1–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granena, G. (2013). Cognitive aptitudes for second language learning and the LLAMA language aptitude test. In Granena, G. & Long, M. H. (Eds.), Sensitive periods, language aptitude, and ultimate L2 attainment (pp. 105–129). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grigorenko, E., Sternberg, R. J., & Ehrman, M. E. (2000). A theory-based approach to the measurement of second-language learning ability: The CANAL-F theory and test. The Modern Language Journal, 84, 390–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Housen, A., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (Eds.). (2012). Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency. Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle 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
Juffs, A., & Harrington, M. (2011). Aspects of working memory in L2 learning. Language Teaching: Reviews and Studies, 42, 137–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koedinger, K. R., Booth, J. L., & Klahr, D. (2013). Instructional complexity and the science to constrain it. Science, 342, 935–937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, S. -K. (2007). Effects of textual enhancement and topic familiarity on Korean EFL students’ reading comprehension and learning of passive form. Language Learning, 57, 87–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, S. -K., & Huang, H.-T. (2008). Visual input enhancement and grammar learning: A meta-analytic review. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 307–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, S. (2013). The interactions between the effects of implicit and explicit feedback and individual differences in language analytic ability and working memory. The Modern Language Journal, 97, 634–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linck, J. A., Osthus, P., Koeth, J. T., & Bunting, M. F. (2014). Working memory and second language comprehension and production: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21, 861–883.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Linck, J. A., Hughes, M. M., Campbell, S. G., Silbert, N. H., Tare, M., Jackson, S. R., ... Doughty, C. J. (2013). Hi-LAB: A new measure of aptitude for high-level language proficiency. Language Learning, 63, 530–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H. (1983a). Linguistic and conversational adjustments to non-native speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5, 177–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H. (1983b). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4, 126–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meara, P. (2005). LLAMA Language Aptitude Tests. The Manual. Retrieved from http://www.lognostics.co.uk/tools/llama/llama_manual.pdf.Google Scholar
Nakic, J., Granic, A., & Glavinic, V. (2015). Anatomy of student models in adaptive learning systems: A systematic literature review of individual differences from 2001 to 2013. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 51, 459–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pallotti, G. (2015). A simple view of linguistic complexity. Second Language Research, 31, 117–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M. (2005). An outline of processability theory and its relationship to other approaches to SLA. Language Learning, 65, 123–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prieto Botana, G. (2013). The role of task-essentialness and explicit information in processing instruction (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (1997). Individual differences and the fundamental similarity of implicit and explicit adult second language learning. Language Learning, 47, 45–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: A triadic framework for examining task influences on SLA. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 287–318). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (2002). Effects of individual differences in intelligence, aptitude, and working memory on adult incidental SLA: A replication and extension of Reber, Walkenfield, and Hernstadt (1991). In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 211–265). Amsterdam, The Netherlands, and Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 255–283.CrossRefGoogle 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
Suzuki, Y., & DeKeyser, R. (2015). Does elicited imitation measure implicit knowledge? Evidence from the word-monitoring task. Language Learning, 65, 860–895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B. (2012). Input processing. In Gass, S. & Mackey, A. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 268–281). London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Vatz, K., Tare, M., Jackson, S. R., & Doughty, C. J. (2013). Aptitude-treatment interaction studies in second language acquisition. In Granena, G. & Long, M. H. (Eds.), Sensitive periods, language aptitude, and ultimate L2 attainment (pp. 273–292). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, J. (1998). Getting the learners’ attention. A typographical input enhancement study. In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 85–113). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.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
Williams, J. N. (2012). Working memory and SLA. In Gass, S. & Mackey, A. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 427–441). London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar