Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-7zcd7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-06T03:41:48.523Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

INTRODUCTION: COGNITIVE PERSPECTIVES ON DIFFICULTY AND COMPLEXITY IN L2 ACQUISITION

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 May 2016

Alex Housen  and
Hannelore Simoens
Alex Housen*
Affiliation:
Vrije Universiteit Brussel
Hannelore Simoens
Affiliation:
Vrije Universiteit Brussel
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Alex Housen, Faculty of Arts and Philosophy, Pleinlaan 2, 1050 Brussels. E-mail: ahousen@vub.ac.be
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Information

Type
Introduction
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 38 , Special Issue 2: Cognitive Perspectives on Difficulty and Complexity in SLA , June 2016 , pp. 163 - 175
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

Alanen, R. (1995). Input enhancement and rule presentation in second language acquisition. In Schmidt, R. (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning and teaching (pp. 259–302). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.Google Scholar
Ammar, A., & Lightbown, P. M. (2005). Teaching marked linguistic structures: More about the acquisition of relative clauses by Arab learners of English. In Housen, A. & Pierrard, M. (Eds.), Investigations in instructed second language acquisition (pp. 167–199). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Andringa, S., De Glopper, K., & Hacquebord, H. (2011). Effects of explicit and implicit instruction on free written response task performance. Language Learning, 61, 868–903.Google Scholar
Bulté, B., & Housen, A. (2012). Defining and operationalising L2 complexity. In Housen, A., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency—investigating complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp. 21–46). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bulté, B., & Housen, A. (2014). Conceptualizing and measuring short-term changes in L2 writing complexity. Journal of Second Language Writing, 26, 42–65.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. B. (1981). Twenty-five years of research in foreign language aptitude. In Diller, K. C. (Ed.), Individual differences and universals in language learning aptitude (pp. 83–113). Rowley: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Cerezo, L., Caras, A., & Leow, R. P. (2016). Effectiveness of guided induction versus deductive instruction on the development of complex Spanish “gustar” structures: an analysis of learning outcomes and processes. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(2), 265–291.Google 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.Google Scholar
Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 450–466.Google Scholar
De Graaff, R., & Housen, A. (2009). Investigating the effects and effectiveness of L2 instruction. In Long, M. & Doughty, C. (Eds.), The handbook of language teaching (pp. 736–755). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom language acquisition (pp. 42–63). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning. In Doughty, C. & Long, M. (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 313–348). Oxford: 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.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2016). Of moving targets and chameleons: Why the concept of difficulty is so hard to pin down. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(2), 353–363.Google Scholar
Della Putta, P. (2016). The effects of Textual Enhancement on the acquisition of two non-parallel grammatical features by Spanish-speaking learners of Italian. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(2), 217–238.Google Scholar
Dietz, G. (2002). On rule complexity: A structural approach. EUROSLA Yearbook, 2(1), 263–286.Google Scholar
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Pedagogical choices in focus on form. In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 197–261). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2006). Language acquisition as rational contingency learning. Applied Linguistics, 27, 1–24.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2016). Salience, Cognition, Language Complexity, and Complex Adaptive Systems. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(2), 341–351.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2006). Modelling learning difficulty and second language proficiency: The differential contributions of implicit and explicit knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 27, 431–463.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2007). Explicit form-focused instruction and second language acquisition. In Spolsky, B. & Hult, F. M. (Eds.), The handbook of educational linguistics (pp. 437–455). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Godfroid, A. (2016). The effects of implicit instruction on implicit and explicit knowledge development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(2), 177–214.Google Scholar
Godfroid, A., & Uggen, M. (2013). Attention to irregular verbs by beginning learners of German: An eye-movement study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 291–322.Google Scholar
Goldschneider, J., & DeKeyser, R. (2001). Explaining the “natural order of L2 morpheme acquisition” in English: A meta-analysis of multiple determinants. Language Learning, 51, 1–50.Google Scholar
Granena, G. (2013). Individual differences in sequence learning ability and second language acquisition in early childhood and adulthood. Language Learning, 63, 665–703.Google Scholar
Hendriks, H., & Watorek, M. (2011). The role of conceptual complexity in the acquisition of the spatial domain by L1 and L2 learners of French, English and Polish. In Watorek, M., Benazzo, S., & Hickmann, M. (Eds.), Comparative perspectives on language acquisition: A tribute to Clive Perdue (pp. 400–418). Dublin: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Housen, A. (2014). Difficulty and complexity of language features and second language instruction. In Chapelle, C. A. (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Malden, MA: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal1443.Google Scholar
Housen, A., Pierrard, M., & Van Daele, S. (2005). Rule complexity and the effectiveness of explicit grammar instruction. In Housen, A. & Pierrard, M. (Eds.), Investigations in instructed second language acquisition (pp. 235–270). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hulstijn, J., & 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
Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement and the noticing hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 541–577.Google Scholar
Juffs, A., & Harrington, M. (2011). Aspects of working memory and L2 learning. Language Teaching, 44, 137–166.Google Scholar
Li, S. (2013). The interface between feedback type, L2 proficiency, and the nature of the linguistic target. Language Teaching Research, 18, 1–24.Google Scholar
Long, M., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research and practice. In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 15–41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction, and second language development: An empirical study on question formation in ESL. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 557–587.Google Scholar
Marsden, E. J., Williams, J., & Liu, X. (2013). Learning novel morphology: The role of meaning and orientation of attention at initial exposure. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 619–654.Google Scholar
Miestamo, M. (2008). Grammatical complexity in a cross-linguistic perspective. In Miestamo, M., Sinnemaki, K., & Karlsson, F. (Eds.), Language complexity: Typology, contact, change (pp. 23–42). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Miestamo, M., Sinnemäki, K., & Karlsson, F. (2008). Language complexity: Typology, contact, change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Morgan-Short, K., Faretta-Stutenberg, M., Brill-Schuetz, K., Carpenter, H., & Wong, P. (2014). Declarative and procedural memory as individual differences in second language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17, 56–72.Google Scholar
Morgan-Short, K., Sanz, C., Steinhauer, K., & Ullman, M. T. (2010). Acquisition of gender agreement in second language learners: An event-related potential study. Language Learning, 60, 154–193.Google Scholar
Ortega, L. (2012). Interlanguage complexity: A construct in search of theoretical renewal. In Kortmann, B. & Szmrecsanyi, B. (Eds.), Linguistic complexity: Second language acquisition, indigenization, contact (pp. 127–155). Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ozeki, H., & Shirai, Y. (2007). Does the noun phrase accessibility hierarchy predict the difficulty order in the acquisition of Japanese relative clauses? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29, 169–196.Google Scholar
Pallotti, G. (2009). CAF: Defining, refining and differentiating constructs. Applied Linguistics, 30, 590–601.Google Scholar
Pallotti, G. (2015). A simple view of linguistic complexity. Second Language Research, 31, 117–134.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M. (2005). Cross-linguistic aspects of processability theory. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (1996). Learning simple and complex second language rules under implicit, incidental, rule search, and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 27–67.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (1997). Generalizability and automaticity of second language learning under implicit, incidental, enhanced, and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 223–247.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2002). 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 Robinson, P. (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 211–266). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2005). Aptitude and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 45–73.Google Scholar
Rodríguez Silva, L. H., & Roehr-Brackin, K. (2016). Perceived learning difficulty and actual performance: Explicit and implicit knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(2), 317–340.Google Scholar
Roehr, K., & Gánem-Gutiérrez, G. A. (2009). The status of metalinguistic knowledge in instructed adult L2 learning. Language Awareness, 18, 165–181.Google Scholar
Sawyer, M., & Ranta, L. (2001). Aptitude, individual differences, and instructional design. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 319–353). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Simoens, H., & Housen, A. (2016). L2 difficulty in SLA: The role and effects of perceptual salience. Manuscript in preparation.Google Scholar
Spada, N., & Tomita, Y. (2010). Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 263–308.Google Scholar
Stockwell, R. P., Bowen, J. D., & Martin, J. W. (1965). The grammatical structures of English and Spanish. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Suzuki, W., & DeKeyser, R. (2015). Comparing elicited imitation and word monitoring as measures of implicit knowledge. Language Learning. Advance online publication. doi:10.1111/lang.12138 Google Scholar
Tagarelli, K. M., Ruiz-Hernández, S., Vega, J. L. M., & Rebuschat, P. (2016). Variability in second language learning: The roles of individual differences, learning conditions, and linguistic complexity. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(2), 293–316.Google Scholar
Trudgill, P. (2011). Sociolinguistic typology: Social determinants of linguistic complexity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wen, Z., Borges Mota, M., & McNeill, A. (Eds.). (2015). Working memory in second language acquisition and processing. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Williams, J., & Evans, J. (1998). What kind of focus and on which forms? In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 139–155). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Yalçin, S., & Spada, N. (2016). Language aptitude and grammatical difficulty. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(2), 239–263.Google Scholar