Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-7zcd7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-07T07:12:53.126Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

VARIABILITY IN SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING

The Roles of Individual Differences, Learning Conditions, and Linguistic Complexity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 May 2016

Kaitlyn M. Tagarelli ,
Simón Ruiz ,
José Luis Moreno Vega  and
Patrick Rebuschat
Kaitlyn M. Tagarelli*
Affiliation:
Dalhousie University
Simón Ruiz
Affiliation:
Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen
José Luis Moreno Vega
Affiliation:
Lancaster University
Patrick Rebuschat
Affiliation:
Lancaster University
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Kaitlyn M. Tagarelli, Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Life Sciences Center, 1355 Oxford St., Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS B3H 4R2. E-mail: kaitlyn.tagarelli@dal.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Second language learning outcomes are highly variable, due to a variety of factors, including individual differences, exposure conditions, and linguistic complexity. However, exactly how these factors interact to influence language learning is unknown. This article examines the relationship between these three variables in language learners.

Native English speakers were exposed to an artificial language containing three sentence patterns of varying linguistic complexity. They were randomly assigned to two groups—incidental and instructed—designed to promote the acquisition of implicit and explicit knowledge, respectively. Learning was assessed with a grammaticality judgment task, and subjective measures of awareness were used to measure whether exposure had resulted in implicit or explicit knowledge. Participants also completed cognitive tests.

Awareness measures demonstrated that learners in the incidental group relied more on implicit knowledge, whereas learners in the instructed group relied more on explicit knowledge. Overall, exposure condition was the most significant predictor of performance on the grammaticality judgment task, with learners in the instructed group outperforming those in the incidental group. Performance on a procedural learning task accounted for additional variance. When outcomes were analyzed according to linguistic complexity, exposure condition was the most significant predictor for two syntactic patterns, but it was not a predictor for the most complex sentence group; instead, procedural learning ability was.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 38 , Special Issue 2: Cognitive Perspectives on Difficulty and Complexity in SLA , June 2016 , pp. 293 - 316
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. (Eds.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 259–302). Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center.Google Scholar
Baars, B. J. (1988). A cognitive theory of consciousness. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Baddeley, A. D. (2010). Working memory. Current Biology, 20(4), R136–R140.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In Bower, G. H. (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 47–90). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bialystok, E. (1982). On the relationship between knowing and using forms. Applied Linguistics, 3, 181–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandt, S., Diessel, H., & Tomasello, M. (2008). The acquisition of German relative clauses: A case study. Child Language, 35, 325–348.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bulté, B., & Housen, A. (2012). Defining and operationalising L2 complexity. In Housen, A., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp. 21–46). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bygate, M. (1999). Task as context for the framing, reframing and unframing of language. System, 27, 33–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, R. E., & Squire, L. R. (1998). Classical conditioning and brain systems: A key role for awareness. Science, 280, 77–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 450–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Graaff, R. (1997). The eXperanto experiment: Effects of explicit instruction on second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 249–276.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. (2005). What makes learning second language grammar difficult? A review of issues. Language Learning, 55(Suppl. 1), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dienes, Z., & Scott, R. (2005). Measuring unconscious knowledge: Distinguishing structural knowledge and judgment knowledge. Psychological Research, 69, 338–351.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dörnyei, Z. (2006). Individual differences in second language acquisition. AILA Review, 19, 42–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2006). Cognitive perspectives on SLA: The Associative-Cognitive CREED. AILA Review, 19, 100–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2005). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 141–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2007). The differential effects of corrective feedback on two grammatical structures. In Mackey, A. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 339–360). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Erçetin, G., & Alptekin, C. (2013). The explicit/implicit knowledge distinction and working memory: Implications for second-language reading comprehension. Applied Psycholinguistics, 34, 727–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erlam, R. (2005). Language aptitude and its relationship to instructional effectiveness in second language acquisition. Language Teaching Research, 9(2), 147–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaies, S. J. (1976). Sentence-combining: A technique for assessing proficiency in a second language. Paper presented at the Conference on Perspectives on Language, University of Louisville, Kentucky.Google Scholar
Gebauer, G. F., & Mackintosh, N. J. (2007). Psychometric Intelligence dissociates implicit and explicit learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(1), 34–54.Google ScholarPubMed
Godfroid, A. (2016). The effects of implicit instruction on implicit and explicit knowledge development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(2), 177–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granena, G. (2013). Individual differences in sequence learning ability and second language acquisition in early childhood and adulthood. Language Learning, 63, 665–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granena, G. (2015). Explicit and implicit cognitive aptitudes and information-processing styles: An individual differences study. Applied Psycholinguistics, FirstView, 1–14.Google Scholar
Grey, S., Williams, J. N., & Rebuschat, P. (2014). Incidental exposure and L3 learning of morphosyntax. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36, 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grey, S., Williams, J. N., & Rebuschat, P. (2015). Individual differences in incidental language learning: The role of learning styles, personality, and working memory. Learning and Individual Differences, 38, 44–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamrick, P. (2014). A role for chunk formation in statistical learning of second language syntax: Chunk formation and L2 syntax. Language Learning, 64(2), 247–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamrick, P. (2015). Declarative and procedural memory abilities as individual differences in incidental language learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 44, 9–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. (2004). Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Housen, A. (2014). Difficulty and complexity of language features and second language instruction. In Chapelle, C. A. (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. (Vol. 4, pp. 2205–2213). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.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, Germany: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard, J. H. Jr., & Howard, D. V. (1997). Age differences in implicit learning of higher-order dependencies in serial patterns. Psychology and Aging, 12, 634–656.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hummel, K. M. (2009). Aptitude, phonological memory, and second language proficiency in non-novice adult learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 30, 225–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunt, K. (1965). Grammatical structures written at three grade levels (NCTE Research Report No. 3). Champaign, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.Google Scholar
Jarvella, R. J., & Herman, S. J. (1972). Clause structure of sentences and speech processing. Perception & Psychophysics, 11(5), 381–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Juffs, A., & Harrington, M. (2011). Aspects of working memory in L2 learning. Language Teaching, 44, 137–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaufman, S. B., DeYoung, C. G., Gray, J. R., Jiménez, L., Brown, J., & Mackintosh, N. (2010). Implicit learning as an ability. Cognition, 116, 321–340.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1994). The input hypothesis and its rivals. In Ellis, N. C. (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 45–77). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1978). An ESL index of development. TESOL Quarterly, 12, 439–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1983). Assessing global second language proficiency. In Seliger, H. W. & Long, M. H. (Eds.), Classroom oriented research (pp. 287–304). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google 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., & Weiss, D. J. (2011). Working memory predicts the acquisition of explicit L2 knowledge. In Sanz, C. & Leow, R. P. (Eds.), Implicit and explicit language learning: Conditions, processes, and knowledge in SLA and bilingualism (pp. 101–114). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Leung, J. H. C., & Williams, J. N. (2012). Constraints on implicit learning of grammatical form-meaning connections. Language Learning, 62(2), 634–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lord, C. (2002). Are subordinate clauses more difficult? In Bybee, J. & Noonan, M. (Eds.), Complex sentences in grammar and discourse: Essays in honor of Sandra A. Thompson (pp. 223–233). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, K. I., & Ellis, N. C. (2012). The roles of phonological short-term memory and working memory in L2 grammar and vocabulary learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 379–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masgoret, A. M., & Gardner, R. C. (2003). Attitudes, motivation, and second language learning: A meta-analysis of studies conducted by Gardner and associates. Language Learning, 53(1), 123–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan-Short, K., Faretta-Stutenberg, M., Brill-Schuetz, K., Carpenter, H., & Wong, P. C. M. (2014). Declarative and procedural memory as individual differences in second language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17, 56–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan-Short, K., Finger, I., Grey, S., & Ullman, M. T. (2012). Second language processing shows increased native-like neural responses after months of no exposure. PLoS ONE, 7(3), e32974.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morgan-Short, K., Sanz, C., Steinhauer, K., & Ullman, M. T. (2010). Second language acquisition of gender agreement in explicit and implicit training conditions: An event-related potential study. Language Learning, 60(1), 154–193.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morgan-Short, K., Steinhauer, K., Sanz, C., & Ullman, M. T. (2012). Explicit and implicit second language training differentially affect the achievement of native-like brain activation patterns. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 24(4), 933–947.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nissen, M. J., & Bullemer, P. (1987). Attentional requirements of learning: Evidence from performance measures. Cognitive Psychology, 19, 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reber, A. S. (1993). Implicit learning and tacit knowledge: An essay on the cognitive unconscious. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Reber, A. S., Walkenfeld, F. F., & Hernstadt, R. (1991). Implicit and explicit learning: Individual differences and IQ. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17(5), 888–896.Google ScholarPubMed
Rebuschat, P. (2008). Implicit learning of natural language syntax (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Cambridge University, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Rebuschat, P. (2013). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge in second language research. Language Learning, 63, 595–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rebuschat, P., Hamrick, P., Riestenberg, K., Sachs, R., & Ziegler, N. (2015). Triangulating measures of awareness: A contribution to the debate on learning without awareness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37(2), 299–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rebuschat, P., & Williams, J. N. (2012). Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 33, 829–856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (2002). Individual differences and instructed language learning. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (2005). Aptitude and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 46–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roehr, K. (2008). Linguistic and metalinguistic categories in second language learning. Cognitive Linguistics, 19, 67–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, J., Révész, A., & Rebuschat, P. (2015). Implicit and explicit knowledge of L2 inflectional morphology. Applied Psycholinguistics. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0142716415000247 Google Scholar
Scott, M., & Tucker, C. R. (1974). Error analysis and second language strategies. Language Learning, 24, 69–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shanks, D. R. (2005). Implicit learning. In Lamberts, K. & Goldstone, R. (Eds.), Handbook of cognition (pp. 202–220). London: Sage.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (1989). Individual differences in second-language learning. New York: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Squire, L. R., & Knowlton, B. J. (2000). The medial temporal lobe, the hippocampus, and the memory systems of the brain. In Gazzaniga, M. S. (Ed.), The new cognitive neurosciences (pp. 765–780). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tagarelli, K. M., Borges Mota, M., & Rebuschat, P. (2015). Working memory, learning context, and the acquisition of L2 syntax. In Zhisheng, W., Borges Mota, M., & McNeill, A. (Eds.), Working memory in second language acquisition and processing: Theory, research and commentary (pp. 224–247). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ullman, M. T. (2015). The declarative/procedural model: A neurobiologically motivated theory of first and second language. In VanPatten, B. and Williams, J. (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (2nd ed., pp. 135–158). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Unsworth, N., Heitz, R. P., Schrock, J. C., & Engle, R. W. (2005). An automated version of the operation span task. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 498–505.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van den Bos, E., & Poletiek, F. H. (2008). Intentional artificial grammar learning: When does it work? European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 20(4), 793–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, J. N. (2003). Inducing abstract linguistic representations: Human and connectionist learning of noun classes. In van Hout, R., Hulk, A., Kuiken, F., & Towell, R. (Eds.), The interface between syntax and the lexicon in second language acquisition (pp. 151–174). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, J. N. (2005). Learning without awareness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(2), 269–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, J. N. (2012). Working memory and SLA. In Gass, S. M. & Mackey, A. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 427–441). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Williams, J. N., & Lovatt, P. (2003). Phonological memory and rule learning. Language Learning, 53, 67–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, L., & Givón, T. (1997). Benefits and drawbacks of controlled laboratory studies of second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 173–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Tagarelli supplementary material

Tagarelli supplementary material 1

Download Tagarelli supplementary material(File)
File 103.8 KB