2021
DOI: 10.1111/lang.12454
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Cognitive Predictors of Child Second Language Comprehension and Syntactic Learning

Abstract: This study examined the role of child cognitive abilities for procedural and declarative learning in the earliest stages of second language (L2) exposure. In the context of a computer game, 53 first language Italian monolingual children were aurally trained in a novel miniature language over 3 consecutive days. A mixed effects model analysis of the relationship between cognitive predictors and outcomes in morphosyntax measured via a grammaticality judgment test (GJT) was performed. Relative to adults trained i… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
1
1

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 59 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…More research is needed to investigate the complex relationships between these factors. The role of cognitive and linguistic individual differences, is clearly a burgeoning area of interest in the language learning sciences (e.g., Bolibaugh & Foster, 2021; Buffington et al, 2021; Pili-Moss, 2021; Riches & Jackson, 2018; Walker et al, 2020; including special issues dedicated to the topic such as those edited by Andringa & Dąbrowska, 2019; Roberts & Meyer, 2012), and investigating the role of individual cognitive abilities in prediction and, specifically, error-based learning, in L1 and L2 (or Lx) speakers would constitute a timely extension of this agenda. Such research could shed more light on some of the factors we have reviewed, such as the varying effect of L2 proficiency (e.g., helping to clarify the relative contributions of knowledge representation and “procedural” proficiency in enabling prediction).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…More research is needed to investigate the complex relationships between these factors. The role of cognitive and linguistic individual differences, is clearly a burgeoning area of interest in the language learning sciences (e.g., Bolibaugh & Foster, 2021; Buffington et al, 2021; Pili-Moss, 2021; Riches & Jackson, 2018; Walker et al, 2020; including special issues dedicated to the topic such as those edited by Andringa & Dąbrowska, 2019; Roberts & Meyer, 2012), and investigating the role of individual cognitive abilities in prediction and, specifically, error-based learning, in L1 and L2 (or Lx) speakers would constitute a timely extension of this agenda. Such research could shed more light on some of the factors we have reviewed, such as the varying effect of L2 proficiency (e.g., helping to clarify the relative contributions of knowledge representation and “procedural” proficiency in enabling prediction).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Pili-Moss et al speculated that discrepancies with previous studies and the role of declarative learning ability in consistently supporting accuracy at later stages of exposure could be taskdependent [19], specifically at least partially due to the enhanced visual and semantic processing associated with the online game task compared to the aural grammaticality judgment test. Divergent results between grammaticality judgment test and sentence comprehension measures in the Brocanto paradigm were also evidenced for children at early stages of exposure (after 6 game blocks) [26]. Here grammaticality judgment test scores were positively related to procedural learning ability measured by an alternate serial reaction time task, whereas sentence comprehension was mainly predicted by vocabulary learning ability and a composite of verbal and visual declarative learning ability throughout practice, although to a lesser extent participants with stronger procedural learning abilities also tended to attain higher accuracy towards the end of practice.…”
Section: Plos Onementioning
confidence: 92%
“…All vocabulary items were introduced aurally by the researcher without using translations and in association with a corresponding static picture (game tokens, adjectives and directions) or animation (moves). For a detailed description of the vocabulary training procedure see Pili-Moss [ 26 ]. Vocabulary training was followed by a test where participants had to reach a criterion of 100% correctly identified word/visual associations in order to proceed to the subsequent stage of the experiment.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Pili-Moss et al speculated that discrepancies with previous studies and the role of declarative learning ability in consistently supporting accuracy at later stages of exposure could be task-dependent [ 19 ], specifically at least partially due to the enhanced visual and semantic processing associated with the online game task compared to the aural grammaticality judgment test. Divergent results between grammaticality judgment test and sentence comprehension measures in the Brocanto paradigm were also evidenced for children at early stages of exposure (after 6 game blocks) [ 26 ]. Here grammaticality judgment test scores were positively related to procedural learning ability measured by an alternate serial reaction time task, whereas sentence comprehension was mainly predicted by vocabulary learning ability and a composite of verbal and visual declarative learning ability throughout practice, although to a lesser extent participants with stronger procedural learning abilities also tended to attain higher accuracy towards the end of practice.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation