How Explicit Knowledge Affects Online L2 Processing

Abstract

Form-focused instruction studies generally report larger gains for explicit types of instruction over implicit types on measures of controlled production. Studies that used online processing measures—which do not readily allow for the application of explicit knowledge—however, suggest that this advantage occurs primarily when the target structure is similar in the first language (L1) and the second language (L2). This study investigated how explicit knowledge of a structure that does not exist in the L1 affects the initial stage of adult L2 acquisition. Fifty-one Dutch L1 speakers received a short auditory exposure (instruction) to a new language that included differential object marking (DOM), in which animate but not inanimate direct objects are preceded by a preposition. For 26 learners, the instruction was complemented by a brief rule explanation. Afterward, learners’ online processing and explicit knowledge of DOM were measured by means of eye-tracking (visual world paradigm) and oral grammaticality judgments. Results show that metalinguistic information promoted learners’ performance on the grammaticality judgment task. Although differences between the groups were also found on the eye-tracking measure, learners were not able to use DOM to predict the following object.

The Interface of Explicit and Implicit Knowledge in a Second Language: Insights From Individual Differences in Cognitive Aptitudes

“…On the other hand, most other SLA researchers have acknowledged the importance of explicit knowledge for facilitating the acquisition of implicit knowledge (DeKeyser, ; N. C. Ellis, , ; R. Ellis, ; Hulstijn, ; Paradis, ) . The relationship between explicit and implicit knowledge has begun to be examined empirically by employing sensitive measures of learning, such as eye tracking in short‐term laboratory experiments (e.g., Andringa & Curcic, ; Cintrón‐Valentín & N. C. Ellis, ). However, the interface of explicit and implicit knowledge has not been explored in a naturalistic L2 acquisition context.…”

“…The question of what the nature of the relationship is between explicit and implicit knowledge, the so‐called interface issue, is one of the central topics in the field. A number of researchers have taken theoretical positions over the decades (e.g., DeKeyser, ; N. C. Ellis, ; R. Ellis, ; Hulstijn, ; Krashen, ; McLaughlin, ; Paradis, ), but little research has been conducted to investigate the interface empirically in naturalistic second language (L2) acquisition settings (e.g., for recent laboratory intervention experiments, see Andringa & Curcic, ; Cintrón‐Valentín & N. C. Ellis, ). This study attempted to probe the interface of explicit and implicit knowledge by extending a line of recent advancements in research on measurement of implicit knowledge and the role of cognitive aptitudes.…”

“…This study attempted to measure implicit knowledge and automatized explicit knowledge separately with multiple psycholinguistic tests. Implicit knowledge is generally assessed through real‐time comprehension measures that utilize reaction time (RT) and eye‐movement data and that do not require conscious judgments of grammaticality, thus involving lower awareness of linguistic features (Andringa & Curcic, ; Dussias, Valdés Kroff, Guzzardo Tamargo, & Gerfen, ; Godfroid, ; Jiang, Novokshanova, Masuda, & Wang, ; Suzuki & DeKeyser, ). In contrast, automatized explicit knowledge is measured by form‐focused tasks, such as timed grammaticality judgment tasks.…”

Corrective Feedback and the Role of Implicit Sequence‐Learning Ability in L2 Online Performance

“…The current study focused on L2 attainment in the short term and at an intermediate proficiency level in an instructed setting, but this research can link ultimate and short-term attainment by identifying factors that are common denominators for both, such as implicit sequence-learning ability. Our goal was to contribute to research on the role of implicit cognitive abilities in SLA and also to respond to calls for the use of psycholinguistic tasks and RT data as more fine-grained measures of implicit L2 knowledge (Andringa & Curcic, 2015;Suzuki & DeKeyser, 2015).…”

The opt out paradigm

“…Such a training phase would enable children to acquire a linguistic regularity properly, before they are actually tested on their awareness of what they have acquired. This could be achieved by first developing a miniature language that has to be learned during a training phase (see De Graaff, 1997;Lichtman, 2016or Andringa & Curcic, 2015 for examples of such a language).…”