1. Introduction
Materials and methods
Results
.
Katherine A. Brill-Schuetz1 & Kara Morgan-Short1,2
1Department of Psychology, University of Illinois at Chicago, 2Department of Hispanic and Italian Studies, University of Illinois at Chicago
Acknowledgments
Thank you to the undergraduate
RAs who helped collect data: Rex
Dayola, Woody Lord, and Jason
Gambla. Additional thanks to the
members of the CogSLA lab:
Bernie Issa, Alicia Luque, and
Irene Finestrat. Special thanks to
Patrick Rebuschat for his time,
input, and resources.
For more information please
email: kbrill@uic.edu
Discussion
References
Knowledge Development Across Second Language Training Conditions
RQ1: Does implicit, rule search, and explicit training (without practice) lead to overall L2 development?
RQ2: Does implicit, rule search, and explicit training (without practice) directly lead to different types of L2 knowledge?
Assessment of L2 development:
GJT – 72 items (½ correct, ½ violation)
Syntax (word order)
Blom neimo/*nim lu neep li praz
Blom-piece square/*captures the neep-piece the switch
Morphosyntax (gender agreement)
Blommasc neimomasc/*neimefem lu neep li praz
Blom-piece squaremasc /* squarefem the neep-piece the switch
Verb argument (transitivity)
Blom neimo lu Ø/*neep Ø/*li praz
Blom-piece square the Ø/*neep-piece Ø/*the switch
Artificial language training conditions (~13 minutes):
Implicit (N = 22)
• Exposed to meaningful phrases and sentences
• Instructed that they would hear examples of words, phrases, and
sentences and would see corresponding still and moving images
Rule Search (N = 26)
• Exposed to meaningful phrases and sentences
• Instructed that they would hear examples of words, phrases, and
sentences and would see corresponding still and moving images
+ Instructed to search for rules
Explicit (N = 23)
• Exposed to metalinguistic information about rules of the language
and example phrases and sentences
• Instructed to listen carefully to the information
Artificial language – Brocanto2:
Semantics
• 14 words: 4 nouns, 2 adjectives, 2 articles, 4 verbs, 2 adverbs
Grammar
• Syntax – subject-object-verb (SOV) word order
• Morphosyntax – articles and adjectives agree with masculine and
feminine gendered nouns
• Verb argument – transitivity varies among verbs
Example correct sentence
Blom neimo lu neep li praz
Blom-piece square the neep-piece the switch
“The square blom [and] the neep switch.”
Explicit
Rule Search
Implicit
* = above
chance
performance
Error bars = 95%
CI
Results
RQ1: Effect of training on L2 development
RQ2: Effect training on type of L2 knowledge
*
*
*
*
**
*
*
* **
* **
Participants:
Native speakers of English (Mage = 19.26, SDage = 1.36)
Received course credit
Randomly assigned to training conditions
Assessment of L2 knowledge:
Subjective measures following each GJT
item, including source attributions:
Implicit knowledge reflected by guess
and intuition responses
Explicit knowledge reflected by memory
and rule responses
+
Good?
1 – Yes 2 – No
How confident are you in
your decision?
0 – not confident
5 – somewhat confident
9 – very confident
What is the basis of your
grammaticality judgment?
G – guess
I – intuition
M – memory
R – rule-knowledge
Sourceattributionbylinguisticfeature
• Implicit learning has garnered much attention in psychology; one implicit
learning paradigm, artificial grammar learning (AGL; Reber, 1976), has shown
that participants develop structural knowledge of the artificial grammar and that
this knowledge is predominantly implicit in nature (Folia et al., 2010).
• Explicit rule search conditions, which direct participants to search for
underlying rules, have resulted in poorer structural knowledge as compared
to implicit conditions, which often provide memorization-based directions
(e.g., Reber, 1976).
• Second language (L2) acquisition research with artificial language learning
paradigms has also shown implicit knowledge development under implicit
training conditions (Leung & Williams, 2011), although development of explicit
knowledge has also been reported (Leung & Williams, 2011; Tagarelli, Borges-Mota, &
Rebuschat, 2011).
• Explicit rule search conditions have led to mixed results: Some have found
that it helps performance (Tagarelli et al., 2011), whereas others have found it is
detrimental (Robinson, 1997).
Vocabulary &
Game training
Language training
• Implicit
• Rule Search
• Explicit
Assessment
• Grammaticality
• Confidence ratings
• Source attribution
Debriefing /
Verbal report
• To answer the RQs: Overall, participants’ above chance performance (in
explicit conditions) provided evidence for successful L2 development from
training alone. Note that the type of knowledge that developed from training
conditions does not seem directly related to training conditions.
• The data suggest that participants in implicit training conditions did not
develop implicit knowledge; implicit training seemed to result in either
rule knowledge or no knowledge. This does not support previous studies
in AGL (e.g., Folia et al., 2010); however it does partially support previous L2
studies (Leung & Williams, 2011; Tagarelli et al., 2011).
• Adding a rule search direction resulted in better overall L2 performance
compared to implicit conditions (F = 7.12, p < .01); this training also produced more
varied knowledge development. This is not consistent with results in the AGL
literature (e.g., Reber, 1976); however it is consistent with previous L2 acquisition
literature (e.g., Tagarelli et al., 2011).
• In line with previous research (Norris & Ortega, 2000), these findings also show an
advantage for explicit types of L2 training (without practice) when using an
assessment (subjective measures) that allowed for the expression of both
explicit and implicit knowledge.
Folia, V., Udden, J., de Vries, M., Forkstam, C., & Petersson, K. M. (2010) Artificial
language learning in adults and children. Language Learning, 60(S2), 188-220.
Leung, J. H. C., & Williams, J. N. (2011). The implicit learning of mappings
between forms and contextually derived meanings. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 33(01), 33-55.
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(1),
56-72.
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.
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research
synthesis and quantitative meta‐analysis. Language Learning, 50(3), 417-528.
Reber, A. (1976). Implicit learning of synthetic languages: The role of instructional
set. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning &
Memory, 88-94.
Rebuschat, P., & Williams, J. N. (2012). Implicit and explicit knowledge in second
language acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 33(04), 829-856.
Robinson, P. (1997). Individual differences and the fundamental similarity of implicit
and explicit adult second language learning. Language Learning, 47(1), 45-99.
Sanz, C., & Morgan-Short, K. (2005). Explicitness in pedagogical interventions:
Input, practice, and feedback. Mind and context in adult second language
acquisition: Methods, theory, and practice, 234-263.
Tagarelli, K, Borges-Mota, M., & Rebuschat, P. (2011). The role of working memory
in implicit and explicit language learning. Paper presented at the
Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society.
Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
• L2 acquisition research generally includes both language training and practice. Thus, L2 development based on different training conditions
(without practice) should be further explored.
• In L2 acquisition research, although there has seemingly been an advantage for explicit training conditions (Norris & Ortega, 2000), where learners
are provided with grammatical information or given rule search directions, many L2 assessments employed in this literature have been biased
toward eliciting explicit knowledge. Thus the type of L2 knowledge that develops under different training conditions is relatively unknown.
The administration of subjective measures, in the form of source attributions, can provide information about development of both explicit and
implicit knowledge (Rebuschat & Williams, 2011).
Procedure:
Syntax
1
.7
.5
.3
0
1
.7
.5
.3
0
Accuracy by Source Attribution
Guess Intuition Memory Rule
1
.7
.5
.3
0
Overall Accuracy
Implicit Rule Search Explicit
* *
1
.7
.5
.3
0
Verb Argument
Guess Intuition Memory
Rule
*
* **
* **
*
*
Guess Intuition Memory Rule
1
.7
.5
.3
0
Morphosyntax
Guess Intuition Memory Rule
Guess Intuition Memory Rule
Limitations:
• Indicating the use of rule knowledge may not reflect the use of a well-developed, explicit rule. Whereas all participants performed
best when indicating they based a grammar judgment on rule knowledge, the rules reported on the verbal debriefing vary
qualitatively.
• Some participants were hesitant to use certain source attributions, and therefore results may be somewhat biased.
* *
* *
*
*
*
*