COGNITIVE ABILITIES, CHUNK-STRENGTH, AND FREQUENCY EFFECTS IN IMPLICIT ARTIFICIAL GRAMMAR AND INCIDENTAL L2 LEARNING: REPLICATIONS OF REBER, WALKENFELD, AND HERNSTADT (1991) AND KNOWLTON AND SQUIRE (1996) AND THEIR RELEVANCE FOR SLA

Unknown author

129 citations0/0 files storedStudies in Second Language Acquisition

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning Second Language Acquisition and Learning Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism

Abstract

This paper reports replications of studies of implicit artificial grammar (AG) learning and explicit series-solution learning with experienced second language learners in order to examine their population and content generalizability. As found by Reber, Walkenfeld, and Hernstadt (1991), there was significantly greater variance in explicit compared to implicit learning. In contrast to Reber et al.'s findings, intelligence quotient (IQ) was significantly negatively related to implicit learning. As found by Knowlton and Squire (1996), chunks that appeared with high frequency (high chunk-strength) in AG training influenced incorrect acceptance of ungrammatical transfer test items containing them but did not affect the judgments of grammatical items. In a third experiment, learners semantically processed sentences in Samoan, a novel language for this population. This experiment found little evidence for the content generalizability of these AG findings to the incidental learning of Samoan. Implicit AG and incidental Samoan learning had different patterns of correlation with cognitive abilities (IQ, working memory, and aptitude) and differed in sensitivity to chunk-strength. As found for AG learning, high chunk-strength negatively affected correct rejection of ungrammatical Samoan transfer test items. Additionally, high chunk-strength negatively affected correct acceptance of grammatical items. For these grammatical items, the number of chunks they contained—not their frequency during training—positively influenced grammaticality judgments.I gratefully acknowledge the helpful comments and advice on this paper given by the editors of this special issue, Jan Hulstijn and Rod Ellis, and also by Nick Ellis, Barbara Knowlton, and two anonymous SSLA reviewers.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 129 citations exist upstream.

References

1983Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition 1988Toward an instance theory of automatization.1998Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition 2002FREQUENCY EFFECTS IN LANGUAGE PROCESSING 1993The handbook of psychological testing, 2nd ed.1995Attention, Memory, and the “Noticing” Hypothesis 1997Incidental Language Learning: Listening (and Learning) Out of the Corner of Your Ear 2003Frequent frames as a cue for grammatical categories in child directed speech

Cited by

2014The Incidental Grammar Acquisition in Focus on Form and Focus on Forms Instruction for Young Beginner Learners 2015The Relationship Between Artificial and Second Language Learning 2007Aptitudes, abilities, contexts, and practice 2012Individual Differences, Aptitude Complexes, SLA Processes, and Aptitude Test Development 2015Does language analytical ability mediate the effect of written feedback on grammatical accuracy in second language writing?

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.