Implicit and Explicit Learning of Languages.

This study responds to the call for more ecologically valid psycholinguistic research (Spivey & Cardon, 2015) by examining how readers incidentally acquire multifaceted vocabulary knowledge while reading a long, authentic text. Using eye tracking, we explore how the processing of unfamiliar words changes with repeated exposure and how the repeated exposure and processing affect word learning. In two sessions, native and non-native English speakers read five chapters of an authentic English novel containing Dari words. After reading, participants received a comprehension test and three surprise vocabulary tests. Growth curve modeling revealed a non-linear decrease in reading times that followed an S shaped curve. Number of exposures was the strongest predictor of vocabulary learning (form and meaning), while total reading time independently contributed to the learning of word meaning. Thus, both quantity and quality of lexical processing aid incremental vocabulary development and may reveal themselves differently in readers’ eye movement records.

Incidental vocabulary learning in a natural reading context: an eye-tracking study

Recent research has called for the use of fine-grained measures that distinguish implicit knowledge from automatized explicit knowledge In the current study, such measures were used to determine how the two systems interact in a naturalistic second language (L2) acquisition context One hundred advanced L2 speakers of Japanese living in Japan were assessed using tests of automatized explicit knowledge and implicit knowledge, along with tests of phonological short-term memory and aptitude tests for explicit and implicit learning Structural equation modeling demonstrated that aptitude for explicit learning significantly predicted acquisition of automatized explicit knowledge, and automatized explicit knowledge significantly predicted acquisition of implicit knowledge The effects of implicit learning aptitude and phonological short-term memory on acquisition of automatized explicit knowledge and implicit knowledge were limited These findings provide the first empirical evidence that automatized explicit knowledge, which develops through explicit learning mechanisms, may impact the acquisition of implicit knowledge

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

Is acquiring a third language the same as acquiring a second? Are all instances of non-native language acquisition simply one and the same? In this first book-length study of the topic, the authors systematically walk the reader through the evidence to answer these questions. They suggest that acquiring an additional language in bilinguals (of all types) is unique, and reveals things about the links between language and mind, brain, and cognition, which are otherwise impossible to appreciate. The patterns of linguistic transfer and what motivates it when there are choices (as can only be seen starting in third language acquisition) underscores a key concept in linguistic and psychological sciences: economy. Overviewing the subfields examining multilingual acquisition and processing, this book offers an expanded systematic review of the field of multilingual morphosyntactic transfer, as well as providing recommendations for the future emerging field.

Third Language Acquisition and Linguistic Transfer

Accumulating evidence suggests that time-pressured form-focused tasks like grammaticality judgment tests (GJTs) can measure second language (L2) implicit knowledge. The current paper, however, proposes that these tasks draw on automatized explicit knowledge. A battery of six grammar tests was designed to distinguish automatized explicit knowledge and implicit knowledge. While three time-pressured form-focused tasks (an auditory GJT, a visual GJT, and a fill in the blank test) were hypothesized to measure automatized explicit knowledge, three real-time comprehension tasks (a visual-world task, a word-monitoring task, and a self-paced reading task) were hypothesized to measure implicit knowledge. One hundred advanced L2 Japanese learners with first language Chinese residing in Japan took all six tests. Confirmatory factor analysis and multitrait-multimethod analysis provided an array of evidence supporting that these tests assessed two types of linguistic knowledge separately with little influence from the method effects. The results analyzed separately by length of residence in Japan (a proxy for the amount of naturalistic L2 exposure) showed that learners with longer residence in Japan can draw on implicit knowledge in the real-time comprehension tasks with more stability than those with shorter residence. These findings indicate the potential of finely tuned real-time comprehension tasks as measures of implicit knowledge.

Validity of new measures of implicit knowledge: Distinguishing implicit knowledge from automatized explicit knowledge

Grammaticality judgment tests (GJTs) have been used to elicit data reflecting second language (L2) speakers’ knowledge of L2 grammar. However, the exact constructs measured by GJTs, whether primarily implicit or explicit knowledge, are disputed and have been argued to differ depending on test-related variables (i.e., time pressure and item grammaticality).Using eye-tracking, this study replicates the GJT results in R. Ellis (2005). Twenty native and 40 nonnative English speakers judged sentences with and without time pressure. Analyses revealed that time pressure suppressed regressions (right-to-left eye movements) in nonnative speakers only. Conversely, both groups regressed more on untimed, grammatical items. These findings suggest that timed and untimed GJTs measure different constructs, which could correspond to implicit and explicit knowledge, respectively. In particular, they point to a difference in the levels of automatic and controlled processing involved in responding to the timed and untimed tests. Furthermore, untimed grammatical items may induce GJT-specific task effects.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/S0272263114000850

Ji Hyun Park

Papers

Timed and Untimed Grammaticality Judgments Measure Distinct Types of Knowledge: Evidence from Eye-Movement Patterns.

Responses of the AI Chatbots to Erroneous Utterances: AI Pengtalk and Speaking Class