Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T06:10:26.496Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Learning Simple and Complex Second Language Rules Under Implicit, Incidental, Rule-Search, and Instructed Conditions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Peter Robinson
Peter Robinson
Affiliation:
Aoyama Gakuin University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study examines the generalizability of claims by Reber (1989, 1993) about the implicit learning of artificial grammars to the context of adult second language acquisition (SLA). In the field of SLA Krashen (1981, 1982, 1985, 1994) has made claims parallel to those of Reber regarding the differential effectiveness of conscious learning of rules and unconscious incidental acquisition of rules. Specifically addressed are Reber's and Krashen's claims that (a) implicit learning is more effective than explicit learning when the stimulus domain is complex, and (b) explicit learning of simple and complex stimulus domains is possible if the underlying rules are made salient. One hundred four adult learners of English as a second language were randomly assigned to implicit, incidental, rule-search, or instructed computerized training conditions. Speed and accuracy of judgments of novel tokens of easy and hard rule sentence types presented during training were used as dependent measures. Results do not support the first of Reber's and Krashen's claims but do support the second. Implicit learners do not outperform other learners on complex rules, but instructed learners outperform all others in learning simple rules. Analyses of the effect of sentence type and grammaticality on learning suggest a transfer-appropriate processing account of the relationship among consciousness, rule awareness, training, and transfer task performance.

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 18 , Issue 1 , March 1996 , pp. 27 - 67
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Baker, C. L. (1989). English syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1987). Markedness and salience in second language acquisition. Language Learning, 37, 385–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bialystok, E. (1979). Explicit and implicit judgments of L2 grammaticality. Language Learning, 29, 81–103.Google Scholar
Blaxton, T. A. (1989). Investigating dissociations among memory measures: Support for a transfer appropriate processing framework. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 15, 657–688.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. (1982). The mental representation of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J., & Kanerva, J. (1989). Locative inversion in Chichewa: A comparative study of factorization in grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 20, 1–50.Google Scholar
Carr, T., & Curran, T. (1994). Cognitive factors in learning about structured sequences: Applications to syntax. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 205–225.Google Scholar
Ceci, S., & Liker, J. K. (1986). A day at the races: A study of IQ, expertise and cognitive complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115, 255–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Celce-Murcia, M., & Larson-Freeman, D. (1983). The grammar book. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Chi, M., Glaser, R., & Rees, E. (1982). Expertise in problem solving. In Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of human intelligence (Vol. 1, pp. 7–76). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1986). Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cook, V. (1994). Universal grammar and the learning and teaching of languages. In Odlin, T. (Ed.), Perspectives on pedagogical grammar. (pp. 25–48). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Corder, S. P. (1988). Pedagogic grammars. In Rutherford, W. & Smith, W. Sharwood (Eds.), Grammar and second language teaching (pp. 123–145). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Crick, F. (1995). The astonishing hypothesis: The scientific search for the soul. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (1994). Implicit and explicit learning of L2 grammar: A pilot study. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 188–194.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (1995). Learning L2 grammar rules: An experiment with a miniature linguistic system. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 379–410.Google Scholar
Doughty, C. (1991). Second language instruction does make a difference: Evidence from an empirical study of relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 431–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dulany, D., Carlson, R., & Dewey, G. (1984). A case of syntactical learning and judgment: How conscious and how abstract? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 541–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckman, F., Bell, L., & Nelson, D. (1988). On the generalization of relative clause instruction in the acquisition of English as a second language. Applied Linguistics, 9, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. (1993). Rules and instances in foreign language learning: Interactions of explicit and implicit knowledge. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 5, 289–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (1990). Instructed second language acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (1993). The structural syllabus and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 91–113.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (1995). Interpretation tasks for grammar teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 87–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, J. St. B. T., Newstead, S., & Byrne, R. M. (1993). Human reasoning: The psychology of deduction. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Faerch, C. (1986). Rules of thumb and other teacher formulated rules in the foreign language classroom. In Kasper, G. (Ed.), Learning, teaching and communication in the foreign language classroom (pp. 65–79). Aarhus, Denmark: Aarhus University Press.Google Scholar
Fletcher, P. (1980). Paraphrase relationships among clefted sentences. In Prideaux, G. D., Derwing, B. L., & Baker, W. J. (Eds.), Experimental psycholinguistics (pp. 186–201). Alberta: University of Alberta Press.Google Scholar
Gass, S. (1982). From theory to practice. In Rutherford, W. & Hines, M. (Eds.), On TESOL '81 (pp. 129–139).Washington, DC: TESOL.Google Scholar
Gazdar, G., Klein, E., Pullum, G., & Sag, I. (1985). Generalized phrase structure grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Graf, P., & Ryan, L. (1990). Transfer–appropriate processing for implicit and explicit memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 16, 978–992.Google Scholar
Green, P. S., & Hecht, K. (1992). Implicit and explicit grammar: An empirical study. Applied Linguistics, 13, 160–184.Google Scholar
Harley, B. (1993). Instructional strategies and SLA in early French immersion. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 245–259.Google Scholar
Hayes, N., & Broadbent, D. (1988). Two modes of learning for interactive tasks. Cognition, 28, 249–276.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holland, J. H., Holyoak, K., Nisbett, R. E., & Thagard, P. R. (1986). Induction: Processes of inference, learning and discovery. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hulstijn, J. (1995). Not all grammar rules are equal: Giving grammar its proper place in foreign language teaching. In Schmidt, R. (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language teaching and learning (Tech. Rep. No. 9, pp. 359–386). Honolulu: University of Hawai'i at Manoa, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.Google Scholar
Hulstijn, J. & De Graaff, R. (1994). Under what conditions does explicit knowledge facilitate the acquisition of implicit knowledge? In Hulstijn, J. & Schmidt, R. (Eds.), Consciousness and second language learning: Conceptual, methodological and practical issues in language learning and teaching. AILA Review, 11, 11–26.Google Scholar
Humphrey, N. (1992). A history of the mind: Evolution and the birth of consciousness. New York: Simon & Schuster.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klayman, J., & Ha, Y. (1989). Hypothesis testing in rule discovery: Strategy, structure and content. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 15, 596–604.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1979). A response to McLaughlin, “The monitor model: Some methodological considerations.” Language Learning, 29, 151–167.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1992). Under what circumstances, if any, should formal grammar instruction take place? TESOL Quarterly, 26, 409–411.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1994). The input hypothesis and its rivals. In Ellis, N. (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of language (pp. 45–77). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lightbown, P., & Pienemann, M. (1993). Comments on Stephen D. Krashen's “Teaching Issues: Formal Grammar Instruction.” TESOL Quarterly, 27, 717–722.Google Scholar
Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (1990). Focus-on-form and corrective feedback in communicative language teaching: Effects on second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 429–448.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1988). Instructed interlanguage development. In Beebe, L. (Ed.), Issues in second language acquisition: Multiple perspectives (pp. 115–141). New York: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching. In de Bot, K., Ginsberg, R., & Kramsch, C. (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross cultural perspective (pp. 39–52). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H. (in press). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In Ritchie, W. C. (Ed.), Handbook of language acquisition: Vol. 2. Second language acquisition. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Matthews, R. C., Buss, R. R., Stanley, W. B., Blanchard-Fields, F., Ryeul, Cho J., & Druhan, B. (1989). Role of implicit and explicit processes in learning from examples: A synergistic effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 15, 1083–1100.Google Scholar
McCawley, J. (1988). The syntactic phenomena of English (Vol. 1). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
McClelland, J., & Elman, J. (1986). The TRACE model of speech perception. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 1–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McLaughlin, B. (1980). On the use of miniature artificial languages in second language research. Applied Psycholinguistics, 1, 357–369.Google Scholar
Meike, B. (1988). Mindlab 2.1. Hanover, NH: Dartmouth College, Software Development Department.Google Scholar
Nation, R., & McLaughlin, B. (1986). Experts and novices: An information processing approach to the good language learner. Applied Psycholinguistics, 7, 41–56.Google Scholar
Nayak, N., Hansen, N., Kreuger, N., & McLaughlin, B. (1990). Language learning strategies in monolingual and multilingual adults. Language Learning, 40, 221–244.Google Scholar
Odlin, T. (1986). On the nature and use of explicit knowledge. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 123–144.Google Scholar
Paradis, M. (1994). Neurolinguistic aspects of implicit and explicit memory: Implications for bilingualism. In Ellis, N. (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 393–419). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Perruchet, P., & Pacteau, C. (1990). Synthetic grammar learning: Implicit rule abstraction or fragmentary knowledge? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119, 264–275.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1991). Rules of language. Science, 253, 530–535.Google Scholar
Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Preston, D. (1989). Sociolinguistics and second language acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Prince, E. (1978). A comparison of “it-clefts,” “wh-clefts” and other rules of focus. Language, 54, 883–907.Google Scholar
Reber, A. S. (1967). Implicit learning of artificial grammars. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 6, 855–863.Google Scholar
Reber, A. S. (1969). Transfer of syntactic structure in synthetic languages. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81, 115–119.Google Scholar
Reber, A. S. (1989). Implicit learning and tacit knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118, 219–235.Google Scholar
Reber, A. S. (1993). Implicit learning and tacit knowledge. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Reber, A. S., Kassim, S., Lewis, S., & Cantor, G. (1980). On the relationship between implicit and explicit modes in the learning of a complex rule structure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6, 492–502.Google Scholar
Reed, S., Ackinclose, C. C., & Voss, A. (1990). Selecting analogous problems: Similarity versus inclusiveness. Memory & Cognition, 18, 83–98.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (1994a). Implicit knowledge, second language learning and syllabus construction. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 160–166.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (1994b). Learning simple and complex second language rules under implicit, incidental, rule-search and instructed conditions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Hawai'i at Manoa Honolulu.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (1994c). Universals of word formation processes: Noun incorporation in the acquisition of Samoan as a second language. Language Learning, 44, 569–615.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (1995a). Aptitude, awareness and the fundamental similarity of implicit and explicit second language learning. In Schmidt, R. (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language teaching and learning (Tech. Rep. No. 9, pp. 303–357). Honolulu: University of Hawai'i at Manoa, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (1995b). Attention, memory and the “noticing” hypothesis. Language Learning, 45, 283–331.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (in press). Consciousness, rules and instructed second language acquisition. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Robinson, P., & Ha, M. (1993). Instance theory and second language rule learning under explicit conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 412–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roediger, H. L., Weldon, M. S., & Challis, B. H. (1989). Explaining dissociations between implicit and explicit measures of retention: A processing account. In Roediger, H. L. & Craik, F. I. (Eds.), Varieties of memory and consciousness (pp. 3–41). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Rutherford, W., & Sharwood, Smith W. (Eds.). (1988). Grammar and second language teaching. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1993). Awareness and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 206–226.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1994a). Deconstructing consciousness in search of useful definitions for applied linguistics. In Hulstijn, J. & Schmidt, R. (Eds.), Consciousness and second language learning: Conceptual, methodological and practical issues in language learning and teaching. AILA Review, 11, 11–26.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1994b). Implicit learning and the cognitive unconscious: Of artificial grammars and SLA. In Ellis, N. (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of language (pp. 165–209). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of attention and awareness. In Schmidt, R. (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language teaching and learning (Tech. Rep. No. 9, pp. 1–63). Honolulu: University of Hawai'i at Manoa, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R., & Frota, S. (1986). Developing basic conversational ability in a second language: A case study of an adult learner of Portuguese. In Day, R. (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 237–326). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Searle, J. (1990). Consciousness, explanatory inversion and cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 13, 585–596.Google Scholar
Searle, J. (1992). The rediscovery of the mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Seliger, H. (1975). Inductive method and deductive method in language teaching: A reexamination. International Review of Applied Linguistics, XIII, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seliger, H. (1979). On the nature and function of language rules in language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 13, 359–396.Google Scholar
Shanks, D. R., & St. John, M. F. (1994). Characteristics of dissociable human systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 17, 367–447.Google Scholar
Sharwood, Smith M. (1991). Speaking to many minds: On the relevance of different types of language information for the L2 learner. Second Language Research, 7, 118–132.Google Scholar
Sharwood, Smith M. (1993). Input enhancement in instructed SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 165–179.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. (1985). Crosslinguistic evidence for the language making capacity. In Slobin, D. (Ed.), The Crosslinguistic study of language acquisition (Vol. 2, pp. 1157–1249). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. (1993). Instruction and the development of questions in L2 classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 205–224.Google Scholar
Stadler, M. (1995). Role of attention in implicit learning? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 21, 674–685.Google Scholar
Tarone, E. (1985). Variability in interlanguage use: A study of style shifting in morphology and syntax. Language Learning, 35, 373–403.Google Scholar
Tomlin, R., & Villa, V. (1994). Attention in cognitive science and SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 185–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vokey, J., & Brooks, L. (1992). Salience of item knowledge in learning artificial grammars. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 18, 328–344.Google Scholar
Voss, J. F. (1986). Informal reasoning and the subject matter knowledge in the solving of economics problems by naive and novice individuals. Cognition and Instruction, 3, 269–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wason, P. C. (1960). On the failure to eliminate hypotheses in a conceptual task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 12, 129–140.Google Scholar
Westney, P. (1994). Rules and pedagogical grammar. In Odlin, T. (Ed.), Perspectives on pedagogical grammar (pp. 72–96). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L. (1992). On triggering data in L2 acquisition: A reply to Schwartz and Gubala-Ryzak. Second Language Research, 8, 120–137.Google Scholar
Whittlesea, B. W. A., & Dorken, M. D. (1993). Incidentally, things in general are particularly determined: An episodic-processing account of implicit learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, General, 122, 227–248.Google Scholar
Zobl, H. (1995). Converging evidence for the acquisition/learning distinction. Applied Linguistics, 16, 35–57.Google Scholar