Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-wxk4p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T01:47:21.313Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

MEASURES OF IMPLICIT KNOWLEDGE REVISITED

Processing Modes, Time Pressure, and Modality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 February 2016

Jeong-eun Kim  and
Hosung Nam
Jeong-eun Kim
Affiliation:
Korea University, Seoul, Korea
Hosung Nam*
Affiliation:
Department of English Language and Literature, Korea University, Korea, Haskins Laboratories, New Haven, CT, USA
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Hosung Nam, Department of English Language and Literautre, Korea University, Korea Haskins Laboratories, New Haven, CT, USA. E-mail: hnam@korea.ac.kr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Timed grammaticality judgment tests (TGJT) and oral elicited imitation tests (OEIT) are considered reliable and valid measures of implicit linguistic knowledge, but studies consistently observe better performances on the TGJT than the OEIT due to the different types of processing they require: comprehension for the TGJT and production for the OEIT. This study examines whether degree of access to implicit knowledge is a function of processing type. Results from a series of factor analyses suggest that the OEIT requires greater access to implicit knowledge—implying that it measures stronger implicit knowledge—than the TGJT. Furthermore, the study examines effects on construct validity of time pressure in the OEIT (uncontrolled vs. controlled) and modality in the TGJT (written vs. aural). The results indicate that the tests reached higher construct validity, or measured stronger implicit knowledge, when the OEIT employed controlled time pressure and the TGJT used aural stimuli.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 39 , Issue 3 , September 2017 , pp. 431 - 457
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Akakura, M. (2012). Evaluating the effectiveness of explicit instruction on implicit and explicit L2 knowledge. Language Teaching Research, 16, 1–29.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. (1980). Cognitive psychology and its implications. New York: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 8, 47–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baddeley, A. D., & Logie, R. H. (1999). Working memory: The multiple component model. In Miyake, A. & Shah, P. (Eds.), Models of working memory (pp. 28–61). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1989). Functionalism and the competition model. In MacWhinney, B. & Bates, E. (Eds.), The cross-linguistic study of sentence processing (pp. 77–117). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bialystok, E. (1979). Explicit and implicit judgments of L2 grammaticality. Language Learning, 29, 81–103.Google Scholar
Bowles, M. A. (2011). Measuring implicit and explicit linguistic knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33, 247–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, G. (1990). Listening to spoken English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Burns, G. (1951). An investigation into the extent of first-year vocabulary in French in boys’ grammar school. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 21, 36–44.Google Scholar
Clifton, C. Jr., Meyer, A. S., Wurm, L. H., & Treiman, R. (2013). Language comprehension and production. In Healy, A. F. & Proctor, R. W. (Eds.), Handbook of psychology (pp. 523–547). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Craik, F., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671–684.Google Scholar
Danks, J. (1980). Comprehension in listening and reading: Same or different? In Danks, J. & Pezdek, K. (Eds.), Reading and understanding (pp. 1–39). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning. In Doughty, C. J. & Long, M. H. (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 312–348). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (2009). Cognitive-psychological processes in second language learning. In Long, M. H. & Doughty, C. J. (Eds.), The handbook of language teaching (pp. 119–138). Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2004). The definition and measurement of L2 explicit knowledge. Language Learning, 54, 227–275.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2005). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 141–172.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2006). Modelling learning difficulty and second language proficiency: The differential contributions of implicit and explicit knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 27, 431–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 339–368.Google Scholar
Erlam, R. (2006). Elicited imitation as a measure of L2 implicit knowledge: An empirical validation study. Applied Linguistics, 27, 464–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erlam, R., & Loewen, S. (2010). Implicit and explicit recasts in L2 oral French interaction. Canadian Modern Language Review, 66, 877–905.Google Scholar
Eyckmans, J., Van de Velde, H., Van Hout, R., & Boers, F. (2007). Learners’ response behaviour in yes/no vocabulary tests. In Daller, H., Milton, J., & Treffers-Daller, J. (Eds.), Modelling and assessing vocabulary knowledge (pp. 59–76). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Fitzpatrick, T. (2007). Word association patterns: Unpacking the assumptions. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 17, 319–331.Google Scholar
Graham, C. R., McGhee, J., & Millard, B. (2010). The role of lexical choice in elicited imitation item difficulty. In Prior, M. T. et al. (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 2008 Second Language Research Forum (pp. 57–72). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Gutiérrez, X. (2013). The construct validity of grammaticality judgment tests as measures of implicit and explicit knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 423–449.Google Scholar
Hulstijn, J. H., & Hulstijn, W. (1984). Grammatical errors as a function of processing constraints and explicit knowledge. Language Learning, 34, 23–43.Google Scholar
Izumi, S. (2003). Processing difficulty in comprehension and production of relative clauses by learners of English as a second language. Language Learning, 53, 285–323.Google Scholar
Johnson, J. S. (1992). Critical period effects in second language acquisition: The effect of written versus auditory materials on the assessment of grammatical competence. Language Learning, 42, 217–248.Google Scholar
Johnson, J. S., & Newport, E. L. (1989). Critical period effects in second language learning: The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 60–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Laufer, B., & Goldstein, Z. (2004). Testing vocabulary knowledge: Size, strength, and computer adaptiveness. Language Learning, 54, 399–436.Google Scholar
Leow, R. P. (1993). To simplify or not to simplify: A look at intake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 333–355.Google Scholar
Leow, R. P. (1995). Modality and intake in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 79–89.Google Scholar
Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Corrective feedback in the chatroom: An experimental study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 19, 1–14.Google Scholar
Lund, R. J. (1991). A comparison of second language listening and reading comprehension. The Modern Language Journal, 75, 196–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLaughlin, B. (1987). Theories of second language acquisition. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, B., Rossman, T., & McLeod, B. (1983). Second language learning: An information processing perspective. Language Learning, 33, 135–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monteiro, K. (2014). An experimental study of corrective feedback during video-conferencing. Language Learning & Technology, 18, 56–79.Google Scholar
Murphy, V. (1997). The effect of modality on a grammaticality judgment task. Second Language Research, 13, 34–65.Google Scholar
Rosseel, Y. (Ed.). (2011). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling and more. Retrieved from http://www.webcitation.org/68OFIEhit.Google Scholar
Rost, M. (1990). Listening in language learning. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Rumelhart, D. E., & MacClelland, J. L. (1987). Learning the past tense of English verbs: Implicit rules or parallel distributed processes? In MacWhinney, B. (Ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Rumelhart, D. E., Hinton, G. E., & Williams, R. J. (1986). Learning internal representations by error propagation. In Rumelhart, D. E., McClelland, J. L., & the PDP Research Group (Eds.), Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition. Volume 1: Foundations (pp. 318–362). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. D. (1993). On explicit and negative data effecting and affecting competence and linguistic behavior. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 147–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soleimani, H., Jahangiri, K., & Gohar, M. J. (2015). Effect of explicit and implicit instruction on implicit knowledge of English past simple tense. International Journal of Asian Social Science, 5, 257–265.Google Scholar
Spada, N., Shiu, J. L., & Tomita, Y. (2015). Validating an elicited imitation task as a measure of implicit knowledge: Comparisons with other validation studies. Language Learning, 65, 723–751.Google Scholar
Sticht, T. G., & James, H. (1984). Listening and reading. In Pearson, P. D. (Ed.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 293–317). London: Longman.Google Scholar
Stoddard, G. D. (1929). An experiment in verbal learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 20, 452–457.Google Scholar
Suzuki, Y., & DeKeyser, R. (2015). Comparing elicited imitation and word monitoring as measures of implicit knowledge. Language Learning, 65, 860–895.Google Scholar
Vinther, T. (2002). Elicited imitation: A brief overview. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 12, 54–73.Google Scholar
Waring, R. (1997). A study of receptive and productive vocabulary learning from word cards. Studies in Foreign Languages and Literature, 21, 94–114.Google Scholar
Wong, W. (2001). Modality and attention to meaning and form in the input. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 345–368.Google Scholar
Yuan, F., & Ellis, R. (2003). The effects of pre-task planning and on-line planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 monologic oral production. Applied Linguistics, 24, 1–27.Google Scholar
Zhang, R. (2014). Measuring university-level L2 learners’ implicit and explicit knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37, 1–30.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Kim and Nam supplementary material

Appendix 1

Download Kim and Nam supplementary material(File)
File 160.9 KB