Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Variability in second language learning

Electronic data

  • Tagarelli et al-SSLA-FINALfordistr

    Rights statement: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayJournal?jid=sla The final, definitive version of this article has been published in the Journal, Studies in Second Language Acquisition,38 (2), pp 293-316 2016, © 2016 Cambridge University Press.

    Accepted author manuscript, 570 KB, PDF document

    Available under license: CC BY-NC: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

Variability in second language learning: the roles of individual differences, learning conditions, and linguistic complexity

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal article

Published
Close
<mark>Journal publication date</mark>06/2016
<mark>Journal</mark>Studies in Second Language Acquisition
Issue numberSpecial Issue 2
Volume38
Number of pages24
Pages (from-to)293-316
Publication statusPublished
Early online date18/05/16
Original languageEnglish

Abstract

Second language learning outcomes are highly variable, due to a variety of factors, including individual differences, exposure conditions, and linguistic complexity. However, exactly how these factors interact to influence language learning is unknown. This paper examines the relationship between these three variables in language learners. Native English speakers were exposed to an artificial language containing three sentence patterns of varying linguistic complexity. They were randomly assigned to two groups – incidental and instructed – designed to promote the acquisition of implicit and explicit knowledge, respectively. Learning was assessed with a grammaticality judgment task, while subjective measures of awareness were used to measure whether exposure had resulted in implicit or explicit knowledge. Participants also completed cognitive tests. Awareness measures demonstrated that learners in the incidental group relied more on implicit knowledge, whereas learners in the instructed group relied more on explicit knowledge. Overall, exposure condition was the most significant predictor of performance on the grammaticality judgment task, with learners in the instructed group outperforming those in the incidental group. Performance on a procedural learning task accounted for additional variance. When outcomes were analysed according to linguistic complexity, exposure condition was the most significant predictor for two syntactic patterns, but it was not a predictor for the most complex sentence group; instead, procedural learning ability was.

Bibliographic note

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayJournal?jid=sla The final, definitive version of this article has been published in the Journal, Studies in Second Language Acquisition,38 (2), pp 293-316 2016, © 2016 Cambridge University Press.