Jan H. Hulstijn

Intentional and incidental second-language vocabulary learning: A reappraisal of elaboration, rehearsal and automaticity

Disclaimer/Complaints regulations If you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library: https://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible.

Some empirical evidence for the involvement load hypothesis in vocabulary acquisition

EFL learners in two countries participated in two parallel experiments testing whether retention of vocabulary acquired incidentally is contingent on amount of task-induced involvement. Short- and long-term retention of ten unfamiliar words was investigated in three learning tasks (reading comprehension, comprehension plus filling in target words, and composition-writing with target words) with varying “involvement loads”—various combinations of need, search, and evaluation. Time-on-task, regarded as inherent to a task, differed among all three tasks. As predicted, amount of retention was related to amount of task-induced involvement load: Retention was highest in the composition task, lower in reading plus fill-in, and lowest in the reading. These results are discussed in light of the construct of task-induced involvement.

Retention of Inferred and Given Word Meanings: Experiments in Incidental Vocabulary Learning

One of the much debated issues in foreign/second language (henceforth L2) pedagogy presently is the following question: What is more effective and efficient for L2 vocabulary acquisition: (a) letting L2 learners infer the meaning of an unknown word occurring in an L2 text, using the information contained in the context, or (b) simply giving learners the meaning of the unknown word right away, e.g. by providing a translation in the mother tongue (Ll) or a synonym in L2? Some researchers (e.g. Bialystok, 1983; Nation, 1982; Nation and Coady, 1988; Schouten-van Parreren, 1985, 1986) have suggested that new words can best be learnt when presented in texts and when their meaning must be inferred from context by learners themselves. This point of view is based on two assumptions (Craik and Tulving, 1975; Jacoby, 1978; Jacoby and Craik, 1979; Jacoby, Craik and Begg, 1979): (a) When subjects have to infer or induce the solution of a problem, they will invest more mental effort than when they are given the solution to the problem. (b) Information that has been attained with more mental effort can later be better retrieved and recalled than information that has been attained with less mental effort.

THEORETICAL AND EMPIRICAL ISSUES IN THE STUDY OF IMPLICIT AND EXPLICIT SECOND-LANGUAGE LEARNING: Introduction

There are good theoretical and educational reasons to place matters of implicit and explicit learning high on the agenda for SLA research. As for theoretical motivations, perhaps the most central issue in SLA theory construction in need of explanation is the differential success in ones first language (L1) and in ones second language (L2). Although acquisition of an L1 results in full mastery of the language (provided that children are exposed to sufficient quantities of input and do not suffer from mental disabilities), learners of an L2—even after many years of L2 exposure—differ widely in level of attainment. How can we explain universal success in the case of L1 acquisition and differential success in the case of L2 acquisition? Among the many explanations that have been proposed, including brain maturation and brain adaptation processes (critical period), access to Universal Grammar, L1 interference, and sociopsychological factors (see Hyltenstam & Abrahamsson, 2003 , for a review), one finds explanations that involve the notions of implicit and explicit learning. Scholars working in different disciplines, in different theoretical schools, and sometimes using different terminology have argued that L1 acquisition (or at least the acquisition of L1 grammar) relies principally on processes of what we might now call implicit learning, whereas the acquisition of an L2 often relies on both implicit and explicit learning ( Bley-Vroman, 1991 ; DeKeyser, 2003 ; N. Ellis, this issue; R. Ellis, 2004 ; Krashen, 1981 ; Reber & Allen, 2000 ). I am grateful to Rod Ellis for his thoughtful comments on previous versions of this text.

First language and second language writing: The role of linguistic knowledge, speed of processing, and metacognitive knowledge

In this study the relative importance of linguistic knowledge, metacognitive knowledge, and fluency or accessibility of this linguistic knowledge in both first language (L1; Dutch) and second language (L2; English) writing was explored. Data were collected from 281 grade 8 students. Using structural equation modeling, the relative importance of the three components was studied and compared across L1 and L2 writing. The results showed that the fluency measures were correlated with overall writing performance in both L1 and L2. However, when compared to linguistic knowledge resources, these fluency measures turned out to have no additional value in predicting L1 or L2 writing performance. L2 writing proficiency turned out to be highly correlated with L1 writing proficiency, more than with either L2 linguistic knowledge or the accessibility of this knowledge.

Linguistic knowledge, processing speed, and metacognitive knowledge in first- and second-language reading comprehension: A componential analysis

The authors report results of a study into the role of components of first-language (L1; Dutch) and second-language (L2; English) reading comprehension. Differences in the contributions of components of L1 and L2 reading comprehension are analyzed, in particular processing speed in L1 and L2. Findings indicate that regression weights of the L1 and L2 components are different. Although correlations between most processing speed components and reading comprehension are substantial, there are no unique contributions to the explanation of either L1 or L2 reading comprehension when linguistic and metacognitive knowledge are accounted for. In addition, L1 reading comprehension is shown to have a large contribution to L2 reading comprehension, supporting theories of L1-L2 transfer of reading skills. Results are discussed from a developmental perspective.

Towards a unified account of the representation, processing and acquisition of second language knowledge

This article argues for the need to reconcile symbolist and connectionist accounts of (second) language learning by propounding nine claims, aimed at integrating accounts of the representation, processing and acquisition of second language (L2) knowledge. Knowledge representation is claimed to be possible both in the form of symbols and rules and in the form of networks with layers of hidden units representing knowledge in a distributed, subsymbolic way. Implicit learning is the construction of knowledge in the form of such networks. The strength of association between the network nodes changes in the beginning stages of learning with accumulating exposure, following a power law (automatization). Network parts may attain the status equivalent to ‘symbols’. Explicit learning is the deliberate construction of verbalizable knowledge in the form of symbols (concepts) and rules. The article argues for a nonnativist, emergentist view of first language learning and adopts its own version of what could be called a non-interface position in L2 learning: although explicit knowledge cannot turn into implicit knowledge through practice, it is argued that explicit learning and practice often form efficient ways of mastering an L2 by creating opportunities for implicit learning.

Roles of linguistic knowledge, metacognitive knowledge and processing speed in L3, L2 and L1 reading comprehension A structural equation modeling approach

In this article we present an analysis of the relationship between L3 reading comprehension and its constituent skills for bilingual Dutch students for whom English is a third language(L3) compared to monolingual Dutch students for whom English is a second language(L2). An analogous analysis is made for their Dutch reading comprehension, Dutch being their L2 and L1 respectively. Participants are 13/14 year-old secondary school students. The point of departure in the analyses is a regression model in which reading proficiency is decomposed into three types of constituent components: linguistic knowledge(vocabulary and grammar), speed of processing linguistic knowledge(lexical access and sentence comprehension), and metacognitive knowledge(of text characteristics and strategies for reading and writing). Using structural equation modeling, we determined the contribution of constituent skills to Dutch L2 and L1, and English L3 and L2 reading comprehension. The results showed that, despite differences between the two groups in Dutch and English reading comprehension, no differences between the groups were found in the pattern of regression weights on the three types of constituent skills. Possible implications of these findings are discussed.

Facets of Speaking Proficiency.

This study examined the componential structure of second-language (L2) speaking proficiency. Participants—181 L2 and 54 native speakers of Dutch—performed eight speaking tasks and six tasks tapping nine linguistic skills. Performance in the speaking tasks was rated on functional adequacy by a panel of judges and formed the dependent variable in subsequent analyses (structural equation modeling). The following independent variables were assessed separately: linguistic knowledge in two tests (vocabulary and grammar); linguistic processing skills (four reaction time measures obtained in three tasks: picture naming, delayed picture naming, and sentence building); and pronunciation skills (speech sounds, word stress, and intonation). All linguistic skills, with the exception of two articulation measures in the delayed picture naming task, were significantly and substantially related to functional adequacy of speaking, explaining 76% of the variance. This provides substantial evidence for a componential view of L2 speaking proficiency that consists of language-knowledge and language-processing components. The componential structure of speaking proficiency was almost identical for the 40% of participants at the lower and the 40% of participants at the higher end of the functional adequacy distribution (n = 73 each), which does not support Higgs and Clifford’s (1982) relative contribution model, predicting that, although L2 learners become more proficient over time, the relative weight of component skills may change.

Language Proficiency in Native and Nonnative Speakers: An Agenda for Research and Suggestions for Second-Language Assessment

This article addresses the question of what language proficiency (LP) is, both theoretically and empirically. It does so by making a distinction, on one hand, between basic and higher language cognition and, on the other hand, between core and peripheral components of LP. The article furthermore critically examines the notion of level in most second language (L2) assessment scales, showing that it is confounded with peoples intellectual functioning because higher levels of LP cannot be attained by people with lower intellectual, educational, occupational, or leisure-time profiles. It is probably for this reason that the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (Council of Europe, 2001) fails to consistently distinguish between L2 development and L2 proficiency. The LP construct presented in this article can account for the fact that L2 learners with higher intellectual, educational, occupational, or leisure-time profiles may perform, at a given point in time, both better (i.e., in the domain of higher language cognition) and more poorly (i.e., in the domain of basic language cognition) than native speakers with lower profiles. While offering a research agenda for investigating individual differences in first language and L2 acquisition, the article also presents several implications for L2 assessment.