Cognitive-Psychological Processes in Second Language Learning

The Handbook of Language Teaching

Volumn , Issue , 2009, Pages 119-138

  Dekeyser, Robert M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

Author keywords

Cognitive psychological processes in second language learning; Declarative knowledge and explicit implicit dichotomy; Declarative procedural distinction in behavioral experiments; Declarative procedural distinction in cognitive psychology; Degree of automaticity and solid declarative knowledge; ESL learners' differential performance on prototypical versus peripheral items; Item rule distinction; Monitoring and gap detection in one's competence or knowledge; Second language acquisition researcher representation versus processing; Second language knowledge components and knowledge use distinction

Indexed keywords

EID: 84890983531     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1002/9781444315783.ch8     Document Type: Chapter

References (133)

1. Altmann, G. T. M. (1998). Ambiguity in sentence processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2, 4, 146-52.
2. Anderson, J. R. & Lebiere, C. (1998). The atomic components of thought. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
3. Bell, A. (1984). Language style as audience design. Language in Society 13, 145-204.
4. Bialystok, E. (1979). Explicit and implicit judgements of L2 grammaticality. Language Learning 29, 81-103.
5. Bitan, T. & Karni, A. (2004). Procedural and declarative knowledge of word recognition and letter decoding in reading an artificial script. Cognitive Brain Research 19, 229-43.
6. Boland, J. (2005). Cognitive mechanisms and syntactic theory. In A. Cutler (ed.), Twenty first century psycholinguistics: Four cornerstones (pp. 23-42). Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum.
7. Canale, M. & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics 1, 1, 8-24.
8. Chipere, N. (2003). Understanding complex sentences: Native speaker variation in syntactic competence. New York: Palgrave.
9. Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
10. de Jong, N. (2005). Can second language grammar be learned through listening? An experimental study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27, 2, 205-34.
11. DeKeyser, R. M. (1995). Learning second language grammar rules: An experiment with a miniature linguistic system. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 17(3), 379-410.
12. DeKeyser, R. M. (1997). Beyond explicit rule learning: Automatizing second language morphosyntax. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19, 2, 195-221.
13. DeKeyser, R. M. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long(eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 313-48). Oxford: Blackwell.
14. DeKeyser, R. M. (2007a). Situating the concept of practice. In R. M. DeKeyser (ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 1-18). New York: Cambridge University Press.
15. DeKeyser, R. M. (2007b). Study abroad as foreign language practice. In R. M. DeKeyser (ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 208-26). New York: Cambridge University Press.
16. DeKeyser, R. M. (2007c). The future of practice. In R. M. DeKeyser (ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 287-304). New York, Cambridge University Press.
17. DeKeyser, R. M. (2007d). Skill acquisition theory. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 97-112). Mahwah, NJ: Law-rence Erlbaum.
18. Dienes, Z. & Perner, J. (1999). A theory of implicit and explicit knowledge. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22, 5, 735-55.
19. Doeller, C. F., Opitz, B., Krick, C., Mecklinger, A., & Reith, W. (2006). Differential hippocampal and prefrontal-striatal contributions to instance-based and rule-based learning. NeuroImage 31, 1802-16.
20. Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
21. Domangue, T. J., Mathews, R. C., Sun, R., Roussel, L. G., & Guidry, C. E. (2004). Effects of model-based and memory-based processing on speed and accuracy of grammar string generation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 30, 1002-11.
22. Doughty, C. J. (2003). Instructed SLA: Constraints, compensation, and enhancement. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 256-310). Oxford: Blackwell.
23. Egi, T. (2007). Interpreting recasts as linguistic evidence: The roles of linguistic target, length, and degree of change. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 29, 4, 511-37.
24. Eichenbaum, H. (2000). A cortico-hippocampal system for declarative memory. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 1, 41-50.
25. Eichenbaum, H. (2002). The cognitive neuroscience of memory: An introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.
26. Ellis, N. (2005). At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27, 2, 305-52.
27. Ellis, R. (1993). The structural syllabus and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly 27, 1, 91-113.
28. Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
29. Ellis, R. (2004). The definition and measurement of L2 explicit knowledge. Language Learning 54, 2, 227-75.
30. Ellis, R. (2005). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psy-chometric study. Studies in second language acquisition 27, 2, 141-72.
31. Ellis, R. (2006). Modelling learning difficulty and second language proficiency: The dif-ferential contributions of implicit and explicit knowledge. Applied Linguistics 27, 3, 431-63.
32. Ellis, R. & Loewen, S. (2007). Confirming the operational definitions of explicit and implicit knowledge in Ellis (2005): Responding to Isemonger. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 29, 1, 119-26.
33. Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28, 2, 339-68.
34. Elman, J. L., Bates, E. A., Johnson, M., Karmiloff-Smith, A., Parisi, D., & Plunkett, K. (1996). Rethinking innateness: A connectionist perspective on development. Cambridge, MA: MITPress.
35. Ericsson, K. A. (2006). The influence of experience and deliberate practice on the development of superior expert performance. In K. A. Ericsson et al. (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 683-703). New York: Cambridge University Press.
36. Escudero, P. & Boersma, P. (2004). Bridging the gap between L2 speech perception research and phonological theory. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 26, 4, 551-85.
37. Fletcher, P., Büchel, C., Josephs, O., Friston, K., & Dolan, R. J. (1999). Learning-related neuronal responses in preferontal cortex studies with functional neuroimaging. Cerebral Cortex 9, 168-78.
38. Frazier, L. (1987). Sentence processing: A tutorial review. In M. Coltheart (ed.), Attention and performance 12: The psychology of reading (pp. 559-86). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
39. Gatbonton, E. & Segalowitz, N. (1988). Creative automatization: Principles for promotingfluency within a communicative framework. TESOL Quarterly 22, 3, 473-92.
40. Gibson, E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition 68,1-76.
41. Golonka, E. M. (2006). Predictors revisited: Linguistic knowledge and metalinguistic awareness in second language gain in Russian. The Modern Language Journal 90, 4, 496-505.
42. Gombert, J.-E. (1992). Metalinguistic development. Chicago, IL, Chicago University Press.
43. Green, P. & Hecht, K. (1992). Implicit and explicit grammar: An empirical study. AppliedLinguistics 13, 168-84.
44. Hall, J. K., Cheng, A., & Carlson, M. (2006). Reconceptualizing multicompetence as a theory of language knowledge. Applied Linguistics 27, 2, 220-40.
45. Hernandez, A. E. & Meschyan, G. (2006). Executive function is necessary to enhance lexical processing in a less proficient L2: Evidence from fMRI during picture naming. Bilingualism: Language and cognition 9, 2, 177-88.
46. Hu, G. (2002). Psychological constraints on the utility of metalinguistic knowledge in second language production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24, 3, 347-86.
47. Huang, C.-T. (1982). Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
48. Hulstijn, J. (2002). Towards a unified account of the representation, acquisition, and auto matization of second-language knowledge. Second Language Research 18, 3, 193-223.
49. Hulstijn, J. & Hulstijn, W. (1984). Grammatical errors as a function of processing constraints and explicit knowledge. Language Learning 34, 23-43.
50. Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (eds.), Sociolinguistics (pp. 269-93). Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.
51. Isemonger, I. M. (2007). Operational definitions of explicit and implicit knowledge: Response to R. Ellis (2005) and some recommendations for future research in this area. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 29, 1, 101-18.
52. Izumi, S. (2003). Comprehension and production processes in second language learning: In search of the psycholinguistic rationale of the output hypothesis. Applied Linguistics 24, 2, 168-96.
53. Jiang, N. (2004). Morphological insensitivity in second language processing. Applied Psycholinguistics 25, 4, 603-34.
54. Jiang, N. (2007). Selective integration of linguistic knowledge in adult second language learning. Language Learning 57, 1, 1-33.
55. Juffs, A. (1998). The acquisition of semantics-syntax correspondences and verb frequencies in EL materials. Language Teaching Research 2, 2, 93-123.
56. Juffs, A. (2004). Representation, processing and working memory in a second language. Transactions of the Philological Society 102, 2, 199-225.
57. Juffs, A. & Harrington, M. (1995). Parsing effects in second language sentence processing: Subject and object asymmetries in wh-extraction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 17, 4, 483-516.
58. Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1992). Beyond modularity: A developmental perspective on cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
59. Kihlstrom, J. F., Dorfman, J., & Park, L. (2007). Implicit and explicit memory and learning. In M. Velmans & S. Schneider (eds.), The Blackwell companion to consciousness (pp. 525-39). Oxford: Blackwell.
60. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist 41, 2, 75-86.
61. Kormos, J. (1999). Monitoring and self-repair in L2. Language Learning 49, 2, 303-42.
62. Kormos, J. (2000). The role of attention in monitoring second language speech production.Language Learning 50, 2, 343-84.
63. Kormos, J. (2006). Speech production and second language acquisition. Mahwah, N: Lawrence Erlbaum.
64. Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
65. Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis. London/New York: Longman.
66. Leeman, J. (2007). Feedback in L2 learning: Responding to errors during practice. In R. DeKeyser (ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics andcognitive psychology (pp. 111-37). New York: Cambridge University Press.
67. Lieberman, M., Aoshima, S., & Phillips, C. (2006). Nativelike biases in generation of wh questions by nonnative speakers of Japanese. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28, 3, 423-48.
68. Lyster, R. (1998a). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning 48, 2, 183-218.
69. Lyster, R. (1998b). Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies inSecond Language Acquisition 20, 1, 51-81.
70. Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 26, 3, 399-432.
71. Mackey, A. (2006). Feedback, noticing, and instructed second language learning. Applied Linguistics 27, 3, 405-30.
72. Mackey, A., Gass, S., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition 22, 4, 471-99.
73. Mackey, A. & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In A. Mackey (ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 407-52). New York: Oxford University Press.
74. Macrory, G. & Stone, V. (2000). Pupil progress in the acquisition of the perfect tense in French: The relationship between knowledge and use. Language Teaching Research 4, 1, 55-82.
75. McClelland, J. L. & Patterson, K. (2002a). "Words OR rules" cannot exploit the regularity in exceptions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 6, 11, 464-5.
76. McClelland, J. L. & Patterson, K. (2002b). Rules or connections in past-tense inflections: What does the evidence rule out? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 6, 11, 465-72.
77. McNamara, T. F. (1995). Modelling performance: Opening Pandora's box. Applied Linguistics 16, 2, 159-79.
78. Morgan-Short, K., Steinhauer, K., Sanz, C., & Ullman, M. T. (2007). An ERP investigation of second language processing: Effects of proficiency and explicit and implicit train-ing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience (Supplement), 164.
79. Mueller, J. L., Hahne, A., Fujii, Y., & Friederici, A. G. (2005). Native and nonnative speakers' processing of a miniature version of Japanese as revealed by ERPs. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 17, 8, 1229-44.
80. Myles, F. (2004). From data to theory: The over-representation of linguistic knowledge in SLA. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 102, 2, 139-68.
81. Myles, F., Hooper, J., & Mitchell, R. (1998). Rote or rule? Exploring the role of formulaic language in classroom foreign language learning. Language Learning 48, 3, 323-63.
82. Nassaji, H. (2007). Elicitation and reformulation and their relationship with learner repair in student-teacher dyadic interaction. Language Learning 57, 4, 511-48.
83. Nicholas, H., Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2001). Recasts as feedback to language learners. Language Learning 51, 4, 719-58.
84. Oomen, C. C. E. & Postma, A. (2001). Effects of time pressure on mechanisms of speech production and self-monitoring. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 30, 2, 163-84.
85. Oomen, C. C. E. & Postma, A. (2002). Limitations in processing resources and speech monitoring. Language and Cognitive Processes 17, 2, 163-84.
86. Opitz, B. & Friederici, A. D. (2003). Interactions of the hippocampal system and the prefrontal cortex in learning language-like rules. NeuroImage 19, 1730-7.
87. Opitz, B. & Friederici, A. D. (2004). Brain correlates of language learning: The neural dissociation of rule-based vs. similarity-based learning. Journal of Neuroscience 24, 8436-40.
88. Pesetsky, D. (1987). Wh-in-situ: Movement and unselective binding. In E. Reuland & A. G. B. ter Meulen (eds.), The representation of indefiniteness (pp. 98-129). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
89. Pinker, S. (1999). Words and rules: The ingredients of language. New York: Basic Books.
90. Pinker, S. & Prince, A. (1988). On language and connectionism: Analysis of a parallel distributed processing model of language acquisition. In S. Pinker & J. Mehler (eds.),Connections and symbols (pp. 73-193). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
91. Pinker, S. & Ullman, M. T. (2002a). The past and future of the past tense. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 6, 11, 456-63.
92. Pinker, S. & Ullman, M. T. (2002b). Combination and structure, not gradedness, is the issue. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 6, 11, 472-4.
93. Poldrack, R. A., Clark, J., Paré-Blagoev, E. J., et al. (2001). Interactive memory systems in the human brain. Nature 414, 546-9.
94. Poldrack, R. A. & Gabrieli, J. D. E. (2001). Characterizing the neural mechanisms of skill learning and repetition priming: Evidence from mirror reading. Brain 124, 67-82.
95. Pothos, E. M. (2007). Theories of artificial grammar learning. Psychological Bulletin 133, 2, 227-44.
96. Pritchett, B. L. (1992). Grammatical competence and parsing performance. Chicago, IL: Univer-sity of Chicago Press.
97. Renou, J. M. (2000). Learner accuracy and learner performance: The quest for a link. Foreign Language Annals 33, 168-80.
98. Rizzi, L. (1982). Issues in Italian syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.
99. Robinson, P. (2005). Cognitive abilities, chunk-strength and frequency effects in implicit artificial grammar and incidental L2 learning: replications of Reber, Walkenfield and Hernstadt (1991) and Knowlton and Squire (1996) and their Relevance for SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27, 2, 235-68.
100. Rumelhart, D. & McClelland, J. (1986). On learning the past tenses of English verbs. In J. McClelland, D. Rumelhart, & PDP Research Group (eds.), Parallel distributed process-ing, vol. 2: Psychological and biological models (pp. 217-71). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
101. Russell, J. & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar: A meta-analysis of the research. In J. Norris & L. Ortega (eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 133-64). Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
102. Sallas, B., Mathews, R. C., Lane, S., & Sun, R. (2007). Developing rich and quickly accessed knowledge of an artificial grammar. Memory and Cognition 35, 8, 2118-33.
103. Schmitt, N. (ed.) (2004). Formulaic sequences. Philadelphia. Benjamins.
104. Schulz, R. A. (2002). Hilft es die Regel zu wissen um sie anzuwenden? Das Verhältnis von metalinguistischem Bewusstsein und grammatischer Kompetenz in DaF. Die Unterrichtspraxis 35, 1, 15-24.
105. Sebastián-Gallés, N. & Soto-Faraco, S. (1999). On-line processing of native and non-native contrasts in early bilinguals. Cognition 72, 111-23.
106. Segalowitz, N. & Frenkiel-Fishman, S. (2005). Attention control and ability level in a complex cognitive skill: Attention shifting and second-language proficiency. Memory and cognition 33, 644-53.
107. Segalowitz, N. & Hulstijn, J. (2005). Automaticity in bilingualism and second language learning. In J. F. Kroll & A. M. B. de Groot (eds.), Handbook of bilingualism:Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 371-88). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
108. Sheen, Y. (2006). Exploring the relationship between characteristics of recasts and learner uptake. Language Teaching Research 10, 4, 361-92.
109. Sorace, A. (2003). Near-nativeness. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 130-51). Oxford: Blackwell.
110. Squire, L. (1992). Memory and the hippocampus: A synthesis from findings with rats, monkeys, and humans. Psychological Review 99, 2, 195-231.
111. Squire, L. R. & Kandel, E. R. (1999). Memory: From mind to molecules. New York: Scientific American.
112. Squire, L. R. & Knowlton, B. J. (2000). The medial temporal lobe, the hippocampus, and the memory systems of the brain. In M. S. Gazzaniga (ed.), The new cognitive neurosciences (pp. 765-79). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
113. Squire, L. R. & Zola, S. M. (1996). Structure and function of declarative and nondeclarative memory systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 93, 13515-22.
114. Sunderman, G. & Kroll, J. F. (2006). First language activation during second language lexical processing: An investigation of lexical form, meaning, and grammatical class.Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28, 3, 387-422.
115. Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. M. Gass & C. G. Madden (eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-53). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
116. Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (ed.), Hand-book of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471-83). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
117. Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics 16, 3, 371-91.
118. Tarone, E. (1983). On the variability of interlanguage systems. Applied Linguistics 4, 2, 143-63.
119. Taylor, D. S. (1988). The meaning and use of the term "competence" in linguistics and applied linguistics. Applied Linguistics 9, 2, 148-68.
120. Tokowicz, N. & MacWhinney, B. (2005). Implicit and explicit measures of sensitivity to violations in second language grammar: An event-related potential investigation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27, 2, 173-204.
121. Toth, P. (2006). Processing instruction and a role for output in second language acquisi-tion. Language Learning 56, 2, 319-85.
122. Toth, P. (in press). Teacher- and learner-led discourse in task-based grammar instruction: Providing procedural assistance for L2 morphosyntactic development. Language Learning.
123. Trenkic, D. (2007). Variability in second language article production: Beyond the repres-entational deficit vs. processing constraints debate. Second Language Research 23, 3, 289-327.
124. Ullman, M. T. (2001). A neurocognitive perspective on language: The declarative/pro-cedural model. Nature Reviews: Neuroscience 2, 717-26.
125. Ullman, M. T. (2004). Contributions of memory circuits to language: The declarative/ procedural model. Cognition 92, 231-70.
126. Ullman, M. (2005). A cognitive neuroscience perspective on second language acquisition: The declarative/procedural model. In C. Sanz (ed.), Mind and context in adult second language acquisition (pp. 141-78). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
127. VanPatten, B. (ed.) (2004). Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.
128. Williams, J. N. (2003). Inducing abstract linguistic representations: Human and connectionist learning of noun classes. In R. van Hout, A. Hulk, F. Kuiken, & R. Towell (eds.), The interface between syntax and the lexicon in second language acquisition (pp. 151-74). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
129. Williams, J. N. (2005). Learning without awareness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27, 2, 269-304.
130. Williams, J. N. & Lovatt, P. (2003). Phonological memory and rule learning. Language Learning 53, 1, 67-121.
131. Williams, J. N., Möbius, P., & Kim, C. (2001). Native and non-native processing of English wh-questions: Parsing strategies and plausibility constraints. Applied Psycholinguistics 22, 4, 509-40.
132. Wray, A. (2001). Formulaic language and the lexicon. New York: Cambridge University Press.
133. Zyzik, E. (2006). Transitivity alternations and sequence learning: Insights from L2 Spanish production data. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28, 3, 449-85.