BookPDF Available

Explicit Learning in the L2 Classroom

February 2015

DOI:10.4324/9781315887074

ISBN: 9781134587537

Authors:

Ronald P. Leow

Georgetown University

Content uploaded by Ronald P. Leow

Content may be subject to copyright.

Explicit Learning in the L2 Classroom offers a unique five-prong (theoretical,

empirical, methodological, pedagogical, and model-building) approach to the

issue of explicit learning in the L2 classroom from a student-centered perspective.

To achieve this five-prong objective, the book reports the theoretical underpin-

nings, empirical studies, and research designs employed in current research to

investigate the constructs of attention and awareness in SLA, with the objectives

to (1) propose a model of the L2 learning process in Instructed SLA that accounts

for the cognitive processes employed during this process and (2) provide peda-

gogical and curricular implications for the L2 classroom. The book also pro-

vides a comprehensive treatise of research methodology that is aimed at not only

underscoring the major features of conducting robust research designs with high

levels of inter n a l va lid ity but also preparing teacher s to become crit ica l readers of

published empirical research.

Ronald P. Leow is Professor of Applied Linguistics and Director of Spanish

Language Instruction in the Department of Spanish and Portuguese at George-

town University. His areas of expertise include language curriculum develop-

ment, teacher education, SLA, psycholinguistics, cognitive processes in language

learning, research methodology, and CALL.

EXPLICIT LEARNING IN THE

L2 CLASSROOM

6241-0749-0FM.indd i6241-0749-0FM.indd i 1/29/2015 10:13:12 AM1/29/2015 10:13:12 AM

Monographs on Theoretical Issues:

Schachter/Gass Second Language Classroom Research: Issues and Opportunities

(1996)

Birdsong Second Language Acquisition and the Critical Period Hypotheses (1999)

Ohta Second Language Acquisition Processes in the Classroom: Learning Japanese

(2001)

Major Foreign Accent: Ontogeny and Phylogeny of Second Language Phonology

(2001)

Va n P a t t e n Processing Instruction: Theory, Research, and Commentar y (2003)

Va n P at t e n / W i l lia m s / Rot t/Ove rs treet Form-Meaning Connections in Second

Language Acquisition (2004)

Bardovi-Harlig/Hartford Interlanguage Pragmatics: Exploring Institutional

Talk (2005)

Dörnyei The Psychology of the Language Learner: Individual Differences in

Second Language Acquisition (2005)

Long Problems in SLA (2007)

Va n P at t e n / W i l lia m s Theories in Second Language Acquisition (2007)

Second Language Acquisition Research Series :

Theoretical and Methodological Issues

Susan M. Gass and Alison Mackey, Editors

6241-0749-0FM.indd ii6241-0749-0FM.indd ii 1/29/2015 10:13:13 AM1/29/2015 10:13:13 AM

Ortega/Byrnes The Longitudinal Study of Advanced L2 Capacities (2008)

Liceras/Zobl/Goodluck The Role of Formal Features in Second Language

Acquisition (2008)

Phi lp/Adams/Iwashita Peer Interaction and Second Language Learning (2013)

Va n P at t e n / W i l lia m s Theories in Second Language Acquisition, Second Edition

(2014)

Leow Explicit Learning in the L2 Classroom (2015)

Monographs on Research Methodology:

Ta r o n e /Gass/C o h e n Research Methodology in Second Language Acquisition

(1994)

Yu l e Referential Communication Tasks (1997)

Gass/Mackey Stimulated Recall Methodolog y in Second Language Research

(2000)

Markee Conversation Analysis (2000)

Gass/Mackey Data Elicitation for Second and Foreign Language Research (2007)

Duf f Case Study Research in Applied Linguistics (2007)

McDonough/Trofimov ich Using Priming Methods in Second Language

Research (2008)

Larson-Hall A Guide to Doing Statistics in Second Language Research Using

SPSS (2009)

Dörnyei/Taguchi Questionnaires in Second Language Research: Construction,

Administration, and Processing, 2nd Edition (2009)

Bowles The Think-Aloud Controversy in Second Language Research (2010)

Jiang Conducting Reaction Time Research for Second Language Studies (2011)

Barkhuizen/Benson/Chik Narrative Inquiry in Language Teaching and

Learning Research (2013)

Jegerski/VanPatten Research Methods in Second Language Psycholinguistics

(2013)

6241-0749-0FM.indd iii6241-0749-0FM.indd iii 1/29/2015 10:13:13 AM1/29/2015 10:13:13 AM

Of Related Interest:

Gass Input, Interaction, and the Second Language Learner (1997)

Gass/Sorace/Selinker Second Language Learning Data Analysis, Second Edition

(1998)

Mackey/Gass Second Language Research: Methodology and Design (2005)

Gass/Selinker Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course, Third

Edition (2008)

6241-0749-0FM.indd iv6241-0749-0FM.indd iv 1/29/2015 10:13:13 AM1/29/2015 10:13:13 AM

EXPLICIT LEARNING IN

THE L2 CLASSROOM

A Student-Centered Approach

Ronald P. Leow

Georgetown University

6241-0749-0FM.indd v6241-0749-0FM.indd v 1/29/2015 10:13:13 AM1/29/2015 10:13:13 AM

First published 2015

by Routledge

711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017

and by Routledge

2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abi ngdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN

Routledge i s an impr int of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

The r ight of Rona ld P. Leow to be identif ied as author of this work

has been asser ted by hi m in accord ance with sections 77 and 78 of the

or utilized in any form or by any electron ic, mechanical, or other

means, now k nown or hereafter invented, including photocopying and

recording, or in any i nformation storage or retrieval system, without

permission in writ ing from the publishers.

Tra d e m a rk n o t i c e : Product or corporate na mes may be trademarks

or registered tr adema rks, and are used only for ident if ication a nd

explan ation without intent to infringe.

Library of Congress Cataloging- in-Publication Data

Leow, Ronald P. (Ronald Phi lip), 1954–

Explicit learning i n the L2 classroom : a student-centered approach /

Ronald P. Leow, Georgetown Universit y.

pages cm. — (Second lang uage acquisit ion research series)

Includes bibliographical references and index.

1. Language and languages—Study and teaching. 2. Second lang uage

acquisition. I. Title.

P51.L4968 2015

418.00 71— d c23

2014036365

ISBN: 978-0-415-70705-3 (hbk)

ISBN: 978-0-415-70706-0 (pbk)

ISBN: 978-1-315-88707-4 (ebk)

Typeset in Bembo

by Apex CoVantage, LLC

6241-0749-0FM.indd vi6241-0749-0FM.indd vi 1/29/2015 10:13:13 AM1/29/2015 10:13:13 AM

To Deborah, Philip, and Stephanie

6241-0749-0FM.indd vii6241-0749-0FM.indd vii 1/29/2015 10:13:13 AM1/29/2015 10:13:13 AM

6241-0749-0FM.indd viii6241-0749-0FM.indd viii 1/29/2015 10:13:13 AM1/29/2015 10:13:13 AM

Preface xi

Acknowledgments xviii

1 Introduction, or Strolling Down Memory Lane: Raising

Your Awareness 1

SECTION 1

Theoretical Foundations 13

2 A Preliminary Theoretical Framework for the L2

Learning Process in SLA 15

3 Theoretical Foundations for the Role of Attention in

Learning from Non-SLA Fields 23

4 Theoretical Foundations for the Role of Awareness in

Learning from Non-SLA Fields 48

5 Theoretical Foundations for the Roles of Attention and

Awareness in L2 Learning in SLA 68

SECTION 2

Research Methodology 107

6 Methodological Issues in Research on the Relationships

between Attention, Awareness, and L2 Learning in SLA 109

CONTENTS

6241-0749-0FM.indd ix6241-0749-0FM.indd ix 1/29/2015 10:13:13 AM1/29/2015 10:13:13 AM

x Contents

7 Deconstructing the Construct of Learning 123

8 Location, Location, Location: Probing Inside the Box 136

SECTION 3

Empirical Research Investigating the Role of Attention/

Noticing in L2 Development 157

9 Your Attention, Please 159

10 Learning Explicitly or Implicitly: That Is the Question 184

11 Depth of Processing in L2 Processing 203

SECTION 4

Model Building 237

12 Toward a Model of the L2 Learning Process in Instructed SLA 239

SECTION 5

Pedagogy 251

13 Toward the Development of Psycholinguistics-Based

E-Tutors 253

14 Conclusion: The Changing L2 Classroom, and Where Do

We Go From Here? 270

Index 279

6241-0749-0FM.indd x6241-0749-0FM.indd x 1/29/2015 10:13:13 AM1/29/2015 10:13:13 AM

To begin at the beginning: Let us begin with two agreements, one professional,

one theoretical. Professionally, no one will disagree with the statement that

teaching is one of the most rewarding and, at the same time, potentially one

of the most frustrating professions to undertake (yes, I am going to wear two

hats in this book: Teacher’s, based on four decades of teaching experience, and

researcher’s, based on my research in the second language acquisition (SLA) field

over the last two decades). It is rewarding when our students perform according

to our objectives and “master/mistress” plans, and frustrating when, despite our

efforts to facilitate their learning by providing them with an “appropriate”

environment, and adequate exposure to and practice with the second or foreign

(L2) language (accompanied by much love), they apparently fail to grasp even

the “simplest” (that is, from our perspective) grammatical rule we teach them

or to which we expose them. What can explain this apparent contradiction?

To answer this question, let us discuss some important processes in language

learning. First, did you pay attention to or notice the quotation marks around

the descriptors “appropriate” and “simplest”? I even bolded them to draw your

attention to them, with the hope of making you process them at a deeper level

(this, incidentally, is the argument behind any effort to make specific aspects of

the written L2 (and even oral L2 via pauses, intonation, funny facial expressions,

etc.) more salient to L2 learners, and falls in the research strand of input/textual

enhancement, which I will discuss later). Were you aware (pun intended) that

there are deeper connotations embedded in these words? You could have paid

more attention to these words but perhaps did not process them further—but

that is getting into your heads, an internal process. “Simplest” refers to a teacher-

centered perspective of what constitutes a simple rule for the teacher and not

necessarily from a student-centered perspective. “Appropriate” is based on our

PREFACE

6241-0749-0FM.indd 11 1/29/2015 11:06:29 AM

xii Preface

perception of language learning and teaching. Take a pause and contemplate this

simple but challenging question: What is your perception of language learning

and teaching ? In other words, how do we think an L2 is learned (or acquired),

and how should it be taught or presented? This is what drives all of us in the

“classroom” setting (OK, these quotation marks around “classroom” refer to the

fact that nowadays we have the hybrid curriculum in which the classroom can

be physical or virtual/electronic or both).

There are many responses to this simple but challenging question, some based

on personal experience or attendance at teacher education courses, some based

on the SLA and/or non-SLA (e.g., cognitive psychology or cognitive science,

cognitive neuroscience, etc.) literatures, some based on a combination of two

or more, and so on. However, regardless from where our perception may be

derived, the fact remains that we, however hard we try, cannot learn for our

students. In other words, learning is an internal process that may or may not be

manipulated by external factors and, as we know, learning may be explicit, that

is, with awareness, or implicit, that is, without awareness.

What, then, is awareness? Are you aware that the literature in both SLA and

non-SLA fields is literally littered with the role of awareness being explicitly or

implicitly subsumed within a remarkable number of variables? We have type of

learning (e.g., subliminal, incidental, implicit, explicit), type of learning con-

dition (e.g., implicit, explicit), type of instructional condition (e.g., implicit,

explicit, inductive, deductive), type of awareness (e.g., language, metacognitive,

phenomenal, situational, self, conscious, unconscious) and so on. We also have

constructs such as noticing (attention with awareness), detection (attention, cog-

nitive registration without awareness), perception (with or without awareness),

consciousness (even conscious awareness! So we can assume there is unconscious

awareness?), and the list goes on. There are quite a large number of definitions,

but here are two: “[T]he function of the interpretation of the nature of the

encoding and retrieval processes required by the task” (Robinson, 1995: 301),

and “a particular state of mind in which an individual has undergone a specific

subjective experience of some cognitive content or external stimulus” (Tomlin &

Villa, 1994: 193). For now, simply note that the construct of awareness as defined

refers to something taking place in our brain as we process language.

Now we can go to the theoretical agreement: We are still not sure which type

of learning (explicit, that is, with awareness, or implicit, that is, without aware-

ness) works better for our students in the L2 classroom. In other words, the role

awareness plays in the learning process is a theoretically valid question and it plays

out every day in our classrooms (with or without our own awareness).

Yet from a practitioner’s perspective, we “know” (as in “intuition” that comes

from vast experience) that raising our students’ awareness of grammatical rules,

learning strategies, etc., is the way to go. Many if not all of us even do it today in

our classrooms, since it feels so natural and instinctive! Take a look at every sin-

gle foreign language textbook. Did you find one WITHOUT any grammatical

6241-0749-0FM.indd xii6241-0749-0FM.indd xii 1/29/2015 10:13:13 AM1/29/2015 10:13:13 AM

Preface xiii

ru les? It i s not going to sel l becaus e we t eacher s (a nd student s) exp ect such g r am-

matical explanations, at least in some form, be it traditional—for example, com-

plete verbal paradigms—or a little more progressive, as in partial paradigms that

only address the persons involved (e.g., you and I , tú y yo , je et tu , etc.). For those

teachers who have been in the profession as long as I have been, I am sure you

will fondly remember the good old days of the Grammar Translation Method,

when we taught the grammatical rules and then told our students to apply the

rules clearly (from our perspective), with a high level of grammatical awareness,

in translations. For our slightly younger teachers, you have likely been exposed

to myriad methods and theoretical perceptions that view language learning from

either a formal or traditional perspective (grammar comes first), an informal

perspective (grammar is embedded in the L2 input, so you are wasting your time

teaching it), or a combination of the two. Any way we look at all these perspec-

tives with regard to grammar instruction or exposure, and their relationships

with the role of awareness of these grammar rules, the focus has clearly shifted

from a teacher-centered perspective to a more learner-centered one (at least for

mo st o f us), albe it w ith one cavea t : Do e s “lea r n er-cente r ednes s” mean t h at (1) we

make our students more active by participating in more activities, etc., but we

still provide the essential grammatical information based on our individual per-

ception of how the learning process operates, or (2) we make our students more

responsible for the learning process obviously premised on a better understand-

ing of the internal processes involved in language learning? The irony of the

current status of language learning and teaching, however, may lie in the absence

of a clear treatise on the roles of many important variables postulated to promote

language learning that not only are theoretically and empirically supported but

also offer solid pedagogical implications for the L2 classroom.

Explicit Learning in the L2 Classroom: A Student-Centered Approach , then, is a

book that provides a theoretically grounded and empirically supported approach

to the promotion of explicit learning, that is, learning with awareness, in L2

development with a direct connection to learning in the classroom setting. Put

another way, it is not a book on justifying the teaching of grammatical rules in

the second/foreign language (L2) classroom. It is also not a book on the acquisition

of an L2 in an L2 setting since the author believes that this kind of formal setting

does not lend itself to the natural acquisition process that is usually associated

with a process similar to that of a child acquiring his/her f irst language (e.g., L2

classroom contexts are often characterized by impoverished input or L2, an inad-

equate amount of exposure and interaction, and practice and homework focused

on grammar, be it by the teacher or the textbook, etc.). It is a book on learning ,

a process that involves quite a lot of processing and potential learner awareness

while interacting with the L2 inside and outside the classroom setting. I shall elab-

orate on, or, more specifically, deconstruct this construct of learning in Chapter 7 .

Now that I have gotten your attention ( I am as su m ing th at si nce you have read

this far you must have been paying some attention to the message and, in some

6241-0749-0FM.indd xiii6241-0749-0FM.indd xiii 1/29/2015 10:13:13 AM1/29/2015 10:13:13 AM

xiv Preface

cases, processing and interacting with the content from a personal viewpoint),

the main purpose of this book is to raise your awareness (pun intended) of many

important variables that contribute to language learning and, ultimately, to lan-

guage teaching. We are going to take a closer and critical look at internal cog-

nitive processes and, more specifically, constructs such as attention, awareness,

and working memory, together with activation of prior knowledge and depth of

processing postulated to play important roles in language learning, from both a

theoretical and empirical perspective, in order to better inform ourselves as we

teach in the L2 “classroom” (think hybrid).

For those readers who were processing the above information with some level

of awareness and making inferences with respect to the title of this book, it

will come as no surprise that the overwhelming number of studies that have

empirically and directly or indirectly investigated the construct of awareness or

lack thereof in L2 development (e.g., de la Fuente, 2015; Bowles, 2003; Faretta-

Stutenberg & Morgan-Short, 2011; Hama & Leow, 2010; Hsieh, Moreno, &

Leow, 2015; Leow, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2015; Leung & Williams, 2011, 2012;

Martínez-Fernández, 2008; Medina, 2015; Robinson, 1996; Rosa & Leow, 2004;

Rosa & O’Neill, 1999; Sachs & Suh, 2007; Williams, 2005) have reported sub-

stantial and robust support for its role in the learning process, that is, explicit learn-

ing in the classroom setting viewed from an internal perspective rocks ! However,

please do not take my word since, as a human being, I may be biased, given that

the bulk of my published research lies in the attentional and awareness strands of

research. There is absolutely no need on my part to mention that the classroom

setting is far more conducive to explicit learning than implicit learning, for

obvious reasons. So what I propose to offer in this book is simply a presentation

of the facts—from an unbiased perspective—and you, my dear readers, will be

the judge of the substance and purpose of the book: Promoting explicit learning,

that is, learning with learner awareness in the L2 classroom.

To this end, I shall present the relevant data from a five-prong approach (theo-

retical, empirical, methodological, model-building, and pedagogical). Section 1

is all theoretical. Without theory, everything is explained in an ad hoc way, which

is not very scholarly—plus I sound smart. Chapter 1 takes a stroll down memory

lane to situate the construct of awareness in the SLA literature. To situate the the-

oretical foundations for explicit learning in both SLA and non-SLA, Chapter 2

presents, from a psycholinguistic perspective, a coarse-grained theoretical frame-

work of the L2 learning process in SLA, to which we shall refer several times

throughout the book. Chapters 3 and 4 then present relatively broad overviews

of several major theoretical underpinnings postulated for the roles of attention

and awareness in learning in non-SLA fields that have influenced those in SLA.

Chapter 5 provides a more in-depth discussion of the theoretical underpinnings

postulated for the roles of attention and awareness in language learning , together

with a summary of their major tenets postulated to account for the learning

process in SLA.

6241-0749-0FM.indd xiv6241-0749-0FM.indd xiv 1/29/2015 10:13:13 AM1/29/2015 10:13:13 AM

Preface xv

Before we discuss the empirical research, we need to have a relatively good idea

of what constitutes a robust research design that produces findings upon which

we can place a high level of confidence. Let’s get critical! To this end, Section 2

(Research Methodology) provides an in-depth report of the heart of any empirical

study, namely the research design, and its corresponding level of internal validity.

Chapter 6 focuses on the methodological issues surrounding the investigation of

the relationship between the roles of attention and awareness, or lack thereof, and

learning in the SLA field. Chapter 7 presents a tri-dimensional perspective of the

construct of learning to address the potential terminological confusion as to what

comprises “learning” in SLA. Chapter 8 addresses three major concurrent data

elicitation procedures (reaction time, eye-tracking, and think aloud) employed to

gather data on learner processes while they are interacting with L2 data, and their

benefits to further research on learner processes. Related methodological issues

such as reactivity and veridicality are also discussed.

Section 3 (Empirical Research) then provides synopses of the empirical research

conducted in SLA on the roles of attention/noticing ( Chapter 9 ) and awareness or

lack thereof ( Chapter 10 ) in L2 development. As I mentioned above, Section 2 will

assist you in being critical of published work. Chapter 11 discusses the concept of

depth of processing in the L2 learning process and suggests that we centralize the

process of learning not on the construct of attention, which clearly plays a crucial

role in L2 learning, but on the notion of how L2 learners process the L2 data.

Theoretical, methodological, empirical, and pedagogical benef its are discussed.

Section 4 (Model Building) presents in Chapter 12 a proposed model of the

L2 learning process in Instructed SLA that draws from previous theoretical

underpinnings in both the SLA and non-SLA fields, and attempts to capture the

important roles several cognitive processes play along the L2 learning process

from input to output. Learning will be represented in this model as being both

a process and a product (knowledge), and special emphasis will be placed on the

potential roles attention, depth of processing, (levels of ) awareness, and activa-

tion of prior knowledge play along several stages in the learning process.

Section 5 (Pedagogy) is based exclusively on the previous chapters. Chapter 13

provides suggestions for the development of psycholinguistics-based tasks and

e-tutors designed to enhance robust learning, especially of problematic gram-

matical points in the L2. Specific examples are provided. Finally, Chapter 14

discusses some conclusions and questions gleaned from the previous chapters,

reports on the inroads technology is currently making at both the curricular and

instructional level leading to the changing dynamics of the L2 classroom, and

provides one feasible curricular suggestion, namely, a partial hybrid curriculum,

to embrace the changing format of the traditional L2 classroom, the role of tech-

nology, and Instructed SLA research.

It is hoped that after reading this book, readers’ awareness of several impor-

tant variables postulated to contribute to language learning (and teaching) will

be raised, together with more creative ways to enhance and stimulate students’

6241-0749-0FM.indd xv6241-0749-0FM.indd xv 1/29/2015 10:13:13 AM1/29/2015 10:13:13 AM

xvi Preface

explicit learning, that is, learning with awareness, in the L2 classroom. While

Baars (1997) wrote, “Paying attention—becoming conscious of some material—

seems to be the sovereign remedy for learning anything applicable to many very

different kinds of information. It is the universal solvent of the mind” (sec. 5,

p. 304), I personally like to think that the depth of processing, with its potential

of raising the level of awareness, is an important step to potential change in the

learning process.

References

Baars, B. J. (1997). In the theater of consciousness: The workspace of the mind. New York:

Oxford University Press.

Bowles, M. A. (2003). The effects of textual input enhancement on language learning:

An online/off line study of fourth-semester Spanish students. In P. Kempchinsky &

C. E. Piñeros (Eds.), Theory, practice, and acquisition: Papers from the 6th Hispanic Lin-

guistics Symposium and the 5th Conference on the Acquisition of Spanish and Portuguese (pp.

395–411). Somer ville, MA: Cascadilla Press.

De la Fuente, M. (2015). Explicit cor rective feedback and computer-based, form-focused

instruction: The role of L1 in promoting awareness of L2 forms. In R. P. Leow,

L. Cerezo, & M. Baralt (Eds.), A psycholinguistic approach to technology and language

learning. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.

Faretta-Stutenberg, M., & Morgan-Short, K. (2011). Learning w ithout awareness recon-

sidered: A replication of Williams (2005). In Granena, G., Koeth, J., Lee-Ellis, S.,

Lukyanchenko, A., Prieto Botana, G., & Rhoades, E. (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the

2010 Second Language Research Forum: Reconsidering SLA research, dimensions, and direc-

tions (pp. 18–28). Somerville, MA: Cascadil la Proceedings Project.

Hama, M., & Leow, R. P. (2010). Learning without awareness revisited: Extending Wil-

liams (2005). Studies in Second Language Acquisition , 32 , 465–491.

Hsieh, H-C., Moreno, N., & Leow, R. P. (2015). A comparison of level of awareness and

depth of processing in two types of instructional media (C-FTF vs. CAI): Revisiting

Hsieh (2008). In R. P. Leow, L. Cerezo, & M. Baralt (Eds.), A psycholinguistic approach

to technology and language learning. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.

Leow, R. P. (1997). Attention, awareness, and foreign language behavior. Language Learn-

ing, 47 , 467–506.

Leow, R. P. (1998). Toward operationa lizing the process of attention in second lang uage

acquisition: Evidence for Tomlin and Villa’s (1994) fine-grained analysis of attention.

Applied Psycholinguistics, 19 , 133–159.

Leow, R. P. (2000). A study of the role of awareness in foreign language behavior: Aware

versus unaware learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition , 22 , 557–584.

Leow, R. P. (2001). Attention, awareness and foreign language behavior. Language Learn-

ing , 51 , 113 –155 .

Leung, J. H. C., & Williams, J. N. (2011). The implicit learning of mappings bet ween

forms and contextually derived meanings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition , 33 ,

33–55.

Leung, J. H. C., & Williams, J. N. (2012). Constraints on implicit learning of grammati-

cal form-meaning connections. Language Learning , 62 , 634–662.

6241-0749-0FM.indd xvi6241-0749-0FM.indd xvi 1/29/2015 10:13:13 AM1/29/2015 10:13:13 AM

Preface xvii

Martínez-Fernández, A. (2008). Revisiting the involvement load hypothesis: Awareness,

type of task and type of item. In M. Bowles, R. Foote, S. Perpiñán, & R. Bhatt (Eds.),

Selected proceedings of the 2007 Second Language Research Forum (pp. 210–228). Somer-

ville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.

Medina, A. (2015). The variable effects of level of awareness and CALL versus non-

CALL textual modification on adult L2 readers’ input comprehension and learning.

In R. P. Leow, L. Cerezo, & M. Baralt (Eds.), A psycholinguistic approach to technology

and language learning. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.

Robinson, P. (1995). Review article: Attention, memory and the ‘noticing’ hypothesis.

Language Learning , 45 , 283–331.

Robinson, P. (1996). Learning simple and complex second language rules under implicit,

incidental, rule-search and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisi-

tion , 18 , 27–68.

Rosa, E., & O’Neill, M. D. (1999). Explicitness, intake, and the issue of awareness. Studies

in Second Language Acquisition , 21 , 511–5 56.

Rosa, E. M., & Leow, R. P. (2004). Awareness, different learning conditions, and second

language development. Applied Psycholinguistics , 25 , 269–292.

Sachs, R., & Suh, B-R. (2007). Textually enhanced recasts, learner awareness, and L2 out-

comes in synchronous computer-mediated interaction. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversa-

tional interaction in second-language acquisition: A series of empirical studies (pp. 197–227).

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Tomlin, R. S., & Villa, V. (1994). Attention in cognitive science and second language

acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition , 16 , 18 3 –2 03 .

Williams, J. N. (2005). Learning without awareness. Studies in Second Language Acquisi-

tion , 27 , 269–304.

6241-0749-0FM.indd xvii6241-0749-0FM.indd xvii 1/29/2015 10:13:13 AM1/29/2015 10:13:13 AM

I would like to thank all my previous teachers from pre-kindergarten to col-

lege (especially James F. Lee, my mentor, and Bill VanPatten); my current and

former students/colleagues who have, in so many ways, contributed to the

content of this book; and especially the think aloud/awareness/CALL group

(Elena Rosa, Miguel Angel Novella, Maite Camblor, Melissa Bowles, Ana-María

Nuevo, Ya-Chin Tsai, Takako Egi, Maite Camblor, Almitra Medina, Claudia

Guidi, Laura Gurzynski-Weiss, Rebecca Sachs, YunDeok Choi, Maymona Khalil

Al Khalil, Marisa Filgueras Gómez, de la Fuente), the research methodological

group (Kara Morgan-Short, Bo-Ram Suh, Melissa Baralt, Luis Cerezo, Mika

Hama, Ellen Johnson Sarafini, Germán Zárate-Sández, Sarah Grey, Silvia Mari-

juan, Colleen Moorman), the more recent depth-of-processing group (Hui-

Chen Hsieh, Nina Moreno, Ana Martínez-Fernández, Annie Calderón, Sergio

Andrada, Johnathan Mercer), and my two co-creators of the criteria for coding

depth of processing (Annie Calderón and Ellen Johnson Sarafini) in Chapter 11.

Thanks also to the Initiative on Technology-Enhanced Learning (ITEL) grant

(coordinated by Peter Janssens) awarded by Georgetown University’s Center for

New Designs in Learning and Scholarship (CNDLS) that permitted me to cre-

ate the Gustar Maze that was designed by Bill Garr and extended by Allison

Caras. A special thanks to my graphic designer Steven Mercer for the model

of the L2 learning process in Instructed SLA, Johnathan Mercer (yes, they are

siblings) for contributing to the visual conceptualization of the model, and Celia

Zamora for the indexing. Finally, much appreciation to my two editors (Susan

Gass and Alison Mackey) who have been, without their awareness, sources of

inspiration to me, and to Renata Corbani and Carmen Baumann for making the

publishing process enjoyable.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

6241-0749-0FM.indd xviii6241-0749-0FM.indd xviii 1/29/2015 10:13:13 AM1/29/2015 10:13:13 AM

Before I jump into the nitty-gritty of the book components, I would like f irst to

broadly describe what comprises L2 learning in this book and where this book is

situated, and then I would like to take a quick stroll down memory lane regard-

ing the many changes pertaining to our students’ role in L2 learning in the SLA

field, dating back to the theoretical and pedagogical approaches to learning in

the 1960s to the current empirical focus on implicit learning in SLA.

L2 Learning and Setting

L2 learning, for now ( Chapter 7 elaborates on this construct), can be described

broadly as a process in which many changes take place in L2 learners’ cogni-

tion as they try to create new representations for the L2 grammar, internalize

such data, and restructure if necessary, all the while developing their ability to

comprehend and produce the L2, either orally or written, in real time. It takes

place in a setting in which the L2 is either viewed as a foreign language (as in

English speakers t aking the foreig n lan guag e requ i rement i n an L1 env ironment)

or a second language (as in Japanese speakers taking English classes in an L2

environment, for example, in the USA). In either setting, L2 learners are exposed

to naturally occurring languages and are interacting with the language, be it

communicatively or performing a task of some ecological validity. In the typical

formal classroom setting, the L2 is taught by an instructor, and students learn

the so-called traditional four skills of listening, reading, writing, and speaking.

There is a curriculum that provides information on, for example, the grading

criteria, attendance policy, percent weight of each section of the curriculum,

objectives for all four skills, and a syllabus that provides a guideline for each class

session. Homework is usually assigned and students follow a prescribed textbook.

INTRODUCTION, OR STROLLING

DOWN MEMORY LANE

Raising Your Awareness

6241-0749-001.indd 16241-0749-001.indd 1 1/29/2015 10:48:29 AM1/29/2015 10:48:29 AM

2 Introduction

The amount of time spent in this formal setting varies, but the minimum is usu-

ally around one hour either daily (for intensive classes) or three or four times a

week (for non-intensive classes, depending upon the language program). SLA

research that seeks to probe into learner cognition, then, needs to focus on the

identification and explanation of the cognitive processes employed by L2 learners

as they learn the L2 in these two settings.

Memory Lane

Now, let us situate this book’s perspective regarding our students’ role in L2

learning by taking a quick stroll down memory lane over the many selected

changes in focus, both theoretical and empirical, toward what Omaggio (1993)

calls the “presumed locus of control of the process of language acquisition” (p. 43)

over the last several decades.

First, a quick pop quiz: How many of you are aware that the construct of

awareness has always been subsumed in the teaching profession? Isn’t it true that

we language teachers—well, most of us—have this innate desire to promote our

students “knowledge” of what they are learning or their awareness of what they

are producing? Be it theoretically, empirically, or pedagogically driven, we, as

teachers of L2 lang uages, do incorporate activities or tasks that require some role

of awareness or lack thereof on our students’ part. Now that we are on the same

page, let us proceed to some previous theoretical perspectives regarding the L2

learning process.

As many of us will recall, the two dominant theoretical approaches to L2

learning in the 50s and early 60s were the behaviorist/empiricist (e.g., Hilgard,

1962; Skinner, 1957) versus the rationalist/mentalist/nativist (e.g., Chomsky,

1957) perspective of learning. The former postulated that learning was literally

teacher-centered, that is, it was the teacher who was responsible for providing the

appropriate stimuli or grammatical data. The student was like the little baby (or

Pavlovian puppy) conditioned to absorb all this important information without

any personal input or cognitive processes involved, but being rewarded when

following instructions correctly (which may explain why many teachers do have

jars of candy in their off ices). Thus, we had our pedagogical repertoire of repeti-

tion exercises or rote memory that was relatively divorced from a relationship

with meaning or even real communication (cf. the well-known Audio-lingual

Methodology in the 60s). The latter theoretical approach viewed the student as

a more active participant in the learning process (after all, s/he already possessed

innately Chomsky’s famous language acquisition device (LAD), also referred to

as “ the black box ”), so teachers shifted more responsibilities to the students for

the learning process, and in doing so subtly acknowledged the role of cognitive

processes in L2 learning. However, like in real life, the rationalist/mentalist/

nativist approach to L2 learning led to several interpretations of this new learner-

centered perspective of the lea r ning proces s. This resu lted i n severa l variation s of

6241-0749-001.indd 26241-0749-001.indd 2 1/29/2015 10:48:29 AM1/29/2015 10:48:29 AM

Introduction 3

teaching practices, depending on one’s personal perception of language learning

and teaching within this approach: Witness, for example, the Grammar Transla-

tion Method (50s), the Cognitive Code Method that placed a premium on formal

instruction of grammar before practice, the humanistic perception as evident in

the 70s in The Silent Way, Community Language Learning, and Suggestope-

dia, and the focus on communication first as in the Direct Method (60s), the

Total Physical Response (70s), the Communicative Approach (70s), the Natural

Approach (80s), Task-based Learning (current) and so on. I am proud to say

that I have tried, during my four decades of teaching, most of these methods,

approaches, techniques, etc., as bandwagons came and rode off into the sunset.

Interestingly, the two major publications, namely Corder (1967) and Selinker

(1972), that provided the foundation for current research in SLA were both

learner-centered and repudiations against a behaviorist approach to language

learning. For language instruction, Corder suggested the need to seriously

address what L2 learners bring to the task of learning an L2, which he called

their “internal syllabus.” In addition, he coined the term “intake” that sought to

differentiate what learners are exposed to, for example, the L2 (the input), and

what they take in . Theoretically, it is assumed that not everything that learners

pay attention to in the input is automatically “taken in” or processed, most likely

due to processing demands and attentional constraints. Selinker suggested that

we acknowledge the internal system, which he calls “interlanguage,” that L2

learners possess as they develop their ability to learn the L2. As the term con-

notes, interlanguage is a system that is somewhere between the f irst language

(L1) and the L2. Given the status of interlanguage being a system with its own

rules, doesn’t it make you wonder whether errors produced by our students are

really systematically “correct” according to their own interlanguage system, but

are being graded from a native or near-native speaker’s perspective? Put another

way, perhaps they are “right” and we are “wrong.”

The 70s witnessed several empirical efforts to address Corder’s and Selinker’s

calls for more focus on the learner’s involvement in the learning process. Many

of these studies were essentially based on L1 research conducted within an L2

context and provided quite a contrast in their pursuits. On the one hand were

the acquisition order studies (do some of you recall the famous morpheme stud-

ies by, for example, Dulay and Burt (1973, 1974) that attempted to equate the

L1 acquisitional process with that of the L2 based on an apparent natural order

of morphemes?), while on the other hand we had the error analysis studies that

sought to prove otherwise, that is, that the L1 transfer process may not be entirely

similar to the L2 (cf. Corder, 1967; Schachter, 1974).

The 80s, in my opinion, began a fruitful period of research in the L2 learn-

ing process both from an empirical and theoretical perspective. Even though

the shift from a strict behaviorist perspective of language learning was relatively

accepted in the SLA field, early empirical research still began to focus on the

external features of the L2 input (cf. studies on simplification such as Blau, 1982;

6241-0749-001.indd 36241-0749-001.indd 3 1/29/2015 10:48:29 AM1/29/2015 10:48:29 AM

4 Introduction

Davies, 1984; Parker & Chaudron, 1987) and the role of interaction in L2 lan-

guage learning, mostly from a descriptive perspective (cf. Hatch, Shapira, &

Wagner-Gough, 1978; Henzl, 1979). At the same time, there were some impor-

tant theoretical underpinnings that began to focus more closely on learners’

internal processes in relation to the role of awareness. Fir st, the ter m “conscious-

ness-raising” (Sharwood Smith, 1981) came into being with a direct relationship

to students’ internal processes. If we can raise our students’ consciousness of the

underlying grammatical rules, this will greatly facilitate their learning (by the

way, the Grammar Translation Method could be credited for doing this, though

learning was defined as the ability to write or translate instead of the ability to

speak). However, Sharwood Smith came to realize ( became aware ) that he was

dealing with an internal process and, consequently, modified his term to “input

enhancement” (Sharwood Smith, 1993), arguing that this term was more appro-

priate in depicting exactly what was being proposed, namely enhancing the L2

input via, for example, grammatical rules, additional emphasis, or anything that

could potentially draw students’ attention to the enhanced aspect of the L2 input.

Needless to say, this strand of research exploded in the 90s, given its relatively

broad definition of what comprises input enhancement (cf. Leow, 2009, for a

more elaborated and critical discussion of this issue), and is still current today.

In my opinion, there are some milestones along the theoretical and empirical

routes to current studies that have gone beyond investigating the role of awareness

in L2 learning to addressing whether the absence of awareness also plays a role in

L2 learning (cf. Chan & Leung, 2014; Hama & Leow, 2010; Leow, 2000; Leung &

Williams, 2011, 2014; Williams, 2005). The first milestone was Krashen’s (1982)

Monitor Theory, with its pedagogical sidekick the Natural Approach that ini-

tiated and maximally contributed to this theoretical and empirical impetus on

internal processes. The Monitor Theory, premised on children’s first language

acquisition, was the first theoretical underpinning to raise the issue of the role of

the construct of awareness (termed “consciousness” in those days and also today

with some researchers) in the L2 learning process and to distinguish between

learning (with consciousness), resulting in learned/explicit knowledge, and acquir-

ing (without consciousness), resulting in acquired/implicit knowledge. Krashen

also argued that there was no interface (connection) between implicit (acquired)

and explicit (learned) knowledge, which led to quite a discussion of whether

there exists in SLA a weak interface; for example, explicit knowledge can lead to

im plicit knowled g e (e.g., R. Ellis, 2006), or i mpl icit k n owled ge m ay b e assist ed by

explicit knowledge (e.g., N. Ellis, 2005). A strong interface (e.g., DeKeyser, 2007)

derived from skill acquisition theory in cognitive psychology (cf. Anderson, 1982)

postulates that SLA is largely a conscious process, so we begin the learning process

with declarative knowledge that can then become procedural knowledge (after

much practice), or none at all (Krashen, 1982; Paradis, 2009).

The interesting aspect of this interface debate that rears its head every now

and then is that while type of knowledge (a product) is under consideration,

6241-0749-001.indd 46241-0749-001.indd 4 1/29/2015 10:48:29 AM1/29/2015 10:48:29 AM

Introduction 5

by attaching the dichotomies implicit versus explicit or acquired versus learned or

conscious versus subconscious to the term knowledge, we have shifted the product

knowledge to include a process of learning, that is, learning with or without

awareness. So the theoretical question is not only whether knowledge can be

identified as implicit or explicit but also how such knowledge got to be explicit

or implicit. In other words, the end result (product) may not ref lect the process

of how the knowledge made its way into the internal system, and in order to

address adequately the interface issue, concurrent or online data on learners’

processes need to be gathered instead of making extrapolations based on non-

concurrent or off line data. See how convoluted the issue can become, and yet it

remains charmingly challenging and stimulating to research?

In addition to other postulations, Krashen’s theory equated L2 “acquisition”

with L1 acquisition and also postulated that acquisition followed a predictable

order. In addition to the obvious critique of the inability to test his theory of L2

learning ( “hmm, comprehensible input , to whom? input comprehensible to you

may not be comprehensible to me; hmm, i plus 1, where to locate each student’s i, GPS, any-

one? and what is the 1 again?” ), serious questions such as, “Do we treat our adult

students like babies following a first language (L1) acquisitional trajectory?”

(Krashen: look at the evidence of an apparent unchangeable acquisitional sequence, albeit

based on morphemes, those little pieces that make up a word ), or “Do we intervene

in an ‘appropriate’ way ( we need to consider the psycholinguistic or sociocultural factors

involved in learning ) in their learning process?” ( let us provide feedback at an appropri-

ate point during interaction or let us put them into collaborative groups and learning will

take place ), still need to be more fully addressed.

As I mentioned above, Krashen’s scholarly contribution to the SLA field via

his Monitor Model ranks very high in my estimation. While we do have the

phenomenon called “Krashen bashin’” (cf. for example, Gregg, 1984; McLaugh-

lin, 1978 and others who took him to task), without his theoretical postulations

serious research on learners’ internal processes would most likely have taken

place at a later date. When you publish a study or postulate a theory or model and

subsequently encourage a whole string of further investigation into the issue(s)

you initiated, you have my highest respect, irrespective of any potential bash-

ing you may receive, because in a weird sense you have contributed to a better

understanding of the learning process by stimulating further and, ideally, more

robust research.

Around the late 80s, both teachers and researchers were beginning to con-

template the use of two types of instruction: Explicit versus implicit (cf. e.g.,

Sc o t t , 1989; Sh a ffe r, 1989 ) . Explicit (also referred to as “deductive”) instruction

laid the responsibility on the teacher to explain the grammatical rules first, keep-

ing their f ingers crossed that students did understand the explanation, before

allowing them to practice the rules. Implicit (also referred to as “inductive”)

instruction exposed the students to the L2 with many of the targeted grammatical

or lexical items embedded in the input, and teachers also kept their fingers (and

6241-0749-001.indd 56241-0749-001.indd 5 1/29/2015 10:48:29 AM1/29/2015 10:48:29 AM

6 Introduction

toes) crossed that students would induce these grammatical features all by them-

selves (given the impoverished environment of the classroom and the paucity of

extensive exposure to and interaction with the L2, tough luck). Interestingly,

the two studies cited above (Scott, 1989; Shaffer, 1989) actually defined induc-

tive instruction differently. While Scott followed the definition of inductive

instruction as described above, Shaffer actually oriented her participants to pay

attention to the targeted linguistic items in the input, which, in my opinion,

may be best described as a partially combined deductive/inductive def inition.

Two other terms that arose and were employed very loosely in this period were

the constructs of explicit learning , that is, learning with awareness, and implicit

learning , that is, learning without awareness, although at that time the construct

of awareness was not independently operationalized or measured. Both terms

are now playing a prominent role in current SLA research, as mentioned above.

With regard to a focus on learners’ internal processes, McLaughlin (1987)

posited his Cognitive Theory based on cognitive psychology tenets on the role of

attention, limited attentional capacity, and types of processing (controlled versus

automatic) assumed to play a role in input processing during the early stages of

the learning process. The next year witnessed the first attempt to capture the L2

learning process from input (called ambient speech) > apperceived input > com-

prehended input > intake > integration > output (Gass, 1988, which has been

refined and updated in Gass, 1997, and Gass & Selinker, 2008).

The 90s began with Schmidt’s (1990) seminal article on his noticing hypoth-

esis that brought into the SLA field a theoretical postulation that the roles of

focal attention and awareness were isomorphic (two sides of the same coin) and

crucial in any L2 development, and more specifically during the early stage of

the learning process, namely the input-to-intake stage. This is the second mile-

stone along the route to current unawareness or implicit learning studies. The

noticing hypothesis immediately became arguably the most influential theoreti-

cal underpinning of many strands of SLA research that include input enhance-

ment, interaction, learning conditions, output hypothesis, and so on. Making the

attentional strand of research even more interesting and debatable was Tomlin

and Villa’s (1994) model of input processing in SLA derived from a cognitive

neuroscience perspective that did not posit any role for awareness in the initial

stages of the learning process (intake), soon followed by Robinson’s (1995) model

of the relationship between attention and memory that attempted to reconcile

these two theoretical perspectives in addition to elaborating on the important

role of memory.

Appearing also were theoretical models (e.g., Gass, 1997, an update of Gass,

1988; VanPatten, 1996, updated in 2004 and 2007) of the L2 learning process

that went beyond the initial stage of the learning process to include other stages

postulated to occur along this process, for example, beyond intake (internal-

ization) and output (production) (cf. Gass, 1988), and a modular framework

(Truscott & Sharwood Smith, 2004, updated in 2011) that attempts to integrate

6241-0749-001.indd 66241-0749-001.indd 6 1/29/2015 10:48:29 AM1/29/2015 10:48:29 AM

Introduction 7

language acquisition accounts with proposals of how language, and more spe-

cifically phonology and (morpho)syntax, and cognition interact. At this point,

methodologically, empirical studies were still gathering data after experimental

exposures or treatments. Thus, while theoretically the focus was on the learning

process and not on external input or output features, product data were being

employed to account for internal processes. Here was (and still is for many cur-

rent studies) the classic research design: Pretest (to establish that experimental

and control groups were statistically similar in ability to perform some task) >

treatment or exposure (to the targeted linguistic item in the input) > immedi-

ate posttest (e.g., a recognition and/or production test, etc.). Usually the raw

scores of the groups were entered into a statistical program, and if a significant

difference in performance or between the means of the groups was revealed (ide-

ally, the experimental group outperforming the control group), the researcher

would jump up and proclaim to everyone that it was the treatment or type of

exposure that contributed to the results, which boils down to the equivalent of

assuming that participants did exactly what was expected of them during the

experiment and that all variables that could have potentially affected the results

were well controlled. In other words, it was inherently assumed that there was

high internal validity in the study, that we could safely place our confidence in

the findings, and that we could, from a pedagogical perspective, incorporate the

findings into our classroom activities, etc.

It was only in the latter part of the 90s that the constructs of attention and

awareness began to be addressed both methodologically and empirically in

an effort to investigate their effects on L2 development. While some studies

employed offline measures, that is, after exposure (e.g., Robinson, 1996, 1997),

other studies first methodologically established the constructs of attention and

awareness before submitting the data to statistical analyses (e.g., Alanen, 1995;

Leow, 1997). Data elicitation procedures such as online verbal reports or think-

aloud protocols (in which participants were requested to say aloud whatever came

into their head as they processed the L2 data, that is, while they interacted with

the new grammatical or lexical information in the L2) began to be employed

in many studies in an effort to gather online or concurrent insights into stu-

dents’ cognitive processes. These cited studies also addressed levels of awareness.

Similarly, in the Vygotskyian sociocultural strand of research, a closely related

phenomenon to think alouds was called inner speech (e.g., Vocate, 1994), and

currently languaging, defined as “the process of making meaning and shap-

ing knowledge and experience through language” (Swain 2006: 89), As can

be seen, then, the use of concurrent data elicitation procedures in the research

methodology signaled a distinct methodological shift in gathering both process

(online) and product (off line) data in an effort to gather important informa-

tion during and not only after the learning process. The outcome of this new

methodological approach to operationalize and measure the constructs of atten-

tion and awareness are data that allow us to peek into the internal processes

6241-0749-001.indd 76241-0749-001.indd 7 1/29/2015 10:48:29 AM1/29/2015 10:48:29 AM

8 Introduction

learners employed while interacting with the L2 input, without having to rely on

researchers’ assumptions of what actually took place based on the results of post-

exposure assessment tasks. Should I mention that this use of concurrent verbal

reports triggered another strand of research that methodologically addressed and

is still addressing whether asking participants to think aloud could potentially

affect their thought processes? The buzz word is reactivity (thinking aloud poten-

tially affecting learner primar y processes) for concurrent think-aloud protocols

and veridicality (memory decay) for post-exposure, off line stimulated recalls that

ask participants to try to recall either what they were thinking at specific points

during an interaction, via a video of the interaction or verbal reports that ask

participants to provide an underlying rule embedded in the input.

Now, with this background in mind, let us return to the issues of implicit and

explicit learning, which are both internal processes. Several studies (e.g., de la

Fuente, 2015; Hsieh et al., 2015; Leow, 2000; Martínez-Fernández, 2008; Medina,

2015; Rosa & Leow, 2004; Rosa & O’Neill, 1999; Sachs & Suh, 2007) that began

to explore the role of awareness in L2 development initiated the opportunity to

investigate both theoretically and empirically the role of explicit learning in the

SLA field. The 2000s began with attempts to address the construct of unawareness

in L2 development (e.g., Leow, 2000), followed by at least seven other studies pur-

porting to do the same (cf. Chan & Leung, 2014; Chen, Guo, Tang, Zhu, Yang, &

Dienes, 2011; Faretta-Stutenberg & Morgan-Short, 2011, Hama & Leow, 2010;

Leung & Williams, 2011, 2012, 2014). Currently, like life (and politics), the studies

are divided in their support or lack thereof regarding the role of implicit learning

in L2 development. I will elaborate a bit more on this debate later in Chapter 10 .

Conclusion

I hope you enjoyed the stroll down “awareness lane.” We shall leave this chapter

with one empirically supported finding: Explicit learning is highly related to L2

development.

References

Alanen, R. (1995). Input enhancement and rule presentation in second language acquisi-

tion. In R. Schmidt, (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning and teach-

ing (pp. 395–411). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.

Anderson, J. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological Review, 89 , 369–406.

Blau, E. (1982). The effect of syntax on readability for ESL students in Puerto Rico.

TESOL Quarterly , 16 , 517– 527.

Chan, R., & Leung, J. (2014). Implicit lear ning of L2 natural language stress rules. Second

Language Research , 30 , 463–484.

Chen, W., Guo, X., Tang, J., Zhu, L., Yang, Z., & Dienes, Z. (2011). Unconscious str uc-

tural knowledge of form-meaning connections. Consciousness and Cognition, 20 ,

1751–1760.

6241-0749-001.indd 86241-0749-001.indd 8 1/29/2015 10:48:29 AM1/29/2015 10:48:29 AM

Introduction 9

Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague: The Netherlands Mouton and

Company.

Corder, S. (1967). The significance of learners’ errors. International Review of Applied Lin-

guistics , 5 , 161–170.

Davies, A. (1984). Simple, simplified and simplification: What is authentic? In J. Alder-

son & A. Urquhart (Eds.), Reading in a foreign language (pp. 181–195). New York:

Longman.

DeKeyser, R. (2007). Skill acquisition theory. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theo-

ries in second language acquisition (pp. 97–113). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.