Implicit Or Explicit in Nature
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
DEVELOPING IMPLICIT AND EXPLICIT KNOWLEDGE OF L2 CASE MARKING UNDER INCIDENTAL LEARNING CONDITIONS Robert Johnson Rogers UCL Institute of Education Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 2016 1 ‘I, Robert Johnson Rogers, confirm that the work presented in this thesis is my own. Where information has been derived from other sources, I confirm that this has been indicated in the thesis.’ Word count (exclusive of front matter, reference list and appendices): 79,987 Signature 2 ABSTRACT This thesis reports on five experiments that investigated the role of awareness in second language acquisition (SLA). Previous research has demonstrated that various areas of second language (L2) grammar can be acquired as result of incidental exposure. In addition, it has been shown that this exposure can lead to implicit knowledge. The results from recent experiments examining the incidental learning of L2 morphology, however, have found little evidence of incidental learning. Furthermore, what little research there is has not provided firm evidence of the nature of the knowledge acquired in these experiments. This thesis set out to address these gaps by testing the degree to which L2 inflectional morphology can be acquired as a result of incidental exposure, and whether the resulting knowledge is implicit or explicit in nature. The experiments in this thesis followed two different methodologies to address the issues outlined above. The first four experiments followed the artificial grammar learning paradigm, and the final experiment followed a self-paced reading methodology. In the training phase of all experiments, participants were exposed to an artificial language system based on Czech morphology under incidental learning conditions. Subjective measures of awareness and retrospective verbal reports were used to address awareness in all five experiments. The results of the first four experiments indicated that L2 case markers can be learned in the presence of low levels of awareness (below the threshold of verbalisation). These results were supported by the findings of the final experiment. However, the final experiment also revealed that this knowledge can be utilised automatically. Thus, the results of this thesis provide additional data to address the aspects of L2 grammar that can be acquired as a result of incidental exposure and provide further insight into the characteristics of the knowledge that is acquired as a result of this exposure. 3 DISSEMINATION Peer-reviewed publications 1. Data from Pilot Study 1, Pilot Study 2, and Experiment 1 have been published as a book chapter: Rogers, J., Révész, A., & Rebuschat, P. (2015). Challenges in implicit learning research: Validating a novel artificial language. In P. Rebuschat (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 273-298), Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 2. Data from Experiment 1 have been accepted for publication as a journal article: Rogers, J., Révész, A., & Rebuschat, P. (in press). Implicit and explicit knowledge of inflectional morphology. Applied Psycholinguistics. 3. Data from Experiment 2 is currently under review for publication as a journal article: Rogers, J. (under review). Explicit knowledge of second language case markings. 4. A manuscript including data from Experiment 3 is currently in preparation. Conference presentations and seminars 1. Data from Pilot Study 1, Pilot Study 2, and Experiment 1 were presented at EUROSLA 23. Title: Implicit Learning of L2 Grammar: An investigation into Czech Morphology. Amsterdam: August 30th, 2013. 2. Data from Pilot Study 1, Pilot Study 2, and Experiment 1 were presented to the SLLAT Research Group at Lancaster University. Title: Implicit Learning of L2 Morphology. Lancaster: October 16th, 2013. 3. Data from Experiment 2 were presented at AAAL 2014. Title: Incidental Exposure and the Implicit Learning of L2 Case-Markings. Portland: March 22nd, 2014. 4. Data from Experiment 3 were presented as part of the PhD Seminar Series, IOE. Title: Incidental Exposure and the Development of Unconscious Knowledge of L2 morphology. London: January 27th, 2014. 5. Data from Experiment 3 were presented at EUROSLA 24. Title: Incidental learning and online processing of L2 case-marking: A self-paced reading study. York: September 2nd, 2014. 4 6. Data from Experiment 3 were presented at AAAL 2016. Title: Working Memory, Awareness, and the Development of Implicit and Explicit Knowledge. Orlando: April 12th, 2016. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Undertaking a PhD is frequently likened to long and lonely endeavors, such as running a marathon or even a religious pilgrimage. I did not find this to be the case. It took a village for me to finish this thesis, and I would not have reached this milestone without the continued support and encouragement of many people along the way. First, I have been truly blessed to have Andrea Révész as my supervisor. Words fail me in expressing my gratitude for her unwavering enthusiasm, promotion, and support throughout and beyond this project. I would not be where I am as a researcher without her guidance over the past four years. Andrea, I really cannot thank you enough. I would also like to extend an explicit (!) note of gratitude to Patrick Rebuschat. The studies contained in this thesis took shape as a direct result of the groundwork laid by his previous research and were greatly improved as a result of his guidance and advice at the beginning stages of this project. I would also like to acknowledge a few of my “SLA heroes”, specifically Ron Leow, Peter Robinson, and Marianne Gullberg. At different conferences over the past few years, these three have genuinely engaged with myself and other PhD students – 5 asking challenging questions and offering support and advice on how our work might move forward. This meant a lot to me as a PhD student, and serves as an example of the type of academic that I aspire to become. I would like to thank the journal Language Learning, for supporting this thesis with a dissertation grant, the audience members at various conferences where aspects of this thesis have been presented, as well as the anonymous reviewers of journals where I have submitted parts of this work. This thesis was greatly improved as a result of their feedback, suggestions, encouragement and support. A note of gratitude is also due to the Foundation Program Department of English at Qatar University for allowing me the time and space needed to complete this thesis, as well as for the funding allowing me to present aspects of this research at conferences. I would like to thank my parents for the unconditional support as well as the many, many sacrifices that they have made for us over the years. Thanks is also due to Sarah and Jacob, who, through our long history of competition, have indirectly motivated me to finish this thing. Finally, to my chief adviser, wife, best friend, and current boss, Lucie, your patience, understanding, and companionship have seen me through this project. I hope I haven’t gotten too weird. Collectively, I acknowledge from all parties a long narrative of support, encouragement, and belief that I was going to succeed. I pray this thesis does justice. 6 Table of Contents ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................3 DISSEMINATION .......................................................................................................4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................5 LIST OF TABLES .....................................................................................................11 LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................13 CHAPTER 1 ...............................................................................................................15 INTRODUCTION AND KEY CONCEPTS ...........................................................15 1.1. KEY CONCEPTS ..................................................................................................20 1.1.1. Consciousness .............................................................................................................. 20 1.1.2. Intentional versus Incidental Learning ................................................................. 22 1.1.3. Attention and Awareness ........................................................................................... 24 1.1.4. Implicit versus Explicit Learning ........................................................................... 25 1.1.5. Implicit versus Explicit Knowledge ....................................................................... 25 1.1.6. Declarative versus Procedural Knowledge ......................................................... 26 CHAPTER 2 ...............................................................................................................28 THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS .........................................................................28 2.1. KRASHEN AND MONITOR THEORY .....................................................................29 2.2. ATTENTION AND AWARENESS IN SLA ................................................................31 2.2.1. Schmidt's Noticing Hypothesis ................................................................................. 31 2.2.2. Tomlin and Villa's Model of Attention ................................................................... 34 2.2.3. Summary ........................................................................................................................