The goal of this study was to explain individual differences in both native and non‐native listening comprehension; 121 native and 113 non‐native speakers of Dutch were tested on various linguistic and nonlinguistic cognitive skills thought to underlie listening comprehension. Structural equation modeling was used to identify the predictors of individual differences in listening comprehension and to test for differences between the native and non‐native participants. Listening comprehension for native speakers was found to be a function of knowledge of the language and the efficiency with which one can process linguistic information, while listening comprehension for non‐native speakers was a function of knowledge and reasoning ability. Working Memory did not explain unique variance in listening comprehension in either group. Differences in experience with the Dutch language are likely to explain the observed pattern of results for both groups.

A classroom study was designed to test the hypothesis that explicit knowledge is used by second-language (L2) learners in a free written response task if that knowledge is present. Eighty-one 12-18-year-old learners of Dutch as an L2 took part in a computerassisted language learning experiment receiving either explicit or implicit instruction about two grammar structures. The ability to use these structures was measured at three points in time by means of an untimed grammaticality judgment task and a free written response task. Explicit and implicit instruction promoted the use of the target structures in free response tasks equally effectively. However, for one structure, both facilitative and inhibitory effects of explicit instruction were observed if first language similarity was taken into consideration.Keywords explicit and implicit instruction; form-focused instruction; classroom research; L1 influence; explicit and implicit knowledge; second-language learning Within the second language acquisition (SLA) literature, form-focused instruction (FFI) research refers to the many studies that have investigated the effectiveness of different types of instruction in different circumstances of learning. R. Ellis (2001) defined FFI as "any planned or incidental instructional activityWe would like to thank Jan Hulstijn and Wander Lowie as well as the three anonymous Language Learning reviewers for their meticulous reading of earlier versions of this text and their valuable suggestions for improvement. All remaining issues are our own responsibility.

In this final contribution to the issue, we discuss the important concept of generalizability and how it relates to applied linguists’ ability to serve language learners of all shades and grades. We provide insight into how biased sampling in Applied Linguistics currently is and how such bias may skew the knowledge that we, applied linguists, are building about second language learning and instruction. For example, our conclusions are often framed as universally-applying, even though the samples that have given rise to them are highly specific and Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD; Henrich, Heine, & Norenzayan, 2010). We end with a call for research and replication in more diverse contexts and with more diverse samples to promote progress in the field of Applied Linguistics as ARAL celebrates its 40th anniversary.

In critical period hypothesis (CPH) research, native speaker (NS) norm groups have often been used to determine whether nonnative speakers (NNSs) were able to score within the NS range of scores. One goal of this article is to investigate what NS samples were used in previous CPH research. The literature review shows that NS control groups tend to be small and highly educated and that detailed background information is usually not provided. Another goal of this article is to investigate how the NS norm group may affect the incidence of nativelike performance by NNSs. To this end, 124 NSs and 118 NNSs of Dutch completed five comprehension tasks and a vocabulary task. On the basis of mean scores and standard deviations, norms were determined for a representative and a nonrepresentative (highly educated) subsample of NSs. Also, separate norms were constructed for the high- and low-frequency items within a task. Exact McNemar tests were used to establish that the incidence of nativelike performance by NNSs was significantly higher if a representative sample norm was used. The results also showed that, insofar as there were effects of frequency, norms based on low-frequency test items tended to be more inclusive. The results imply that the selection of NSs in CPH research deserves more consideration than it has received in the past; they also suggest that NS ceiling performance is potentially useful in determining nativelike performance.

This study investigated whether second language (L2) learners can develop predictive processing of determiners after a brief exposure to a novel language, and whether this depends on learners’ awareness for the target structure and their cognitive aptitudes. One hundred L2 learners received auditory exposure to a miniature language based on Fijian that included a determiner–noun agreement pattern. Learners’ processing of determiners was measured using a picture‐matching task with eye tracking. We found that learners learned to anticipate the coming noun based on the determiner; they also gained a speed advantage. Learners’ awareness played a crucial role in such anticipatory processing; only learners who were aware that determiners helped them during the test (i.e., prediction‐aware learners) showed signs of anticipatory processing. The aptitude variables did not modulate learners’ processing abilities, but there were links between aptitude and learners’ abilities to develop different levels of awareness.

It has been exactly 10 years since Studies in Second Language Acquisition published a thematic issue on the topic of implicit and explicit second language (L2) learning, edited by Jan Hulstijn and Rod Ellis (2005). This seminal issue consisted of a brief general introduction (

We compared 121 native and 114 non-native speakers of Dutch (with 35 different first languages) on four digit-span tasks, varying modality (visual/auditory) and direction (forward/ backward). An interaction was observed between nativeness and modality, such that, while natives performed better than the non-natives on the auditory tasks (which were performed in the non-natives' second language), performance on the visual tasks (which was performed in participants' dominant language) did not significantly differ between natives and non-natives. The interaction between nativeness and modality disappeared when the data were corrected for Dutch proficiency. Correction for Dutch proficiency elevated non-native speakers' scores on the auditory tasks, without altering the non-natives' digit-span rank order. Despite considerable differences in mean length of the digit names zero to nine in the non-natives' first languages, these differences were not significantly correlated with their visual digit-span scores. While further research is needed on the sources of variation in digit-span performance, we recommend the use of the visual digit-span task (forward or backward) for cross-linguistic research and advise researchers to be aware of the association between language proficiency and verbal workingmemory performance. KeywordsBilingual digit span, visual digit span, auditory digit span, forward digit span, backward digit span, verbal working memory

Form-focused instruction studies generally report larger gains for explicit types of instruction over implicit types on measures of controlled production. Studies that used online processing measures—which do not readily allow for the application of explicit knowledge—however, suggest that this advantage occurs primarily when the target structure is similar in the first language (L1) and the second language (L2). This study investigated how explicit knowledge of a structure that does not exist in the L1 affects the initial stage of adult L2 acquisition. Fifty-one Dutch L1 speakers received a short auditory exposure (instruction) to a new language that included differential object marking (DOM), in which animate but not inanimate direct objects are preceded by a preposition. For 26 learners, the instruction was complemented by a brief rule explanation. Afterward, learners’ online processing and explicit knowledge of DOM were measured by means of eye-tracking (visual world paradigm) and oral grammaticality judgments. Results show that metalinguistic information promoted learners’ performance on the grammaticality judgment task. Although differences between the groups were also found on the eye-tracking measure, learners were not able to use DOM to predict the following object.