5. Second Language Learning of Grammar: Output Matters Too

The impact of instruction on second-language implicit knowledge: Evidence against encapsulation

“…This would be the most conservative interpretation of the data; to refute it, one might argue that an implicit instructional treatment would have been needed for comparison with the explicit one. However, research that has made such comparisons has consistently found not only that explicit treatments generally produce stronger results but also that it is very difficult to ensure that only implicit knowledge is activated during implicit treatments (deGraff & Housen, 2009;deGraff & Housen, 2009;de Jong, 2009;DeKeyser, 2003). According to DeKeyser (2003) and Ellis (2005), many cognitive psychologists have concluded that implicit and explicit knowledge cannot but work in tandem, with explicit knowledge continually activated during speech processing to help learners interpret what they hear, assign it pragmatic intention, and direct their attention accordingly.…”

“…Hence, it is not clear why, necessarily, explicit knowledge that a particular form with an understood meaning belongs in a particular place could never affect the processing of L2 linguistic data to restructure implicit knowledge. It not only seems counterintuitive that such activity would be no more beneficial than unfocused exposure to comprehensible L2 input, but a number of studies on monitoring in language production suggest a supportive relationship (de Jong 2009;Kormos, 2006;Toth, 2006Toth, , 2008. Although the details of how jointly operating implicit and explicit knowledge facilitate L2 development are far from resolved, at present there appear to be insufficient empirical grounds for maintaining that outside linguistic input is necessarily more privileged in shaping implicit knowledge than the "voice in one's head" where explicit knowledge acts upon speech perception and production.…”

Effect of pedagogic intervention in enhancing speech fluency by EFL students: A longitudinal study

“…Anderson et al, 2004) and has been useful in L2 acquisition (e.g. De Jong, 2005;Ferman et al, 2009). The argument is that in fluent L2 speech, procedural knowledge is mostly employed in the encoding phases of language production and in articulation, while declarative knowledge deals with retrieval of lexical items and their syntactic information, as well as with conceptualizing and monitoring the utterances (Kormos, 2006).…”

Fluency Bank: A new resource for fluency research and practice

“…Even in typically developing (TD) children, there is growing evidence that fluency can be a relevant adjunct to standardized assessment findings in isolating expressive language difficulty (Boscolo, Bernstein Ratner & Rescorla, 2002; Guo, Tomblin & Samelson, 2008; Finneran, Leonard, & Miller, 2009; Steinberg, Bernstein Ratner, Berl & Gaillard, 2013). The study of disfluency is also a major emerging issue in second language acquisition (SLA) theory and practice (N. de Jong, 2008; Derwing, Munro, Thomson, & Rossiter, 2009; Segalowitz, 2010; Yoshimura & MacWhinney, 2007).…”

“…Finally, we note that the study of the development of fluency in childhood has important broader implications for other segments of cognitive science. The study of disfluency is an important issue in second language acquisition (SLA) theory and practice (N. de Jong, 2008; Derwing, Munro, Thomson, & Rossiter, 2009; Mora, 2006; Segalowitz, 2010; Yoshimura & MacWhinney, 2007), where there is the same concern about linguistic knowledge and planning windows as for first language learners.…”