Differences Between Young and Older Adults in Learning A Foreign Vocabulary

Service, Elisabet; Craik, Fergus I. M.

doi:10.1006/jmla.1993.1031

Cited by 127 publications

(140 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

123

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Older adults may show more variability in speech performance, and in their auditory, linguistic, and cognitive abilities, than younger adults. Service and Craik (1993) found that a repetition task (as an index of phonological memory) predicted foreign vocabulary learning in their sample of older adults, but the correlation was nonsignificant in their sample of younger adults. We therefore tested adaptation to a novel accent in a group of older adults only, in order to gain more insight into individual perceptual plasticity for effective communication.…”

mentioning

confidence: 86%

Predicting foreign-accent adaptation in older adults

Janse

Adank

2012

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigated comprehension of and adaptation to speech in an unfamiliar accent in older adults. Participants performed a speeded sentence verification task for accented sentences: one group upon auditory-only presentation, and the other group upon audiovisual presentation. Our questions were whether audiovisual presentation would facilitate adaptation to the novel accent, and which cognitive and linguistic measures would predict adaptation. Participants were therefore tested on a range of background tests: hearing acuity, auditory verbal short-term memory, working memory, attention-switching control, selective attention, and vocabulary knowledge. Both auditory-only and audiovisual groups showed improved accuracy and decreasing response times over the course of the experiment, effectively showing accent adaptation. Even though the total amount of improvement was similar for the auditory-only and audiovisual groups, initial rate of adaptation was faster in the audiovisual group. Hearing sensitivity and short-term and working memory measures were associated with efficient processing of the novel accent. Analysis of the relationship between accent comprehension and the background tests revealed furthermore that selective attention and vocabulary size predicted the amount of adaptation over the course of the experiment. These results suggest that vocabulary knowledge and attentional abilities facilitate the attention-shifting strategies proposed to be required for perceptual learning

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 86%

Predicting foreign-accent adaptation in older adults

Janse

Adank

2012

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Papagno, Valentine and Baddeley (1991) demonstrated that articulatory suppression of L2 items with high semantic association value did not impair learning, but that articulatory suppression of L2 items with low semantic value did, suggesting that articulatory rehearsal plays a role in L2 vocabulary learning, particularly when the words to be learned cannot be easily associated semantically with L1 words. Service and Craik (1993) manipulated the phonological similarity between English L1 words and the words to be learned (Finnish vs. pseudo words) and the associative value of the L1 cue words (high vs. low imaginability) and found that both younger (age range between 20 and 40 years) and older adults (60 years and older) profited from phonological similarity and associative value. 20 Atkins and Baddeley (1998) demonstrated that individual differences in verbal, but not in nonverbal, working memory affect intentional L2 vocabulary learning substantially.…”

Section: Psycholinguistic Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Incidental and Intentional Learning

Hulstijn¹

2003

The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition

257

136

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…SLA models have often incorporated ideas from cognitive psychology regarding individual differences in attention, automaticity (Skehan and Foster, this volume; Schmidt, this volume), phonological rehearsal (Service & Craik, 1993), short-term memory (Harrington, 1992;McLaughlin, 1982), long-term memory, auditory acuity, motivational levels, and learning styles (O'Malley & Chamot, 1990). This "skills" approach to language learning has led to solid advances in our understanding of the second language process.…”

Section: The Learnermentioning

confidence: 99%

The competition model: the input, the context, and the brain

MacWhinney¹

2001

Cognition and Second Language Instruction

155

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Language learning is a three-way interaction between the input, the learner, and the interactional context (Bloom, 1974). This three-way interaction provides a general framework for understanding first and second language acquisition, in both naturalistic and formal contexts. In order to elaborate this general framework, we need to model its three components:1. The input. We need to know how the linguistic input can be structured to maximize effective learning. What aspects of the phonology, syntax, semantics, and morphology of the input does the learner use to "crack the code" of the new language? 2. The learner. We need to understand exactly how the cognitive abilities of the learner shape the process and outcome of second language instruction. 3. The context. Traditionally, the classroom environment maintains a rather uniform structure in which interaction is controlled by the instructor. How does this framework affect learning and how can it be varied to improve the learning process?This paper will examine these three components within the framework of the Competition Model (MacWhinney, 1987; MacWhinney & Bates, 1989). To quantify the role of the input in second language learning, the model relies on the concepts of cue reliability and availability. To characterize the cognitive abilities of the learner, the model relies on findings from cognitive neuroscience. To understand the role of the context, the model elaborates the concepts of environmental and social support. The Competition Model views both first and second language learning as constructive, data-driven processes that rely not on universals of linguistic structure, but on universals of cognitive structure. It attributes development to learning and transfer, rather than to the principles and parameters of Universal Grammar (Chomsky, 1965). The InputThe Competition Model is designed to quantify the ways in which distributional properties of the input control language learning and language processing. The basic claim of the model in regard to input is that language comprehension is based on the detection of a series of cues and the reliability and availability of these determines the strength of cues in comprehension. The model contrasts sharply with generative grammar in this regard. Generative grammar views language through the lens of abstract trees in a universal deep structure. The Competition Model recognizes the importance of surface phrase structure, but relates all sentence processing to cue detection and interpretation. Those cues that are highest in reliability and availability are the ones that most strongly control comprehension and which are acquired first during language learning.In order to elaborate this simple relation between cues and comprehension, we need to specify how languages distribute cues across sentences. To do this, the Competition Model has turned to crosslinguistic studies of sentence processing. In particular, the forms or

show abstract

Differences Between Young and Older Adults in Learning A Foreign Vocabulary

Cited by 127 publications

References 0 publications

Predicting foreign-accent adaptation in older adults

Predicting foreign-accent adaptation in older adults

Incidental and Intentional Learning

The competition model: the input, the context, and the brain

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About