Should We Listen or Read? Modality Effects in Implicit and Explicit Knowledge

Abstract

We examined the role of modality in learning second language (L2) grammar and forming implicit (unconscious) and explicit (conscious) knowledge. To this end, we isolated the effects of the physical medium of input (i.e., aural or visual) from those of the presentation method (i.e., word‐by‐word or simultaneous). We also explored the role of test modality in L2 performance, by including L2 knowledge tests in both aural and visual modes. Native English speakers engaged in meaning‐focused integrated practice of 3 German syntactic rules. In Experiment 1, learners were given aural or visual word‐by‐word (rapid serial visual presentation; RSVP) input and in Experiment 2, they were given aural or natural written input. We found evidence of learning across all 4 groups, but different types of resultant knowledge. In particular, learners gained explicit knowledge in all input modalities, yet only those trained with natural written input also developed robust implicit knowledge. We conclude that the permanence of visual input may be a critical advantage for beginning learners to develop implicit knowledge of word order rules. Support in the form of written materials can ease the cognitive burden on beginning learners, with better outcomes as a result.

Sleep-Dependent Consolidation of Second Language Grammar Knowledge

“…Specifically, the Unaware group showed evidence of implicit knowledge development posttraining. Consistent with a growing volume of literature (e.g., Grey et al, 2014;Kim & Godfroid, 2019;Rebuschat et al, 2015;Rebuschat & Williams, 2012;Rogers et al, 2016;Williams, 2005), this finding may suggest that adults can acquire L2 grammar under a learning condition where attention is directed to meaning rather than form. However, research including an untrained group is needed to further verify this claim (for a review, see Hamrick & Sachs, 2018).…”

Emotions in Incidental Language Learning

“…The lack of evidence for implicit knowledge aligns with recent findings from Kim and Godfroid (2019), who similarly obtained evidence for explicit knowledge only, using the same semiartificial language and a similar training procedure. The results run counter to previous research by Rebuschat and Williams (2012), who originally developed the paradigm and did report evidence of implicit knowledge formation.…”

“…Even when proportion data skewed in favor of implicit source attributions, as we found in the Positive and Negative groups, participants were still not accurate in their grammaticality judgments. Therefore, we believe that any guesses or intuition-based responses did not reflect robust unconscious cognitive representations (compare Kim & Godfroid, 2019). For adult learners to legitimately manifest unconscious knowledge, they would have likely needed much more L2 input over an extensive period (e.g., akin to a study abroad or immersion program), rather than a one-shot, 30-minute training procedure (DeKeyser, 2000;Loewen, 2015).…”

Perfecting Practice

“…Kim and Godfroid () studied the effectiveness of different types of input for English‐speaking American university students learning a semi‐artificial language (English words; German grammar) in a laboratory setting, where the strings of words were presented by a computer. They investigated the relative effectiveness of aural and written input for the development of implicit and explicit knowledge of the patterns in the word strings.…”