SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics / 2020 / Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 2

The structural sensitivity of elicited imitation as a measure of implicit grammatical knowledge

Hedayat SARANDİ
Pages
265–284
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

These findings suggest that the likelihood of EI measuring L2 implicit grammatical knowledge may vary depending on language structures.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:One of the major issues in SLA is developing language tests that could produce good measures of implicit knowledge.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This study examines the validity of an English Elicited Imitation (EI) test as a measure of L2 implicit grammatical knowledge.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:These findings suggest that the likelihood of EI measuring L2 implicit grammatical knowledge may vary depending on language structures.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Elicited imitation · implicit knowledge · learning English grammar

Abstract

One of the major issues in SLA is developing language tests that could produce good measures of implicit knowledge. This study examines the validity of an English Elicited Imitation (EI) test as a measure of L2 implicit grammatical knowledge. Forty freshman university students in Turkey took a set of language tests: an EI test, two storytelling tasks, a picture description task, IELTS listening sample tests and a speaking test. Four English morphemes were chosen as the target structures: third person ‘-s’, plural ‘-s’, simple past ‘-ed’, and comparative ‘-er’. Results from a principal component analysis showed that all measures were loaded on a single component labelled as implicit knowledge. Significant correlations with varying magnitude were also recorded between learners’ EI scores for the target structures and their scores on other time-pressured measures: r = .63, r = .63, r = .65 and r = .43, for third person ‘-s’, simple past ‘-ed’, plural ‘-s’ and comparative ‘-er’, respectively. These findings suggest that the likelihood of EI measuring L2 implicit grammatical knowledge may vary depending on language structures.

🔖

Cite This Article

SARANDİ, H. (2020). The structural sensitivity of elicited imitation as a measure of implicit grammatical knowledge. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 2, 265–284. https://ajindex.com/articles/284940

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Baddeley, A. (2015). Working memory in second language learning. In Z. Wen, M. Borges & A. McNeill (Eds.), Working memory in second language acquisition and processing. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Baddeley, A., Gathercole, S., & Papagno, C. (1998). The phonological loop as a language learning device. Psychological Review, 105(1), 158-173.
  2. Baten, K., & Cornillie, F. (2019). Elicited imitation as a window into developmental stages. Journal of the European Second Language Association, 3(1), 23–34.
  3. Berry, P. B. (1976). Elicited imitation of language: Some ESNS population characteristics. Language and Speech, 19(4), 350-362.
  4. Bialystok, E. (1978). A theoretical model of second language learning. Language Learning, 28(1), 69-84.
  5. Bowles, M. A. (2011). Measuring implicit and explicit linguistic knowledge: What can heritage language learners contribute? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33(2), 247-271. Cambridge IELTS 2 (2000). Examination papers from the university of Cambridge local examination syndicate. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cambridge IELTS 4 (2005). Examination papers from the university of Cambridge local examination syndicate. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  6. Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Connell, P. J., & Myles-Zitzer, C. (1982). An analysis of elicited imitation as a language evaluation procedure. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 47(4), 390-396.
  7. Eisenstein, M., Bailey, N., & Madden, C. (1982). It take two: Contrasting tasks and contrasting structures. TESOL Quarterly 16(3), 381-93.
  8. Ellis, N. (2005). At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(2), 305-352.
  9. Ellis, R. (2005). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(2), 141-172.
  10. Ellis, R. (2006). Modeling learning difficulty and second language proficiency: The differential contributions of implicit and explicit knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 27(3), 431-463.
  11. Ellis, R. (2007). The differential effects of corrective feedback on two grammatical structures. In. A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in SLA: A collection of empirical studies, (pp. 339-360).
  12. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  13. Ellis, R. (2008). Investigating grammatical difficulty in second language learning: Implications for second language acquisition research and lan