The opt out paradigm
First steps towards a new experimental method that measures meta-linguistic awareness
A common assumption is that children learn a language implicitly and without conscious awareness of form and grammar, but this assumption has virtually never been tested experimentally. We propose a novel experimental method to examine if children’s ability to acquire linguistic regularities relates to awareness of these regularities. Traditional methods investigating awareness often rely on learners’ abilities to verbalize their awareness. For young children, such methods are not adequate because they often cannot reflect explicitly on their acquired knowledge, although they might be aware of it in a way they cannot verbalize. To test this, we adapted a method that is used to investigate awareness in animals, because it does not rely on verbalization for demonstrating awareness. Pilot results with 26 adults and 48 kindergartners show some important procedural prerequisites are met. In future research, this procedure could be used to investigate the development of meta-linguistic awareness in children.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Awareness in language acquisition
- 3.Measuring awareness
- 4.Method
- 4.1Participants
- 4.2Opt out experiment
- 4.3Procedure
- 4.4Analysis
- 5.Results
- 6.Discussion
- 7.Conclusion
-
References
References (53)
References
Aissen, J. (2003). Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 21(3), 435–483.
Allport, A. (1988). What concept of consciousness? In A. J. Marcel, & E. Bisiach (Eds.), Consciousness in contemporary science (pp. 159–182). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Andringa, S. & Curcic, M. (2015). How explicit knowledge affects online L2 processing. Evidence from differential object marking acquisition. Studies in Language Acquisition, 37(2), 237–268.
Andringa, S., & Rebuschat, P. (2015). New directions in the study of implicit and explicit learning. An introduction. Studies in Language Acquisition, 37(2), 185–196.
Aslin, R. N., Saffran, J. R., & Newport, E. L. (1998). Computation of conditional probability statistics by 8-month-old infants. Psychological science, 9(4), 321–324.
Baguley, T. (2012). Serious stats. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Barac, R., & Bialystok, E. (2012). Bilingual effects on cognitive and linguistic development: Role of language, cultural background and education. Child Development 83(2), 413–422.
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48.
Batterink, L. J., Reber, P. J., Neville, H. J., & Paller, K. A. (2015). Implicit and explicit contributions to statistical learning. Journal of Memory and Language, 831, 62–78.
Berko, J. (1958). The child’s learning of English morphology. WORD, 14(2–3), 150–177.
Bertels, J., Boursain, E., Destrebecqz, A., & Gaillard, V. (2015). Visual statistical learning in children and young adults: How implicit? Frontiers in Psychology, 51, 1–11.
Bialystok, E. (1986). Factors in the growth of linguistic awareness. Child Development, 57(2), 498–510.
Bosch, L. & Sebastián-Gallés, N. (2003). Simultaneous bilingualism and the perception of a language-specific vowel contrast in the first year of life. Language and Speech, 46 (2/3), 217–243.
Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language. Its nature, origin and use. New York: NY: Praeger.
Cleeremans, A. (2008). Consciousness: The radical plasticity thesis. In R. Banerjee, & B. K. Chakrabarti (Eds.), Progress in brain research (Volume 1681, pp. 19–33). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
De Graaff, R. (1997). The Experanto experiment. Effects of explicit instruction on Second Language Acquisition. SSLA, 19(2), 249–276.
DeKeyser, R. (2003). Implicit and Explicit learning. In C. Doughty, & M. H. Long (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 312–348). Oxford: Blackwell.
Dennett, D. (1991). Het bewustzijn verklaard. Amsterdam: Uitgeverij Atlas Contact.
De Waal, F. (2016). Are we smart enough to know how smart animals are? New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company.
Eigsti, I.-M., Zayas, V., Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., Ayduk, O., Dadlani, M. B., Davidson, M. C., Lawrence Aber, J., & Casey, M. C. (2006). Predicting cognitive control from preschool to late adolescence and young adulthood. Psychological Science, 17(6), 478–484.
Ellis, N. C. (2003). Constructions, chunking, and connectionism: The emergence of second language structure. In C. Doughty, & M. H. Long (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 63–103). Oxford: Blackwell.
Endress, A. D., & Bonatti, L. L. (2007). Rapid learning of syllable classes from a perceptually continuous speech stream. Cognition, 105(2), 247–299.
Erickson, L. C., & Thiessen, E. D. (2015). Statistical learning of language: Theory, validity and predictions of a statistical learning account of language acquisition. Developmental Review.
Evans, J. L., Saffran, J. R., & Robe-Torres, K. (2009). Statistical learning in children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 52(2), 1044–1092.
Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(4), 25–42.
Hampton, R. R. (2001). Rhesus monkeys know when they remember. PNAS, 98(9), 5359–5362.
Hampton, R. R. (2009). Focusing the uncertainty about nonhuman metacognition. Comparative Cognition & Behavior Reviews, 41, 56–57.
Hsu, H. J., Tomblin, J. B., & Christiansen, M. H. (2014). Impaired statistical learning of non-adjacent dependencies in adolescents with specific language impairment. Frontiers in Psychology, 5(175), 1–10.
James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. New York: Henry Holt and Company.
Krashen, S. D. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Lichtman, K. (2016). Age and learning environment: Are children implicit second language learners? Journal of Child Language, 43(3), 707–730.
Lum, J. A. G., Conti-Ramsden, G., Page, D., & Ullman, M. T. (2012). Working, declarative and procedural memory in specific language impairment. Cortex, 48(9), 1138–1154.
Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Rodriguez, M. L. (1989). Delay of gratification in children. Science, 244(4907), 933–938.
Misyak, J. B. & Christiansen, M. H. (2012). Statistical learning and language: An individual differences study. Language Learning, 62(1), 302–331.
Misyak, J. B., Christiansen, M. H., & Tomblin, J. B. (2010). On-line individual differences in statistical learning predict language processing. Frontiers in Psychology, 1(31), 1–9.
Packard, M. R. (2009). Anxiety, cognition and habit: A multiple memory systems perspective. Brain Research, 1293(1), 121–128.
Passer, M. (2016). The typology and diachrony of nominal classification. Utrecht: LOT.
Psychology Software Tools, Inc. (2016). E-Prime 3.0. Retrieved from [URL]
Radford, A. (2004). Minimalist Syntax: Exploring the structure of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
R Core Team (2015). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria. Retrieved from [URL]
Rebuschat, P. (2015). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge in second language research. Language Learning, 63(3), 595–626.
Saffran, J. R., Johnson, E. K., & Aslin, R. N. (1996). Word-segmentation: The role of distributional cues. Journal of Memory and Language, 35(4), 606–621.
Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in Second Language Learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158.
Timmermans, B. & Cleeremans, A. (2015). How can we measure awareness? An overview of current methods. In M. Overgaard (Ed.), Behavioural methods in consciousness research (pp. 211–46). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tomasello, M. (2000). First steps toward a usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cognitive Linguistics, 11(1/2), 61–82.
Ullman, M. (2001). A neurocognitive perspective on language: The declarative/procedural model. Neuroscience, 2(10), 717–726.
Ullman, M. (2004). Contributions of memory circuits to language: The declarative/procedural model. Cognition, 92(1–2), 231–270.
Ullman, M. (2016). The declarative/procedural model: A neurobiological model of language learning, knowledge and use. In G. Hickok, & S. A. Small (Eds.), The neurobiology of language (pp. 953–968). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Ullman, M., & Pierpont, E. (2005). Specific language impairment is not specific to language: The procedural deficit hypothesis. Cortex, 41(3), 399–433.
Vouloumanos, A. (2018). Voulez-vous jouer avec moi? Twelve-months-olds understand that foreign languages can communicate. Cognition, 174(4), 87–92.
West, G., Vadillo, M. A., Shanks, D. R., & Hulme, C. (2017). The procedural learning deficit hypothesis of language learning disorders: We see some problems. Developmental Science.
Wijnen, F. (2013). Acquisition of linguistic categories: Cross domain convergences. In J. Bolhuis, & M. Everaert (Eds.), Birdsong, speech, and language (pp. 157–177). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cited by (3)
Cited by three other publications
Spit, Sybren, Sible Andringa, Judith Rispens & Enoch O. Aboh
2021.
Do Kindergarteners Develop Awareness of the Statistical Regularities They Acquire?.
Language Learning 71:2
► pp. 573 ff.
Spit, Sybren, Sible Andringa, Judith Rispens & Enoch O. Aboh
2022.
Kindergarteners Use Cross-Situational Statistics to Infer the Meaning of Grammatical Elements.
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 51:6
► pp. 1311 ff.
Spit, Sybren, Sible Andringa, Judith Rispens & Enoch O. Aboh
2022.
The Effect of Explicit Instruction on Implicit and Explicit Linguistic Knowledge in Kindergartners.
Language Learning and Development 18:2
► pp. 201 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 november 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.