The DOI matches its Crossref record; 283 of the 283 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 8 of the 110 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE
Open accessAbstract
This paper considers how implicit and explicit knowledge are dissociable but cooperative. It reviews various psychological and neurobiological processes by which explicit knowledge of form-meaning associations impacts upon implicit language learning. The interface is dynamic: It happens transiently during conscious processing, but the influence upon implicit cognition endures thereafter. The primary conscious involvement in SLA is the explicit learning involved in the initial registration of pattern recognizers for constructions that are then tuned and integrated into the system by implicit learning during subsequent input processing. Neural systems in the prefrontal cortex involved in working memory provide attentional selection, perceptual integration, and the unification of consciousness. Neural systems in the hippocampus then bind these disparate cortical representations into unitary episodic representations. These are the mechanisms by which Schmidt's (1990) noticing helps solve Quine's (1960) problem of referential indeterminacy. Explicit memories can also guide the conscious building of novel linguistic utterances through processes of analogy. Formulas, slot-and-frame patterns, drills, and declarative pedagogical grammar rules all contribute to the conscious creation of utterances whose subsequent usage promotes implicit learning and proceduralization. Flawed output can prompt focused feedback by way of recasts that present learners with psycholinguistic data ready for explicit analysis. Other processes of acquisition from output include differentiation, analysis, and preemption. These processes of conscious construction in working memory underpin relationships between individual differences in working memory capacities and language learning aptitude.Thanks to Rod Ellis for first suggesting that I try to write this and to the staff and students at Department of Applied Language Studies and Linguistics University of Auckland (2003), the TESOL Program Temple University Japan (2003), the Chester Language Development Reading Group, and the LOT winter school (2004) for helping me think it through. I am particularly grateful to Michel Paradis, Michael Swan, Karen Roehr, Anne Feryok, and Tamar Keren-Portnoy for pointing their giant biological cameras of consciousness at a prior draft, and for sharing their awareness with me in kindly and constructive fashion. I have learned a lot from it.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This theoretical article argues that explicit and implicit language knowledge are dissociable but dynamically interactive, with conscious attention and noticing seeding constructions that implicit learning later tunes. It synthesizes cognitive, neurobiological, and SLA evidence to propose multiple interface routes during input processing, output construction, feedback, and working memory.
Key findings
- Explicit and implicit knowledge rely on different memory systems, yet explicit processing can affect implicit learning when attention is focused on form-meaning connections; the interface occurs transiently in conscious processing but can have enduring effects.
- Meta-analytic evidence cited reports average effect sizes above 1.2 for 25 explicit form-focused treatments and above 1.0 for 69 explicit instructional treatments, with medium effects on free constructed production; output-practice studies averaged 1.39, and pushed-output interaction tasks showed d = 1.05 versus d = 0.61 for tasks without pushed output.
- The paper proposes that explicit learning initially registers pattern recognizers for constructions, which are then consolidated and tuned implicitly; working memory, prefrontal and hippocampal systems, and phonological rehearsal support noticing, binding, and later analysis.
- Low-salience, communicatively redundant L2 cues may be blocked or overshadowed by L1-tuned attention; explicit instruction, input processing, recasts, and output can raise their salience and promote implicit tallying.
Methods
- Theoretical review and synthesis, not an empirical study; no participants or new data are reported.
- Draws on prior cognitive psychology, neuroscience, SLA experiments, meta-analyses, and connectionist/usage-based accounts.
- Main analysis is conceptual: it integrates Global Workspace Theory, neural correlates of consciousness, complementary memory systems, and SLA interface hypotheses to outline mechanisms.
Limitations
- The paper does not present a formal limitations section. It states that more research is needed on explicit instruction using outcome measures focused on implicit knowledge and processing, and that there is too little work directly comparing working-memory models and components as predictors of SLA.
- Evident from the text: as a theoretical synthesis, many proposed mechanisms are not tested in a single new study; conclusions depend on cited findings and analogies, and some claims about neural mechanisms and interface are speculative.
- Also evident: the article relies heavily on selected examples and prior literature rather than systematic review procedures, so scope and generalizability are constrained.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
83 Own interpretation · 26 Sources not found · 20 No basis given · 19 Not checked yet · 12 No full text of the sources · 6 Couldn’t confirm · 1 Supported · 1 Partly supported · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Implicit learning also forges serial associations, synthesizing collocations, larger formulas, and composite constructions by chunking together contiguous components, thus creating hierarchical organizational structures”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > 1. HOW DOES EXPLICIT KNOWLEDGE AFFECT IMPLICIT LANGUAGE LEARNING?
What the sources say
- Supportedcites N+ Ellis, 1996 source
The section on implicit learning says attended language sequences are automatically chunked into long-term representations. CHUNKING IN SLA describes a hierarchy in which smaller collocations combine into higher-level chunks, supporting the claim’s account of larger formulas and constructions. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Not matchedcites Reber, 1993
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Stadler & Frensch, 1998
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“when automatic capabilities fail, there follows a call recruiting additional collaborative conscious support ~Baars & Franklin, 2003!”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > 1. HOW DOES EXPLICIT KNOWLEDGE AFFECT IMPLICIT LANGUAGE LEARNING?
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Baars & Franklin, 2003! source
In “IDA’s cognitive cycle” (p. 4), the paper says that when no appropriate behavior stream exists, non-routine problem-solving is called into play. “Recruitment of resources” (p. 5) explains that an unexpected result can be brought to consciousness, prompting relevant behavior codelets to respond and help rectify the situation. This supports the claim as a paraphrase of the paper’s model. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“the effectiveness of L2 instruction is durable+”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > 1. HOW DOES EXPLICIT KNOWLEDGE AFFECT IMPLICIT LANGUAGE LEARNING?
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites Norris and Ortega ~2000! sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The retrieved passages are labeled as sections of “Self-Monitoring and Self-Reflection in an English Blended Learning Environment,” rather than the cited Norris and Ortega paper. Searches for durable effects, delayed posttests, and long-term retention returned no passage establishing whether L2 instruction’s effects persist. The claim cannot be assessed from this indexed copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Could not verify
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“the weight of the subsequent findings demonstrates that language acquisition can be speeded by explicit instruction+”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > 1. HOW DOES EXPLICIT KNOWLEDGE AFFECT IMPLICIT LANGUAGE LEARNING?
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites Norris and Ortega ~2000! sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The indexed copy's §4.2, “Scaffolding in a Blended learning environment,” discusses guided support for learners, not whether explicit instruction speeds language acquisition. Searches for accelerated acquisition and comparisons of explicit with implicit instruction returned passages from a text headed “Self-Monitoring and Self-Reflection in an English Blended Learning Environment,” rather than a decisive passage from the cited synthesis. The claim cannot be verified from this copy. (LLM, conf=0.73)
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Could not verify
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“focused L2 instruction results in substantial target-oriented gains”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > 1. HOW DOES EXPLICIT KNOWLEDGE AFFECT IMPLICIT LANGUAGE LEARNING?
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites Norris and Ortega ~2000! sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The indexed passages are headed “Self-Monitoring and Self-Reflection in an English Blended Learning Environment,” rather than the cited meta-analysis. The Instructional Design section describes a blended course but does not report substantial target-oriented gains from focused L2 instruction. Searches for the claim’s wording and meta-analytic findings returned no decisive passage, so the attribution cannot be checked against this copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Could not verify
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“explicit types of instruction are more effective than implicit types”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > 1. HOW DOES EXPLICIT KNOWLEDGE AFFECT IMPLICIT LANGUAGE LEARNING?
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites Norris and Ortega ~2000! sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The supplied passages, including §4.1 (Instructional design) and §4.2 (Scaffolding in a Blended Learning Environment), discuss blended learning rather than explicit versus implicit L2 instruction. Searches for the quoted comparison and a paraphrase found no passage addressing their relative effectiveness. The indexed text appears to be a different document, so it cannot verify the claim about Norris and Ortega’s paper. (LLM, conf=0.77)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Could not verify
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“Norris and Ortega ~2000!summarized the results of six studies from before 1999 ~including DeKeyser &Sokalski, 1996, andSalaberry, 1997! that involved explicit focus on forms followed by output practice and that demonstrated a substantial average effect size of 1+39+”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > Output Processing and Its Effectiveness
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites Norris and Ortega, 2000 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 2 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Could not verify
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“The balance of experimental findings supports the effectiveness for SLA of encouraging learners to produce output+”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > Output Processing and Its Effectiveness
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites Norris and Ortega, 2000 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The indexed copy returned under this DOI contains passages headed “Self-Monitoring and Self-Reflection in an English Blended Learning Environment,” not the cited research synthesis. Searches for experimental findings on learner output and for the Norris–Ortega meta-analysis found no passage addressing the claim, so it cannot be assessed from our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites DeKeyser et al., 2002 source
- Not matchedcites Keck et al., in press
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Could not verify
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Flawed output can prompt focused feedback by way of recasts that present learners with psycholinguistic data”
- Also stated in: § 1. HOW DOES EXPLICIT KNOWLEDGE AFFECT IMPLICIT LANGUAGE LEARNING? · plain
“Flawed output can also prompt focused feedback by way of recasts that present learners with psycholinguistic data ready for explicit analysis+”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
- Also stated in: § 1. HOW DOES EXPLICIT KNOWLEDGE AFFECT IMPLICIT LANGUAGE LEARNING? · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Formulas, slot-and-frame patterns, drills, and declarative pedagogical grammar rules all contribute to the conscious creation of utterances whose subsequent usage promotes implicit learning and proceduralization.”
- Also stated in: § 1. HOW DOES EXPLICIT KNOWLEDGE AFFECT IMPLICIT LANGUAGE LEARNING? · plain
“Slotand-frame patterns, drills, mnemonics, and declarative statements of pedagogical grammar likewise all contribute to the conscious creation of utterances that then partake in subsequent implicit learning and proceduralization+”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § 1. HOW DOES EXPLICIT KNOWLEDGE AFFECT IMPLICIT LANGUAGE LEARNING? · plain
- Probably not a substantial claim. 51
- It may state two separate claims as one. 42
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Neural systems in the prefrontal cortex involved in working memory provide attentional selection, perceptual integration, and the unification of consciousness.”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Explicit learning of language occurs in our conscious efforts to negotiate meaning and construct communication+”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > 1. HOW DOES EXPLICIT KNOWLEDGE AFFECT IMPLICIT LANGUAGE LEARNING?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The interface is dynamic: It happens transiently during conscious processing, but the influence upon implicit cognition endures thereafter.”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“an individual's linguistic competence emerges from the memories of the utterances in their history of language use and the abstraction of regularities within them+”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > 1. HOW DOES EXPLICIT KNOWLEDGE AFFECT IMPLICIT LANGUAGE LEARNING?
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Most knowledge is tacit knowledge; most learning is implicit; the vast majority of our cognitive processing is unconscious+”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > 1. HOW DOES EXPLICIT KNOWLEDGE AFFECT IMPLICIT LANGUAGE LEARNING?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Constructions are symbolic: They specify the defining properties of morphological, syntactic, and lexical form and the semantic, pragmatic, and discourse functions that are associated with it+”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > 1. HOW DOES EXPLICIT KNOWLEDGE AFFECT IMPLICIT LANGUAGE LEARNING?
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Cognitive linguistic and functional theories of language contend that the basic units of language representation are constructions+”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > 1. HOW DOES EXPLICIT KNOWLEDGE AFFECT IMPLICIT LANGUAGE LEARNING?
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Barlow & Kemmer, 2000
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Bates & MacWhinney, 1981 source
- Not matchedcites Goldberg, 1995
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Usage-based theories of language acquisition hold that we learn constructions while using language, of engaging in communication”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > 1. HOW DOES EXPLICIT KNOWLEDGE AFFECT IMPLICIT LANGUAGE LEARNING?
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Neural systems in the hippocampus then bind these disparate cortical representations into unitary episodic representations.”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This paper considers how implicit and explicit knowledge are dissociable but cooperative.”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We learn language while using language+”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > 1. HOW DOES EXPLICIT KNOWLEDGE AFFECT IMPLICIT LANGUAGE LEARNING?
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These are formfunction mappings, conventionalized in the speech community and entrenched as language knowledge in the learner's mind+”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > 1. HOW DOES EXPLICIT KNOWLEDGE AFFECT IMPLICIT LANGUAGE LEARNING?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In unpredictable conditions, the capacity of consciousness to organize existing knowledge in new ways is indispensable+”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > 1. HOW DOES EXPLICIT KNOWLEDGE AFFECT IMPLICIT LANGUAGE LEARNING?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Other processes of acquisition from output include differentiation, analysis, and preemption”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > 1. HOW DOES EXPLICIT KNOWLEDGE AFFECT IMPLICIT LANGUAGE LEARNING?
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Implicit learning, operating throughout primary and secondary neocortical sensory and motor areas, collates the evidence of language, and the results of this tallying provide an optimal solution to the problem space of form-function mappings and their contextualized use+”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > 1. HOW DOES EXPLICIT KNOWLEDGE AFFECT IMPLICIT LANGUAGE LEARNING?
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Related exemplars thus work together in implicit memory, their likenesses harmonizing into an attractor state, and it is by these means that linguistic prototypes and categories emerge+”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > 1. HOW DOES EXPLICIT KNOWLEDGE AFFECT IMPLICIT LANGUAGE LEARNING?
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Learning is a dynamic process; it takes place during processing, as Hebb ~1949!, Craik and Lockhart ~1972!, Pienemann ~1998!, and O'Grady ~2003! have all reminded us from their different domains+”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > 1. HOW DOES EXPLICIT KNOWLEDGE AFFECT IMPLICIT LANGUAGE LEARNING?
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Hebb ~1949!
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Craik and Lockhart ~1972! source
- Not matchedcites Pienemann ~1998!
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These implicit, habitual processes are highly adaptive in predictable situations+”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > 1. HOW DOES EXPLICIT KNOWLEDGE AFFECT IMPLICIT LANGUAGE LEARNING?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“These are the mechanisms of Schmidt's ~1984, 1990Schmidt's ~1984, , 1993Schmidt's ~1984, , 2001! noticing hypothesis, which holds that the subjective experience of noticing is a necessary and sufficient condition for the conversion of input to intake in SLA+”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > Explicit Learning in the Consolidation of Linguistic Constructions
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Schmidt, 1984
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Schmidt, 1990 source
- Not matchedcites Schmidt, 2001
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Conscious rehearsal in the phonological loop can provide data that evidences noncontiguous associations, discontinuous dependencies that-although out of the scope of implicit learning-can nevertheless be scrutinized and conjoined+”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > 1. HOW DOES EXPLICIT KNOWLEDGE AFFECT IMPLICIT LANGUAGE LEARNING?
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“psychological research was independently investigating the dissociations between implicit and explicit memory ~Schacter, 1987! and between implicit and explicit learning ~Reber, Kassin, Lewis, & Cantor, 1980!”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > 2. THE NEUROBIOLOGICAL DYNAMICS OF CONSCIOUS AND UNCONSCIOUS LEARNING
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Paradis ~1994! was correct in stating that explicit knowledge does not become implicit knowledge, nor can it be converted to it+”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > 1. HOW DOES EXPLICIT KNOWLEDGE AFFECT IMPLICIT LANGUAGE LEARNING?
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Paradis ~1994!
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The clear evidence of the dissociability of implicit and explicit knowledge systems led these analyses to focus upon the separability of implicit and explicit language learning and of implicit and explicit language knowledge”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > 2. THE NEUROBIOLOGICAL DYNAMICS OF CONSCIOUS AND UNCONSCIOUS LEARNING
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The last 10 years have seen significant advances in our understanding of consciousness and its roles in learning and memory+”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > 2. THE NEUROBIOLOGICAL DYNAMICS OF CONSCIOUS AND UNCONSCIOUS LEARNING
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Whole formulas, originally explicitly learned as phonological wholes, can later be dissected into their component structural parts+”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > 1. HOW DOES EXPLICIT KNOWLEDGE AFFECT IMPLICIT LANGUAGE LEARNING?
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Additional support for the claim that the initial learning of a novel construction ordinarily involves focused attention on the meaning-form association and subsequent consolidation of an explicit memory comes both from amnesic deficit and from mnemonic success+”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > Explicit Memories of Linguistic Constructions
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Memorized expressions can provide negative evidence, constraining the hypothesis space from overly general grammars+”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > 1. HOW DOES EXPLICIT KNOWLEDGE AFFECT IMPLICIT LANGUAGE LEARNING?
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“The interface question has driven research in applied linguistics and SLA for the last 20 years”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > 2. THE NEUROBIOLOGICAL DYNAMICS OF CONSCIOUS AND UNCONSCIOUS LEARNING
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Bialystok, 1982
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Krashen, 1985
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites McLaughlin, 1987
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Explicit learning results in explicit memories+”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > 1. HOW DOES EXPLICIT KNOWLEDGE AFFECT IMPLICIT LANGUAGE LEARNING?
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“they involve different types of representation and are substantiated in separate parts of the brain”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > 1. HOW DOES EXPLICIT KNOWLEDGE AFFECT IMPLICIT LANGUAGE LEARNING?
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites N+ Ellis, 1994c
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Schacter, 1987 source
- Not matchedcites Squire & Kandel, 1999
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In these ways, unconscious learning processes, which occur automatically during language usage, are necessary in developing the rationality of fluency”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > 1. HOW DOES EXPLICIT KNOWLEDGE AFFECT IMPLICIT LANGUAGE LEARNING?
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites N+ Ellis, submitted
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Jurafsky, 1996
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites MacWhinney, 1987b source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Once associated, the components stimulate each other, via these connections, in the spreading activation of the cognitive unconscious+”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > 1. HOW DOES EXPLICIT KNOWLEDGE AFFECT IMPLICIT LANGUAGE LEARNING?
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“The encoding of episodic memories is mediated by two principal components: a frontal-lobe component whose operations are strategic, organizational, and accessible to consciousness and voluntary control, and a modular medial temporal or hippocampal component whose operations are essentially automatic ~Gabrieli, 1998; Moscovitch, 1992!+”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > Explicit Memories of Linguistic Constructions
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Amnesia is not a failure to notice a novel conjunction; it is a failure to consolidate an explicit memory as a result of noticing+”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > Explicit Memories of Linguistic Constructions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The two complementary memory systems-the hippocampal system and the neocortical sensori-motor areas-allow the coexistence of instances and abstractions, thus solving the two basic knowledge functions of an organism that needs to be able to acquire both specifics ~”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > Explicit Memories of Linguistic Constructions
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites McClelland, 1995
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites O'Reilly & Norman, 2002 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Formulas are used analogically in the production of novel constructions+”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > 1. HOW DOES EXPLICIT KNOWLEDGE AFFECT IMPLICIT LANGUAGE LEARNING?
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Krashen ~1985! was correct to the extent that, as he termed it, acquisition and learning are different things; in psychological vernacular, explicit and implicit knowledge are distinct and dissociated”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > 1. HOW DOES EXPLICIT KNOWLEDGE AFFECT IMPLICIT LANGUAGE LEARNING?
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Krashen ~1985!
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“our implicit systems automatically process the input, allowing our conscious selves to concentrate on the meaning rather than the form+”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > 1. HOW DOES EXPLICIT KNOWLEDGE AFFECT IMPLICIT LANGUAGE LEARNING?
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In fluency, both language processing and language tallying ~N+ Ellis, 2002a! are typically unconscious”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > 1. HOW DOES EXPLICIT KNOWLEDGE AFFECT IMPLICIT LANGUAGE LEARNING?
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites N+ Ellis, 2002a
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Neural systems in the prefrontal cortex involved in working memory, in the thalamus, and in the parietal cortex resonate in a neuronal synchrony required for perceptual integration and binding, buildup of coherent representations, attentional selection, awareness, and the unification of consciousness+”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > 1. HOW DOES EXPLICIT KNOWLEDGE AFFECT IMPLICIT LANGUAGE LEARNING?
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Baars outlined nine separate such functions of consciousness, all of which involve working memory as the theater of consciousness+”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > 5. WORKING MEMORY IN LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Baars, 1988
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“However, the power of consciousness is exponential in that its major functions provide flexible adaptations to novel situations ~Baars, 1988, chapter 10!+”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > 5. WORKING MEMORY IN LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Baars, 1988
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“emphasizes the trade-off between storage and processing, as is evidenced by its operationalization, which measures working memory capacity as sentence span, where sentences have to be comprehended and evaluated for meaning while a verbal storage load ~the last word of each sentence!steadily increases in magnitude+”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > 5. WORKING MEMORY IN LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is the supervisory system that schedules cognitive processing, manipulating temporary memory representations that become relevant during the work of everyday cognition+”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > 5. WORKING MEMORY IN LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Also, the database begins to provide sufficient exemplars to allow analysis ~Tomasello, 1992!: both the conscious explicit analysis of how the general construction might work ~attentive working memory processes of hypothesis formation and analogy, which I will deal with in Section 4! and also implicit learning ~the neocortical processes of categorization, distributional analysis, and connectionist”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > Formulas: The Concrete Seeds of Abstract Trees
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Tomasello, 1992
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Each language processing usage results in the elements of the construction being primed and made more available in memory as a result: The pattern-recognition units for the aspects of language form that are involved are incremented in strength; any subcomponent elements that are represented in the formal elements of the construction are bound more strongly together as a result of their co-occur”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > Explicit Focus on Implicit Tuning
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Under normal L1 circumstances, usage optimally tunes the language system to the input; under these circumstances of low salience of L2 form, all the extra input in the world might sum to naught, and we describe the learner as having”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > Salience and Insignificance: Competition and Multiple Cues to Meaning
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Although VanPatten ~1996! and I ~N+ Ellis, 2002a~N+ Ellis, , 2002b! agree that it is via processing that implicit mechanisms are tuned, the degree of influence of metalinguistic information on the nature of that processing is so profound that claims of interface and interaction seem fully justified+”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > Explicit Learning: The Limelight of Consciousness, Form-Focus, Input Processing, and Other Explanations
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites VanPatten, 1996
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites N+ Ellis, 2002a
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites N+ Ellis, 2002b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this way, low-salience cues might never become integrated into the consolidated construction, and, broadly, never consolidated in a first instance means never tallied by implicit learning in usage thereafter+”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > Salience and Insignificance: Competition and Multiple Cues to Meaning
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“So it is this formula that is acquired early and thus serves as the concrete beginnings of what later will be a more general construction schema+”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > Formulas: The Concrete Seeds of Abstract Trees
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Metalinguistic information connects with implicit learning, and they meet and interact in pro-cessing+ It is a dynamic interface+”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > Explicit Learning: The Limelight of Consciousness, Form-Focus, Input Processing, and Other Explanations
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Like any other biological adaptation, consciousness is functional+”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > 5. WORKING MEMORY IN LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Baars, 1988
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“The present analysis supports such proposals in that, as learners try to produce comprehensible output, the various means of construction described in Section 4 potentially come into play in the development of accuracy and fluency ~De Bot, 1996;Izumi, 2003!+”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > Output Processing and Its Effectiveness
What the sources say
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Infants between 1 and 4 months of age can perceive the phoneme contrasts of every possible language, but by the end of their first year, they can only distinguish the contrasts of their own ~Werker & Lalonde, 1988; Werker & Tees, 1984!+”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > Perseveration: The Magnetism of L1 Perceptual Learning
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Working memory is like 221b Baker Street: It is the home of explicit deduction, hypothesis formation, analogical reasoning, prioritization, control, and decision-making+”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > 5. WORKING MEMORY IN LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The first exemplar is often a high-frequency expression, a salient one of prototypical meaning and high functionality+”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > Formulas: The Concrete Seeds of Abstract Trees
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Izumi, Bigelow, Fujiwara, and Fearnow ~1999!showed that opportunities for reconstruction in a pushed output task encouraged the noticing of taskrelevant aspects of linguistic form and there was evidence of enhanced rulelearning in relation to those forms+”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > Output Processing and Its Effectiveness
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Izumi et al., 1999 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is where we develop, apply, and hone our metalinguistic insights into an L2+”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > 5. WORKING MEMORY IN LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In these situations, some type of explicit instruction or consciousness raising ~Sharwood Smith, 1981! or form-focus can help the learner to notice the cue in the first place, consolidating an explicit construction linking the cue and its interpre-tation+”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > Explicit Learning: The Limelight of Consciousness, Form-Focus, Input Processing, and Other Explanations
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Sharwood Smith, 1981 source
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The only hope for change lies in the resources of consciousness+”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > Exaggerated Stimuli and Noticing, Errorless Learning, and Adaptive Training
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Consciousness is needed to change behavior.
In the paper
“Keck, Iberri-Shea, Tracy, and Wa-Mbaleka ~in press! reported a quantitative meta-analysis of studies of the effects of interaction on acquisition+”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > Output Processing and Its Effectiveness
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Keck et al., in press
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainn = 8- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“The use of such exaggerated stimuli and adaptive training leads to rapid learning, whereas the use of difficult stimuli with no adaptive modification produced little or no benefit ~McCandliss, Fiez, Protopapas, Conway, & McClelland, 2002;McClelland, 2001!+”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > Exaggerated Stimuli and Noticing, Errorless Learning, and Adaptive Training
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The facts ~a! that implicit and explicit language learning are different,”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > 6. BALANCED LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Of course, “noticing the gap” is not of itself a solution+ It is just the beginning orientation, a recognition that the problem needs to be consciously addressed+”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > 7. TWO DISSOCIATIONS AND A UNION: CONSCIOUS AND UNCONSCIOUS LEARNING, WORKING MEMORY, AND CONNECTIONISM
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“The memes of our culture, transmitted through language, infect our conscious and unconscious selves ~Dawkins, 1976; Dennett, 1992!+”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > 7. TWO DISSOCIATIONS AND A UNION: CONSCIOUS AND UNCONSCIOUS LEARNING, WORKING MEMORY, AND CONNECTIONISM
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Dawkins, 1976
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Dennett, 1992
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“However, there were also statistically independent effects of knowledge of other gender languages, suggesting that not only must the material be available for scrutiny in working memory but there must also be prior knowledge that focuses attentional biases to guide the analysis appropriately+”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > 7. TWO DISSOCIATIONS AND A UNION: CONSCIOUS AND UNCONSCIOUS LEARNING, WORKING MEMORY, AND CONNECTIONISM
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Williams & Lovatt, 2003 source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Our significant others, peers, and guides in this world become internalized in our motivations and attentions ~Tomasello, 1999; Vygotsky, 1980!+”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > 7. TWO DISSOCIATIONS AND A UNION: CONSCIOUS AND UNCONSCIOUS LEARNING, WORKING MEMORY, AND CONNECTIONISM
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Tomasello, 1999
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Vygotsky, 1980
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The input to our connectionist implicit learning systems comes via unitized explicit representations forged from prior attended processing+”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > 7. TWO DISSOCIATIONS AND A UNION: CONSCIOUS AND UNCONSCIOUS LEARNING, WORKING MEMORY, AND CONNECTIONISM
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Controlled processing tunes our zombie agents+”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > 7. TWO DISSOCIATIONS AND A UNION: CONSCIOUS AND UNCONSCIOUS LEARNING, WORKING MEMORY, AND CONNECTIONISM
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Salience is as much a psychological as a physical property; many affordances are cultural, goal-driven, and emergent+”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > 7. TWO DISSOCIATIONS AND A UNION: CONSCIOUS AND UNCONSCIOUS LEARNING, WORKING MEMORY, AND CONNECTIONISM
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The echoes of our conscious experience live on in our unconscious+”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > 7. TWO DISSOCIATIONS AND A UNION: CONSCIOUS AND UNCONSCIOUS LEARNING, WORKING MEMORY, AND CONNECTIONISM
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The fact that individual differences in this measure of attentional processing predict individual differences in SLA also lends support to theories of the role of conscious processing and explicit learning in SLA+”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > 5. WORKING MEMORY IN LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In the language of Jean Piaget ~1975!, the more we must accommodate to new information, the more we need to be consciously involved with it+”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > 7. TWO DISSOCIATIONS AND A UNION: CONSCIOUS AND UNCONSCIOUS LEARNING, WORKING MEMORY, AND CONNECTIONISM
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Piaget, 1975
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“People with better sentence span are better language learners, both in L1 ~Daneman & Carpenter, 1980;Daneman & Case, 1981;Daneman & Green, 1986;Daneman & Merikle, 1996;Engle, Tuholski, Laughlin, &Conway, 1999! andin L2 ~Harrington &Sawyer, 1992!+”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > 5. WORKING MEMORY IN LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Conscious and unconscious processes are dynamically involved together in every cognitive task and in every learning episode+”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > 7. TWO DISSOCIATIONS AND A UNION: CONSCIOUS AND UNCONSCIOUS LEARNING, WORKING MEMORY, AND CONNECTIONISM
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In synopsis-so oversimplified that I fear it will come back to haunt me-the sequential motives of learning are novice ϩ externally scaffolded attention r internally motivated attention r explicit learning r explicit memory r implicit learning r implicit memory, automatization, and abstraction ϭ expert+”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > 7. TWO DISSOCIATIONS AND A UNION: CONSCIOUS AND UNCONSCIOUS LEARNING, WORKING MEMORY, AND CONNECTIONISM
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“comprises a supervisory attentional system, two temporary slave memories ~the phonological loop and the visuospatial sketch pad!, andmore recently-a third cross-modal store, the episodic buffer, which holds episodic memories retrieved from long-term memory for scrutiny ~Baddeley, 2000, 2002!+”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > 5. WORKING MEMORY IN LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Baddeley, 1986
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Baddeley, 2000 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The input to our slave systems in working memory comes via the echoes and abstractions of our long-term memories; we perceive the world through schematic lenses that represent our prior experience of the world+”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > 7. TWO DISSOCIATIONS AND A UNION: CONSCIOUS AND UNCONSCIOUS LEARNING, WORKING MEMORY, AND CONNECTIONISM
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“This research has centered on the role of the phonological loop in the acquisition of vocabulary and formulaic utterances, the ways in which phonological long-term memory supports short-term rehearsal by Hebbian chunking processes, and how rehearsal in the phonological loop provides a window on language by allow-ing its attended scrutiny and analysis+”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > 5. WORKING MEMORY IN LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Baddeley et al., 1998 source
- Not matchedcites Gathercole & Baddeley, 1993
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked yetcites N. Ellis, 1996 source
Checked before — its earlier verdict is held back until a new check runs.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The world in which we live becomes represented in our minds+”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > 7. TWO DISSOCIATIONS AND A UNION: CONSCIOUS AND UNCONSCIOUS LEARNING, WORKING MEMORY, AND CONNECTIONISM
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Indeed, these systems work together: Attention might well be involved in noticing, but a suitable declarative metalinguistic summary in the episodic buffer can focus attention ready for noticing, and all this is to naught if the temporary representation of language form in the phonological loop is poorly or noisily spec-ified+”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > 5. WORKING MEMORY IN LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Attention guides our SLA as it guides us through the world+”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > 7. TWO DISSOCIATIONS AND A UNION: CONSCIOUS AND UNCONSCIOUS LEARNING, WORKING MEMORY, AND CONNECTIONISM
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To date, there has been too little work directly comparing these trans-Atlantic models of working memory and their components as predictors of different aspects of SLA+”
- Also stated in: § 5. WORKING MEMORY IN LANGUAGE ACQUISITION · hedged
“There is too little to go on as yet+”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > 5. WORKING MEMORY IN LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § 5. WORKING MEMORY IN LANGUAGE ACQUISITION · hedged
In the paper
“Old brain and new brain integrate into one functional whole ~Luria, 1973!+”
§ AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE > 7. TWO DISSOCIATIONS AND A UNION: CONSCIOUS AND UNCONSCIOUS LEARNING, WORKING MEMORY, AND CONNECTIONISM
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Luria, 1973
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
The paper relies on this without support.
Most knowledge is tacit knowledge; most learning is implicit; the vast majority of cognitive processing is unconscious.
“Most knowledge is tacit knowledge; most learning is implicit; the vast majority of our cognitive processing is unconscious+”
The paper relies on this without support.
We learn language while using language.
“We learn language while using language+”
The paper relies on this without support.
There is interaction between explicit and implicit knowledge.
“Nevertheless, there is interaction+ However unalike they are, these two types of knowledge interact+”
The paper relies on this without support.
Language is a social construction, and the ways that language typically relates to the world are culturally determined.
“Language is a social construction, and the ways that language typically relates to the world are culturally deter-mined+”
The paper relies on this without support.
We are internally provoked to search for meanings, just as our language tutors are motivated to spotlight the relevant alternatives.
“We are internally provoked to search for meanings, just as our language tutors are motivated to spotlight the relevant alternatives:”
The paper relies on this without support.
English learners of Chinese have difficulty with tones and Japanese learners of English have difficulty with the article system, both problems resulting from zero use in the L1.
“English learners of Chinese have difficulty with tones and Japanese learners of English have difficulty with the article system, both problems resulting from zero use in the L1+”
The paper relies on this without support.
Most words (over 80% in English) have multiple meanings, but only one can become conscious at a time.
“Most words ~over 80% in English! have multiple meanings, but only one can become conscious at a time+”
The paper relies on this without support.
Japanese native adults perceive English /r/ and /l/ as one and the same phonemic category.
“What might be examples of two separate phonemic categories ~0r0 and 0l0! for an L1 English language speaker are all of the same phonemic category for an L1 Japanese speaker+ Furthermore, in adulthood, the Japanese native cannot but perceive 0r0 and 0l0 as one and the same+”
The paper relies on this without support.
Consciousness is needed to change behavior.
“Consciousness is needed to change behavior+”
The paper relies on this without support.
Under normal L1 circumstances, usage optimally tunes the language system to the input.
“Under normal L1 circumstances, usage optimally tunes the language system to the input+”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The cited source doesn’t support the claim as written.
In the citing paper
“The pretest-analysis of this study reveals a significant aspect of previous researchers who state that the acquisition of morphology poses a substantial challenge for English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners, particularly adults, because they learn explicitly, unlike young learners (DeKeyser, 2000(DeKeyser, , 2003;;Ullman, 2001;Ellis, 2005Ellis, , 2009;;Spit et al. 2022).”
From Transformative impacts of explicit morphological instruction on irregular inflectional acquisition in Saudi EFL learners (2024) · cites this paper as Ellis, 2005
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Second Language Acquisition (SLA) research has shown that the acquisition of morphology poses a significant challenge for English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners, particularly adults, because they learn explicitly, unlike young learners (DeKeyser, 2000(DeKeyser, , 2003;;Ullman, 2001;Ellis, 2005Ellis, , 2009;;Spit et al. 2022).”
From Transformative impacts of explicit morphological instruction on irregular inflectional acquisition in Saudi EFL learners (2024) · cites this paper as Ellis, 2005
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Noticing can be facilitative, especially in speeding up learning of perceptually nonsalient features or in establishing a new representation in longterm memory, after which subsequent examples of the same feature in the input can be parsed implicitly (N.Ellis, 2005), but it is neither a necessary component nor a necessary result of focus on form.”
From In Defense of Tasks and TBLT: Nonissues and Real Issues (2016) · cites this paper as N. Ellis, 2005
Citations
Cites
James, W. (1891) · Personality Culture Society · doi:10.1037/11059-000 · Cited by 25,876
The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud
Freud, S. (1953) · Cited by 17,730
(1976) · Cited by 10,423
Levels of processing: A framework for memory research
Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972) · Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior · doi:10.1016/s0022-5371(72)80001-x · Cited by 9,566
(1982) · Trends in Neurosciences · doi:10.1016/0166-2236(82)90076-5 · Cited by 9,150
REMEMBERING: A STUDY IN EXPERIMENTAL AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
Bartlett, F. C., & Burt, C. (1933) · British Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1933.tb02913.x · Cited by 7,475
The episodic buffer: a new component of working memory?
Baddeley, A. (2000) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/s1364-6613(00)01538-2 · Cited by 7,359
Barsalou, L. W. (1999) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x99002149 · Cited by 6,887
(1995) · Cited by 6,864
Journal of Consciousness Studies
(2022) · Journal of Consciousness Studies · doi:10.53765/20512201 · Cited by 6,852
Research works printed but not linked: 15
- 10.1017/s0272263100001030__s0272263100001030 · DOI
- Poulisse, 1984, Interlanguage Studies Bulletin, 8, 70
- 10.1017/s0272263197002076__s0272263197002076 · DOI
- 10.1017/s0140525x99002149__s0140525x99002149 · DOI
- 10.1017/s0272263197001034__s0272263197001034 · DOI
- 10.1017/s0305000999003931__s0305000999003931 · DOI
- 10.1017/s0272263198004045__s0272263198004045 · DOI
- 10.1017/s0272263199003034__s0272263199003034 · DOI
- 10.1017/s0272263102002073__s0272263102002073 · DOI
- Ellis, 2002, Applied Linguistics, 24, 297
- Ellis, 2002, Applied Linguistics, 24, 297
- 10.1017/s0272263102002140__s0272263102002140 · DOI
- 10.1017/s0272263102002024__s0272263102002024 · DOI
- 10.1017/s0272263199001011__s0272263199001011 · DOI
- Skousen, 1995, Rivista di linguistica, 7, 213
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 601–700 of 890
A ‘Judicious’ Use of L1 in TL Classroom: Socio-political, Psychological and Functional Dimensions
Awan, M. A., & Sipra, M. A. (2015) · Advances in Language and Literary Studies · doi:10.7575/aiac.alls.v.6n.5p.16 · Cited by 1
“In simple ways, both first and second language lexical items, in long term memory, are activated when bilingual speaker is trying to process language (Ellis, 2005, Kroll, 1993, & Libben, 2000).”
BackgroundOn the Relationship between Metacognitive Awareness and Two Aspects of Vocabulary Knowledge
Roohani, A., & Khalilian, H. (2008) · Applied Linguistics · Cited by 1
Bailini, S. L. (2009) · Cited by 1
Król-Markefka, A. (2014) · Jagiellonian University Repository (Jagiellonian University) · doi:10.4467/20834624sl.14.003.1375 · Cited by 1
“Only then can memories, as a result of implicit (associative) learning mechanisms operating on every subsequent occasion of use, be gradually passed on to the neocortex for permanent storage (Ellis 2005: 321).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialPsychometric approaches to language testing and linguistic profiling – A complementary relationship?
Hagenfeld, K. (2016) · Processability approaches to language acquisition research & teaching · doi:10.1075/palart.5.07hag · Cited by 1
The impact of translation on L2 learners’ metalinguistic competence
Khayatan, P., & Biria, R. (2017) · International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning · doi:10.5861/ijrsll.2017.1685 · Cited by 1
Explicit vs. Implicit Instruction: Investigating Backchannel Behavior in the Japanese EFL Classroom
Cutrone, P. (2016) · Nagasaki University's Academic Output SITE (Nagasaki University) · Cited by 1
Agir dans la diversité des langues
de Craen, P. V., Joret, M.-E., & Surmont, J. (2015) · Champs linguistiques. Manuels · doi:10.3917/dbu.jquin.2015.01.0237 · Cited by 1
Boulkroun, F. (2016) · مجلة العلوم الإنسانية · doi:10.34174/0079-000-046-052 · Cited by 1
“Ellis [9] quoted: “The more novelty we encounter, the”
BackgroundPhonology in Language Learning
Pennington, M. C., & Rogerson‐Revell, P. (2018) · Research and practice in applied linguistics · doi:10.1057/978-1-137-47677-7_2 · Cited by 2
Khresheh, A. M. (2018) · JOURNAL OF ADVANCES IN LINGUISTICS · doi:10.24297/jal.v9i0.7842 · Cited by 1
“Finally, N. Ellis (2005), who claimed a different form, stated that noticing the gap between what is noticed with what is produced in L2 leads to automatizing L2 knowledge.”
BackgroundAn investigation into teacher’s L1 and L2 use in Indonesian EFL classroom
Amriana, A. (2018) · International Journal of Humanities and Innovation (IJHI) · doi:10.33750/ijhi.v1i2.17 · Cited by 1
“he had confirmed in an interview session that he preferred to use English only in the classroom, it was similar to Ellis and Ellis (1994) who confirmed that one similarity between L1 and the L2 learner is that they cannot acquire TL unless they receive input; they need to be exposed to the TL extensively. Regarding th…”
BackgroundInfluentialOral corrective feedback on written errors
Afshari, S., Dabaghi, A., & Ketabi, S. (2019) · ITL Review of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1075/itl.18023.afs · Cited by 1
Heritage and non-heritage bilinguals: The role of bi-literacy and bilingual education
Ανδρέου, Μ., Dosi, I., Tsimpli, I. M., et al. (2020) · Cited by 3
Transfer in Multilingual Morphosyntax
Rothman, J., Alonso, J. G., & Puig‐Mayenco, E. (2019) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781316014660.004 · Cited by 2
Mostafa, T. (2021) · Digital Archive @ GSU · doi:10.57709/22259031 · Cited by 1
Khresheh, A. M. (2020) · International Journal of English Language and Literature Studies · doi:10.18488/journal.23.2020.94.264.275 · Cited by 1
“Examples of the interface positions from the prior literature are DeKeyser (2009); Dekeyser (2007); DeKeyser (2003); Ellis and Roever (2018); Ellis (2005); Ellis (2007); Ellis (2011) and Tunney and Shanks (2003).”
BackgroundSağdıç, A., & Reagan, D. (2021) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108868327.012 · Cited by 1
Measuring Chinese EFL Learners’ Implicit and Explicit Knowledge of Relative Clauses
Zhang, L. (2021) · International Journal of TESOL Studies · doi:10.46451/ijts.2021.12.02 · Cited by 1
Casoli, M. L. (2021) · Revista UCMaule · doi:10.29035/ucmaule.61.53 · Cited by 1
Ellis, R., Skehan, P., Li, S., Shintani, N., & Lambert, C. (2019) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108643689.007 · Cited by 2
Ellis, R., Skehan, P., Li, S., Shintani, N., & Lambert, C. (2019) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108643689.011 · Cited by 1
Barysevich, A., & Smeets, L. (2021) · Nouvelle Revue Synergies Canada · doi:10.21083/nrsc.v2021i14.6797 · Cited by 1
Malicka-Kleparska, A. (2023) · Roczniki Humanistyczne · doi:10.18290/rh237110sp-5 · Cited by 1
“Jak wskazuje Anetta Bogusława Stra-wińska: „Tematyka being exposed to explicitly stated and illustrated grammatical meaningful, relevant communicative contexts (implicit learning) (Bialystok, 1994; Ellis, 2005; Reber, 1993).”
BackgroundAlarjani, F. (2021) · International Journal of Language & Linguistics · doi:10.30845/ijll.v8n4p3
Investigating effects of computer-based grammar tutorials
Kolesnikova, A. (2011) · doi:10.17077/etd.hhkiu0yr · Cited by 1
“But the limitations of second language acquisition that prevent a second language learner from attaining a native-like level in the 24 second language could be overcome by explicit grammar instruction that could speed up second language acquisition (N. Ellis, 2005, 2008).”
BackgroundOvercoming barriers to reaching nativelikeness in adult second language acquisition
Su, Y. (2008) · ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) · Cited by 1
Tolentino, L. C. (2011) · D-Scholarship@Pitt (University of Pittsburgh) · Cited by 1
Computerised speaking practice: the role of automatic corrective feedback in learning L2 grammar
de Vries, B. P. (2010) · Radboud Repository (Radboud University) · Cited by 1
An investigation into the role of implicit knowledge in adult second language acquisition
Cook, A. (2009) · ERA · Cited by 1
SLA in the Instructional Environment
Pica, T. (2008) · ScholarlyCommons (University of Pennsylvania) · Cited by 1
An Explanation of the Effectiveness of Written Corrective Feedback in Second-Language Acquisition
Wagner, J. P. (2016) · doi:10.13021/mars/5235 · Cited by 2
Mickel, K. (2016) · Louisiana State University · doi:10.31390/gradschool_theses.2520 · Cited by 1
“Loewen, 2005; Panova & Lyster, 2002; Ellis, Basturkmen, & Loewen, 2002, 2001b; Long & Robinson, 1998; Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Long 1991). The original definition of FonF by Long (1991, 1988) and revised by Long and Robinson (1998) presents FonF as a broad-based teaching approach which is positioned in the middle of a co…”
BackgroundInfluentialNoroozi, M. (2018) · FIU - Digital Commons (Florida International University) · doi:10.25148/etd.fidc007032 · Cited by 2
“and post-task phase, and Skehan (1998) emphasizes pre-task planning and design of the task in provision of focus on form opportunities, while Ellis (2003) contends that focus on form can happen during all phases of task implementation, even in the during-task phase,”
BackgroundInfluentialWritten languaging, learners’ aptitude and second language learning
Ishikawa, M. (2019) · UCL Discovery (University College London) · Cited by 1
Keçik, İ., & Kalay, D. (2019) · Cited by 1
Vihman, M. M. (2014) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781394260997.ch2 · Cited by 1
Xu, X., Zhang, D., & Zhang, Y. (2024) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2024.05.08.593270 · Cited by 1
“These interactions are inherently complex, encompassing both observable behaviors, such as questioning and responding, and implicit cognitive and affective exchanges (Ellis, 1993; Ellis, 2005; Hamre & Pianta, 2005).”
Lyddon, P. A. (2007) · UA Campus Repository (The University of Arizona) · Cited by 1
Fukuta, J. (2026) · Second language Research · doi:10.1177/02676583251411768 · Cited by 1
Rimmasch, K. (2007) · ScholarsArchive (Brigham Young University) · Cited by 1
El-dali, H. M. (2014) · JOURNAL OF ADVANCES IN LINGUISTICS · doi:10.24297/jal.v5i1.5193
Ellis, R. (2012) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781118271643.ch3
Implicações dinâmicas para a formação da fonologia em L2
Perozzo, R. V., & Alves, U. K. (2013) · Signo · doi:10.17058/signo.v38i65.4230
Interacción y desarrollo de la interlengua: e-tándem español-italiano
Bailini, S. L. (2012) · Gredos (University of Salamanca) · doi:10.14201/gredos.121125
Tolentino, L. C., & Tokowicz, N. (2007) · PsycEXTRA Dataset · doi:10.1037/e527342012-806
Cross-Cultural Communication: Perspectives from Translation Studies and Applied Linguistics
El-dali, H. M. (2012) · Journal of Social Sciences (COES&RJ-JSS) · doi:10.25255/jss.2012.1.1.24.46 · Cited by 1
A Comparative Analysis on the Skill Acquisition of Music and Language
Lopiccolo, D. (2015) · The Kabod The Journal of the Liberty University Honors College · doi:10.70623/fcas8989
“…be learning Swahili for the first time or studying six-eight time pieces, both can be approached by following the general tenets of Skill Acquisition Theory, the essential proposition of which claims that with enough controlled practice, anything can become implicit (i.e. automatic) (Ellis, 2005).”
BackgroundEmergence of comprehension of Spanish second language requests
Sauveur, R. P. (2013) · Texas ScholarWorks (Texas Digital Library)
Explicit Knowledge of L2 Chunks and Chunking in English Learning and Use
Jeong, H., & Kim, H. J. (2010)
Reconstructive Elicited Imitation as a Tool for Measuring Implicit L2 Knowledge
Mystkowska‐Wiertelak, A. (2011) · Second language learning and teaching · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-20141-7_23
The Dimensional Depth of Words: Vocabulary Knowledge and Reading Comprehension
Vilhjálmsdóttir, S. B. (2015)
García, A. M. (2014) · Revista de Educación
The Effect of Sequent Input on Speech Accuracy and Fluency in Adults at the Intermediate Level
Farah, S. A. (2013) · USF Scholarship Repository (University of San Francisco)
Perceptual Filtering in L2 Lexical Memory: A Neural Network Approach to Second Language Acquisition
Nelson, R. (2012) · Modern Language Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2012.01362_1.x
Ertürk, N. O. (2014) · Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.12.082
Effects of Learning and Teaching Conditions on L2 Grammar and Comprehension
Kang, S.-J. (2011) · Studies in Linguistics · doi:10.17002/sil..21.201112.17
Izumi, S. (2009) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/1362168809104704
Guzmán-Muñoz, F. J. (2009) · University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology)
El-dali, H. M. (2011) · International Journal of English and Literature · doi:10.5897/ijel.9000022
Bell, P. (2012) · Spectrum Research Repository (Concordia University)
Alibabaee, A., Momenzadeh, M., & Abarghoui, S. S. Z. (2014) · Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics
CHAPTER 10 Statistical Measures for Usage-Based Linguistics
Ellis, N. C. (2015)
Self-citationEffects of Three Types of FoF on the Use of Idioms in Controlled and Free Spoken Response Tasks
Latifi, M., & Ketabi, S. (2012)
Farias, P. F., Roscioli, D. C., Toassi, P. F. P., & D’Ely, R. C. S. F. (2015) · BELT – Brazilian English Language Teaching Journal · doi:10.15448/2178-3640.2015.1.20187
“Ellis (2005) posits that, explicit learning occurs when there is conscious effort to negotiate meaning and construct communication. Ellis (2009, p. 3) states that “explicit learning typically involves memorizing a series of successive facts and thus makes heavy demands on working memory. As a result, it takes place co…”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialAnxiety in the noticing and production of L2 forms: a study of beginning learners of Arabic
Nassif, L. (2014) · Texas ScholarWorks (Texas Digital Library)
Ahmed, S. (2015) · English Linguistics Research · doi:10.5430/elr.v4n4p23
“The (FFEs) method which is indicated by Ellis (2005) distinguished between planned and incidental focus on form.”
MethodToward a prenominal syntax? A brief look at statistical alternations *
Schenkoske, L. A. (2014) · Illinois Digital Environment for Access to Learning and Scholarship (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign)
Goundareva, I. (2016) · uO Research (University of Ottawa) · doi:10.20381/ruor-5641
Cornillie, F., & Piet, P. (2015) · doi:10.14705/rpnet.2015.000325
“The state-of-the-art in second language acquisition theory assumes a dynamic interface between explicit and implicit knowledge (Ellis, 2005), and hence provides support for various attention-raising techniques, including controlled practice with CF.”
BackgroundMoghadam, E. S., & Ghafournia, N. (2016) · International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning · doi:10.5861/ijrsll.2016.1344
“Consequently, it is possible for L2 learners to reach native-speaker like competence if the learners are capable of using the idioms fluently (Ellis, 2005).”
BackgroundThe Korean Society of Bilingualism, Lee, E.-H., Ahn, J., & Kim, Y. (2014) · doi:10.17296/korbil.2014..54.273
Attention in Second Language Acquisition
Wen-qin, Y. (2009) · Journal of The Northwest Normal University
THE SYNTAX AND ACQUISITION OF NEGATIVE POLARITY ITEMS
Kim, S.-J. (2012)
Episodic Memory Use in L2 Vocabulary Processing
Hurdus, J. (2016) · Communities in ADDI (Universidad del Pais Vasco)
The Values of Learners’ Mother Tongue Use in Target Language Classrooms
Li, Y., Wang, L., & Liu, X. (2016) · International Journal of English Language Teaching · doi:10.5430/ijelt.v3n2p46
“The most influential of theories related to the use of L1 in the L2 classroom are socio-cultural theory (Brooks, Donato, & McGlone, 1997) and cognitive processing theory (Ellis, 2005).”
BackgroundO ensino do "present perfect" a alunos falantes nativos do português europeu
Ferreira, F. M. D. M. (2011) · Imprensa da Universidade de Coimbra eBooks · doi:10.14195/978-989-26-0231-8_8
Chapter 1. The scope of pragmatics
(2014) · Pragmatics & beyond. New series · doi:10.1075/pbns.245.03ch1
Chapter 3. Genres and pragmatic competence
(2014) · Pragmatics & beyond. New series · doi:10.1075/pbns.245.05ch3
Chapter 5. Pragmatic competence revisited
(2014) · Pragmatics & beyond. New series · doi:10.1075/pbns.245.07ch5
Chapter 4. Relevance theory and communication
(2014) · Pragmatics & beyond. New series · doi:10.1075/pbns.245.06ch4
Chapter 2. Pragmatic meaning in L2
(2014) · Pragmatics & beyond. New series · doi:10.1075/pbns.245.04ch2
Afsahi, S. E., & Lotfi, A. R. (2016) · International Journal of English Linguistics · doi:10.5539/ijel.v6n7p59 · Cited by 1
“2 Implicit and Explicit Instruction Ellis et al. (2009) define instruction as an attempt to intervene in interlanguage development and implicit and explicit instructions are two ways of drawing learners’ attention to target features during tasks (Takimoto, 2006).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialThe Role of Input in Implicit Knowledge and Explicit KnowledgePreprint
Lee, D. (2016) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2879758
Loewen, S., & Reinders, H. (2011) · doi:10.1007/978-0-230-34627-7_1
Language Equation: Enchancing Stories Writing Skill
Kaewmulkit, S. (2012)
An Online Learning Tool and its Effectiveness on Enhancing Negotiation of Meaning
Abbas, A. (2012) · OhioLink ETD Center (Ohio Library and Information Network)
Conditions on the Acquisition of Implicit and Explicit Collocational Knowledge
하주연, & 윤현숙 (2016) · Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics · doi:10.15738/kjell.16.4.201612.695
En defensa de la contrastividad en la enseñanza de segundas lenguas
Fant, L. (2016) · Decires · doi:10.22201/cepe.14059134e.2016.16.20.287
Arxer, S. L., Ciriza, M. D. P., & Shappeck, M. (2017) · International perspectives on aging · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-57609-1_4
Metadata
- Authors
- Ellis, N. C.
- Affiliations
- University of Michigan (US)
- Corresponding author
- Ellis, Nick C.
- ORCID
- Ellis, Nick C.
- Venue
- Studies in Second Language Acquisition
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2005-06
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 02
- ISSN
- 0272-2631 (ISSN-L)
- 1470-1545
- OpenAlex
- W1980240171
- Cited by
- 893
- References
- 283
- Citations by year
- 2026: 29 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 43 · 2021: 93 · 2020: 47 · 2019: 85 · 2018: 38 · 2017: 30 · 2016: 53 · 2015: 56 · 2014: 59 · 2013: 45 · 2012: 61
- FWCI
- 177.73
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- Locations
- Studies in Second Language Acquisition (publishedVersion)
- Deep Blue (University of Michigan) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
- Keywords
- explicit knowledge, tacit knowledge, noticing, implicit language learning, explicit learning, working memory, prefrontal cortex, hippocampus, episodic memory, proceduralization, recasts, feedback, analogy, grammatical rules, individual differences, working memory capacity, language aptitude, consciousness
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-11, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-11 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
