Cited by 47

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

LANGUAGE APTITUDE AND GRAMMATICAL DIFFICULTY: An EFL Classroom-Based Study

Yalçın, Şebnem, Spada, Nina·2016·Studies in Second Language Acquisition

Abstract

This study investigates the relationship between foreign language aptitude and the learning of two English structures defined as easy or difficult to learn. Using a quasiexperimental design, 66 secondary-level learners of English as a foreign language from three intact classes were provided with four hours of instruction on the passive(a difficult structure) and the past progressive(an easy structure). Language aptitude was measured using the LLAMA Aptitude Test (Meara, 2005). Language outcomes were measured with a written grammaticality judgment and an oral production task. The results revealed that one of the aptitude components, grammatical inferencing, contributed to learners’ gains on the passive but not the past progressive on the written measure. Another component of aptitude, associative memory, contributed to learners’ gains on the past progressive on the oral measure. The results provide support for the claim that different components of aptitude contribute to the learning of difficult and easy L2 structures in different ways. There is also support for the proposal that different components of aptitude may be involved at different stages of language acquisition (Skehan, 2002).

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0272263115000509

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Aptitude is more strongly implicated in the learning of more difficult target features compared with easier features.

    “Thus, it appears that aptitude is more strongly implicated in the learning of more difficult target features compared with easier features.”

    From The role of individual learner differences in explicit language instruction (2024) · cites this paper as Yalçın & Spada, 2016

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 67

  1. 10.3758/BF03330466 · DOI
  2. 10.1075/lllt.35.04gra · DOI
  3. Hulstijn, 1994, Under what conditions does explicit knowledge of a second language facilitate the acquisition of implicit knowledge? A research proposal, AILA Review, 11, 97
  4. 10.1075/lllt.2.13rob · DOI
  5. 10.1002/9780470756492.ch18 · DOI · Paper page
  6. 10.1016/j.system.2012.10.009 · DOI · Paper page
  7. 10.1017/S0272263109090366 · DOI
  8. Meara, 2005, LLAMA language aptitude tests
  9. 10.1017/S0272263197003045 · DOI
  10. 10.1177/014662169001400201 · DOI
  11. 10.1075/lllt.32.02bul · DOI · Paper page
  12. 10.1075/lllt.2.06ske · DOI · Paper page
  13. 10.1191/1362168805lr161oa · DOI · Paper page
  14. Ellis, 2009, Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language learning, testing and teaching, 27, 10.2307/jj.27195491.6 · DOI
  15. 10.1017/S0272263197002064 · DOI
  16. 10.1177/026553228600300207 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Dörnyei, 2005, The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition
  18. Miyake, 1998, Foreign language learning: Psycholinguistics studies on training and retention, 339
  19. Carroll, 1981, Individual differences and universals in language learning aptitude, 83
  20. DeKeyser, 2000, The robustness of critical period effects in second language acquisition, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 509, 10.1017/S0272263100004022 · DOI · Paper page
  21. 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00688.x · DOI
  22. DeKeyser, 1998, Focus on form in classroom language acquisition, 42
  23. 10.1515/9783110197372.1.99 · DOI
  24. Housen, 2014, The encyclopedia of applied linguistics, 1
  25. 10.1111/j.1540-4781.1995.tb05417.x · DOI · Paper page
  26. 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01176.x · DOI · Paper page
  27. Kirby, 2010, Passives in first language acquisition: What causes the delay?, University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 16, 109
  28. 10.1177/0267658312461497 · DOI · Paper page
  29. Swan, 1995, Practical English usage
  30. 10.1007/978-3-642-20850-8_4 · DOI · Paper page
  31. 10.1017/S0272263114000813 · DOI
  32. Yalçın Ş . (2012). Individual differences and the learning of two grammatical features with Turkish learners of English. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto, Canada.
  33. 10.1037/1089-2680.3.4.292 · DOI
  34. Schmidt, 1995, Attention and awareness in foreign language learning, 1
  35. Sasaki, 1996, Second language proficiency, foreign language aptitude, and intelligence
  36. Field, 2009, Discovering statistics using SPSS Statistics
  37. 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00712.x · DOI · Paper page
  38. 10.1017/S027226310808073X · DOI · Paper page
  39. 10.1017/S0272263100010457 · DOI · Paper page
  40. 10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00059.x · DOI
  41. 10.1111/1467-9922.00147 · DOI · Paper page
  42. 10.1515/9783110197372.2.235 · DOI
  43. 10.1017/S1366728908003416 · DOI
  44. 10.1177/026765830101700405 · DOI · Paper page
  45. Révész A. (2007). Focus on form in task-based language teaching: Recasts, task complexity, and L2 learning (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Columbia: Teachers College.
  46. 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.12007.x · DOI
  47. Trofimovich, 2007, Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A series of empirical studies, 171
  48. 10.1111/lang.12011 · DOI
  49. 10.1017/CBO9781139524803 · DOI
  50. 10.1093/applin/amu072 · DOI
  51. 10.1177/1362168813519883 · DOI
  52. 10.1111/j.0023-8333.2005.00294.x · DOI · Paper page
  53. Doughty, 1998, Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition, 1
  54. Li, 2015b, Individual differences, L2 development, and language program administration: From theory to application, 32
  55. 10.1191/1362168804lr132oa · DOI
  56. 10.1111/0026-7902.00076 · DOI
  57. 10.1016/j.cognition.2003.10.008 · DOI · Paper page
  58. 10.1093/applin/amu054 · DOI
  59. Pimsleur, 1966, The Pimsleur language aptitude battery
  60. 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.12030.x · DOI
  61. Sheen, 2007b, Conversational interaction in second language acquisition, 301
  62. Wesche, 1981, Individual differences and universals in language learning aptitude, 119
  63. 10.1017/S0261444800012799 · DOI · Paper page
  64. Skehan, 2010, Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, 381
  65. Carroll, 1959, The modern languages aptitude test
  66. 10.1075/lllt.2.15har · DOI
  67. 10.1093/applin/ams044 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Yalçın, Ş., & Spada, N.
Venue
Studies in Second Language Acquisition
Published
2016-01-07
Volume
38
Issue
2
Pages
239-263
ISSN
  • 0272-2631
  • 1470-1545
Cited by
47
References
2
Language
en

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.

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