Cited by 116Second Language Acquisition and LearningEFL/ESL Teaching and LearningSubtitles and Audiovisual Media

The role of repeated exposure to multimodal input in incidental acquisition of foreign language vocabulary

Open access
Bisson, Marie‐Josée, van Heuven, Walter J. B., Conklin, Kathy, Tunney, Richard J.·2014·Language Learning

Abstract

Prior research has reported incidental vocabulary acquisition with complete beginners in a foreign language (FL), within 8 exposures to auditory and written FL word forms presented with a picture depicting their meaning. However, important questions remain about whether acquisition occurs with fewer exposures to FL words in a multimodal situation and whether there is a repeated exposure effect. Here we report a study where the number of exposures to FL words in an incidental learning phase varied between 2, 4, 6, and 8 exposures. Following the incidental learning phase, participants completed an explicit learning task where they learned to recognize written translation equivalents of auditory FL word forms, half of which had occurred in the incidental learning phase. The results showed that participants performed better on the words they had previously been exposed to, and that this incidental learning effect occurred from as little as 2 exposures to the multimodal stimuli. In addition, repeated exposure to the stimuli was found to have a larger impact on learning during the first few exposures and decrease thereafter, suggesting that the effects of repeated exposure on vocabulary acquisition are not necessarily constant.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/lang.12085

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bisson, M., van Heuven, W. J. B., Conklin, K., & Tunney, R. J.
Affiliations
  • University of Nottingham (GB)
  • University of Nottingham
Corresponding author
Bisson, Marie‐Josée
Venue
Language Learning
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-10-15
Volume
64
Issue
4
Pages
855-877
ISSN
  • 0023-8333 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-9922
OpenAlex
W1533116887
Cited by
111
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 4 · 2014: 1
FWCI
9.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Language Learning (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Repository@Nottingham (University of Nottingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Aston Publications Explorer (Aston University) (submittedVersion)
  • DMU Open Research Archive (De Montfort University) (submittedVersion)
  • Nottingham ePrints (University of Nottingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Subtitles and Audiovisual Media
Keywords
incidental vocabulary learning, foreign language vocabulary, multimodal input, explicit learning, translation equivalents

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