Interactions between type of form-focused instruction, type of morphosyntactic form, and type of language knowledge

Majid Ghorbani

doi:10.1515/iral-2016-0045

Artikel

Interactions between type of form-focused instruction, type of morphosyntactic form, and type of language knowledge

Majid Ghorbani

Veröffentlicht/Copyright: 26. Juni 2018

Veröffentlicht von

Veröffentlichen auch Sie bei De Gruyter Brill

Manuskript einreichen Informationen für Autor*innen Erkunden Sie dieses Fachgebiet

Aus der Zeitschrift International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching Band 59 Heft 2

Abstract

Although claims about the nature of EFL/ESL learners’ knowledge (i. e., implicit and/or explicit) are essential to many debates in foreign/second language development, few studies have sought to evaluate the effects of linguistic and/or contextual variables on the two knowledge types. This study, accordingly, undertook to examine the effects of different explicit and implicit types of form-focused instruction (FFI) on the acquisition of four easy and difficult forms as assessed by different implicit and explicit outcome measures. The instruments utilized to assess students’ learning were: oral elicited imitation, untimed and timed grammaticality judgment, and metalinguistic knowledge tests. A pretest and two posttests were administered to 150 novice learners immediately after FFI and again after a 4-week delay. Immediate and durable effects of FFI were found for the easy and difficult target forms on both implicit and explicit knowledge measures. Specifically, the study indicated that explicit and implicit types of FFI were significantly more beneficial for explicitly-easy and implicitly-easy language forms respectively. The findings of this study may contribute a different set of insights to our understanding of the efficacy of varying types of FFI on learners’ controlled and/or spontaneous use of easy and difficult structures at early stages of L2 development.

Keywords: explicit/implicit FFI; easy/difficult language forms; type of L2 knowledge

Appendix 1

Instruction: Please rate the following grammatical form based on the given criteria (For receiving more explanations about the given criteria, please study the Supplementary) (Space limitations preclude an explanation for most of the following forms)

Plural -s
Possessive –s
Possessive adjectives
Possessive Pronouns
Present progressive –ing
Regular past tense –ed
Third person present tense’s’
Indefinite article (a/an)
Demonstrative Adjectives
Comparatives
Superlatives
Yes/No questions
Since/For
Unreal conditionals (The main clause in an unreal conditional sentence requires the use of a past modal+ have+Ven)
Question tags
Dative alternation (Whereas verbs like ‘give’ permit two sentence patterns (… V+IO+DO and … V+DO+IO) verbs like ‘explain’ only permit one sentence pattern (… V+DO+IO))
Embedded questions (Questions that are reported (i. e. are indirect rather than direct) require declarative word order (i. e. there is no subject–verb inversion))
Modals (Modal verbs such as ‘may and ‘can’ are followed by the base form of the main)
WH- Questions (about a direct object)
Adverb placement (Adverbs can be positioned sentence initially and finally and also between the subject and the verb but not between the verb and the direct object.)
Verb complements (Some main verbs (e. g., want) take an infinitival complement whereas others (e. g., suggest) take a gerund complement)
Ergative verbs (Ergative verbs like ‘increase’ must take the active voice unless the sentence contains an explicit or readily inferred agent that caused the process to occur.)
Relative clauses (Relative clauses in English where the relative pronoun functions as object; such clauses do not allow a resumptive pronoun.)

Criteria/Rating	1	2	3	4
Frequency
Saliency
Functional value
Regularity
Processability
Congruency with L1
Conceptual clarity
Metalanguage

Appendix 2

Read the following sentences and excerpts and try just to understand their Meanings (a sample of each part is provided):

David is taking classes at Williams College this year.
Mary is studying French this semester.
Everybody loves comic books and reads them.
Many people spend a lot of money on clothes each year.
Some families worry about their children’s future and their parent’s health.
Exercise is important to all the people’s health.
Most of our country’s new jobs are in the tourist industry.

…….

Strange Bird

Birds have wings and feathers and they can usually fly. But Kiwi is an unusual bird because it cannot fly and it has no wings or tail. It only lives in New Zealand. A Kiwi likes to live near a lot of trees. It sleeps during the day, because the sunlight hurts a Kiwi’s eyes. It smells things very well. The police say that people cannot kill or catch Kiwis. New Zealanders want these birds to live.

Losing a job

This month, Tom is having difficulty because his factory fired several people, including Tom! Usually, he works at a dairy factory where he is an engineer. However, the factory has to make budget cuts and they are unable to keep all of the people.

Losing his job is very unpleasant for Tom. Usually, he gets up at 6:30, has breakfast, and leaves for work. However, this morning, Tom is searching the job sites on the Internet. He also is feeling sad and unhappy. He knows it will take time to find another job because he is a skilled engineer. His factory is concerned about him and they are assisting him in his job search. Meanwhile, Tom is trying to spend less money until he finds a new job.

……

Some Useful Questions (WH- questions about direct object using simple present & present progressive tenses):

Ali is wearing his new coat today.
What is he wearing today?
David is calling his friend now.
Who is he calling now?
I buy milk and fruit every week.
What do you buy every week?
Jack writes a new book each year.
What does he write each year?
Neda likes small animals.
What does she like?
My brother is playing a guitar now.
What is he playing now?

…….

Appendix 3

Test Battery (a sample of each test is provided):

A: OEIT

ISIL bad actions shocked the whole world.
Everyone likes comic books and read them.
What does a person usually drink every morning?
The president goes to Spain this week.
What does children usually eat every night?
The teacher wears a black hat and a new watch today.

…….

B: GJT Items (for both timed and untimed versions)

Reza is still living in his rich sister house.
The teacher is drawing a picture on the board now.
Tom loves volleyball and play it almost every weekend.
What do you usually buy at weekends?
When my sister toy broke, I fixed it.
She wears a blue blouse and a black skirt today.
Her daughter work for a television company.
What does you usually watch in the mornings?
His uncle is currently write a book about his travels in Africa.
What your father does read every day?

……….

C: MKT

(Part 1)

In this part, there are five ungrammatical sentences. The part of the sentence containing the error is underlined. For each sentence, if you know a rule that explains why the sentence is incorrect, write it in Farsi in the space provided.

Jack work in a milk factory ……………………..
David lost his friend books yesterday ……………..
His friend is take a French course this term…
What do the baby drinks every morning? ……………….….
Who she does call on weekends? ………………..….

(Part 2)

Read the passage below. Find at least one example in the passage for each of the grammatical features listed in the table.

What do young people do in their free time? Research shows that they are watching more TV today than they did twenty years ago. Cellphones are also changing the way young people use their free time. Today the youth are spending more time doing things on their Cellphones. Surfing the Internet on their Cellphones is becoming another common free-time activity. In fact, some managers are finding that young workers are skipping lunch to surf the Internet.

More and more, young people are mixing their work time and play time. They talk on their cellphones while they are trying to get to work. They read work papers while they are eating. They listen to music while they are studying. Maybe this is why the youth’s lives have changed and they think that they have less free time these days.

Grammatical feature	Example
Possessive –s
Present progressive –ing
Third person -s
WH-question about a direct object

In the following sentences, underline the item requested in brackets:

1. Today’s computers are becoming much smaller and lighter. (Present Progressive)

2. When a child’s toy breaks, my uncle usually fixes it. (Possessive –s)

3. Poor living condition affects children’s health. (Third person –s)

4. She likes big animals. What does she like? (WH-question)

Appendix 4

Descriptive statistics for L2 learners’ performance on the implicit and explicit knowledge measures according to target form difficulty in the three time points

						95 % Confidence Interval
Instruction	Form	Time	Test Type	Mean	Std. Error	Lower Bound	Upper Bound
Enriched	-ing	1	Implicit	0.063	0.012	0.039	0.088
		1	Explicit	0.081	0.012	0.057	0.105
		2	Implicit	0.697	0.018	0.663	0.732
		2	Explicit	0.852	0.015	0.822	0.881
		3	Implicit	0.680	0.016	0.648	0.712
		3	Explicit	0.827	0.019	0.790	0.863
	possessive-s	1	Implicit	0.090	0.015	0.061	0.119
		1	Explicit	0.088	0.012	0.065	0.111
		2	Implicit	0.699	0.017	0.665	0.732
		2	Explicit	0.772	0.018	0.736	0.808
		3	Implicit	0.680	0.015	0.649	0.710
		3	Explicit	0.762	0.020	0.722	0.801
	3rd person-s	1	Implicit	0.089	0.018	0.054	0.124
		1	Explicit	0.079	0.010	0.060	0.099
		2	Implicit	0.607	0.016	0.576	0.638
		2	Explicit	0.742	0.017	0.709	0.774
		3	Implicit	0.594	0.014	0.565	0.622
		3	Explicit	0.702	0.019	0.663	0.740
	Wh-Question	1	Implicit	0.084	0.011	0.062	0.106
		1	Explicit	0.077	0.012	0.053	0.100
		2	Implicit	0.628	0.017	0.594	0.662
		2	Explicit	0.706	0.019	0.669	0.743
		3	Implicit	0.619	0.014	0.592	0.645
		3	Explicit	0.672	0.021	0.631	0.713
Memorized	-ing	1	Implicit	0.076	0.012	0.051	0.100
		1	Explicit	0.092	0.012	0.068	0.116
		2	Implicit	0.696	0.018	0.661	0.730
		2	Explicit	0.838	0.015	0.809	0.868
		3	Implicit	0.677	0.016	0.645	0.709
		3	Explicit	0.818	0.019	0.782	0.855
	possessive-s	1	Implicit	0.094	0.015	0.065	0.123
		1	Explicit	0.093	0.012	0.070	0.116
		2	Implicit	0.708	0.017	0.675	0.742
		2	Explicit	0.763	0.018	0.727	0.799
		3	Implicit	0.691	0.015	0.661	0.722
		3	Explicit	0.742	0.020	0.702	0.781
	3rd person-s	1	Implicit	0.090	0.018	0.055	0.125
		1	Explicit	0.083	0.010	0.063	0.102
		2	Implicit	0.614	0.016	0.583	0.645
		2	Explicit	0.732	0.017	0.699	0.764
		3	Implicit	0.602	0.014	0.573	0.630
		3	Explicit	0.698	0.019	0.660	0.737
	Wh-Question	1	Implicit	0.076	0.011	0.054	0.098
		1	Explicit	0.074	0.012	0.051	0.097
		2	Implicit	0.625	0.017	0.591	0.659
		2	Explicit	0.718	0.019	0.681	0.756
		3	Implicit	0.614	0.014	0.587	0.641
		3	Explicit	0.688	0.021	0.647	0.729
Deductive	-ing	1	Implicit	0.074	0.012	0.050	0.099
		1	Explicit	0.073	0.012	0.049	0.097
		2	Implicit	0.640	0.018	0.605	0.674
		2	Explicit	0.795	0.015	0.765	0.825
		3	Implicit	0.620	0.016	0.588	0.651
		3	Explicit	0.762	0.019	0.725	0.798
	possessive-s	1	Implicit	0.085	0.015	0.056	0.114
		1	Explicit	0.083	0.012	0.060	0.106
		2	Implicit	0.758	0.017	0.724	0.791
		2	Explicit	0.853	0.018	0.817	0.889
		3	Implicit	0.735	0.015	0.704	0.765
		3	Explicit	0.838	0.020	0.799	0.878
	3rd person s	1	Implicit	0.113	0.018	0.078	0.148
		1	Explicit	0.075	0.010	0.056	0.095
		2	Implicit	0.556	0.016	0.525	0.587
		2	Explicit	0.685	0.017	0.652	0.718
		3	Implicit	0.539	0.014	0.511	0.567
		3	Explicit	0.647	0.019	0.608	0.685
	Wh-Question	1	Implicit	0.065	0.011	0.043	0.087
		1	Explicit	0.079	0.012	0.056	0.102
		2	Implicit	0.706	0.017	0.672	0.740
		2	Explicit	0.777	0.019	0.739	0.814
		3	Implicit	0.686	0.014	0.659	0.713
		3	Explicit	0.748	0.021	0.707	0.789
Inductive	-ing	1	Implicit	0.075	0.012	0.050	0.100
		1	Explicit	0.067	0.012	0.043	0.091
		2	Implicit	0.629	0.018	0.595	0.664
		2	Explicit	0.783	0.015	0.754	0.813
		3	Implicit	0.620	0.016	0.588	0.652
		3	Explicit	0.760	0.019	0.723	0.797
	possessive-s	1	Implicit	0.085	0.015	0.056	0.114
		1	Explicit	0.082	0.012	0.059	0.105
		2	Implicit	0.763	0.017	0.729	0.796
		2	Explicit	0.840	0.018	0.804	0.876
		3	Implicit	0.739	0.015	0.708	0.769
		3	Explicit	0.830	0.020	0.791	0.869
	3rd person s	1	Implicit	0.081	0.018	0.046	0.116
		1	Explicit	0.073	0.010	0.054	0.093
		2	Implicit	0.563	0.016	0.532	0.593
		2	Explicit	0.678	0.017	0.646	0.711
		3	Implicit	0.545	0.014	0.517	0.573
		3	Explicit	0.645	0.019	0.607	0.683
	Wh-Question	1	Implicit	0.082	0.011	0.060	0.104
		1	Explicit	0.082	0.012	0.059	0.106
		2	Implicit	0.717	0.017	0.683	0.751
		2	Explicit	0.775	0.019	0.738	0.812
		3	Implicit	0.690	0.014	0.663	0.717
		3	Explicit	0.755	0.021	0.714	0.796
Control	-ing	1	Implicit	0.066	0.012	0.041	0.090
		1	Explicit	0.070	0.012	0.046	0.094
		2	Implicit	0.092	0.018	0.058	0.127
		2	Explicit	0.063	0.015	0.034	0.093
		3	Implicit	0.108	0.016	0.076	0.140
		3	Explicit	0.080	0.019	0.043	0.117
	possessive-s	1	Implicit	0.082	0.015	0.053	0.110
		1	Explicit	0.082	0.012	0.059	0.105
		2	Implicit	0.147	0.017	0.114	0.181
		2	Explicit	0.130	0.018	0.094	0.166
		3	Implicit	0.152	0.015	0.121	0.182
		3	Explicit	0.140	0.020	0.101	0.179
	3rd person s	1	Implicit	0.077	0.018	0.042	0.112
		1	Explicit	0.081	0.010	0.061	0.100
		2	Implicit	0.072	0.016	0.041	0.103
		2	Explicit	0.061	0.017	0.029	0.094
		3	Implicit	0.101	0.014	0.073	0.129
		3	Explicit	0.084	0.019	0.046	0.123
	Wh-Question	1	Implicit	0.090	0.011	0.068	0.112
		1	Explicit	0.070	0.012	0.047	0.094
		2	Implicit	0.111	0.017	0.077	0.145
		2	Explicit	0.055	0.019	0.018	0.092
		3	Implicit	0.097	0.014	0.071	0.124
		3	Explicit	0.080	0.021	0.039	0.121

References

Akakura, M. 2012. Evaluating the effectiveness of explicit instruction on implicit and explicit L2 knowledge. Language Teaching Research 16(1). 9–37.10.1177/1362168811423339Suche in Google Scholar

Bowles, M. 2011. Measuring implicit and explicit linguistic knowledge: What can heritage language learners contribute? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33, 247–271.10.1017/S0272263110000756Suche in Google Scholar

Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Suche in Google Scholar

Collins, L., P. Trofimovich, J. White, W. Cardoso & M. Horst. 2009. Some input on the easy/difficult grammar question: An empirical study. The Modern Language Journal 93(3). 336–353.10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00894.xSuche in Google Scholar

Davies, A., J. Brown, C. Elder, K. Hill, T. Lumley & T. F. McNamara. 1999. Dictionary of language testing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Local Examinations Syndicate.Suche in Google Scholar

De Graaff, R. & A. Housen. 2009. Investigating the effects and effectiveness of L2 instruction. In M. H. Long & C. J. Doughty (Eds.), The handbook of language teaching, 726–755. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.10.1002/9781444315783.ch38Suche in Google Scholar

DeKeyser, R. 2007. Skill acquisition theory. In B. Vanpatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction, 97–112. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Suche in Google Scholar

DeKeyser, R. 2012. Interactions between individual differences, treatments, and structures in SLA. Language Learning 62(2). 189–200.10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00712.xSuche in Google Scholar

DeKeyser, R. M. 1995. Learning second language grammar rules: An experiment with a miniature linguistic system. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 17(3). 379–410.10.1017/S027226310001425XSuche in Google Scholar

DeKeyser, R. M. 1998. Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. In C. J. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition, 42–63. New York: Cambridge University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

DeKeyser, R. M. 2003. Implicit and explicit learning. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition, 313–348. Oxford: Blackwell.10.1002/9780470756492.ch11Suche in Google Scholar

DeKeyser, R. M. 2005. What makes learning second-language grammar difficult? A review of issues. Language Learning 55(Suppl. 1). 1–25.10.1111/j.0023-8333.2005.00294.xSuche in Google Scholar

Dornyei, Z. 2009. The psychology of second language acquisition. Oxford: OUP.Suche in Google Scholar

Doughty, C. 2003. Instructed SLA: Constraints, compensation, and enhancement. In C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition, 256–310. Malden, MA: Blackwell.10.1002/9780470756492.ch10Suche in Google Scholar

Dulay, H. & M. Burt. 1973. Should we teach children syntax?. Language Learning 23. 245–258.10.1111/j.1467-1770.1973.tb00659.xSuche in Google Scholar

Ellis, N. 1996. Sequencing in SLA: Phonological memory, chunking and points of order. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18(1). 91–126.10.1017/S0272263100014698Suche in Google Scholar

Ellis, N. 2002. Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24(2). 141–188.10.1017/S0272263102002024Suche in Google Scholar

Ellis, R. 2001. Introduction: Investigating form-focused instruction. Language Learning 51(Supplement 1). 1–46.10.1111/j.1467-1770.2001.tb00013.xSuche in Google Scholar

Ellis, N. & N. Laporte. 1997. Contexts of acquisition: Effects of formal instruction and naturalistic exposure on second language acquisition. In Annette M.B. de Groot & Judith. F. Kroll (Eds.), Tutorials in bilingualism (pp. 53–83). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Suche in Google Scholar

Ellis, R. 2002. Does form-focused instruction affect the acquisition of implicit knowledge?: A review of the research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24(2). 223–236.10.1017/S0272263102002073Suche in Google Scholar

Ellis, R. 2004. The definition and measurement of explicit knowledge. Language Learning 54(2). 227–275.10.1111/j.1467-9922.2004.00255.xSuche in Google Scholar

Ellis, R. 2005. Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27(2). 141–172.10.1017/S0272263105050096Suche in Google Scholar

Ellis, R. 2006. Modelling learning difficulty and second language proficiency: The differential contributions of implicit and explicit knowledge. Applied Linguistics 27(3). 431–463.10.1093/applin/aml022Suche in Google Scholar

Ellis, R. 2008. The study of second language acquisition, 2nd. Oxford: OUP.Suche in Google Scholar

Ellis, R., Loewen, S., Elder, C., Erlam, R., Philp, J., & Reinders, H. 2009. Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language learning, testing and teaching. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.10.2307/jj.27195491Suche in Google Scholar

Goldschneider, J. & R. DeKeyser. 2001. Explaining the “natural order of L2 morpheme acquisition” in English: A meta-analysis of multiple determinants. Language Learning 51(1). 1–50.10.1111/1467-9922.00147Suche in Google Scholar

Goldschneider, J. M. & R. M. Dekeyser. 2005. Explaining the “natural order of L2 morpheme acquisition” in English: A meta-analysis of multiple determinants. Language Learning 55. 27–77.10.1111/j.0023-8333.2005.00295.xSuche in Google Scholar

Harley, B. 1994. Appealing to consciousness in the second language classroom. AILA Review 11. 57–68.Suche in Google Scholar

Housen, A., M. Pierrard & S. Van Daele. 2005. Rule complexity and the efficacy of explicit grammar instruction. In A. Housen & M. Pierrard (Eds.), Investigations in instructed second language acquisition, 235–269. Mouton de Gruyter: Amsterdam.10.1515/9783110197372Suche in Google Scholar

Hulstijn, J. & R. De Graaff. 1994. Under what conditions does explicit knowledge of a second language facilitate the acquisition of implicit knowledge? A research proposal. AILA Review 11. 97–112.Suche in Google Scholar

Hulstijn, J. H. 2005. Theoretical and empirical issues in the study of implicit and explicit second-language learning: Introduction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27(2). 129–140.10.1017/S0272263105050084Suche in Google Scholar

Krashen, S. 1982. Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.10.1111/j.1467-971X.1982.tb00476.xSuche in Google Scholar

Krashen, S. 1985. The Input Hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman.Suche in Google Scholar

Martínez Baztán, A. (2008). La evaluación oral: una equivalencia entre las guidelines deACTFL y algunas escalas del MCER. (Doctoral dissertation.) Retrieved from Repositorio Institucional de la Universidad de Grana-da.Suche in Google Scholar

McDade, H. L., M. Simpson & D. Lamb. 1982. The use of elicited imitation as a measure of expressive grammar: A question of validity. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders 47(1). 19–24.10.1044/jshd.4701.19Suche in Google Scholar

McGraw, K.O & S.P. Wong. 1996. Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychological Methods 1(1). 30–46.10.1037/1082-989X.1.1.30Suche in Google Scholar

Norris, J. M. & L. Ortega. 2000. Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning 50(3). 417–528.10.1111/0023-8333.00136Suche in Google Scholar

Pienemann, M. 1998. Language processing and second language development: Processability theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/sibil.15Suche in Google Scholar

Pienemann, M. 2005. Cross linguistic aspects of processability theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/sibil.30Suche in Google Scholar

Reber, A. S. 1989. Implicit learning and tacit knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 118(3). 219–235.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195106589.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar

Robinson, P. 1996a. Consciousness, rules, and instructed second language acquisition. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Suche in Google Scholar

Robinson, P. 1996b. Learning simple and complex second language rules under implicit, incidental, rule-search, and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18(1). 27–67.10.1017/S0272263100014674Suche in Google Scholar

Robinson, P. 1997. Generalizability and automaticity of second language learning under implicit, incidental, enhanced, and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19(2). 223–247.10.1017/S0272263197002052Suche in Google Scholar

Sharwood Smith, M. 2008. Morphological and syntactic awarness in foreign/second language learning. In J. Cenoz & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education, 2nd, vol. 6, 179–191. US: Springer.Suche in Google Scholar

Spada, N. 1997. Form-focused instruction and second language acquisition: A review of classroom and laboratory research. Language Teaching 30(1). 73–87.10.1017/S0261444800012799Suche in Google Scholar

Spada, N. & Y. Tomita. 2010. Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning 60(1). 1–46.10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00562.xSuche in Google Scholar

Williams, J. & J. Evans. 1998. What kind of focus and on which forms?. In C. J. Doughty & J Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition, 139–151. New York: Cambridge University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2018-06-26

Published in Print: 2021-06-25

Sie haben derzeit keinen Zugang zu diesem Inhalt.

Artikel in diesem Heft

https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2016-0045

Schlagwörter für diesen Artikel

explicit/implicit FFI; easy/difficult language forms; type of L2 knowledge