Home The role of awareness in implicit and explicit knowledge
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

The role of awareness in implicit and explicit knowledge

  • Ilina Kachinske ORCID logo EMAIL logo and Robert DeKeyser
Published/Copyright: April 10, 2024
International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching
From the journal International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching Volume 63 Issue 2

Abstract

This study investigates the initial incidental acquisition of two L2 morphosyntactic rules and their immediate usage in production. Using a miniature artificial language paradigm, multiple exposure sessions, realistic exposure, non-salient linguistic features, as well as multiple outcome measures, we demonstrate that adult learners can learn animacy with low levels of awareness, but not case. Forty adult native speakers of English participated in the experiment. Participants were exposed to audio sentences in the artificial language paired with pictures on the computer screen for three sessions. Knowledge of animacy and case was measured with production and grammaticality judgment tests. Results demonstrated that concrete, contiguous and easily trackable L2 properties that lend themselves to distributional learning, such as animacy marking, can benefit from incidental exposure. However, more abstract L2 properties, like the morphological paradigm of case, seem not to be learnable by incidental means, and opportunities for explicit learning must be provided.

Keywords: implicit knowledge; explicit knowledge; noticing; awareness; artificial language
Corresponding author: Ilina Kachinske, School of Foreign Languages, University American College Skopje, Treta makedonska brigada nr. 60, Skopje 1000, Skopje, 1000, North Macedonia, E-mail:

Acknowledgments

We are very grateful to the two anonymous reviewers who unselfishly provided several rounds of extensive feedback which significantly improved the quality of the paper. We are also grateful to Professor Jeffrey Lidz who was instrumental in the design of the initial stages of the experiment and the paper.

Appendix A

Instructions for training session 1

Welcome to the sentence comprehension experiment. You will hear sentences in the artificial language that will help you acquire the vocabulary that was just presented to you. Your main task will be to pay attention to the meaning of the sentences. Once the sentence ends, repeat the sentence aloud and answer after each sentence whether the sentence is semantically acceptable or not. You are now ready to begin the experiment.

Instructions for training session 2

Welcome to the sentence comprehension experiment. You will hear more sentences in the artificial language. Your main task will be to pay attention to the meaning of the sentences. Once the sentence ends, repeat the sentence aloud and answer after each sentence whether the meaning of the sentence is positive, negative or neutral. You are now ready to begin the experiment.

Instructions for training session 3

Welcome to the sentence comprehension experiment. You will hear more sentences in the artificial language. Your main task will be to pay attention to the meaning of the sentences. Once the sentence ends, repeat the sentence aloud and act out the sentence with the flashcards in front of you. Only then press the spacebar to see the picture. You are now ready to begin the experiment.

Instructions for the production test

Welcome to the sentence production test. You will be presented with pictures of two nouns. Your task will be to produce a sentence in the artificial nouns with the two nouns in the order they appear. You are free to use a verb of your own choice.

Instructions for the GJT test

You will now hear more sentences in the artificial language that sound similar to the ones you heard previously. However, they are different sentences. Your task is to judge whether the sentences you hear is good-sounding, grammatical or bad-sounding, ungrammatical. This decision should be made in relation to the exemplar sentences you heard previous since not all sentences are good-sounding sentences. Please use the sentences you previously heard as a guide when making your judgment. In other words, if the sentence you hear sounds like the sentences you previously heard, you should mark the sentences as good-sounding – otherwise you should mark it as bad-sounding. Make your decisions as quickly as possible.

Appendix B

Grammatical:

  1. DranGI bant waldUL

    The-animate, nominative girl is chasing the-animate, accusative boy.

    The girl is chasing the boy.

  2. ElhoNE bant filkRO

    The-inanimate, nominative car is chasing the-inanimate, accusative truck.

    The car is chasing the truck.

Violations:

  1. Only in the first NP (subject)

    DranNE* bant waldUL – animacy only violated.

    DranUL* bant waldUL – case only violated.

    DranRO* bant waldUL – both animacy and case violated.

  2. Only in the second NP (object)

    DranGI bant waldRO* – animacy only violated.

    DranGI bant waldGI* – case only violated.

    DranGI bant waldNE* – both animacy and case violated.

  3. Violations in both NPs

    DranNE* bant waldRO* – animacy only violated.

    DranUL* bant waldGI* – case only violated.

    DranRO* bant waldNE* – both animacy and case violated.

Appendix C

In what follows, a sample of representative stimulated recall protocols for groups will be provided.

  1. Unaware group

    “I definitely answered no to this one. Why? Because I never heard it conjugated it like that. I never heard usfitGI”. Why the endings? I thought perhaps it had to do with gender or plurality”.

    “Neither of the nouns sounded like they were conjugated the right way. I don’t know how they should be conjugated. No, I don’t know why those conjugations were there”.

    “UsfitGI fand ninRO, no. Why? I never heard that before, but I have heard ninRO conjugated like that. I’ve always heard usfit with an O sound at the end”.

    “PigotGI doesn’t sound right to me. I don’t know why. I just don’t remember hearing it before, the sound combination”.

    “No. NinRO doesn’t sound like anything I heard before. It sounds weird. I don’t know why those ending were there. Perhaps plurality”.

    “The first object is wrong. It should be flerbitRO [2] (and not flerbitUL). I don’t know why. I just remember hearing it like that”.

    “No. NinGI should be ninNE, or with a E sound at the end. Why? That’s what I heard over and over again”.

    “I am pretty sure smitch should be with NE. I always heard smitchNE. I didn’t pair UL with smitch. I don’t know why. I just remember hearing that combination”.

    “No, waldUL isn’t right. Sounds weird, doesn’t flow”.

    “SlaceRO, no. Slace doesn’t sound right with RO. Just a feeling. I think the RO sound was always paired only with zampor and pigot”.

    “Yes. Because I remember hearing these words with these endings”. I don’t know why exactly, I just remember them hearing them like that”.

  1. Case-Aware group

  1. “No. UL and RO are both used in the sentence together and we can’t have both of them together. We need one for the subject and one for the object”.

  2. “No, the two suffixes were both for the subject, not the object”.

  3. “Yes, flerbitUL is at the end of the sentence”.

  4. “No, because NE doesn’t go at the end of the sentence. It should be with UL, dranUL”.

  5. “Yes. Sounds similar to what I thought I heard. Yes. Ne and GI were usually at the beginning. UL and RO at the end”. For the next sentence: “PigotGI doesn’t sound correct. I was used to saying pigotRO”.

  1. Aware group

  1. “No, GI is for living things if the noun is doing the action”.

  2. “Yes. Why? Both endings are correct. Yes, I followed the rule that living things can have GI or UL, and non-living things take NE or RO, depending on who is doing the action. GI and NE are for the subject, and UL and RO for the object”.

  3. “No. It should be smitchNE at the beginning. Because it is the subject and it’s a thing”.

References

Agresti, Alan. 2002. Logistic regression. Categorical data analysis, 15, 24. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Inc., Publication.10.1002/0471249688Search in Google Scholar

Baddeley, Alan D. 1997. Human memory: Theory and practice. London, UK: Psychology Press.Search in Google Scholar

Balota, David A., Melvin J. Yap, Keith A. Hutchison, Michael J. Cortese, Brett Kessler, Bjorn Loftis, James H. Neely, Douglas L. Nelson, Greg B. Simpson & Rebecca Treiman. 2007. The English lexicon project. Behavior Research Methods 39. 445–459. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03193014.Search in Google Scholar

Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen. 2000. Tense and aspect in second language acquisition: Form, meaning, and use. Language Learning: A Journal of Research in Language Studies 50. 1.10.1111/0023-8333.50.s1.1Search in Google Scholar

Bates, Douglas. 2005. Fitting linear mixed models in R. R News 5(1). 27–30.10.1016/S0031-398X(05)70043-6Search in Google Scholar

Bovolenta, Giulia & John N. Williams. 2022. Implicit learning in production: Productive generalization of new form–meaning connections in the absence of awareness. Language Learning 73(3). 723–758. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12551.Search in Google Scholar

Boxtel, Sonja van, Theo Bongaerts & Peter A. Coppen. 2005. Native-like attainment of dummy subjects in Dutch and the role of the L1. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 43(4). 355–380. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2005.43.4.355.Search in Google Scholar

Braine, Martin D. S., Ruth E. Brody, Patricia D. Brooks, Vicki Sudhalter, Julie E. Ross, Lisa Catalano & Shalom M. Fisch. 1990. Exploring language acquisition in children with a miniature artificial language: Effects of item and pattern frequency, arbitrary subclasses, and correction. Journal of Memory and Language 29. 591–610. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596x(90)90054-4.Search in Google Scholar

Breslow, E. Norman & David, G. Clayton. 1993. Approximate inference in generalized linear mixed models. Journal of the American Statistical Association 88(421). 9–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1993.10594284.Search in Google Scholar

Brooks, Patricia J., Martin D. S. Braine, Lisa Catalano, Ruth E. Brody & Sudhalter Vicky. 1993. Acquisition of gender-like noun subclasses in an artificial language: The contribution of phonological markers to learning. Journal of Memory and Language 32(1). 76–95. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1993.1005.Search in Google Scholar

Brooks, Patricia J., Kempe Vera & Sionov Ariel. 2006. The role of learner and input variables in learning inflectional morphology. Applied PsychoLinguistics 27. 185–209. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0142716406060243.Search in Google Scholar

Brooks, Patrucua J., Vera Kempe & Annemarie Donachie. 2011. Second language learning benefits from similarity in word endings: Evidence from Russian. Language Learning 61. 1142–1172. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00665.x.Search in Google Scholar

Brooks, Patricia J. & Vera Kempe. 2013. Individual differences in adult foreign language learning: The mediating effect of metalinguistic awareness. Memory & Cognition 41. 281–296. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-012-0262-9.Search in Google Scholar

Cayado, Dave K. & Ricky K. Chan. 2022. The influence of prior linguistic knowledge on Second language semantic implicit learning: Evidence from Cantonese–english bilinguals. Language Learning 73(3). 657–682. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12546.Search in Google Scholar

Cunnings, Ian. 2012. An overview of mixed-effects statistical models for second language researchers. Second Language Research 28(3). 369–382. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658312443651.Search in Google Scholar

De Graaff, Rick. 1997. The eXperanto experiment: Effects of explicit instruction on second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19. 249–276. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263197002064.Search in Google Scholar

DeKeyser, Robert M. 1995. Learning second language grammar rules: An experiment with a miniature linguistic system. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 17. 379–410. https://doi.org/10.1017/s027226310001425x.Search in Google Scholar

DeKeyser, Robert M. 2003. Implicit and EL. In Catherine Doughty & Michael Long (eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition, 313–348. Oxford: Blackwell.10.1002/9780470756492.ch11Search in Google Scholar

DeKeyser, Robert M. 2005. What makes learning second-language grammar difficult? A review of issues. Language Learning 55(S1). 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0023-8333.2005.00294.x.Search in Google Scholar

DeKeyser, Robert M. 2020. Skill acquisition theory. In Bill VanPatten, Gregory Keating & Stefanie Wulff (eds.), Theories in second language acquisition. An introduction, 3rd edn. 94–112. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780429503986-5Search in Google Scholar

Denhovska, Nadiia & Ludovica Serratrice. 2017. Incidental learning of gender agreement in L2. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 46. 1187–1211. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-017-9487-x.Search in Google Scholar

Donaldson, Bryan. 2011. Left-dislocation in near-native French. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 33(3). 399–432. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263111000039.Search in Google Scholar

Ellis, Nick C. 1993. Rules and instances in foreign language learning: Interactions of explicit and implicit knowledge. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology 5. 289–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/09541449308520120.Search in Google Scholar

Ellis, Nick C. 2015. Implicit and explicit learning: Their dynamic interface and complexity. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.10.1075/sibil.48.01ellSearch in Google Scholar

Field, Andy, Jeremy Miles & Zoë Field. 2012. Discovering statistics using R. London: Sage Publications.Search in Google Scholar

Fukuta, Junya & Junko Yamashita. 2021. The complex relationship between conscious/unconscious learning and conscious/unconscious knowledge: The mediating effects of salience in form–meaning connections. Second Language Research 39(2). 02676583211044950.10.1177/02676583211044950Search in Google Scholar

Gareth, James, Witten Daniela, Hastie Trevor & Tibshirani Robert. 2013. An introduction to statistical learning: With applications in R. New York: Spinger.10.1007/978-1-4614-7138-7Search in Google Scholar

Godfroid, Aline, Shawn Loewen, Sehoon Jung, Ji-Hyun H. Park, Susan Gass & Rod Ellis. 2015. Timed and untimed grammaticality judgments measure distinct types of knowledge: Evidence from eye-movement patterns. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 37(2). 269–297. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263114000850.Search in Google Scholar

Grey, Sarah, John N. Williams & Patrick. Rebuschat. 2014. Incidental exposure and L3 learning of morphosyntax. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 36(4). 611–645. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263113000727.Search in Google Scholar

Hulstijn, Jan H. 2001. Intentional and incidental second language vocabulary learning: A reappraisal of elaboration, rehearsal and automaticity. In Peter Robinson (ed.), Cognition and second language instruction, 258–286. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139524780.011Search in Google Scholar

Hulstijn, Jan H. 2003. Incidental and intentional learning. In Handbook of second language acquisition, 349–381. Oxford: Blackwell.10.1002/9780470756492.ch12Search in Google Scholar

Hulstijn, Jan H. 2015. Explaining phenomena of first and second language acquisition with the constructs of implicit and explicit learning. Implicit and explicit learning of languages 48. 25–46. https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.48.02hul.Search in Google Scholar

Ioup, Geoggette, Elizabeth, Boustagui, Manal, El Tigi & Martha, Moselle. 1994. Reexamining the critical period hypothesis. A case study of successful adult SLA in a naturalistic environment. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 16(1). 73–98, https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263100012596.Search in Google Scholar

Isbell, Daniel R. & John Rogers. 2021. Measuring implicit and explicit learning and knowledge. In Paula Winke & Tineke Brunfaut (eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and language testing, 304–313. New York, NY: Routledge.10.4324/9781351034784-33Search in Google Scholar

Ishikawa, Keiichi. 2019. Incidental and explicit learning of L2 derivational morphology and the nature of acquired knowledge. Applied PsychoLinguistics 40(6). 1377–1404. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0142716419000304.Search in Google Scholar

Jaeger, T. Florian. 2008. Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language 59(4). 434–446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.11.007.Search in Google Scholar

Jiang, Nan. 2004. Morphological insensitivity in second language processing. Applied PsychoLinguistics 25. 603–634. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0142716404001298.Search in Google Scholar

Jiang, Nan. 2007. Selective integration of linguistic knowledge in adult second language learning. Language Learning 57. 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2007.00397.x.Search in Google Scholar

Kempe, Vera & Patricia Brooks. 2008. Second language learning of complex inflectional systems. Language Learning 58(4). 703–704.10.1111/j.1467-9922.2008.00477.xSearch in Google Scholar

Krashen, Stephen D. 1981. Second language acquisition. Second Language Learning 3(7). 19–39.Search in Google Scholar

Krashen, Stephen D. 1985. The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London; New York: Addison-Wesley Longman Limited.Search in Google Scholar

Krashen, Stephen D. 1992. The input hypothesis: An update. Linguistics and language pedagogy: The state of the art, 409–431. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Leung, Janny H. C. & John N. Williams. 2006. IL of form-meaning connections. In Ron Sun & Naomi Miyake (eds.), Proceedings of the annual meeting of the cognitive science society, 465–470. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.Search in Google Scholar

Leung, Janny H. C. & John N. Williams. 2011. The IL of mappings between forms and contextually derived meanings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 33(1). 33–55.10.1017/S0272263110000525Search in Google Scholar

Leung, Janny C. H. & John Williams. 2012. Constraints on implicit learning of grammatical form‐meaning connections. Language Learning 62(2). 634–662.10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00637.xSearch in Google Scholar

Marsden, Emma, Williams John & Liu Xierong. 2013. Learning novel morphology: The role of meaning and orientation of attention at initial exposure. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 35(4). 619–654. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263113000296.Search in Google Scholar

Reber, Arthur S. 1967. IL of artificial grammars. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 6. 855–863. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5371(67)80149-x.Search in Google Scholar

Reber, Arthur S. 1993. IL and tacit knowledge: An essay on the cognitive unconscious. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Reber, Arthur S. 2011. An epitaph for grammar: An abridged history. Implicit and explicit language learning, 23–34. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Rebuschat, Patrick & John Williams. 2009. IL of word order. Proceedings of the 31th annual conference of the cognitive science society. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Search in Google Scholar

Rebuschat, Patrick & John N. Williams. 2012. Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language acquisition. Applied PsychoLinguistics 33(04). 829–856. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0142716411000580.Search in Google Scholar

Robinson, Peter. 1996. Learning simple and complex second language rules under implicit, incidental, rule-search, and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18. 27–67. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263100014674.Search in Google Scholar

Robinson, Peter. 2002. Effects of individual differences in intelligence, aptitude and working memory on adult incidental SLA: A replication and extension of Reber, Walker & Hernstadt (1991). In Peter Robinson (ed.), Individual differences in instructed language learning, 211–266. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/lllt.2.13robSearch in Google Scholar

Robinson, Peter. 2005. Cognitive abilities, chunk-strength and frequency effects in implicit Artificial Grammar and incidental L2 learning: Replications of Reber, Walkenfeld, & Hernstadt (1991) and Knowlton and Squire (1996) and their relevance for SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27(2). 235–268. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263105050126.Search in Google Scholar

Rogers, John, Andrea Révész & Patrick Rebuschat. 2015. Challenges in implicit learning research: Validating a novel artificial language. In Patrick Rebuschat (ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages, 273–298. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/sibil.48.12rogSearch in Google Scholar

Rogers, John. 2017. Awareness and learning under incidental learning conditions. Language Awareness 26(2). 113–133. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2017.1287711.Search in Google Scholar

Schmidt, Richard W. 1990. The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics 11. 129–158. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/11.2.129.Search in Google Scholar

Schmidt, Richard W. 1994. IL and the cognitive unconscious: Of artificial grammars and SLA. In Nick C. Ellis (ed.), Implicit and EL of languages, 165–209. London: Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar

Schmidt, Richard W. 2001. Attention. In Peter Robinson (ed.), Cognition and second language instruction, 3–32. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139524780.003Search in Google Scholar

White, Lydia. 2009. Grammatical theory: Interfaces and L2 knowledge. In William C. Ritchie & Tej K. Bhatia (eds.), The new handbook of second language acquisition, 49–68. Leeds: Emerald Group Publishing.Search in Google Scholar

Williams, John N. 2005. Learning without awareness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27. 269–304. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263105050138.Search in Google Scholar

Williams, John N. 2009. IL in second language acquisition. In William C. Ritchie & Tej K. Bhatia (eds.), The new handbook of second language acquisition. UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.Search in Google Scholar

Williams, John & Chieko Kuribara. 2008. Comparing a nativist and emergentist approach to the initial stage of SLA: An investigation of Japanese scrambling. Lingua 118(4). 522–553.10.1016/j.lingua.2007.03.003Search in Google Scholar
Received: 2022-10-27
Accepted: 2024-01-04
Published Online: 2024-04-10
Published in Print: 2025-06-26

© 2024 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Research Articles
  3. Unpacking the positioning of being “disengaged” and “disrespectful” in class through nexus analysis: an international student’s navigation of institutional and interactional university norms
  4. Assessing English language learners’ collocation knowledge: a systematic review of receptive and productive measurements
  5. The role of awareness in implicit and explicit knowledge
  6. Intensity of CLIL exposure and L2 motivation in primary school: evidence from Spanish EFL learners in non-CLIL, low-CLIL and high-CLIL programmes
  7. Promoting young EFL learners’ oral production through storytelling: coursebook adaptation in the Vietnamese classroom
  8. Applying embodied meaning of spatial prepositions and the Principled Polysemy model to teaching English as a second language: the case of to and on
  9. The impact of guessing and retrieval strategies for learning phrasal verbs
  10. Unraveling the differential effects of task rehearsal and task repetition on L2 task performance: the mediating role of task modality
  11. Examining L2 studentsʼ development of global cohesion and its relationship with their argumentative essay quality
  12. The construct of integrated group discussion (IGD) among undergraduate students: to what extent does group discussion performance reflect performance on IGD tasks?
  13. Discipline-specific attitudinal differences of EMI students towards translanguaging
  14. Relationship between second language vocabulary knowledge and vocabulary learning strategy use: a meta-analysis of correlational studies
  15. Evaluative language in undergraduate academic writing: expressions of attitude as sources of text effectiveness in English as a Foreign Language
  16. Investigating optimal spacing schedules for incidental acquisition of L2 collocations
  17. The association between socioeconomic status and Chinese secondary students’ English achievement: mediation of self-efficacy and moderation of gender
  18. Integrated instruction of Appraisal Theory and rhetorical moves in literature reviews: an exploratory study
  19. Scaffolding in genre-based L2 writing classes: Vietnamese EFL teachers’ beliefs and practices
  20. Exploring the professional role identities of English for academic purposes practitioners: a qualitative study
  21. The combined effects of task repetition and post-task teacher-corrected transcribing on complexity, accuracy and fluency of L2 oral performance
  22. Teacher behaviour and student engagement with L2 writing feedback: a case study
  23. The effect of an intervention focused on academic language on CAF measures in the multilingual writing of secondary students
  24. Which approach best promoted low-proficiency learners’ listening performance: metacognitive, bottom-up or a combination of both?
  25. Enhancing young EFL learners’ written skills: the role of repeated pre-task planning
  26. The mediating roles of resilience and motivation in the relationship between students’ English learning burnout and engagement: a conservation-of-resources perspective
  27. Student and teacher beliefs about oral corrective feedback in junior secondary English classrooms
  28. The effects of context, story-type, and language proficiency on EFL word learning and retention from reading
https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2022-0212
Keywords for this article
implicit knowledge; explicit knowledge; noticing; awareness; artificial language

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Research Articles
  3. Unpacking the positioning of being “disengaged” and “disrespectful” in class through nexus analysis: an international student’s navigation of institutional and interactional university norms
  4. Assessing English language learners’ collocation knowledge: a systematic review of receptive and productive measurements
  5. The role of awareness in implicit and explicit knowledge
  6. Intensity of CLIL exposure and L2 motivation in primary school: evidence from Spanish EFL learners in non-CLIL, low-CLIL and high-CLIL programmes
  7. Promoting young EFL learners’ oral production through storytelling: coursebook adaptation in the Vietnamese classroom
  8. Applying embodied meaning of spatial prepositions and the Principled Polysemy model to teaching English as a second language: the case of to and on
  9. The impact of guessing and retrieval strategies for learning phrasal verbs
  10. Unraveling the differential effects of task rehearsal and task repetition on L2 task performance: the mediating role of task modality
  11. Examining L2 studentsʼ development of global cohesion and its relationship with their argumentative essay quality
  12. The construct of integrated group discussion (IGD) among undergraduate students: to what extent does group discussion performance reflect performance on IGD tasks?
  13. Discipline-specific attitudinal differences of EMI students towards translanguaging
  14. Relationship between second language vocabulary knowledge and vocabulary learning strategy use: a meta-analysis of correlational studies
  15. Evaluative language in undergraduate academic writing: expressions of attitude as sources of text effectiveness in English as a Foreign Language
  16. Investigating optimal spacing schedules for incidental acquisition of L2 collocations
  17. The association between socioeconomic status and Chinese secondary students’ English achievement: mediation of self-efficacy and moderation of gender
  18. Integrated instruction of Appraisal Theory and rhetorical moves in literature reviews: an exploratory study
  19. Scaffolding in genre-based L2 writing classes: Vietnamese EFL teachers’ beliefs and practices
  20. Exploring the professional role identities of English for academic purposes practitioners: a qualitative study
  21. The combined effects of task repetition and post-task teacher-corrected transcribing on complexity, accuracy and fluency of L2 oral performance
  22. Teacher behaviour and student engagement with L2 writing feedback: a case study
  23. The effect of an intervention focused on academic language on CAF measures in the multilingual writing of secondary students
  24. Which approach best promoted low-proficiency learners’ listening performance: metacognitive, bottom-up or a combination of both?
  25. Enhancing young EFL learners’ written skills: the role of repeated pre-task planning
  26. The mediating roles of resilience and motivation in the relationship between students’ English learning burnout and engagement: a conservation-of-resources perspective
  27. Student and teacher beliefs about oral corrective feedback in junior secondary English classrooms
  28. The effects of context, story-type, and language proficiency on EFL word learning and retention from reading
Sign up now to receive a 20% welcome discount
Institutional Access
How does access work?
Have an idea on how to improve our website?
Please write us.
© 2025 De Gruyter Brill
Downloaded on 20.11.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/iral-2022-0212/html
Scroll to top button