Article published in:
Cognitive Individual Differences in Second Language Processing and Acquisition
Edited by Gisela Granena, Daniel O. Jackson and Yucel Yilmaz
[Bilingual Processing and Acquisition 3] 2016
► pp. 303–326

The interaction between feedback exposure condition and phonetic coding ability

| Indiana University
| Indiana University
This chapter reports on an empirical study that investigated feedback-cognitive ability interactions in three oral negative feedback exposure conditions. In the first condition, learners (i.e. receivers) received feedback on their own errors. In the second condition, learners (i.e. nonreceivers) did not receive feedback on their own errors, but they were allowed to hear the feedback that was provided to the receivers. In the control condition, learners were not exposed to feedback. The cognitive ability investigated was a sub-component of Carroll’s (1962) aptitude model, phonetic coding ability (PCA), or the capacity to recognize and remember previously encountered phonetic material. Results revealed that PCA played a role only in the receivers’ immediate posttest performance, suggesting that the receivers and the nonreceivers might have processed the feedback differently and that higher PCA ability may increase the benefits of receiving feedback directly on one’s own errors but have no effect on feedback that one is merely exposed to.
Published online: 23 December 2016
https://doi.org/10.1075/bpa.3.14yil
References

References

Ammar, A., & Spada, N.
(2006) One size fits all? Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 543–574. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, J. B.
(1962) The prediction of success in intensive foreign language training. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Training research and education. (pp. 87–136) Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
(1981) Twenty-five years of research in foreign language aptitude. In K.C. Diller (Ed.), Individual differences and universals in language learning aptitude. (pp. 83–118) Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. B., & Sapon, S.
(1959) Modern Language Aptitude Test: Form A. New York, NY: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Carroll, S., & Swain, M.
(1993) Explicit and implicit negative feedback: an empirical study of the learning of linguistic generalizations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 357–386. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cedrus
(2003) Superlab 3.0. San Pedro, CA: Cedrus Corporation.Google Scholar
Chaudron, C.
(1977) A descriptive model of discourse in the corrective treatment of learners’ errors. Language Learning, 27, 2–46. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Corno, L., Cronbach, L. J., Kupermintz, H., Lohman, D. F., Mandinach, E. B., Porteus, A.W., & Talbert, J. E.
(2002) Remaking the concept of aptitude: Extending the legacy of Richard E. Snow. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Cronbach, L.J. & Snow, R.E.
(1977) Aptitudes and instructional methods. New York, NY: Irvington.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R.
(2012) Interactions between individual differences, treatments, and structures in SLA. Language Learning, 62, 189–200. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C. J.
(2001) Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction. (pp. 206–257) Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C., & Varela, E.
(1998) Communicative focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114–138). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R.
(2007) The differential effects of negative feedback on two grammatical structures. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 339–360). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R.
(2006) Implicit and explicit negative feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 339–368. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R., Tanaka, Y., & Yamazaki, A.
(1994) Classroom interaction, comprehension, and the acquisition of L2 word meanings. Language Learning, 44, 449–491. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Erlam, R.
(2005) Language aptitude and its relationship to instructional effectiveness in second language acquisition. Language Teaching Research, 9, 147–171. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S.
(1997) Input, interaction and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Granena, G., & Long, M. H.
(2013) Age of onset, length of residence, language aptitude, and ultimate L2 attainment in three linguistic domains. Second Language Research, 29, 311–343. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goo, J.
(2012) Negative feedback and working memory capacity in interaction-driven L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 445–474. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hu, X., Ackermann, H., Martin, J. A., Erb, M., Winkler, S., & Reiterer, S. M.
(2013) Language aptitude for pronunciation in advanced second language (L2) Learners: Behavioural predictors and neural substrates. Brain & Language, 127, 366–376. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leeman, J.
(2003) Recasts and second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 37–63. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Li, S.
(2013) The interactions between the effects of implicit and explicit feedback and individual differences in language analytic ability and working memory. The Modern Language Journal, 97, 634–654. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Li, C. N., & Thompson, S. A.
(1981) Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Long, M. H.
(1981) Input, interaction and second language acquisition: (pp. 259–278) In H. Winitz (Ed.), Native language and foreign language acquisition. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. (pp. 259–278) CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1996) The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie, & T.K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
(2007) Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Lyster, R.
(2004) Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 399–432. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A.
(1999) Input, interaction, and second language development: An empirical study of question formation in ESL. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 557–587. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A., & Philp, J.
(1998) Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings? The Modern Language Journal, 82, 338–356. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A., Philp, J., Egi, T., Fujii, A., & Tatsumi, T.
(2002) Individual differences in working memory, noticing of interactional feedback and L2 development. (pp. 181–209) In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual Differences and Instructed Language Learning. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Meara, P.
(2005) LLAMA Language Aptitude Tests. Lognostics.Google Scholar
Muranoi, H.
(2000) Focus on form through interaction enhancement: integrating formal instruction into a communicative task in EFL classrooms. Language Learning, 50, 617–673. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ono, L., & Witzel, J.
(2002) Recasts, salience, and morpheme acquisition. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Ortega, L., & Long, M. H.
(1997) The effects of models and recasts on the acquisition of object topicalization and adverb placement in L2 Spanish. Spanish Applied Linguistics, 1, 65–86.Google Scholar
Pica, T.
(1988) Interlanguage adjustments as outcome of NS-NNS negotiated interaction. Language Learning, 38, 45–73. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1991) Classroom interaction, negotiation, and comprehension: redefining relationships. System, 19, 437–452. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1992) The textual outcomes of native speaker–nonnative speaker negotiation: What do they reveal about second language learning? In C. Kramsch & S. McConnell-Ginet (Eds.), Text and context: Cross-disciplinary perspectives on language study. (pp. 198–237) Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath & Co.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M.
(1998) Language processing and second language development: Processability theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pimsleur, P.
(1966) The Pimsleur Language Aptitude Battery. N. Bethesda, MD: Second Language Testing.Google Scholar
Révész, A.
(2009) Task complexity, focus on form, and second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 437–470. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Reynolds, B.
(2002) Phonetic coding in language aptitude: Different roles for different languages. http://​www​.tuj​.ac​.jp​/tesol​/publications​/working​-papers​/vol​-14​/reynolds​.html> (9 September 2015).
Robinson, P.
(2007) Aptitude, abilities, contexts, practice. In R. Dekeyser (Ed.), Practice in a second language: perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012) Individual differences, aptitude complexes, SLA processes, and aptitude test development. In M. Pawlak (Ed.), New perspectives on individual differences in language learning and teaching. (pp. 57–75). New York, NY: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R.
(2001) Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R., & Frota, S.
(1986) Developing basic conversational ability in a second language: A case study of an adult learner of Portuguese. In R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition. (pp. 237–326) Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Sheen, Y.
(2007) The effects of negative feedback, language aptitude, and learner attitudes on the acquisition of English articles. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 301–322). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Skehan, P.
(1998) A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
(2002) Theorizing and updating aptitude. In P. Robinson, (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sparks, R. L., Humbach, N., Patton, J. O. N., & Ganschow, L.
(2011) Subcomponents of second-language aptitude and second-language proficiency. The Modern Language Journal, 95, 253–273. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Swain, M.
(2005) The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Tomlin, R., & Villa, V.
(1994) Attention in cognitive science and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 183–204. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Trofimovich, P., Ammar, A., & Gatbonton, E.
(2007) How effective are recasts? The role of attention, memory, and analytical ability. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 144–171). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Yilmaz, Y.
(2012) The relative effects of explicit correction and recasts on two target structures via two communication modes. Language Learning, 62, 1134–1169. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013a) Relative effects of explicit and implicit feedback: The role of working memory capacity and language analytic ability. Applied Linguistics, 34, 344–368. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013b) The relative effectiveness of mixed, explicit and implicit feedback. System, 41, 691–705. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2016) The effectiveness of explicit correction under two different feedback exposure conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 65–96. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yilmaz, Y., & Granena, G.
(2016) The role of cognitive aptitudes for explicit language learning in the relative effects of explicit and implicit feedback. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19, 147–161. Crossref
Yilmaz, Y., Yuksel, D.
(2011) Effects of communication mode and salience on recasts: A first exposure study. Language Teaching Research, 15, 457–477. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 7 other publications

Bokander, Lars & Emanuel Bylund
2020. Probing the Internal Validity of the LLAMA Language Aptitude Tests. Language Learning 70:1 ► pp. 11 ff. Crossref logo
Granena, Gisela & Yucel Yilmaz
2019. Corrective Feedback and the Role of Implicit Sequence-Learning Ability in L2 Online Performance. Language Learning 69 ► pp. 127 ff. Crossref logo
Kourtali, Nektaria‐Efstathia & Andrea Révész
2020. The Roles of Recasts, Task Complexity, and Aptitude in Child Second Language Development. Language Learning 70:1 ► pp. 179 ff. Crossref logo
SAITO, KAZUYA
2019. The role of aptitude in second language segmental learning: The case of Japanese learners’ English /ɹ/ pronunciation attainment in classroom settings. Applied Psycholinguistics 40:1 ► pp. 183 ff. Crossref logo
Saito, Kazuya, Yui Suzukida & Hui Sun
2019. APTITUDE, EXPERIENCE, AND SECOND LANGUAGE PRONUNCIATION PROFICIENCY DEVELOPMENT IN CLASSROOM SETTINGS. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 41:1 ► pp. 201 ff. Crossref logo
YILMAZ, YUCEL & GISELA GRANENA
2019. Cognitive Individual Differences as Predictors of Improvement and Awareness Under Implicit and Explicit Feedback Conditions. The Modern Language Journal Crossref logo
Yilmaz, Yucel & Gisela Granena
2021. IMPLICITNESS AND EXPLICITNESS IN COGNITIVE ABILITIES AND CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK. Studies in Second Language Acquisition ► pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 11 july 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.