Cover not available
Article published In:
Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 8:2 (2019) ► pp.206–227

The opt out paradigm

First steps towards a new experimental method that measures meta-linguistic awareness

ORCID logo | University of Amsterdam
| University of Amsterdam
| University of Amsterdam
| University of Amsterdam
A common assumption is that children learn a language implicitly and without conscious awareness of form and grammar, but this assumption has virtually never been tested experimentally. We propose a novel experimental method to examine if children’s ability to acquire linguistic regularities relates to awareness of these regularities. Traditional methods investigating awareness often rely on learners’ abilities to verbalize their awareness. For young children, such methods are not adequate because they often cannot reflect explicitly on their acquired knowledge, although they might be aware of it in a way they cannot verbalize. To test this, we adapted a method that is used to investigate awareness in animals, because it does not rely on verbalization for demonstrating awareness. Pilot results with 26 adults and 48 kindergartners show some important procedural prerequisites are met. In future research, this procedure could be used to investigate the development of meta-linguistic awareness in children.
Keywords: meta-linguistic awareness, opt out paradigm, implicit learning, measuring awareness
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Awareness in language acquisition
  • 3.Measuring awareness
  • 4.Method
    • 4.1Participants
    • 4.2Opt out experiment
    • 4.3Procedure
    • 4.4Analysis
  • 5.Results
    • 5.1Correlation
  • 6.Discussion
  • 7.Conclusion
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 19 April 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/dujal.17027.spi
References (53)
References
Aissen, J. (2003). Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 21(3), 435–483. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Allport, A. (1988). What concept of consciousness? In A. J. Marcel, & E. Bisiach (Eds.), Consciousness in contemporary science (pp. 159–182). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Andringa, S. & Curcic, M. (2015). How explicit knowledge affects online L2 processing. Evidence from differential object marking acquisition. Studies in Language Acquisition, 37(2), 237–268. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Andringa, S., & Rebuschat, P. (2015). New directions in the study of implicit and explicit learning. An introduction. Studies in Language Acquisition, 37(2), 185–196. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aslin, R. N., Saffran, J. R., & Newport, E. L. (1998). Computation of conditional probability statistics by 8-month-old infants. Psychological science, 9(4), 321–324. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baguley, T. (2012). Serious stats. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barac, R., & Bialystok, E. (2012). Bilingual effects on cognitive and linguistic development: Role of language, cultural background and education. Child Development 83(2), 413–422. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Batterink, L. J., Reber, P. J., Neville, H. J., & Paller, K. A. (2015). Implicit and explicit contributions to statistical learning. Journal of Memory and Language, 831, 62–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berko, J. (1958). The child’s learning of English morphology. WORD, 14(2–3), 150–177. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bertels, J., Boursain, E., Destrebecqz, A., & Gaillard, V. (2015). Visual statistical learning in children and young adults: How implicit? Frontiers in Psychology, 51, 1–11. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bialystok, E. (1986). Factors in the growth of linguistic awareness. Child Development, 57(2), 498–510. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bosch, L. & Sebastián-Gallés, N. (2003). Simultaneous bilingualism and the perception of a language-specific vowel contrast in the first year of life. Language and Speech, 46 (2/3), 217–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language. Its nature, origin and use. New York: NY: Praeger.Google Scholar
Cleeremans, A. (2008). Consciousness: The radical plasticity thesis. In R. Banerjee, & B. K. Chakrabarti (Eds.), Progress in brain research (Volume 1681, pp. 19–33). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
De Graaff, R. (1997). The Experanto experiment. Effects of explicit instruction on Second Language Acquisition. SSLA, 19(2), 249–276.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2003). Implicit and Explicit learning. In C. Doughty, & M. H. Long (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 312–348). Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dennett, D. (1991). Het bewustzijn verklaard. Amsterdam: Uitgeverij Atlas Contact.Google Scholar
De Waal, F. (2016). Are we smart enough to know how smart animals are? New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
Eigsti, I.-M., Zayas, V., Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., Ayduk, O., Dadlani, M. B., Davidson, M. C., Lawrence Aber, J., & Casey, M. C. (2006). Predicting cognitive control from preschool to late adolescence and young adulthood. Psychological Science, 17(6), 478–484. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2003). Constructions, chunking, and connectionism: The emergence of second language structure. In C. Doughty, & M. H. Long (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 63–103). Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Endress, A. D., & Bonatti, L. L. (2007). Rapid learning of syllable classes from a perceptually continuous speech stream. Cognition, 105(2), 247–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Erickson, L. C., & Thiessen, E. D. (2015). Statistical learning of language: Theory, validity and predictions of a statistical learning account of language acquisition. Developmental Review. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, J. L., Saffran, J. R., & Robe-Torres, K. (2009). Statistical learning in children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 52(2), 1044–1092. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(4), 25–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hampton, R. R. (2001). Rhesus monkeys know when they remember. PNAS, 98(9), 5359–5362. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009). Focusing the uncertainty about nonhuman metacognition. Comparative Cognition & Behavior Reviews, 41, 56–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hsu, H. J., Tomblin, J. B., & Christiansen, M. H. (2014). Impaired statistical learning of non-adjacent dependencies in adolescents with specific language impairment. Frontiers in Psychology, 5(175), 1–10.Google Scholar
Hulstijn, J. (2015). Explaining phenomena of first and second language acquisition with the constructs of implicit and explicit learning. The virtues and pitfalls of a two-system view. In P. Rebuschat (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 25–46). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. New York: Henry Holt and Company.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. D. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Lichtman, K. (2016). Age and learning environment: Are children implicit second language learners? Journal of Child Language, 43(3), 707–730. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lum, J. A. G., Conti-Ramsden, G., Page, D., & Ullman, M. T. (2012). Working, declarative and procedural memory in specific language impairment. Cortex, 48(9), 1138–1154. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Rodriguez, M. L. (1989). Delay of gratification in children. Science, 244(4907), 933–938. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Misyak, J. B. & Christiansen, M. H. (2012). Statistical learning and language: An individual differences study. Language Learning, 62(1), 302–331. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Misyak, J. B., Christiansen, M. H., & Tomblin, J. B. (2010). On-line individual differences in statistical learning predict language processing. Frontiers in Psychology, 1(31), 1–9.Google Scholar
Packard, M. R. (2009). Anxiety, cognition and habit: A multiple memory systems perspective. Brain Research, 1293(1), 121–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Passer, M. (2016). The typology and diachrony of nominal classification. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Psychology Software Tools, Inc. (2016). E-Prime 3.0. Retrieved from [URL]
Radford, A. (2004). Minimalist Syntax: Exploring the structure of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
R Core Team (2015). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria. Retrieved from [URL]
Rebuschat, P. (2015). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge in second language research. Language Learning, 63(3), 595–626. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saffran, J. R., Johnson, E. K., & Aslin, R. N. (1996). Word-segmentation: The role of distributional cues. Journal of Memory and Language, 35(4), 606–621. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in Second Language Learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Timmermans, B. & Cleeremans, A. (2015). How can we measure awareness? An overview of current methods. In M. Overgaard (Ed.), Behavioural methods in consciousness research (pp. 211–46). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2000). First steps toward a usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cognitive Linguistics, 11(1/2), 61–82.Google Scholar
Ullman, M. (2001). A neurocognitive perspective on language: The declarative/procedural model. Neuroscience, 2(10), 717–726.Google Scholar
(2004). Contributions of memory circuits to language: The declarative/procedural model. Cognition, 92(1–2), 231–270. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). The declarative/procedural model: A neurobiological model of language learning, knowledge and use. In G. Hickok, & S. A. Small (Eds.), The neurobiology of language (pp. 953–968). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Ullman, M., & Pierpont, E. (2005). Specific language impairment is not specific to language: The procedural deficit hypothesis. Cortex, 41(3), 399–433. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vouloumanos, A. (2018). Voulez-vous jouer avec moi? Twelve-months-olds understand that foreign languages can communicate. Cognition, 174(4), 87–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
West, G., Vadillo, M. A., Shanks, D. R., & Hulme, C. (2017). The procedural learning deficit hypothesis of language learning disorders: We see some problems. Developmental Science. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wijnen, F. (2013). Acquisition of linguistic categories: Cross domain convergences. In J. Bolhuis, & M. Everaert (Eds.), Birdsong, speech, and language (pp. 157–177). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Spit, Sybren, Sible Andringa, Judith Rispens & Enoch O. Aboh
2021. Do Kindergarteners Develop Awareness of the Statistical Regularities They Acquire?. Language Learning 71:2 ► pp. 573 ff. DOI logo
Spit, Sybren, Sible Andringa, Judith Rispens & Enoch O. Aboh
2022. Kindergarteners Use Cross-Situational Statistics to Infer the Meaning of Grammatical Elements. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 51:6 ► pp. 1311 ff. DOI logo
Spit, Sybren, Sible Andringa, Judith Rispens & Enoch O. Aboh
2022. The Effect of Explicit Instruction on Implicit and Explicit Linguistic Knowledge in Kindergartners. Language Learning and Development 18:2 ► pp. 201 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 august 2024. 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.