Search

This paper examines how research in second language acquisition has approached the study of cognitive individual differences in the process and product of L2 writing from a theoretical and empirical perspective, paying special attention to the three empirical studies included in this special issue. The paper is divided into three sections. The first section examines the cognitive abilities that have been investigated in L2 writing research, among which working memory stands out as the most widely studied. The second section synthesizes the findings reported by the empirical studies in this issue in relation to the role of working memory in L2 writing behaviors and outcomes. The last section suggests future lines of research that can broaden the current scope of research on writing and cognitive individual differences, mostly centered on the components of the working memory system. This research has important theoretical implications, as little is known about how different cognitive individual differences are implicated in writing, as well as pedagogical implications, as the findings can inform about optimal performance and learning conditions for learners with diverse cognitive ability profiles.

Researchers in second language (L2) and education domain use different statistical methods to assess their constructs of interest. Many L2 constructs emerge from elements/parts, i.e., the elements "define" and "form" the construct and not the other way around. These constructs are referred to as emergent variables (also called components, formative constructs, and composite constructs). Because emergent variables are composed of elements/parts, they should be assessed through confirmatory composite analysis (CCA). Elements of emergent variables represent unique facets of the construct. Thus, such constructs cannot be properly assessed by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) because CFA and its underlying common factor model regard these elements to be similar and interchangeable. Conversely, the elements of an emergent variable uniquely define and form the construct, i.e., they are not similar or interchangeable. Thus, CCA is the preferred approach to empirically validate emergent variables such as language skills L2 students' behavioral engagement and language learning strategies. CCA is based on the composite model, which captures the characteristics of emergent variables more accurately. Aside from the difference in the underlying model, CCA consists of the same steps as CFA, i.e., model specification, model identification, model estimation, and model assessment. In this paper, we explain these steps. and present an illustrative example using publicly available data. In doing so, we show how CCA can be conducted using graphical software packages such as Amos, and we provide the code necessary to conduct CCA in the R package lavaan.

Research on intelligibility in international encounters has long focused on issues of pronunciation to the detriment of factors such as linguistic co-text and extralinguistic context, which are comparatively well-studied variables in intelligibility research concerning L1 listeners. This paper seeks to expand the scope of international intelligibility research in this respect by reporting on a large-scale study involving 423 nonnative listeners at different proficiency levels, who transcribed words spoken with another nonnative accent under four conditions that varied in the availability of syntactic, semantic, and schematic cues. The results suggest that co-text and context as well as listening proficiency are crucial variables that ought to receive greater attention in research on international intelligibility. The pedagogical implications of these findings are addressed as well.

It is important to be able to identify research results likely to have been arrived at by means of "'p'-hacking," a common term for research and reporting practices (such as the selective reporting of results) that are biased toward finding "p" < [alpha]. This paper discusses and demonstrates "'p'-curving," a means of checking a set of primary studies within a specific research stream for signs of "p"-hacking. A salient feature of "p"-curving is that it is based entirely on significant "p"-values. Because of the potential usefulness of "p"-curving and because it has been little used by SLA researchers, a case study illustrates the construction and analysis of a "p"-curve as a complement to meta-analysis. The focal "p"-curve in this study relates to published (quasi)experimental studies that addressed the research hypothesis that for low and middle proficiency learners L1 glosses facilitate vocabulary learning during reading better than L2 glosses do.

This study combines explicit (pen-and-paper) and sensitive (time-pressured) measures to gauge the impact of three instructional interventions (contextualized input with meaning-focused activities, contextualized input with word-focused activities, and decontextualized input with word-focused exercises) on the learning of 20 L2 French target verbs. Participants (N = 313, L1 = Dutch) completed a combination of explicit (form recognition, meaning recall, grammatical preference) and time-pressured sensitive tests (lexical decision, semantic relatedness, grammaticality judgment) as immediate and delayed posttests. Explicit posttests show the beneficial effects of word-focused instruction, and underline the efficiency of context for meaning-related knowledge. Sensitive posttests generally confirm the explicit results, but reveal differences between both word-focused conditions related to lexical processing and strength of knowledge. This study suggests that combining explicit and sensitive measures can provide a more complete picture about the effects of L2 vocabulary instruction and shows that contextualized and decontextualized word-focused instruction benefit vocabulary learning in a complementary way.

This paper reports on the reanalysis of Suzuki's (2017) experiment and investigated the extent to which learning schedules influence automatization of second language (L2) morphology. Sixty participants were separated into two groups, which studied morphological rules for oral production under short-spacing (3.3-day intervals) and long-spacing learning conditions (7-day intervals). Their oral production test performance resulted in two measures of automatization: reaction time (RT) as an index of speedup and coefficient of variance (CV) as an index of stability/restructuring. The results showed that, while RT of both groups declined significantly after the training, the 3.3-day group exhibited greater propensity for restructuring than the 7-day group. Furthermore, procedural learning ability measured by the Tower of London task was significantly associated with RT, but not with CV, in the 3.3-day group only. These findings suggest that learning schedules and procedural learning ability influence different stages of automatization of L2 morphological learning.

This paper presents an experimental study of the rarely explored question of how input through instruction interacts with L2 acquisition at the level of modular linguistic knowledge. The investigation focuses on L2 knowledge of the English polarity item "any," whose properties are only partially covered by typical language-teaching materials. We investigate Najdi-Saudi Arabic-speaking learners' knowledge of the distribution of "any" in contexts that are taught, contexts that are not taught but may be observable in the input, and contexts that are neither taught nor observable. We further test whether conscious awareness of instructed rules about "any" correlates with performance. Our findings suggest a role for instruction and for internal, UG-constrained acquisition, and that these two paths interact. We explore our findings in terms of Sharwood Smith and Truscott's (2014a, 2014b) framework of modular online growth and use of language, in which cognitive development is driven by processing.

In this short article I try to present a taxonomy of sources of difficulty, in particular complexity. I emphasize how these factors interact with each other and with individual differences and treatments, before illustrating some of these interactions and the methodological issues involved in studying them with examples from the empirical studies in this issue. Finally, I make some suggestions for future research.