Georgetown University LogoGeorgetown University Library LogoDigitalGeorgetown Home
    • Login
    View Item 
    •   DigitalGeorgetown Home
    • Georgetown University Institutional Repository
    • Georgetown College
    • Department of Linguistics
    • Graduate Theses and Dissertations - Linguistics
    • View Item
    •   DigitalGeorgetown Home
    • Georgetown University Institutional Repository
    • Georgetown College
    • Department of Linguistics
    • Graduate Theses and Dissertations - Linguistics
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    A Behavioral and Electrophysiological Investigation of Different Aptitudes for L2 Grammar in Learners Equated for Proficiency Level

    Cover for A Behavioral and Electrophysiological Investigation of Different Aptitudes for L2 Grammar in Learners Equated for Proficiency Level
    View/Open
    View/Open: Carpenter_georgetown_0076D_10036.pdf (3.6MB) Bookview

    Creator
    Carpenter, Helen Stewart
    Advisor
    Ullman, Michael T
    Abstract
    The declarative/ procedural (DP) model (Ullman, 2004), a neurocognitive model, posits that for late-learned second languages (L2s), both lexicon and grammar initially depend on declarative memory. With increased exposure, the DP model predicts that aspects of grammar become dependent on procedural memory. The DP model differs from modular accounts (Schwartz & Sprouse, 2000), emergentist models (Ellis, 2008; MacWhinney, 2008), and other models that invoke the declarative/procedural distinction (DeKeyser, 2007; Paradis, 2004).
     
    It was hypothesized that internal and external variables would mediate the involvement of declarative and procedural memory in L2. First, it was predicted that learners would display individual differences in declarative and procedural memory abilities (Eichenbaum & Cohen, 2001; Fernandez et al., 2003; Seger & Cincotta, 2005b; Sirrien et al., 2007; Ullman, 2005). In addition, it was predicted that working memory would constrain involvement by the two memory systems (Cochran & colleagues, 1992, 1999; Foerde et al., 2006). Finally, it was predicted that explicit instruction would encourage reliance on declarative memory, while implicit instruction would encourage reliance on procedural memory (Fletcher et al., 2005; Morgan-Short, 2007; Poldrack et al., 2001). Thus, this investigation focused on how moderating variables affect the distinct contributions of declarative and procedural memory to L2 at different stages of proficiency.
     
    Twenty-nine adult participants' declarative, procedural, and working memory abilities were assessed before random assignment to explicit (N=15) or implicit (N=14) instruction in an artificial language. Proficiency was assessed once learners reached low and advanced benchmark levels, ensuring all had obtained a comparable baseline level. L2 performance was assessed with grammaticality judgment tasks, while neurocognitive processes were assessed with event-related potentials (ERPs).
     
    There were several conclusions. Results for declarative memory suggest that CVMT scores predicted L2 performance across learners, but that type and extent of involvement was mediated by learning condition and proficiency level. Behavioral and ERP results for procedural memory suggest that implicit, but not explicit, instruction promoted proceduralization of grammar at advanced proficiency. Learners with high scores on the Weather Prediction Task, which assessed procedural memory abilities, displayed a different pattern of results from learners with low scores. Additional analyses indicated that attention and short-term memory capacity displayed opposite effects on declarative and procedural memory reliance in each condition. Finally, hierarchical linear regression indicated that combining Modern Language Aptitude Test scores (MLAT; Carroll & Sapon, 1959) with a measure of declarative memory better predicted low and advanced L2 proficiency than MLAT scores alone, but only in the explicit condition. Adding a measure of procedural memory did not improve the model in either condition for any structure. Findings suggest learners relied on different cognitive abilities for comparable levels of L2, as mediated by ability differences and instructional conditions.
     
    Description
    Ph.D.
    Permanent Link
    http://hdl.handle.net/10822/558127
    Date Published
    2008
    Subject
    Continuous Visual Memory Test; Declarative Memory; Modern Langhuage Aptitude Test; Procedural Memory; Weather Prediction Task; Working Memory; Language arts; Linguistics; Cognitive psychology; Education, Language and Literature; Language, Linguistics; Psychology, Cognitive;
    Type
    thesis
    Embargo Lift Date
    2015-05-17
    Publisher
    Georgetown University
    Extent
    435 leaves
    Collections
    • Graduate Theses and Dissertations - Linguistics
    Metadata
    Show full item record

    Related items

    Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.

    • Cover for The Effects of Type of Written Corrective Feedback and Level of Proficiency on Processing and Accuracy in Heritage Language Learners of Spanish

      The Effects of Type of Written Corrective Feedback and Level of Proficiency on Processing and Accuracy in Heritage Language Learners of Spanish 

      DeRobles, Gabriela (Georgetown University, 2019)
      In the field of Instructed Second Language Acquisition (ISLA), written corrective feedback (WCF) has been shown to play a facilitative role in improving written accuracy (e.g., Ashwell, 2000; Ferris & Roberts, 2001; Ferris, ...
    Related Items in Google Scholar

    Georgetown University Seal
    ©2009 - 2022 Georgetown University Library
    37th & O Streets NW
    Washington DC 20057-1174
    202.687.7385
    digitalscholarship@georgetown.edu
    Accessibility
     

     

    Browse

    All of DigitalGeorgetownCommunities & CollectionsCreatorsTitlesBy Creation DateThis CollectionCreatorsTitlesBy Creation Date

    My Account

    Login

    Statistics

    View Usage Statistics

    Georgetown University Seal
    ©2009 - 2022 Georgetown University Library
    37th & O Streets NW
    Washington DC 20057-1174
    202.687.7385
    digitalscholarship@georgetown.edu
    Accessibility