Grammaticality judgment tests (GJTs) have been, and continue to be, frequently used in the field of SLA as a measure of learners’ linguistic ability in the second language (L2). However, only a few studies have examined their construct validity as measures of implicit and explicit knowledge (Bowles, 2011; R. Ellis, 2005), and even fewer have explored in detail how features of these tests, such as time pressure and task stimulus, affect their construct validity (Loewen, 2009). The purpose of this paper is to examine the effect that time pressure and task stimulus have on the type of knowledge representations on which L2 learners draw when performing GJTs. The results show that the grammatical and ungrammatical sections of a timed and an untimed GJT loaded differently in both exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. This finding can be interpreted as indicating that grammatical and ungrammatical sentences constitute measures of implicit and explicit knowledge, respectively. Additionally, the results show that time pressure and task stimulus have significant effects on learners’ performance on GJTs.

This study investigated the influence of frequency effects on the processing of congruent (i.e., having an equivalent first language [L1] construction) collocations and incongruent (i.e., not having an equivalent L1 construction) collocations in a second language (L2). An acceptability judgment task was administered to native and advanced nonnative English speakers (L1 Swedish) to assess response times to and error rates for these collocations along with a matched set of unrelated items. The results suggested that advanced learners are highly sensitive to frequency effects for L2 collocations, which seems to support the idea that usage-based models of language acquisition can be fruitfully applied to understanding the processes that underlie L2 collocational acquisition. At the same time, however, the apparent continued influence of the L1 indicates that researchers may also want to draw on other models of language acquisition to gain a fuller understanding of the processes underlying the acquisition of collocations in a L2.

This eye-tracking study tests the hypothesis that more attention leads to more learning, following claims that attention to new language elements in the input results in their initial representation in long-term memory (i.e., intake; Robinson, 2003; Schmidt, 1990, 2001).

Twenty-eight advanced learners of English read English texts that contained 12 targets for incidental word learning. The target was a known word (control condition), a matched pseudoword, or that pseudoword preceded or followed by the known word (with the latter being a cue to the pseudoword’s meaning). Participants’ eye-fixation durations on the targets during reading served as a measure of the amount of attention paid (see Rayner, 2009).

Results indicate that participants spent more time processing the unknown pseudowords than their matched controls. The longer participants looked at a pseudoword during reading, the more likely they were to recognize that word in an unannounced vocabulary posttest. Finally, the known, appositive cues were fixated longer when they followed the pseudowords than when they preceded them; however, their presence did not lead to higher retention of the pseudowords.

We discuss how eye-tracking may add to existing methodologies for studying attention and noticing (Schmidt, 1990) in SLA.

This study compares the effects of processing instruction (PI), structured input (SI), and form-related explicit information (FREI) on a primary target form (i.e., third-person Spanish accusative clitics) and on a secondary form (i.e., third-person Spanish dative clitics). Participants included 151 adult learners enrolled in a beginning-level Spanish course. Findings revealed that SI is as effective on the primary target form as PI immediately after treatment; however, the FREI component of PI may play a positive role at the delayed posttest, as exhibited by the fact that the PI group maintained gains, whereas the SI group, although improved from the pretest, did not. Learners exposed to both PI and SI also demonstrated gains on the secondary target form, which suggests a transfer-of-training effect for both interventions. As such, we discuss the theoretical and methodological ramifications of these findings.

There is a growing theoretical, empirical, and methodological debate in the SLA field as to whether unawareness plays a role during attention to or processing of new incoming second language (L2) data. Indeed, studies that have methodologically addressed the construct of unawareness in their research designs offer both empirical support (e.g., Leung & Williams, 2011, 2012; Williams, 2004, 2005) and no empirical support (e.g., Faretta-Stutenberg & Morgan-Short, 2011; Hama & Leow, 2010; Leow, 2000) for implicit learning. This article takes a critical look at one recent study (Leung & Williams, 2011) and questions the level of internal validity with respect to the claim that their study provided empirical evidence of implicit learning. It concludes by providing specific criteria that need to be considered in any study purporting to address the construct of awareness or lack thereof in L2 learning.