1887
  1. Home
  2. Books
  3. Implicit and Explicit Learning of Languages
  4. Chapter

Explicit knowledge about language in L2 learning

A usage-based perspective

image of Explicit knowledge about language in L2 learning

This chapter discusses explicit knowledge about language in second language (L2) learning from a usage-based perspective, which is here defined broadly to include theoretical approaches such as complexity theory, emergentism, cognitive linguistics and related constructionist theories of language. A definition of explicit and implicit knowledge and learning is provided, followed by a brief outline of the main claims of the theories included under the usage-based umbrella. Then ways of measuring explicit knowledge in L2 learning that are compatible with a usage-based perspective are presented. Drawing on the theoretical concepts introduced as well as empirical findings to date, the role of explicit knowledge in L2 learning including both benefits and limitations is detailed. Finally, suggestions for further research are put forward.

  • Affiliations: 1: University of Essex

References

  1. Abbot-Smith, K. , & Tomasello, M
    (2006) Exemplar-learning and schematization in a usage-based account of syntactic acquisition. The Linguistic Review, 23(3), 275–290. doi: 10.1515/TLR.2006.011
     https://doi.org/10.1515/TLR.2006.011 [Google Scholar]
  2. Akakura, M
    (2012) Evaluating the effectiveness of explicit instruction on implicit and explicit L2 knowledge. Language Teaching Research, 16(1), 9–37. doi: 10.1177/1362168811423339
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168811423339 [Google Scholar]
  3. Alderson, J.C. , Clapham, C. , & Steel, D
    (1997) Metalinguistic knowledge, language aptitude and language proficiency. Language Teaching Research, 1, 93–121. doi: 10.1177/136216889700100202
     https://doi.org/10.1177/136216889700100202 [Google Scholar]
  4. Anderson, J.R
    (2005) Cognitive psychology and its implications (6th ed.). New York, NY: Worth Publishers.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Baddeley, A.D
    (2000) The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory?Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(11), 417–423. doi: 10.1016/S1364‑6613(00)01538‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01538-2 [Google Scholar]
  6. Baddeley, A.D. , & Logie, R.H
    (1999) Working memory: The multiple-component model. In A. Miyake & P. Shah (Eds.), Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control (pp. 28–61). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139174909.005
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139174909.005 [Google Scholar]
  7. Beckner, C. , Blythe, R. , Bybee, J.L. , Christiansen, M.H. , Croft, W. , Ellis, N.C ., et al.
    (2009) Language is a complex adaptive system: Position paper. Language Learning, 59(s1), 1–26. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2009.00534.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00534.x [Google Scholar]
  8. Bybee, J.L. , & McClelland, J.L
    (2005) Alternatives to the combinatorial paradigm of linguistic theory based on domain general principles of human cognition. The Linguistic Review, 22(2-4), 381–410. doi: 10.1515/tlir.2005.22.2‑4.381
     https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.2005.22.2-4.381 [Google Scholar]
  9. Cleeremans, A. , & Destrebecqz, A
    (2005) Real rules are conscious. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28(1), 19–20. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X05280019
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X05280019 [Google Scholar]
  10. Collins, L. , Trofimovich, P. , White, J. , Cardoso, W. , & Horst, M
    (2009) Some input on the easy/difficult grammar question: An empirical study. Modern Language Journal, 93(3), 336–353. doi: 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2009.00894.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00894.x [Google Scholar]
  11. de Bot, K. , Lowie, W. , & Verspoor, M
    (2007) A dynamic systems theory approach to second language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10(1), 7–21. doi: 10.1017/S1366728906002732
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728906002732 [Google Scholar]
  12. de Bot, K. , Verspoor, M. , & Lowie, W
    (2005) Dynamic systems theory and applied linguistics: The ultimate "so what"?International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15(1), 116–118. doi: 10.1111/j.1473‑4192.2005.0083b.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2005.0083b.x [Google Scholar]
  13. DeKeyser, R.M
    (1994) How implicit can adult second language learning be?AILA Review, 11, 83–96.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. (2005) What makes learning second-language grammar difficult? A review of issues. Language Learning, 55(s1), 1–25. doi: 10.1111/j.0023‑8333.2005.00294.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0023-8333.2005.00294.x [Google Scholar]
  15. Diesendruck, G
    (2005) "Commitment" distinguishes between rules and similarity: A developmental perspective. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28(1), 21–22. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X0530001X
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0530001X [Google Scholar]
  16. Dörnyei, Z
    (2009) The psychology of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Elder, C. , & Manwaring, D
    (2004) The relationship between metalinguistic knowledge and learning outcomes among undergraduate students of Chinese. Language Awareness, 13(3), 145–162. doi: 10.1080/09658410408667092
     https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410408667092 [Google Scholar]
  18. Elder, C. , Warren, J. , Hajek, J. , Manwaring, D. , & Davies, A
    (1999) Metalinguistic knowledge: How important is it in studying a language at university?Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 81–95.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Ellis, N.C
    (1993) Rules and instances in foreign language learning: Interactions of explicit and implicit knowledge. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 5(3), 289–318. doi: 10.1080/09541449308520120
     https://doi.org/10.1080/09541449308520120 [Google Scholar]
  20. (1994) Consciousness in second language learning: Psychological perspectives on the role of conscious processes in vocabulary acquisition. AILA Review, 11, 37–56.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. (2001) Memory for language. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 33–68). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139524780.004
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524780.004 [Google Scholar]
  22. (2002a) Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(2), 143–188. doi: 10.1017/S0272263102002024
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263102002024 [Google Scholar]
  23. (2002b) Reflections on frequency effects in language processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(2), 297–340.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. (2003) Constructions, chunking, and connectionism: The emergence of second language structure. In C.J. Doughty & M.H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 63–103). Malden, MA: Blackwell. doi: 10.1002/9780470756492.ch4
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756492.ch4 [Google Scholar]
  25. (2005) At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(2), 305–352. doi: 10.1017/S027226310505014X
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226310505014X [Google Scholar]
  26. (2007) The associative-cognitive CREED. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 77–95). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. (2011) Implicit and explicit SLA and their interface. In C. Sanz & R.P. Leow (Eds.), Implicit and explicit language learning: Conditions, processes, and knowledge in SLA and bilingualism (pp. 35–47). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Ellis, N.C. , & Larsen-Freeman, D
    (2006) Language emergence: Implications for applied linguistics. Applied Linguistics, 27(4), 558–589. doi: 10.1093/applin/aml028
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/aml028 [Google Scholar]
  29. Ellis, R
    (2004) The definition and measurement of L2 explicit knowledge. Language Learning, 54(2), 227–275. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2004.00255.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2004.00255.x [Google Scholar]
  30. (2005) Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(2), 141–172. doi: 10.1017/S0272263105050096
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263105050096 [Google Scholar]
  31. (2006) Modelling learning difficulty and second language proficiency: The differential contributions of implicit and explicit knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 27(3), 431–463. doi: 10.1093/applin/aml022
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/aml022 [Google Scholar]
  32. Eskildsen, S.W
    (2009) Constructing another language: Usage-based linguistics in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30(3), 335–357. doi: 10.1093/applin/amn037
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amn037 [Google Scholar]
  33. (2012) L2 negation constructions at work. Language Learning, 62(2), 335–372. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2012.00698.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00698.x [Google Scholar]
  34. Evans, V. , & Green, M
    (2006) Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Gánem-Gutiérrez, G.A. , & Roehr, K
    (2011) Use of L1, metalanguage, and discourse markers: L2 learners' regulation during individual task performance. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 21(3), 297–318. doi: 10.1111/j.1473‑4192.2010.00274.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2010.00274.x [Google Scholar]
  36. Goldberg, A.E
    (2003) Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(5), 219–224. doi: 10.1016/S1364‑6613(03)00080‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00080-9 [Google Scholar]
  37. Goldschneider, J.M. , & DeKeyser, R.M
    (2001) Explaining the "natural order of L2 morpheme acquisition" in English: A meta-analysis of multiple determinants. Language Learning, 51, 1–50. doi: 10.1111/1467‑9922.00147
     https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00147 [Google Scholar]
  38. Green, P.S. , & Hecht, K
    (1992) Implicit and explicit grammar: An empirical study. Applied Linguistics, 13(2), 168–184. doi: 10.1093/applin/13.2.168
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/13.2.168 [Google Scholar]
  39. Hampton, J.A
    (2005) Rules and similarity - a false dichotomy. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28(1), 26. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X05350011
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X05350011 [Google Scholar]
  40. Howe, M.L. , & Lewis, M.D
    (2005) The importance of dynamic systems approaches for understanding development. Developmental Review, 25, 247–251. doi: 10.1016/j.dr.2005.09.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2005.09.002 [Google Scholar]
  41. Hu, G
    (2011) Metalinguistic knowledge, metalanguage, and their relationship in L2 learners. System, 39(1), 63–77. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2011.01.011
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2011.01.011 [Google Scholar]
  42. Hulstijn, J.H
    (2005) Theoretical and empirical issues in the study of implicit and explicit second-language learning: Introduction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(2), 129–140. doi: 10.1017/S0272263105050084
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263105050084 [Google Scholar]
  43. Hulstijn, J.H. , & de Graaff, R
    (1994) Under what conditions does explicit knowledge of a second language facilitate the acquisition of implicit knowledge? A research proposal. AILA Review, 11, 97–112.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Just, M.A. , & Carpenter, P.A
    (1992) A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99(1), 122–149. doi: 10.1037/0033‑295X.99.1.122
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.99.1.122 [Google Scholar]
  45. Kemmer, S. , & Barlow, M
    (2000) Introduction: A usage-based conception of language. In M. Barlow & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-based models of language (pp.vii–xxviii). Stanford, CA: CSLI.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Langacker, R.W
    (1998) Conceptualization, symbolization, and grammar. In M. Tomasello (Ed.), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure (Vol. 1, pp. 1–40). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. (2000) A dynamic usage-based model. In M. Barlow & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-based models of language (pp. 1–64). Stanford, CA: CSLI.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Larsen-Freeman, D
    (1997) Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 18(2), 141–165. doi: 10.1093/applin/18.2.141
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/18.2.141 [Google Scholar]
  49. (2006) The emergence of complexity, fluency, and accuracy in the oral and written production of five Chinese learners of English. Applied Linguistics, 27(4), 590–619. doi: 10.1093/applin/aml029
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/aml029 [Google Scholar]
  50. (2009) Adjusting expectations: The study of complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 579–589. doi: 10.1093/applin/amp043
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp043 [Google Scholar]
  51. Larsen-Freeman, D. , & Cameron, L
    (2008) Complex systems and applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Macaro, E. , & Masterman, L
    (2006) Does intensive explicit grammar instruction make all the difference?Language Teaching Research, 10(3), 297–327. doi: 10.1191/1362168806lr197oa
     https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168806lr197oa [Google Scholar]
  53. Markman, A.B. , Blok, S. , Kom, K. , Larkey, L. , Narvaez, L.R. , Stilwell, C.H ., et al.
    (2005) Digging beneath rules and similarity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28(1), 29–30. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X05390017
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X05390017 [Google Scholar]
  54. Miyake, A. , & Friedman, N.P
    (1998) Individual differences in second language proficiency: Working memory as language aptitude. In A.F. Healy & L.E. Bourne (Eds.), Foreign language learning: Psycholinguistic studies on training and retention (pp. 339–364). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Murphy, G.L
    (2004) The big book of concepts. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Murphy, R
    (1994) English grammar in use (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Norris, J.M. , & Ortega, L
    (2001) Does type of instruction make a difference? Substantive findings from a meta-analytic review. Language Learning, 51(1), 157–213. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑1770.2001.tb00017.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.2001.tb00017.x [Google Scholar]
  58. Peterson, E.R. , & Deary, I.J
    (2006) Examining the wholistic-analytic style using preferences in early information processing. Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 3–14. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2005.12.010
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.12.010 [Google Scholar]
  59. Peterson, E.R. , Deary, I.J. , & Austin, E.J
    (2003) The reliability of Riding's Cognitive Style Analysis test. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 881–891. doi: 10.1016/S0191‑8869(02)00116‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00116-2 [Google Scholar]
  60. Pothos, E.M
    (2005) The rules versus similarity distinction. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28(1), 1–49. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X05000014
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X05000014 [Google Scholar]
  61. Renou, J.M
    (2000) Learner accuracy and learner performance: The quest for a link. Foreign Language Annals, 33(2), 168–180. doi: 10.1111/j.1944‑9720.2000.tb00909.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2000.tb00909.x [Google Scholar]
  62. Riding, R.J
    (2001) The nature and effects of cognitive style. In R.J. Sternberg & L.-F. Zhang (Eds.), Perspectives on thinking, learning, and cognitive styles (pp. 47–72). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Riding, R.J. , & Cheema, I
    (1991) Cognitive styles: An overview and integration. Educational Psychology, 11(3/4), 193–215. doi: 10.1080/0144341910110301
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0144341910110301 [Google Scholar]
  64. Robinson, P
    (1997) Generalizability and automaticity of second language learning under implicit, incidental, enhanced, and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 223–247. doi: 10.1017/S0272263197002052
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263197002052 [Google Scholar]
  65. Roehr-Brackin, K
    (2013) The developmental trajectory in instructed L2 learning: A case study. Paper presented at theSELC Conference 'Thinking, doing, learning: Usage-based perspectives on second language learning', Odense, Denmark, 24-26 April 2013.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Roehr, K
    (2006) Metalinguistic knowledge in L2 task performance: A verbal protocol analysis. Language Awareness, 15(3), 180–198. doi: 10.2167/la403.0
     https://doi.org/10.2167/la403.0 [Google Scholar]
  67. (2008a) Linguistic and metalinguistic categories in second language learning. Cognitive Linguistics, 19(1), 67–106. doi: 10.1515/COG.2008.005
     https://doi.org/10.1515/COG.2008.005 [Google Scholar]
  68. (2008b) Metalinguistic knowledge and language ability in university-level L2 learners. Applied Linguistics, 29(2), 173–199. doi: 10.1093/applin/amm037
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amm037 [Google Scholar]
  69. (2010a) The development of metalinguistic awareness and oral L2 proficiency: A longitudinal case study. Paper presented at theAnnual Conference of the Canadian Association of Applied Linguistics, Concordia University Montréal, 1-3 June 2010.
     [Google Scholar]
  70. (2010b) Explicit knowledge and learning in SLA: A cognitive linguistics perspective. AILA Review, 23, 7–29. doi: 10.1075/aila.23.02roe
     https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.23.02roe [Google Scholar]
  71. (2012) Theoretical foundations. In A. Tellier (Ed.), Esperanto as a starter language for child second-language learners in the primary school (pp. 19–22). Stoke-on-Trent: Esperanto UK.
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Roehr, K. , & Gánem-Gutiérrez, G.A
    (2009a) Metalinguistic knowledge: A stepping stone towards L2 proficiency?In A. Benati (Ed.), Issues in second language proficiency (pp. 79–94). London: Continuum.
     [Google Scholar]
  73. (2009b) The status of metalinguistic knowledge in instructed adult L2 learning. Language Awareness, 18(2), 165–181. doi: 10.1080/09658410902855854
     https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410902855854 [Google Scholar]
  74. Rosch, E
    (1978) Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch & B.B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization (pp. 27–48). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Rosch, E. , & Mervis, C.B
    (1975) Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573–605. doi: 10.1016/0010‑0285(75)90024‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(75)90024-9 [Google Scholar]
  76. Scheffler, P. , & Cinciała, M
    (2011) Explicit grammar rules and L2 acquisition. ELT Journal, 65(1), 13–23. doi: 10.1093/elt/ccq019
     https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccq019 [Google Scholar]
  77. Schmidt, R.W
    (1990) The role of consciousness in SLA learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–158. doi: 10.1093/applin/11.2.129
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/11.2.129 [Google Scholar]
  78. (2001) Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139524780.003
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524780.003 [Google Scholar]
  79. Sloman, S
    (2005) Avoiding foolish consistency. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28(1), 33–34. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X05430010
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X05430010 [Google Scholar]
  80. Smith, E.E
    (2005) Rule and similarity as prototype concepts. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28(1), 34–35. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X05440017
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X05440017 [Google Scholar]
  81. Spada, N. , & Tomita, Y
    (2010) Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 263–308. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2010.00562.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00562.x [Google Scholar]
  82. Spoelman, M. , & Verspoor, M
    (2010) Dynamic patterns in development of accuracy and complexity: A longitudinal cse study in the acquisition of Finnish. Applied Linguistics, 31(4), 532–553. doi: 10.1093/applin/amq001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amq001 [Google Scholar]
  83. Swain, M
    (1998) Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C.J. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 64–81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  84. Swan, M
    (1995) Practical English usage (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  85. Taylor, J.R
    (1998) Syntactic constructions as prototype categories. In M. Tomasello (Ed.), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure (Vol. 1, pp. 177–202). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  86. (2002) Cognitive grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  87. (2003) Linguistic categorization (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  88. Tellier, A. , & Roehr-Brackin, K
    (2013a) The development of language learning aptitude and metalinguistic awareness in primary-school children: A classroom study. Essex Research Reports in Linguistics, 62(1), 1–28.
     [Google Scholar]
  89. (2013b) Metalinguistic awareness in children with differing language learning experience. EuroSLA Yearbook, 13, 81–108. doi: 10.1075/eurosla.13.06tel
     https://doi.org/10.1075/eurosla.13.06tel [Google Scholar]
  90. Thelen, E. , & Bates, E
    (2003) Connectionism and dynamic systems: Are they really different?Developmental Science, 6(4), 378–391. doi: 10.1111/1467‑7687.00294
     https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-7687.00294 [Google Scholar]
  91. Thepseenu, B. , & Roehr, K
    (2013) University-level learners' beliefs about metalinguistic knowledge. In K. Roehr & G.A. Gánem-Gutiérrez (Eds.), The metalinguistic dimension in instructed L2 learning (pp. 95–117). London: Bloomsbury.
     [Google Scholar]
  92. Tomasello, M
    (2003) Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  93. (2005) Beyond formalities: The case of language acquisition. The Linguistic Review, 22(2-4), 183–197. doi: 10.1515/tlir.2005.22.2‑4.183
     https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.2005.22.2-4.183 [Google Scholar]
  94. Ungerer, F. , & Schmid, H.-J
    (1996) An introduction to cognitive linguistics. London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  95. van Geert, P
    (2007) Dynamic systems in second language learning: Some general methodological reflections. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10(1), 47–49. doi: 10.1017/S136672890600280X
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S136672890600280X [Google Scholar]
  96. Ziętek, A.A. , & Roehr, K
    (2011) Metalinguistic knowledge and cognitive style in Polish classroom learners of English. System, 39(4), 417–426. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2011.05.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2011.05.005 [Google Scholar]

References

  1. Abbot-Smith, K. , & Tomasello, M
    (2006) Exemplar-learning and schematization in a usage-based account of syntactic acquisition. The Linguistic Review, 23(3), 275–290. doi: 10.1515/TLR.2006.011
     https://doi.org/10.1515/TLR.2006.011 [Google Scholar]
  2. Akakura, M
    (2012) Evaluating the effectiveness of explicit instruction on implicit and explicit L2 knowledge. Language Teaching Research, 16(1), 9–37. doi: 10.1177/1362168811423339
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168811423339 [Google Scholar]
  3. Alderson, J.C. , Clapham, C. , & Steel, D
    (1997) Metalinguistic knowledge, language aptitude and language proficiency. Language Teaching Research, 1, 93–121. doi: 10.1177/136216889700100202
     https://doi.org/10.1177/136216889700100202 [Google Scholar]
  4. Anderson, J.R
    (2005) Cognitive psychology and its implications (6th ed.). New York, NY: Worth Publishers.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Baddeley, A.D
    (2000) The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory?Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(11), 417–423. doi: 10.1016/S1364‑6613(00)01538‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01538-2 [Google Scholar]
  6. Baddeley, A.D. , & Logie, R.H
    (1999) Working memory: The multiple-component model. In A. Miyake & P. Shah (Eds.), Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control (pp. 28–61). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139174909.005
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139174909.005 [Google Scholar]
  7. Beckner, C. , Blythe, R. , Bybee, J.L. , Christiansen, M.H. , Croft, W. , Ellis, N.C ., et al.
    (2009) Language is a complex adaptive system: Position paper. Language Learning, 59(s1), 1–26. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2009.00534.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00534.x [Google Scholar]
  8. Bybee, J.L. , & McClelland, J.L
    (2005) Alternatives to the combinatorial paradigm of linguistic theory based on domain general principles of human cognition. The Linguistic Review, 22(2-4), 381–410. doi: 10.1515/tlir.2005.22.2‑4.381
     https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.2005.22.2-4.381 [Google Scholar]
  9. Cleeremans, A. , & Destrebecqz, A
    (2005) Real rules are conscious. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28(1), 19–20. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X05280019
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X05280019 [Google Scholar]
  10. Collins, L. , Trofimovich, P. , White, J. , Cardoso, W. , & Horst, M
    (2009) Some input on the easy/difficult grammar question: An empirical study. Modern Language Journal, 93(3), 336–353. doi: 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2009.00894.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00894.x [Google Scholar]
  11. de Bot, K. , Lowie, W. , & Verspoor, M
    (2007) A dynamic systems theory approach to second language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10(1), 7–21. doi: 10.1017/S1366728906002732
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728906002732 [Google Scholar]
  12. de Bot, K. , Verspoor, M. , & Lowie, W
    (2005) Dynamic systems theory and applied linguistics: The ultimate "so what"?International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15(1), 116–118. doi: 10.1111/j.1473‑4192.2005.0083b.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2005.0083b.x [Google Scholar]
  13. DeKeyser, R.M
    (1994) How implicit can adult second language learning be?AILA Review, 11, 83–96.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. (2005) What makes learning second-language grammar difficult? A review of issues. Language Learning, 55(s1), 1–25. doi: 10.1111/j.0023‑8333.2005.00294.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0023-8333.2005.00294.x [Google Scholar]
  15. Diesendruck, G
    (2005) "Commitment" distinguishes between rules and similarity: A developmental perspective. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28(1), 21–22. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X0530001X
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0530001X [Google Scholar]
  16. Dörnyei, Z
    (2009) The psychology of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Elder, C. , & Manwaring, D
    (2004) The relationship between metalinguistic knowledge and learning outcomes among undergraduate students of Chinese. Language Awareness, 13(3), 145–162. doi: 10.1080/09658410408667092
     https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410408667092 [Google Scholar]
  18. Elder, C. , Warren, J. , Hajek, J. , Manwaring, D. , & Davies, A
    (1999) Metalinguistic knowledge: How important is it in studying a language at university?Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 81–95.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Ellis, N.C
    (1993) Rules and instances in foreign language learning: Interactions of explicit and implicit knowledge. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 5(3), 289–318. doi: 10.1080/09541449308520120
     https://doi.org/10.1080/09541449308520120 [Google Scholar]
  20. (1994) Consciousness in second language learning: Psychological perspectives on the role of conscious processes in vocabulary acquisition. AILA Review, 11, 37–56.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. (2001) Memory for language. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 33–68). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139524780.004
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524780.004 [Google Scholar]
  22. (2002a) Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(2), 143–188. doi: 10.1017/S0272263102002024
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263102002024 [Google Scholar]
  23. (2002b) Reflections on frequency effects in language processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(2), 297–340.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. (2003) Constructions, chunking, and connectionism: The emergence of second language structure. In C.J. Doughty & M.H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 63–103). Malden, MA: Blackwell. doi: 10.1002/9780470756492.ch4
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756492.ch4 [Google Scholar]
  25. (2005) At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(2), 305–352. doi: 10.1017/S027226310505014X
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226310505014X [Google Scholar]
  26. (2007) The associative-cognitive CREED. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 77–95). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. (2011) Implicit and explicit SLA and their interface. In C. Sanz & R.P. Leow (Eds.), Implicit and explicit language learning: Conditions, processes, and knowledge in SLA and bilingualism (pp. 35–47). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Ellis, N.C. , & Larsen-Freeman, D
    (2006) Language emergence: Implications for applied linguistics. Applied Linguistics, 27(4), 558–589. doi: 10.1093/applin/aml028
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/aml028 [Google Scholar]
  29. Ellis, R
    (2004) The definition and measurement of L2 explicit knowledge. Language Learning, 54(2), 227–275. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2004.00255.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2004.00255.x [Google Scholar]
  30. (2005) Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(2), 141–172. doi: 10.1017/S0272263105050096
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263105050096 [Google Scholar]
  31. (2006) Modelling learning difficulty and second language proficiency: The differential contributions of implicit and explicit knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 27(3), 431–463. doi: 10.1093/applin/aml022
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/aml022 [Google Scholar]
  32. Eskildsen, S.W
    (2009) Constructing another language: Usage-based linguistics in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30(3), 335–357. doi: 10.1093/applin/amn037
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amn037 [Google Scholar]
  33. (2012) L2 negation constructions at work. Language Learning, 62(2), 335–372. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2012.00698.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00698.x [Google Scholar]
  34. Evans, V. , & Green, M
    (2006) Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Gánem-Gutiérrez, G.A. , & Roehr, K
    (2011) Use of L1, metalanguage, and discourse markers: L2 learners' regulation during individual task performance. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 21(3), 297–318. doi: 10.1111/j.1473‑4192.2010.00274.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2010.00274.x [Google Scholar]
  36. Goldberg, A.E
    (2003) Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(5), 219–224. doi: 10.1016/S1364‑6613(03)00080‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00080-9 [Google Scholar]
  37. Goldschneider, J.M. , & DeKeyser, R.M
    (2001) Explaining the "natural order of L2 morpheme acquisition" in English: A meta-analysis of multiple determinants. Language Learning, 51, 1–50. doi: 10.1111/1467‑9922.00147
     https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00147 [Google Scholar]
  38. Green, P.S. , & Hecht, K
    (1992) Implicit and explicit grammar: An empirical study. Applied Linguistics, 13(2), 168–184. doi: 10.1093/applin/13.2.168
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/13.2.168 [Google Scholar]
  39. Hampton, J.A
    (2005) Rules and similarity - a false dichotomy. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28(1), 26. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X05350011
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X05350011 [Google Scholar]
  40. Howe, M.L. , & Lewis, M.D
    (2005) The importance of dynamic systems approaches for understanding development. Developmental Review, 25, 247–251. doi: 10.1016/j.dr.2005.09.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2005.09.002 [Google Scholar]
  41. Hu, G
    (2011) Metalinguistic knowledge, metalanguage, and their relationship in L2 learners. System, 39(1), 63–77. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2011.01.011
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2011.01.011 [Google Scholar]
  42. Hulstijn, J.H
    (2005) Theoretical and empirical issues in the study of implicit and explicit second-language learning: Introduction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(2), 129–140. doi: 10.1017/S0272263105050084
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263105050084 [Google Scholar]
  43. Hulstijn, J.H. , & de Graaff, R
    (1994) Under what conditions does explicit knowledge of a second language facilitate the acquisition of implicit knowledge? A research proposal. AILA Review, 11, 97–112.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Just, M.A. , & Carpenter, P.A
    (1992) A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99(1), 122–149. doi: 10.1037/0033‑295X.99.1.122
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.99.1.122 [Google Scholar]
  45. Kemmer, S. , & Barlow, M
    (2000) Introduction: A usage-based conception of language. In M. Barlow & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-based models of language (pp.vii–xxviii). Stanford, CA: CSLI.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Langacker, R.W
    (1998) Conceptualization, symbolization, and grammar. In M. Tomasello (Ed.), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure (Vol. 1, pp. 1–40). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. (2000) A dynamic usage-based model. In M. Barlow & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-based models of language (pp. 1–64). Stanford, CA: CSLI.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Larsen-Freeman, D
    (1997) Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 18(2), 141–165. doi: 10.1093/applin/18.2.141
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/18.2.141 [Google Scholar]
  49. (2006) The emergence of complexity, fluency, and accuracy in the oral and written production of five Chinese learners of English. Applied Linguistics, 27(4), 590–619. doi: 10.1093/applin/aml029
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/aml029 [Google Scholar]
  50. (2009) Adjusting expectations: The study of complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 579–589. doi: 10.1093/applin/amp043
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp043 [Google Scholar]
  51. Larsen-Freeman, D. , & Cameron, L
    (2008) Complex systems and applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Macaro, E. , & Masterman, L
    (2006) Does intensive explicit grammar instruction make all the difference?Language Teaching Research, 10(3), 297–327. doi: 10.1191/1362168806lr197oa
     https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168806lr197oa [Google Scholar]
  53. Markman, A.B. , Blok, S. , Kom, K. , Larkey, L. , Narvaez, L.R. , Stilwell, C.H ., et al.
    (2005) Digging beneath rules and similarity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28(1), 29–30. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X05390017
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X05390017 [Google Scholar]
  54. Miyake, A. , & Friedman, N.P
    (1998) Individual differences in second language proficiency: Working memory as language aptitude. In A.F. Healy & L.E. Bourne (Eds.), Foreign language learning: Psycholinguistic studies on training and retention (pp. 339–364). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Murphy, G.L
    (2004) The big book of concepts. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Murphy, R
    (1994) English grammar in use (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Norris, J.M. , & Ortega, L
    (2001) Does type of instruction make a difference? Substantive findings from a meta-analytic review. Language Learning, 51(1), 157–213. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑1770.2001.tb00017.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.2001.tb00017.x [Google Scholar]
  58. Peterson, E.R. , & Deary, I.J
    (2006) Examining the wholistic-analytic style using preferences in early information processing. Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 3–14. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2005.12.010
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.12.010 [Google Scholar]
  59. Peterson, E.R. , Deary, I.J. , & Austin, E.J
    (2003) The reliability of Riding's Cognitive Style Analysis test. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 881–891. doi: 10.1016/S0191‑8869(02)00116‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00116-2 [Google Scholar]
  60. Pothos, E.M
    (2005) The rules versus similarity distinction. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28(1), 1–49. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X05000014
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X05000014 [Google Scholar]
  61. Renou, J.M
    (2000) Learner accuracy and learner performance: The quest for a link. Foreign Language Annals, 33(2), 168–180. doi: 10.1111/j.1944‑9720.2000.tb00909.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2000.tb00909.x [Google Scholar]
  62. Riding, R.J
    (2001) The nature and effects of cognitive style. In R.J. Sternberg & L.-F. Zhang (Eds.), Perspectives on thinking, learning, and cognitive styles (pp. 47–72). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Riding, R.J. , & Cheema, I
    (1991) Cognitive styles: An overview and integration. Educational Psychology, 11(3/4), 193–215. doi: 10.1080/0144341910110301
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0144341910110301 [Google Scholar]
  64. Robinson, P
    (1997) Generalizability and automaticity of second language learning under implicit, incidental, enhanced, and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 223–247. doi: 10.1017/S0272263197002052
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263197002052 [Google Scholar]
  65. Roehr-Brackin, K
    (2013) The developmental trajectory in instructed L2 learning: A case study. Paper presented at theSELC Conference 'Thinking, doing, learning: Usage-based perspectives on second language learning', Odense, Denmark, 24-26 April 2013.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Roehr, K
    (2006) Metalinguistic knowledge in L2 task performance: A verbal protocol analysis. Language Awareness, 15(3), 180–198. doi: 10.2167/la403.0
     https://doi.org/10.2167/la403.0 [Google Scholar]
  67. (2008a) Linguistic and metalinguistic categories in second language learning. Cognitive Linguistics, 19(1), 67–106. doi: 10.1515/COG.2008.005
     https://doi.org/10.1515/COG.2008.005 [Google Scholar]
  68. (2008b) Metalinguistic knowledge and language ability in university-level L2 learners. Applied Linguistics, 29(2), 173–199. doi: 10.1093/applin/amm037
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amm037 [Google Scholar]
  69. (2010a) The development of metalinguistic awareness and oral L2 proficiency: A longitudinal case study. Paper presented at theAnnual Conference of the Canadian Association of Applied Linguistics, Concordia University Montréal, 1-3 June 2010.
     [Google Scholar]
  70. (2010b) Explicit knowledge and learning in SLA: A cognitive linguistics perspective. AILA Review, 23, 7–29. doi: 10.1075/aila.23.02roe
     https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.23.02roe [Google Scholar]
  71. (2012) Theoretical foundations. In A. Tellier (Ed.), Esperanto as a starter language for child second-language learners in the primary school (pp. 19–22). Stoke-on-Trent: Esperanto UK.
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Roehr, K. , & Gánem-Gutiérrez, G.A
    (2009a) Metalinguistic knowledge: A stepping stone towards L2 proficiency?In A. Benati (Ed.), Issues in second language proficiency (pp. 79–94). London: Continuum.
     [Google Scholar]
  73. (2009b) The status of metalinguistic knowledge in instructed adult L2 learning. Language Awareness, 18(2), 165–181. doi: 10.1080/09658410902855854
     https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410902855854 [Google Scholar]
  74. Rosch, E
    (1978) Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch & B.B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization (pp. 27–48). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Rosch, E. , & Mervis, C.B
    (1975) Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573–605. doi: 10.1016/0010‑0285(75)90024‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(75)90024-9 [Google Scholar]
  76. Scheffler, P. , & Cinciała, M
    (2011) Explicit grammar rules and L2 acquisition. ELT Journal, 65(1), 13–23. doi: 10.1093/elt/ccq019
     https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccq019 [Google Scholar]
  77. Schmidt, R.W
    (1990) The role of consciousness in SLA learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–158. doi: 10.1093/applin/11.2.129
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/11.2.129 [Google Scholar]
  78. (2001) Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139524780.003
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524780.003 [Google Scholar]
  79. Sloman, S
    (2005) Avoiding foolish consistency. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28(1), 33–34. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X05430010
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X05430010 [Google Scholar]
  80. Smith, E.E
    (2005) Rule and similarity as prototype concepts. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28(1), 34–35. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X05440017
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X05440017 [Google Scholar]
  81. Spada, N. , & Tomita, Y
    (2010) Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 263–308. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2010.00562.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00562.x [Google Scholar]
  82. Spoelman, M. , & Verspoor, M
    (2010) Dynamic patterns in development of accuracy and complexity: A longitudinal cse study in the acquisition of Finnish. Applied Linguistics, 31(4), 532–553. doi: 10.1093/applin/amq001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amq001 [Google Scholar]
  83. Swain, M
    (1998) Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C.J. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 64–81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  84. Swan, M
    (1995) Practical English usage (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  85. Taylor, J.R
    (1998) Syntactic constructions as prototype categories. In M. Tomasello (Ed.), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure (Vol. 1, pp. 177–202). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  86. (2002) Cognitive grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  87. (2003) Linguistic categorization (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  88. Tellier, A. , & Roehr-Brackin, K
    (2013a) The development of language learning aptitude and metalinguistic awareness in primary-school children: A classroom study. Essex Research Reports in Linguistics, 62(1), 1–28.
     [Google Scholar]
  89. (2013b) Metalinguistic awareness in children with differing language learning experience. EuroSLA Yearbook, 13, 81–108. doi: 10.1075/eurosla.13.06tel
     https://doi.org/10.1075/eurosla.13.06tel [Google Scholar]
  90. Thelen, E. , & Bates, E
    (2003) Connectionism and dynamic systems: Are they really different?Developmental Science, 6(4), 378–391. doi: 10.1111/1467‑7687.00294
     https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-7687.00294 [Google Scholar]
  91. Thepseenu, B. , & Roehr, K
    (2013) University-level learners' beliefs about metalinguistic knowledge. In K. Roehr & G.A. Gánem-Gutiérrez (Eds.), The metalinguistic dimension in instructed L2 learning (pp. 95–117). London: Bloomsbury.
     [Google Scholar]
  92. Tomasello, M
    (2003) Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  93. (2005) Beyond formalities: The case of language acquisition. The Linguistic Review, 22(2-4), 183–197. doi: 10.1515/tlir.2005.22.2‑4.183
     https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.2005.22.2-4.183 [Google Scholar]
  94. Ungerer, F. , & Schmid, H.-J
    (1996) An introduction to cognitive linguistics. London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  95. van Geert, P
    (2007) Dynamic systems in second language learning: Some general methodological reflections. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10(1), 47–49. doi: 10.1017/S136672890600280X
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S136672890600280X [Google Scholar]
  96. Ziętek, A.A. , & Roehr, K
    (2011) Metalinguistic knowledge and cognitive style in Polish classroom learners of English. System, 39(4), 417–426. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2011.05.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2011.05.005 [Google Scholar]

  • From This Site

    /content/books/9789027268723-sibil.48.06roe
    dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal
    10
    5
/content/books/9789027268723-sibil.48.06roe
dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
-contentType:Journal
10
5
Chapter
content/books/9789027268723
Book
false
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error