Advertisement

Journal of Psycholinguistic Research

, Volume 48, Issue 5, pp 1025–1049 | Cite as

Investigating the Declarative-Procedural Gap for the Indirect Speech Construction in L2 Learners

  • Zhengrong ChenEmail author
  • Catherine Caldwell-Harris
Article
  • 48 Downloads

Abstract

It is common to have good declarative but poor procedural knowledge of a foreign language, especially for classroom learners. To study this gap in a constrained manner, we asked Chinese learners of English to repeat, correct and produce indirect speech. The indirect speech construction was selected in the present study because it is known to be a particularly complex construction. Chinese university students who all had good declarative knowledge of the rules governing indirect speech were selected to have overall low or high oral proficiency when assessed in a free speech situation. High proficiency participants pursued strategies that increased their speech rate while reducing errors. They used more idiomatic English, more chunked expressions, and showed less negative transfer from Mandarin, compared to low proficiency participants. Indeed use of chunks was the primary means by which both groups of participants were able to increase their accuracy, complexity, and speaking rate. Low proficiency but not high participants showed evidence of a speed-accuracy trade-off. They either kept errors low at the cost of high pausing, or produced many errors with the benefit of rapid speech. Identifying preferences for speed versus accuracy could facilitate methods for encouraging learners to move out of their comfort zones.

Keywords

The declarative-procedural gap The indirect speech construction Oral proficiency L2 learners 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by Jiangsu Province Social Science Research Foundation (Grant No. 18YYB008) and Educational Science Foundation during the 13th Five-Year Plan Period in Jiangsu Province (Grant No. B-b/2018/01/45). Additionally, we would like to thank all the participants involved in the study. Finally, our special thanks would be given to the reviewers for their constructive feedback on our previous manuscript and to the editors for their efforts and professional suggestions.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights

The authors declare that all procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Anderson, J. R. (1976). Language, memory, and thought. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, J. R. (1995). Learning and memory: An integrated approach. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  3. Bernard, H. R. (1996). Qualitative data, quantitative analysis. Cultural Anthropology methods Journal, 8(1), 9–11.Google Scholar
  4. Chen, K. S. (2009). Multiple memory system and foreign language learning. Foreign Languages Research, 2, 63–66.Google Scholar
  5. Cohen, N. J., & Squire, L. R. (1980). Preserved learning and retention of pattern-analyzing skill in amnesia: dissociation of knowing how and knowing that. Science, 210, 207–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. de Bot, K. (1992). A bilingual production model: Levelt’s speaking model adapted. Applied Linguistics, 13, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Eichenbaum, H., & Cohen, N. J. (2001). From conditioning to conscious recollection: Memory systems of the brain. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Færch, C., & Kasper, G. (1983). Strategies in interlanguage communication. London: Longman Group Limited.Google Scholar
  9. Kormos, J. (2006). Speech production and second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  10. Kuiper, K. (1996). Smooth talkers: The linguistic performance of auctioneers and sportscasters. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  11. Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. Lewis, M. (1997). Implementing the lexical approach: Putting theory to practice. Hove, England: Language Teaching Publications.Google Scholar
  13. Li, S. J. (2008). Teaching practice of direct speech and indirect speech. Testing (Edition of Teaching Research), 11, 66–67.Google Scholar
  14. Ma, D. M., Yu, X. R., & Zhang, H. M. (2017). Word-level and sentence-level automaticity in English as a foreign language (EFL) learners: A comparative study. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 46, 1471–1483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. MacKay, D. G. (1982). The problems of flexibility, fluency, and speed-accuracy trade-off in skilled behavior. Psychological Review, 89, 483–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Miller, G. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two. Psychological Review, 63, 81–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Nattinger, J., & DeCarrico, J. (1992). Lexical phrases and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Pawley, A., & Syder, F. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory: native like selection and native like fluency. In J. C. Richards & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  19. Rauterberg, M. (1993). AMME: An automatic mental model evaluation to analyze user behavior traced in a finite, discrete state space. Ergonomics, 36(11), 1369–1380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ryan, G. W., & Bernard, H. R. (2000). Data management and analysis methods. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 769–802). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  21. Ryle, G. (1949). The concept of mind. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
  22. Schacter, D. L., & Tulving, E. (Eds.). (1994). Memory systems. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Segalowitz, N. (2010). The cognitive bases of second language fluency. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Squire, L. R., & Knowlton, B. J. (2000). The medial temporal lobe, the hippocampus, and the memory systems of the brain. In M. Gazzaniga (Ed.), The new cognitive neurosciences (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  25. Swan, M. (2006). Chunks in the classroom: Let’s not go overboard. Teacher Trainer, 20, 5–6.Google Scholar
  26. Towell, R., Hawkins, R., & Bazergui, N. (1996). The development of fluency in advanced learners of French. Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 84–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tremblay, A., Derwing, B., Libben, G., & Westbury, C. (2011). Processing advantages of lexical bundles: Evidence from self-paced reading and sentence recall tasks. Language Learnning, 61, 569–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ullman, M. T. (2004). Contributions of neural memory circuits to language: The declarative/procedural model. Cognition, 92, 231–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Van Petten, C. (1995). Words and sentences: Event-related brain potential measures. Psychophysiology, 32, 511–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wei, N. X. (2007). Phraseological characteristics of Chinese learners spoken English: Evidence of lexical chunks from COLSEC. Modern Foreign Languages, 8, 280–291.Google Scholar
  31. Wood, D. (2002). Formulaic language in acquisition and production: Implications for teaching. TESL Canada Journal, 20, 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wood, D. (2009). Effects of focused instruction of formulaic sequences on fluent expression in second language narratives: A case study. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1, 39–57.Google Scholar
  33. Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wray, A. (2012). What do we (think we) know about formulaic language? An evaluation of the current state of play. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 231–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Yang, H. Z. (1999). Principles of designing College English Speaking Tests. Foreign Language World, 3, 48–57.Google Scholar
  36. Yuan, P., & Guo, F. R. (2010). Formulaic language and L2 oral fluency. Foreign Language World, 1, 54–62.Google Scholar
  37. Zhang, W. Z., & Wu, X. D. (2001). Development of L2 oral fluency: A quantitative analysis. Modern Foreign Languages, 24(4), 341–351.Google Scholar
  38. Zhen, F. C. (2009). Correlation between chunks, fluency, accuracy and appropriateness of oral English: An empirical study based on COLSEC corpus. Foreign Language Education in China, 11, 14–24.Google Scholar
  39. Zhou, A. J. (2002). Fluency and accuracy improvement in oral English. Foreign Language Education, 5, 72–83.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Foreign LanguagesSoutheast UniversityNanjingChina
  2. 2.Department of Psychological and Brain SciencesBoston UniversityBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations