Suhad Sonbul

This study explored whether native speakers of English and non-natives are sensitive to corpus-derived frequency of synonymous adjective-noun collocations (e.g., fatal mistake, awful mistake, and extreme mistake) and whether level of proficiency can influence this sensitivity. Both off-line (typicality rating task) and on-line (eye-movement) measures were employed. Off-line results showed that both natives and non-natives were sensitive to collocational frequency with clearer effects for non-natives as their proficiency increased. On-line, however, proficiency had no effect on sensitivity to frequency; both natives and non-natives showed early sensitivity to collocational frequency (first pass reading time). This on-line sensitivity disappeared later in processing for both groups (total reading time and fixation count). Results are discussed in light of usage-based theories of language acquisition and processing.

To date, there has been little empirical research exploring the relationship between implicit and explicit lexical knowledge (of collocations). As a first step in addressing this gap, two laboratory experiments were conducted that evaluate different conditions (enriched, enhanced, and decontextualized) under which both adult native speakers (Experiment 1) and advanced nonnative speakers of English (Experiment 2) acquire collocations. Three different tests of collocational knowledge were used to assess gains after treatment: two traditional explicit tests (form recall and form recognition) and an innovative implicit test (priming). Results from mixed-effects modeling showed that all conditions led to significant long-term gains in explicit form recall and recognition both for natives and nonnatives, while no condition facilitated implicit collocational priming effects either for natives or nonnatives.

The current view of vocabulary knowledge is that of a complex construct involving both explicit and implicit mental representations for various aspects, including collocations (Nation, 2001). Although this view is now gaining acceptance, the interrelationship between explicit and implicit vocabulary knowledge has not been fully addressed. This might be partly due to lack of conventional measures of implicit lexical knowledge. Most measures used in vocabulary acquisition research have been explicit in nature. Innovative online psycholinguistic techniques are just beginning to be used in investigating vocabulary acquisition issues (e.g., Sonbul & Schmitt, 2013).

This paper presents one of the first attempts to compare results of a traditional paper-and-pencil vocabulary test in an EFL context with those obtained from an innovative psychological measure. The study aims at evaluating explicit (recall and recognition) and implicit (automatic priming effects) collocational knowledge developed under different input conditions (incidental and instructed) in a Saudi classroom context. Results showed that learners (Preparatory Year Students at UQU) developed explicit collocational knowledge only under the instructed condition but did not develop implicit knowledge under either condition. These findings have important implications for language testing. They also open the door for using innovative psycholinguistic measures in classroom acquisition research.

An area of lexical knowledge which has attracted recent attention is collocations (words that often occur together, e.g. strong coffee, heavy rain). Although research evidence suggests that EFL learners’ knowledge of collocations is particularly weak leading to a gap in communication (Bahns & Eldaw, 1993; Nesselhauf, 2003), very few studies (e.g. Laufer & Girsai, 2008) have been conducted to evaluate various methods of enhancing this aspect of word knowledge in the natural classroom environment. Moreover, these studies have only used conventional measures assessing explicit (declarative) collocational knowledge. It is, thus, not clear, whether the conditions examined can/cannot lead to the development of implicit (procedural) knowledge.
This paper presents one of the first studies testing both explicit and implicit collocational konwledge in the EFL classroom. The study aims at evaluating explicit (recall and recognition) and implicit (automatic priming effects) collocational knowledge developed under different input conditions (incidental and instructed) in a Saudi classrrom context. Results showed that learners developed explicit collocational knowledge only under the instructed condition but did not develop implicit knowledge under either condition. These findings have important implications for language testing as they caution that high levels of lexical knowledge indicated on explicit tests should not be taken as evidence for implicit knowledge as well. The study also opens the door for using useful psycholinguistic measures in classroom acquisition research. Finally, it has useful pedagogical implications regarding the most useful method of enhancing EFL learners' knowledge of collocations to facilitate message communication in the most effective way.

An interest in the explicit/implicit knowledge distinction has recently emerged in applied linguistics and SLA circles (N. Ellis, 2008; R. Ellis, 2005). However, most SLA research into the explicit/implicit knowledge distinction has focused on testing grammatical knowledge, with very little consideration of the distinction’s implications for lexical knowledge. This seems to be due to the lack of conventional measures of implicit lexical knowledge.

A second area of lexical knowledge which has attracted recent attention is collocations (words that often occur together, e.g. strong coffee, heavy rain). Although research evidence suggests that EFL learners’ knowledge of collocations is particularly weak (Bahns & Eldaw, 1993; Nesselhauf, 2003), very few studies (e.g. Laufer & Girsai, 2008) have been conducted to evaluate various methods of enhancing this aspect of word knowledge in the natural classroom environment. Moreover, these studies have only used conventional measures assessing explicit collocational knowledge. It is, thus, not clear, whether the conditions examined can/cannot lead to the development of implicit knowledge.

This paper presents one of the first studies testing both explicit and implicit collocational knowledge in the EFL classroom. The study aims at evaluating explicit (recall and recognition) and implicit (automatic priming effects) collocational knowledge developed under different input conditions (incidental and instructed) in a Saudi classroom context. Results showed that learners developed explicit collocational knowledge only under the instructed condition but did not develop implicit knowledge under either condition. These findings have important implications for language testing as they caution that high levels of lexical knowledge indicated on explicit tests should not be taken as evidence for implicit knowledge as well. The study also opens the door for using useful psycholinguistic measures in classroom acquisition research.

The current view of vocabulary knowledge is that of a complex construct involving both explicit and implicit mental representations (Ellis, 1994; Nation, 2001). Although this view is now gaining acceptance, the exact nature and interrelationship of explicit and implicit vocabulary knowledge has not been addressed. This might be in part due to lack of conventional measures of implicit lexical knowledge. Most measures used in vocabulary acquisition research have been explicit in nature (Read, 2000). Innovative online psycholinguistic techniques (see Marinis, 2003) are just beginning to be used in investigating vocabulary acquisition issues (e.g., Elgort, 2011; Osterhout, et al., 2006).

This paper presents one of the first attempts to compare results of a traditional paper-and-pencil vocabulary test with those obtained from an innovative psychological measure. It reports on a two-experiment study evaluating different conditions (incidental, enhanced, and instructed) under which both adult natives (Experiment 1) and advanced nonnatives (Experiment 2) acquire explicit (recognition) and implicit (automatic priming effects) knowledge of one type of lexical items, i.e. collocations. Results showed that all conditions led to significant gains in explicit recognition knowledge for both natives and nonnatives. On the other hand, only the instructed condition resulted in the development of implicit, collocational priming effects in natives while no condition facilitated those effects in nonnatives. These findings have important implications for vocabulary assessment as they point out to the dissociation between explicit and implicit lexical knowledge and, thus, highlight the benefits of employing psycholinguistic techniques in vocabulary acquisition research.

An interest in the explicit/implicit knowledge distinction has recently emerged in applied linguistics and SLA circles (N. Ellis, 2008; R. Ellis, 2005). However, most SLA research into the explicit/implicit knowledge distinction has focused on testing grammatical knowledge, with very little consideration of the distinction’s implications for lexical knowledge. This seems to be due to the lack of conventional measures of implicit lexical knowledge. Most established tests in vocabulary acquisition research have been declarative in nature tapping into explicit knowledge while ignoring implicit knowledge.

A second area of lexical knowledge which has attracted recent attention is formulaic language.  A range of research has indisputably shown that it is a widespread and influential component of language (Schmitt, 2004; Wray, 2002). The problem is that most of this research has been largely descriptive with very little investigation of how knowledge of formulaic language can be measured.

This paper will address these two emerging areas in vocabulary testing research by reporting on a two-experiment study incorporating both explicit (recall and recognition) and implicit (automatic priming effects) tests of one aspect of formulaic language, i.e. collocations. The study aims at evaluating explicit and implicit collocational knowledge developed under different input conditions (incidental, enhanced, and instructed) both by adult natives (Experiment 1) and advanced nonnatives (Experiment 2). Explicit test results showed that all conditions led to significant gains for both natives and nonnatives. On the other hand, the implicit test only revealed collocational priming effects under the instructed condition and only for natives. These findings have important implications for language testing as they point out to the dissociation between explicit and implicit lexical knowledge. Moreover, they caution that high levels of lexical knowledge indicated on explicit tests of knowledge should be interpreted carefully and should not be taken as evidence for implicit knowledge as well.