8. The role of learners’ language analytic ability in the communicative classroom

By Leila Ranta. 2002

90 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Language and Linguistics, Literature and Literary Theory

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/090934eb9dfb5701b2ed5210c49ed24bfe50da61

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Language and Linguistics

1. Masatoshi Sato
2. R. Lyster
3. Shaofeng Li
4. Hossein Nassaji
5. S. Loewen
6. Kazuya Saito
7. N. Spada
8. Leila Ranta

In Literature and Literary Theory

1. Masatoshi Sato
2. R. Lyster
3. Hossein Nassaji
4. S. Loewen
5. Shaofeng Li
6. Kazuya Saito
7. N. Spada
8. Younghee Sheen

Citations in the corpus

• Individual differences in child English second language acquisition Comparing child-internal and child-external factors (2011, background): “aptitude in L2 children point to the possibility that these internal learning mechanisms are also predictive of L2 outcomes in this population (Genesee & Hamayan, 1980; Harley & Hart, 1997; Masoura & S. Gathercole, 1999; Ranta, 2002).”
• Metalinguistic Knowledge and Language Ability in University-Level L2 Learners (2008, background): “…studies (Alderson et al. 1997; Elder et al. 1999) additionally employed tests of learners’ L1 language-analytic ability, which can be defined as a learner’s ‘capacity to infer rules of language and make linguistic generalizations or extrapolations’ (Ranta 2002: 161, referring to Skehan 1998).”
• Examining the Interface between Metalinguistic Task Performance and Oral Production in a Second Language (2002, background): “We would argue that these individuals have higher levels of language analytic ability and were thus able to impose structure on the naturalistic input they received in class (Ranta, 1998, 2002; Skehan, 1998).”
• Second Language Acquisition in Childhood (2008, background): “Research investigating the relationship between personality variables and L2 outcomes has shown mixed results (Dörnyei & Skehan, 2003; Sawyer & Ranta, 2001; Strong, 1983); however, Strong (1983) argues that studies that measured natural communicative language are those that consistently found a rela”
• Interaction and instructed second language acquisition (2018, background): “which direct and explicit information is provided about the target language (see also Long 1996; Ranta 2002).”
• THE CONSTRUCT VALIDITY OF LANGUAGE APTITUDE (2015, methodology): “Second, a study was excluded if the aptitude test deviates from traditional aptitude measures, such as Ranta ( 2002 ) who used an L1 error correction test as a measure of language analytic ability.”
• Beyond form-focused instruction: Reflections on past, present and future research (2010, background): “context of communicative and content-based instruction (Harley & Hart 1997; Ranta 2002) and found to be as relevant a factor in these contexts as in more traditional approaches to L2 teaching.”
• Language aptitude and its relationship to instructional effectiveness in second language acquisition (2005, background): “Robinson (1997) also found that the Words and Sentences subtest of the MLAT correlated most strongly with learning in the implicit condition of his study and Skehan (1989: 129) suggests that more talented students are more able to cope with ‘less structured’ material.”
• Form‐Focused Instruction: Isolated or Integrated? (2008, background): “It has been hypothesized that learners with poor metalinguistic skills in their own language may require more explicit (possibly isolated) instruction to help them identify some form–meaning connections (Ranta, 2002).”
• Pragmalinguistic Awareness: Is it Related to Motivation and Proficiency? (2005, background): “An increasing number of empirical studies have been conducted within this framework, but they have exclusively focused on morphosyntactic features (e.g. Robinson 1997, 2002c; Kormos 2000; Mackey et al. 2002; Ranta 2002; Philp 2003).”
• Foreign language aptitude theory: Yesterday, today and tomorrow (2016, background): “The central executive, in contrast, has been demonstrated to be more important in selective and resource-demanding language processes as well as the real-time performance areas of L2 comprehension, L2 interaction and L2 speech production (e.g. Miyake & Friedman 1998; Wen, Mota & McNeill 2013, 2015; ”
• INTERACTIONAL FEEDBACK AND INSTRUCTIONAL COUNTERBALANCE (2006, background): “…test performance ~Ammar, 2003; Havranek & Cesnik, 2001!, and aptitude, which includes working memory capacity ~Miyake & Friedman, 1998! and language analytic ability ~Ranta, 2002!+ Additionally, the present study did not take into account the different types of errors made by students and how…”