Elicited imitation (EI) has been widely used to examine second language (L2) proficiency and development and was an especially popular method in the 1970s and early 1980s. However, as the field embraced more communicative approaches to both instruction and assessment, the use of EI diminished, and the construct-related validity of EI scores as a representation of language proficiency was called into question. Current uses of EI, while not discounting the importance of communicative activities and assessments, tend to focus on the importance of processing and automaticity. This study presents a systematic review of EI in an effort to clarify the construct and usefulness of EI tasks in L2 research.
The review underwent two phases: a narrative review and a meta-analysis. We surveyed 76 theoretical and empirical studies from 1970 to 2014, to investigate the use of EI in particular with respect to the research/assessment context and task features. The results of the narrative review provided a theoretical basis for the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis utilized 24 independent effect sizes based on 1089 participants obtained from 21 studies. To investigate evidence of construct-related validity for EI, we examined the following: (1) the ability of EI scores to distinguish speakers across proficiency levels; (2) correlations between scores on EI and other measures of language proficiency; and (3) key task features that moderate the sensitivity of EI.
Results of the review demonstrate that EI tasks vary greatly in terms of task features; however, EI tasks in general have a strong ability to discriminate between speakers across proficiency levels (Hedges’ g = 1.34). Additionally, construct, sentence length, and scoring method were identified as moderators for the sensitivity of EI. Findings of this study provide supportive construct-related validity evidence for EI as a measure of L2 proficiency and inform appropriate EI task development and administration in L2 research and assessment.
*AkakuraM. (2012). Evaluating the effectiveness of explicit instruction on implicit and explicit L2 knowledge. Language Teaching Research, 16(1), 9–37. doi: 10.117/1362168811423339
2.
AloeA. M.ShislerS. (2015, April). A hierarchical framework for effect sizes. Paper presented at the 2015 American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL, USA.
3.
AtkinsonD. (2002). Toward a sociocognitive approach to second language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 86(4), 525–545.
4.
BachmanL. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
5.
BachmanL. F.PalmerA. S. (1996). Language testing in practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bley-VromanR.ChaudronC. (1994). Elicited imitation as a measure of second-language competence. In MackeyA.GassS. (Eds.), Research methodology in second-language acquisition (pp. 245–261). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
8.
BorensteinM.HedgesL.HigginsJ.RothsteinH. (2007). Comprehensive meta-analysis: A computer program for meta-analysis [computer software]. Englewood, NJ: Biostat.
9.
BorensteinM.HedgesL. V.HigginsJ. P.RothsteinH. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
10.
*BowlesM. A. (2011). Measuring implicit and explicit linguistic knowledge: What can heritage language learners contribute?Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33, 247– 271. doi: 10.1017/S0272263110000756.
11.
*BurgerS.ChretienM. (2001). The development of oral production in content-based second language courses at the University of Ottawa. The Canadian Modern Language Review / La revue canadienne des langues vivantes, 58(1), 84–102. doi: 10.3138/cmlr.58.1.84.
12.
*CampfieldD. E.MurphyV. A. (2014). Elicited imitation in search of the influence of linguistic rhythm on child L2 acquisition. System, 42, 207–219. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2013.12.002.
13.
CanaleM.SwainM. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1–47.
14.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral sciences. Hove and London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
15.
ChaudronC.RusselG. (1990). The validity of elicited imitation as a measure of second language competence. Paper presented at the ninth World Congress of Applied Linguistics, Thessaloniki, Greece.
16.
DaileyK.BoxxJ. (1979). A comparison of three imitative tests of expressive language and a spontaneous language sample. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 10, 6–13.
17.
*DougherityF. L. (2008). A correlative study of the IELTS listening test and a new repetition test (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Capella University, Minneapolis, MN.
18.
*EisensteinM.BaileyN.MaddenC. (1982). It take two: Contrasting tasks and contrasting structures. TESOL Quarterly, 16(3), 381–393.
19.
*ElliotR. A. (1997). On the teaching and acquisition of pronunciation within a communicative approach. Hispania, 80(1), 95–108.
20.
EllisN. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. SSLA, 24, 143–188.
21.
*EllisR. (2005). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 141–172. doi: 10.1017/S0272263105050096.
22.
EllisR. (2015). Introduction: Complementarity in research syntheses. Applied Linguistics. Advanced online publication. doi: 10.1093/applin/amv015.
23.
*EllisR.LoewenS.ErlamR. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 339–368. doi: 10.1017/S0272263106060141.
24.
*ErlamR. (2006). Elicited imitation as a measure of L2 implicit knowledge: An empirical validation study. Applied Linguistics, 27(3), 464–491. doi: 10.1093/applin/aml001.
25.
*ErlamR.LoewenS. (2010). Implicit and explicit recasts in L2 oral French interaction. The Canadian Modern Language Review / La revue canadienne des langues vivantes, 66(6), 887–916. doi: 10.3138/cmlr.66.6.877.
26.
*FaqeihH. I. (2012). The effectiveness of error correction during oral interaction: Experimental studies with English L2 learners in the United Kingdom and Saudi Arabia (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of York, Heslington, York.
27.
*Fiori-AgorenM. L. (2004). The development of grammatical competence through synchronous computer mediated communication (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Pennsylvania State University, University Park, State College, PA.
28.
*FlynnS. (1986). Production vs. comprehension: Differences in underlying competences. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 8, 135–164.
29.
FraserC.BellugiU.BrownR. (1963). Control of grammar in imitation, comprehension, and production. Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior, 2(2), 121–135.
30.
FulcherG. (2000). The ‘communicative’ legacy in language testing. System, 28(4), 483–497. doi: 10.1016/S0346-251X(00)00033-6.
31.
GallimoreR.TharpR. G. (1981). The interpretation of elicited sentence imitation in a standardized context. Language Learning, 31(2), 369–392.
32.
GathercoleS. E.BaddeleyA. D. (1993). Working memory and language. Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum.
33.
*GrahamC. R.LonsdaleD.KenningtonC.JohnsonA.McGheeJ. (2008). Elicited imitation as an oral proficiency measure with ASR scoring. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, Paris, France. European Language Resources Association, 1604–1610.
34.
GrahamR.McGheeJ.MillardB. (2010). The role of lexical choice in elicited imitation item difficulty. In PriorM. T.WatanabeY.LeeS. (Eds.). Selected proceedings of the 2008 second language research forum: Exploring SLA perspectives, positions, and practices (pp. 57–72). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
35.
HamayanE.SaegertJ.LarudeeP. (1977). Elicited imitation in second language learners. Language & Speech, 20(1), 86–97.
36.
HedgesL. V. (1981). Distribution theory for Class’s estimator of effect size and related estimators. Journal of Educational Statistics, 6, 107–128.
37.
HedgesL. V.OlkinI. (1985). Statistical model of meta-analysis. New York: Academic Press.
38.
HedgesL. V.VeveaJ. L. (1998). Fixed- and random-effects models in meta-analysis. Psychological Methods, 3(4), 468–504. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.486.
39.
*HenningG. (1983). Oral proficiency testing: Comparative validities of interview, imitation, and completion methods. Language learning, 33(3), 315–332.
40.
HigginsJ.ThompsonS. G.DeeksJ. J.AltmanD. G. (2003). Measuring inconsistency in meta-analysis. British Medical Journal, 327, 557–560. doi: 10.1136/bmi.327.7414.557.
41.
HoodL.LightbownP. (1978). What children do when asked to “say what I say” – Does elicited imitation measure linguistic knowledge?Allied Health and Behavioral Sciences, 1(2), 195–219.
42.
HoodL.SchieffelinB. B. (1978). Elicited imitation in two cultural contexts. Quarterly Newsletter of the Institute for Comparative Human Development, 2(1), 4–12.
*IwashitaN. (2006). Syntactic complexity measures and their relation to oral proficiency in Japanese as a foreign language. Language Assessment Quarterly, 3, 151–169. doi: 10.1207/s15434311laq0302_4.
45.
*JensenE. D.VintherT. (2003). Exact repetition as input enhancement in second language acquisition. Language Learning, 53(3), 373–428. doi: 10.1111/1467-9922.00230.
46.
JessopL.SuzukiW.TomitaY. (2007). Elicited imitation in second language acquisition research. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 64(1), 215–220.
47.
KaplanT. I. (1996). Elicited imitation in L2 research: Lessons from native speakers. Unpublished manuscript, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA.
48.
*KimJ. (2012). The optimal conditions for form-focused instruction: Method, target complexity, and types of knowledge (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Georgetown University, Washington DC.
49.
KuhnT. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
50.
*Larsen-FreemanD. E. (1975). The acquisition of grammatical morphemes by adult ESL students. TESOL Quarterly, 9(4), 409–419.
51.
*LiS. (2010). Corrective feedback in perspective: The interface between feedback type, proficiency, the choice of target structure, and learners’ individual differences in working memory and language analytic ability (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.
52.
LonsdaleD.ChristensenC. (2011). Automating the scoring of elicited imitation. Proceedings of the ACL-HLT/ICML/ISCA Joint Symposium on Machine Learning in Speech and Language Processing.
53.
MarkmanB. R.SpilkaI. V.TuckerG. R. (1975). The use of elicited imitation in search of an interim French grammar. Language Learning, 25(1), 31–41.
54.
McDadeH. L.SimpsonM. A.LambD. E. (1982). The use of elicited imitation as a measure of expressive grammar: A question of validity. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 47(1), 19–24.
55.
MenyukP. (1964). Comparison of grammar of children with functionally deviant and normal speech. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 7(2), 109–121.
56.
MenyukP. (1971). The acquisition and development of language. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
57.
MessickS. (1989). Validity. In LinnR. L. (Ed.), Educational measurement (pp. 13–103). New York: American Council on Education/Macmillan.
58.
MillerG. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological review, 63(2), 81–97.
59.
MillerJ. F. (1973). Sentence imitation in pre-school children. Language and Speech, 16, 1–14.
60.
MorrowK., 1979. Communicative language testing: Revolution of evolution? In BrumfitC. K.JohnsonK. (Eds.), The communicative approach to language teaching (pp. 143–159). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
61.
MunnichE.FlynnS.MartohardjonoG. (1994). Elicited imitation and grammaticality judgment tasks: What they measure and how they relate to each other. In TaroneE. E.GassS.CohenA. D. (Eds), Research methodology in second-language acquisition (pp. 227–243). Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum.
62.
NaimanN. (1974). Imitation, comprehension and production of certain syntactic forms by young children acquiring a second language (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Toronto, Toronto, ON.
63.
NorrisJ. M.OrtegaL. (2006). The value and practice of research synthesis for language learning and teaching. In NorrisJ. M.OrtegaL. (Eds), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 3–50). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
64.
OllerJ. W. (1973). Cloze tests of second language proficiency and what they measure. Language Learning, 23(1), 105–118.
65.
OllerJ. W. (1976). Evidence for a general language proficiency factor: An expectancy grammar. Die neueren sprachen, 75(2), 165–174.
66.
*Ortega Alvarez-OssorioL. (2000). Understanding syntactic complexity: The measurement of change in the syntax instructed L2 Spanish learners (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Hawai’i, Honolulu, HI.
67.
PerkinsK.BruttenS. R.AngelisP. J. (1986). Derivational complexity and item difficulty in a sentence repetition task. Language learning, 36(2), 125–141.
68.
PlonskyL. (2013). Study quality in SLA: An assessment of designs, analyses, and reporting practices in quantitative L2 research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 655–687.
69.
PlonskyL.OswaldF. (2014). How big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64(4), 878–912.
70.
PophamW. J. (2008) Classroom assessment: What teachers need to know (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
71.
RebuschatP. (2013). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge in second language research. Language Learning, 63(3), 595–626. doi: 10.1111/lang.12010.
72.
RebuschatP.MackeyA. (2013). Prompted production. In ChappelleC. A. (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics, vol. 5. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
73.
SchimkeS. (2011). Variable verb placement in second-language German and French: Evidence from production and elicited imitation of finite and nonfinite negated sentences. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32, 635–685.
74.
*SerafiniE. (2013). Cognitive and psychosocial factors in the long-term development of implicit and explicit second language knowledge in adult learners of Spanish at increasing proficiency (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Georgetown University, Washington DC.
75.
SlobinD.WelshC. A. (1973). Elicited imitation as a research tool in developmental psycholinguistics. In FergusonC.SlobinD. (Eds.), Studies of child language development (pp. 485–489). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
76.
ThomasM. (1992). What do elicited imitation data reveal about comprehension?Proceedings of the twelfth second language research forum, April 2–5, 1992, Michigan State University.
77.
ThomasM. (1994). Assessment of L2 proficiency in second language acquisition research. Language Learning, 44, 307–336. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1994.tb01104.x.
78.
ThomasM. (2006). Research synthesis and historiography: The case of assessment of second language proficiency. In NorrisJ. M.OrtegaL. (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 3–50). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
79.
*Tracy-VenturaN.McManusK.OrtegaL.NorrisJ. M. (2014). “Repeat as much as you can”: Elicited imitation as a measure of global proficiency in L2 French. In LeclercqP.HiltonH.EdmondsA. (Eds), Proficiency assessment issues in SLA research: Measures and practices (pp.143–166). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
80.
TremblayA. (2011). Proficiency assessment standards in second language acquisition research: “Clozing” the gap. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33, 339–372.
81.
TrofimovichP.BakerW. (2007). Learning prosody and fluency characteristics of second language speech: The effect of experience on child learners’ acquisition of five suprasegmentals. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28(2), 251–276. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0142716407070130.
82.
*TrofimovichP.LightbownP. M.HalterR. H.SongH. (2009). Comprehension-based practice: The development of L2 pronunciation in a listening and reading program. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 609–639. doi: 10.1017/S0272263109990040.
83.
*TrofimovichP.LightbownP. M.HalterR. (2013). Are certain types of instruction better for certain learners?System, 41(4), 914–922. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2013.09.004.
84.
UnderhillN. (1987). Testing Spoken Language: A Handbook of Oral Testing Techniques. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
85.
Van BoxtelS.BongaertsT.CoppenP. (2005). Native-like attainment of dummy subjects in Dutch and the role of the L1. IRAL, 43, 355–380. doi: 10.1515/iral.2005.43.4.355.
86.
van MoereA. (2012). A psycholinguistic approach to oral language assessment. Language Testing, 29(3), 325–344. doi:10.1177/0265532211424478.
87.
VerhagenJ. (2011). Verb placement in second language acquisition: Experimental evidence for the different behavior of auxiliary and lexical verbs. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32, 821–858.
88.
VintherT. (2002). Elicited imitation: A brief overview. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 12(1), 54–73. doi: 10.1111/1473-4192.00024.
89.
*WangW. W. (1998). Age-related effects of adult second language acquisition: A study of mandarin-speaking learners of English (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Toronto, Toronto, ON.
90.
*WestD. E. (2012). Elicited imitation as a measure of morphemic accuracy: Evidence from L2 Spanish. Language and Cognition, 4(3), 203–222. doi: 10.1515/langcog-2012-0011.
91.
*WuS.OrtegaL. (2013). Measuring global oral proficiency in SLA research: A new elicited imitation test of L2 Chinese. Foreign Language Annuals, 46(4), 680–704. doi: 10.1111/flan.12063.
92.
*YoonS. (2010). English syllabl confusion and imitation in Korean bilingual and monolingual chidlren and adults (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL.
93.
*ZhouY. (2012). Willingness to communicate in learning Mandarin as a foreign and heritage language (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, HI.
