Hostname: page-component-5b777bbd6c-7mr9c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-06-19T14:31:07.419Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Research timeline: Automatization in second language learning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 June 2025

Yuichi Suzuki ,
Ryo Maie Open the ORCID record for Ryo Maie [Opens in a new window]  and
Bronson Hui Open the ORCID record for Bronson Hui [Opens in a new window]
Yuichi Suzuki
Affiliation:
Waseda University, Shinjuku, Tokyo, Japan
Ryo Maie*
Affiliation:
Tohoku University, Sendai, Miyagi, Japan
Bronson Hui
Affiliation:
University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, USA
*
Corresponding author: Yuichi Suzuki; Email: yszk@waseda.jp
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Automatization is the learning process by which controlled, effortful second language (L2) processing becomes automatic, fast, and effortless through practice – a critical transition for L2 development. Achieving automaticity allows learners to progress from laborious language use to fluent, real-time communication by freeing limited cognitive resources. This research timeline synthesizes four decades of laboratory and classroom research on automatization, bridging cognitive learning theories with pedagogical practice. We trace five key research strands: (1) cognitive mechanisms, including the explicit-implicit knowledge interface; (2) skill development trajectories across phonological, lexical, morphosyntax, and pragmatics domains; (3) instructional approaches promoting automatization of knowledge and skills through deliberate and systematic practice; (4) methodological advances in measuring automaticity (e.g., reaction time, coefficient of variation, neural measures); and (5) individual differences in long-term memory systems (declarative and procedural memory). This timeline offers a comprehensive perspective on how automatization research has significantly advanced our understanding of L2 learning.

Keywords

automaticityautomatizationsecond language acquisitionskill acquisition
Type
Research Timeline
Information
Language Teaching , First View , pp. 1 - 20
Check for updates
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press.

1. Introduction

Automatization is the learning process through which controlled (conscious, effortful, and slow) language processing gradually becomes automatic (unconscious, effortless, and fast) through practice. This development plays a pivotal role in second language (L2) learning and teaching, as learners progress from effortful language use to fluent use across all language skills. For example, while a beginner L2 learner needs to consciously think about word order and verb conjugations when forming basic sentences in speaking and writing, an advanced learner can seamlessly integrate these elements and produce them during real-time communication. Similarly, in comprehension tasks, while beginners often need to mentally translate each word and analyze grammatical structures in text, advanced learners can directly access meaning without conscious linguistic analysis.

Automaticity refers to the state achieved through automatization where learners can effortlessly perform language tasks with high accuracy and speed. This advanced state of language development marks a crucial transition: from laborious, cognitively demanding usage (e.g., characterized by slow, halting retrieval of linguistic knowledge) to smooth, efficient communication in real-life situations. The process of automatization bridges cognitive theory of learning and pedagogical practice in unique ways: theories explain how repeated L2 practice leads to automatization, while language teaching methods provide systematic opportunities for practice using L2 needed to achieve automaticity. This reciprocal relationship between theory and practice has made automatization a central focus in both second language acquisition (SLA) research and language education (for reviews, see DeKeyser, Reference DeKeyser and Robinson2001; Segalowitz, Reference Segalowitz, Doughty and Long2003; Segalowitz & Hulstijn, Reference Segalowitz, Hulstijn, Kroll and de Groot2005; Suzuki, Reference Suzuki2023). In the remainder of this introductory section, we provide a concise review of L2 automatization research from both theoretical and practical perspectives.

2. Theoretical foundations

Automatization has been a recurring concept over several decades in language teaching and learning. The emergence of automatization as a research topic in SLA can be traced back to the 1980s. Following the rise of the Monitor Model (e.g., Krashen, Reference Krashen1985), the information processing approach was introduced as a complementary or alternative cognitive theory in SLA (e.g., McLaughlin et al., Reference McLaughlin, Rossman and McLeod1983). Drawing on findings from cognitive psychology, L2 learning was seen as the acquisition of complex skills that draw on automatic and controlled processes (Shiffrin & Schneider, Reference Shiffrin and Schneider1977). As successful L2 use hinges on the coordination of linguistic skills in an integrated manner, automatization compensates for a learner’s limited attentional capacity by freeing up cognitive resources; for instance, by automatizing lower-level skills such as lexical retrieval for speaking (e.g., Levelt, Reference Levelt1978) and word recognition for reading skills (e.g., McLeod & McLaughlin, Reference McLeod and McLaughlin1986).

Information processing theory laid the groundwork for exploring the learner’s transition from controlled processing, a slow and effortful stage, to automatic processing, characterized by its speed, effortlessness, and minimal requirement for conscious attention. Building on these cognitive principles, researchers examined to what extent learning theories (e.g., Anderson et al., Reference Anderson, Bothell, Byrne, Douglass, Lebiere and Qin2004; Logan, Reference Logan1988), originally developed for general cognitive skills, could be applied to SLA. Since the 1990s, empirical studies have tested key theoretical assumptions of skill acquisition theory (e.g., DeKeyser, Reference DeKeyser1997*; Robinson, Reference Robinson1997*), revealing that L2 skill learning can be accounted for by learning principles governing the acquisition of other general skills such as music, sports, algebra, chess, computer programming, and flying an aircraft (see Tenison & Anderson, Reference Tenison and Anderson2016, for a neuroimaging study).

Underlying mechanisms of automatization have been debated over decades in the fields of cognitive psychology and SLA research. A seminal study by Norman Segalowitz and his colleagues proposed a fine distinction between simple speed-up and genuine automatization in L2 processing (Segalowitz & Segalowitz, Reference Segalowitz and Segalowitz1993*Footnote 1). Consider how L2 learners process grammar when forming sentences: they might first translate from L1, then reorder words to match L2 structure, and finally apply grammar rules. A mere speed-up means executing these same steps faster (e.g., reducing time from 900 to 500 milliseconds), analogous to a student solving multiplication problems by performing addition steps more rapidly (e.g., calculating 5 × 4 as 4 + 4 + 4 + 4 + 4) and a beginning typist locating keys more quickly while still looking at the keyboard. In contrast, genuine automatization represents a fundamental restructuring of these processes. Just as students progress from counting-based calculation to instant recognition of multiplication facts (5 × 4 = 20) and typists develop fluid movements without looking at keys, L2 learners develop the ability to directly access target language structures without relying on L1 translation.

While extended practice triggers both speed-up and restructuring, Norman Segalowitz argued that only restructuring leads to true automaticity (Segalowitz & Segalowitz, Reference Segalowitz and Segalowitz1993). To measure this distinction, he proposed using the coefficient of variation (CV) – calculated by dividing the standard deviation of response times (RT) of an individual by their own mean RT. Coefficient of variation provides insights into processing variability, with lower CV values indicating more stable and consistent processing thought to characterize automatic performance. Higher CV values suggest more variable processing typically associated with controlled, non-automatic processing.

Since then, the utility and validity of CV as a measure of automatization, alongside with RT, has been subjected to intensive empirical investigations. Several limitations have been raised: CV measurements assume accurate knowledge representation and may not capture development when new content is being learned simultaneously (Hulstijn et al., Reference Hulstijn, Van Gelderen and Schoonen2009*). Hence, CV may be only useful in investigating automatization in controlled laboratory settings where participants without prior knowledge are trained to learn a finite set of materials (e.g., words), and it may not be useful in real learning situations where learners simultaneously develop both (new, declarative) knowledge (e.g., accuracy) and efficient skills to retrieve existing knowledge.

With the methodological caveats of using CV in mind, automaticity can be captured more broadly, at least for practical purposes (e.g., using it as a predictor of proficiency), through a combination of several indices, such as speed, stability, ballistic (unstoppable) processing, resistance to interference, levels of consciousness, and so on (DeKeyser, Reference DeKeyser and Robinson2001; Segalowitz, Reference Segalowitz, Doughty and Long2003). Some research revealed that RT (processing speed) predicted L2 proficiency more strongly than CV (processing stability) (e.g., Suzuki & Sunada, Reference Suzuki and Sunada2018*), whereas other research found the opposite pattern (e.g., Zhang & Yang, Reference Zhang and Yang2023). This discrepancy may reflect different stages of L2 development: it appears that RT is a stronger predictor in earlier stages when learners are still developing rudimentary processing speed, while CV becomes more influential in advanced stages when processing stability becomes more crucial after declarative knowledge is established.

Building on these theoretical and methodological developments, researchers have expanded their toolkit for measuring automaticity. Recent methodological syntheses have revealed numerous experimental tasks, instruments, and objective measures to capture different aspects of fluent comprehension and production (sub)skills and knowledge (Suzuki & Elgort, Reference Suzuki, Elgort and Suzuki2023; S. Suzuki & Révész, Reference Suzuki, Révész and Suzuki2023). By employing various psycholinguistic tasks yielding different measures (e.g., accuracy, RT, CV, neural responses), researchers have delved deeper into the cognitive mechanisms underlying language acquisition and usage, offering a more nuanced understanding of how automaticity develops in the context of SLA. This approach has not only provided valuable insights into learners’ progression towards fluency but has also helped in understanding the outcomes of L2 practice aimed at facilitating automatization.

3. Automatization and knowledge and skills

In tandem with the growing interest in information processing theory during the 1980s and 1990s, there was burgeoning exploration into the realm of explicit and implicit learning. Explicit learning refers to conscious learning processes, whereas implicit learning concerns incidental learning without awareness (DeKeyser, Reference DeKeyser, Doughty and Long2003; Ellis, Reference Ellis1994; Rebuschat, Reference Rebuschat2015). This demarcation of learning processes can be considered as an extension of the distinction Krashen (1985) made between acquisition and learning.Footnote 2

One approach to understanding the roles of explicit and implicit learning in SLA is skill acquisition theory (e.g., DeKeyser, Reference DeKeyser, VanPatten, Keating and Wulff2020; Suzuki, Reference Suzuki2023). Since “skill” is central to both this theory and the automatization research reviewed thus far, it is essential to clarify the distinction between skill and knowledge in L2 learning. While knowledge refers to the mental representations of language forms and rules, a skill represents the learner’s ability to draw upon linguistic knowledge (stored in memory) to perform various linguistic tasks such as listening, reading, speaking, and writing (DeKeyser, Reference DeKeyser, Loewen and Sato2017). In the technical terminology of skill acquisition theory, these components are formalized as declarative and procedural knowledge. Declarative knowledge reflects one’s conceptual understanding of facts and rules, while procedural knowledge represents the ability to use these rules in performance. Within the framework of skill acquisition theory, procedural knowledge corresponds directly to the definition of skill described above – the ability to perform linguistic tasks by drawing upon knowledge stored in memory. For instance, L2 learners typically begin with declarative knowledge (such as understanding grammar rules) and, through practice, develop procedural knowledge (the ability to use these rules in speech). This progression from declarative to procedural knowledge forms the foundation of automatization, and researchers have extensively studied how initial declarative knowledge influences both proceduralization and eventual automatization of language skills (e.g., McManus & Marsden, Reference McManus and Marsden2019*; Sato & McDonough, Reference Sato and McDonough2019*).

The distinction between declarative and procedural knowledge in skill acquisition theory often aligns with the explicit-implicit learning dichotomy in SLA research. Based on the historical evolution of SLA research commencing from the Monitor Model, the learning stages of declarative-procedural-automatization are typically associated with explicit, rather than implicit, learning and knowledge (e.g., DeKeyser, Reference DeKeyser, VanPatten, Keating and Wulff2020). Therefore, the end product of automatization is often called automatized explicit knowledge – linguistic knowledge that can be deployed quickly albeit with some level of conscious access and mental effort (Suzuki, Reference Suzuki2017). While both automatized explicit knowledge and implicit knowledge enable rapid processing, they differ fundamentally in terms of awareness: automatized explicit knowledge, which typically develops through explicit learning of grammar rules followed by extensive practice (e.g., consciously accessing subject-verb agreement rules during speaking until the rules can be applied effortlessly), remains conscious and accessible even when highly practiced, whereas implicit knowledge, which typically develops through extensive exposure to input (e.g., developing intuition about article usage through extensive reading), is characterized as capacity to use linguistic rules without awareness. However, these two types of knowledge are functionally equivalent in everyday language use (DeKeyser, Reference DeKeyser, Doughty and Long2003; Suzuki, Reference Suzuki2017), as both support fluent communication. Indeed, recent neuroimaging research indicates that L2 speakers dynamically recruit both automatized explicit and implicit knowledge in complementary ways for accurate and fluent speech (Suzuki et al., Reference Suzuki, Jeong, Cui, Okamoto, Kawashima and Sugiura2023).

Furthermore, from a neurocognitive perspective, recent research has also demonstrated that individual differences in long-term memory – specifically declarative and procedural memory – are implicated in automatization (Buffington & Morgan-Short, Reference Buffington, Morgan-Short, Wen, Skehan, Biedroń, Li and Sparks2019; Skehan, Reference Skehan, Wen, Skehan, Biedroń, Li and Sparks2019). Learners with greater capacities in these memory systems typically advance more rapidly from effortful to fluent language production. A key question is how specific types of long-term memory differentially influence various stages of L2 learning across linguistic domains (e.g., syntax, lexis, phonology) and among diverse learner populations.

Fluency is another construct often associated with automatization (Tavakoli, Reference Tavakoli, Wen and Ahmadian2019). As a multifaceted concept extensively studied in SLA research, fluency encompasses multiple dimensions. Segalowitz (Reference Segalowitz2010, Reference Segalowitz2016) proposes three dimensions of fluency: perceived, utterance, and cognitive. Perceived fluency relates to subjective assessments of speech, while utterance fluency involves measurable speech characteristics such as speed, breakdown (pausing), and self-repair. Cognitive fluency, a cornerstone of fluent language use, entails the efficient integration of cognitive processes for producing fluent speech and is closely linked to automaticity in language processing. This cognitive dimension underpins utterance fluency and supports the efficient production of fluent utterances.

4. Practical applications and developments

The study of automatization has not only advanced our theoretical understanding of L2 acquisition but also influenced language teaching methodologies. This influence is particularly evident in foreign language contexts, where learners have limited exposure to the target language outside the classroom. In such settings, educators must carefully adapt their pedagogical strategies to support the protracted and gradual process of automatization.

The evolution of automatization research in SLA has paralleled significant shifts in language teaching approaches. The field of language teaching witnessed the emergence of communicative language teaching (CLT) as a response to earlier methods such as audiolingualism. During the same period, information processing theory gained prominence in L2 learning research during the 1980s and 1990s. While CLT successfully prioritized authentic language use in the classroom, it initially underestimated the importance of systematic practice in developing automaticity. Recognizing this limitation, Gatbonton and Segalowitz (Gatbonton & Segalowitz, Reference Gatbonton and Segalowitz1988, Reference Gatbonton and Segalowitz2005) proposed a framework that integrated automaticity development within the CLT approach. Their methodology emphasizes the mastery of naturally occurring utterances in communicative situations (e.g., idiomatic expressions, functional language for requesting, questioning, and describing) rather than focusing on abstract structures. This approach provides learners with abundant opportunities for meaningful repetition and practice, thereby fostering automaticity without resorting to the mechanical nature of traditional drills.

The turn of the century marked a shift towards a more nuanced understanding of deliberate and systematic practice and its role in automatization in L2 learning (DeKeyser, Reference DeKeyser2007; Jones, Reference Jones2018; Lyster & Sato, Reference Lyster, Sato and Mayo2013; Suzuki, Reference Suzuki2023). This period coincided with a significant expansion in L2 practice research, including influential studies informed by cognitive psychology, as documented in a recent synthesis by Maie and Godfroid (Reference Maie, Godfroid and Suzuki2023) which revealed the exponential growth of such studies in the twenty-first century. DeKeyser and his colleagues emphasized that mere exposure to language is insufficient for automatization; rather, the concept of deliberate and systematic practice, involving focused, goal-directed activities, is integral to the automatization of language skills (Suzuki et al., Reference Suzuki, Nakata and DeKeyser2019). Such goal-directed activities can be simple real-world tasks that incorporate repetition combined with increasing complexity. The judicious sequencing of these tasks leads learners to repeatedly use the same structures and phrases, providing high-quality practice without the disadvantages of drills. In this sense, the concept of automatization is not incompatible at all with more contemporary teaching methodologies such as task-based language teaching (TBLT).

Recently, task repetition research in fluency development within TBLT has incorporated the concept of automaticity (Bygate, Reference Bygate2018). This approach recognizes the tight link between fluency and automaticity development, emphasizing the importance of repeated engagement in communicative tasks for transitioning from controlled to automatic processing of lexico-grammatical structures (e.g., De Jong & Tillman, Reference De Jong, Tillman and Bygate2018). Understanding how language teaching approaches, such as TBLT, can promote automatization across various L2 skills is crucial for effective language teaching (DeKeyser, Reference DeKeyser and Bygate2018; Lambert, Reference Lambert and Suzuki2023).

In summary, this introduction has traced the evolution of automatization research in SLA over the past four decades. From its roots in information processing theory to the current prominence of skill acquisition theory, our understanding of automatization has grown increasingly sophisticated. This progression reflects advancements in cognitive psychology, shaping our understanding of how practice, repetition, and cognitive processing contribute to the automatization of L2 skills. Key developments include:

  1. 1. The transition from the earlier Monitor Model to cognitive approaches in SLA.

  2. 2. The exploration of explicit and implicit learning processes in relation to automaticity.

  3. 3. The refinement of concepts such as fluency and its nature in relation to L2 skill development.

  4. 4. The development of methodologies to measure and assess automaticity in L2 processing.

  5. 5. The integration of automatization principles into language teaching methodologies such as CLT and TBLT.

This evolving understanding has significant implications for both research and practice in SLA. As we continue to refine our understanding of automatization in L2 learning, this research trajectory promises to yield further insights that will enhance our ability to foster successful language acquisition in diverse learning contexts.

The purpose of this timeline is to review major empirical research on automatization in L2 learning conducted over the last 40 years and to illustrate how the field has come to better understand its mechanisms and implications for language teaching. Due to space limitations, this timeline focuses on selected pivotal studies published in English as book chapters and as articles in leading academic journals. The criteria for selection included the citation frequency and contribution of novel insights that have significantly shaped subsequent research in the field. Additionally, we sometimes prioritize the relevance to language teaching and learning over the technicality often involved in psycholinguistic research for the interests of readers of Language Teaching. This curated approach ensures that the timeline reflects key developments and turning points in the understanding of automatization in L2 learning.

We highlight and categorize the main themes in the following ways throughout the timeline:

  1. A. Research focus

    1. 1. Mechanism (testing theory of automatization)

    2. 2. Skill development (investigating how automatization relates to proficiency development)

    3. 3. Pedagogy (intervention for promoting automatization)

    4. 4. Method (methodological refinement of research on automatization)

    5. 5. Individual difference (investigating individual differences factors in automatization)

  2. B. Contexts

    1. 1. Lab

    2. 2. Classroom

  3. C. Study design

    1. 1. Observational (no control group)

    2. 2. Experimental

  4. D. Linguistic domains

    1. 1. Phonology (PHO)

    2. 2. Lexis (LEX)

    3. 3. Morphosyntax (MSYN)

    4. 4. Pragmatics (PRAG)

  5. E. Outcome measurements

    1. 1. Accuracy (ACC)

    2. 2. Fluency (FLU)

    3. 3. Response time (RT)

    4. 4. Coefficient of variance (CV)

    5. 5. Eye-tracking (EYE)

    6. 6. Event-related potential (ERP)

    7. 7. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI)

Yuichi Suzuki is Associate Professor at the Faculty of International Research and Education at Waseda University. He received his Ph.D. in Second Language Acquisition from University of Maryland College Park. He is interested in theory-practice interface in instructed SLA and involved in collaboration projects with public and private sectors to support secondary school teachers in Japan. He writes ELT textbooks and books on ISLA research and English education that serve the interests of practitioners, general audiences, and researchers.

Ryo Maie is Senior Assistant Professor in the Graduate School of International Cultural Studies at Tohoku University. He received his Ph.D. in Second Language Studies from Michigan State University. His research focuses on skill acquisition, automatization, language aptitudes, task-based language teaching, and applied statistics in L2 research.

Bronson Hui is Assistant Professor of Second Language Acquisition at the University of Maryland, College Park. He earned his doctorate from Michigan State University. He teaches and conducts research in areas such as instructed SLA, vocabulary learning and teaching, as well as quantitative research methods.

a Authors’ names are shown in small capitals when the study referred to appears in this timeline.

Footnotes

a Authors’ names are shown in small capitals when the study referred to appears in this timeline.

1. *Indicates that the full reference for this work can be found in the subsequent timeline.

2. Acquisition and learning are used interchangeably in the remainder of this article; explicit and implicit learning are used to distinguish the learning with and without awareness.

References

Anderson, J. R., Bothell, D., Byrne, M. D., Douglass, S., Lebiere, C., & Qin, Y. (2004). An integrated theory of the mind. Psychological Review, 111(4), 1036–1060. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.111.4.1036CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buffington, J., & Morgan-Short, K. (2019). Declarative and procedural memory as individual differences in second language aptitude. In Wen, Z., Skehan, P., Biedroń, A., Li, S., & Sparks, R. L. (Eds.), Language aptitude: Advancing theory, testing, research and practice (pp. 215–237). Routledge.10.4324/9781315122021-11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bygate, M. (2018). Learning language through task repetition. John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/tblt.11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Jong, N., & Tillman, P. C. (2018). Grammatical structures and oral fluency in immediate task repetition: Trigrams across repeated performances. In Bygate, M. (Ed.), Language learning through task repetition (pp. 43–73). John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/tblt.11.02jonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (1997). Beyond explicit rule learning: Automatizing second language morphosyntax. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(2), 195–221. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263197002040CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (2001). Automaticity and automatization. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 125–151). Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139524780.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning. In Doughty, C. J., & Long, H. M. (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 312–348). Blackwell Publishers.10.1002/9780470756492.ch11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (2007). Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology. Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511667275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (2017). Knowledge and skill in ISLA. In Loewen, S., and Sato, M. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 15–32). Routledge.10.4324/9781315676968-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (2018). Task repetition for language learning: A perspective from skill acquisition theory. In Bygate, M. (Ed.), Learning language through task repetition (pp. 27–42). John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/tblt.11.01dekCrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (2020). Skill acquisition theory. In VanPatten, B., Keating, G. D., & Wulff, S. (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (3rd ed., pp. 83–104). Routledge.10.4324/9780429503986-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. (1994). Implicit and explicit learning of languages. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gatbonton, E., & Segalowitz, N. S. (1988). Creative automatization: Principles for promoting fluency within a communicative framework. TESOL Quarterly, 22(3), 473–492. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.61.3.325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gatbonton, E., & Segalowitz, N. S. (2005). Rethinking communicative language teaching: A focus on access to fluency. Canadian Modern Language Review, 61(3), 325–353. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.61.3.325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hulstijn, J. H., Van Gelderen, A., & Schoonen, R. (2009). Automatization in second language acquisition: What does the coefficient of variation tell us? Applied Psycholinguistics, 30(4), 555–582. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716409990014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, C. (2018). Practice in second language learning. Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781316443118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. Longman.Google Scholar
Lambert, C. (2023). Integrating systematic practice into task-based language teaching. In Suzuki, Y. (Ed.), Practice and automatization in second language research: Perspectives from skill acquisition theory and cognitive psychology (pp. 144–159). Routledge.10.4324/9781003414643-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M. (1978). Skill theory and language teaching. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 1(1), 53–70. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100000711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Logan, G. D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review, 95(4), 492–527. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.95.4.492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., & Sato, M. (2013). Skill acquisition theory and the role of practice in L2 development. In Mayo, M. G. (Ed.), Contemporary approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 71–92). John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/aals.9.07ch4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maie, R., & Godfroid, A. (2023). A synthesis of L2 practice research: What is “practice” and how has it been investigated? In Suzuki, Y. (Ed.), Practice and automatization in second language research: Perspectives from skill acquisition theory and cognitive psychology (pp. 181–205). Cambridge University Press.10.4324/9781003414643-11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLaughlin, B., Rossman, T., & McLeod, B. (1983). Second language learning: An information-processing perspective. Language Learning, 33(2), 135–158. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1983.tb00532.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLeod, B., & McLaughlin, B. (1986). Restructuring or automaticity? Reading in a second language. Language Learning, 36(2), 109–123. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1986.tb00374.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
McManus, K., & Marsden, E. (2019). Signatures of automaticity during practice: Explicit instruction about L1 processing routines can improve L2 grammatical processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 40(1), 205–234. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716418000553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rebuschat, P. (2015). Implicit and explicit learning of languages. John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/sibil.48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (1997). Generalizability and automaticity of second language learning under implicit, incidental, enhanced, and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(2), 223–247. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263197002052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sato, M., & McDonough, K. (2019). Practice is important but how about its quality? Contextualized practice in the classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41(5), 999–1026. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263119000159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segalowitz, N. S. (2003). Automaticity and second languages. In Doughty, C. J., & Long, H. M. (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 382–408). Blackwell Publishers.10.1002/9780470756492.ch13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segalowitz, N. S. (2010). Cognitive bases of second language fluency. Taylor & Francis.10.4324/9780203851357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segalowitz, N. S. (2016). Second language fluency and its underlying cognitive and social determinants. International review of applied linguistics in language teaching, 54(2), 79–95. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2016-9991CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segalowitz, N. S., & Hulstijn, J. (2005). Automaticity in bilingualism and second language learning. In Kroll, J. F., & de Groot, A. M. B. (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches (pp. 371–388). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Segalowitz, N. S., & Segalowitz, S. J. (1993). Skilled performance, practice, and the differentiation of speed-up from automatization effects: Evidence from second language word recognition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 14(3), 369–385. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716400010845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shiffrin, R. M., & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84(2), 127–190. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P. (2019). Language aptitude implicates language and cognitive skills. In Wen, Z. E., Skehan, P., Biedroń, A., Li, S., & Sparks, R. L. (Eds.), Language aptitude: Advancing theory, testing, research and practice (pp. 56–77). Routledge.10.4324/9781315122021-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suzuki, S., & Révész, A. (2023). Measuring speaking and writing fluency: A methodological synthesis focusing on automaticity. In Suzuki, Y. (Ed.), Practice and automatization in second language research: Perspectives from skill acquisition theory and cognitive psychology (pp. 235–264). Routledge.10.4324/9781003414643-13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suzuki, Y. (2017). Validity of new measures of implicit knowledge: Distinguishing implicit knowledge from automatized explicit knowledge. Applied Psycholinguistics, 38(5), 1229–1261. https://doi.org/10.1017/S014271641700011XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suzuki, Y. (2023). Practice and Automatization in Second Language Research: Perspectives from Skill Acquisition Theory and Cognitive Psychology. Routledge.10.4324/9781003414643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suzuki, Y., & Elgort, I. (2023). Measuring automaticity in a second language: A methodological synthesis of experimental tasks over three decades (1990–2021). In Suzuki, Y. (Ed.), Practice and automatization in second language research: Perspectives from skill acquisition theory and cognitive psychology (pp. 206–234). Routledge.10.4324/9781003414643-12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suzuki, Y., Jeong, H., Cui, H., Okamoto, K., Kawashima, R., & Sugiura, M. (2023). fMRI reveals the dynamic interface between explicit and implicit knowledge recruited during elicited imitation task. Research methods in applied linguistics, 2(2), 100051. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmal.2023.100051CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suzuki, Y., Nakata, T., & DeKeyser, R. M. (2019). Optimizing second language practice in the classroom: Perspectives from cognitive psychology. Modern Language Journal, 103(3), 551–561. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suzuki, Y., & Sunada, M. (2018). Automatization in second language sentence processing: Relationship between elicited imitation and maze tasks. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 21(1), 32–46. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728916000857CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tavakoli, P. (2019). Automaticity, fluency and second language task performance. In Wen, Z. E., and Ahmadian, M. J. (Eds.), Researching L2 task performance and pedagogy (pp. 39–52). John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/tblt.13.03tavCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tenison, C., & Anderson, J. R. (2016). Modeling the distinct phases of skill acquisition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42(5), 749–767. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000204Google ScholarPubMed
Zhang, X., & Yang, X. (2023). Using sentence processing speed and automaticity to predict L2 performance in the productive and receptive tasks. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2023-0183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

a