Processing Instruction and Discourse

Processing Instruction and Discourse

This page intentionally left blank

Processing Instruction and Discourse

Alessandro G. Benati and James F. Lee

Continuum International Publishing Group The Tower Building 80 Maiden Lane 11 York Road Suite 704 London SE1 7NX New York NY 10038 www.continuumbooks.com © Alessandro G. Benati and James F. Lee 2010 Alessandro G. Benati and James F. Lee have asserted their right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as the Authors of this work. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN:

978-0-8264-3496-8 (hardback)

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

Typeset by Newgen Imaging Systems Pvt Ltd, Chennai, India Printed and bound in Great Britain by the MPG Books Group

To Bernadette, Grace, and Francesco AGB To Ali, Graci, and Lili JFL

This page intentionally left blank

Contents

Acknowledgments Preface

viii ix

Part One: Processing Instruction: Theory, Practice, and Research 1 VanPatten’s Theory of Input Processing 2 Practical Model: Processing Instruction 3 Processing Instruction: Experimental Research

3 32 45

Part Two: Processing Instruction and Discourse 4 Exploring the Effects of Processing Instruction on a Discourse-level Guided Composition with the Spanish Subjunctive after the Adverb Cuando with Erin M. McNulty 5 Exploring the Effects of Processing Instruction on Discourse-level Interpretation Tasks with the Japanese Passive Construction with Noriko Hikima 6 Exploring the Effects of Processing Instruction on Discourse-level Interpretation Tasks with English Past Tense 7 Exploring the Effects of Discourse-level Structured Input Activities with French Causative by Wynne Wong 8 Conclusions References Index

97

148

178 198 217 226 233

Acknowledgments

First of all, we would like to thank Bill VanPatten for his mentoring, guidance, and friendship over the years. We say a big thank you to Wynne Wong for her contribution to this book. We hope that her chapter inspires more work with discourse-level input. We would also like to express our gratitude to Erin M. McNulty and Noriko Hikima for their work on two of the chapters of this book. Both these people have added a new linguistic item to the processing instruction research base. Another big thank you to our students who have participated in the classroom studies presented in this book. Last but not least, we are grateful to Gurdeep, Colleen, and Murali at Continuum for their help in producing this book.

Preface

Processing instruction is an approach to grammar instruction for second language learning. It derives its name from the fact that the instruction (both the explicit explanation as well as the practices) attempts to influence, alter, and/or improve the way learners process input. Processing instruction contrasts with traditional grammar instruction in many ways, most principally in its focus on input whereas traditional grammar instruction focuses on learners’ output. The greatest contribution of processing instruction to both theory and practice is the concept of “structured input,” a form of comprehensible input that has been manipulated to maximize learners’ benefit of exposure to input. A growing body of research on the effects of processing instruction has given this approach to grammar instruction significant support. The positive effects of processing instruction have been found for a variety of romance and nonromance languages (Spanish, French, Italian, German, English, and Japanese) and on a variety of morphological, syntactic, and semantic linguistic items (past and future tense morphology, object pronouns, and subjunctive mood). Previous research has focused on five important issues. A body of research has compared the effects of processing instruction to those of other types of instruction. This work affirms the superiority of this input-based approach over different types of output-based instruction. Another body of research has examined the roles of explicit explanation and structured input practices in order to determine the source(s) of the effects of processing instruction on language development. This work affirms the importance of structured input activities. A third line of research has measured the effects of processing instruction when delivered via computer terminals. This work affirms that processing instruction is effective no matter the way of delivery. A fourth line of investigation has examined whether learners improve if they receive enhanced structured input activities. The work affirms the main role for structured input activities as the causative factor in processing instruction. A final line of research has investigated the secondary and cumulative effects of processing instruction. This work affirms that learners who have been exposed to a processing

x

Preface

strategy do pick up a second strategy incidentally as a result of learning the first one. Processing instruction effects have been measured through sentence and discourse-level tasks. A number of conclusions can be drawn regarding the type and mode of assessment tasks in processing instruction studies: 1. All processing instruction studies provide evidence that learners who received processing instruction performed significantly better on interpretation sentence-level tasks than learners receiving traditional instruction or meaning output-based instruction; 2. All processing instruction studies provide evidence that both processing instruction and output-based instruction (both traditional instruction and meaning output-based instruction) cause equal improvement in learner’s performance in different sentence-level production tasks (oral and written mode). 3. One study (Van Patten and Sanz,1995) provides evidence that the effects of processing instruction are not limited to sentence-level production tasks but can be measured on written and oral discursive tasks (oral and written mode). 4. One clear gap in the current database measuring processing instruction effects is that its effects have not been assessed on discourse-level interpretation tasks. 5. Dekeyser, Salaberry, Robinson and Harrington (2002) argued that any true system wide effects will be revealed more clearly in the discursive-level tasks and not sentence-level tasks. Norris and Ortega (2000) underscored the fact that most research investigating the effectiveness of L2 instruction has used, to date, measures that require the application of explicit declarative knowledge under controlled conditions and not the use of spontaneous, fluent, and contextualized language. In processing instruction studies, the effects of processing instruction have been measured on a variety of tasks and on different modes. However, only two studies have measured the effects of processing instruction on discourse-level tasks and the effects of instruction has not been tested yet on discourse-level interpretation tasks. This book therefore addresses one important limitation on studies measuring and comparing the effects of processing instruction with output-based instruction approaches. It will provide new and original evidence of the effects of processing instruction on discourse-level interpretation tasks and also generalize previous finding on the effects of processing instruction on discourse-level production tasks (different type of tasks and mode).

Preface

xi

This book consists of two parts:

Part One In the first part (Chapters 1 and 2), we present and examine the input processing model and explain the main characteristics of processing instruction (both its main theoretical underpinnings as well as the guidelines for developing structured input activities). Then, in Chapter 3, we review the empirical research conducted, to date, on processing instruction so that readers will have an overview of new research carried out on the effects of processing instruction.

Part Two In the second part of this book, we present and review the results of a series of studies investigating the effects of processing instruction on discourselevel interpretation and production tasks. In Chapter 4, we explore the effects of processing instruction on a discourse-level guided composition task with the Spanish subjunctive after the adverb cuando. In Chapters 5 and 6, we present the results of two empirical studies measuring the effects of processing instruction on the acquisition of Japanese passive forms and English past tense marker –ed. In Chapter 7, Wynne Wong examines the results of an investigation on the effects of discourse-level structured input activities on the acquisition of French causative. In the final chapter (Chapter 8), we summarize and reflect on the findings presented in this book and offer future directions for processing instruction research.

This page intentionally left blank

Part One

Processing Instruction: Theory, Practice, and Research

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter 1

VanPatten’s Theory of Input Processing

What Is Input? What Is Input Processing? There are a variety of theories that account for different aspects of second language acquisition (Mitchell and Myles 2004; VanPatten and Williams 2007a). “Indeed, it is common ground among all theorists of language learning, of whatever description, that it is necessary to interpret and to process incoming language data in some form, for normal language development to take place. There is thus a consensus that language input of some kind is essential for normal language learning” (Mitchell and Myles 2004: 20, emphasis added). What is input? The following four definitions suffice to demonstrate that input is language, presented orally or in written form: 1. “The raw linguistic data (oral or written) to which learners are exposed” (Farley 2005: 109). 2. “Samples of language that learners are exposed to in a communicative context or setting” (Wong 2005: 119). 3. “Samples of second language that learners hear or see to which they attend for its propositional content (message)” (VanPatten 1996: 10). 4. “Input is defined as language the learner hears (or reads) and attends to for its meaning” (VanPatten and Williams 2007b: 9). Of additional importance to our work is that input is language presented in a communicative context insofar as learners are attending to the meaning of the message(s) encoded through the language directed to them.

4

Processing Instruction and Discourse

VanPatten and Williams (2007b: 9) assert that any theory of second language acquisition will have to address in some way certain observed phenomena, or consensus statements as Mitchell and Myles might refer to it. The first of these is that exposure to input is necessary for second language acquisition to take place. Ortega (2007: 236) reviews the role of input in the nine theories of second language acquisition included in VanPatten and Williams’ (2007a) collection of essays. She notes that the role of input in each of the theories varies. In some theories, input might be the only ingredient necessary for language acquisition but is not sufficient to account for all language acquisition, while in other theories, input may be a trigger or input may be the driving factor in learning. What is input processing? VanPatten developed his theory of input processing and the instructional intervention called “Processing Instruction” (1993, 1996), dealt with in Chapter 2, based on what we know about what first and second language learners do with input. They process input for its meaning and that meaning is formally encoded. The term “formally” refers to the linguistic elements encoded in the input such as verb morphemes, case markings, and syntax. Input processing, then, refers to the cognitive processes by which learners make the initial connection between a grammatical form and its meaning. In our work we are concerned with how learners make sense out of the language they hear or read (input) and how they get linguistic data or intake from the input (Wong 2005: 28). As a theoretical framework, “Input Processing is concerned with three fundamental questions that involve the assumption that an integral part of language acquisition is making form–meaning connections: Under what conditions do learners make initial form–meaning connections? Why, at a given moment in time, do they make some and not other form–meaning connections? What internal strategies do learners use in comprehending sentences and how might this affect acquisition?” (VanPatten 2007: 116).

VanPatten’s Theory of Input Processing

5

VanPatten adds to this list of three umbrella questions the following more specific ones, the answers to which are illuminated by the research on input processing: What linguistic data do learners attend to during comprehension? Why? What linguistic data do learners not attend to? Why? How does a formal feature’s position in the utterance influence whether it gets processed? What grammatical roles do learners assign to nouns based on their position in an utterance? We are working within VanPatten’s theory of input processing as presented in its initial form in VanPatten (1996), its modified form in VanPatten (2004b), and its most recent form in VanPatten (2007). His theory of input processing in adult second language acquisition frames the research questions, methods, and procedures used in all the investigations we include in this book. It is, then, important that we begin with an explication of this theory. We draw from several sources to present our account. We draw extensively from the work of its principal theorizer (VanPatten 1996, 2000, 2004b, 2007) as well as from our own work with and within this theoretical framework (Benati and Lee 2008; Lee and Benati 2007a, 2007b, 2009).

Principle 1: The Primacy of Meaning Principle In its current form, VanPatten’s theory consists of two overarching or organizing principles of input processing, each of which is further explicated with (sub)principles. The two overarching principles address two different aspects of processing. The first, the Primacy of Meaning Principle, asserts that when learners are engaged in communicative, meaningful interchanges, they are primarily concerned with meaning. Principle 1. The Primacy of Meaning Principle. Learners process input for meaning before they process it for form (VanPatten 2004b: 11).

6

Processing Instruction and Discourse

In other words, “. . . learners are driven to look for the message or communicative intent in the input” (VanPatten 2004b: 7). To assert the primacy of meaning in input processing is to take as the point of departure that learners are primarily motivated to understand messages, be they delivered orally during an interaction or visually while reading print. If someone is talking to us, we assume they have something to say that we are meant to understand. Our task as listeners is to put forward at least an effort, if not our best effort, to understand the speaker. When we see an advertisement, for example, and read what it says, we assume that someone has something to communicate to us about a product, event, or service. There is a message that we are meant to grasp and we put forth the effort to do so. Second language learners assume the same thing; there are messages in what they hear and read and they are meant to put forward an effort to understand them. “Simply put, P1 states that learners are driven [emphasis added] to look for the message in the input (“What is this person saying to me?”) before looking for how that message is encoded” (VanPatten 1996: 17). VanPatten derived the Primacy of Meaning Principle from research and theories in first and second language acquisition. From work on first language acquisition, he cited Peters’ (1985) operating principle that guides children during input processing. The principle states that children pay attention to utterances that have a readily identifiable meaning. For second language acquisition, he cited the work of Sharwood Smith (1986), who posited the difference between processing for communication, that is, meaning, and processing for acquisition, that is, form. Research has repeatedly uncovered the varying conditions under which second language learners successfully make meaning from the input. Lee (1987), for example, showed that L2 learners of Spanish can extract the lexical meaning of verbs that are morphologically marked as subjunctive even though they had never been exposed to subjunctive forms in the classroom setting. They extracted meaning as successfully as a group of learners who had already been taught subjunctive forms. Lee and Rodríguez (1997) compared the effects of morphosyntactic modifications on passage comprehension. Keeping

VanPatten’s Theory of Input Processing

7

content constant, they manipulated subordination and whether that subordination required subjunctive mood or not. They found that L2 learners of Spanish comprehended the three versions of the passage equally well. Additionally, they substituted the target verbs (those that were subordinated and made into subjunctive mood forms) with nonsense words that conformed to the orthographic structure of Spanish. This substitution had no effect on passage comprehension. Manipulating both verbal and lexical forms did not affect passage comprehension because the readers’ task was to get the meaning of the text and they did. More evidence for how learners process input for meaning before they process it for form comes from the recall data reported in Lee (2002). The learners read a passage about the future of telecommunication technologies in which the last few sentences in the passage warned of the dangers of a society increasingly dependent upon technology. The last sentence they encountered was as follows: Text: El hombre, Homo sapiens, se convertirá en Homo electrónicus. Translation: Man, Homo sapiens, will become Homo electrónicus. Most learners understood the meaning of the sentence and understood its meaning in the context of the passage. Few, however, recalled and wrote the exact form of what they had seen in the text. That is, few learners wrote Homo electrónicus. Some learners produced terms such as Homo electricity and Homo erectus, which demonstrate that graphemics plays a role in recall. Others made a semantic substitution such as Homo technology and Homo technologicalus. Clearly, the semantic substitutions show us that learners processed the input for meaning before they processed it for form. Lee and Rossomondo (2004) analyzed other elements of the input passage reported in Lee (2002) and Rossomondo (2007). The passage they used in their research targeted learners’ processing of future tense verb forms in Spanish, which are morphologically marked for person/number and tense. The morpheme –á appears in word final position. The first verb in the passage was dependerá “will depend.” Their analyses revealed that learners recalled this verb in a variety of forms. The forms varied but the meaning always centered on the idea of dependence. They noted both verbal and nominal renderings

8

Processing Instruction and Discourse

of this target verb. Among the verbal forms they found the following: will depend on, depend or depends on, rely upon, relies, and will use. Among the nominal forms they found the following: dependency, dependence upon, are dependent, and will become dependent. This variety in form shows us that learners were primarily working to get the meaning not the form. P 1a. The Primacy of Content Words Principle: Learners process content words in the input before anything else. VanPatten’s theory differentiates between the value of content words and function words for their contribution to meaning from the learners’ perspective and from the perspective of the push to get or make meaning. Which words are the most helpful for getting the meaning out of the input? The answer is content words, those words that represent major lexical categories as opposed to functional or minor lexical categories. VanPatten (1996: 19–20) supports the principle of content words with research by Klein (1986) and Mangubhai (1991). Klein (1986) showed that when asked to repeat utterances, early stage learners tended to repeat only the content words. Only advanced level learners could repeat the utterances correctly with content words plus functors. Mangubhai (1991) showed that learners who were being taught through Total Physical Response methodology routinely extracted the content words from the stimuli commands in order to physically respond. Carroll (2004: 299) hypothesized that “a number of distinct phonetic cues might lead learners to segment and phonologically encode words from the major lexical classes of English precisely when they are realized as prosodic words, and that would lead them not to segment and encode clitics (determiners, auxiliaries, complementizers, tense morphemes, number morphemes, etc.) This is true despite the fact that many of the functional categories express important semantic distinctions.” Her hypothesis is useful for considering why content words are attended to over function words. In layman’s terms, we might refer to content words as the “big” words and functional words as the “little” words. Learners must bring some metalinguistic knowledge with them to the task of second

VanPatten’s Theory of Input Processing

9

language acquisition such that they can differentiate content and function words in the L2. In other words, “. . . second language learners in particular know there are ‘big words’ that can help them get the meaning of what is being said to them and their internal processors attempt to isolate these aspects of the speech stream during comprehension” (VanPatten 2004b: 8). Other research has demonstrated the greater value of content words to second language learners. Bernhardt (1992) discussed the different text processing strategies employed by native and inexperienced nonnative readers of German. In tracking their eye movements across the lines of a text, she showed that native readers of German fixated (i.e., placed their central focal point) far more frequently than inexperienced nonnative readers did. In other words, they read more densely and intensely than the nonnative readers did. Moreover, she found that among the native readers’ more numerous fixations were those they placed on the ends of words, that is, on word final morphology. The nonnative readers tended to fixate on the centers of words, leaving word final morphology in peripheral vision. And, with their fewer in number fixations, nonnative readers tended to process content words over function words. This eye movement data is very interesting because it contrasts the approaches native and nonnative readers take to processing. Nonnative readers, the language learners, valued content words highly and valued word final morphology to a lesser degree. The eye movement evidence very directly supports the value of content words to learners. VanPatten (1990) conducted an experiment in which he demonstrated the interplay of content words, function words, and verb morphology with comprehension. He asked learners of Spanish to listen to a short passage on inflation in Latin America and assigned the learners to one of four groups. One group listened to the passage and indicated each time they heard the word inflación, which was also the title of the passage. He termed this the content + lexical item group. Another group listened to the passage and indicated each time they heard the word la, the feminine singular form of the definite article. It occurred prior to each occurrence of the word inflación. He termed this the content + functor group. The third

10

Processing Instruction and Discourse

group listened to the passage and indicated each time they heard an n at the end of a word. This verbal inflection is the morpheme that marks third person plural in Spanish. He termed this group the content + inflection group. The fourth group simply listened to the passage and had no secondary processing task to perform; he termed this the content only group. As they listened to the passage, the three groups with simultaneous listening tasks placed a checkmark on a page for each occurrence of the target item. After listening to the passage, the learners recalled as much as they could of what they had heard. VanPatten found that listening for content alone and listening for content + lexical item were complimentary activities in that learners in both conditions comprehended equal amounts of the passage. Listening for the functor and for the verbal inflection were equally detrimental activities in that comprehension fell off significantly in these conditions. From Bernhardt (1992), we know that learners tend not to process word final morphology and from VanPatten (1990) we know that if they are directed to process the word final morphology, they lose some of the meaning. These data support the thesis that content words are the building blocks of comprehension for second language learners. Drawing learners’ attention to noncontent elements of a passage, be they verb morphemes or definite articles, causes learners to lose some of the meaning. We have more evidence of how learners process content words over other sentence elements from examining the products of comprehension. VanPatten and Wong (2004) demonstrated that learners misinterpret French causative constructions using an inappropriate word order processing strategy. They give the following example (VanPatten and Wong 2004: 98–99): Jean fait promener le chien à Marie. John makes to walk the dog to Mary. John makes Mary walk the dog. The target sentence contains two verbs each with its own subject/ agent. Learners, however, tend to take the first subject, Jean, and make it the agent of the second verb, promener. The second subject, Marie, tends to be interpreted as the dog’s owner. In the end, the

VanPatten’s Theory of Input Processing

11

learners misinterpret the sentence, by misassigning grammatical and semantic roles, to mean the following: John walks the dog for Mary or John walks Mary’s dog. Whereas VanPatten and Wong address this processing problem from the perspective of word order and P2 the First Noun Principle (presented later in this chapter), we can also see the effects of processing content words over other sentence elements. We underline the content words to demonstrate that they are the words learners focused in on. Jean fait promener le chien à Marie. The learners took the content words and created meaning. Two important grammatical elements are not processed, fait and à. They are important because they signal the underlying semantic relationship between Jean and Marie. Another example of how learners collect content words to make meaning comes from Lee (1990). After early stage learners read a short passage about feudalism, they were asked to recall in writing as much as they could remember. The first two sentences of the passage follow: Text:

Entre los años 900–1000, Europa Occidental estaba en gran desorden. El imperio de Carlomagno, que había logrado unir esa parte del mundo, se estaba dividiendo en pequeños estados. Translation: Between the years 900 and 1000, Western Europe was in great disorder. The empire of Charlemagne, which had managed to unite that part of the world, was being divided into small states. One subject recalled these two sentences as follows (misspellings in the original are preserved here). In the years around 900–1000, there was an emporer Carlomagna (sp?) that ruled an area in the world. (Lee 1990: 147)

12

Processing Instruction and Discourse

If we go back to the original text and underline the words that appear in the recall, we literally see the way the learner has collected words from the input and put them together. We also see the way he left out some words most likely due to the effortfulness of the task (VanPatten 2007, Lee 1999). Text:

Entre los años 900–1000, Europa Occidental estaba en gran desorden. El imperio de Carlomagno, que había logrado unir esa parte del mundo, se estaba dividiendo en pequeños estados.

This learner did not process an important function word, the preposition de in the noun phrase imperio de Carlomagno “empire of Charlemagne.” The preposition is important because it establishes the relationship between the two “big” words. The learner put the two content words together and misassigned the meaning of one of them, making it emperor not empire. What do emperors do? They rule, which is something the learner inserted into the recall. Another learner recalled these two lines as follows: Charlemagne was the ruler. He divided the country into small states . . . (Lee 1990: 146) The content words, which this learner collected to make meaning, attribute agency to Charlemagne. Attributing agency to Charlemagne occurred quite frequently in the recalls. The learners who did so did not process the entire verb phrase, se estaba dividiendo, but rather only used the content word, dividiendo, to create meaning. The verb phrase in the original text is marked for past (estaba) as well as for imperfective aspect (–aba) and progressive aspect (–ndo). The learner, however, uses a perfective past form in his recall. We can, therefore, infer that the learner did not process these formal elements in the input; he collected content words but did not make use of their formal features in order to make meaning. We find additional evidence of the value of content words to language learners from their own accounts of what they do to understand. Lee (1999) analyzed think aloud protocols for the interplay between input processing strategies and comprehension strategies.

VanPatten’s Theory of Input Processing

13

He asked early stage second language learners to perform a retrospective think aloud of a passage in which eight past tense verb forms were the targeted linguistic items. The following excerpt is one learner’s think aloud protocol that was not included in Lee (1999) but comes from the data set that he analyzed. The tasks of the second language learner were to read the passage sentence by sentence and then think aloud his comprehension process. With regard to two of the target sentences the learner stated the following about his use of key words (from the context, we can understand “key words” as content words): Um, you can see from like different words like, um, contacto and consecuencia, like the, um, different like structure of the sentence, like if you can get the key words like that then you can kinda see what should follow it. . . . Um, a word like disco is kind of a humorous tip-off ‘cause you can tell that’s something related to music. This learner collects content words to build up his comprehension. Across the think aloud he refers to his use of words to comprehend sentence meaning 17 times. At a later point in the think aloud, he offers another example of using key/content words and other words, too: Um, “filme”, um, “ofer-”, “oferta”, “aceptó”, “Hollywood” all give you like, you know, key words, like “offer”, “accept”, “Hollywood”, uh, would tell you what the sentence is going to be about. And those are all cognates, and then other words that you already know or can figure out would tell you pretty much the meaning of that sentence. Finally, the learner also makes a distinction between key words and another type, the small words. The learner stated the following: Um, múltiples is a good cognate. And then there’s a lot of pretty small easy words like “with” and “to see”, “is.” Another type of evidence supporting the primary role of content words in comprehension comes from Carroll (2004), who points

14

Processing Instruction and Discourse

to their role in the negotiation of meaning. She specifies content words as those in major lexical categories and refers to them as prosodic words. In a footnote to her commentary on VanPatten’s model of input processing, she notes that content words have the linguistic properties that make them repeatable “as single utterances in situations where a speaker has failed to make herself understood and believes that the learner has limited language abilities” (Carroll 2004: 298). She provided the following example to underscore the point: NS: The exercises are all on my homepage. NNS: (. . .) NS: EXERCISES. . . HOMEPAGE NNS: oh. . . yes. . . EXERCISES (Carroll 2004: 298) The native speaker has isolated and repeated the two content words from her initial utterance. Content words are not only important to learners but to native speakers also who, apparently, assign them value for insuring comprehension for language learners. P 1b. The Lexical Preference Principle: If grammatical forms express a meaning that can also be encoded lexically (i.e., that grammatical marker is redundant), then learners will not initially process those grammatical forms until they have lexical forms to which they can match them. Languages have ways of encoding and thus signaling the same information in multiple ways; we refer to this as the natural redundancy of languages. Given the availability of limited resources to second language learners VanPatten’s theory tries to account for where learners direct their processing resources. The background research VanPatten uses to support the Lexical Preference Principle has all been focused on tense assignment. Likewise, the research on the effects of Processing Instruction framed by the Lexical Preference Principle has focused on tense assignment. The background research on tense assignment has manipulated the input to include or exclude

VanPatten’s Theory of Input Processing

15

lexical and grammatical cues to tense. Preferring lexical cues to tense is connected to learners’ use of content words to make meaning. “Learners will thus seek out lexical forms of semantic notions in the input before they seek grammatical forms that encode the same semantic notions” (VanPatten 2007: 118). Lee, Cadierno, Glass, and VanPatten (1997) gave two groups of learners of Spanish different versions of the same passage to listen to. One version contained lexical temporal adverbs referring to the past whereas the other version contained no such lexical temporal markers. In this second version, only the verb final morpheme indicated tense, for example, admitió “he admitted.” After listening, the learners performed a tense identification task. The results showed that the learners who listened to the passage with adverbials identified correctly more of the temporal references than did the learners who listened to passages with only verb morphology to mark tense. Lee (1999) examined the comprehension and input processing strategies of a small number of learners of Spanish as they performed a retrospective think aloud. Half the learners read a passage that contained lexical temporal adverbs whereas the other half read a version of the passage that did not contain the adverbs. As Lee (1999: 53) put it, “when subjects have adverbs they use them [to comprehend temporal reference]. Those in the +adverb condition only sporadically refer to verb forms.” Rossomondo (2007) showed a very dramatic difference in tense assignment due to the presence or absence of lexical temporal markers. She conducted introspective think aloud protocols on two groups of learners. One group was reading and introspecting on a passage that contained Spanish future tense verb forms along with lexical temporal markers. The other group read and introspected on a version of the passage that contained only verb forms but no lexical temporal markers. She found that in the presence of a lexical temporal marker, learners comprehended (i.e., rendered it in the introspection) the future meaning of the verb form on an average 52 percent of the time; the range of scores per individual verb was from 0 percent comprehension of the future meaning to 92 percent comprehension. In the absence of the temporal marker, learners comprehended the future meaning of the target verbs only .8 percent

16

Processing Instruction and Discourse

of the time. The learners did not comprehend the future meaning of 12 of the 13 target verbs. They managed a future meaning for one verb only 11 percent of the time. Lee (1990) examined the recall protocols of first year learners of Spanish in order to reveal the processes through which they constructed the meaning of the passage. The passage referred to the social–political system known as feudalism. As noted above, the first line of the passage referred to the years 900–1000. The passage also contained the number 400, which was the number of years the feudal system helped maintain order, and a reference to the year 1200, the year feudalism was at its zenith. All learners read the same version of the passage, that is, there was no version of the passage in which temporal markers had been removed. Relevant to the current discussion of the Lexical Preference Principle is that 11 of the 13 learners Lee (1990) examined used the years 900–1000 to construct the temporal framework for their recalls. One learner, who had a particularly difficult time comprehending, used the years to structure the second part of his recall: In the beginning there was nothing. (STOP!) There was a society change in the era of Charlemagne a change from honor to a society of justice. I remember many years 900-start of Charlemagne 1100- ? 1200- justice and equality (Lee 1990: 148) Musumeci (1989) conducted a cross-linguistic study (Italian, French, and Spanish) in which she examined how successfully learners assigned tense at sentence level under different exposure conditions. She manipulated both linguistic and nonlinguistic cues to temporality. In one condition, the baseline condition, she presented learners with sentences in which the only cue to temporal reference was the verbal inflection. In each of the subsequent conditions the learners received the verbal inflections as well as some other cue or cues. In the next condition, she added a lexical temporal adverbial as an additional cue to temporal reference. In the third condition, she supplied learners the additional cue of a typical teacher gesture

VanPatten’s Theory of Input Processing

17

performed as the learners heard the sentences. For example, to indicate past, the speaker pointed her thumb over her shoulder, pointing backwards. To indicate future, the speaker gestured with her hand moving it away from her body and outward toward the side. In the fourth condition, Musumeci supplied learners with all the cues: verbal inflections, adverbials, and gestures. Overall, the results confirmed that the main factor influencing correct tense assignment was the presence or absence of temporal adverbials in the input sentences (Musumeci 1989:127). Specifically, she found that learners assigned tense more correctly in the two conditions that included a lexical temporal adverbial than in the other two conditions, that is, verbal inflections only and verbal inflections + gestures. Lexical items were more useful to the learners for assigning tense than were the verb forms or a teacher’s gesturing. P 1c. The Preference for Nonredundancy Principle: Learners are more likely to process nonredundant meaningful grammatical markers before they process redundant meaningful markers. VanPatten (1985b) introduced the idea that formal features of a second language, from a learner’s perspective, would be either of high or low communicative value. “Communicative value refers to the relative contribution a form makes to the referential meaning of an utterance and is based on the presence or absence of two features: inherent semantic value and redundancy within the sentence/ utterance” (VanPatten 1996: 24). VanPatten extrapolated his original principle regarding processing meaningful versus nonmeaningful morphology (1996: 24) from the morpheme acquisition studies. Why, for example, is the progressive aspect marker –ing acquired before third person singular –s in English? VanPatten’s answer is that because –ing contributes unique information to the sentential meaning (an event in progress), learners direct attention to it during processing. They do not direct attention to the third person –s because it does not offer them unique information. He provides two examples (VanPatten 2007: 119). The cat is sleeping. The cat sleeps ten hours everyday.

18

Processing Instruction and Discourse

“Thus, if learners are confronted with something like –ing on verb forms, they will be forced to make this form–meaning connection sooner than, say, third person –s because the latter is redundant and the former is not” (VanPatten 2007:119). As we saw with the Lexical Preference Principle, a grammatical marker might well have semantic value but other sentence elements might make it redundant. Removing the lexical item, as is done in Processing Instruction, makes the grammatical marker nonredundant. And so, the Preference for Nonredundancy Principle is highly related to the Lexical Preference Principle. P 1d. The Meaning-Before-Nonmeaning Principle: Learners are more likely to process meaningful grammatical markers before nonmeaningful grammatical markers (VanPatten 2004) Some grammatical markers do not carry any meaning; they express no real world semantic information. We can offer several examples (Lee and Benati 2007b). Grammatical gender marking in Romance languages is an example of nonmeaningful morphology. The surfacelevel agreement features are such that adjectives agree in number and in grammatical gender with the nouns they modify. In other words, the characteristics of the noun determine the form of the adjective. That an adjective is marked as masculine or feminine does not change its meaning. In Italian, both bassa and basso mean short. Which form to use would be determined by the noun they would be describing. Additionally, gender markings on adjectives are often a redundant marking. Consider the noun phrase mio fratello basso (my short brother) and the gender markings on the three words. The gender marking on basso is the third masculine marker in the string. Being nonmeaningful as well as redundant contribute to the processing problems second language learners face in processing these forms. Subjunctive mood verbal morphology is another grammatical form that is nonmeaningful and redundant in sentences that express doubt and opinion in Italian and other Romance languages. We use the subjunctive mood markings on the verb in a subordinate or dependent clause when the verb of the main clause expresses doubt

VanPatten’s Theory of Input Processing

19

or opinion. The following two sentences demonstrate the processing problems learners encounter with subjunctive mood morphology. Dubito che George sia intelligente. I doubt that George is intelligent. So che George e intelligente. I know that George is intelligent. The meanings of the verbs dubito and so trigger the forms sia and e, respectively. Sia and e mean exactly the same thing, is. In other words, “. . . such [nonmeaningful] formal features of language will be processed in the input later than those for which true form–meaning connections can be made” (VanPatten 2007: 120). P 1e. The Availability of Resources Principle: For learners to process either redundant meaningful grammatical forms or nonmeaningful forms, the processing of overall sentential meaning must not drain available processing resources. It is not impossible for learners to direct their attention to meaningful but redundant grammatical forms or to nonmeaningful grammatical forms. As VanPatten (1990) and Bransdorfer (1991) showed with their simultaneous processing tasks, learners can be directed to attend to nonmeaningful forms, but at a loss to comprehension. “Comprehension for learners is initially quite effortful in terms of cognitive processing and working memory. This has consequences for what the input processing mechanisms will pay attention to. At the same time, learners are limited capacity processors and cannot process and store the same amount of information as native speakers can during moment-by-moment processing” (VanPatten 2007: 116). And so, VanPatten proposed the Availability of Resources Principle. Getting overall sentential meaning cannot be overly effortful if learners are to process redundant meaningful grammatical forms or nonmeaningful forms. Lee (1999) analyzed the comprehension and input processing strategies of second language learners. He states: “The comprehension strategies of low comprehenders may circumvent processing

20

Processing Instruction and Discourse

text for form. It is an interesting paradox to consider that learners’ attempts to manage their comprehension has the less than desirable effect of dislocating from their attention key aspects of the input” (Lee 1999: 57). Comprehension difficulties can impede processing forms in the input. In the following example, the target form is the verb decidió (decided) or more specifically, the –ó morpheme indicating past tense. Learners performed a retrospective think aloud of a passage that contained eight target items. In the following think aloud, comprehension was so effortful that the learner miscomprehended the temporal and lexical meanings of the target form. The learner ultimately abandoned the attempt to make meaning. Text: Translation: Think aloud:

Hace siete años decidió volver a la universidad para hacer un Master en leyes. Seven years ago, [he, Rubén Blades] decided to return to university to do a Masters in Law. Um, for seven years he, seven years old he’s coming to the university. . .but I’m not sure and seven sounds awfully young. I would probably just disregard that sentence. (Lee 1999: 50)

Another example from this research also demonstrates the interplay between comprehension and input processing. In this example, the learner initially miscomprehends the verb actuó “he acted” as the adverb actually. What follows is the learner’s efforts to make the meaning of the sentence make sense: Text: Translation:

Think aloud:

En la década pasada, actuó en varias películas, como por ejemplo, Crossover Dream y The Milagro Beanfield War. In the past decade, [he, Rubén Blades] acted in various films, for example, Crossover Dream and The Milagro Beanfield War. So, in the decade past, actually in various films. I don’t think that’s actually but it looks like actually so that’s why I guessed that. Um, maybe it’s act. Act in various films, like the example Crossover Dream and The Milagro Beanfield War. So that just speaks of like if you know the context of the paragraph

VanPatten’s Theory of Input Processing

21

you can follow along and probably guess that, that, uh, it’s talking about how he worked on the different [films]. Interestingly, the learners’ second rendering of actuó was “act,” not “acts” nor “acted.” He uses an uninflected form. Moreover, the learner assigned no subject even though this is the sixth of eight statements about Rubén Blades. In this think aloud we can see both the push to get and make meaning as well as the effortful nature of comprehension. In his own words the learner tells us he used context to follow along the meaning and he used guess work. His last statement about the meaning of the sentence demonstrates that he is aware of the past temporal framework of the passage he read; he states that Blades worked on films. As part of the think aloud procedure, the researcher made inquiries about the target forms, in this sentence actuó. This learner does make a form–meaning connection with the target, but only after he is certain about the meaning, with which he works intensively. The rest of the think aloud protocol now follows: Researcher: Learner:

Researcher: Learner:

Why did you decide that this word “actuó” does or doesn’t mean “actually”? Um, well, actually wouldn’t be like the word to fit in there. Well at least to me it wouldn’t because it wouldn’t make sense to say actually in various films. So what makes more sense to you then? Um, he, he acted in various films. And also, we just learned the past tense last night. And it looks like the past tense, actuó. I don’t know. Good guess at least.

P 1f. The Sentence Location Principle: Learners tend to process items in sentence initial position before those in final position and those in medial position. Again referring to the availability of processing resources, VanPatten (2004) proposed the Sentence Location Principle (a principle not included in the 1996 version). He states: “. . . elements that appear in certain positions of an utterance are more salient to learners than

22

Processing Instruction and Discourse

others, namely, sentence initial position is more salient than sentence final position that in turn is more salient than sentence internal or medial position” (VanPatten 2004b: 13). That sentence initial position is the most favorable processing position is logical. Those elements that are the first encountered are the first on which processing resources get aligned. Through the medial portion of a sentence, the processing resources may likely still be processing the initial elements but then get redirected when the end of the sentence comes into focus. The evidence for the Sentence Location Principle strongly affirms that initial position is the most favored processing position. Barcroft and VanPatten (1997) and Rosa and O’Neill (1998) varied the location of target elements in sentences; the locations being initial, medial, and final position in the sentence. They also used both acoustically stressed and unstressed forms. They asked learners to repeat the sentences they heard and then determined how successfully the learners repeated the target items in each position. Barcroft and VanPatten (1997) found that learners repeated items most successfully in initial position, more than in medial and final positions. They did not find a difference between medial and final positions and also found that learners more successfully repeated the stressed targets over the unstressed ones. Rosa and O’Neill (1998) found interactions between location and acoustic stress. Both factors affect processing. By and large their results confirm that initial position is the most favorable processing position and that final position is more favorable than medial position. We use the phrase “by and large” here to indicate that in three out of four processing contexts the results demonstrated that learners more successfully repeat the targets that occur in sentence initial position than in medial position. Likewise, in three out of four processing contexts learners more successfully repeated target items that occur in sentence final position than in sentence medial position.

Summary of Principle 1 and Its Associated Principles Six principles, labeled P 1a through P 1f are associated with the Primacy of Meaning Principle. Some of these principles had previously been referred to as corollaries of the main principle (VanPatten 1996)

VanPatten’s Theory of Input Processing

23

whereas others are new developments to the theoretical framework. Each new development is meant to add to the explanatory adequacy and predictive capability of the theory. As we read through these associated principles, we find that they are meant to capture the interplay of various linguistic and cognitive processes that take place during comprehension. The principles associated with the Primacy of Meaning Principle, in their most current formulation, are summarized as follows: P 1a. The Primacy of Content Words Principle: Learners process content words in the input before anything else (VanPatten 2007: 117). P 1b. The Lexical Preference Principle: If grammatical forms express a meaning that can also be encoded lexically (i.e., that grammatical marker is redundant), then learners will not initially process those grammatical forms until they have lexical forms to which they can match them (VanPatten 2007: 118). P 1c. The Preference for Nonredundancy Principle: Learners are more likely to process nonredundant meaningful grammatical markers before they process redundant meaningful markers (VanPatten 2007: 119). P 1d. The Meaning-Before-Nonmeaning Principle: Learners are more likely to process meaningful grammatical markers before nonmeaningful grammatical markers. P 1e. The Availability of Resources Principle: For learners to process either redundant meaningful grammatical forms or nonmeaningful forms, the processing of overall sentential meaning must not drain available processing resources (VanPatten 2004b: 14). P 1f. The Sentence Location Principle: Learners tend to process items in sentence initial position before those in final position and those in medial position (VanPatten 2007: 125).

Principle 2. The First Noun Principle When we listen to an utterance or read a sentence, we are presented the linguistic elements of the sentence in a rigidly linear fashion. One sentence element precedes the next such that we must (there

24

Processing Instruction and Discourse

are no options) comprehend and interpret the sentence “as it comes” to us. While regression is possible in some reading contexts, it is rarely possible in listening contexts. Research in both first and second language acquisition has found that the order of the words plays a role in comprehension and hence in language acquisition (e.g., Slobin 1973 for first language acquisition and Lee 2003 for the second language acquisition of Spanish). VanPatten’s First Noun Principle captures one powerful and pervasive processing strategy, that is, assigning the grammatical role of subject or agent to the first noun encountered in an utterance. Principle 2. The First Noun Principle: Learners tend to process the first noun or pronoun they encounter in a sentence as the subject (VanPatten 2007: 122). This second of the main principles, the First Noun Principle, asserts that the order in which learners encounter sentence elements is a powerful factor in assigning grammatical relations among sentence elements. In relation to this principle, VanPatten has commented that, “. . . the human mind may be predisposed to placing agents and subjects in a first noun position” (VanPatten 2004b: 15). This processing strategy has been documented in child first language acquisition (Bever 1970; Slobin 1966), child second language acquisition (Ervin-Tripp 1974; Nam 1975), and adult second language acquisition (Lee 1987; LoCoco 1987; VanPatten 1985a). In a sense, initial position works against a grammatical object being correctly interpreted. The problem with learners’ use of this processing strategy goes beyond miscomprehension but to the heart of acquisition. VanPatten states: “. . . this particular principle may have a variety of consequences in a variety of languages. It is not just that learners may get word order wrong, it is also that they may not process case markings for some time, will have difficulties with the pronoun system in some languages, and so on” (VanPatten 2004b: 16). In other words, misprocessing the form leads to incorrect information being supplied to the developing system. Even though languages have a typologically canonical word order, such as SVO for English and SOV for Japanese, other word order

VanPatten’s Theory of Input Processing

25

permutations are permissible. González (1997) documented the acquisition of different word orders for learners of Spanish with SVO being the first acquired word order pattern and OSV and OVS being the last acquired. Strings in which the object precedes the subject present learners with difficulties. Children acquiring Spanish as a first language also acquire these word order patterns last (Echevarría 1978 cited in González 1997). LoCoco (1987) presented learners of Spanish and German with three different sentence types to process. In each of these sentence patterns, the first noun was an object of some kind: direct object, indirect object, or the object of a preposition. She found that learners assigned the first noun the grammatical role of subject from 7 percent to 72 percent of the time. VanPatten (1985a) and Lee (1987) presented learners of Spanish with OVS and OV sentences, respectively, in which the objects were pronominalized. VanPatten documented that learners assigned the grammatical role of subject to the object pronoun from 35 percent to 70 percent of the time. Lee (1987) documented learners’ use of the first noun strategy between 27 percent and 73 percent of the time. VanPatten and Wong (2004) and Allen (2000) demonstrated that learners of French use the first noun strategy to assign the semantic role of agent to the first noun in faire-causatif sentences. As mentioned above in the section on the Primacy of Content Words Principle, learners incorrectly interpret that the agent performing the action of the second verb is the first noun. Instead of indicating that Henri reads the newspaper in the sentence Jean-Paul fait lire le journal à Henri (Jean-Paul makes to read the newspaper to Henri/Jean-Paul makes Henri read the newspaper) they indicate that Jean-Paul reads it (VanPatten and Wong 2004: 104). P 2a. The Lexical Semantics Principle: learners may rely on lexical semantics, where possible, instead of the First Noun Principle to interpret sentences. Learners do not absolutely and categorically use only the first noun strategy to assign grammatical and semantic roles. They are sensitive to other factors, one of them being lexical semantics that attenuate their use of the first noun strategy. The lexical semantics of the verb

26

Processing Instruction and Discourse

“kick,” for example, requires an animate agent. A sentence such as “The ball was kicked by the child,” is unlikely to be misinterpreted because a ball cannot perform the action. Among her target sentences LoCoco (1987: 124) included the following: La cerveza le trae el muchacho a la muchacha./Das bier bringt der Junge dem Mädchen. The beer to her brings the boy to the girl. The boy brings the beer to the girl. Las flores le da el muchacho a la niña./Die blumen gibt der Junge dem Mädcehm. The flowers to her gives the boy to the girl. The boy gives the flowers to the girl. The learners of Spanish and German never identified the first noun in these sentences as the grammatical subject/agent. The lexical semantics of the verbs bring and give do not allow inanimate subjects. In short, when “. . . only one noun is capable of the action. . . ” learners correctly identify that noun as the agent (VanPatten 2007: 124). P 2b. The Event Probabilities Principle: Learners may rely on event probabilities, where possible, instead of the First Noun Principle to interpret sentences. We also use what we know about the world to interpret sentences. In the following sentences, both nouns are capable of performing the action but one interpretation is more likely than another. The event probabilities are low for the first noun being the agent and are higher for the second noun being the agent. In these scenarios, children and adult second language learners correctly identify that the second noun performed the action of the verb. The farmer was kicked by the horse. The child was bitten by the dog. Likewise, learners of French are unlikely to interpret that the professor is doing the studying in the following sentence (VanPatten and Wong 2004: 101).

VanPatten’s Theory of Input Processing

27

Le professeur fait étudier le verbe “être” à l’élève. The professor makes to study the verb “être” to the student. The professor makes the student study the verb “être.” Learners may well use event probabilities to attenuate their use of the first noun strategy. That is, “. . . it is possible (though not necessary) that real-life scenarios might override the First Noun Principle. . . ” (VanPatten 2007: 123). We might also consider learners’ background knowledge of a set of characters as a type of real world knowledge. Houston (1997) showed that learners use their knowledge of a set of characters to overcome their use of the first noun strategy. He had learners interpret two sets of sentences in both of which he used OVS word order. One set of sentences used the names of characters from a video series the learners were seeing in class. The other used random names. As can be seen in the following example, the sentences are structurally and semantically identical: Characters A Raquel la contrata don Pedro.

Random names A Silvia la contrata Ricardo.

Learners used the first noun strategy only 28 percent of the time to misassign the grammatical role of subject to the character-based sentences. They misassigned the grammatical role of the first noun in the random-name sentences 48 percent of the time. Malovrh (2006) presents a finding consistent with Houston (1997). He found that learners processed OVS strings that referred to characters from the Simpsons more accurately than they processed OVS strings about made up characters. The accuracy rate was 65 percent for the Simpson-based sentences versus 50 percent for the other type. P 2c. The Contextual Constraint Principle: Learners may rely less on the First Noun Principle (or L1 transfer) if preceding context constrains the possible interpretation of a clause or sentence. Background knowledge (or topic familiarity as Malovrh labeled it) is an extralinguistic type of context. VanPatten (2004b, 2007) has added sentence-internal linguistic context as a possible constraint on

28

Processing Instruction and Discourse

learners’ use of the first noun strategy. VanPatten and Houston (1998) demonstrated the effects of context on sentence interpretation. They created ten target sentences containing OVS word order in which a clause preceding the object pronoun provided contextual information. The target sentences were paired with ten sentences that contained a preceding clause that did not provide a contextual cue. The target sentences were constructed with the verbs attacked, insulted, rejected, greeted, and kissed. Note the following examples from VanPatten and Houston (1998). The OVS constructions are underlined. Context Ricardo está enojado porque lo insultó Susana en la reunión. Ricardo is angry because him insulted Susana in the meeting. Ricardo is angry because Susana insulted him in the meeting. Roberto está en el hospital porque lo atacó María con un cuchillo. Robert is in the hospital because him attacked María with a knife. Robert is in the hospital because María attacked him with a knife. No context Ricardo me dice que lo insultó Susana en la reunión. Ricardo me tells that him insulted Susana in the meeting. Ricardo tells me that Susana insulted him in the meeting. Gloria contó a sus amigas que la atacó Ramón en su casa. Gloria told to her friends that her attacked Ramón at home. Gloria told her friends that Ramón attacked her at home. VanPatten and Houston found that sentence-internal context attenuated learners’ use of the first noun strategy for assigning grammatical roles. In the “context” condition, learners assigned the grammatical role of subject to the object pronoun 59 percent of the time. In the “no context” condition, learners assigned the grammatical role of subject to the object pronoun 84 percent of the time. Learners use of the first noun strategy to assign grammatical roles is quite strong in both the “context” and “no context” sentence types but context does provide learners an additional clue for processing the formal elements of the sentence. Malovrh (2006) investigated whether the placement of contextual information prior to or after

VanPatten’s Theory of Input Processing

29

the targeted object pronoun would differentially affect learners’ accurately assigning agent/subject. He found no difference in learners’ performance based on the placement of the contextual information. It is the presence of the contextual information that helps learners not its placement. In other words, “. . . contextual information . . . would push [learners] away from interpreting the targeted clause the wrong way” (VanPatten 2004b: 17).

Summary of P2 and Its Associated Principles Between 1996 and 2004, researchers gathered more data on the conditions that favor or attenuate learners’ misassignment of the first noun as subject so that VanPatten developed a set of associated principles that delineate various factors that attenuate learners’ misassignment of the first noun. The associated principles are summarized as follows: P 2a. The Lexical Semantics Principle: Learners may rely on lexical semantics, where possible, instead of the First Noun Principle to interpret sentences (VanPatten 2007: 124). P 2b. The Event Probabilities Principle: Learners may rely on event probabilities, where possible, instead of the First Noun Principle to interpret sentences (VanPatten 2007: 123). P 2c. The Contextual Constraint Principle: Learners may rely less on the First Noun Principle (or L1 transfer) if preceding context constrains the possible interpretation of a clause or sentence (VanPatten 2007: 124). These principles model “what guides learners’ processing of linguistic data in the input as they are engaged in comprehension” (VanPatten 2007: 116). In this section, we have explicated each of these principles in turn and, in doing so, demonstrated some of the evidence that supports them. It is important to keep in mind that learners are doing two things with the language to which they are exposed and with which they are engaged. They are, firstly, making meaning and they are, secondly, making form–meaning connections

30

Processing Instruction and Discourse

(Lee and VanPatten 1995, 2003). Making meaning is comprehending, arriving at an idea of what the propositional content of the message is. Making form–meaning connections is input processing, attending to the grammatical forms/features in the input so as to connect the forms with their meanings or functions. While related, these are not the same processes. As we further explore VanPatten’s theory of input processing we will see both types of processes at work.

Conclusion Input processing is only one part, albeit a rather important one, of what we could refer to as the entirety of second language acquisition. Exposure to input is necessary for second language acquisition to take place. In this chapter we have presented VanPatten’s theory of input processing and traced its development over time. The theory offers us two principles and their associated principles designed and formulated to explain how learners work with input, that is, how they make a connection between a form in the input and its meaning. Mitchell and Myles (2004: 187–188) see VanPatten’s theory as explaining “the apparent failure of second language learners to process completely the linguistic forms encountered in second language input, and hence to explain their impoverished intake which in turn restricts the development of grammatical form.” Learners do not process completely the forms in the input. Why not? Their intake restricts the development of grammatical form. Of course, learners have a limited capacity to process as well as possess an incomplete second language linguistic system. The idea behind exposing learners to input is to increase their capacity to process and to make the developing system a bit more complete. Both events happen slowly over time. In this chapter we not only presented and explained each principle and subprinciple, we also supplied empirical evidence to support them. These are the foundations on which Processing Instruction has been built (Lee and VanPatten 1995, 2003; VanPatten 1993, 1996 and elsewhere). When we know what learners do with input, how

VanPatten’s Theory of Input Processing

31

they work with it, we can then derive instructional techniques and write instructional materials that intervene at the time learners are working with input to make form–meaning connections and not at the time when they are practicing making output.

Chapter 2

Practical Model: Processing Instruction

Processing Instruction Processing Instruction is a psycholinguistic and input-based approach to grammar instruction based on VanPatten’s input processing model. We dealt with this model extensively in Chapter 1. Of concern to models of input processing is how second language (L2) learners perceive and process linguistic data in the input to which they are exposed. When L2 learners process input they usually encounter many problems and challenges in dealing with the new properties, forms, and structures of the target language. The main purpose for Processing Instruction is to guide and focus L2 learner’s attention when they process input; to instill in them target language appropriate processing strategies. Processing Instruction is substantially different from Traditional Instruction in terms of its characteristics and purpose. Traditional Instruction consists of drills in which learner output is manipulated and the instruction is divorced from meaning or communication. This type of instruction is not a particularly effective method for enhancing language acquisition and what is needed is a new pedagogy of grammar instruction that takes as its point of departure what we know about how grammatical forms and structures are acquired. This new pedagogy called Processing Instruction aims to work with input and with the processes learners use to get data from that input. As indicated by VanPatten (1996:2), Processing Instruction ‘‘is a type of grammar instruction whose purpose is to affect the ways in which learners attend to input data.’’ When learners receive or are exposed to input they tend to rely on internal strategies (called principles in VanPatten’s input processing model, see 2004a, 2007, and Chapter 1 in this book) to process the input they

Practical Model: Processing Instruction

33

receive. As a result of their internal processing, L2 learners might not be able to make correct form–meaning connections or parse sentences correctly. VanPatten’s input processing model presented in Chapter 1 describes how L2 learners process input and what processing strategies affect the way learners process input. As discussed in Chapter 1, input processing consists of two main subprocesses: making form–meaning connections and parsing. In the case of the first subprocess, L2 learners must be able to connect a particular meaning to a particular form in the input they receive (e.g., –ed in English refers to an event in the past). The first principle (P1) in the input processing theory indicates that L2 learners process input for meaning before anything else. This means that L2 learners will initially not be able to process any formal features of the target language. In the case of the second subprocess, L2 learners must be able to map syntactic structure onto the utterance. That is, L2 learners need to establish who the subject or agent is and which noun or pronoun is the object in a sentence they hear or read. The second principle (P2) in the input processing theory indicates that L2 learners tend to process the first noun in a sentence as the subject or agent of the sentence. The consequence of doing so is that L2 learners will in some cases misinterpret sentences. Such misinterpretations are important in that they may cause a delay in the acquisition of syntactic structures because the learners are delivering incorrect information to their developing systems. As underscored by VanPatten (1996: 6), ‘‘the purpose of Processing Instruction is to alter how learners process input and to encourage better form-meaning mapping that results in grammatically richer intake. This in turn should have a positive effect on the nature of the developing system.” The main purpose of Processing Instruction is, then, to help L2 learners to make appropriate form–meaning connections and parse sentences correctly so that as a result they develop their internal linguistic system for the target language. The main aim of this instructional approach is to ensure that L2 learners process correctly and efficiently forms and structures in the input they receive so that there is no delay in the acquisition of these forms or structures. In order to accomplish its main goal of altering processing

Processing Instruction and Discourse

34

strategies and encouraging learners to make accurate form–meaning connections and/or parse sentences correctly, Processing Instruction must have specific characteristics. For a full description of these characteristic see also Lee and VanPatten, 1995, 2003; VanPatten, 1996; Wong, 2004a, 2005; Farley, 2005; Lee and Benati, 2007a, 2007b; and Benati and Lee, 2008. The three main components of Processing Instruction are as follows: 1. Learners are provided with explicit information about the target form or structure. 2. Learners are provided with information about processing strategies, both the inappropriate or inefficient one that they tend to use to process the target form or structure in the input as well as the appropriate one on which they will receive practice. 3. Learners are provided with structured input activities, practices designed to help learners abandon the inappropriate or inefficient processing strategy and make correct and appropriate form–meaning connections. In Processing Instruction L2 learners are given some information about how a linguistic structure or form works. The structural properties of a specific form are presented to the learner and the emphasis is on the explanation of the relationship between that form or structure and its meaning. The example provided in Figure 2.1 shows how explicit information might work for Italian adjective agreement.

You have probably noticed descriptive adjectives have different gender: In Italian adjectives must agree in number and gender to the noun they modify. Masculine = o Bello un ragazzo bello Clinton è bello

Feminine = a Bella una ragazza bella Claudia Schiffer è bella

You must pay attention to the adjective ending in order to understand who and what we are referring to. In addition to that, you need to understand the meaning of the sentence containing the adjective.

Figure 2.1 Explicit information

Practical Model: Processing Instruction

35

Learners are told about the forms, that is, the –o and –a endings. They are also told to pay attention to the ends of words, a processing strategy, to determine to whom the adjective refers. In Figure 2.2 we offer another example of explicit information. Here, the L2 learners are provided with more information on the processing strategy that may negatively affect the way they process the targeted form during exposure to input. Learners must be made aware of the processing strategy that they would use to process a form or a structure of the target language. For example, a common processing strategy used by L2 learners when they process input is the tendency to rely on temporal adverbs and temporal lexical markers to establish the time frame rather than processing the verbal morphology. Quite simply, if learners do not process the verbal morphology they will not acquire it. In a sentence such as: “Yesterday I played tennis with Paul in the park” L2 learners can establish the temporal framework with a lexeme (the temporal marker “Yesterday”), and they would not

Explicit Information The past simple tense is one of the tenses most used to talk about events in the past. It does refer to finished actions and events. Very often the English Past Simple Tense ends in –ed: I invited John for lunch I played tennis with Paula When you talk about a finished time in the past, the English Past Simple Tense is often accompanied by a temporal adverb. Yesterday I smoked 20 cigarettes

Information about the processing problem DO NOT RELY ON THE TEMPORAL ADVERB TO UNDERSTAND WHEN THE ACTION TAKES PLACE AS SOMETIMES YOU CAN HEAR A SENTENCE WITHOUT THE TEMPORAL ADVERB. YOU MUST PAY ATTENTION THE TENSE ENDING TO UNDERSTAND WHEN THE ACTION TAKES PLACE. IN THE CASE OF DESCRIBING PAST EVENTS PAY ATTENTION TO THE ENDING OF THE VERB: –ed

Figure 2.2 Explicit information and information about the processing problem

36

Processing Instruction and Discourse

then also need the verb form –ed to do that. According to the Lexical Preference Principle: Learners will tend to rely on lexical items as opposed to grammatical form to get meaning when both encode the same semantic information. In addition to that, the lexeme (temporal adverb in this case—yesterday) makes the verb form redundant. Learners do not have to process the verb form for its meaning because it is redundant (according to the Preference for Nonredundancy Principle: Learners are more likely to process nonredundant meaningful grammatical form before they process redundant meaningful forms). Now that we have identified what processing strategies L2 learners are using to process this form, we can create structured input activities so that L2 learners will pay attention to the form (–ed) rather than the adverb of time (yesterday) to process meaning. Through structured input activities learners will connect the form –ed with the meaning of pastness.

Structured Input Activities L2 learners are now pushed to process the form or structure during activities in which the input is manipulated in particular ways to get learners to become dependent on form to get meaning. We refer to these as structured input activities. After receiving the explicit information about the targeted linguistic feature and the information about the processing principle affecting that feature, learners are provided with different types of structured input activities (i.e., referential and affective) in which the input is structured in such a way that they are pushed to process forms (in the case of the previous example, verb forms) to understand the meaning of the sentence (in the previous example, to determine the temporal reference of the sentence). In structured input activities the input is manipulated in particular ways to push learners to become dependent on form and structure to get meaning. For example, whenever we have created structured input activities for temporal verb morphology, we never include temporal lexical markers in the input. Learners only have the verb morphology to use to process the temporal framework.

Practical Model: Processing Instruction

37

VanPatten (1996) produced the following guidelines for creating structured input activities: A. B. C. D. E. F.

Present one thing at a time. Keep meaning in focus. Move from sentences to connected discourse. Use both oral and written input. Have the learner do something with the input. Keep the learner’s processing strategies in mind.

A. Present one thing at a time Rules should be broken down into smaller parts and taught one at the time during the course of the lesson. Cadierno (1995), for example, used only third person singular regular preterit tense verb forms. VanPatten and Cadierno (1993) used only third person direct object pronouns. Students are presented with the linguistic feature before being exposed to structured input activities. We avoid providing L2 learners with lots of information and grammatical rules as learners possess a limited capacity for processing information. Presenting L2 learners with a smaller and more focused amount of information will clearly enhance the opportunity for learners to pay more focused attention (Lee and VanPatten 1995, 2003). We must, therefore, develop structured input activities that focus on one form at a time so that it will be easier for learners to map one form to one meaning. In the example in French below, the students listen to some sentences; each contains the French imparfait in its third person singular form. The learners’ task is to decide whether each statement refers to an activity that was taking place last summer or takes place now. Learners are exposed to the forms, the third person singular imparfait, and at the same time the meaning is in focus, which is guideline B. LAST SUMMER

NOW

38

Processing Instruction and Discourse

Sentences heard: 1. On avait chaud. 2. On allait à la plage. 3. On dansait.

B. Keep meaning in focus Learners should be encouraged to make form–meaning connections through structured input activities. As pointed out by VanPatten (1996:68), “If meaning is absent or if learners do not have to pay attention to meaning to complete the activity, then there is not enhancement of input processing.” Keeping meaning in focus is crucial when we develop structured input activities. The task in structured input activities must be completed with focused attention to the referential meaning of the input L2 learners are exposed to. A good structured input activity is the one where students must attend to the meaning of the sentence to complete the task. Structured input activities are of two types: referential and affective. Referential activities are those for which there is a right or wrong answer. As with all structured input activities, the learner must rely on the targeted grammatical form to get meaning. In the activity seen in Figure 2.3, the learners’ only cue to the temporal framework is the form of the verb. They must attend to the verb form to decide which part of David Beckham’s life the statement refers to. This activity is of the referential type in that there is a correct answer. Affective structured input activities are those in which learners express an opinion, belief, or some other affective response and are engaged in processing information about the real world. Unlike referential activities, there is no one correct answer. In the following sentence “I visited Rome with my friends” learners might be asked what they think about this event and express an opinion on whether they think it is interesting or boring for example. According to VanPatten (1996, 2002, 2004a) affective activities reinforce form– meaning connections established during referential structured input activities. In the affective type of structured input activity

Practical Model: Processing Instruction

39

David Beckham: Now and after Step 1 Listen to the following statements made by a journalist about the life of the footballer David Beckham and decide whether each statement is referring to his past life as a Manchester United Player in England or his life now as Real Madrid Player in Spain. MANCHESTER UNITED PLAYER (PAST)

REAL MADRID PLAYER (NOW)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 David Beckham. . . Sentences heard: 1) . . . receives a lot of money from advertising 2) . . . donated money to charities 3) . . . reserved more time for his family 4) . . . talked with many world leaders 5) . . . plays football with his son 6) . . . created a football academy for young people 7) . . . trained 5 days a week 8) . . . promotes many good causes 9) . . . phones his wife for a chat 10) . . . visits friends as often as he can

Step 2 Now read the sentences you have just listened to and decide if David Beckham was more famous when he was a Manchester United Player or a Real Madrid Player

Figure 2.3 Referential activity

40

Processing Instruction and Discourse

featured in Figure 2.4 the learners indicate if they celebrated last New Year’s in the ways indicated. All the sentences contain the target item.

New Year Celebration Step 1 Read the following activities and indicate whether you did the similar or different things at the last New Year celebrations: Yes

No

1. I visited my relatives 2. I received gifts 3. I mailed New Year cards to friends 4. I celebrated in the street with friends 5. I enjoyed myself 6. I decorated my home 7. I danced at a club 8. I decided on a New Year resolution

Step 2 Compare your results with your partner to find out how many similar things you did.

Figure 2.4 Affective activity

Learners must be engaged in processing the input sentences and must respond to the input sentence in some way through referential and affective types of structured input activities.

C. Move from sentences to connected discourse Second language learners are first exposed to sentences. L2 learners have limited capacity for processing and they need to direct their

Practical Model: Processing Instruction

41

attention and efforts to process input for its meaning first. However, at a later stage we should be able to move from providing L2 learners with short sentences to expose them to connected discourse. This should happen only when learners have already had opportunities to process the new form or structure. VanPatten and Cadierno (1993) and Cadierno (1995) first exposed learners to sentence-level input and then moved on to connected discourse. Wong (Chapter 7 of this work) focuses in on providing input that is only at the discourse level.

D. Use both oral and written input The structured input activities provided to learners should include both oral and written input. As Farley notes (2005: 15) ‘‘hearing the forms allows only for sound–meaning connections, whereas written form–meaning connections are made via reading.” That is, providing both types of input allows for sound–symbol correspondences to be created. Additionally, providing both types of input may account for individual differences in that some L2 learners might respond better to one mode of input than to the other. Finally, input in the real world is both oral and written so should it also be in the classroom.

E. Have the learner do something with the input Structured input activities should be designed to make learners do something with the input they receive. In other words, the learners can agree or disagree with a series of statements. They can indicate which statements are true and which ones are false. They can decide which events or actions are likely or unlikely. They can indicate to whom a statement refers. As we showed in the activity presented in Figure 2.3, the learners had to indicate as to what period of David Beckham’s life a statement referred. By doing these and other things during structured input activities L2 learners are encouraged to make form–meaning connections. Learners must be engaged in processing the input (having a specific reason for processing input) sentences and must respond to the input sentence in some way.

42

Processing Instruction and Discourse

F. Keep the learner’s processing strategies in mind Learners’ attention should be guided so as not to rely on natural or default processing strategies. Activities in which the input is structured and manipulated to alter learner’s reliance on one particular processing principle should be created. Because we know that learners prefer to rely on lexical items over grammatical forms when both contain the same semantic information, we remove the lexical items from the structured input. Learners cannot rely on these lexical items because they are no longer in the input. They must rely on the grammatical forms. These are the goals for structured input activities: Correcting inefficient processing strategies and instilling in L2 learners more efficient ones.

Keeping psycholinguistic principles in mind The main goal of structured input activities is to make sure that L2 learners will process input more effectively and efficiently and therefore the input must be structured to allow this to happen. Over the last ten years, VanPatten (2004b:15) has developed his model of input processing. As presented in Chapter 1, the model consists of two main principles: Principle 1: Learners process input for meaning before they process it for form. Principle 2: Learners tend to process the first noun or pronoun they encounter in a sentence as the subject or agent.

Principle 1 In one of the subprinciples of Principle 1: the Lexical Preference Principle (P 1b) VanPatten (1996) asserts that learners prefer processing lexical items to grammatical items (e.g., morphology) for semantic information. This principle is a direct consequence of VanPatten’s first principle. A great number of grammatical features encodes some kind of semantic information (e.g. Italian verbal inflection –ato encodes past as in guardato; English verbal inflection –ed encodes past as in watched; Japanese verbal inflection –mashita encodes past as in ikimashita). The same semantic notion is, however, also

Practical Model: Processing Instruction

43

expressed in a sentence by a lexical items such as temporal adverbs (e.g. in Italian ieri; in English yesterday; and in Japanese kinoo). Given, as postulated in the first corollary (Principle 1a), that learners are driven to process content words before anything else; they would attend to lexical temporal references of “pastness” before verbal inflections of the past tense. Learners will prefer to mark tense lexically before they mark it morphologically and therefore will skip the grammatical forms. Structured input activities can then be designed to help learners pay attention and process these forms affected by the Lexical Preference Principle. In structured input activities learners must process the input to determine whether the statement they hear is referring to a present or past action. Learners are obliged to attend to the grammatical markers (e.g. present vs. past in Japanese, Italian, or English). Considering that learners are affected by the Lexical Preference Principle (P 1b.) temporal adverbs for past and present are removed from the input sentences so that students are forced to attend to the past or present tense forms to encode the meaning. As can be seen in Figure 6.2 (see Chapter 6, this volume) learners are asked to indicate if the statement they hear refers to something happening right now or last week. They must listen for the verb form, specifically the word-final morpheme, in order to make the appropriate decision.

Principle 2 In the second principle (P2) VanPatten (1996) argues that learners tend to process the first noun or pronoun they encounter in a sentence as the subject or agent. In a language such as Japanese an object is often placed before the subject (OSV) and the verb at the end of the sentence (word order). The First Noun Principle might affect language processing. In the sentence Chris hit Maria (see below), learners might process Maria as the subject of the sentence and this will lead to a misinterpretation of the sentence and delay in acquisition. Maria o Maria

Chris wa Chris

nagutta hit

Processing Instruction and Discourse

44

Japanese for example allows L2 learners to express the same content by more than one word order like SOV, OSV, and OV. Apart from the word order example provided, other linguistic features are affected by the First Noun principle in Japanese: Case marker Comparative Passive (a) Kumakun wa Yoshikocahn o sukidesu (SOV) Yoshikocahn o Kumakun wa sukidesu (OSV Both sentences are possible and mean “Kuma likes Yoshiko.” (b) watashi no hooga anata yori utsukushii (I am more beautiful than you). anata yori watashi no hooga utsukushii (I am more beautiful than you). (c) neko wa inu ni oikakerareta (A cat was chased by a dog) cat dog was chased The sentence (c) might be interpreted by L2 learners as if it were the cat who chased the dog as L2 learners would process the first item in the sentence as the agent (subject) of the sentence. In structured input activities learners will be asked to process sentences keeping in mind that the first noun they encounter is not always an agent in the SOV (subject object verb) sentence. Learners are asked to find out who did what to whom. As seen in Figure 5.7 (see Chapter 5, this volume) one way to determine how learners are interpreting passive sentences in Japanese is to have them select the picture that matched their interpretation. Learners are given two choices that differ only in who performs the action. Now that we have presented and examined the main characteristics of Processing Instruction and highlighted structured input, we will examine the evidence that supports the idea that Processing Instruction is an effective approach to grammar teaching. In the next chapter we will review some of the research which has been conducted to determine the role and the effectiveness of Processing Instruction.

Chapter 3

Processing Instruction: Experimental Research

Introduction The relative effects of Processing Instruction (PI) have been measured in a series of classroom-based experimental studies. The vast majority of these studies have measured the effectiveness of this approach to grammar instruction by utilizing two different types of assessment task: interpretation and production tasks. Participants’ performance has mainly been measured by interpretation and production tasks that require learners to perform at the sentence level, that is, learners hear isolated sentences and interpret the meaning of the target linguistic item. They read sentences in which they must supply the correct form of the target linguistic item. The overall findings of these classroom studies have indicated that participants receiving PI improve their language performance on sentence-level tasks for both interpretation and production. Additionally, the improvement in performance is maintained over time. Only a few studies have measured the effects of PI by utilizing tasks that require learners to produce connected discourse, be it oral or written. The research agenda measuring the effectiveness of PI at sentence level for both interpretation and production task has made the following types of comparisons: A. PI compared to Traditional Instruction (TI) for primary effects; B. PI compared to meaning-based output instruction (MOI); C. full PI compared to the component elements of PI;

46

Processing Instruction and Discourse

D. PI delivered in classrooms to groups of learners compared to PI delivered in virtual contexts to individuals, and; E. PI compared to aurally/textually enhanced structured input (SI) activities. The research agenda measuring the effectiveness of PI at discourse level has addressed the following issue: F. PI measured using discourse-level oral and written tasks. In the next sections we present the results of these different lines of enquiry by reviewing the findings from both the original PI study (VanPatten and Cadierno 1993) and its main conceptual replications. A final summary of the main findings of these studies is provided at the end.

A. Processing Instruction Compared to Traditional Instruction for Primary Effects VanPatten and Cadierno (1993) initiated what is now a rather fruitful line of investigation. They investigated the effects of PI on the acquisition of a word-order feature in Spanish, that is, the preverbal placement of direct object pronouns. PI was used to instruct learners to circumvent one of the processing problems encountered when processing input, a problem captured by the First Noun Principle (P2). Learners tend to process the first noun or pronoun they encounter in a sentence as the subject or agent. This processing problem can affect the way L2 learners acquire various language features including in this case preverbally placed direct object pronouns. Word order in Spanish is flexible so that the grammatical subject/agent can appear in postverbal position. Therefore in a sentence such as Lo llama la chica learners of Spanish would misinterpret this sentence as “He calls the girl.” The problem is that lo is an object pronoun and the correct interpretation of the sentence is: “The girl calls him.” PI aims at helping students to make the correct interpretation of forms and structures affected by the First Noun Principle

Processing Instruction: Experimental Research

47

as in the case of Spanish object pronouns. Eighty university students (all native English speakers) participated in VanPatten and Cadierno’s investigation. The participants were randomly assigned to three different groups: PI group; TI group; and control (C) group, which received no instructional treatment but took the pre- and posttests. A pre- and posttest procedure was adopted. The pretest was administered before the instructional treatment and participants who scored higher than 60 percent on the pretest were not included in the final pool of subjects on whom statistical analyses were performed. The posttests were carried out immediately after the two-day instructional period, again two weeks later, and finally one month after the end of the treatment. The sentence-level interpretation task was an aural sentence-level task containing 15 sentences of which 10 were target items and the other 5 served as distracters. All sentences were written using frequently used items and familiar vocabulary for learners at this level. Participants were required to listen to each sentence to select a matching picture of each sentence from the two similar pictures. The two pictures represented the same actions but the difference between them was who the agent was and who the patient was. All pictures were presented to the learners using an overhead projector. Participants had a time limitation in the test. Specifically, participants were given eight seconds to think and chose a picture after the listening and the pictures were removed immediately after eight seconds. Then they listened to the next sentence. The possible total score of the interpretation test ranged between 0 and 10 points. A correct picture selection was 1 point and an incorrect picture selection was 0 points. Distracters were not scored. Overall, the results from VanPatten and Cadierno’s research showed that PI had a greater impact on the acquisition of Spanish object pronouns than the TI and C groups. The results are summarized in Table 3.1. The PI group outperformed the TI group and the C group on the interpretation task. The mean score of the PI group on the pretest was 17.4 percent. The first posttest’s mean score was 80.7 percent indicating a significant improvement of 63.3 percent from pretest to posttest. The mean scores of the two delayed posttests were 71.9 percent and 74.1 percent, respectively, indicating a sustained

48

Study

Linguistic Processing feature/Language principle

Subjects/L1

Number

Design

Tests

VanPatten and Cadierno 1993

Spanish Object Pronouns

Intermediate English native

80

Pre-test Post-tests Immediate and Delayed

Interpretation Int. = PI > (TI = C) (Aural) Production Prod. = (PI = TI) > C (Written)

First Noun

PI = Processing Instruction. TI = Traditional Instruction. C = Control group. Int. = Interpretation test. Prod. = Production test.

Results

Processing Instruction and Discourse

Table 3.1 Summary of original study comparing Processing Instruction versus Traditional Instruction

Processing Instruction: Experimental Research

49

significant improvement from the pretest of 54.5 percent and 56.7 percent, respectively. The result of the statistical analyses of the interpretation data demonstrated that the effects of PI were superior to the effects of TI and they were maintained over one month from the end of the instructional period. On the interpretation test, the TI group did no better than the C group. That is, neither group showed significant improvement from the pretest to the posttests. The sentence-level written production test consisted of five twopart sentences that corresponded to a two-part drawing. Participants were given the first part of the sentence that corresponded to the first of the drawings and then were to write out the second part of the sentence as it corresponded to the second drawing. Completing the sentences required participants to use a direct object pronoun. All sentences were in the present tense using familiar vocabulary. The possible total score of the production test ranged between 0 and 10 points. If a participant completed a sentence with a correct direct object clitic pronoun form in the correct position, 2 points were given. If a sentence was completed without a correct direct object clitic pronoun form, the score was 0 points even though the sentence was correct. However, if a participant completed a sentence with either a correct direct object clitic pronoun form in the incorrect position or an incorrect direct object clitic pronoun form in the correct position of the sentence, 1 point was given. The results from the production test showed that the PI group and the TI group made similar and statistically significant improvements and their scores were superior to the C group which made no improvement. The mean score of the PI group on the pretest was 21.9 percent. In the immediate posttest the mean score of this group was 88.9 percent indicating a significant improvement (67 percent). The mean scores on the two delayed posttests were 81.9 percent and 81.1 percent, respectively, indicating a clear and statistically significant improvement from the mean score in the pretest. The improvement was 60 percent, and 59.2 percent, respectively. The results of the statistical analyses of the production task demonstrated that the positive effects of PI and TI were equal and that those effects were maintained over time. That the PI group would improve its performance on a form production test has always been the surprise finding

50

Processing Instruction and Discourse

in PI investigations. We have to remember that during the treatment, the PI group never produced the target form. They heard it. They read it. They interpreted and responded to it but they never produced it. The TI group produced the target form in each activity it performed and successfully learned to produce the form. They did not, however, successfully learn to interpret the form. Form production practice did not lead to improved form interpretation. Form interpretation practice did, on the other hand, lead to improved form production.

Main conceptual replications To replicate a study is to redo it, using the same materials, methods, and procedures. To conduct a conceptual replication is to perform an experiment that is derived from the original. The subsequent study is clearly linked to the original but it does not redo it. The first link between the various PI studies and the original is the research design. Subsequent to VanPatten and Cadierno (1993) we have all used a pretest/posttest design the results of which most of us have analyzed statistically using a repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA). A second link is the focus on PI as a means of instilling or developing target language appropriate processing strategies in learners. A third link is that the vast majority of PI studies have examined learners’ performance on both interpretation and production tasks. Clearly, VanPatten and Cadierno (1993) set the model. A fourth link is the use of the pretest to screen participants. Learners who score high on the pretest are less likely to be affected by instruction and so learners who score 60 percent or higher (with some variation on that percentage across studies) on the pretest tend to be eliminated from the data pool. Cadierno (1995) partially or conceptually replicated the original study conducted by VanPatten and Cadierno (1993) by comparing the relative effects of PI and TI on the acquisition of another feature of Spanish: the Spanish preterit tense verb morphology. This time the processing principle in focus was the Lexical Preference Principle (P 1b) (VanPatten 2004b). According to this processing principle L2 learners tend to process lexical items such as temporal

Processing Instruction: Experimental Research

51

adverbs before grammatical items such as verbal morphology to get meaning, when both encode the same semantic information. In a sentence such as Ayer Antonio llamó a sus padres por teléfono (Yesterday, Anthony called his parents on the phone) learners of Spanish will rely on the lexical item (adverb of time Ayer) to interpret the sentence and thereby ignore the verbal inflection (llamó). PI, where adverbial temporal references are removed, will help learners to rely on the verbal inflections as the indicator of tense. Sixty-one university students, all native speakers of English studying Spanish in their third semester, participated in this experiment. Participants who scored over 60 percent on the pretests were not included in the final pool. They were assigned to one of three groups: PI group; TI group; and C group that received no instruction but did perform the preand posttests. The posttests were carried out immediately after the two-day instructional treatments. The two delayed posttests were administered two weeks and one month after the immediate posttest. The sentence-level interpretation test was an aural task consisting of 20 sentences. Ten sentences were in the preterit tense without temporal adverbs so that learners had to rely on the verb endings to establish tense. The other ten sentences were distracters in the present tense and had no temporal adverbs for the same reason. Participants were required to listen to the sentence describing an action and then decide whether the sentence referred to a present or a past action. The test was administered with a time limitation similar to the one used in VanPatten and Cadierno’s investigation (1993). The possible score of the interpretation test ranged from 0 to 10 points; the distracters (present tense sentences) were not scored. A correct answer was 1 point and an incorrect answer was 0 points. The results from the interpretation test showed that the PI group’s performance was superior to that of the TI and the C groups. The mean score of the PI group on the pretest was 42.2 percent. The mean score of this group on the immediate posttest, the delayed posttest, and the second delayed posttest were 74.4 percent, 78.3 percent, and 78.3 percent, respectively. The statistical analyses indicated significant improvement (32.2 percent) from both the pretest to the immediate posttest and from the pretest to the delayed posttests (36.1 percent). The positive and superior effects of PI were

52

Processing Instruction and Discourse

maintained one month after the end of the instructional period. On the interpretation test, there was no difference in performance between the TI and C groups. Neither group improved significantly. The sentence-level written production test consisted of five sentences with blanks in them. Participants were required to complete the sentence by conjugating the verb provided in parentheses in the past. They were provided with the infinitive form of the verb. The same time limitation was used. The possible total score of the production test ranged between 0 and 10 points. A 0–1–2 scoring procedure was adopted. If a sentence was completed with a correct past tense, 2 points were given and if the past tense form was not produced correctly learners received 0 points. However, if participants wrote a past form with either the wrong person marker or used the form of a different verb category, they only received 1 point for the answer. The results from the production test indicated that the PI group scored significantly better than the no instruction C group but there was no statistically significant difference between the performance of the PI and the TI groups. The mean score of the PI group on the pretest was 23.9 percent. The mean scores of the same group on the immediate posttest, the delayed posttest, and the second delayed posttest were 78.3 percent, 77.2 percent, and 75.6 percent. The statistical analyses indicated significant improvement for the PI group (54.4 percent) from the pretest to the immediate posttest; it also indicated significant improvement (48.3 percent and 51.7 percent) from the pretest to the first delayed posttest and second delayed posttest. The relative effects of PI as measured by a form production task, as was the case for the interpretation test, were maintained over one month. The TI group also performed in this way on the production task. The group who were taught by producing forms did indeed learn to produce forms. Benati (2001) investigated the effect of PI and TI on the acquisition of Italian future tense verb morphology. When L2 learners process verbal morphology in the input they rely on temporal indicators of time to interpret sentences and skip the grammatical features. This aspect of learners’ processing performance is captured in the

Processing Instruction: Experimental Research

53

Lexical Preference Principle (P 1 b) (VanPatten 2004b). Benati, like Cadierno (1995), developed PI materials aimed at addressing this processing problem. This investigation was carried out with 39 university students who were all native speakers of English. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups: PI group; TI group; and a C group. Similar procedures characterize this investigation and the two previous studies examined. The pretests were administered three weeks before the beginning of the instructional period, which lasted for six hours. An immediate posttest was administered to the three groups and then, three weeks later, another posttest was administered. The sentence-level aural interpretation test consisted of 20 sentences in which 10 sentences were target items and 10 sentences served as distracters. Participants were required to listen to each sentence and determine whether the sentence indicated an action which was taking place now or in the future. The possible scores for the interpretation test ranged from between 0 and 10 points. Distracters were not scored. A correct answer was given 1 point and wrong answer was given 0 points. The results revealed that the PI group outperformed the TI group and C group on the interpretation measure. The PI group significantly improved from the pretest to the immediate posttest and this improvement was retained over three weeks. The mean scores of the PI group on the posttest (83 percent) were much higher than the TI group (58 percent) and showed clearly an improvement from pre- to posttest, 55 percent for the PI group and 17 percent for the TI group in the first posttest ; 43 percent and 15 percent, respectively, on the second posttest. The TI group did, however, perform significantly better than the C group. That is, their performance did improve on the interpretation task. The sentence-level written production test contained five sentences and participants were required to complete each sentence using the future tense form of an infinitive that was provided in parentheses. In the oral production test, a sequence of five pictures was provided. Participants were required to produce a sentence including the future tense to describe each picture. The possible total score for

54

Processing Instruction and Discourse

the written and oral production tests ranged from between 0 and 10 points. A correct answer was 2 points, a partially correct answer was 1 point, and an incorrect answer was 0 points. The result of the written and the oral production tasks revealed that both PI and the TI groups made equal gains while the C group did not. The PI and TI groups improved significantly from the pretest to the posttests and the improvement was maintained over three weeks. The gains made were quite similar for both instruction groups on both tasks. On the written task, the PI group scored 73 percent whereas the TI group scored 71 percent. On the oral production task, the PI group scored 73 percent whereas the TI group scored 76 percent. The scores on the delayed posttests were similar. VanPatten and Wong (2004) compared the effects of PI and TI on the acquisition of French causative construction with faire. The processing principle of relevance to this study, as was the case in the original work by VanPatten and Cadierno (1993), was the First Noun Principle (P2). Seventy-seven undergraduate students learning French participated in this study. They were enrolled in two different universities. Three groups were randomly formed in each university: PI group; TI group; and the C group. As in previous studies separate instructional packets were used. The assessment tasks consisted of an interpretation and a production test. The immediate posttests were carried out after one day (45 minutes) of instructional treatments. The sentence-level aural interpretation test contained 14 sentences. Seven sentences were in the target form (causative forms) and seven sentences served as distracters. Participants were required to listen to a series of sentences describing people doing several activities and determine who was doing the activity in each sentence. The possible total score of the interpretation test ranged between 0 and 7 points. Distracters were not included in the scoring. A correct answer was 1 point and an incorrect answer was 0 points. On the interpretation tasks the mean scores of the PI groups were higher than those of the TI groups, 49 percent to 50 percent and 27 percent to 34 percent, respectively. Both groups demonstrated a statistically significant improvement after treatment but the improvement noted for the PI groups was significantly higher than

Processing Instruction: Experimental Research

55

that of the TI group. No improvement was noted for the C group and both PI and TI groups outperformed them. The sentence-level written production test consisted of ten incomplete sentences that were accompanied by a series of ten pictures. Five sentences were target items and the other five sentences served as distracters. Participants were required to look at a picture on an overhead projector and complete a sentence using the verb faire to describe each picture. The first part of sentence was already written on the test paper and the second part was incomplete. Distracters did not require any causatives but contained other uses of faire. The possible total score of the production test ranged between 0 and 10 points. If participants completed a sentence correctly, 2 points were given. Partial credit of 1 point was awarded based on the absence of either an infinitive following faire or the preposition à after the infinitive. On the production tasks the instructional groups made gains and improved significantly. The PI groups performed better that the TI group in that the PI groups scored 82 percent to 83 percent on the posttest and the traditional groups 66 percent to 68 percent. These differences were not, however, statistically significant. The C group made minimal improvement of 4 percent to 7 percent. The difference in scores between the C group and both instructional groups was statistically significant.

Assessment Studies comparing PI and TI have repeatedly indicated that PI is a very effective approach to grammar instruction in that it has never failed to yield significant improvement in learner performance, and, importantly, this significant improvement has been found on interpretation and form production tasks (Table 3.2). When presented with a processing problem in the L2, learners can be taught to alter their processing strategies thereby delivering better intake to their developing systems; “better” in this context means grammatically richer. This better intake yields improved performance on both interpretation and production tasks. The primary effects of PI, investigated in a number of studies (VanPatten and Cadierno, 1993;

56 Table 3.2 Summary of main conceptual replications of studies comparing Processing Instruction versus Traditional Instruction Linguistic feature/ Processing Language principle

Cadierno 1995

Spanish preterite tense

Benati 2001

Subjects/L1

Number

Design

Tests

Results

Intermediate English native

61

Pretest Posttests Immediate and Delayed

Interpretation (Aural) Production (Written)

Int. = PI > (TI = C) Pro.= (PI = TI) > C

Italian future tense Lexical Preference

Beginners English native

39

Pretest Posttests Immediate and Delayed

Interpretation Int. = PI > TI > C (Aural) Pro.= (PI = TI) > C Production (Written and Oral)

Cheng 2004

Spanish copula

Preference for Nonredundancy

Intermediate English native

83

Pretest Posttests Immediate and Delayed

Interpretation (Aural) Production (Written)

Int. = PI > (TI = C) Prod. = (PI = TI) > C

VanPatten and Wong 2004

French causative

First Noun

Intermediate English native

77

Pretest Posttests Immediate and Delayed

Interpretation (Aural) Production (Written)

Int. = PI > TI > C Pro.= (PI = TI) > C

Lexical Preference

PI = Processing Instruction. TI = Traditional Instruction. C = Control group. Int. = Interpretation test. Prod. = Production test.

Processing Instruction and Discourse

Study

Processing Instruction: Experimental Research

57

Cadierno, 1995; Benati, 2001; and VanPatten and Wong, 2004) have shown that PI can be considered a better approach to grammar instruction than TI at improving learners’ accuracy in processing. PI is also successful at increasing learners’ accuracy in production. Based on the findings measuring primary effects for PI when compared to TI we conclude the following: z

z z

PI is an effective approach to alter a variety of processing problems facing L2 learners (First Noun Principle, the Primacy of Meaning Principle and its subprinciples); PI is effective in addressing processing problems in different languages (French, Italian, and Spanish); PI is more effective than TI.

Studies comparing PI to TI have indicated the superiority of PI. PI not only has an effect on the ability of learners to interpret sentences correctly and appropriately but also on their ability to produce sentence containing the target form or structure correctly.

B. Processing Instruction Compared to Meaning-based Output Instruction The differences between PI and TI are that the activities learners do for the former are meaning-oriented while those in the latter are not and that the type of explicit information learners received was different. Again, the explicit information with PI was more meaningoriented than that provided to TI groups. To address these perceived inequities across the two approaches, researchers developed more meaningful output activities. The referential and affective activities from the PI materials were modified as output-based activities and have been referred to as meaning-based output instruction (MOI).

Original study with meaningful output practices Farley (2001a) investigated the effects of PI and MOI on the acquisition of Spanish subjunctive of doubt. The study is summarized in

58

Processing Instruction and Discourse

Table 3.3. The subjunctive mood is a verbal morpheme that occurs at the end of a verb in a subordinate clause. For this use of the subjunctive, a verb phrase in the main clause must express doubt about the event or state mentioned in the subordinate clause. The subjunctive verb morpheme, in this instance, is a reflex. Its use depends on the semantic statement made in the main clause. The subjunctive of doubt is, therefore, affected by the Lexical Preference Principle. The meaning of doubt is found in the main verb or verb phrase. The form that reflects doubt is found on the verb in the subordinate clause. This feature is also affected by the Sentence Location Principle. In Spanish the subjunctive is located in medial position where it is least likely to be processed. In the sentence No creo que entienda el problema (I do not think she/he understands the problem) the subjunctive inflection (the –a of entienda) is in the middle of the sentence and the Sentence Location Principle predicts that learners will overlook the subjunctive inflection because it is not located in a more salient position. Twenty-nine subjects (all native speakers of English) enrolled in a fourth-semester Spanish course were assigned to two different instructional treatments: PI and MOI. The instructional period lasted for two days. Pre- and posttests consisted of an interpretation and a production task. The sentence-level aural interpretation test consisted of 21 sentences in which the main clause was blank. Nine were target items requiring a main clause that would trigger the subjunctive, and the other 12 items served as distracters which were not scored. Participants were required to listen to those sentences and choose between two main clauses provided on the answer sheets to complete each sentence. The possible total score for the interpretation test ranged between 0 and 9 points. A correct answer was given 1 point and an incorrect answer or blank response was given 0 points. Two posttests were administered and the mean scores of the PI group on the interpretation tasks were higher than the MOI group. The difference between the two groups’ performance was statistically significant. The PI group outperformed the MOI group on the interpretation task. The difference between the groups was even more evident in the second posttest in that the MOI group lost

Study

Linguistic feature/ Language

Processing principles

Subjects/L1

Number

Design

Tests

Results

Farley 2001a

Spanish Subjunctive

Lexical Preference Sentence Location

Intermediate English native

29

Pretest Posttests Immediate and Delayed

Interpretation (Aural) Production (Written)

Int. = PI > MOI Prod. = PI = MOI

PI = Processing Instruction. TI = Traditional Instruction. MOI = Meaning Output-based Instruction. Int. = Interpretation test. Prod. = Production test.

Processing Instruction: Experimental Research

Table 3.3 Original study Processing Instruction versus meaning output-based instruction

59

60

Processing Instruction and Discourse

16.7 percent from the first to the second posttest. The PI group, on the other hand, only lost 2.5 percent. The sentence-level written production test contained 20 sentences. Twelve sentences were target items, (only nine of which required the use of a phrase to trigger the subjunctive); eight items were distracters and were not scored. Participants were required to complete the sentence using a correct subjunctive form. The possible total score for the production test ranged between 0 and 9 points. A correct answer was given 1 point and an incorrect answer or blank response was given 0 points. The mean scores of both the PI and MOI group were similar and ranged from 58 percent to 70 percent in the two production posttests indicating an improvement which ranged from 59 percent to 67 percent. The results revealed that there was no statistically significant difference between the scores of the two treatment groups. Both improved significantly on form production due to the different instructional types.

Main replications and conceptual replications Farley (2001b; 2004a) replicated his study on the effects of PI and MOI on the acquisition of Spanish subjunctive of doubt. This time the investigation was carried out with 129 undergraduate university students. The procedure for collection and analysis of data was the same as in the previous experiment. However, this time the results revealed that both the PI group and the MOI group significantly improved from the pretests to the posttests on the interpretation test. There were no significant differences between the two groups and improvement was maintained over time. The mean scores on the pretests ranged from 36 percent to 39 percent for the interpretation task. The mean scores of both instructional groups in the two posttests on the interpretation task ranged from 72 percent to 78 percent indicating similar improvements between pre and posttests (36 percent to 39 percent). In the production measure the mean scores of the two groups were 2.8 percent for the PI group and 5.5 percent for the MOI group. After treatment, the mean scores of both the PI and MOI group were similar and ranged from 61 percent to 72 percent. The improvement

Processing Instruction: Experimental Research

61

was substantial for both groups and the statistical analyses revealed no significant difference between the two group scores on the production posttests. In Farley’s replication he used learners from a different university and used more of them. In contrast to his earlier findings, both instructional groups made equal and significant improvements on both the interpretation and the production tests. The finding that learners who practice making output also improve on interpretation tasks will not be a consistent finding. Benati (2005) followed up Farley’s original study by comparing PI, TI, and MOI on the acquisition of past simple tense in English. The relevant processing principle in this case was the Lexical Preference Principle. According to this principle, L2 learners tend to rely on lexical items (e.g. Yesterday as adverb indicating time in the sentence) and skip grammatical items (–ed grammatical marker indicating past in English) when both elements encode the same message (past event). Forty-seven participants who were secondary school students studying English in China and 30 participants who studied English at a secondary school in Greece were used in this experiment. Participants in China and Greece were divided into three groups: PI group; MOI group; and TI group. The immediate posttests were carried out after three days (total six hours) of instructional treatments in both schools. The sentence-level interpretation test consisted of 20 sentences of which 10 were simple past tense and 10 were present tense and served as distracters. Participants were required to listen to each sentence and determine whether the action was taking place in the past or in the present. The total possible score on the interpretation test ranged between 0 and 10 points. Distracters were not scored. A correct answer was given 1 point and an incorrect answer was scored 0 points. The results of the sentence-level interpretation test in the Chinese school revealed that the PI group performed significantly better than the other two groups, who performed equally well. The PI group made significant gains from the pretest to the posttest. The mean score of the PI group on the pretest was 16.7 percent. The immediate posttest’s mean score was 76 percent indicating an improvement of 59.3 percent. The TI group improved 0.5 percent and the MOI group 8.5 percent. This improvement was not statistically significant.

62

Processing Instruction and Discourse

The results of the interpretation test in the Greek school confirmed the findings from the Chinese school. They revealed that the PI group made a significantly better improvement than the TI and the MOI groups on the interpretation test. The mean score of the PI group on the pretest was 45 percent. The immediate posttest’s mean score was 75 percent indicating an improvement of 30 percent. The TI groups improved 0.5 percent and the MOI group 4.4 percent. Neither improvement was statistically significant. Findings on the interpretation sentence-level test in both studies revealed that the PI group was statistically superior to the other two output-based instruction groups. The scores of the two output-based groups were not significantly different from each other. In the sentence-level written production test, participants were required to look at ten pictures and use the verb provided in brackets to produce a correct sentence in the past. The possible total score of the production test ranged between 0 and 10 points. A correct answer was scored 1 point and an incorrect answer was given a score of 0. The results of the production test in the Chinese school revealed that the three groups made similar, statistically significant improvements from the pretest to the posttest. In the case of the PI group the mean score on the pretest was 8.5 percent and the immediate posttest’s mean score was 30 percent indicating an improvement (21.5 percent). The improvement was similar for the two output-based groups. All three groups improved significantly on the production posttest. The result of the production test in the Greek school confirmed the findings from the Chinese school. The PI group, the TI group, and the MOI group made statistically equal gains from the pretest to the posttest. In the case of the PI group the mean score on the pretest was 24 percent and the immediate posttest’s was 51 percent, indicating an improvement of 27 percent. All three groups improved significantly on the production posttest. The results of Benati’s study confirmed the results obtained in Farley’s original 2001 study. Both Benati (2005) and Farley (2001a) showed that PI had positive effects on the processing and acquisition of the target feature in a way that output-based instruction did not. In both studies the PI group performed better than the TI

Processing Instruction: Experimental Research

63

and/or the MOI groups in the interpretation task while the input and output groups made equal gains in the production task. Morgan-Short and Bowden (2006) carried out a study to investigate the effects of PI and MOI on the acquisition of preverbal direct object pronouns in Spanish, a linguistic feature affected by the First Noun Principle as in the case of the original study conducted by VanPatten and Cadierno, (1993). Forty-five first-semester Spanish students were assigned to three groups: PI, MOI, and a C group. One interpretation and one production task were developed and used in this study in a pre- and posttest procedure. The sentence-level aural interpretation test consisted of 20 items of which 12 were target items. The other eight items served as distracters and were not scored. A correct answer was given 1 point and incorrect answer 0 points. Overall, the results revealed that both the PI group and the MOI group outperformed the C group on the interpretation test (immediate posttest and delayed posttest). The two groups made significant gains from the pretest to the posttest. The delayed posttest scores for both groups were also significantly higher than the pretest scores. One important finding on the delayed posttest score is that the MOI group showed a significant decrease in score from the first to the second posttest. The PI groups showed no such loss in scores. The mean score of the PI group on the pretest was 7.62 percent. The immediate posttest’s mean score was 67.38 percent indicating an improvement of 59.76 percent. The mean score of the delayed posttest was 62.22 percent indicating an improvement from the pretest of 54.6 percent. The score for the MOI group on the pretest was 8.13 percent and on the first posttest it was 71.21 percent. The score on the delayed posttest dropped significantly, however, to 46.43 percent. The sentence-level written production test was composed of 20 items including 12 target items and 8 distracters. Participants were required to look at two pictures and complete each sentence corresponding to the actions depicted in the pictures using a verb that was provided. The possible total score of the production test ranged between 0 and 20 points. Distracters were not scored. A correct answer was 2 points and 0 points were given if no direct object

64

Processing Instruction and Discourse

pronoun was used. If an object pronoun was used with correct form but wrong placement, incorrect form but correct placement, or incorrect form and placement 1 point was awarded. The results on the production test revealed that both groups performed better than the C group. The PI group significantly improved from pretest to posttest and maintained their improvement over a week. The mean score of the PI group on the pretest was 1.96 percent. The immediate posttest’s mean score was 30.88 percent indicating an improvement of 28.92 percent. The mean score of the delayed posttest was 26.36 percent indicating an improvement from the pretest of 24.4 percent. The MOI group also improved due to instruction and the delayed posttest scores were significantly higher than the pretest score. There was, however, a significant loss for the MOI group from immediate to the delayed posttest. The score fell from 69.93 percent to 31.55 percent. In the first posttest the MOI outperformed the PI group and the C group (MOI = 69 percent; PI = 30 percent; and C =13 percent). However, this difference between groups was not maintained in the second posttest (MOI = 31 percent; PI = 26 percent; and C =15 percent). As pointed out by Morgan-Short and Bowden (2006:56):‘‘The analysis of our results is straightforward: in PI, input based practice leads to form–meaning connections evidenced in both interpretation and production test gains, whereas in the MOBI, learners might have been able to establish or strengthen form–meaning connections via both output-based practice and the input they receive in instruction and feedback.’’ These results are summarized in Table 3.4.

Assessment In his replication study, Farley (2001b, 2004a) attributed the equal performance of the two treatments on the interpretation task to one main factor, incidental input. The meaning-based output treatment is different from TI practice as it does not contain mechanical drills practice. Its communicative and interactive nature, Farley hypothesized, might have resulted in providing learners incidental input. However, the findings (Benati, 2005) on the sentence-level task

Table 3.4 Main conceptual replications Processing Instruction versus meaning output-based instruction Linguistic feature/ Language

Processing principle

Subjects/L1

Number

Design

Tests

Results

Farley 2001b and 2004

Spanish Subjunctive

Lexical Preference Sentence Location

Intermediate English native

129

Pretest Posttests Immediate and Delayed

Interpretation (Aural) Production (Written)

Int. = PI = MOI Pro.= PI = MOI

Benati 2005

English Simple past tense

Lexical Preference

Beginners Greek and Chinese native

30

Pretest Posttests Immediate

Interpretation (Aural) Production (Written)

Int. = PI > TI = MOI Prod. = PI = TI = MOI

47

Morgan-Short and Bowden 2006

Spanish Object Pronouns

First Noun

Intermediate English native

45

Pretest Posttests Immediate and Delayed

Interpretation (Aural) Production (Written)

Int. = (PI = MOI) > C MOI1 > MOI2 Prod. = Posttest 1 MOI > PI > C Posttest 2 (PI = MOI) > C MOI1 > MOI2

Lee and Benati (2007a)

Italian Subjunctive

Sentence Location

Intermediate English native

47

Pretest Posttests Immediate

Interpretation (Aural) Production (Written)

PI > MOI classroom PI > MOI computer PI = MOI classroom PI = MOI computer

Lee and Benati (2007a)

French Subjunctive

Sentence Location

Beginners English native

61

Pretest Posttests Immediate

Interpretation (Aural) Production (Written)

PI > MOI classroom PI > MOI computer PI = MOI classroom PI = MOI computer

65

PI = Processing Instruction. TI = Traditional Instruction. MOI = Meaning Output-based Instruction. C = Control group. Int. = Interpretation test. Prod. = Production test.

Processing Instruction: Experimental Research

Study

66

Processing Instruction and Discourse

involving the interpretation of the English past simple tense support previous findings on PI research, which indicated that PI is successful in altering learners processing default strategies but output instruction is not. The results of the statistical analysis indicated that PI, TI, and MOI made an equal improvement (from pretest to posttest) on the production task (sentence-level task). The results of Benati (2005) differ from Farley’s research (Farley, 2001b, 2004a) as it indicates that PI is better than MOI in helping learners to process the simple past in English. These findings are confirmed by a parallel study by Lee and Benati (2007a), which will be reviewed later in this chapter (see Table 3.4). The results obtained in the two parallel studies support the effectiveness of PI in improving learners’ performance in both interpretation and production tasks. The results obtained in Lee and Benati’s (2007a) study might explain the difference in the results between the other studies comparing PI and MOI (Farley 2001b, 2004; Morgan-Short and Bowden 2006). As stated by Lee and Benati (2007a: 122): it ‘‘could be the fact that both treatments were compared through different modes of delivery. In the case of the meaning-based output instruction and processing instruction in the treatments delivered via computer terminals, learners did not receive input from an instructor or from interacting with other learners.’’ In the case of the two parallel studies conducted by Lee and Benati (2007a) the group receiving the MOI treatment delivered via computer terminals, received no incidental structured input, unlike in the case of Farley’s studies (Farley, 2001a, 2001b). Mode of delivery would not, however, explain the difference in results between Benati (2005) and Morgan-Short and Bowden’s study (2006) in that the latter provided learners with computer-delivered instruction. The effects of MOI on interpretation are quite cloudy. We cannot fully account for why it is sometimes effective and sometimes not. We can conclude, at this point, that PI is always effective in improving learners’ interpretation scores and is always effective in improving their production scores. Close and detailed examinations of the different materials used for MOI as well as replication studies are called so as to develop an acceptable accounting of its impact.

Processing Instruction: Experimental Research

67

C. Processing Instruction Compared to Processing Instruction Components Original study Processing Instruction comprises both explicit information (EI) about the form or structure in focus and SIA (VanPatten 1993; 1996). A question arose almost immediately upon the publication of VanPatten and Cadierno (1993) about the relative contributions of EI and SIA to the positive outcomes. The type of explanation given in PI is different from that of TI in that it is meaning-oriented and contains information about processing strategies. Did this new type of explanation account for the positive outcomes? The activities developed for PI manipulate the input so that it is structured. Learners must use the form under focus to get meaning. Did this new type of input practice account for the positive outcomes? VanPatten and Oikkenon (1996) conducted an investigation to establish which component of PI causes the positive effects of this input-based instructional treatment. As in the case of VanPatten and Cadierno (1993) object pronouns in Spanish were the target feature of this experiment. VanPatten and Oikkenon used the same materials as did VanPatten and Cadierno. Their results are summarized in Table 3.5. Fifty-nine high school age subjects participated in this classroom experiment. They all were in their fourth year of study in a senior high school. Participants were divided into three groups; full PI group (EI + SIA); explanation-only group (EI); and SIA only group. All participants were native speakers of English. A pre- and posttest procedure was adopted. Two tasks were used to evaluate performance in this study. A sentence-level aural interpretation test contained 22 sentences. The sentences were target items consisting of object, verb, and subject word-order type or object, pronoun, verb, and subject word-order type. Twelve sentences served as distracters consisting of subject, verb, and object word-order type. All sentences contained frequently used items and familiar vocabulary for the students’ level. Participants were required to listen to each sentence and select a matching picture from two similar pictures. The possible total score

68

Study

Linguistic feature/ Language

Processing principle

Subjects/L1

Number

Design

Tests

Results

Van Patten and Oikennon 1996

Spanish Object Pronouns

First Noun

Intermediate English native

59

Pretest Posttests Immediate and Delayed

Interpretation (Aural) Production (Written)

Int. = (PI = SIA) > EI Prod. = (PI = SIA) > EI

PI = Processing Instruction comprising EI and SIA. SIA = Structured Input activities only. EI = Explicit Information only. C = Control group. Int. = Interpretation test. Prod. = Production test.

Processing Instruction and Discourse

Table 3.5 Summary of original study of research measuring the effects Processing Instruction and Processing Instruction components

Processing Instruction: Experimental Research

69

of the interpretation test ranged between 0 and 10 points. A correct picture selection was given 1 point and an incorrect picture selection was given 0 points. The mean score of the PI group on the pretest was 8.82 percent. The immediate posttest was 43.5 percent indicating an improvement of 34.68 percent. The mean score of the SIA only group on the pretest was 8.5 percent. The immediate posttest was 44.5 percent indicating an improvement of 36 percent. There was no statistically significant difference between the performances of these two groups. The findings from the raw data of the interpretation task revealed that the PI group and the SIA group performed significantly better than the EI group. VanPatten and Oikkenon concluded that the positive results on interpretation were due to the SIA, not due to the explanation. The sentence-level written production test consisted of ten incomplete sentences. Five sentences were target items and the other five sentences served as distracters. All sentences contained frequently used items and familiar vocabulary matching students’ level. Participants were required to look at a picture and complete a sentence with an object pronoun in the correct position. The first part of each sentence was already written on the test paper and the second part of the sentence was incomplete. The maximum score for this test was 10 points. For the production of each correct sentence 2 points were given. If participants completed a sentence with either a correct object pronoun in the incorrect position or an incorrect object pronoun in the correct position, a score of 1 point was given. The results of the production test revealed again that the PI group and the SIA only group performed equally well and significantly better than the EI group. The mean score of the PI group on the pretest was 9.4 percent. The immediate posttest score was 30 percent indicating an improvement of 20.6 percent. The mean score of the SIA only group on the pretest was 5.5 percent. The immediate posttest score was 21.5 percent indicating an improvement of 16 percent. This difference was not statistically significant. With the results on both interpretation and production tests being the same, VanPatten and Oikennon (1996) concluded that the causative variable for the positive effects of PI is not the explicit explanation component but the SIA practice component. Subsequent

70

Processing Instruction and Discourse

research would affirm that SI activities are the causative factor for the improved performance of L2 learners.

Main conceptual replications A series of classroom studies have been conducted to generalize the findings of the original study in a different context, with a different language, and addressing a different processing problem. These studies are summarized in Table 3.6. Benati (2004a) compared the effects of the individual components of the PI approach on the acquisition of future tense in Italian. EI and SIA were developed to circumvent the Lexical Preference Principle (P.1b) which describes how L2 learners process morphology. Thirty-eight subjects participated in this experiment. They were all native speakers of English studying Italian at university level. They were divided into three groups: PI group; SIA only group; and EI only group. As in the case of previous experimental research a preand posttest procedure was adopted. The immediate posttest was carried out after two days (total six hours) of instructional treatment and a delayed posttest was administered four weeks later. The sentence-level aural interpretation test contained 20 sentences, 10 of which were target items and the other 10 distracters. Participants were required to listen to each sentence only once and choose whether the sentence referred to a present or a future event. A correct answer was given 1 point and an incorrect answer was given 0 points for a maximum of 10 points. The results revealed that the PI group and the SIA only group improved equally and that their improvement was significantly higher than the EI only group. Their gains were also durable. The mean score of the PI group on the pretest was 27 percent. The mean score on the immediate posttest was 83 percent indicating an improvement of 56 percent, which was maintained in the delayed posttest for which the mean score was 77 percent, indicating an improvement from the pretest of 50 percent. The mean score of the SIA group was similar. Their mean score on the pretest was 21 percent. It was 78 percent on the immediate posttest, indicating an improvement of 57 percent. This gain was maintained in the second posttest on which the mean score

Table 3.6 Summary of main conceptual replications of research measuring the effects of Processing Instruction and Processing Instruction components Linguistic feature/ Language

Benati 2004a

Processing principle

Subjects/L1

Number

Design

Tests

Results

Italian Future tense Lexical Preference

Beginners English native

38

Pretest Posttests Immediate and Delayed

Interpretation (Aural) Production (Written)

Int. = (PI = SIA) > EI Prod. = (PI = SIA) > EI

Farley 2004b

Spanish Subjunctive Lexical Preference

Intermediate English native

54

Pretest Posttests Immediate and Delayed

Interpretation (Aural) Production (Written)

Int. = PI > SIA Pro. = PI > SIA

Wong 2004

French negative + indefinite article

Intermediate English native

94

Pretest Posttests Immediate

Interpretation (Aural) Production (Written)

Int. = (PI = SIA) > (EI = C) Prod. = (PI = SIA) > C PI > EI EI=SIA EI = C

Benati 2004b

Adjective agreement Preference for Nonredundancy

Beginners English native

31

Pretest Posttests Immediate

Interpretation (Aural) Production (Written) Production (Oral)

Int. = (PI = SIA) > EI Prod. = (PI = SIA) > EI Prod. = (PI = SIA) > EI

First Noun

Processing Instruction: Experimental Research

Study

PI = Processing Instruction comprising EI and SIA. SIA = Structured Input activities only. EI = Explicit Information only. C = Control group. Int. = Interpretation test. Prod. = Production test.

71

72

Processing Instruction and Discourse

was 75 percent, indicating an improvement from the pretest of 54 percent. The sentence-level written production test consisted of a short text. Participants were required to fill in the blanks with the future tense form of the verbs provided in the brackets to complete the text. There were five target items. The maximum score for production was 10 points. A correct answer was given 2 points, a partially correct form was scored 1 point, and an incorrect answer was given 0 points. Again the results of the statistical analyses revealed that the PI and SIA only groups performed significantly better than the EI group and the two groups performed equally well. They showed similar gains from the pretest to the immediate posttest, 46 percent and 51 percent, respectively. The improvements of the two groups were maintained over four weeks (29 percent and 43 percent, respectively). Wong (2004b) compared the effects of the components of PI on the acquisition of French negation. The Lexical Preference Principle (P 1b) is the main processing problem that effects how L2 learners might process this structure. The 94 participants in this study were all native speakers of English. They were divided into four groups: PI group; SIA only group; EI only group; and a C group. A pre- and posttest procedure was used to measure the effects of instruction. The immediate posttest was carried out after the one-day instructional treatment. Two tests were developed for this experiment. The sentence-level aural interpretation test consisted of 20 items in which 10 were target items and the other 10 served as distracters. Participants were required to listen to the second part of a series of sentences and select the appropriate phrase to complete each sentence. A correct answer was given 1 point and an incorrect answer was given 0 points for a maximum of 10 points; the distracters were not scored. The results from the interpretation test revealed that all three treatment groups made significant gains but that the C group did not. Although the posttest scores of the PI group and the SIA only group are quite different, 85 percent and 55 percent, respectively, the difference is not statistically significant. Both these groups significantly outperformed the EI only group and C group.

Processing Instruction: Experimental Research

73

The sentence-level written production test contained 12 items in which 6 items were targets and the other 6 items served as distracters. Participants were required to fill in the blank with the appropriate article to complete each sentence; the corresponding English translation was written beneath each sentence. A correct answer was given 1 point and an incorrect answer was given 0 points for a maximum of 6 points. The results of the production test matched those of the interpretation test. All three treatment groups made significant gains. The gain made by the PI group appears larger than that of the SIA only group, 60 percent and 29 percent, respectively, but the difference was not statistically significant. On the production task, the SIA only group did not significantly outperform the EI only group. In both interpretation and production, the performance of the EI only group was not significantly different from the performance of the C group. Wong concludes that EI is somewhat helpful to learners for the target structure. But because there are no significant differences between the PI and SIA groups on either task, she concludes that SIA is the key factor to account for improvement. Benati (2004b) conducted a further conceptual replication of VanPatten and Oikkenon (1996) and compared the effects of each individual component in PI on the acquisition of gender agreement in Italian. The Preference for Nonredundancy Principle (P 1c) was the processing principle affecting this grammatical feature. The participants of this study were 31 students studying Italian at university level. All participants were native speakers of English. They were divided into three groups: PI group; SIA only group; and, EI only group. A pre and posttest procedure was adopted. The immediate posttest was carried out after two days (total four hours) of instructional treatment. Three tests were developed for this study: one interpretation and two sentence-level production tasks. The sentencelevel aural interpretation test consisted of 20 items in which 10 were target items and the other 10 were included as distracters. Participants were required to listen to each sentence and choose a picture corresponding to the person or object described in each sentence. A 0–1 scoring procedure was used. A correct answer was given 1 point and an incorrect answer received 0 points for a maximum score of

74

Processing Instruction and Discourse

10 points. The results revealed that both the PI and the SIA only groups made similar gains in the posttest. The PI group improved 50 percent and the SIA only group improved 48 percent. The difference in scores was not statistically significant. Both these groups performed significantly better than the EI only group. The sentence-level written production test contained ten items. Participants were required to fill the gaps in a short passage by producing the right gender agreement of the adjective provided in brackets. Participants scored 1 point for each correct agreement and 0 points for incorrect ones; the highest possible score was 10. The results of the written production test were the same as for the interpretation test. The results revealed once again that the PI group and the SIA group significantly improved from the pretest to the posttest and that there was no significant difference between the scores of these two groups. Their gains were 35 percent and 42 percent, respectively. Both these groups significantly outperformed the EI only group. Similar results were obtained for the oral production test. For this test, participants were given pictures of two different environments, a town and city. These two words vary in grammatical gender in Italian. The learners were required to describe and make comments about life in these two different environments. The aim of the task was to elicit the use of gender-inflected adjectives in relatively spontaneous speech. The results revealed that both PI and SIA only groups performed significantly better than the explicit explanation only group and their improvement from pre to posttest was similar (PI = 42 percent, SIA = 40 percent). Benati’s (2004b) findings are perfectly consistent across all three tasks. He concluded that the SIA component of PI is the main variable responsible for the positive effects of PI. Farley (2004b) conducted a study comparing PI and SIA only on the acquisition of the subjunctive of doubt in Spanish. This grammatical structure is affected by a combination of processing problems: the Lexical Preference Principle (P 1b) and the Sentence Location Principle (P 1f). Fifty-four subjects participated in this study. They were all university students of Spanish and native speakers of

Processing Instruction: Experimental Research

75

English. They were divided into two groups: PI and SIA only. The first posttest was administered after two days (50 minutes per day) of instructional treatments and the delayed posttest two weeks later. As in the case of the majority of previous studies two tests were developed for this experiment. The sentence-level aural interpretation test consisted of 24 items in which 9 items were triggers for the subjunctive (target item), 3 items were triggers for the indicative, and 12 items served as distracters. Participants were required to listen to a series of utterances and choose between two main clauses provided on the answer sheets to complete each sentence. A correct answer was given 1 point and an incorrect answer or blank response was given 0 points for a maximum of 9 points. The results from the interpretation assessment task revealed that both groups improved from pretest to posttest; the PI group gained 36 percent and the SIA only group gained 5.4 percent. The two groups slightly improved their performance on the delayed posttest. From pretest to delayed posttest, the PI group gained 40 percent and the SIA group gained 12 percent. The difference between the two groups’ scores was statistically significant. The PI group significantly outperformed the SIA group. The sentence-level written production test consisted of 21 sentences in which 6 items were a trigger for the subjunctive (target item), 3 items were a trigger for the indicative, and 12 items served as distracters. Participants were required to complete the sentence using an appropriate subjunctive form of the infinitive verb provided in brackets. A correct answer was given 1 point and an incorrect subjunctive form or blank response was given 0 points. Any attempt at producing a subjunctive form was awarded the 1 point. The results from the production test matched those from the interpretation test. The results revealed that the PI group significantly outperformed the SIA only group. However both groups improved from pretest to posttest (PI = 70 percent and SIA = 31 percent) and both groups maintained their improvement over two weeks (PI = 58 percent and SIA = 29 percent). Farley (2004b) concluded that SIA alone are sufficient to help learners improve on the Spanish subjunctive of doubt but that EI provided additional help.

Processing Instruction and Discourse

76

Assessment The main finding of the line of research teasing out the main factors responsible for the effectiveness of PI points to SIA as the component responsible for the changes in learners’ developing system as measured by both interpretation and production tasks. As a result of the empirical evidence collected in the research which has compared PI versus its components, we are able to strongly suggest that the causative factor in the positive effects for PI is due to the effects of the SIA. The findings from the original study were confirmed by a series of conceptual replications which have observed and provided similar evidence in different processing principles, languages, linguistic items, and assessment tasks.

D. Processing Instruction Delivered in Classrooms Compared to Processing Instruction Delivered in Virtual Contexts The first study As discussed in the previous sections, PI research has shown that this input-based approach to grammar instruction is more effective than other types of grammar instruction approaches (e.g., TI and MOI) and it is the SIA practice component that appears to be the causative variable for the positive effects found for PI. In the current section, we take up a different question: “Because PI is input-based, can computers deliver effective processing instruction?” (VanPatten 1996: 158). Even though VanPatten posed the question, he did not follow it up with research. We cannot point to an original study as we have in previous sections. We can, however, point out that Lee and his students worked on the issue of delivering PI at about the same time that Benati did. (See Table 3.7.) Lee, Benati with Aguilar-Sánchez and McNulty (2007a) addressed the question raised by VanPatten in 1996. They compared the same PI materials for Spanish preterit/imperfect aspectual distinction and negative informal commands. The aspectual distinction encoded by preterit and imperfect verb morphology is affected by a combination

Processing Instruction: Experimental Research

77

of processing problems. Primary among them is the Lexical Preference Principle (P 1b) because different lexical adverbs can convey aspect in addition to the verb morphology. Negative informal commands are also affected by a combination of processing problems. The verb morphology is made redundant by the lexical negator (The Preference for Nonredundancy Principle (P 1c) and the Lexical Preference Principle (P 1b)). For both grammatical items they developed a set of PI materials. They then delivered them in three modes: in a regular classroom to a group of students; online to individuals in a computer laboratory; and, a hybridized in-class/ online mode. Twenty-five learners of Spanish in a university-level Spanish language course participated. They were all native speakers of English. The participants were divided into three groups: classroom group; computer group; and, the hybrid group. A form recognition/ interpretation task to measure changes in learners’ knowledge was developed for this study. The two pretests one for preterit/imperfect distinction and one for negative informal commands were administered before the beginning of the instructional treatments. The treatments lasted for two class periods of 50 minutes each. At the end of the instructional treatments a posttest was administered and then a week later, the delayed posttest was administered. The sentence-level form recognition assessment task for preterit/ imperfect distinction had two parts. The first part presented five sentences in which two verbs were given to complete a sentence. Subjects selected the form of the verb they thought correctly completed the sentence. The second part presented a brief paragraph in which learners selected either the preterit or imperfect form of the verb, according to context. There were 11 items in the paragraph for a total maximum score of 16. The results indicated that the three treatments were equally effective in bringing about improved performance and that improvement endured after one week of instruction. In other words, there was no statistically significant difference for mode of delivering PI. The three groups made similar improvements from pre- to posttest. The classroom treatment group gained 14 percent, the computer treatment group 10 percent, and the hybrid group 5 percent. The gains were maintained in the delayed posttest

78

Processing Instruction and Discourse

(classroom treatment group = 14 percent, computer treatment group = 18 percent, and hybrid group = 8 percent). The sentence-level assessment test for negative informal commands was a contextualized preference task. It contained five scenarios presented in English. Each scenario requested that participants offer negative advice by selecting the command form from among the four options. There was a total of 14 items. The options contained the correct verb form as well as present tense, preterit and imperfect forms. As was the case with preterit/imperfect aspectual distinction, the results indicated that all three treatments were equally effective in bringing about improved performance. There was no statistically significant difference between the scores of the three groups. The classroom treatment group gained 62 percent from pre- to posttest. The computer treatment group gained 75 percent and the hybrid group 78 percent. The improvement endured for one week following the instruction (classroom treatment group = 62 percent, computer treatment group = 71 percent, and the hybrid group = 59 percent).

Follow-up studies Lee and Benati (2007a) conducted a further study examining the online delivery of French and Italian subjunctive of doubt and opinion (Table 3.7). This particular structure is affected by different processing principles: The Lexical Preference Principle (P 1b); the Preference for Nonredundancy Principle (P 1c); the MeaningBefore-Nonmeaning Principle (P 1d); and, the Sentence Location Principle (P 1f). They compared PI with MOI for both modes of delivery, classroom delivery to a group of students versus computer delivery to individuals in a laboratory. Forty-seven subjects participated in the examination of the Italian subjunctive. They were studying intermediate Italian at university level. They were all native speakers of English. The participants were assigned to one of four treatment conditions: PI delivered in classroom, PI delivered via computer, MOI delivered in a classroom, or MOI delivered via computer. A pre- and posttest procedure was adopted. Two assessment tasks were developed for this study, an interpretation and a production task. The four groups received a total of four hours of instruction

Study

Linguistic feature/ Language

Processing principle

Lee, Benati with Aguilar-Sánchez and McNulty 2007a

Preterit/Imperfect distinction Negative informal commands in Spanish

Preference for Intermediate Non Redundancy English native Lexical Preference

PI = Processing Instruction.

Subjects/L1

Number

Design

Tests

Results

25

Pretest Posttests Immediate and Delayed

Interpretation (Aural) Production (Written)

PI deliver via Computer = Individualized = Textbook In the following tests: Multiple choice test Negative informal command test

Processing Instruction: Experimental Research

Table 3.7 Original study comparing modes of delivering Processing Instruction

79

80

Processing Instruction and Discourse

across two consecutive class periods. They then performed the interpretation and production posttests. The results of the interpretation task revealed no significant difference for mode of delivering PI. The classroom and computer delivery modes were equally effective in terms of delivering PI. The improvement ranged from 54 percent to 57 percent. There was a significant difference for mode of delivering MOI. The classroom delivery of MOI yielded significantly higher results, a gain of 33 percent, than its corresponding computer delivery, a gain of only 5 percent. Interestingly, learners’ scores for either mode of delivering PI were significantly higher than the MOI scores in either mode of delivery. PI was a more effective intervention for teaching the Italian subjunctive of doubt and opinion as measured by the interpretation task. The statistical analyses of the production scores revealed no significant differences between the scores for the four treatments indicating an average improvement between 54 percent and 63 percent. Both delivery modes and both instruction types were equally effective for helping learners to produce subjunctive forms in the context of expressions of doubt and opinion. Learners who receive PI, during which they do not produce the target form, are equally able to produce the target form as those who receive MOI, during which learners repeatedly produce the target form. Lee and Benati (2007a) also examined the French subjunctive of doubt. Sixty-one learners participated. They were all enrolled in a beginning-level, university French language class. All were native speakers of English. The learners were assigned to one of the same four treatment conditions as Lee and Benati used for examining the Italian subjunctive. A pretest/posttest design was used to evaluate results. Learners received instruction across two consecutive class periods for a total of four hours. After receiving instruction in PI or MOI, in class or online, learners then performed an interpretation and a production posttest. The results of the interpretation test revealed that mode of delivery did not affect the outcome of PI. Classroom and computer delivery of PI is equally effective. The results also showed that learners who received PI performed significantly better than those who received MOI, no matter the mode of delivery.

Processing Instruction: Experimental Research

81

The improvement for the PI groups was higher (59 percent and 67 percent) than that for the MOI groups (6 percent and 18 percent). Finally, mode of delivery was a significant factor among the MOI groups. The MOI classroom group significantly outperformed the MOI computer group. The mean scores on the production posttest ranged from 48 percent to 61 percent across the four treatment groups. The statistical analyses of the production scores revealed no significant difference for mode of delivering PI or MOI nor did it reveal any significant difference between the two types of instruction. Each mode and each instruction type was equally effective for helping learners to produce subjunctive forms in the context of expressions of doubt and opinion. Once again, learners who receive PI, during which they do not produce the target form, are equally able to produce the target form as those who receive MOI, during which learners repeatedly produce the target form (Table 3.8).

Assessment The main question addressed by these studies was: can computers deliver effective PI? The answer is affirmative. The studies presented in this section compared modes of delivering PI. The results confirmed that PI can be delivered equally effectively via computer to individuals or in classrooms to groups of students.

E. Processing Instruction Compared to Aurally/Textually Enhanced Structured Input Activities The first study Lee and Benati (2007b) addressed whether additional input enhancement techniques would make SIA even more beneficial to learners. Would intake of grammatical forms be greater from enhanced SIA compared to the intake from ordinary, unenhanced SIA? The results of this study are summarized in Table 3.9. To enhance aural activities, the instructor raised his voice on the target form and produced the

82

Table 3.8 Main conceptual replications of studies measuring Processing Instruction delivered via different modes Linguistic feature/ Language

Processing principle

Subjects/L1

Number

Design

Tests

Results

Lee and Benati 2007a

French and Italian Subjunctive

Lexical Preference Sentence Location Preference for Nonredundancy Meaning-BeforeNonmeaning

Intermediate English native

47

Pretest Posttests Immediate and Delayed

Interpretation (Aural) Production (Written)

Int. = PI = PIcomp > (MOI = MOIcomp) Prod.= PI = Picomp = MOI comp

PI = Processing Instruction. MOI = Meaning-based Output Instruction. Int. = Interpretation test. Prod. = Production test.

Table 3.9 Original study Study

Linguistic feature/ Language

Processing principle

Subjects/L1

Number

Design

Tests

Results

Lee and Benati 2007b

Italian noun-adjective gender agreement

Preference for Non Redundancy Meaning-BeforeNonmeaning

Beginners English Native

20

Pretest Posttests Immediate

Interpretation (Aural) Production (Written)

SIA = SIAE SIA = SIAE

SIA = Structured Input Activities. SIAE = Structured Input Activities Enhanced.

Processing Instruction and Discourse

Study

Processing Instruction: Experimental Research

83

form with more muscular tension. The two enhancements were that the form was louder and tenser. To enhance written activities, the target forms were underlined and printed in bold face type. Lee and Benati (2007b) conducted their first study measuring the effects of these enhancement techniques on the acquisition of noun-adjective gender agreement in Italian. This feature is mainly affected by two principles: The Preference for Nonredundancy Principle (P 1c) and the Meaning-Before-Nonmeaning Principle (P 1d). Twenty university students who scored under 60 percent in their pretest were randomly assigned to one of two groups: SIA group and the SIA enhancements group. The immediate posttest was administered at the end of a four hour instructional period. The materials and the tests were the same used in the original study on Italian noun-adjective agreement (Benati, 2004b). The original SIA materials were modified for the enhanced version. Both aural and written stimuli were enhanced in the SIA activities for the second group. The sentence-level aural interpretation test contained 20 audiotaped sentences. Ten sentences were target items and the other ten sentences served as distracters. Participants were required to listen to each sentence and then determine which person or object was being described. Correct responses were given 1 point and each incorrect one 0 points for a maximum score of 10. The results of the interpretation test revealed that both groups improved significantly from pretest to posttest and that the two groups improved equally. There was no statistically significant difference between the posttest scores. Their improvement measured on the posttest ranged from 46 percent to 47 percent. In the sentence-level written production test, participants were required to complete a passage by producing the correct form of the adjective provided in brackets. There were ten items. Participants were given 1 point for a correct agreement and 0 points for an incorrect one. The total maximum score was 10 points. The result of the production test confirmed the results of the interpretation test as both groups improved significantly from pretest to posttest and that they improved equally. Their improvement measured on the posttest ranged from 37 percent to 39 percent.

84

Processing Instruction and Discourse

Follow-up studies Lee and Benati (2007b) conducted two other studies in an attempt to generalize the results of their first study. These studies are summarized in Table 3.10. In their first follow-up study they compared the effectiveness of SIA and enhanced treatment of SIA on the acquisition of Italian future tense verb morphology. The target form is affected by the processing problem called the Lexical Preference Principle (P 1b). Twenty university students studying Italian as part of their degree participated. All were native speakers of English. They were assigned to one of two different treatment groups after being administered a pretest using both interpretation and production tasks. One group received ordinary SIA and the other enhanced SIA. The materials and the tests were the same used in the original study of Italian future tense verb morphology (Benati, 2001). The immediate posttest was administered at the end of the two-day instructional period (four hours in total). The sentence-level aural interpretation test consisted of 20 sentences. Ten sentences were future tense and the other ten sentences were present tense. These served as distracters. Participants were required to listen to each sentence and establish whether the sentence referred to a present or future event. They were given 1 point for each correct interpreted sentence and 0 points for incorrect ones. Distracters were not included in the score. The results confirmed the results of the original study. Both groups made significant improvement from the pretest to posttest and gained equally on the interpretation test. The improvement in the two groups was very similar and ranged from 42 percent to 49 percent. In the sentence-level written production task participants were required to complete a written text with the correct future tense forms of the verbs provided in brackets. There were ten items in the test and participants were given 1 point for producing a correct form and 0 points for incorrect ones. The maximum possible score was again 10 points. The results of the written production tests showed that the two groups made significant gains from the pretest and the posttest and that they gained equally. Their improvement was approximately 41 percent.

Main replications of Processing Instruction with Enhancements

Study

Linguistic feature/ Processing principle Subjects/L1 Language

Lee and Benati 2007b

Italian Future tense

Lexical Preference

Lee and Benati 2007 b

Japanese Past tense

Lexical Preference

Beginners Italian Native

Design

Tests

Results

20 Beginners te English native

Pretest Posttests Immediate

Interpretation (Aural) Production (Written)

SIA = SIAE

26

Pretest Posttests Immediate

Interpretation (Aural) Production (Written)

Int. = (SIA = SIAE) > C Prod. = (SIA = SIAE) > C

Number

Int. = Interpretation test. Prod. = Production test. C = Control group. SIA = Structured Input Activities. SIAE = Structured Input Activities Enhanced.

Processing Instruction: Experimental Research

Table 3.10

85

86

Processing Instruction and Discourse

In a further study Lee and Benati (2007b) demonstrated again that both SIA and enhanced SIA had similar positive effects on the acquisition of Japanese past tense verb morphology. This grammatical feature is affected by the Lexical Preference Principle (P 1b). The 26 participants were all learning Japanese in an Italian private language school in Italy. All were native speakers of Italian. The participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups: the ordinary SIA group; the enhanced SIA group; and, a C group. They received four hours of instruction. A pretest and posttest procedure was used and the immediate posttest was administered immediately after the end of the instructional period. A delayed posttest was also administered one week later. Materials for this experiment were developed following SIA guidelines (Lee and VanPatten, 1995, 2003). Two tests were developed for this study. The sentence-level aural interpretation task consisted of 20 sentences, which contained no lexical temporal items to indicate tense. Ten sentences were in the past tense and the other ten were distracters that described present events. The participants were required to listen to each sentence and establish whether the action had taken place in the past or was taking place in the present. For any correct interpretation 1 point was given, but only the sentences in the past tense were scored. A correct answer was given 1 point and any incorrect answer was scored 0 points for a maximum possible score of 10 points. The results of this test revealed that both SIA groups (enhanced and unenhanced) improved significantly and were significantly better than the C group. The two groups made gains which ranged from 50 percent and 51 percent in the first posttest. This improvement was maintained in the second posttest at around 43 percent. There were no significant differences between the scores of the two groups who received SIA. The sentence-level written production test contained ten sentences. Participants were required to complete each sentence producing the correct past tense form in Japanese. A correct sentence with the correct form was given 1 point and an incorrect form was given 0 points. The results from the production test revealed that both instructional groups performed significantly better than the control

Processing Instruction: Experimental Research

87

group. There were no significant differences between the performance of the ordinary SIA group and the enhanced group. The gains in the first posttest ranged from 40 percent to 42 percent and in the second posttest the gains were maintained, ranging from 37 percent to 42 percent.

Assessment The findings from this line of research have demonstrated that enhanced SIA practice is not more effective than unenhanced SIA in promoting grammatical development in L2 learners. Textual and aural enhancements did not bring about greater improvement in learners’ performances. These enhancements did not make the targeted input more salient to the learners. SIA, enhanced or unenhanced, are effective in promoting L2 grammatical development. Practicing using SIA is effective in addressing processing problems and helps L2 learners to make correct form–meaning connections.

F. Processing Instruction Measured via Discourse Level Production Tasks Original study VanPatten and Sanz (1995) set out to investigate whether the effects of PI observed on sentence-level tasks in a previous study, that is, VanPatten and Cadierno (1993), could be obtained on discourselevel production tasks. This study is summarized in Table 3.11. The subject pool consisted of fort-four students of Spanish in their third semester of a university program. The subjects were randomly assigned to one of two groups: a PI group and a C group. Pretest and posttest procedure was adopted. VanPatten and Sanz used a version of VanPatten and Cadierno’s sentence-level interpretation task to identify a subject pool. Only learners who showed a gain on the interpretation test after treatment remained in the subject pool for the analyses of the production tasks. The focus of instruction was the same as in VanPatten and Cadierno’s study (1993), preverbal object

88

Original study examining the discourse-level effects of Processsing Instruction

Study

Linguistic feature/ Language

Processing principle

Subjects/L1

Number

Design

Tests

Results

Van Patten and Sanz 1995

Spanish Preverbal object pronouns

First Noun Principle

Intermediate English native

44

Pretest Posttests Immediate

Interpretation (Aural) Production Sentence and discourse level Oral and Written mode

Int. = PI>C Prod. = PI > C

PI = Processing Instruction. C = Control group. Int. = Interpretation test. Prod. = Production test.

Processing Instruction and Discourse

Table 3.11

Processing Instruction: Experimental Research

89

pronouns in Spanish. This form is affected by the First Noun Principle (P2). The explanation and practices used were the same as in the original study (VanPatten and Cadierno, 1993). The effects of instruction were measured on three different production tasks presented in two different modes: sentence-level production; a structured question-answer interview; and, a videobased narration task. The modes used were oral and written. The sentence-level production test was based on the one VanPatten and Cadierno (1993) had used. The test contained 14 sentences of which 8 sentences were critical items and 6 sentences were distracters. The question-answer interview was based on a series of pictures. Learners answered 11 questions about the pictures. Of the 11 questions, 7 were target items. For the third task, subjects had to recount the events they saw in a two-minute video clip. The video story contained seven connected events/episodes. VanPatten and Sanz (1995) created two versions of each task. For one version, subjects responded orally. For the other version, they responded in writing. Overall the results of the statistical analyses showed that the PI group improved significantly on all three tasks from pretest to posttest. The C group did not improve. The PI group performed significantly better in the written mode than in the oral mode on the sentence-level task and the video-narration task. There was no difference between modes on the question-answer task. VanPatten and Sanz (1995) went on to analyze the findings from the two modes separately but excluded the question-answer task from further analysis due to extremely low scores. They found that the PI group made significant gains in scores on the written sentence-level task and the written video-narration task. The control subjects did not. They also found that in the oral mode the PI group made significant gains on the sentence-level task but not on the video-narration task. The C group did not make gains on either task.

Other studies Cheng (2002) carried out an investigation to measure the effects of PI on the acquisition of the copular verbs ser and estar in Spanish as

90

Processing Instruction and Discourse

measured by sentence-level and discourse-level tasks. The results are summarized in Table 3.12. The relevant processing principle was the Preference for Nonredundancy Principle as copular verbs in Spanish are of low communicative value for L2 learners and redundant features of Spanish. Eighty-three subjects studying fourth-semester Spanish at the undergraduate level participated in this study. Subjects were assigned to one of three groups: PI group; TI group; and, a control group. Cheng used a pretest and posttest procedure to evaluate results. She developed three types of tests: sentence-level interpretation; sentence-level production; and, guided written composition. The sentence-level interpretation test consisted of aural stimuli. Four sentences included ser and six sentences included estar. Participants were required to match a sentence with a correct picture and to match a sentence to a situation written in English. Maximum score for this test was 10 points. A correct answer was given 1 point and incorrect one 0 points. The sentence-level written production test contained ten target items; four sentences with ser and six sentences with estar. The participants read a dialog in Spanish and were then required to complete a sentence using ser or estar. A similar scoring procedure as in the previous test was used. The second written-production test was a guided composition task. Participants were required to describe a series of pictures that narrated a story. Twelve key adjectives were provided with the drawings. Participants were instructed to use all 12 adjectives, 5 requiring ser and 7 requiring estar, in their compositions. The following results refer only to the analyses of learners’ use of estar in the assessment tasks. The results from this study indicated that PI is an effective form of instruction at helping learners to interpret sentences correctly. The PI group significantly outperformed the control group on the immediate interpretation posttest. The PI group and the TI group performed equally well although the scores of the TI group were not significantly different from that of the C group. At the delayed posttest Cheng found no significant differences between the three groups’ scores. The PI group performed as well as the TI group on the sentence-level production task. There was no significant difference in scores between the two groups on either posttest. The results on the guided composition task are that the PI and TI groups

Main replications (Processing Instruction measured with discourse-level production task)

Study

Linguistic feature/ Processing Language principle

Cheng 2004 Spanish copular

Primacy of meaning Principle Preference for Nonredundancy

Subjects/L1

Number

Design

Tests

Beginners English native

83

Pretest Posttests Immediate and Delayed

Interpretation Int. = PI > (TI = C) (Aural) Prod. = (PI = TI) > C Production Sentence and discourse level

PI = Processing Instruction. TI = Traditional Instruction. C = Control group. Int. = Interpretation test. Prod. = Production test.

Results

Processing Instruction: Experimental Research

Table 3.12

91

92

Processing Instruction and Discourse

performed equally well. The surprise finding is that the C group’s performance improved significantly from pretest to the two posttests. Cheng (2004) has further analyzed the results of the guided composition data. Among her analyses is the rate at which learners produced tokens of estar, not whether the use was correct or incorrect. Cheng found that both PI and TI groups produced more tokens of estar than the C group. The scores of the two instructional groups were not, however, significantly different from each other. The PI group and the TI group produced significantly more tokens of estar, increasing between 20 percent and 28 percent compared to the C group whose increase ranged 6 percent to 10 percent in the first and second posttests.

Assessment The findings of VanPatten and Sanz’s 1995 study showed that PI is an effective type of instruction even when measured on less controlled tasks and on tasks that require learners to produce discourse. Although the results of this study seem to emphasize the fact that altering the processing strategies used by L2 learners when they are processing input leads to a change in knowledge which is available for use in different types and modes of production tasks, the effects of PI were more significant in more controlled oral tasks (completion task) rather than less controlled ones (video-narration task). Having said that, this study provided further evidence on the positive effects of PI in syntax (object pronouns and word-order) and the fact that the effects are observable in more communicative and discourseoriented types of tasks rather than only sentence-level tasks. Cheng’s (2002; 2004) findings also indicate that the effects of PI are measurable at the discourse level.

Conclusion In this chapter we have reviewed a large database of research which has investigated the effects of PI. The results of all the original studies, replications, conceptual replications, and follow-up studies have

Processing Instruction: Experimental Research

93

provided the following outcomes as far as the role and effectiveness of PI: 1. PI is an effective approach to grammar instruction in different languages (e.g., French, Italian, Japanese, English, and Spanish) and grammatical forms/structures (e.g., nominal morphology, verbal morphology, and syntactic features); 2. PI is an effective form of grammar instruction for different levels of proficiency (e.g., beginners and intermediate); different populations (e.g., adult and school-age learners); and learners from different L1s (e.g., English native speakers, Italian native speakers, and Chinese native speakers); 3. PI is an effective form of intervention in altering inappropriate processing strategies (e.g., First Noun Principle; Lexical Preference Principle; and Preference for Nonredundancy Principle) and instilling appropriate ones; 4. L2 learners receiving PI make greater and statistically significant improvement in sentence-level interpretation tasks than do L2 learners receiving other approaches to grammar instruction in an interpretation sentence-level task. 5. L2 learners receiving PI perform in an equal way to L2 learners receiving output-based instructional approaches in a sentencelevel production task (written or oral). 6. L2 learners receiving PI improve in their ability to produce discourse-level output (oral and written mode); 7. Online and classroom delivery of PI are equally effective means of delivering this type of grammar instruction; 8. SIA are the causative factor in the success of PI; and, 9. Enhanced and unenhanced SIA are equally effective in helping learners process different grammatical forms (e.g., verbal markers and gender agreement).

This page intentionally left blank

Part Two

Processing Instruction and Discourse

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter 4

Exploring the Effects of Processing Instruction on a Discourse-level Guided Composition with the Spanish Subjunctive after the Adverb Cuando with Erin M. McNulty

Introduction Several investigations on the effects of PI on L2 development have examined subjunctive mood verbal morphology. To date, they have all examined what is popularly termed in pedagogical grammars the subjunctive of doubt (Farley 2001a, 2001b, 2004a, 2004b; Lee and Benati 2007a, 2007b). What grammarians call complex sentences are those that contain independent and dependent clauses, or main and subordinate clauses. The terminology illustrates certain grammatical interrelationships. For Italian and other Romance languages (French, Spanish) when the semantic intent of the independent clause expresses doubt, disbelief, uncertainty or, in some languages, opinion, then the verb in the dependent clause must be in the subjunctive mood. In other words, the semantics of the independent clause triggers the form of the verb in the dependent clause. Note the following example; the subjunctive form is in bold typeface. (1) Dubito che Alessandro sia intelligente. I doubt that Alessandro is intelligent. The subjunctive mood is encoded morphologically and is distinct in form from the indicative mood. If the semantic intent of the

98

Processing Instruction and Discourse

independent clause expresses knowledge, affirms or asserts belief, or certainty, then the verb in the dependent clause must be in the indicative mood; the indicative verb form is in bold typeface. (2) So che Alessandro e intelligente. I know that Alessandro is intelligent. One of the processing difficulties learners may face with this use of the subjunctive is the lexically based semantic information found in the verb phrase in the independent clause. The meaning that learners search for is found there and is found in the preferred lexical form. Learners’ preference for finding meaning in lexical items is captured in VanPatten’s Lexical Preference Principle. Lexical Preference Principle: If grammatical forms express a meaning that can also be encoded lexically (i.e., that grammatical marker is redundant), then learners will not initially process those grammatical forms until they have lexical forms to which they can match them (VanPatten 2007, 117). Because both the subjunctive and the indicative forms, sia and e, respectively, mean the same thing the forms themselves only convey referential meaning. They both mean is. The overall semantics of the utterance is rendered by the lexical meaning of the verb in the independent clause, not by the formal properties of the verb in the dependent clause. Another of the potential processing difficulties learners face with this use of subjunctive mood morphology is its lack of meaning. VanPatten’s processing principle P 1d captures this processing problem. P 1d. The Meaning-Before-Nonmeaning Principle: Learners are more likely to process meaningful grammatical forms before nonmeaningful forms irrespective of redundancy (VanPatten 2004b: 11). Another potential processing problem facing L2 learners is that subjunctive mood verb morphology can also be seen as redundant. Due to the cross-clausal interrelationship and that Romance languages

Composition with the Spanish Subjunctive

99

read left to right, the subjunctive morphology is a redundant marker. VanPatten addressed redundancy in his processing principle P 1c. P 1c. The Preference for Nonredundancy Principle: Learners are more likely to process nonredundant meaningful grammatical form before they process redundant meaningful forms (VanPatten 2004b: 11). In addition to the processing problems presented by nonmeaningfulness and redundancy, subjunctive verb morphology generally occurs in an unfavorable processing location. Note the positioning of the subjunctive morphology in bold typeface in the following sentence: (3) Je ne crois pas qu’elle comprenne la situation. I do not believe she understands the situation. Barcroft and VanPatten (1997) have shown that grammatical items in sentence-initial and sentence-final position are processed more easily than items in sentence-medial position. Other studies support this contention (Klein, 1986; Rosa and O’Neill 1998). VanPatten (2002, 2004b) hypothesizes that these locations are favored or disfavored due to processing resources. “Elements at the beginning are, by definition, the first on which available resources are applied to process an input string. If the resources are constrained then that means the resources may be gobbled up to process that initial item(s) and may not be available for medial items. As the learner approaches the end of the input string (i.e., once again redirects attention to processing the string), the resources may now be available and thus an element in final position gets processed or has chances of being processed” (VanPatten 2004: 13). The position of the subjunctive verb form in the dependent clauses is such that processing resources might not be available. VanPatten (2004b) has captured this processing problem in principle P 1f. P 1f. The Sentence Location Principle: Learners tend to process items in sentence-initial position before those in final position and those in medial position (VanPatten 2004b:14).

100

Processing Instruction and Discourse

McNulty (2010) is the first work, to our knowledge, to explore a use of the subjunctive other than that with expressions of doubt and uncertainty. The present study is an extension of her work. How does the Spanish subjunctive after cuando function?

The Target Form and Associated Processing Problems In Spanish, we find a possible subjunctive/indicative contrast after the temporal adverb cuando. This adverb is one of several in which the contrast can occur. Our instruction focused only on cuando. The use of cuando indicates that the event described using subjunctive verb morphology is something that the speaker is anticipating will happen or that it might not. The speaker can express uncertainty that the event will take place or simply that the event will take place in the future. Note the following sentence in which the subjunctive morphology is in bold typeface: (4) Cuando le toque la lotería, va a comprar una casa. When he wins the lottery, he is going to buy a house. The English translation does not offer the same insights into the event as Spanish subjunctive morphology does. The Spanish indicates that winning the lottery might or might not happen and that we are uncertain as to when it might happen. The following example shows the subjunctive form in bold typeface: (5) Mañana Jorge descansa cuando termine su trabajo. Tomorrow Jorge rests [will rest] when he finishes his work. We can interpret this sentence as follows: The speaker asserts that Jorge will rest tomorrow yet expresses uncertainty as to when that will happen by using the subjunctive form. For example, will he finish work at 2:00 or at 4:00? The contrast with indicative is that the use of the indicative expresses that an event is habitual.

Composition with the Spanish Subjunctive

101

(6) Todos los días Jorge descansa cuando termina su trabajo. Every day Jorge rests when he finishes work. Note that the English translations of descanse and descansa, subjunctive and indicative forms, respectively, is the same, that is, finishes. In the present study, we will focus on the idea that the subjunctive form expresses uncertainty as to when an action or event will occur whereas the indicative form expresses a habitual event or action. What processing problems might L2 learners encounter with the use of the subjunctive after cuando to indicate uncertainty of time? More so than the subjunctive of doubt, the subjunctive/indicative contrast after cuando is potentially affected by the Lexical Preference Principle. The lexical temporal adverbs mañana and todos los días in examples 5 and 6 co-occur with subjunctive and indicative verb morphology. If such lexical indicators were in the input, learners might prefer to use or attend to them rather than the verb morphology to interpret the sentences correctly. In creating structured input for the learners to process, we removed such lexical indicators from the input. Removing the lexical temporal indicators increases the forms’ meaningfulness. The target form is an unstressed vowel. As examples 5 and 6 (given earlier) show, learners could be affected by the Sentence Location Principle as they attempt to process this unstressed vowel. The target form is embedded in the latter part of the sentence and is followed by other words. Yet, as can be seen in example 4, the positioning of the dependent clause is flexible; it can begin the sentence. This is a more favored processing position. In structuring input for the learners to process, we present sentences with the target form nearer to initial position.

Previous PI Research on the Subjunctive (of Doubt, Uncertainty, Opinion) Previous investigations of the effects of PI on the acquisition of subjunctive verb morphology have all investigated one use of the

102

Processing Instruction and Discourse

subjunctive in Romance languages, the pedagogically termed subjunctive of doubt. The results are consistent. All investigations have demonstrated that PI brings about significant improvement on learners’ performance on interpretation and production tasks (Farley 2001, 2004a, 2004b; Lee and Benati 2007a, 2007b; and Benati, Lee, and Laval 2008). Each of the studies uses a pretest + treatment + posttest design and employs the repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) as the principal statistical procedure to evaluate results. In each of these works, the pretests indicated that the various treatment groups were equivalent. This means that all the groups started out with the same knowledge so that any differences found after receiving treatments would be taken as an effect of the treatment. We now review each of these studies. Farley (2001a) compared the effects of PI and MOI on Spanish subjunctive of doubt. He found that the PI group significantly outperformed the MOI group on the interpretation test; but that the two groups performed equally well on the production test. This finding is the prototypical one in PI research (Lee and Benati, 2009). In Farley (2004a) he replicated his 2001 study but with a greater number of participants, sixty-seven instead of twenty-nine. This time he found no differences between the effects of the PI and MOI groups on either the interpretation or production task. Both groups improved significantly and performed equally well. This finding with the MOI group is unique among the other studies of the subjunctive that examine MOI. Farley (2004b) examined the relative effects of full PI and SI on the acquisition of Spanish subjunctive. Both groups made significant improvement on the interpretation and production tasks, but the full PI group made greater gains than the SI group. This finding is unique among the other PI studies that have found equal effects for full PI and SI (VanPatten and Oikennon 1996; Benati 2004a, 2004b; and Wong 2004b). Lee and Benati (2007a) investigated the effects of PI and MOI, delivered either in classrooms or on computers, on the acquisition of Italian and French subjunctive of doubt/opinion. The significant main effects and significant interactions for the two languages were identical. As a main effect, those learners who received PI performed

Composition with the Spanish Subjunctive

103

significantly better than those who received MOI on the interpretation test. Both treatment groups performed equally well on the production test. These findings are the prototypical PI results. As a main effect, we found no significant differences on either the interpretation or production scores between those who received classroom instruction and those who received individualized computer instruction. The post hoc analyses showed that the PI classroom groups for Italian and French performed equally as well as the PI computer groups on the interpretation and production tasks. These analyses revealed that the MOI classroom group performed significantly better than the MOI computer group on the interpretation task but equally well on the production task. The French MOI groups performed equally well on both interpretation and production tasks. Lee and Benati (2007a) concluded that PI was a more effective instructional treatment than MOI given the differences on the interpretation test. They also concluded that computer delivery of PI was an effective way in which to deliver instruction in that computer delivery in laboratories provides the same results as the instructor delivery in classrooms and that computers can effectively deliver PI. Lee and Benati (2007b) investigated the effects of PI and textually enhanced PI on the acquisition of Italian subjunctive of doubt/ opinion. Additionally, the enhanced PI material was delivered either in a classroom or via computer in a laboratory. In the two enhanced PI treatments the target forms received acoustic enhancement (louder and tenser) if the input was aural or textual enhancement (bold typeface) if the input was written. We found no statistically significant differences across the three treatment groups on either production or interpretation tests. We did find a significant effect for Time indicating that all three groups improved significantly from pre- to posttest. All three types of PI were equally effective at improving learners’ interpretation and production of Italian subjunctive forms. Lee and Benati (2007b) concluded that structured input could not effectively be enhanced any more than it was by virtue of being structured input. Structuring the input makes the form as salient to the learner as the form can be. Additionally, they concluded that computers could deliver PI in laboratories to individual learners

104

Processing Instruction and Discourse

just as effectively as classroom teachers could to groups of learners; a conclusion that echoes their previous work (Lee and Benati 2007a). Benati, Lee, and Laval (2008) examined learners’ progress with French subjunctive of doubt as a side effect of being instructed on French past imperfective verb morphology. That is, they sought to find any secondary effects of PI. The learners took interpretation and production pretests on the two verb forms, subjunctive and imperfect. Then, learners received a treatment (either PI, TI) or the Control group who received no treatment on French past imperfect. The treatments were followed immediately by posttesting on the two verb forms. They found that the PI group significantly outperformed the TI and Control groups on the interpretation test for past imperfect verb morphology. They found that the PI and TI groups improved equally as much on the production of past imperfect verb morphology and that both groups significantly outperformed the Control group. When it came to measuring the secondary effects on the French subjunctive verb morphology, they found that the PI group significantly outperformed the TI and Control groups on both the interpretation and production posttests. They concluded that PI was a superior type of intervention in that it yielded both interpretation and production differences on the primary target (past imperfect) as well as the same differences on the secondary target (subjunctive). They do note that direct PI on the French subjunctive yields higher posttest scores than those obtained measuring secondary effects. Nonetheless, that PI has been shown to produce secondary effects corroborates VanPatten’s (1996: 8) claim that PI affects learners’ developing systems. All the studies reviewed above examined one particular use of subjunctive verb morphology albeit across three Romance languages— Italian, Spanish, and French. The present study expands on this database by examining a different use of the subjunctive. Additionally, all the studies reviewed above tested for interpretation and production effects only at the sentence level. The present study also assesses sentence-level interpretation and production, but expands on this database by including a discourse-level guided composition task as an additional means of examining the effects of PI on learner development.

Composition with the Spanish Subjunctive

105

Research Questions Previous research has consistently demonstrated the positive effects of PI with Spanish, Italian, and French subjunctive used in the context of expression of doubt/uncertainty in the main clause. The question we address is whether PI will also be effective on another use of the subjunctive. In the present study we examine only PI and do not examine other types of intervention. As Collentine (2004: 180) stated, in determining whether PI retrains learners’ processing mechanisms it may not be necessary to compare it to other types of instruction. So, for the present study we chose to focus only on the effects of PI to address whether it brought about changes in the learners’ developing systems that were evidenced via a discourse-level production task. We address the following research questions: 1. Will there be positive effects for PI on the Spanish subjunctive after the adverbial cuando as measured by a sentence-level interpretation task? 2. Will there be positive effects for PI on the Spanish subjunctive after the adverbial cuando as measured by a sentence-level form production task? 3. Will there be positive effects for PI on the Spanish subjunctive after the adverbial cuando as measured by a discourse-level guided composition task?

Method Participants All participants were enrolled in the first semester of an intermediatelevel Spanish class at the University of New South Wales, Sydney. The lecturer for this course was one of the researchers, who delivered some of the instruction as well as carried out the pre- and posttesting in the regularly scheduled weekly lecture. The tutor for this course was not one of the researchers and she delivered the instruction in the tutorial. The original data pool consisted of 93 possible subjects. Our original intention was to screen subjects as has been done in all

106

Processing Instruction and Discourse

previous research on PI for homogeneity of native language and language experience (Lee 2004, Lee and Benati, 2009). Specifically, we originally sought to examine only native speakers of English who had no other language experience except to have studied beginning-level Spanish. Given the nature of the population that studies Spanish at the university level in Australia, where language study is not compulsory, this sort of monolingual population is rather small. We did screen subjects for other factors as has been done in all other PI research. No participant reported a hearing impairment. All participants included in the final data analyses completed all the pretests and scored 50 percent or less on the three different types of tasks. There were two sentence-level interpretation tasks, two sentence-level production tasks, and two discourse-level guided compositions. These same tasks with subjunctive/indicative items reversed were administered as posttests. The participants included in the final data analyses also completed all six tasks as posttests. Additionally, all participants included in the final analyses completed all tasks during the presentation of explicit information and during the in-class tutorial phase of the treatment. The target grammatical item was the use of the Spanish subjunctive or indicative after the adverb cuando. In terms of the regular classroom materials, that is, the textbook, this was the first presentation of the subjunctive in the course. The forms had not been presented previously nor had any other use of the subjunctive been introduced. The materials from the previous semester of beginning-level Spanish do not include the subjunctive. Most of the participants had studied beginning Spanish at this university. Some had placed directly into intermediate Spanish. For some, then, ours was their first exposure to the subjunctive. As we will now explain, our population is not one that we would characterize as naive language learners. Given these various requirements, the number of subjects whose native language is English and who studied no other language than beginning-level Spanish numbered 15. This number is rather small in size and so a decision was taken to expand the subject population. In one other study of PI the researchers included five participants whose native language was English but who had studied languages in addition to Spanish (Lee, Benati with Águilar-Sánchez and McNulty

Composition with the Spanish Subjunctive

107

2007). In this study they found through statistical testing that the five participants who had studied languages in addition to Spanish performed no differently than the participants who had studied only Spanish. We took the decision to include the same type of participants. We expanded the pool to include not only the participants whose native language was English and who had only studied beginning-level Spanish but also those whose native language was English and had studied other languages in addition to English. This latter group numbered 14. As we went through the data, we found another small group, that is, those whose native language was not English but who had completed all elements of the pre- and posttesting as well as the instructional treatment. This group numbered seven. The language profiles of the 36 participants are provided in Appendix A. As will be shown below, there were no statistically significant differences between the three groups’ performance on three of the four pretests. To our knowledge, this study is the first piece of PI research that uses the language background of the participants as a variable as opposed to using language background for screening purposes. We add, therefore, the following research question to our list. 4. Are there differential effects for PI on the Spanish subjunctive after the adverbial cuando for participants of different language backgrounds as measured by a sentence-level interpretation task, sentence-level form production task, and a discourse-level guided composition task?

Procedures All participants were enrolled in the first semester of intermediate Spanish. The instructional format was to provide a two hour lecture to all students enrolled in the class and combine that with smaller breakout tutorials. The lecture took place on Wednesdays. The lecture focused on grammatical explanation that would then be practiced the following week in the tutorials. The tutorials were scheduled for Mondays and Wednesdays. We presented our target grammatical item, subjunctive after the adverb cuando, around the usual presentation and practice timetable for the class.

108

Processing Instruction and Discourse

All participants received the same instruction beginning with the presentation of explicit information in the large lecture format as well as the practices in the lecture format and in the smaller group tutorials. The instruction lasted two days for a total of approximately three hours with the practices spread out over the two days. Given syllabus/course program constraints, the post testing took place 7–9 days after the in-class practices took place. The constraint was that other required course material had to be covered such that 45 minutes of testing could not take place at that time. We could, in a sense, call this delayed post testing since it did not take place immediately after instruction. We do not feel that the learners’ performance on the posttest was at all affected by the one week delay in post testing because previous PI research has revealed no diminished effects for one week, two weeks, or even one month following instruction. (For a review of the durative-term effects of PI, see Lee [2004] and Lee and Benati [2007b].) We present in Table 4.1 an overview of the timeline of the experimental procedures. Table 4.1 Overview of the experimental procedures Week 1

Week 2

Week 3

Pretesting in lecture 1. Interpretation 2. Production 3. Composition (45 min)

Instruction in lecture Practice in Explicit information tutorials (1 hour) plus practice (1 hour) (1 hour)

Week 4 Posttesting in lecture 1. Interpretation 2. Production 3. Composition (45 min)

Materials We adapted all the materials used in the present study, except the guided composition, from those McNulty developed (McNulty 2010). She prepared her instructional materials following the guidelines set forth in Lee and VanPatten (1995, 2003) for developing structured input activities. For the present study, we began with the explicit information the learners would receive. For PI, the explicit information learners receive consists of three types of information: the function of the target item; formation of the target item; and processing strategies. One challenge we faced in the present study was to adapt classroom instruction to a large lecture format. The grammatical

Composition with the Spanish Subjunctive

109

explanations for this class were always presented in the large lecture format and were done as a power point presentation. Because the students were accustomed to receiving explanation in this way, we decided to conform to this practice. This practice is a departure from all other PI research in which learners received packets of printed material. The lecturer, who was one of the researchers, adapted the explicit information from McNulty (2010) for lecturebased presentation. The 19 power point slides we used are included as Appendix B. They are too numerous to place here. As can be seen in the appendix, slides 2–11 provide information about the function of the subjunctive and indicative after the adverb cuando. We focused our materials on the difference between an uncertain future time and habitual actions or events. Slides 12–17 provide information about forming the subjunctive. The practices will focus on the third person singular but the explicit information did provide a more extensive presentation of the forms to include other persons. Because the explanation of the forms is based on a vowel alternation across infinitive types, we presented all three infinitive types (–ar, –er, –ir). Finally, slides 18 and 19 provide information about processing the subjunctive and indicative forms. The learners were told explicitly that we wanted them to learn to detect the difference between an –e and an –a in an unstressed final syllable. This vowel difference signaled the difference in meaning we provided in the initial part of the explanation, that is, the difference between uncertain future time and habitual actions or events. It took approximately one hour to make this presentation. The acoustics of the lecture hall are good, but the lecturer habitually wore a microphone when speaking. He did so for this presentation as well. As noted earlier, no participant reported a hearing impairment. We followed up the presentation with four referential activities for which learners had to detect the difference between an –e and an –a in an unstressed final syllable. Each activity contained 8 items for a total of 32 practice items. Two of the four activities provided written input and the other two provided aural input. We gave some consideration to the fact that we were going to deliver these activities in a lecture format where interaction between lecturer and individual students is restricted. We decided to present each item individually

110

Processing Instruction and Discourse

on a power point slide and to provide item. That is, a learner volunteered Actividad A.1, for which we delivered below. We gave the direction lines on activity was comprised of nine slides.

explicit feedback after each the answer. The items for written input, are provided their own slide so that this

ACTIVIDAD A.1 REFERENTIAL ACTIVITY LECTURE DELIVERY Choose the correct interpretation for each sentence. Remember, the form of the verb clues you into whether the time is uncertain or not. Since all the verbs are –ar verbs, an –e signals uncertainty whereas an –a signals certainty. 1. Cuando Juan toca la guitarra. . . a. We don’t know when Juan will play the guitar. b. Juan plays the guitar all the time. 2. Cuando Rosa cante con música. . . a. We don’t know when Rosa will sing with music. b. Rosa always sings with music. 3. Cuando Juan nade en el mar. . . a. We don’t know when Juan will swim in the sea. b. Juan swims in the sea every Friday. 4. Cuando el profesor manda (assigns) tarea. . . a. We don’t know when the professor will assign homework. b. The professor assigns homework all the time. 5. Cuando Eli llora durante la película. . . a. We don’t know when Eli will cry at the movie. b. Eli generally cries at the movie. 6. Cuando Miguel llame a Maria . . . a. We don’t know when Miguel will call Maria. b. Miguel calls Maria regularly. 7. Cuando Juan besa a Juanita. . . a. We don’t know when Juan will kiss Juanita. b. Juan kisses Juanita all the time.

Composition with the Spanish Subjunctive

111

8. Cuando la madre bañe al bebe. . . a. We don’t know when the mother will bathe the baby. b. The mother always bathes the baby. The individual items were presented on power point slide but the learners had a work sheet on which to record their answers. These worksheets were collected at the end of class. As can be seen in the worksheet we provide below for Actividad A.1, the learners indicated if they had the correct answer (¿La tenías correcta? Did you have it correct?), and at the end of the activity they totaled the number of correct answers. We felt this procedure would engage the learners a little more in the task; such that once they received feedback, they had to do something with it. The other three referential activities are provided in the appendix. There was a response tally on the worksheet to accompany each of these activities. WORKSHEET REFERENTIAL ACTIVITIES LECTURE DELIVERY Actividad A.1 Indica la respuesta correcta. Respuesta

¿La tenías correcta?

1.

a.

b.

sí

no

2.

a.

b.

sí

no

3.

a.

b.

sí

no

4.

a.

b.

sí

no

5.

a.

b.

sí

no

6.

a.

b.

sí

no

7.

a.

b.

sí

no

8.

a.

b.

sí

no

El total de respuestas correctas: ________

112

Processing Instruction and Discourse

In their tutorial groups that met the following week (Monday for two tutorials and Wednesday for the third) learners received a packet of materials. They were told that the materials were designed to follow up the lecture from the previous week. The packet contained 12 activities. The first 4 activities were of the referential type and contained 8 items each for a total of 32 referential items. These activities were quite similar to the ones they had performed after we presented the explicit information. The following 8 activities were of the affective type and contained 6 items each for a total of 48 affective items. Whereas these materials were based on those McNulty had prepared, we had more class time available to us in the present study than she had in hers (McNulty 2010). We were able, therefore, to add another step to most of the activities that helped promote the meaningfulness or communicativeness of the activity. This second step is one that we have found in Benati (2004a: 222) and Wong (2004b: 202). The learners are asked to evaluate or provide some sort of perspective on the information included in the activity. We offer below one such example from our materials; it is Actividad E, the first of the affective activities. Learners first had to determine if they thought their instructor would do something. Then, in Paso 2, they used a Likert scale to state how (dis)similar they were to the instructor. As we indicated, this step adds a layer of meaningfulness and makes the activity more communicative. The other in-class/tutorial materials are included in the appendix. Each of the affective activities ends with a Paso 2 that adds a layer of meaningfulness. ACTIVIDAD E AFFECTIVE ACTIVITY TUTORIAL DELIVERY Indicate whether, in your opinion, your instructor will do the following things. Note that opinion activities do not have a right or wrong answer. Keep in mind that the form of the verbs following cuando in 1–6 encodes the uncertainty of the time. 1. Cuando regrese a casa, tu instructor(a) va a tomar una copa de vino. sí no

Composition with the Spanish Subjunctive

113

2. Cuando lo necesite, tu instructor(a) va a limpiar su piso. sí no 3. Cuando no tome mucha cafeína, tu instructor(a) va a dormir bien. sí no 4. Cuando esté de vacaciones, tu instructor(a) va a tener más tiempo. sí no 5. Cuando compre zapatos deportivos nuevos, tu instructor(a) va a hacer más ejercicio. sí no 6. Cuando se acueste, tu instructor(a) va a lavarse los dientes. sí no PASO 2. Based on your answers, how similar are you to your instructor? Indicate your response on the following scale. not at all similar somewhat similar 1. 2. 3.

4.

completely similar 5.

Assessment instruments The pretests and posttests each consisted of two listening, two reading, and two composition tasks, presented in that order. One listening and one reading task assessed interpretation whereas the other listening and reading tasks evaluated form production. The composition tasks evaluated discourse-level form/function production. We used the same tasks and items in both the pretest and posttest. An important difference between the pretest and posttest items was that for the interpretation and form production tests, any item that was subjunctive or required a subjunctive form on the pretest was changed to indicative on the posttest and vice versa. Activity 1 Interpretation You will hear the first part of a sentence. Listen carefully and select the appropriate phrase that correctly completes each sentence.

114

Processing Instruction and Discourse

1. a. se pierde (gets lost). b. va a perderse (gets lost). 2. a. da un paseo. b. va a dar un paseo. 3. a. busca otro trabajo. b. va a buscar otro trabajo. 4. a. tiene que cocinar. b. va a tener que cocinar. 5. a. se siente mejor. b. va a sentirse mejor. 6. a. pierde mucho peso. b. va a perder mucho peso. Sentence fragments heard by learners for the pretest. The items with subjunctive forms are ticked for the convenience of the reader. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Cuando Carmen ande por la ciudad. . .√ Cuando Pilar termina su lectura. . . Cuando Juan regresa de España. . . Cuando Marta regrese de clase. . .√ Cuando Carmen se duche. . .√ Cuando Jorge practica un deporte. . .

Activity 2 Form Production You will hear the beginning of a sentence. Please write your ending to the sentence using the verb provided. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

. . . Jorge (regresar)_____________________________________. . . . él (escuchar)_______________________________________. . . . ella (necesitar)______________________________________. . . . ella (estudiar)_______________________________________. . . . él (celebrar)________________________________________. . . . él (pagar)__________________________________________.

Sentence fragments heard by learners for the pretest. The items requiring subjunctive forms are ticked for the convenience of the reader.

Composition with the Spanish Subjunctive 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

115

Mi madre le va a ayudar a Jorge cuando. . .√ Juana saca el perro cuando. . . Lola va a obtener un préstamo cuando. . .√ Lucía va a la biblioteca cuando. . . Jorge sale con sus amigos cuando. . . David va a tener poco dinero cuando. . .√

Activity 3 Interpretation (The items with subjunctive forms are ticked for the convenience of the reader.) Select the appropriate phrase that correctly completes each sentence. 1. Cuando el niño esté enfermo . . . √ a. llora. b. va a llorar. 2. Cuando Clara lleve su pesada mochila (backpack). . . √ a. la espalda (back) le duele. b. la espalda (back) va a dolerle. 3. Cuando Jorge mira un paisaje (landscape) bonito. . . a. saca una foto. b. va a sacar una foto. 4. Cuando Lucía está aburrida. . . a. escucha la radio. b. va a escuchar la radio. 5. Cuando Julia maneje rápidamente. . .√ a. recibe una multa (ticket). b. va a recibir una multa (ticket). 6. Cuando David admira a alguien. . . a. no habla mucho. b. no va a hablar mucho. Activity 4 Form Production Conjugate the verb in parentheses to correctly complete the sentence. (Items that require a subjunctive form are ticked for the convenience of the reader.)

116

Processing Instruction and Discourse

1. Pilar va a pagar $50 cuando ___________ (comprar) su libro. √ 2. David va a ganar mucho dinero cuando ____________ (trabajar) allí. √ 3. Cuando Carla ____________ (tomar) mucho café, no puede dormir bien. 4. Joaquín va a comprar un coche cuando ____________ (ahorrar; “save”) dinero. √ 5. Cuando Jorge ____________ (cocinar) algo con chocolate, le sale bien. 6. Cuando David ____________ (hablar) con sus amigos, se siente mejor. Cheng (2002, 2004) used guided composition to assess the effects of PI on the Spanish copula with predicate adjectives. Her task consisted of a series of pictures that learners had to describe. We were unable to develop a picture-based composition for the present study because we could not devise a simple visual means of expressing contingencies in the future. We did develop a guided composition in which we asked learners to consider future actions and the possible circumstances that might bring them about. We asked learners first to write about themselves and then change perspectives to write about their best friend. We provided a set of six circumstances for the learners to consider in each composition. Guided Composition 1 Use the following scenarios and circumstances to create a short composition about yourself and your future. You can invent other scenarios and circumstances to fit your life, but try to incorporate the ones provided. TEMA: What might you do in the future when the circumstances are right? Circunstancias

Escenarios

cuando + . . . tener más viajar por el mundo (travel the world) dinero

Composition with the Spanish Subjunctive . . .tener más tiempo . . .tener empleo seguro . . .graduarse . . .aprender a ___ . . .conocer a ___

117

trabajar en el extranjero (work abroad) estudiar en el extranjero (study abroad) llegar a ser cocinero (become a chef) comprar ropa nueva (buy new clothes) comprar un coche nuevo (buy a new car) casarse ( get married) tener hijos (have children)

En el futuro, cuando. . . ____________________________________ Guided Composition 2 Now write a similar paragraph, but this time do it with reference to your BEST FRIEND. What might he or she do in the future when the circumstances are right? Circunstancias cuando + . . .tener más dinero . . .tener más tiempo . . .tener empleo seguro . . .graduarse . . .aprender a ___ . . .conocer a ___

Escenarios viajar por el mundo (travel the world) trabajar en el extranjero (work abroad) estudiar en el extranjero (study abroad) llegar a ser cocinero (become a chef) comprar ropa nueva (buy new clothes) comprar un coche nuevo (buy a new car) casarse ( get married) tener hijos (have children)

En el futuro, cuando. . . ____________________________________

Scoring We scored the pretests and posttests only for correct use of the subjunctive items. Across the two interpretation tasks there were six target items as was the case across the two form production tasks. The highest score possible for interpretation or production was 6. To be included in the final analyses, the participants had to score

118

Processing Instruction and Discourse

50 percent or less on the combined interpretation tasks as well as 50 percent or less on the combined production tasks. We scored the combined guided compositions for the number of correct subjunctive forms used after the adverb cuando. We could say that in order to be included in the final analyses the learners had to score less than 50 percent on the guided compositions. As the means demonstrate, all but one learner scored 0 on the guided composition portion of the pretest. One learner produced one correct subjunctive form after cuando on the guided compositions. We also tallied for each learner the number of times they created a context with cuando that required subjunctive so that we could, if necessary, calculate percentages. We scored the three types of posttest tasks as we had the pretests, specifically, number of correct items. On the guided composition posttest we also tallied for each learner the number of times they created a context with cuando that required subjunctive. We had intended to use this figure only to calculate percentages. We noted, however, a fairly large and consistent difference between pretest and posttest in the number of contexts generated. We decided then to include contexts created as another dependent variable and so add another research question to our list. 5. Are there positive effects for PI on the Spanish subjunctive after the adverbial cuando in terms of the number of contexts learners create for using the target structure on a discourse-level guided composition task?

Results Means The means, expressed as raw scores, are provided in Table 4.1. They are first presented for each of the three groups of learners based on language background and are then presented as a group average (Total). As seen in Table 4.1, the posttest scores are higher than the pretest scores on each of the four dependent measures. The scores on each of the measures was submitted to a separate repeatedmeasures ANOVA for which the repeated measure was Time (pretest

Composition with the Spanish Subjunctive

119

vs. posttest) and the between-group variable was “language background.” The term “English” refers to those learners whose native language is English and who indicated that Spanish was the only other language they had studied or knew. We use “English+” to refer to those native speakers of English who had studied or knew languages other than Spanish. We use “Other” to refer to those participants whose native language is not English. All but one of these participants reported studying or knowing languages other than English. We conducted a series of one-way ANOVAs on the various pretest scores in order to determine that the three language background groups all started the experiment with equivalent knowledge of the target structure. If groups have the same or equivalent knowledge prior to treatment but emerge after the treatment with different levels of knowledge then we can attribute those changes to the treatments. We present a summary of the F statistics and p values that resulted from the one-way ANOVAS in Table 4.2. As can be seen in Table 4.2, the participants forming the three groups showed no statistically significant differences in their pretest scores on three of the four scores assessed. Their pretest scores were equivalent for interpretation, form production, and for the number of correct subjunctive forms produced after cuando on the guided composition. The one pretest score in which we found a statistically significant difference was in the number of contexts generated for using a subjunctive form after cuando. A post-hoc comparison of the means demonstrated that the nonnative speakers of English generated significantly more contexts for using a subjunctive form after cuando than did the two groups of native speakers of English. They did not, however, produce more correct forms than the other two groups. Despite this one significant difference and because of the three nonsignificant differences, we continued to pursue language background as a variable in the statistical analyses (Table 4.3).

Sentence-level interpretation data Having determined that there were no statistically significant differences between the three groups of learners on the pretests,

120

Table 4.2 Means, number of participants, and standard deviations for the various pre- and posttest scores Language English

Other

Total

Post Int

Pre Prod

Post Prod

Pre Correct

Post Correct

Pre Contexts

Post Contexts

Mean N

2.13 15

5.13 15

.07 15

5.07 15

.00 15

7.07 15

4.20 15

8.87 15

Std. Deviation

1.125

1.060

.258

1.100

.000

4.200

1.935

2.588

Mean

2.00

4.93

.00

4.57

.07

8.29

4.21

9.00

N

14

14

14

14

14

14

14

14

Std. Deviation

.961

2.056

.000

2.102

.267

4.631

1.718

3.486

Mean

1.71

4.86

.14

5.29

.00

9.86

6.86

10.71

N

7

7

7

7

7

7

7

7

Std. Deviation

.756

1.676

.378

.756

.000

4.634

4.259

3.988

Mean

2.00

5.00

.06

4.92

.03

8.08

4.72

9.28

N

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

Std. Deviation

.986

1.586

.232

1.519

.167

4.449

2.614

3.230

Int = Interpretation. Prod = Production. Correct = Number of correct uses of the subjunctive form after cuando on the guided composition tasks. Contexts = Number of contexts generated for using a subjunctive form after cuando on the guided composition tasks.

Processing Instruction and Discourse

English+

Pre Int

Composition with the Spanish Subjunctive

121

Table 4.3 Summary of the F statistics and p values contrasting pretest scores across the three language background groups Pretest

F statistics

p value

Interpretation

.417

.662

Production

.907

.414

Composition: Correct form

.776

.469

3.274

.050*

Composition: Contexts generated *Statistically significant.

we submitted the data to a repeated-measures ANOVA. As shown in Table 4.1, the average pretest score was 2.0 out of 6 (33 percent) and the average posttest score was 5.0 (83 percent). The repeated measure was Time (pretest vs. posttest) and the between-group factor was language background. The results of the ANOVA revealed a significant main effect for Time (F(1, 33) = 94.961, p = .000), but no main effect for Language Background (F(2, 33) = .287, p = .753), and no significant interaction (F(2, 33) = .035, p = .966). After receiving PI on the Spanish subjunctive after the adverb cuando, all three language-background groups improved significantly. The average increase after treatment was 50 percent.

Sentence-level form production data Having established that there were no statistically significant differences between the three groups of learners on the pretest scores for form production, we submitted the data to a repeated-measures ANOVA. As shown in Table 4.1, the average pretest score for form production was .06 out of 6 (or 1 percent). This very low-pretest scores indicates that for this group of learners, this treatment was their introduction to the Spanish subjunctive forms. The posttest scores for form production increased to 4.92 (82 percent). The repeated measure in the ANOVA was Time (pretest vs. posttest) and the between-group factor was Language Background. The results of the ANOVA revealed a significant main effect for Time (F(1, 33) = 333.362, p = .000), but no main effect for Language Background

122

Processing Instruction and Discourse

(F(2, 33) = .815, p = .451), and no significant interaction (F(2, 33) = .437, p = .650). After receiving PI all three groups produced significantly more correct forms than they did prior to the treatment. The average increase in form production scores was a rather robust 81 percent.

Discourse-level guided composition data: correct forms produced Having established that there were no statistically significant differences between the three groups of learners on the pretest scores for the number of correct subjunctive forms produced on the guided compositions, we submitted the data to a repeated-measures ANOVA. As shown in Table 4.1 the average pretest raw score was .03. Only one learner of the 36 participants produced a correct subjunctive form. The posttest scores for producing correct subjunctive forms after cuando increased to 8.08. The learners went from producing no correct forms to producing on average 8 correct forms. We used the raw scores, not percentages, in the ANOVA even though different learners generated different numbers of contexts for using a subjunctive form. We address contexts for using the forms in the next analysis. On the other hand, each learner was provided 12 stimuli so that we could consider 12 the maximum possible score. The repeated measure in the ANOVA was Time (pretest vs. posttest) and the between-group factor was Language Background. The results of the ANOVA revealed a significant main effect for Time (F(1, 33) = 114.518, p = .000), but no main effect for Language Background (F(2, 33) = .961, p = .393), and no significant interaction (F (2, 33) = .959, p = .394). After receiving PI, these learners produced a significantly greater number of correct subjunctive forms after cuando than they did prior to the treatment.

Discourse-level guided composition data: contexts generated for using the subjunctive after cuando Having found a statistically significant difference between one group and the other two groups on the pretest, we approach our analyses of the posttests with due caution. We found that the nonnative speakers of English generated more contexts for using the subjunctive after

Composition with the Spanish Subjunctive

123

cuando than did the other two groups. We attribute this difference simply to broader language experience but not to any language in particular. As noted in the appendix, our seven learners in this group represent six different native languages. The repeated measure in the ANOVA was Time (pretest vs. posttest) and the between-group factor was Language Background. The results of the ANOVA revealed a significant main effect for Time (F(1, 33) = 63.330, p = .000), but no main effect for Language Background (F(2, 33) = 2.394, p = .107), and no significant interaction (F(2, 33) = .218, p = .805). After receiving PI, all the learners generated a significantly greater number of contexts for using subjunctive forms after cuando than they did prior to the treatment. Prior to the treatment, the learners on average generated 4.72 contexts for using the subjunctive. After treatment the figure almost doubled to 9.28 contexts.

Discussion and Conclusion Our primary goal in conducting the present study was to explore the effects of PI on learners’ performance of a discourse-level guided composition in addition to the more traditional sentence-level interpretation and form production tasks associated with PI research. We did so by using a new target form, the Spanish subjunctive after the adverb cuando. The previous PI research on Spanish, French, and Italian subjunctive forms had focused on the use of the subjunctive after independent clauses in which the main verb phrase expresses doubt or uncertainty, and in some languages, opinion. Secondarily, and only as a result of the screening process, we examined the role language background plays in evaluating the effects of PI. Language background in this study refers both to one’s native language as well as to one’s experiences with languages other than Spanish. We will discuss the findings of the present study in relation to the research questions that guided the research. (We have changed the order of questions 4 and 5 from above in order to present a more coherent discussion of the issues investigated.) 1. Will there be positive effects for PI on the Spanish subjunctive after the adverbial cuando as measured by a sentence-level interpretation task?

124

Processing Instruction and Discourse

Processing Instruction research has never failed to deliver a positive effect when measured by a sentence-level interpretation task and our results add to this database. Most PI research has used only one task to measure interpretation effects, but we used two. The first of the two, the more typical of previous PI research, provided aural input. Learners heard the target form and made a decision about time based only on having processed the form correctly. The second task provided written input. Using the target form, presented in a written sentence, the learners chose the correct temporal completion. We did not analyze the results on the two tasks separately but used a combined score because each contained only three targeted subjunctive items (for a total score of 6). 2. Will there be positive effects for PI on the Spanish subjunctive after the adverbial cuando as measured by a sentence-level form production task? Previous PI research has never failed to demonstrate a positive effect for PI instruction as measured by a sentence-level form production task. The present study adds to that database. Our learners performed significantly better on two form production tasks after receiving PI. This finding has always generated the most debate because during PI treatment the learners perform only structured input activities. These types of activities never require the learners to produce the target form. They hear the target form and they read it, but do not say or write it. Yet, after treatment, learners are always able to produce it. Processing the form creates grammatically richer intake for the developing system. Once the form is in the developing system, learners can access it for production. 3. Will there be positive effects for Processing Instruction on the Spanish subjunctive after the adverbial cuando as measured by a discourse-level guided composition task? The rather limited database investigating the discourse-level effects of PI instruction prompted and inspired the research gathered together in the present volume (e.g., Cheng 2002, 2004; Sanz 2004). Many researchers believe that effects of instruction on language

Composition with the Spanish Subjunctive

125

acquisition will be best uncovered at the discourse level (Norris and Ortega, 2000). Discourse-level tasks are more challenging to language learners because they must create language across sentence boundaries and must address issues of cohesion and coherence. Learners must choose what to express rather than focusing only on producing a single correct form. In a research context that examines the effects of instruction; we must guide learners toward using the target form. It is doubtful that spontaneous language production in either oral or written form would yield sufficient examples of the target for us to measure. We developed for the present study a guided composition. The learners were given a perspective (their future and their best friend’s future) and options (circumstances and outcomes). The results of the present study show quite clearly that learners produce significantly more correct subjunctive forms after the adverb cuando after they received PI on the target form. There are positive effects of PI as measured by a discourse-level guided composition task. As we analyzed the data, we found that we could address an additional issue. 4. Are there positive effects for PI on the Spanish subjunctive after the adverbial cuando in terms of the number of contexts learners create for using the target structure on a discourse-level guided composition task? As we counted the number of correct uses of the target form in the pre- and posttests we also counted the number of times learners attempted to use the target form. We use the term “attempts” to signify that learners were creating contexts for using the subjunctive after cuando. It became clear that the number of attempts in the posttests was greater than that of the pretests, but was the difference significant? The answer to this question was yes. After receiving PI, learners generated more contexts for using the subjunctive after cuando than they did before receiving instruction. They have learned a new structure and are using it. And as we saw above, they are using it more accurately. 5. Are there differential effects for PI on the Spanish subjunctive after the adverbial cuando for participants of different language backgrounds as measured by a sentence-level interpretation task,

126

Processing Instruction and Discourse

sentence-level form production task, and a discourse-level guided composition task? Language background is an issue that we have always screened for in PI research. That is, we have sought to form homogenous groups of learners in terms of their language background. Specifically, we have sought to find native speakers of the same language. The majority of PI research has investigated native speakers of English but the database also includes native speakers of Italian learning Japanese (Benati 2009; Lee and Benati 2007a), of Greek and Chinese learning English (Benati 2005), and of Korean learning English (Benati, Lee, and Houghton 2008). Additionally, we have sought to form homogenous groups of learners who have studied only the target language under investigation and not additional languages. Additional language experience is seen to be a confounding factor. That is, we do not want to compare learners using processing strategies based on additional language learning experience with naive learners who are using different processing strategies. In one other PI study, the investigators included a small group of learners in the data pool who had additional language experience (Lee, Benati, Águilar-Sánchez, and McNulty 2007). Given all the restrictions on selecting participants (e.g., pretest scores for two linguistic forms, attendance for instruction on two linguistic forms, delayed post testing on two linguistic forms) they experienced a very high attrition rate of 83 percent. They ended up with a group of 19 participants who were native speakers of English who had studied only Spanish. They had a group of six more who had also studied French. They analyzed the data statistically separating the two groups and found no statistically significant differences between the two. They decided, therefore, to collapse the two groups into one. In the present study, attrition was also a factor. Those learners who were in the final data pool must have attended four sessions and have scored low enough on the pretest to be included in the data pool. The number of participants who were native speakers of Spanish who had studied only Spanish was only 15. We cast a wider net for participants and used only their pretest scores as the determining factor for participation. We found we had three groups of learners who could

Composition with the Spanish Subjunctive

127

be distinguished based on language background. On three of the pretests, we found no significant difference in the learners’ performance. They performed at the same level on the sentence-level interpretation task, the sentence-level form production task, and in the number of correct subjunctive forms produced after cuando on the discourse-level guided composition task. On the fourth, we did find a significant difference. Our small group of nonnative speakers of English generated significantly more contexts for using the subjunctive after cuando than did the other two groups. They were not more accurate in doing so, but they did use the structure more often prior to instruction than the others did. So, we decided to maintain language background as a variable in the study and in the statistical analyses. In the four repeated-measures ANOVA’s we performed on the scores obtained on the four dependent variables, language background was never a significant main effect nor did it enter into a significant interaction. In essence, all the learners benefitted equally from receiving PI on the target structure. Let’s examine the case of the nonnative speakers of English who generated more contexts for using the subjunctive after cuando on the pretest. After instruction, they still generated numerically more contexts than the other two groups but the differences between groups on the posttest were not statistically significant. Instruction on the target form helped the two groups of native speakers of English close the gap between them and the native speakers of other languages. This finding echoes that of Lee, Benati, Águilar-Sánchez, and McNulty (2007). They performed several analyses on their data such that they distinguished between high and low scores on one of their pretests. They found that learners who scored lower on the pretest improved more than the high scorers such that the two groups were equal on the posttest. The low scorers closed the gap suggesting that they benefitted more from PI than the high scorers. Differential benefits seem to be the case with the present study as well. Lee (2004) noted that the PI database was comprised almost exclusively of native speakers of English and that this fact represented a limitation in our attempts to generalize the findings of PI. Research subsequent to 2004 has addressed this limitation. As noted above, the

128

Processing Instruction and Discourse

database now includes native speakers of Italian learning Japanese (Benati 2008; Lee and Benati 2007a), of Greek and Chinese learning English (Benati 2005), and of Korean learning English (Lee, Benati and Houghton 2008). With the results of the present study, we can now add to the list of native languages investigated. The database demonstrating the positive effects of PI now includes learners representing the following native languages: German, Polish, Russian, and Cantonese.

Future research The results of the present study suggest further avenues for researching the effects of PI. Certainly, language background is a factor worth investigating further. Following Sanz (1997) we could certainly investigate further any task effects, with the various formats we used in the pretests and posttests. In the present study we have investigated only the effects of PI on learners’ use of the subjunctive after the adverb cuando yet we taught the subjunctive/indicative contrast. Further research could investigate whether learners’ use of the indicative after cuando is affected negatively after receiving instruction. That is, do learners overgeneralize the use of the subjunctive? Previous research suggests that learners do not overgeneralize but the question is still quite open (Farley 2004a). Another area of investigation would focus on the guided compositions. If learners are not using subjunctive forms after cuando, then what forms are they using and are they using them systematically? Anecdotally, we found some learners using future forms as well as present tense ones. One learner used infinitives. We know that as a result of PI learners create more contexts for using the subjunctive after cuando and are more accurate in using subjunctive forms. What forms do they use incorrectly prior to instruction and what forms do they use incorrectly after instruction?

Composition with the Spanish Subjunctive

129

Appendix A: Self-reported language profiles of the 36 participants with greater language experience than only Spanish Native language

Other language experience

English English English English English English English English English English English English English English Italian Cantonese Mandarin German Polish German Russian

French 20 years Japanese 20 years Hebrew many years some Italian French 5 years; Hebrew 4 years Hebrew Chinese; French Hebrew 13 years Indonesian 6 years German 3 years German 4 years Hebrew 6 years Latin 6 years; French 8 years French 11 years German 1 year; French 4 months Mandarin 13 years; German 1 years French 1 year Spanish 2 years; French 2 years; Latin 4 years note: none reported French 7 years; Latin 3 years Mandarin 2 years; German 1 year

130

Processing Instruction and Discourse

Appendix B: Explicit information presented in the large lecture format (adapted from McNulty (2010)) Slide 1 4B subjuntivo presente de subjuntivo (cuando) Slide 2 Cuando: Subjunctive or Indicative? What is tricky about the time conjunction, cuando (when), is that it can be used with both indicative and subjunctive verb forms. Some other conjunctions of time work in the same way. en cuanto as soon as hasta que until tan pronto como as soon as Today, however, we will focus only on cuando. Slide 3 Subjunctive. . . when we are not certain of the outcome We use the present subjunctive with cuando when we want to refer to something that hasn’t happened yet or is anticipated. It can also be used when it refers to something that you aren’t sure when or even if it will happen. Slide 4 Actually, when a sentence contains a future reference, by its very nature, uncertain -- the verb following cuando will be in the subjunctive! Keep in mind that future can be expressed in a number of ways in Spanish, just like English. Slide 5 You have already learned two different ways of expressing the future in Spanish. Spanish uses the periphrastic future (ir + a + infinitive) to express the future: Vamos a terminar la lección mañana.

Composition with the Spanish Subjunctive

131

Slide 6 CUANDO + Subjunctive + FUTURE reference Cuando le toque la lotería, va a comprar una casa. When he wins the lottery he is going to buy a house. Does he know when he will win the lottery? Better yet, does he even know if he will win the lottery? Of course not! Spanish uses the subjunctive mood to emphasize the uncertainty of the event. Slide 7 The simple present tense can also express the future, especially with adverbs (tomorrow, next week, this Friday, etc.): FUTURE reference +CUANDO + Subjunctive Mañana Jorge descansa cuando termine su trabajo. Tomorrow Jorge (will) rest when he finishes his work. Will Jorge rest at 9:00 a.m.? 2:00 p.m.? We don’t know. We only know that it will be tomorrow, but we are uncertain of the time. The event of finishing his work hasn’t happened yet. The subjunctive indicates that the event hasn’t taken place yet. Slide 8 ****OJO**** Did you notice that cuando can come at the beginning or in the middle of a sentence? Slide 9 Indicative. . .when we are certain of the outcome In contrast, we use the indicative with cuando when the sentence refers to something that habitually happens or something that happened in the past. Slide 10 For the next example, we will focus on when the present tense encodes something that happens habitually. Just like English, adverbs (like generally, always etc.) are sometimes used with the present tense to indicate a habitual action.

132

Processing Instruction and Discourse

Slide 11 Notice how the following example in the present tense shows a habitual action. HABITUAL reference + CUANDO + Indicative (present) Siempre David me llama cuando necesita algo. David always calls me when he needs something. When does David call me? . . . when he needs something. He has the habit of calling me each and every time he needs something. Slide 12 What are the subjunctive forms? So, how do we recognize the subjunctive when we hear it or see it? To form the subjunctive: start with the yo form of the verb in the present tense take off the –o or –oy and change the endings. –ar verbs take –er/–ir verb endings and –er/–ir verbs take –ar verb endings Slide 13 –ar verbs As the following examples show with –ar verbs, the third person singular indicative (present) form ends in an –a, whereas the third person subjunctive form ends in an –e. Slide 14 Take, for example hablar. Following the steps listed above, hablo (yo form of hablar) habl- (taking off the –o) hable (adding the –er/–ir verb ending) Slide 15 Infinitive visitar

Indicative visita

Subjunctive visite

Composition with the Spanish Subjunctive nadar andar captar ganar

nada anda capta gana

133

nade ande capte gane

Slide 16 –er/–ir verbs Just as –ar verbs use –er/–ir verb endings in the subjunctive, the vowel change is the opposite for –er/–ir verbs. Here, the –e indicates indicative while an –a indicates subjunctive Slide 17 Infinitive vivir escribir comer

Indicative vive escribe come

Subjunctive viva escriba coma

Slide 18 What is challenging about these subjunctive forms is that the difference between an –a and an –e may be difficult to detect (or perceive). Detecting the difference is even more difficult because the stressed syllable is not the one where the –a or –e is located! Slide 19 Native speakers of English have to train their ears to detect this difference. We want you to learn to detect that the –e at the end of an –ar verb when it follows cuando refers to an unspecified time: the subjunctive.

134

Processing Instruction and Discourse

Appendix C: Additional referential activities presented after the lecture (adapted from McNulty (2010)) Actividad A.2 Similar to the previous activity, you will now hear part of a sentence. Choose the correct interpretation for each sentence. Remember, the form of the verb clues you in to whether the time is uncertain or not. Since all the verbs are –ar verbs, an –e signals uncertainty whereas an –a signals certainty. 1. a. We don’t know when the professor will explain the homework. b. The professor normally explains the homework. 2. a. We don’t know when the student will walk on campus. b. The student walks on campus all the time. 3. a. We don’t know when the family eats together. b. The family eats together all the time. 4. a. We don’t know when Michael will talk too much. b. Michael normally talks too much. 5. a. We don’t know when the television will function (work). b. The television functions (work) on a regular basis. 6. a. We don’t know when Pilar will dance well. b. Pilar generally dances well. 7. a. We don’t know when my father will listen to me. b. My father always listens to me.

Composition with the Spanish Subjunctive

135

8. a. We don’t know when Carmen will get good grades. b. Carmen gets good grades all the time. Sentence fragments learners heard: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Cuando el profesor explica la tarea. . . Cuando el estudiante ande por el campus. . . Cuando la familia cena junta. . . Cuando Miguel hable demasiado (too much). . . Cuando la televisión funcione. . . Cuando Pilar baila bien. . . Cuando mi padre me escuche. . . Cuando Carmen saca buenas notas. . .

Actividad B.1 For each item indicate whether it is uncertain when the action mentioned will take place or if it takes place habitually. As all the verbs are –ar verbs, uncertainty is signaled with an –e and habitual action with an –a.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

uncertain Cuando Eli baila salsa, . . . Cuando Paco llame a sus padres, . . . Cuando Carmen escuche la radio, . . . Cuando Antonio camina a la discoteca, . . . Cuando Carla cocine dos pavos, . . . Cuando Paco pinte un cuadro (painting), . . . Cuando María estudia más, . . . Cuando Linda habla con su hermano, . . .

habitual

Actividad B.2 Similar to the previous activity, you will now hear part of a sentence. For each item indicate whether it is uncertain when the action mentioned is going to take place or if it takes place habitually. As all the verbs are –ar verbs, uncertainty is signaled with an –e and habitual action with an –a.

Processing Instruction and Discourse

136

uncertain

habitual

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Sentence fragments learners heard: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Cuando Virginia baja del autobús, . . . Cuando Lidia compre mucho, . . . Cuando Marta gane dinero, . . . Cuando Esteban charla con sus amigos, . . . Cuando José termine de comer, . . . Cuando Teresa deje (quits) su trabajo, . . . Cuando el tren llega, . . . Cuando Ana estudia sus apuntes (notes), . . .

Composition with the Spanish Subjunctive

137

Appendix D: Practice activities performed in the tutorials (adapted from McNulty (2010)) Actividad A You will hear part of a sentence. Choose the correct interpretation for each sentence. Remember, the form of the verb clues you into whether the time is uncertain or not. Since all the verbs are –ar verbs, an –e signals uncertainty whereas an –a signals certainty. 1. . . . a. We don’t know when Juan will play the guitar. b. Juan plays the guitar all the time. 2. . . . a. We don’t know when Rosa will sing with music. b. Rosa always sings with music. 3. . . . a. We don’t know when Juan will swim in the sea. b. Juan swims in the sea every Friday. 4. . . . a. We don’t know when the professor will assign homework. b. The professor assigns homework all the time. 5. . . . a. We don’t know when Eli will cry at the movie. b. Eli generally cries at the movie. 6. . . . a. We don’t know when Miguel will call Maria. b. Miguel calls Maria regularly. 7. . . . a. We don’t know when Juan will kiss Juanita. b. Juan kisses Juanita all the time.

Processing Instruction and Discourse

138

8. . . . a. We don’t know when the mother will bathe the baby. b. The mother always bathes the baby. Sentence fragments learners heard: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Cuando Juan toca la guitarra. . . Cuando Rosa cante con música. . . Cuando Juan nade en el mar. . . Cuando el profesor manda (assigns) tarea. . . Cuando Eli llora durante la película. . . Cuando Miguel llame a Maria. . . Cuando Juan besa a Juanita. . . Cuando la madre bañe al bebe. . .

Actividad B You will hear part of a sentence. For each item indicate whether it is uncertain when the action mentioned will take place or if it takes place habitually. As all the verbs are –ar verbs, uncertainty is signaled with an –e and habitual action with an –a. uncertain 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

habitual

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

Sentence fragments learners heard: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Cuando Eli baila salsa, . . . Cuando Paco llame a sus padres, . . . Cuando Carmen escuche la radio, . . . Cuando Antonio camina a la discoteca, . . .

Composition with the Spanish Subjunctive 5. 6. 7. 8.

139

Cuando Carla cocine dos pavos, . . . Cuando Paco pinte un cuadro (painting), . . . Cuando María estudia más, . . . Cuando Linda habla con su hermano, . . .

Actividad C Complete the sentence by choosing the appropriate ending. Keep in mind, that all the verbs used with cuando are –ar verbs. Remember, uncertain conditions have a verb with a future orientation and are signaled with a verb ending in an –e. Habitual conditions, on the other hand, have verbs in the present tense, usually with an adverb and the verbs end in an –a . 1. Cuando Marta cocine bien, a. va a comer sano. b. come sano. 2. Cuando Diego practica el deporte, normalmente a. va a conocer más gente. b. conoce más gente. 3. Cuando Mario tome mucho café a. no va a poder acostarse fácilmente. b. no puede acostarse fácilmente. 4. Cuando María trabaja diariamente, a. va a merecer unas vacaciones. b. merece unas vacaciones. 5. Cuando Alicia estudie mucho, a. va a aprender más. b. aprende más. 6. Cuando Tomás busca una novia, generalmente a. va a ir a las discotecas. b. va a las discotecas.

140

Processing Instruction and Discourse

7. Cuando Pilar mira el paisaje (landscape), normalmente a. va a decidir sacar una foto. b. decide sacar una foto. 8. Cuando Mario firme el contrato, a. va a estar obligado. b. está obligado. Actividad D You will hear the first part of a sentence. Complete the sentence by choosing the appropriate ending. Keep in mind that all the verbs used with cuando are –ar verbs. Remember, uncertain conditions have a verb with a future orientation and are signaled with a verb ending in an –e. Habitual conditions, on the other hand, have verbs in the present tense, usually with an adverb, and the verbs end in an –a. 1. . . . a. va a salir bien en el examen. b. sale bien en el examen. 2. . . . a. va a leer un libro. b. lee un libro. 3. . . . a. va a cambiar su respuesta. b. cambia su respuesta. 4. . . . a. va a ver a muchos estudiantes. b. ve a muchos estudiantes. 5. . . . a. la espalda (back) va a dolerle. b. la espalda (back) le duele.

Composition with the Spanish Subjunctive

141

6. . . . a. va a mirar la televisión. b. mira la televisión. 7. . . . a. va a relajarse. b. se relaja. 8. . . . a. va a estar más cómoda. b. está más cómoda. Sentence fragments learners heard: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Cuando Marta estudie mucho, Cuando Diego espera para el autobús, generalmente Cuando Alicia note su error, Cuando Tomás anda por el campus, regularmente Cuando José lleve su mochila, Cuando María está en casa, normalmente Cuando José cante en la ducha, Cuando Pilar limpia su piso, generalmente

Actividad E Indicate whether, in your opinion, your instructor will do the following things. Note that opinion activities do not have a right or wrong answer. Keep in mind that the form of the verbs following cuando in 1–6 encodes the uncertainty of the time. 1. Cuando regrese a casa, tu instructor(a) va a tomar una copa de vino. sí no 2. Cuando lo necesite, tu instructor(a) va a limpiar su piso. sí no

Processing Instruction and Discourse

142

3. Cuando no tome mucha cafeína, tu instructor(a) va a dormir bien. sí no 4. Cuando esté de vacaciones, tu instructor(a) va a tener más tiempo. sí no 5. Cuando compre zapatos deportivos nuevos, tu instructor(a) va a hacer más ejercicio. sí no 6. Cuando se acueste, tu instructor(a) va a lavarse los dientes. sí no PASO 2. Based on your answers, how similar are you to your instructor? Indicate your response on the following scale. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. not at all similar somewhat similar completely similar Actividad F You will now hear sentences. Indicate whether, in your opinion, your instructor will do the following things. Keep in mind that the form of the verbs following cuando in 1–6 encodes the uncertainty of the time. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

sí sí sí sí sí sí

no no no no no no

PASO 2. Based on your answers, how similar are you to your instructor? Indicate your response on the following scale. 1. not at all similar

2.

3. somewhat similar

4.

5. completely similar

Composition with the Spanish Subjunctive

143

Sentence fragments learners heard: 1. Cuando gaste todo su dinero, tu instructor(a) va a tener que ir al banco. 2. Cuando necesite más energía, tu instructor(a) va a ir al gimnasio. 3. Cuando encuentre algo que le guste, tu instructor(a) lo va a comprar. 4. Cuando llame por teléfono, tu instructor(a) va a charlar con su hermana. 5. Cuando cocine algo elegante, tu instructor(a) va a tener invitados. 6. Cuando celebre su cumpleaños, tu instructor(a) va a ir a un restaurante. Actividad G Indicate whether, in your opinion, your instructor regularly does the following things. Keep in mind that the form of the verbs following cuando encodes the habitualness of the action. 1. Cuando regresa a casa, normalmente tu instructor(a) toma una copa de vino. sí no 2. Cuando lo necesita, generalmente tu instructor(a) limpia su piso sí no 3. Cuando no toma mucha cafeína, generalmente tu instructor(a) duerme bien. sí no 4. Cuando está de vacaciones, normalmente tu instructor(a) tiene más tiempo. sí no 5. Cuando compra zapatos deportivos nuevos, normalmente tu instructor(a) hace más ejercicio. sí no 6. Cuando se acuesta, generalmente tu instructor(a) se lava los dientes. sí no

Processing Instruction and Discourse

144

PASO 2. Based on your answers, how similar are your habits to your instructor’s? Indicate your response on the following scale. 1. not at all similar

2.

3. 4. somewhat similar

5. completely similar

Actividad H You will now hear sentences. Indicate whether, in your opinion, your instructor regularly does the following things. Keep in mind that the form of the verbs following cuando encodes the habitualness of the action. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

sí sí sí sí sí sí

no no no no no no

PASO 2. Based on your answers, how similar are your habits to your instructor’s? Indicate your response on the following scale. 1. not at all similar

2.

3. somewhat similar

4.

5. completely similar

Sentence fragments learners heard: 1. Cuando gasta todo su dinero, normalmente tu instructor(a) tiene que ir al banco. 2. Cuando necesita más energía, generalmente tu instructor(a) va al gimnasio. 3. Cuando encuentra algo que le gusta, normalmente tu instructor(a) lo compra. 4. Cuando llama por teléfono, normalmente tu instructor(a) charla con su hermana. 5. Cuando cocina algo elegante, normalmente tu instructor(a) tiene invitados.

Composition with the Spanish Subjunctive

145

6. Cuando celebra su cumpleaños, normalmente tu instructor(a) va a un restaurante. Actividad I Indicate whether, in your opinion, it is true (verdad) or false (falso) that a typical university student will do the following things. Keep in mind that the form of the verbs following cuando in 1–6 encodes the uncertainty of the time. 1. v f Cuando empiece el verano, va a ir a Cairns. 2. v f Cuando se levante por la mañana, va a ir al gimnasio. 3. v f Cuando llegue a la universidad, va a obtener préstamos (loans). 4. v f Cuando se espere mucho calor, va a poner el aire acondicionado. 5. v f Cuando juegue deportes, va a tomar mucha agua. 6. v f Cuando necesite dinero, va a llamar a sus padres. Paso 2. Based on your answers, are you a typical student?

yes

no

Actividad J You will now hear sentences. Indicate whether, in your opinion, it is true (verdad) or false (falso) that a typical university student will do the following things. Keep in mind that the form of the verbs following cuando in 1–6 encodes the uncertainty of the time. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

v v v v v v

f f f f f f

Paso 2. Based on your answers, are you a typical student?

yes

no

Processing Instruction and Discourse

146

Sentence fragments learners heard: 1. Cuando regrese a la casa de sus padres, va a recibir muchos regalos. 2. Cuando estudie, va a sacar buenas notas (grades). 3. Cuando recicle, va a salvar el mundo poco a poco. 4. Cuando espere el autobús, va a llegar a tiempo. 5. Cuando mande una carta, va a esperar una repuesta. 6. Cuando pague los libros, no le va a quedar dinero. Actividad K Indicate whether, in your opinion, it is true (verdad) or false (falso) that a typical university student regularly does the following things. Keep in mind that the form of the verbs following cuando in 1–6 encodes the habitualness of the action. 1. v f Cuando empieza el verano, normalmente va a Cairns. 2. v f Cuando se levanta por la mañana, generalmente va al gimnasio. 3. v f Cuando llega a la universidad, normalmente obtiene préstamos (loans). 4. v f Cuando se espera mucho calor, generalmente pone el aire acondicionado. 5. v f Cuando juega deportes, regularmente toma mucha agua. 6. v f Cuando necesita dinero, generalmente llama a sus padres. Paso 2. Based on your answers, are you a typical student?

yes

no

Actividad L You will now hear sentences. Indicate whether, in your opinion, it is true (verdad) or false (falso) that a typical university student regularly does the following things. Keep in mind that the form of the verbs following cuando in 1–6 encodes the habitualness of the action. 1. v 2. v

f f

Composition with the Spanish Subjunctive 3. 4. 5. 6.

v v v v

147

f f f f

Paso 2. Based on your answers, are you a typical student?

yes

no

Sentence fragments learners heard: 1. Cuando regresa a la casa de sus padres, normalmente recibe muchos regalos. 2. Cuando estudia, generalmente saca buenas notas (grades). 3. Cuando recicla regularmente, salva el mundo poco a poco. 4. Cuando espera el autobús, normalmente llega a tiempo. 5. Cuando manda una carta, generalmente espera una repuesta. 6. Cuando paga los libros, normalmente no le queda dinero.

Chapter 5

Exploring the Effects of Processing Instruction on Discourse-level Interpretation Tasks with the Japanese Passive Construction with Noriko Hikima

Introduction The findings of research investigating the effects of PI has provided unanimous support for this psycholinguistically motivated inputbased approach to grammar instruction. The research findings indicate that not only is PI an effective approach to grammar instruction, but that, in the majority of studies, it is more effective than other instructional approaches (e.g., Traditional Instruction and meaning output-based instruction). This experimental research relies quite heavily on discrete-point sentence-level interpretation and production tasks in establishing the effectiveness of PI. The research on PI is quite substantial; Lee and Benati (2009) show that it covers different languages and different language families. It addresses a variety of linguistic forms and structures thereby addressing different processing problems. It includes learners from a variety of first languages and age groups. On these grounds we can generalize the findings of PI, but we must also limit ourselves to talking about performance measures on sentence-level interpretation and sentencelevel production tasks with the latter including both oral and written tasks. Very little research has explored the effects of PI on discourse-level tasks. This research has, however, demonstrated that PI is effective at improving second language (L2) learner’s performance on discoursebased production tasks. VanPatten and Sanz (1995) found that learners

Dialogue/Story Interpretation with Japanese

149

improved their performance on oral and written video retelling. See also Sanz (1997; 2004). Cheng (2002) established that learners improved their performance on guided composition. See also Cheng (2004). As highlighted by Lee (2004: 319) in his review of the research on PI: ‘‘one limit on the database is absence of discourse-level interpretation tasks that might confirm the broader effects of PI on interpretation . . . How effective is PI for improving learners’ performance not only on sentence- but also on discourse-level interpretation tasks?’’ The main motivation of this study is to measure the effects of PI using discourse-level interpretation tasks.

Research Questions Our aim is to explore the effects of PI as measured by discourse-level interpretation tasks, but we also wish to connect our work to the previous research base. We decided, therefore, to also measure the effects of PI using sentence-level tasks. We based this decision in part on the fact that the present research focuses on a previously uninvestigated linguistic item of the Japanese language, specifically, passive forms. We formulated a set of four research questions. They are as follows: Q1. Would learners receiving PI improve in their ability to interpret sentences containing Japanese passive forms? Q2. Would learners receiving PI improve in their ability to produce sentences containing Japanese passive forms? Q3. Would learners receiving PI improve in their ability to interpret discourse, as measured by a guided recall of a dialogue containing Japanese passive forms? Q4. Would learners receiving PI improve in their ability to interpret discourse, as measured by a guided recall of a story containing Japanese passive forms? Because research has identified positive effects for PI at the sentence level for both interpretation and production tasks as well as at

150

Processing Instruction and Discourse

the discourse level for production tasks we formulated the following four hypotheses: H1. Learners receiving PI will improve their ability to interpret sentences containing Japanese passive forms. H2. Learners receiving PI will improve their ability to produce sentences containing Japanese passive forms. H3. Learners receiving PI will improve their ability to interpret discourse as measured by a guided recall of a dialogue containing Japanese passive forms. H4. Learners receiving PI will improve their ability to interpret discourse as measured by a guided recall of a story containing Japanese passive forms.

Method Participants The initial subject pool consisted of 32 participants. They were all English native speakers and they were learning Japanese as part of their second-year undergraduate degree at Cardiff University, Wales. Participants were all intermediate-level learners of Japanese. None were native speakers of Japanese or bilingual in Japanese. Additionally, none indicated that they had been taught the target form or had been exposed to it previously, in or out of the classroom. The final subject pool, however, numbered ten. The initial subject pool was reduced due to several factors. Not all learners agreed to participate in the study so the final data pool consists of only those who signed the consent form. All subjects were asked to sign a consent form (see Figure 5.1) in order to be included in the final pool. They were all volunteers and were aware of the comparative nature of the study. Additionally, to be included in the final data pool, a learner must have attended all the different stages of this classroom experiment. Finally, only subjects who scored less than 60 percent on the fourpretests (one sentence-level, and two discourse-level interpretation tasks as well as a sentence-level production task), were included in the final pool. The participants were randomly assigned to one of two

Dialogue/Story Interpretation with Japanese

151

Title of Research: The effect of Processing Instruction on the acquisition of Japanese linguistic feature Investigator’s name: NORIKO HIKIMA To be completed by the participant/patient/volunteer/informant/interviewee/ parent/guardian (delete as necessary) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

7.

Have you read the information sheet about this study? Have you had an opportunity to ask questions and discuss this study? Have you received satisfactory answers to all your questions? Have you received enough information about this study? Which researcher/investigator have you spoken to about this study? Do you understand that you are free to withdraw from this study: • at any time? • without giving a reason for withdrawing? • without affecting your future with the University/studies/medical or nursing care? Do you agree to take part in this study?

Signed

YES/NO YES/NO YES/NO YES/NO ... ... YES/NO YES/NO YES/NO YES/NO Date

Name in block letters Signature of investigator

Date

Figure 5.1 Informed consent form

groups. One group, of seven, received PI on the target form. The other group, of three, served as a control group and did not receive instruction on the target form. They simply took the pre- and posttests.

Procedures The main purpose of this study was to determine whether positive effects for PI on the Japanese passive form could be found and to measure those effects on sentence-level interpretation and production tasks as well as on discourse-level interpretation tasks. The independent factor in this experiment was the treatment factor, a PI group compared and contrasted to a control group. The dependent factors were the learners’ scores on the four tests developed for this study. The overall procedures followed in the present study are presented graphically in Figure 5.2. The PI group was taught the targeted linguistic feature through full PI, that is, using explicit information and PI about the target structure followed by practice

152

Processing Instruction and Discourse

Phase 1 PRETESTS (Interpretation and Production—sentence level) (Interpretation discourse-level tasks—dialogue and story) ↓ RANDOMIZATION Phase 2 INSTRUCTIONAL TREATMENTS (2 hours) PI Control Phase 3 POSTTESTS (Interpretation and Production—sentence level) (Interpretation discourse-level tasks—dialogue and story)

Figure 5.2 Overview of the experiment

with the target on structured input activities. The control group did not receive any instruction on the target feature but was exposed to a comparable amount of target language during the treatment phase. A pre- and posttest procedure was adopted for this classroom experiment. The pretests were administered two days prior to the beginning of the instructional treatment period. All participants were asked to take first the sentence-level interpretation test followed by the sentence-level production test. Participants were then given a very short break lasting only a few moments. The participants then received the two discourse-level interpretation tests. They first heard the story and performed a guided recall. They then listened to a dialogue and performed a guided recall. After the pretest was administered, the participants were randomly assigned to one of two groups: PI (n = 7) or control group (n = 3). The PI group received two hours of instruction by an instructor who was the researcher and not the subject’s regular classroom instructor. The instructor acted as a facilitator for the instructional group as he diligently followed the instructional materials to the letter. Materials for the PI group were developed following the guidelines for creating structured input activities (Lee and VanPatten 1995; 2003; VanPatten and Sanz 1995). The control group received no instruction on the target but did receive a comparable amount of

Dialogue/Story Interpretation with Japanese

153

exposure to the target language. The posttests were carriedout immediately following the treatment at the end of the one-day instructional treatment. The two hours of class time were spent on explanation and practice of the target and also on taking the four posttests. All the pretests and the posttests were comparable in terms of difficulty and vocabulary. One-way analysis of variances (ANOVA) were conducted on the raw scores for all pretests to assess whether there were any statistical differences among the two groups before the beginning of the experimental period. Repeated-measures ANOVAs were used on pretest and posttest scores to assess whether there were any effects for instruction and time.

Target linguistic item The Japanese passive was the linguistic item chosen for this experimental study. We chose to examine it because it has never been used in PI research and it is a grammatical structure affected by the First Noun Principle (P2). When the L2 learners of Japanese parse sentences they need to figure out who did what to whom. Normally L2 learners parse sentences relying on word order and employ a first noun processing strategy that assigns subject or agent status to the first noun or pronoun they encounter in a sentence. English and Japanese have the same passive construction. Tom hit Chris (1) is a different sentence from Chris was hit by Tom (2). (1) TomȄǂChrisȧǂǴǴǢȓǬǴDŽ Tom hit Chris. (2) ChrisȄǂTomȀǂǴǴǠȡȓǬǴDŽ Chris was hit by Tom. Following the First Noun Principle (P2) L2 learners will tend to misinterpret sentences like the passive structure (2, in the earlier example) in Japanese by assigning the role of agent to the first noun or noun phrase in the sentence. They will therefore misinterpret the sentence (2) in the earlier example as Chris hit Tom. This processing strategy is thought to cause a delay in L2 learners’ of Japanese acquisition of this structure and word order pattern.

154

Processing Instruction and Discourse

Materials We developed one packet of instructional materials for the Japanese passive structure. It followed the characteristics of the PI approach to grammar teaching (Lee and VanPatten 2003; VanPatten 1996; 2004a). PI aims at teaching L2 learners how to interpret and comprehend the targeted structure in the input by making them use that structure to make meaning. In PI research, learners in a PI group never engage in production practice. The learners do not produce the form other than on the production pretest and posttest. Our PI materials consisted of explicit information of the grammatical target structure and information on processing strategies. The explicit information component described the use and characteristics of the passive structure in Japanese and, as importantly, provided information on the processing strategy that affects this structure. We include this component of the instructional treatment in Figure 5.3.

Japanese passive has two different types. The direct passive sentence is equivalent to an English passive sentence. Active sentence TomȄǂChrisȧǂǴǴǢȓǬǴDŽ Tom hit Chris. Passive sentence ChrisȄǂTomȀǂǴǴǠȡȓǬǴDŽChris was hit by Tom. The indirect passive sentence expresses the idea that a patient was affected by an agent. It implies that a patient was annoyed in some way by an agent. Active sentence TomȄǂChrisȃȹόȵȧǂǴȎȓǬǴDŽ Tom ate Chris’s cake. Passive sentence ChrisȄǂTomȀǂȹόȵȧǂǴȎȞȡȓǬǴDŽChris’s cake was eaten by Tom. patient agent ǂdirect object When a passive sentence is constructed, a verb must be changed to a passive verb form. In the passive sentence, Ȁis attached to an agent and shows who does the action. Ȁcorresponds to “by” in the English passive sentence. R1V + ȡȠ ǴǴǢȓǮǂ→ǂǴǴǠˇȡȠǂ→ǂǴǴǠȡȠ ǂǂǂ make stem of ǿǙ form →change to a past formǴǴǠȡǴ→change to a past masu formǴǴǠȡȓǬǴ ȝȈȓǮǂ→ǂȝȅˇȡȠǂ→ǂȝȅȡȠ ǂǂǂǂ make stem of ǿǙ form →change to a past formȝȅȡǴ→change to a past masu formȝȅȡȓǬǴ R2V +ȞȡȠ ǴȎȠ→dropȠ→ǴȎˇȞȡȠ→ǴȎȞȡȠ→change to past formǴȎȞȡǴ →change to past masu formǴȎȞȡȓǬǴ

Dialogue/Story Interpretation with Japanese

155

IRRǂǂǂǢȓǮ→ǂǨȞȡȠ→ǂǨȞȡǴ→ǂǨȞȡȓǬǴ ǂǂǂǂǂǬȓǮ→ǂǪȡȠ→ǂǪȡǴ→ǂǪȡȓǬǴǂ Keep in mind that the first noun is not an agent (the doer) in the passive sentence. ChrisȄǂTomȀǂǴǴǠȡȓǬǴDŽChris was hit by Tom. ǂTom is an agent (the person who does the action.) ǂChris is a patient (the person who is affected.) Particle Ȁ is a small word but Ȁ has important role in the passive sentence. Ȁ shows who does the action in the passive sentence. Please listen or read carefully until the end of sentence. The end of the verb form is a key to determine whether the sentence is a passive or an active from. Please pay attention Who did what to whom !

What is the meaning of the following sentence? ǤȓǤȨȄǂȝǬǨǶȘȨȀǂȵɁǪȡȓǬǴDŽ 

A

You are right if you selected A, Yoshiko chan kissed Kuma kun.

Figure 5.3 Explicit information on the passive

B

156

Processing Instruction and Discourse

The explicit information was followed by structured input activities. For this research we developed eight structured input activities; through these activities learners come to interpret the meaning of the grammatical structure in the input. Structured input activities were developed to encourage L2 learners to focus their attention on the Japanese passive structure during input. Learners were never asked to produce a sentence with the correct Japanese passive structure, but rather, they were engaged in processing input sentences so that they could parse elements in the sentence correctly and interpret the meaning of the sentence appropriately. Since the target structure in a passive sentence, using a word-order-based processing strategy would be inappropriate. Structured input activities aimed at helping L2 learners to make correct interpretation of this structure affected by the First Noun Principle. The structured input activities were of two types: referential and affective. In the referential activities the L2 learners were required to process the input in order to establish the agent who performed the action of the sentence; doing so correctly was based on the structure in the input they heard or read. Referential activities have a correct answer. Each of our referential activities consisted of ten tokens, that is, ten sentences. We include an example of two referential activities in Figures 5.4 and 5.5. In both activities learners listened to sentences and then selected one of the two options indicating who performed the action of the verb. Learners received only limited feedback during the referential activities. Learners were told only whether their interpretations on the referential activities were correct or not, but they were not supplied with any other information. That is, the instructor did not supply more explanation or comment on the structure of the sentences. This decision is based in part on Sanz’s (2004) finding that learners who received explicit feedback while performing structured input activities did not outperform learners who did not. The important aspect of the learning is performing the structured input activities. The affective activities required participants to express their opinion or feelings based on the informational content of the input sentences. In these activities there was not a right or a wrong answer. The purpose of affective activities was to direct learner’s attention to the

Dialogue/Story Interpretation with Japanese

157

(1) Listen to each sentence and select a sentence that matches what you hear. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

ǂYoshiko ate Kuma’s cake ǂYoshiko invited Kuma ǂYoshiko drank Kuma’s milk ǂYoshiko hit Kuma ǂYoshiko said “hello”to Kuma ǂYoshiko kissed Kuma ǂYoshiko’s milk was drunk by Kuma

8

ǂYoshiko complimented Kuma’s clothes

9 10

ǂYoshiko called Kuma ǂYoshiko woke Kuma up

Kuma ate Yoshiko’s cake. Kuma invited Yoshiko Kuma drank Yoshiko’smilk Kuma hit Yoshiko Kuma said “hello” toYoshiko Kuma kissed Yoshiko Kuma’s milk was drunk by Yoshiko Kuma complimented Yoshiko’s clothes Kuma called Yoshiko. Kuma woke Yoshiko up

Instructor’s script 1ȝǬǨǶȘȨȄǤȓ৯Ȁȹόȵȧ亳ȎȞȡȓǬǴDŽ 2ȝǬǨǶȘȨȄǤȓ৯ȧǪDzǙȓǬǴDŽ 3Ǥȓ৯ȄȝǬǨǶȘȨȃɧɳȷȧ仆ȔȓǬǴDŽ 4Ǥȓ৯ȄȝǬǨǶȘȨȀǴǴǠȡȓǬǴDŽ 5ȝǬǨǶȘȨȄǤȓ৯ȀNjǨȨȀǶȄnjǽǙȤȡȓǬǴDŽ 6Ǥȓ৯ȄȝǬǨǶȘȨȀȵɁǪȡȓǬǴDŽ 7Ǥȓ৯ȄȝǬǨǶȘȨȀɧɳȷȧ仆ȓȡȓǬǴDŽ 8Ǥȓ৯ȄȝǬǨǶȘȨȀ᳡ȧȐȖȞȡȓǬǴDŽ 9ȝǬǨǶȘȨȄǤȓ৯ȧȝȈȓǬǴDŽ 10ȝǬǨǶȘȨȄǤȓ৯ȀǟǨǪȡȓǬǴDŽ

Figure 5.4 Referential activity

Listen to each sentence and select a sentence that matches what you hear. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

ǂYoshiko asked Tom. ǂYoshiko complimented Tom. ǂYoshiko kissed Tom. ǂYoshiko woke Tom up. ǂYoshiko broke Tom’s cup. ǂYoshiko called Tom. ǂYoshiko looked at Tom. ǂYoshiko invited Tom. ǂYoshiko scolded Tom. ǂYoshiko said to Tom.

Figure 5.5 Referential activity

Tom asked Yoshiko. Tom complimented Yoshiko. Tom kissed Yoshiko. Tom woke Yoshiko up. Tom broke Yoshiko’s cup Tom called Yoshiko. Tom looked at Yoshiko. Tom invited Yoshiko Tom scolded Yoshiko. Tom said to Yoshiko.

Processing Instruction and Discourse

158

Japanese passive forms while at the same time they must process each sentence for its meaning in order to complete the tasks of agreeing or disagreeing. We provide an example of an affective activity in Figure 5.6. The items refer to David and Victoria Beckham, popular celebrities. They are to indicate if what they hear is likely or unlikely and as such there is no right or wrong answer. What one learner considers likely another might consider unlikely. At the end of the

Each sentence describes an event happening to Victoria Beckham. Do you think that each statement is likely or unlikely to happen? Read each sentence and tick “likely” or “unlikely.” Likely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Unlikely

DavidȀǂȵɁǪȡȓǬǴDŽ DavidȀǂǟǨǪȡȓǬǴDŽ DavidȀǂDzǛǭȧǂǴȃȓȡȓǬǴDŽ DavidȀǂǟǠȂȧǂǹǠȤȡȓǬǴDŽ DavidȀǂɩόɳȧǂȔȞȡȓǬǴDŽ DavidȀǂǬȜǤǭȀǂǪDzȤȡȓǬǴDŽ DavidȀǂɟɲɻɃɁǽǂȝȅȡȓǬǴDŽ DavidȀǂȐȖȞȡȓǬǴDŽ DavidȀǂǬǠȞȡȓǬǴDŽ DavidȀǂǴǴǠȡȓǬǴDŽ

Compare your response with a partner and decide which happening is the most likely or unlikely. Do you think David and Victoria love each other? Instructor’s script 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

ȝǬǨǶȘȨȄǂɐɨǪȨȀǂǢǠȡȓǬǴDŽ ȝǬǨǶȘȨȄǂɐɨǪȨȀǂȐȖȞȡȓǬǴDŽǂ ɐɨǪȨȄǂȝǬǨǶȘȨȀǂȵɁǬȓǬǴDŽǂ ȝǬǨǶȘȨȄǂɐɨǪȨȧǂǟǨǬȓǬǴDŽǂ ɐɨǪȨȄǂȝǬǨǶȘȨȀǂȻɋɟȧǂǨȤǪȡȓǬǴDŽ ɐɨǪȨȄǂȝǬǨǶȘȨȀǂȝȅȡȓǬǴDŽ ȝǬǨǶȘȨȄǂɐɨǪȨȧǂȔȓǬǴDŽ ɐɨǪȨȄǂȝǬǨǶȘȨȀǂǪDzȤȡȓǬǴDŽ ȝǬǨǶȘȨȄǂɐɨǪȨȧǂǬǠȟȓǬǴDŽ ɐɨǪȨȄǂȝǬǨǶȘȨȀǂǙȤȡȓǬǴDŽ

7 passive sentences 3 active sentences

Figure 5.6 Affective activity

Dialogue/Story Interpretation with Japanese

159

activity the learners were asked to do something with the input by deciding which event is the most likely or unlikely to happen. As in the case of the referential activities, each affective activity contained ten tokens. The L2 learners who formed the control group received no instructional treatment on the targeted feature during the course of the experiment. They were provided a comparable amount of exposure to the target feature in their classroom for the same amount of time as the instructional treatment took.

Assessment instruments and scoring In order to evaluate the effectiveness of the PI treatment on the acquisition of Japanese passive structure and to address the four research questions guiding this study, we developed four different tests. We created two sentence-level assessments, one focused on interpretation and the other production. We created two discourselevel assessments. One presented the discourse as a dialogue and the other presented it as a story. We created two versions of each of the four tests. We used one version as the pretest and the other as the posttest. We did not simply use one version of each test because pretesting occurred only two days prior to the treatment and the posttest. We took care to create equivalent versions of the assessments. The pretests and posttests were equal in terms of length, the use of high-frequency vocabulary, and overall difficulty. One of the sentence-level interpretation tests is provided in Figure 5.7; it is an aural task which was developed to measure knowledge gained by learners at interpreting passive forms in Japanese. This test consisted of 20 audiotaped sentences that were recorded by a native speaker of Japanese speaking at a normal speed. Of the 20 items, 10 were actual targets and the other 10 distracters. The verbs used in these sentences were mostly regular and belonging to two different verb groups. They were chosen from two Japanese textbooks: Minna no nihongo (2007) and Japanese for busy people (2003). By referencing these textbooks we are certain that familiar vocabulary was used in constructing the sentences. The participants were required to listen

160

Processing Instruction and Discourse

Listen to each sentence and then tick the picture that matches what you heard. However, if you were not sure what heard, tick “I am not sure.”

Name _____________________________________________

1

I am not sure

2

I am not sure

3

I am not sure

Sentence-level interpretation test

Dialogue/Story Interpretation with Japanese

161

Instructor’s script 1Ǥȓ৯ȄǂȝǬǨǶȘȨȀǂǴȃȔȓǬǴDŽ 2ȝǬǨǶȘȨȄǂǤȓ৯Ȁǂ㿔ȤȡȓǬǴDŽ 3ȝǬǨǶȘȨȄǂǤȓ৯ȧǂǟǨǬȓǬǴDŽ 4Ǥȓ৯ȄǂȝǬǨǶȘȨȧǂȐȖȓǬǴDŽ 5ȝǬǨǶȘȨȄǂǤȓ৯ȀǂǴǴǠȡȓǬǴDŽ 6Ǥȓ৯ȄǂȝǬǨǶȘȨȀǂȐȖȞȡȓǬǴDŽ 7ȝǬǨǶȘȨȄǂǤȓ৯Ȁǂ㽟ȞȡȓǬǴDŽ 8Ǥȓ৯ȄǂȝǬǨǶȘȨȀǂ㿔ǙȓǬǴDŽ 9Ǥȓ৯ȄǂȝǬǨǶȘȨȧǂȝȈȓǬǴDŽ 10ȝǬǨǶȘȨȄǂǤȓ৯ȀǂǢǠȡȓǬǴDŽ 11Ǥȓ৯ȄǂȝǬǨǶȘȨȧǂǪDzǙȓǬǴDŽ 12ȝǬǨǶȘȨȄǂǤȓ৯ȀǂȵɁǬȓǬǴDŽ 13Ǥȓ৯ȄǂȝǬǨǶȘȨȃǂɎɴɛȧǂǨȤǬȓǬǴDŽ 14Ǥȓ৯ȄǂȝǬǨǶȘȨȀǂȝȅȡȓǬǴDŽ 15ȝǬǨǶȘȨȄǂǤȓ৯ȀǂȵɁǪȡȓǬǴDŽ 16ȝǬǨǶȘȨȄǂǤȓ৯ȃǂɀɭόɁȧǂ仆ȔȓǬǴDŽ 17Ǥȓ৯ȄǂȝǬǨǶȘȨȀǂɛɁȹɋɐȧǂ亳ȎȞȡȓǬǴDŽ 18ȝǬǨǶȘȨȄǂǤȓ৯ȧǂǬǠȟȓǬǴDŽ 19Ǥȓ৯ȄǂȝǬǨǶȘȨȀǂȻɻɜɭόɇόȧǂՓȤȡȓǬǴDŽ 20ȝǬǨǶȘȨȄǂǤȓ৯ȀǂǬǠȞȡȓǬǴDŽ

Figure 5.7 Interpretation sentence-level interpretation test (sample)

to each sentence and to select one of the two pictures that matched their interpretation. The two pictures differed in terms of who was performing the action. For the assessment task, learners also had the option of indicating that they were not sure who performed the action. In order to measure real-time comprehension, we did not repeat the items. Learners had only one opportunity to hear and interpret a sentence. Correct responses were given a score of 1 and each incorrect response a score of 0. The maximum score on this test was 10 points and the minimum 0. Distracters were not scored. One of the sentence-level written production tests is provided in Figure 5.8. It was developed to measure a learner’s ability to produce correct Japanese passive verb forms. The production test consisted of 20 incomplete sentences in Japanese. They were given the agent (already marked appropriately in the passives) and object and had to provide the correct verb form. The learners were instructed to complete the sentences according to the English translation provided. Ten sentences were critical items, that is, passives, and the other ten were distracters that used the active voice. Measuring accuracy in

162

Processing Instruction and Discourse Complete each sentence according to the English translation. 1 Yoshiko was hit by Kuma. ȝǬǨǶȘȨȄǂǤȓǤȨȀ__________________________DŽ 2 Kuma drank Yoshiko’s juice. ǤȓǤȨȄǂȝǬǨǶȘȨȃǂɀɭόɁȧ__________________________DŽ 3 Kuma said to Yoshiko. ǤȓǤȨȄǂȝǬǨǶȘȨȀ__________________________DŽ 4 Yoshiko’s biscuit was eaten by Kuma. ȝǬǨǶȘȨȄǂǤȓǤȨȀǂɛɁȹɋɐȧ__________________________DŽ 5 Kuma scolded Yoshiko. ǤȓǤȨȄǂȝǬǨǶȘȨȧ__________________________DŽ 6 Yoshiko woke Kuma up. ȝǬǨǶȘȨȄǂǤȓǤȨȧ__________________________DŽ 7 Kuma was begged byYoshiko. ǤȓǤȨȄǂȝǬǨǶȘȨȀ__________________________DŽ 8 Kuma was looked by Yoshiko. ǤȓǤȨȄǂȝǬǨǶȘȨȀ__________________________DŽ 9 Yoshiko asked Kuma. ȝǬǨǶȘȨȄǂǤȓǤȨȀ__________________________DŽ 10 Yoshiko was kissed by Kuma. ȝǬǨǶȘȨȄǂǤȓǤȨȀ__________________________DŽ 11 Kuma used Yoshiko’s phone. ǤȓǤȨȄǂȝǬǨǶȘȨȃǂǼȨȤȧ__________________________DŽ 12 Yoshiko was woken up by Kuma. ȝǬǨǶȘȨȄǂǤȓǤȨȀ__________________________DŽ 13 Kuma was called by Yoshiko. ǤȓǤȨȄǂȝǬǨǶȘȨȀ__________________________DŽ 14 Yoshiko kissed Kuma. ȝǬǨǶȘȨȄǂǤȓǤȨȀ__________________________DŽ 15 Yoshiko complemented Kuma. ȝǬǨǶȘȨȄǂǤȓǤȨȧ__________________________DŽ 16 Kuma’s computer was broken by Yoshiko. ǤȓǤȨȄǂȝǬǨǶȘȨȀǂȻɻɜɭόɇόȧ__________________________DŽ 17 Kuma invited Yoshiko. ǤȓǤȨȄǂȝǬǨǶȘȨȧ__________________________DŽ 18 “Hello” was said to Yoshiko by Kuma. ȝǬǨǶȘȨȄǂǤȓǤȨȀNjǨȨȀǶȄnjǽ__________________________DŽ 19 Kuma was complimented by Yoshiko. ǤȓǤȨȄǂȝǬǨǶȘȨȀ__________________________DŽ 20 Yoshiko called Kuma. ȝǬǨǶȘȨȄǂǤȓǤȨȧ__________________________DŽ

Figure 5.8 Sentence-level production test

Dialogue/Story Interpretation with Japanese

163

producing correct passive forms in Japanese was the main goal of this test and so we scored only the ten sentences for which the English translation was a passive construction. Learners scored 1 point for each correct sentence produced and 0 points for incorrect ones. The maximum possible score was 10 points and the minimum 0. What makes this study unique among investigations of PI is that we also developed discourse-level interpretation tests. The tests were developed and used to measure the ability of learners to interpret correct Japanese passive forms when these forms are embedded in discourse. Both tests can be described as guided or prompted recalls. The first discourse-level interpretation was presented to the learners as a dialogue. In this test, two people were talking (two characters in a book): Yoshiko chan and Kuma kun. Yoshiko chan is a girl and Kuma kun is a bear and both are the main characters in a famous picture book (Hikima 2006). One version of the dialogue-based interpretation test is provided in Figure 5.9. The verbs we used in this test

Two people are talking about a book describing Yoshiko and Kuma. When listening to the dialogue, you must focus on who did each action. Listen to the dialogue and remember who did what. After listening, open the answer sheet and then tick the picture that matches what you heard. Attention You can’t open the answer sheet before listening to the dialogue. You can’t look at the answer sheet while you are listening to the dialogue.

Kuma kun

Yoshiko chan

Name _____________________________________________ Answer sheet 1: Who did each action? Tick the picture that matches what you heard.

Processing Instruction and Discourse

164

1

I am not sure

2

I am not sure

Please do not turn the page until after you hear the next part of the dialogue. Instructor’s script Answer sheet 1 ⬄Ё: ȝǬǨǶȘȨǽǤȓǤȨȃᴀȧ䂁ȔȓǬǴDŽǟȗǬȢǠǸǴǼǮȝDŽ 䠈᳼: ǾȨǿ䁅ǼǮǠDŽ ⬄Ё: ᳱǼǮDŽǤȓǤȨȄȝǬǨǶȘȨȧ䍋ǨǬȓǬǴDŽ1 ǂǂNjᳱǩȄȨǼǢǴȝDŽnjǽ ǂǂǤȓǤȨȄȝǬǨǶȘȨȀ੐ȅȡȓǬǴDŽ 䠈᳼: ǙǹȗѠҎȄϔ㎦ǼǮȂDŽ Answer sheet 2 ⬄Ё: ᳱǩȄȨȃᕠǃ ǂǂȝǬǨǶȘȨȄǤȓǤȨȀᱛǠǾǛǠ㘲ǠȡȓǬǴDŽ ǂǂѠҎȄȹόȵȧ✐ǤǨǽȀǬȓǬǴDŽ 䠈᳼: DzǬǻǾǛǿȟȓǬǴǠDŽ ⬄Ё: ǤȓǤȨȄȝǬǨǶȘȨȀȐȖȞȡȓǬǴDŽ 䠈᳼: ǿDZǼǮǠDŽ ⬄Ё: Ϟ᠟Ȁȹόȵȧ✐ǙǴǠȞǼǮDŽ Answer sheet 3 ⬄Ё: ȝǬǨǶȘȨȄǤȓǤȨȀϔ㎦Ȁ亳ȎȝǛǽ㿔ǙȓǬǴDŽ2 䠈᳼: DzȡǼ˛ ⬄Ё: ȝǬǨǶȘȨȄǤȓǤȨȃȹόȵȧ亳ȎȓǬǴDŽ3 ǂǂDzǬǻȝǬǨǶȘȨȄǤȓǤȨȀɧɳȷȧ仆ȓȡȓǬǴDŽ

Dialogue/Story Interpretation with Japanese

165

Answer sheet 4 䠈᳼: DzȃᕠǾǛǿȟȓǬǴǠDŽ ⬄Ё: ୻௽ȀǿȟȓǬǴDŽ ǂǂȝǬǨǶȘȨȄǤȓǤȨȀȻɋɟȧǨȤǪȡȓǬǴDŽ ǂǂDzǬǻȝǬǨǶȘȨȄǤȓǤȨȧǴǴǢȓǬǴDŽ4 ǂǂǼȗ᳔ᕠȀǿǠȝǤǿȟȓǬǴDŽ ǂǂǤȓǤȨȄȝǬǨǶȘȨȀȵɁǬȓǬǴDŽ5 ǂǂ䠈᳼˖ὑǬǙ䁅ǼǮȂDŽ Translation Answer sheet 1 Tanaka: Suzuki: Tanaka: Suzuki:

I read a picture book written about Yoshiko and Kuma. It was interesting. How about the story? In the morning, Kuma woke Yoshiko up. . .active1 “Breakfast is ready!” Kuma was called by Yoshiko. . .passive1 They are always together aren’t they?

Answer sheet 2 Tanaka:

Suzuki: Tanaka: Suzuki: Tanaka:

After breakfast, Yoshiko was asked by Kuma whether Yoshiko was free or not. . .passive 2 They decided to bake a cake. What happened then? Kuma was complimented by Yoshiko. . .passive 3 Why? The cake was good.

Answer sheet 3 Tanaka: Suzuki: Tanaka:

Yoshiko said “let’s have a cake” to Kuma. . .active 2 Then? Yoshiko ate Kuma’s cake. . .active 3 and Yoshiko’s milk was drunk by Kuma. . .passive 4

Answer sheet 4 Suzuki: Tanaka:

Suzuki:

What happened later? They began to fight. Yoshiko’s cup was broken by Kuma. . .passive 5 then Yoshiko hit Kuma. . .active 4 However, they finally made up. Kuma kissed Yoshiko. . .active 5 It is an interesting story isn’t it?

Figure 5.9 Discourse-level interpretation test: dialogue (sample)

166

Processing Instruction and Discourse

were selected from the verbs we had used in the sentence-level interpretation test. The construction of the dialogue is similar to the construction of the sentences. We used high-frequency lexical items and familiar vocabulary. To make the learner’s task easier, the dialogue was divided into four segments, each of which included passive and active sentences. We wanted the targets embedded in discourse but we did not want the targets buried in lengthy discourse. Two native speakers of Japanese recorded the dialogue using a normal rate of speech. The assessment instructions oriented the participants to listen for who did what. Each dialogue segment was played once; no repetition was provided so that we could measure real-time comprehension. After participants heard the dialogue, they opened the test booklet to the appropriate answer sheet. That is, they did not see the pictures while they heard the relevant dialogue segment. We created a different answer sheet for each dialogue segment and it formed its own page in the test booklet. Once they turned to the answer sheet they choose between two pictures that represented different actions in the dialogue. The only difference between the two pictures in each item was: who was the agent and who the object of the action was. However, if participants were not sure of the correct answer, they could tick the “I am not sure” option. We gave the learners 15 seconds to make their selections. Three of the segments contained two items, a target and a distracter, and one contained three items. Five passive forms served as target items for this test, and other five were distracters that were not scored. The maximum possible score was 5 points and the minimum 0. The other discourse-level interpretation was also a guided or prompted recall test but this time the learners listened to a story. One version of the part of the test is provided in Figure 5.10. On the cover sheet of the test, learners were oriented to their task of listening for who did what. They also saw a picture of the storyteller and the two characters about whom he was going to talk. They were the same two characters, Yoshiko chan and Kuma kun, who had the dialogue in the previous assessment task. The story was presented in five segments. Each segment contained two passive sentences and one active sentence. The ten passive constructions were the targets that we scored. The five active sentences were distracters and we did

Dialogue/Story Interpretation with Japanese

167

Listen to each passage and focus on who did each action. Listen to the first paragraph and remember who did what. After listening, open the first answer sheet and then tick the picture that matches what you heard. You cannot open the second answer sheet before listening to the second paragraph. Listen to the second, third, fourth and fifth paragraphs one by one and carry out the tasks with the same procedure. Attention: You cannot look at the answer sheet while you are listening to the paragraph. You can only listen to the passage once. There are 5 sheets A The first paragraph ... B The second paragraph . . . C The third paragraph ... D The fourth paragraph . . . E The fifth paragraph . . .

page 1 Page 2 Page 3 page 4 page 5

Watashi

Kuma kun

Yoshiko chan

Name _________________________________________ Answer sheet: Who did each action? Tick the picture that matches what you heard.

168

Processing Instruction and Discourse A

1

I am not sure

2

I am not sure

3

I am not sure

Please do not turn the page until after you hear the next part of the dialogue. A ⾕ȄཇȃᄤǼǮDŽ ȝǬǨǶȘȨǽǤȓǤȨȄ⾕ȃᄺ᷵ȃটǵǶǼǮDŽǨȡȄ⾕ǃȝǬǨǶȘȨǃ ǤȓǤȨȃ䁅ǼǮDŽ ᯼᮹ȃ໰ǃ⾕ȄǤȓǤȨȀɴɁɐɱɻȀǪDzȤȡȓǬǴDŽPassive 1 ɴɁɐɱɻǼǃNjདǢ˛njǤȓǤȨȄ⾕Ȁ㘲ǢȓǬǴDŽActive 1 Dzȃᰖǃ⾕ȄǤȓǤȨȀȵɁǪȡȓǬǴDŽPassive 2 DzȡȄ⾕ȃSecretǼǮDŽ

Figure 5.10 Discourse-level interpretation test: story (sample)

not score them. The test booklet was constructed just as the one used in the previous assessment. The booklet contained five answer sheets consisting of five separate pages with a sixth cover page explaining the task procedures. The procedures used for this test were the same as those used for the dialogue-based assessment. Learners heard the story segment only once, then turned to the appropriate answer sheet and selected the pictures that matched what they heard. They again had the option of indicating that they were not sure of an answer. We scored 1 point for each correct picture selected and gave 0 points for incorrect selections. The maximum possible score was 10 points and the minimum 0.

Dialogue/Story Interpretation with Japanese

169

Results Sentence-level interpretation data In Table 5.1 we provide the descriptive statistics for learners’ performance on the sentence-level interpretation test. A one-way ANOVA was conducted on the pretest scores. The analysis showed no significant difference between the two groups before instruction (p = .335). We will attribute any differences in posttest scores to the effects of the instructional treatment (PI). We also display the means provided in Table 5.1 graphically in Graph 5.1. The graph provides a visual Table 5.1 test

Means and standard deviations for the sentence-level interpretation Pretest

Variable

N

Mean

PI

7

1.14

Control

3

Posttest

SD

Mean

1.86

.000

.000

PI = Process Instruction. SD = Standard Deviation. N = Number.

10.00

Intslpre Inslpost

9.00 8.00

Mean

7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 PI

Control Groups

Graph 5.1 Means for sentence-level interpretation test

9.42 1.66

SD .534 1.52

170

Processing Instruction and Discourse

representation of the very large gains made by the PI group on the sentence-level interpretation test. Ten is the maximum score and this group’s posttest mean-score is 9.42. The graph also shows the extremely small difference between the control group’s pretest and posttest scores. To address the first research question guiding the present study, we submitted the raw scores of the sentence-level interpretation pretests and posttests to a two-way ANOVA with repeated measures. Treatment (PI group vs. control group) was the between-subjects variable, whereas Time (pretest vs. posttest) was the within-subjects, repeated measures, variable. The two-way ANOVA showed a significant main effect for Time (F(1,9) = 59.228, p = .000); a significant main effect for Treatment (F(1,9) = 26.198, p = .001); and significant interaction between Treatment and Time (F(1,9) = 50.497, p = .000.) These results demonstrate that only the PI group gained in their ability to interpret Japanese passive constructions presented at the sentence-level. The control group made no gains. The PI group is clearly superior to the control group as the instructional treatment had a large impact in helping students process and parse Japanese passive forms correctly.

Sentence-level production data In Table 5.2 we provide descriptive statistics for the sentence-level production test. We conducted a one-way ANOVA on the pretest scores obtained in the production task. The results revealed no significant difference between the two groups’ scores before instruction (p = .545). We will, therefore, attribute any differences we find after administering the treatments to the effects of those treatments. We also display these means graphically in Graph 5.2. The graph provides a visual representation of the rather large gains made by the PI group in the sentence-level production test. The maximum score on the test was 10 and the PI group’s mean score was 8.0. The graph also shows how little the difference is between the pretest and posttest scores of the control group. We submitted the pretest and posttest scores on the sentence-level production task to a two-way ANOVA with repeated measures. Treatment (PI vs. control group) was the between-subjects variable.

Dialogue/Story Interpretation with Japanese

171

Table 5.2 Means and standard deviations for the sentence-level production test Pretest Variable

N

Mean

PI

7

.571

Control

3

.000

Posttest

SD

Mean

1.51 .000

SD

8.00

2.44

2.33

2.51

PI = Process Instruction. SD = Standard Deviation. N = Number.

Proslpre

10.00

Proslpost

9.00 8.00 7.00 Mean

6.00 5.00

4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 PI

Control Groups

Graph 5.2 Means on the sentence-level production test

Time (pretest vs. posttest) was the within-subjects, repeated measures, variable. The results revealed, as in the case of the sentence-level interpretation task, a significant main effect for Time (F(1,9) = 34.517, p = .000.) There was also a significant main effect for Treatment (F(1,9) = 9.404, p = .005); and significant interaction between Treatment and Time (F(1,9) = 25.488, p = .001.) These results indicate that only the PI group improved significantly from pretest to posttest. The control group did not. PI had a positive impact on learners’ performance in the written production of correct passive forms in Japanese.

Processing Instruction and Discourse

172

Guided recall of the dialogue-based discourse-level interpretation data In Table 5.3 we provide the descriptive statistics for learners’ performance on the dialogue-based discourse-level interpretation test. We used a one-way ANOVA to compare pretest scores for the two groups. The analysis revealed no significant difference between the groups’ scores (p = .687) before instruction. We will, therefore, attribute any differences we find after the treatment to the effects of that treatment. We also display the means graphically in Graph 5.3. The graph Table 5.3 Means and standard deviations on the dialogue-based discourse-level interpretation task Pretest

Posttest

Variable

N

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

PI

7

1.00

1.15

4.14

1.46

Control

3

.066

1.13

PI = Process Instruction. SD = Standard Deviation. N = Number.

10.00

Indldpre Indldpost

9.00 8.00

Mean

7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 PI

Control Groups

Graph 5.3 Means for the dialogue interpretation task

.333

.577

Dialogue/Story Interpretation with Japanese

173

provides a visual representation of the large gains made by the PI group in interpreting passive constructions presented at the discourse level in a dialogue. The maximum score on this test is 5 and the PI group’s mean score is 4.14. We then performed a repeated measures ANOVA on the raw scores on the pretest/posttest for the dialogue interpretation test. This statistical analysis was used to compare the effects of Treatment (PI vs. control) and Time (pretest vs. posttest). The two-way ANOVA showed a significant main effect for Time (F(1,9) = 7.567, p = .009); a significant main effect for Treatment (F(1,9) = 11.585, p = .002); and significant interaction between Treatment and Time (F(1,9) = 20.544, p = .002.) These results demonstrate that only the processing group improved significantly from pretest to posttest. The control group did not. These results demonstrate that PI resulted in significant knowledge gain. The PI group was superior to the control group in that the instructional treatment had a significant impact in helping students process and parse Japanese passive forms correctly when these forms are embedded in discourse.

Guided recall of the story-based discourse-level interpretation data In Table 5.4, we provide the descriptive statistics for learners’ performance on the story-based discourse-level interpretation test. A one-way ANOVA on pretest scores for the two groups revealed no significant difference between the groups’ scores (p = .424) before instruction. We will attribute any differences in posttest scores to the

Table 5.4 Means and standard deviations on the story-based discourse-level interpretation task Pretest

Posttest

Variable

N

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

PI

7

2.14

2.19

9.14

1.06

Control

3

1.00

1.10

.666

1.15

PI = Process Instruction. SD = Standard Deviation. N = Number.

174

Processing Instruction and Discourse Indlspre Indlspost

10.00 9.00 8.00

Mean

7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 PI

Control Groups

Graph 5.4 Means for the story interpretation task

effects of the treatment. We also display the means graphically in Graph 5.4. The graph provides a visual representation of the very large gains made by the PI group in interpreting Japanese passive constructions when they are embedded in discourse. The group also shows the lack of difference between the pre- and posttest scores of the control group. We submitted the scores to a two-way repeated measures ANOVA. Treatment (PI vs. control group) was the between-subjects factor. Time (pretest vs. posttest) was the repeated measure within-groups’ factor. The two-way ANOVA showed a significant main effect for Time (F(1,9) = 30.270, p = .001); a significant main effect for Treatment (F(1,9) = 36.627, p = .000); and a significant interaction between Treatment and Time (F(1,9) = 50.244, p = .000.) These results demonstrate that only the PI group made significant gains on the interpretation test. The control group did not. The results indicate that through PI learners gained significant knowledge of the target form. As in the previous discourse-level task and on the two sentence-level tasks, the PI group was superior to the control group. The instructional treatment had a significant impact in helping students process

Dialogue/Story Interpretation with Japanese

175

and parse Japanese passive forms correctly when they are embedded in discourse (story version).

Discussion and Conclusion Our primary goal in conducting the present study was to explore the effects of PI on learners performance on two discourse-level interpretation tasks in addition to the more “traditional” sentencelevel interpretation and form production tasks associated with PI research. We conducted this study using a new target form, the passive construction in Japanese. PI research has never examined a passive construction. We will discuss the findings of the present study in relation to the research questions that guided the research. Q1. Would learners receiving PI improve in their ability to interpret sentences containing Japanese passive forms? PI research has never failed to find that PI significantly improves learners’ interpretation of sentences containing the target form. Our study adds to this research base, adding to it a new linguistic item, the passive construction in Japanese. We did not compare the effects of PI to some other type of instruction not only because our access to learners was limited but because we simply sought to examine the effects of PI itself. Q2. Would learners receiving PI improve in their ability to produce sentences containing Japanese passive forms? PI research has never failed to find that PI significantly improves learners’ production of target forms in sentence-level form production tasks. Our research adds to that data base. Again, our research adds a new linguistic item to that data base. Among the linguistic structures that are affected by the First Noun Principle are Spanish direct object pronouns (Sanz 1997; 2004; VanPatten and Cadierno 1993; VanPatten and Sanz 1995; and VanPatten and Oikennon 1996; among others), French causative constructions (VanPatten and

176

Processing Instruction and Discourse

Wong 2004), and, now, the Japanese passive constructions. The research has consistently shown that learners who receive PI improve significantly in their production of the target forms. Q3. Would learners receiving PI improve in their ability to interpret discourse, as measured by a guided recall of a dialogue containing Japanese passive forms? Lee (2004) hypothesized that the effects of PI would be positively measured using discourse-level interpretation tasks. Benati and Lee (2008: 173) more generally address this as “The Discourse Hypothesis: PI will yield significant improvement on discourse-level tasks.” Our research is the first, to our knowledge, to use discourse-level interpretation tasks. Learners were exposed to both passive and active constructions embedded in discourse and had to identify the agent of the action. As a result of receiving PI, learners improved significantly from pretest to posttest in successfully identifying the agent. Their extremely low scores on the pretest indicate that they relied extensively on an incorrect word-order processing strategy captured by VanPatten (2004) as the First Noun Principle. PI almost eliminated this processing strategy among the learners. Q4. Would learners receiving PI improve in their ability to interpret discourse, as measured by a guided recall of a story containing Japanese passive forms? In our exploration of discourse-level effects we decided to present learners with two different types of discourse. The first task was based on exposing learners to the target structure embedded in a dialogue between two different speakers. Those results are presented under research question 3. The second task was based on exposing learners to the target structure embedded in a story. We connected our tasks by inventing a story about the two characters that dialogued in the previous task. The results demonstrated that PI was significantly and extremely successful in helping learners to interpret the target structure when it was embedded in a discourse.

Dialogue/Story Interpretation with Japanese

177

Our first two research questions connect the present study methodologically to the majority of the previous PI research. We can affirm that our instructional materials were effective just as all other PI materials have been effective. Learners gain significantly in their ability to interpret sentences containing the target form and in their ability to produce the target form in sentence completion tasks. Our two research questions add new and exciting information to the data base. The findings from the present study have clearly demonstrated the effects of PI in a non-Romance language (Japanese) and on a new form (Japanese passive constructions). Overall, PI focused on linguistic features of Japanese is proving quite effective (Benati 2009). Given our results with discourse-level interpretation tasks we can affirm that PI has a significant impact on input processing. The instruction learners received was presented at the sentence level. We determined that the instruction was effective measured at the sentence level and we proved the instruction was effective measured at the discourselevel. We assert that PI affects the learners’ developing system. Only by altering the developing system would we get effects on tasks that were not practiced during instruction. We must recognize that the primary limitation of the present study is the small number of participants in the two treatment groups. Our future research on this topic must gather data on a greater number of L2 learners. Additionally, we would like to see PI compared to other types of instruction. We have seen previously that other types of instructions do not affect sentence interpretation so we do not really anticipate that they will affect discourse-level interpretation. Yet we will not know this unless and until we test it. Finally, future research should also determine the durative effects of PI as measured by discourse-level interpretation tasks.

Chapter 6

Exploring the Effects of Processing Instruction on Discourse-level Interpretation Tasks with English Past Tense

Introduction The present study examines the acquisition of English, and targets as its linguistic feature the simple past tense, which is formed by adding the morpheme –d to the end of verbs. Another important feature of this study, as in the case of two previous studies investigating the effects of PI on the acquisition of English past tense, is that the L2 learners participating in this study are not native speakers of English but are native speakers of an Asian language (Benati, 2005; Benati and Lee with Houghton 2008). It is important for the generalizability of Processing Instruction to research non-Romance languages in order to further support the Target Language Hypothesis that: “PI can help learners of any target language develop an appropriate target-language specific processing strategy to address a targetlanguage specific processing problem” (Benati and Lee, 2008: 174). It is also important for generalizability to investigate learners from a variety of native language backgrounds in order to further support the Native Language Hypothesis that: “PI will be effective for instilling target-language specific processing strategies, no matter the native language of the learners” (Benati and Lee 2008: 173). Only a few investigations of the effects of PI have examined younger language learners, that is, learners who are in primary, middle, or secondary schools (Benati, 2005; Benati and Lee with Houghton 2008; VanPatten and Oikennon 1996). The present study adds to this database in that we examine the effects of PI on primary school-aged children.

Dialogue/Story Interpretation with English

179

It is important for the generalizability of PI research to continue to examine younger learners thereby adding strength to the Age Hypothesis that states that: “PI will be equally effective as an intervention with younger learners as it is with older learners” (Benati and Lee 2008:174). As mentioned above, the linguistic feature selected for this study is the English past tense marker –d. This linguistic item is affected by the Lexical Preference Principle as learners tend to process lexical items before grammatical items when both encode the same semantic information (VanPatten 2004). When they need to decode the meaning of the sentence they hear or read learners would use an adverb such as “yesterday” rather than the morpheme –d to assign past temporal reference. Two previous investigations have affirmed that PI is an effective means for directing learners’ attention to the verb morpheme –d and then using it to determine past temporal reference. Benati (2005) compared the relative effects of three types of instruction: PI, TI, and MOI. The participants were native speakers of Greek and Chinese learning English as an academic subject in their home countries. The participants were also high-school-aged students. They had no previous knowledge of the target form as determined by their pretest scores and a background questionnaire. No matter the type of instruction received, it was the learners’ initial exposure to the past tense morpheme –d in English. All learners in all three instructional groups received explicit information about the target form. The learners in the PI group then received structured input activities in which only the target form indicated past temporal timeframe. As in all PI research, the learners never produced the form; they only processed it for meaning. The TI group then received form production practices that were of two types: mechanical and meaningful. The mechanical practices required learners to manipulate the target form but doing so did not necessitate that the learners comprehend the meaning of sentences. The correct answer to a mechanical practice is that the target form is produced correctly. The learners also carried out meaning-based form production practices. After the MOI group received explicit information they then engaged in meaning-based form production

180

Processing Instruction and Discourse

practices. The meaning-based practices for the TI group matched those of the MOI group. To assess the effectiveness of the three types of instruction Benati used a pretest/posttest design with the post testing taking place immediately after instruction. He created two assessment tasks. The first was a sentence-level form interpretation test. The second was a sentence-level form production test. The results of the statistical analyses revealed that only the PI group improved significantly from pretest to posttest on the form interpretation task. He found that all three instructional groups improved significantly on the form production task. These findings applied to both groups of learners, the native speakers of Chinese as well as the native speakers of Greek. Lee and Benati with Houghton (2008) replicated Benati (2005) exploring the effects of PI on the past tense with middle schoolaged children who were native speakers of Korean. The children studied English as an academic subject and were enrolled in the beginning-level class. The most important aspect of this research was not to explore the primary effects of PI on the English past tense morpheme –d but to explore the secondary effects of PI on the English third person present tense morpheme –s. Primary effects are those that are directly related to the targeted linguistic item. Learners receive instruction on the target and the effects of that instruction on that target are measured. Secondary effects are those related to receiving instruction on one linguistic item but measuring the effects that the instruction has on a different linguistic item. Secondary effects are also called transfer-of-training and carry-over effects. Lee and Benati with Houghton (2008) examined the acquisition of the English past tense morpheme and the English third person present tense morpheme by comparing the effects of PI and TI. They used a pretest/posttest design. They used Benati’s (2005) assessment tasks for English past tense –d and developed sentence-level interpretation and production tasks for the English present tense marker –s. They administered all four tests as pretests and then again as posttests. The results of statistical analyses indicated that the PI group made significant gains on both the interpretation and production

Dialogue/Story Interpretation with English

181

tests for the English past tense morpheme. The TI group made no significant gains on the interpretation test but did on the production test for the English past tense marker. These findings replicated Benati’s (2005). Additionally, they found significant secondary effects for PI but none for TI. The PI group made significant gains on both the interpretation and production tests for the English third person present tense marker. The TI group made no gains on either type of assessment task. In the present study we once again examine the effects of PI on the acquisition of English past tense morpheme –d. As was the case in the previous chapters that examined Spanish subjunctive and Japanese passive forms, we want to determine if L2 learners receiving PI improve their ability to interpret English past tense marker –d as measured by a discourse-level interpretation task. To make this determination, we will compare the effects of PI to those of TI.

Research Questions In Lee (2004: 319) PI research was summarized and evaluated and future directions for research were suggested in the form of various hypotheses. Of relevance here is Hypothesis 8, as Lee explains: “. . . PI affects discourse-level production, I can hypothesize that it will also affect discourse-level interpretation.’’ Lee therefore formulated the following hypothesis: ‘‘PI will yield significant improvement on discourse-level interpretation tasks.’’ Based on this hypothesis a set of two specific questions were formulated: Q1. Would learners receiving PI and TI improve in their ability to interpret English past tense forms presented in sentences? Q2. Would learners receiving PI and TI improve in their ability to interpret English past tense forms embedded in discourse presented as a dialogue? Based on previous empirical findings presented in Chapter 5, the results we found for Japanese passive forms, and the hypothesis

182

Processing Instruction and Discourse

formulated by Lee, two hypotheses related to research questions 1 and 2 listed earlier can be formulated as follows: H1: PI will be a more effective type of instruction than TI in helping learners to interpret correctly sentences containing English simple past tense maker –d. H2: PI will be a more effective type of instruction compared to TI in helping learners to interpret correctly English simple past tense maker –d as measured by a discourse-level task.

Method Participants Three groups of participants, numbering 29 in the final data pool, participated in this study. They were all native speakers of Chinese who were learning English in a Chinese primary school. To select the population the following set of criteria were used in this study: (a) all participants had to be native speakers of Chinese; (b) they all had to be beginning-level learners of English, and; (c) they should not have been taught or should not have been previously exposed to the target linguistic feature (English simple past tense marker –d ) inside or outside the classroom. The initial subject pool of 38 was further reduced to 29 subjects as only subjects who scored less than 50 percent of the maximum score on the pretests, both the sentence-level and discourse-level interpretation tasks, were included in the final data pool. We administered the pretest a few weeks prior to the beginning of the treatment. Then, subjects were randomly assigned to one of the following three groups: PI (n = 10), TI (n = 9), and a control group (n =10). Randomization should lessen or eliminate any confounding influence of extraneous variables and help promote group comparability across instructional treatment. Figure 6.1 provides an overview of this experimental study.

Dialogue/Story Interpretation with English

183

Phase 1 PRETESTS (Interpretation sentence-level (Interpretation discourse-level) ↓ RANDOMIZATION PI TI CONTROL Phase 2 INSTRUCTIONAL TREATMENTS (6 hours) PI TI CONTROL Phase 3 POSTTESTS (Interpretation sentence-level) (Interpretation discourse-level)

Figure 6.1 Overview of the experiment

Procedures The present classroom-based experimental study followed the design of all other PI studies in adopting a pretest/posttest procedure. In the first group participants were taught the English simple past tense marker –d using a PI treatment. The goal of PI is to help learners alter their reliance on lexical items (Lexical Preference Principle) so that they process the target verb morpheme accurately and efficiently. A second group was taught the English simple past tense marker –d using a traditional instruction treatment. Here, the learners received a paradigmatic explanation of the target feature which was followed by practice in producing the target feature in mechanical and meaningful output activities. The control group did not receive instruction on the target form during the treatment period. The learners who participated in the study were native speakers of Chinese whose study of English was only in its initial stage. The same instructor delivered both instructional treatments and acted as facilitator during the treatment phases. To examine the short-term effects of instruction we used a pretest and immediate posttest. We were not able to examine more durative effects due to curriculum

184

Processing Instruction and Discourse

constraints. Two tests were developed for this study: one sentence-level interpretation test and one discourse-level interpretation test. Pretesting and posttesting combined lasted approximately 30 minutes. The instructional treatment lasted approximately six hours for the two groups. During the treatment period, feedback on performance was limited to telling participants whether an answer was right or wrong. No further explanation was offered and students seemed satisfied with the limited feedback. Limiting the feedback was consistent across the two groups. An immediate posttest was then carried out at the end of the second day of instruction. One-way analyses is of variance (ANOVAs) were conducted on the raw scores for all pretests to assess whether there were any statistically significant differences among the three groups before the beginning of the experimental period. Repeated-measures ANOVAs were used on pretest/posttest measures to assess whether there were any relevant effects for Treatment (instructional group) and Time (pretest score vs. posttest score).

Target feature The English simple past tense marker –d was selected for the instructional treatment for two reasons. Firstly, it is affected by the Lexical Preference Principle, which has been investigated in many other PI studies. There is a large database showing that PI is effective at altering learner’s attention from a lexical item to a grammatical form and therefore improving learners’ performance in interpretation and production tasks. Let’s examine the Lexical Preference Principle at work with the English past tense marker –d. In the following sentence “Yesterday I played tennis with John,” both the lexical adverbial/adverbial phrases and the verb morphology convey pastness. According to the Lexical Preference Principle, for a L2 learner, the lexical indicators would take precedence over the grammatical form. In addition to that, the past tense marker is a redundant form, made redundant by the adverbial phrase (Yesterday). Secondly, we selected English past tense –d marker for investigation as it has previously been examined in PI research. Benati (2005) and Benati and Lee with Houghton (2008) compared the effects of

Dialogue/Story Interpretation with English

185

different instructional types, including PI, on this linguistic feature. Benati examined beginning level adult native speakers of Greek and Chinese; Benati and Lee with Houghton (2008) focused on adolescent-age native speakers of Korean. The results of both studies indicated that PI was an effective means of significantly improving learners’ performance with the past tense marker.

Materials The two separate sets of instructional materials used in Benati and Lee with Houghton’s study (2008) were used for this study. The processing group received materials that were input-based and processing-oriented. The TI group received materials that were output based and production oriented. The control group received no instruction on the target feature but was subject to a comparable amount of exposure to the target language during their class time. The two sets of materials were balanced in terms of number of activities and vocabulary. The activities were constructed using highly frequent lexical items because of the age and beginning-level proficiency of the participants. The TI group received explicit information on the past tense in English. This was a paradigmatic explanation of the target feature. The activities they carried out consisted of a mixture of mechanical and meaningful output practices. These participants produced the target form in each item of each practice activity. The explicit information in the processing group focused on providing participants with information about the target feature and also about the specific processing problem addressed in this investigation. The practical component of PI consisted of structured input activities, both referential and affective activities. These activities were constructed following PI guidelines (VanPatten 1996; Lee and VanPatten 2003; Wong 2004a; and Farley 2005). The PI materials used in the present study contained six referential activities and four affective ones. The activity in Figure 6.2 is an example of a referential activity. It is termed “referential” because there is one correct answer. In this activity the learners must indicate the time frame encoded in each verb form they heard. The answer is right or wrong based on the form of the verb in the sentence.

186

Processing Instruction and Discourse

Things people did now and last summer Listen to the following statements and decide whether each statement refers to an activity that takes place now or took place last summer in London. NOW

LAST SUMMER

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Sentences heard by learners: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

People worked overtime at work. People visit London for the first time. People celebrated different festivals. People handed out bread to the pigeons at Trafalgar square. People protest in London about the war. People walked to work. People danced at nightclubs. People watch at lot of TV. People started a new hobby. People receive gifts from their friends and family.

Figure 6.2 Referential activity

In Figure 6.3 we include an example of an affective activity. It is termed “affective” because there is no correct answer but rather learners respond to the content of the item. They might agree or disagree. They might indicate that an event is probable or improbable. In this activity they indicate if an event applies to them. The activity requires the learners to read a series of sentences and indicate whether or not they did similar or different things at last year’s New Year celebrations. After that learners must work with a partner to establish whether they spent the last New Year celebrating similarly.

Dialogue/Story Interpretation with English

187

New Year Celebration Step 1 Read the following activities and indicate whether you did the similar or different things at the last New Year celebrations: Yes

No

1. I visited my relatives. 2. I received gifts. 3. I mailed New Year cards to friends. 4. I celebrated in the street with friends. 5. I enjoyed myself. 6. I decorated my home. 7. I danced at a club. 8. I decided on a New Year resolution. Step 2 Compare your results with your partner to find out how many similar things you did.

Figure 6.3 Affective activity

As mentioned above, the practice component of TI consisted of output-focused practices, mechanical and meaningful. The paradigmatic explanation of the target form was followed immediately by activities that required the learners to produce the target form in their output. In Figure 6.4 we provide an example of how TI requires learners to produce the form to complete the activity. This activity is an example of a mechanical practice. Learners can provide the required past tense form without understanding the sentence it is in and without understanding the meaning of the verb itself.

Assessment instruments and scoring To assess the effects of the two instructional treatments, PI and TI, we used a pretest and immediate posttest design. In order to address

188

Processing Instruction and Discourse Put the following verbs provided in the simple past simple tense (1) Last week, I (listen) to some music

______________

(2) Yesterday, I(work) overtime at work

______________

(3) Last Christmas, I (celebrate) with my family

______________

(4) Last night, I (dance) at a nightclub

______________

(5) Last week, I (smoke) too many cigarettes

______________

(6) Two years ago, I (protest) in London about the war

______________

(7) Last summer, I (visit) London for the first time

______________

(8) On Christmas day, I (receive) lots of presents

______________

(9) 5 years ago, I (travel) to China

______________

(10) In 1999, I (start) smoking for the first time

______________

Figure 6.4 Traditional grammar practice

the question raised in the present study, the tests consisted of two interpretation tests: sentence-level and discourse-level. We created two versions of each test. We used one version as the pretest and the other as the posttest. One version of the sentence-level interpretation test is provided in Figure 6.5. This test consisted of 20 items for which learners indicated temporal reference or were offered the option of not knowing (cannot tell). Ten of the items were distracters in that they used a present tense form for which the correct answer would be “right now.” These items were not scored. The ten target items on which learners were scored contained the targeted linguistic item, past tense –d. In the interpretation task, learners were required to listen to sentences in which there were no temporal adverbs so that learners could not rely on them to assign tense. Instead the learners would have to rely on verbal morphology to indicate when the action took place (present or past temporal reference). To the extent possible, we designed the interpretation tasks to tap real-time comprehension. To that end, we allowed only a short gap of five seconds between questions for learners to mark their answers. For this interpretation measure raw scores were calculated so that a correct answer received 1 point and any incorrect answer would receive 0 points. The maximum score possible would,

Dialogue/Story Interpretation with English

189

Listen to the sentences and decide whether the action occurred last week or right now in the present. Last week

Cannot tell

Right now

_____x____

____________

_________

1.

__________

____________

_________

2.

__________

____________

_________

3.

__________

____________

_________

4.

__________

____________

_________

5.

__________

____________

_________

6.

__________

____________

_________

7.

__________

____________

_________

8.

__________

____________

_________

9.

__________

____________

_________

10.

__________

____________

_________

11.

__________

____________

_________

12.

__________

____________

_________

13.

__________

____________

_________

14.

__________

____________

_________

15.

__________

____________

_________

16.

__________

____________

_________

17.

__________

____________

_________

18.

__________

____________

_________

19.

__________

____________

_________

20.

__________

____________

_________

Sentences heard by students (1) I cleaned the kitchen. (2) I hate mathematics. (3) I walk to college. (4) I talked with my mum. (5) I posted letters. (6) I dress in smart clothes for an interview. (7) I typed my essay.

190

Processing Instruction and Discourse

(8) I fixed my light. (9) I played chess with my teacher. (10) I hate English food. (11) I arrive in London. (12) I listen to music on my ipod. (13) I called Tom. (14) I use my phone on the train (15) I need more time to study. (16) I celebrated my birthday with all my friends. (17) I liked pop music. (18) I visit my uncle in Japan. (19) I smoked a cigarette. (20) I changed into my suit.

Figure 6.5 Interpretation sentence-level task

therefore, be 10 points for the sentence-level interpretation test (either pretest or posttest). The discourse-level interpretation test required learners to interpret past tense markers for verbs that were embedded in discourse. It consisted of a dialogue, which was spoken at a normal conversational speed by native speakers of English. The dialogue was recorded and played to the learners. We provide one version of the discourse-level interpretation test in Figure 6.6. No repetition was provided so the test would measure real-time comprehension. The dialogue contains many verbs but we selected 20 for the test. Ten of these were target forms in the past tense. The other ten were in the present tense. Neither set of verbs co-occurred with a temporal adverb or any other reference to time. Learners were asked to decide whether the verb listed referred to present or past events. They were given 1 point for each correct assignment of the ten target forms (past tense markers). The distracters (present markers) were not scored. As in the case of the sentence-level interpretation test the pretest and posttest were balanced in terms of difficulty and vocabulary. Learners ticked the answer sheet after listening to the whole dialogue.

Dialogue/Story Interpretation with English

191

Listen to this dialogue and decide whether each verb refers to past or present events. (Past events)

(Present events)

(1) to work (2) to have (3) to start (4) to collect (5) to take (6) to marry (7) to fill (8) to walk (9) to swap (10) to jumble (11) to offer (12) to preserve (13) to stand (14) to want (15) to wish (16) to like (17) to want (18) to hope (19) to come (20) to arrive I: M: I: M:

Margaret, may I ask you what you do for a living? Well. I work for a children’s charity. That is a full-time job, but I also have guests coming to stay with me at weekends. You mean . . . paying guests? Yes, this house is a bed-and-breakfast place too.

I:

What I can see around me, Margaret, is amazing! When did you start to collect this entire royal memorabilia?

M:

I started collecting . . . I am afraid I cannot remember now. The first things that I collected were a dish with the queen’s head in the centre.

I: M:

What sort of thing did you get? Oh, everything, I have got over four thousand Royal Souvenirs. And it takes all my spare time to keep everything clean.

192 I: M:

I: M:

I: M:

I:

Processing Instruction and Discourse Did you spend a lot of money on your collection? Oh, I do not know . . . er . . . let me see . . . No, I don’t think so. When Prince Andrew married Fergie, a shop filled its window with nothing else but mementoes of them, and I walked in and bought it a lot. But I cannot remember how much it was. And where do you get it all from? All over the place. There are lots of people who collected this stuff. I go up and down the country. We have convention where we swap things and . . . jumble sales. Did you fight for getting something you really wanted? Once in a shop and the shopkeeper was drinking his tea from a lovely coronation mug. I offered to buy it from him, but he was not interested. So off I bought a plain mug and preserved it to him then he did agree. I cannot standed at all. I just wanted to give this mug a proper home. Is there anything you didn’t have but you wish to have?

M:

No, not a thing, but a person. I really like Princess Diana and I want to meet her.

I:

I hope your dream comes true. If she ever arrived to your house, she would feel very at home.

M:

thank you very much.

Figure 6.6 Interpretation discourse-level task

Results Sentence-level interpretation Pretests were administered to the students a few weeks before the beginning of the instructional treatment period. It is important to establish that there were no preexisting differences between the PI, the TI, and the control groups so that we can attribute any posttreatment differences to the effects of instruction. The one-way ANOVA conducted on the interpretation pretest for the simple past tense revealed no significant differences between the groups’ mean scores before the treatment period, (F(2, 29) = .643, p = .534). The means for the learners’ scores on the interpretation sentence-level interpretation test for simple past tense, for both pre- and posttests are presented in Table 6.1. These descriptive statistics are presented graphically in Graph 6.1. The means indicate an improvement for

Dialogue/Story Interpretation with English Table 6.1 test

193

Means and standard deviations for the sentence-level interpretation Pretest

Posttest

Variable

N

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

PI

10

1.00

1.05409

5.3

0.82327

TI

9

0.66

0.70711

1.1

0.670093

10

0.60

0.69921

0.60

0.69921

Control Group

PI = Processing Instruction. TI = Traditional Instruction. N = Number. SD = Standard Deviation.

Presentin Postsentin

10.00 9.00 8.00 7.00 Mean

6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 PI

TI Groups

C

Graph 6.1 Means for the sentence-level interpretation test

the PI group but not for either the traditional instruction group or the control group. These scores were submitted to a repeated-measures ANOVA for which Instruction (PI, TI, and the control group) was the betweensubjects factor and Time (pretest vs. posttest scores) was the withinsubject factor (the repeated measure). The statistical analysis yielded a significant main effect for Instruction (F(2, 29) = 115.252, p =.000),

194

Processing Instruction and Discourse

for Time (F(2, 29) = 88.013, p =.000), and a significant interaction between Instruction and Time ( F(1, 26) = 42.418, p =.000). A post-hoc analysis showed that the PI group performed significantly better on the posttest than the traditional instruction group (p = .000) and the control group (p = .000). There was, however, no significant difference between the scores of the traditional instruction group and the control group (p = .625).

Discourse-level interpretation test The means and standard deviations for the discourse-level interpretation test are presented in Table 6.2 and displayed graphically in Graph 6.2. We used a one-way ANOVA on the pretest scores of the three groups to insure that there were no preexisting differences between the groups. The results showed no significant differences between the three groups’ mean scores before instruction (F(2,29) = 3.073, p = .063). The groups possessed equivalent knowledge of the English marker –d before receiving instruction on the English past tense marker. Any differences we find among posttest scores will be attributed to the effects of instruction. We used repeated-measures ANOVA to compare the effects of Instruction and Time and the interaction between Instruction and Time. As in the case of the sentence-level interpretation test, the statistical analysis revealed a significant main effect for Instruction (F(2,29) = 107.734, p = .000), a significant main effect for Time (F(2,29) = 97.290, p = .000), and a significant interaction between Time and Instruction (F(2,29) = 55.751, p = .000). The post-hoc test carried out on the posttest scores

Table 6.2 Means and standard deviation for discourse-level interpretation test Pretest Variable

N

Mean

PI

10

2.8

TI

9 10

Control Group

SD

Posttest Mean

SD

.91894

8.1

1.19722

2.1

0.78174

2.3

0.86603

1.8

1.03280

1.8

.91894

PI = Processing Instruction. TI = Traditional Instruction. N = Number. SD = Standard Deviation.

Dialogue/Story Interpretation with English 10.00

195

Predisin Postdisin

9.00 8.00

Mean

7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 PI

TI Groups

C

Graph 6.2 Means for the discourse-level interpretation test

of the three groups revealed that the PI group’s performance was statistically higher than that of the traditional instruction group (p = .001) and the control group (p = .001). No significant difference was found between the scores of the traditional and the control groups (p = .063).

Discussion and Conclusion The results provide positive answers to the two questions formulated at the beginning of this study and support the two hypotheses. The first two question of this study were formulated to investigate the effects of PI and TI on the interpretation of sentences containing the target feature (past tense marker –d). Q1. Would learners receiving PI and TI improve in their ability to interpret English past tense forms presented in sentences? The results of the statistical analysis clearly indicate that the PI group improved from pretest to posttest on the interpretation

196

Processing Instruction and Discourse

sentence-level interpretation test. The performance of the PI group was statistically significant and superior to the performance of the TI and control groups. This result confirms previous findings on the effects of PI on the acquisition of past tense markers (Benati 2005; Benati and Lee with Houghton 2008). We now have data on the effectiveness of PI with high-school students (Benati 2005), middle-school students (Benati and Lee with Houghton 2008), and now primary-school students (the present study). The results of the present study lend support to the Age Hypothesis that states that: “PI will be equally effective as an intervention with younger learners as it is with older learners” (Benati and Lee 2008: 174). The second research question was formulated to investigate the effects of PI on a discourse-level interpretation task. Q2. Would learners receiving PI and TI improve in their ability to interpret English past tense forms embedded in discourse presented as a dialogue? The results of the statistical analyses presented in the previous section have clearly shown that the PI treatment made significant improvement from pretest to posttest as measured by the discourselevel interpretation task. The performance of the PI group was statistically significant to the performance of the traditional and the control groups. These results support Lee’s (2004) hypothesis that PI would affect discourse-level interpretation. That we have another set of findings involving native speakers of Chinese lends support to the Target Language Hypothesis that states: “PI will be effective for instilling target-language specific processing strategies, no matter the native language of the learners.’’ Once again the results in this experimental research have confirmed the overall findings obtained by all studies investigating the effects of PI at the sentence-level. These studies have unanimously indicated that PI is a very effective instructional treatment. In addition to that, this study provides additional support for the view that PI is an effective instructional treatment in enhancing learners’ ability to interpret a target form when it is embedded in discourse. The findings on the English past tense with native speakers of

Dialogue/Story Interpretation with English

197

Chinese combined with the findings on the Japanese passive with native speakers of English allow us to generalize a bit about the effectiveness of PI as measured by discourse-level interpretation tasks. One of the limitations of the present study is the small number of participants in each group. Future research should address this limitation. Another area for future research is to examine discourselevel effects over a longer period of time. Are the effects of PI as measured by discourse-level interpretation tests durative and long term?

Chapter 7

Exploring the Effects of Discourse-level Structured Input Activities with French Causative by Wynne Wong

Introduction PI has put forth a rigorous research agenda in instructed SLA since the first published study in 1993 by VanPatten and Cadierno. The finding that formal instruction, when informed by second language (L2) learners’ processing strategies, can help learners process input better, prompted researchers to examine more closely the nature of the activities that make up PI: structured input (SIA) activities. Since that first study now more than a decade later, we have witnessed the emergence of several strands of research within the PI framework: (1) The relative effects of PI and TI (Cadierno 1995; Benati 2001; Cheng 2004; VanPatten and Wong 2004); (2) The role of explicit information and SIA in PI (VanPatten and Oikkenon 1996; Benati 2004, Farley 2004; Sanz and Morgan Short 2004; and Wong, 2004b); (3) The relative effects of PI and meaning-based output instruction (MOI) (Benati 2005; Morgan Short and Bowden 2006; Wong 2008); (4) The cumulative effects of PI (Benati and Lee 2008). A striking finding from all strands of PI research is that PI or SIA are always as effective or better when compared to other instructional treatments (see Wong 2008 and this volume for more detailed

Discourse-level Input with French Causative

199

discussion). Furthermore, this finding may be generalized to a variety of linguistic features in different L2s. VanPatten and Wong (2004), for example, found that the results of VanPatten and Cadierno (1993) may be generalized to the French causative structure. Following the research design of the original VanPatten and Cadierno study, VanPatten and Wong found that PI was better than TI on an interpretation task, and that there was no significant difference between PI and TI on the production task. Their conclusion was that PI was superior to TI because while the PI group never received practice in producing the causative structure during treatment, their correct processing of that structure as they engaged in SI activities allowed them to access that form correctly for production when they were required to do so. The TI group, on the other hand, could not perform well on the interpretation task. They were only able to do well on the production task, the type of task that they received and practiced during treatment. As discussed in Wong (2004a) and elsewhere, what makes PI unique (compared to other focus on form techniques) and effective is that this pedagogical intervention: “first identifies the processing strategy that hinders learners from processing a particular form or structure correctly” (p. 33), and then activities are developed to help learners practice processing input more efficiently. It must be noted, however, that VanPatten and Wong (2004) and the majority of studies under the PI framework have been conducted with sentence-level input only. In other words, most SI activities in PI studies to date have relied on sentence-level input to help learners make form–meaning connections for various grammatical forms. With the exception of this volume, there is currently no data on the effectiveness of SI activities when the input is strictly at the discourse level. Compared to sentence-level input, connected discourse inherently contains more words to process, which may consequently make target forms less salient to L2 learners and tax more of their limited processing resources. Wong (2002), for example, found that L2 learners of French were able to process prepositions more accurately when input was delivered at the sentence level rather than at the discourse level. Therefore, given that discourse-level input may require more

200

Processing Instruction and Discourse

attentional resources and may be more difficult to process, would SI activities also be effective in changing L2 learners’ processing strategies if the input were delivered at the discourse level rather than at the sentence level?

Research Questions The present study investigates SIA at the discourse level through a series of reading activities and comprehension questions that require learners to pay attention to the target form, the French causative, in order to respond to questions about what they read. These activities are compared to reading activities with comprehension questions that do not require attention to target form in order to respond correctly. The research questions for this study were the following: 1. When input is at the discourse level, what are the relative effects of SI comprehension questions (+SI) and non-SI comprehension questions (−SI) in helping intermediate French learners interpret the French causative structure? 2. When input is at the discourse level, what are the relative effects of SI comprehension questions (+SI) and non-SI comprehension questions (−SI) in helping intermediate French learners produce the French causative structure? 3. If there are any advantages of one type of comprehension question over the other in helping learners interpret and/or produce the French causative, does the advantage hold over time?

Methods and Procedures Participants Participants were undergraduates from three sections of a fourthquarter French course at a large Midwestern university. All participants were native speakers of English and had not received formal instruction on the target structure before treatment. Each section was randomly assigned to one of three groups: (1) +SI; (2) −SI, and;

Discourse-level Input with French Causative

201

(3) a no instruction control group. Sixty-four participants initially participated in the study. To be included in the final data pool, participants should have been present for the pretests, treatment, immediate posttests, and delayed posttests. Additionally, they had to have scored 60 percent or lower on the pretest following the criteria in VanPatten and Cadierno (1993) and VanPatten and Wong (2004), for inclusion. Seventeen subjects failed to meet full criteria for inclusion in the study and were removed. The final n (numbers) were +SI = 19, −SI = 15, and Control = 13.

Target structure The target structure for this study was the French causative, a structure previously investigated by VanPatten and Wong (2004) using sentence-level SIA. The processing problem associated with the French causative may be explained by the First Noun Principle of VanPatten’s model of input processing: “Learners tend to process the first noun or pronoun they encounter in a sentence as the subject or agent” (VanPatten, 2004:15). Research has shown that this describes how L2 French learners initially process the French causative (see VanPatten and Wong, 2004). The causative generally takes the form seen in the following example: Alexis fait promener le chien à Claire. Alexis makes to walk the dog to Claire. Alexis makes Claire walk the dog. In this example, there are two verbs and two agents/subjects. The first verb is fait and its required preposed agent/subject is Alexis. The second verb is promener with its agent/subject, Claire, obligatorily placed postverbally and marked by the preposition à. Research has shown that the agent/subject of the second verb tends to pose problems for L2 French learners. When asked “Who walks the dog?” they overwhelmingly say “Alexis” since he is the first noun that appears before the verb. This demonstrates their reliance on the First Noun Principle. When asked for a rough translation of the sentence

202

Processing Instruction and Discourse

learners of French tend to say, something like, “Alexis walks the dog for Claire.”

Instructional materials A story in French was written by the researcher to deliver input to the participants at the discourse level. This text was identical for both treatment groups. The story was about a Vietnamese family who had immigrated to Paris. Eleven instances of the causative structure were embedded in this 316-word text. The text was divided into six sections. Following each of the six sections of the story was a series of four multiple-choice comprehension questions in English about the text. In the +SI packet, one or two of these comprehension questions in each section required participants to process the causative structure correctly in order to answer the question correctly. For example, in the story, the sister Kim-Ly makes her brother recite his lessons every night. The sentence describing this event in French is: Alors, tous les soirs, Kim-Ly fait réciter à son frère ses leçons. Thus, every evening, Kim-Ly makes to recite to her brother his lessons. Thus, every evening, Kim-Ly makes her brother recite his lessons. In the +SI packet, the comprehension question to this statement was: “Who has to recite lessons in the evening?” Note that learners must process the causative structure correctly in order to arrive at the correct answer, that is, it is the brother and not Kim-Ly who recites the lessons. This is an example of an SI comprehension question. Readers may recall that in SI activities, learners must process the target form correctly in order to interpret meaning. In the +SI packet, one or two questions in each section were SI comprehension questions that required correct processing of the target form and the remaining two or three questions were regular comprehension questions that did not require learners to process the causative structure correctly in order to answer them. An example of such a question is: “Who is the youngest in the family?” There were

Discourse-level Input with French Causative

203

Section IV. Monsieur et Madame Phan parlent très peu français mais ils ont un restaurant vietnamien dans le quartier asiatique. Au restaurant, Madame Phan fait faire la cuisine à son mari. Kim-Ly travaille parfois comme serveuse. Quand il n’y a pas de clients, elle fait ses devoirs. 1. Do Kim-Ly’s parents speak French? (a) No, not at all. (b) Yes, but very little. (c) Yes, they speak French fluently. 2. Where is the Phan family restaurant located? (a) Asian quarter (b) French quarter (c) Latin quarter 3. Who does the cooking at the restaurant? * (a) Mr. Phan (b) Mrs. Phan (c) Kim-Ly 4. Who works as a server at the restaurant? (a) Mr. Phan (b) Mrs. Phan (c) Kim-Ly

PLEASE DO NOT TURN THE PAGE UNTIL YOU ARE TOLD TO DO SO * SI type comprehension question

Figure 7.1 Sample page from +SI treatment packet

a total of four comprehension questions following each section of the story. We provide in Figure 7.1 a sample page from section IV of the materials. The discourse-level input contains four sentences. The second one contains a causative construction. One of the comprehension questions, question 3, refers to the target. The −SI packet did not contain any SI comprehension questions. All four questions that followed each section of the text in the −SI packet were regular comprehension questions that did not require learners to process the target structure correctly in order to answer the questions. Two of these questions were identical to the two or three regular comprehension questions in the +SI packet and the remaining questions were additional comprehension questions about

Processing Instruction and Discourse

204 Section IV.

Monsieur et Madame Phan parlent très peu français mais ils ont un restaurant vietnamien dans le quartier asiatique. Au restaurant, Madame Phan fait faire la cuisine à son mari. Kim-Ly travaille parfois comme serveuse. Quand il n’y a pas de clients, elle fait ses devoirs. 1. Do Kim-Ly’s parents speak French? (a) No, not at all. (b) Yes, but very little. (c) Yes, they speak French fluently. 2. Where is the Phan family restaurant located? (a) Asian quarter (b) French quarter (c) Latin quarter 3. What kind of restaurant does the Phan family own? (a) French (b) Vietnamese (c) French and Vietnamese 4. Who works as a server at the restaurant? (a) Mr. Phan (b) Mrs. Phan (c) Kim-Ly

PLEASE DO NOT TURN THE PAGE UNTIL YOU ARE TOLD TO DO SO

Figure 7.2 Sample page from −SI treatment packet

other aspects of the story. In Figure 7.2 we provide the parallel sample page to the one provided in Figure 7.1. As can be seen in the sample page of the −SI treatment group question 3 is different. It does not refer to the information provided in the causative construction.

Assessment tasks The assessment tasks used in this study were identical to those used in VanPatten and Wong (2004). There were two versions of the assessment task. Version A was used as the pretest, Version B as the immediate posttest, and Version A as the delayed posttest. The assessments tasks consisted of an interpretation task and a production task.

Discourse-level Input with French Causative

205

The interpretation task required participants to listen to a series of sentences about people doing various activities and to determine who was doing a particular action in each sentence. For example, participants hear: Andrée fait promener le chien à Philipe. (Andrée makes to walk the dog to Philipe) On an answer sheet, participants were asked, “Who walks the dog?” and had to either write down a “name,” “nobody,” or “someone else” as appropriate. The correct answer to this sample item is “Philipe.” The interpretation task contained 14 sentences, 7 contained the causative structure and 7 were distracter items. The production task required participants to write a sentence to describe a series of 10 pictures that were shown on a power point slide presentation. The first part of each sentence was started for them. For example, in one picture, Mark is telling Richard to buy some milk. On their answer sheet, participants would see: Marc fait ___________________________________ And, they would have to answer Marc fait acheter du lait à Richard. Five of the items were target items requiring use of the causative structure and the remaining five items were distracter items that also required use of the verb faire, but not in the causative construction. A multiple-choice reading comprehension pretest was also created in this study to make sure that there were no significant differences in reading comprehension between groups before treatment.

Procedure All data were collected in participants’ regular classrooms by the researcher. One week before treatment, all participants completed an informed consent, the reading comprehension pretest, and Version A of the interpretation and production tasks. On the day of the treatment, participants from both treatment groups were told that they would be reading a story in French about a Vietnamese family living

206

Processing Instruction and Discourse

in Paris and answering comprehension questions in English about the story. Participants were given a packet in which each section of the story was printed on one page with four multiple-choice comprehension questions following the section on the same page. The researcher first read Section 1 of the story out loud while participants followed along in their packet. Following this, participants read Section 1 of the story on their own and answered the four comprehension questions. Participants had four minutes to read Section 1 on their own and answer the four comprehension questions. In the +SI group, one or two of the four comprehension question required learners to have processed the causative structure correctly in order to answer the question correctly. In the −SI group all four questions were regular comprehension questions; these did not require correct processing of the target structure to answer questions correctly. After four minutes, the researcher went over the answers for the four comprehension questions with the participants. The researcher asked for volunteers to give responses and told the class whether the responses were correct or incorrect but they were not given any explanation as to why. After going over the fourth question, the researcher told participants to turn the page and the same procedure was repeated for the remaining five sections of the story. After completing the last set of comprehension questions, participants were immediately given the interpretation posttest followed by the production posttest. The control group was given the posttests only and did not engage in any of the reading/comprehension activities. One week later, the researcher returned to the three classrooms and administered the delayed posttests. See Figure 7.3 for a summary of procedures.

Scoring Only the target items were scored on the posttests. The maximum possible score on the interpretation task was 7; each correct response was awarded 1 point. No partial credit was given. The maximum score on the production task was 10; for each correct response 2 points (full credit) were given. Participants were not penalized for vocabulary errors, spelling of people’s names, or for code-switching due

Discourse-level Input with French Causative

207

1 Week before treatment Informed consent process and background questionnaire (15 min) Pretests : All 3 groups (25 minutes) Treatment +SI group

−SI group

Subjects listen to Section 1 and read along on paper copy.

Subjects listen to Section 1 and read along on paper copy.

Subjects reread Section 1 on their own and complete 4 comprehension questions (2 are SI comprehension questions and 2 are regular content comprehension questions).

Subjects reread Section 1 on their own and complete 4 comprehension questions (all 4 questions are regular content comprehension questions).

4 minutes

4 minutes

Go over answers (2 minutes)

No treatment Control group

Go over answers (2 minutes)

Repeat procedure for sections 2, 3, 4, 5, & 6 of text. IMMEDIATE POSTTESTING (20 minutes) All 3 Groups DELAYED POSTTESTING (1 week after treatment) All 3 Groups (20 minutes)

Figure 7.3 Summary of procedures

to lack of vocabulary. For example, if a participant wrote “Marie fait faire les dishes à Sylvie” for “Marie has Sylvie do the dishes,” full credit was still given. Partial credit (1 point) was awarded if :(a) a participant provided a verb in the infinitive following faire but did not have the preposition à followed by a name, and (b) if the preposition à plus a name was provided but did not contain a verb in the infinitive following faire. The following are examples of items that were awarded 1 point: Claudine fait promener le chien. [Correct answer: Claudine fait promener le chien à Diane.] Sylvie fait la cuisine à Marie. [Correct answer: Sylvie fait nettoyer la cuisine à Marie.]

208

Processing Instruction and Discourse

The maximum score for the multiple-choice comprehension test was 10. No partial credit was awarded.

Analyses Raw scores from the interpretation and production pretests, and the interpretation and production posttests were submitted to a repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA). The between-subjects factor was Treatment and the within-subjects factor was Time. Scores from the pretreatment reading comprehension task and the interpretation and production pretests were submitted to separate ANOVAs.

Results Pretreatment comprehension task The ANOVA conducted on the pretreatment reading comprehension task revealed no significant differences between groups, (F(2, 44) = .08, p = .92). This supports that there were no significant differences in comprehension ability between groups.

Interpretation pretest The analysis of the interpretation pretest revealed no significant differences between groups before treatment, (F(2, 44) = 1.16, p = .32). This means that any gains made on the interpretation posttest were due to the treatments and not due to the differences in existing knowledge between groups before treatment.

Production pretest The analysis of the production pretest revealed no significant differences between groups before treatment, (F(2, 44) = 1.39, p = .26). This means that any gains made on the production posttest were due to the treatments and not due to the differences of existing knowledge between groups before treatment.

Discourse-level Input with French Causative

209

Repeated-measures results of interpretation task The means and standard deviations for the interpretation task for each group are presented in Table 7.1.

Table 7.1

Mean scores and standard deviations for interpretation task Pretest

Posttest 1

Posttest 2

n

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

+SI

19

0.316

0.820

4.316

1.887

4.316

1.565

−SI

15

0.000

0.000

0.333

1.047

0.600

1.454

Control

13

0.231

0.5999

0.615

1.557

0.538

0.967

M = Mean. n = Numbers. SD = Standard Deviation. +SI = Structured Input. –SI = non-SI. Range: 0–7.

A repeated-measures ANOVA conducted on the scores of the interpretation pretest and posttest revealed a main effect for Treatment (F(2, 44) = 44.84, p = < .01); a main effect for Time( F(2, 44) = 35.78, p = < .01); and an interaction between Treatment and Time F(2, 44) = 22.20, p = < .01). Graph 7.1 displays these results graphically.

Results for Interpretation 7 6 Scores

5

SI Comprehension Control

4 3 2 1 0

Pretest Posttest 1 Posttest 2 Treatment

Graph 7.1 Interaction line graph for interpretation task results at Time 1, Time 2, and Time 3

Processing Instruction and Discourse

210

A post-hoc Fishers protected least significant difference (PLSD) yielded the following significant contrasts: The +SI group performed significantly better than the −SI group (p = < .01), and the +SI performed significantly better than the control group (p = < .01). There was no significant difference between the scores of the −SI group and the control group (p = .64). To investigate the question of delayed effects, a second ANOVA was conducted on the raw scores of the two interpretation posttests. The results showed a significant main effect for Treatment (F(2, 44) = 41.11, p = < .01). A post-hoc Fishers PLSD conducted on Treatment revealed the following contrasts: the +SI group performed significantly better than the −SI group (p = < .01); and the +SI group was significantly better than the control group (p = < .01). There was no significant difference between the scores of the −SI group and the control group (p = .91).

Repeated-measures results of production task The means and standard deviations for the production task for each group are presented in Table 7.2. A repeated-measures ANOVA conducted on the scores of the production pretest and posttest revealed a main effect for Treatment (F(2, 44) = 5.62, p = < .01); a main effect for Time (F (2, 44) = 7.55, p = < .01); and an interaction between Treatment and Time (F(2, 44) = 4.82, p = < .01). Graph 7.2 displays these results graphically.

Table 7.2 Mean scores and standard deviations for production task Pretest n

M

Posttest 1

Posttest 2

SD

M

SD

M

SD

+SI

19

.947

1.393

4.158

3.287

4.00

3.575

−SI

15

0.7333

1.335

0.7333

0.961

1.00

2.138

Control

13

1.615

1.660

1.923

2.565

2.308

2.810

M = Mean. n = Numbers. SD = Standard Deviation. +SI = Structured Input. –SI = non-SI. Range: 0–10.

Discourse-level Input with French Causative

211

Results for Production 10

SI Comprehension

8 Score

Control 6 4 2 0 Pretest

Posttest 1

Posttest 2

Treatment Graph 7.2 Interaction line graph for production task results at Time 1, Time 2, and Time 3

A post-hoc Fishers PLSD yielded the following significant contrasts: The +SI group performed significantly better than the control group (p = <.02) and the −SI group (p = <.01). There was no significant difference between the scores of the control group and the −SI group (p = .23). To investigate the question of delayed effects, a second ANOVA was conducted on the raw scores of the two production posttests. The results showed a significant main effect for Treatment (F(2, 44) = 4.34, p = .02). A Fishers PLSD conducted on Treatment revealed the following contrasts: the +SI group performed significantly better than the −SI group (p = <.01). There was no significant difference between the scores of the +SI group and the control group (p = .12); and there was no difference between the scores of the control group and the −SI group (p = .25).

Summary of results The first research question was: When input is at the discourse level, what are the relative effects of SI comprehension questions (+SI) and non-SI comprehension questions (−SI) in helping intermediate

212

Processing Instruction and Discourse

French learners interpret the French causative structure? The results of the interpretation task clearly showed that reading comprehension questions that push learners to process the causative structure, that is to say, the +SI questions, were more effective than non-SI comprehension questions in helping learners process the target structure. The performance of the +SI group was significantly better than both the control and −SI groups, while there was no difference between the latter two groups on the immediate interpretation posttest. The second research question was: When input is at the discourse level, what are the relative effects of SI comprehension questions (+SI) and non-SI comprehension questions (−SI) in helping intermediate French learners produce the French causative structure? The findings from the production task also indicated that +SI comprehension questions were more effective in helping learners process the French causative than −SI type questions. On the production task, results also showed that the +SI group performed significantly better than both the control and −SI groups while there was no difference between the latter two groups on posttest 1. The third research question was: If there are any advantages of one type of comprehension question over the other in helping learners interpret and/or produce the French causative, does the advantage hold over time? The results of the delayed interpretation posttest showed that the advantage found for +SI comprehension questions, was maintained one week after treatment. Thus, for the interpretation task, the answer is yes. One week after treatment, +SI was still better than −SI and the control group on the interpretation task with no difference between −SI and the control group. On the delayed production task, results also showed that +SI was significantly better than −SI one week later. There was, however, no significant difference between scores for the +SI and control groups, nor between scores of −SI and control groups on the delayed production posttest. This finding may perhaps be due to the high standard deviations for the +SI group on the delayed production task. On the delayed production posttest, the standard deviations were 3.575 for the +SI group, 2.138 for the −SI group, and 2.810 for the control group (see Table 7.2). These high standard deviations suggest that there was a

Discourse-level Input with French Causative

213

lot of variation in performance amongst participants on the production task, especially for the +SI group. This high standard deviation may perhaps be due to the possibility that the +SI treatment was having an impact on some subjects but because treatment was brief (one class period of about 40 minutes), and subjects never practiced producing the causative structure; the treatment was not extensive enough to have an impact on the group as a whole. A longer treatment period might possibly result in a lower standard deviation for this task. We should note that the standard deviations of the +SI group for the interpretation task were much lower for both the immediate and delayed posttests. This suggests that performance on the interpretation task was much more stable across the group than for the production task.

Discussion and Conclusion The overarching question that motivated this study was the following: Given that discourse-level input may require more attentional resources to process, would SIA also be effective in changing L2 learners’ processing strategies if the input were delivered at the discourse level rather than at the sentence level? The findings from this study clearly supports that SI-type reading comprehension questions, operationalized as questions that push learners to process form for meaning, are effective in helping L2 learners of French process the causative structure when input is delivered at the discourse level. Participants from both treatment groups were exposed to the same discourse-level input, that is to say, a story in French with exemplars of the causative structure embedded. Results revealed, however, that only those participants whose reading comprehension questions included questions that required them to process the causative structure correctly (+SI questions) were able to make significant learning gains. The positive effects of +SI questions were observed on a task that required them to interpret the French causative and on a task that required them to produce the target structure; both immediately after treatment and one week after treatment. On the other hand, the −SI group, the group that received the same discourse-level

214

Processing Instruction and Discourse

input but were not given questions that required them to process the causative structure correctly, were not successful on posttreatment tasks. In fact, there was no significant difference between the −SI group and the control group on either the immediate interpretation posttest or the immediate production task. This finding suggests that input alone was not sufficient for learners to process this target structure (at least as operationalized in this study). In order to process the French causative structure correctly, learners must be given activities that give them practice in doing so. The results of this study compliment the results of VanPatten and Wong (2004). VanPatten and Wong (2004) found that SIA using sentence-level input were significantly more effective than outputoriented drill-type activities in helping L2 French learners interpret and produce the causative structure. Readers should recall that the same assessment tasks used in VanPatten and Wong (2004) were used in this study. The results of this study demonstrate that when learners’ L2 processing strategies are taken into consideration and activities are designed to push learners to rely on form to get meaning, learners are more likely to make correct form–meaning connections. This holds true not only for sentence-level input but also for discourse-level input as demonstrated by the current study. Thus, we may conclude that what is critical about SIA is not simply about input. SIA are successful because they are informed by a theory of input processing (VanPatten 2004 and Chapter 1 of this volume) and because these activities give L2 learners practice in processing target forms correctly. The −SI group in this study received the same input as the +SI group but their activities did not give them practice with processing and they were consequently unable to process the causative structure as well as the +SI group. The crucial role that processing plays in SIA was previously underscored by Wong (2004a): It is important to point out that SIA cannot be equated with just any kind of input-based activity. In other words, the fact that an activity does not require the learner to produce the target form does not automatically make that activity an SI activity. For an

Discourse-level Input with French Causative

215

activity to be an SI activity, that activity must somehow push learners to circumvent an inefficient processing strategy (p. 37). Marsden (2006) also demonstrated that not all input activities are created equal. Marsden’s study compared SIA with regular input activities that did not require subjects to process form for meaning. This researcher found that participants who engaged in SIA performed significantly better on posttests that assessed knowledge of target forms than those who received regular input activities that were not based on learners’ processing strategies. Thus, once again, it is not just about the input. It is about input and processing. SIA are unique because they are based on information about how learners process input and because these activities are designed to help learners process input better. The results of this study also need to be interpreted in light of several limitations. First, a larger subject pool would have been desirable. While clear results appear to have been found in favor of the +SI group, a larger subject pool would allow more confidence in generalizing the findings to the population. Secondly, treatment was only one day, which may account for the high standard deviations in groups on the production task, especially in the +SI group. It is plausible that with more extensive treatment, the results for production would be more stable in both the short and longer term. Future studies should thus employ longer treatment periods to investigate this possibility. It is important to point out that this study only investigated one target structure, the French causative. In order to make the claim that discourse-level SIA are effective in helping learners process target L2 input, we would need to replicate this study with different target structures to see if similar results will be obtained. For the time being, this study provides preliminary data to support that SI activities are also effective with discourse-level input, at least when the target structure in question is the French causative structure. Finally, research should also examine other types of discourse-level activities and their impact on L2 learners’ input processing. For example, what about an activity such as a dictogloss where learners

216

Processing Instruction and Discourse

are required to process discourse-level input and then are subsequently pushed to produce output as they attempt to reconstruct a passage that they have listened to and processed? How might such an activity compare with SI discourse-level activities? What impact might leading learners through cycles of input and output (as inherent in dictoglosses) have on input processing and how might that compare with SIA? Additional studies examining discourse-level input will undoubtedly provide a clearer picture as we continue to move forward with this research agenda.

Chapter 8

Conclusions

Introduction In this work we have explored the effects of PI as measured by discourse-level tasks. This research relates to the Discourse Hypothesis, which states that PI will yield significant improvement on discourse-level tasks (Benati and Lee 2008: 173; Lee 2004). Our work extends those of (1) VanPatten and Sanz (1995) who demonstrated discourse-level effects of PI on Spanish direct object pronouns; (2) Benati (2001) who researched Italian future tense morphology, and; (3) Cheng (2002, 2004) who researched Spanish copular verb choice. These researchers found that learners taught through PI made significant improvements on discourse-level tasks. VanPatten and Sanz (1995) found significant effects for PI on Spanish direct object pronouns for both sentence- and discourselevel tasks. At the discourse level they asked learners to watch a two-minute video and then either orally report what they had watched or produce a written account of what they had watched. They found that learners made significant improvement on the written task but not on the oral one. In a later study on Spanish object pronouns; Sanz (2004) examined the role of feedback in PI as measured with the sentence- and discourse-levels tasks. At the discourse-level task she asked learners to watch a video and retell what they had watched. In this study learners made significant improvements on the video retelling task after performing the structured input SIA. Learners who received implicit feedback performed as well as those who received explicit feedback.

218

Processing Instruction and Discourse

Benati (2001) found significant effects for PI on Italian future tense morphology for both sentence- and discourse-level tasks. As the discourse-level task, he presented learners with a sequence of five pictures that represented a story. They were given two minutes to audio record their stories. Learners improved significantly in terms of producing correct future tense forms in their stories as a result of receiving PI. Those effects endured over a three week period. Cheng (2002) found significant effects for PI on Spanish copular verb choice on both sentence- and discourse-level tasks. At the discourse level, she provided learners with a guided composition. This task consisted of a series of pictures with relevant lexical items provided to learners. In 2004, Cheng analyzed the compositions for the contexts in which learners used the copular verb estar. She again found significant effects for PI on both sentence- and discourse-level tasks. In both studies she found that the effects of PI on the discourselevel tasks were immediate as well as durative. That is, the effects of instruction were found immediately after receiving the PI treatment and were also present three weeks later. In Table 8.1 we provide a summary of the interpretation and production tasks we used to examine discourse-level effects for PI. We note that ours is the first research to have developed discourselevel interpretation tests. We also explored the effects of presenting input to learners as connected discourse, rather than isolated sentences (Wong, Chapter 7, this volume). This research relates to one of the guidelines for developing structured input activities, which is to provide input at both sentence and discourse levels (Lee and VanPatten 1995; VanPatten 1996). Only the original PI studies have used both sentence and discourse level input (VanPatten and Cadierno 1993; Cadierno 1995).

Processing Principles In 2004, Lee noted that PI research was somewhat limited in scope in that the majority of work had been done on Romance languages, Spanish in particular. But by 2009, Lee and Benati note that the scope of PI research has widened considerably to include more work on

Conclusions Table 8.1

219

Summary of the discourse-level assessment tasks used

Target linguistic item

Task type

Task

Spanish subjunctive after the adverb cuando

Production

2 guided compositions Learners provided a list of circumstances and a list of scenarios around which they were to talk about the future. One composition was about the learner him/ herself, the other about the learner’s best friend.

Japanese passive forms

Interpretation-1

Dialogue Learners heard a four paragraph dialogue, one paragraph at a time. At the end of each paragraph they selected one of two pictures to show who performed the action mentioned in the paragraph.

Interpretation-2 Story Learners heard a four paragraph story, one paragraph at a time. At the end of each paragraph they selected one of two pictures to show who performed the action mentioned in the paragraph. English past tense

Interpretation

Dialogue Learners listened to a dialogue. As they did, they assigned tense to the verbs they heard.

English and Japanese. In the present work we add new linguistic items to the inventory of grammatical forms that show the benefits of PI. Those forms are the Spanish subjunctive mood verb morphology after the adverb cuando and the Japanese passive construction. The Japanese passive construction is affected by the First Noun Principle as is the French causative construction with faire. In Japanese, the agent in a passive sentence is marked with a word-final participle but is not the first noun to appear in the sentence. Second language learners of Japanese must learn to process the particle to determine agency. The causative construction in French has two underlying agents; one person causes another person to do something. Second language learners of French must learn to process causality as signaled by the verb faire, rather than skipping over the word. The Spanish subjunctive mood verb morphology, as is also the case with French and Italian subjunctive mood verb morphology (Lee and Benati 2007a), is affected by several processing principles.

220

Processing Instruction and Discourse

In the case of the Spanish subjunctive after the adverb cuando, we have the potential processing problem captured in the Lexical Preference Principle. The subjunctive occurs after cuando when a future orientation is indicated. An event has yet to occur. A future orientation could easily be signaled with an adverbial phrase. But to do so would draw learners’ attention away from the verb morphology. This processing principle also affects English past tense verb morphology. We summarize the processing principles associated with each linguistic item in Table 8.2.

Findings We present a summary of the findings from the four empirical studies presented in this book in Table 8.3. All four investigations measured

Table 8.2 Summary of the processing principles investigated Targeted linguistic item

Processing principle(s)

Spanish subjunctive after the adverb cuando

Lexical Preference : If grammatical forms express a meaning that can also be encoded lexically (i.e., that grammatical marker is redundant), then learners will not initially process those grammatical forms until they have lexical forms to which they can match them. Meaning-Before-Nonmeaning: Learners are more likely to process meaningful grammatical markers before nonmeaningful grammatical markers. Preference for Nonredundancy: Learners are more likely to process nonredundant meaningful grammatical markers before they process redundant meaningful markers. Sentence Location: Learners tend to process items in sentence initial position before those in final position and those in medial position.

Japanese passive forms

First Noun: Learners tend to process the first noun or pronoun they encounter in a sentence as the subject.

English past tense

Lexical Preference: If grammatical forms express a meaning that can also be encoded lexically (i.e., that grammatical marker is redundant), then learners will not initially process those grammatical forms until they have lexical forms to which they can match them.

French causative construction with faire

First Noun: Learners tend to process the first noun or pronoun they encounter in a sentence as the subject. Primacy of Content Words: Learners process content words in the input before anything else

Conclusions Table 8.3

Summary of the results

Targeted linguistic item

Subjects

Spanish L1 English subjunctive University after the adverb students cuando

Japanese passive L1 English forms University students

English past tense

221

L1 Chinese Primary school students

Treatment

PI only T1 v. T2 Language: E v. E+ v. O

PI v. C T1 v. T2

Results

Increase in performance for the PI (SI) groups

Interpretation: Sentence T2 > T1 E = E+ = O Production: Sentence T2 > T1 E = E+ = O Production: Discourse (correct) T2 > T1 T2: Language: E = E+ = O Production-Discourse: (contexts) T2 > T1 T2: Language: E = E+ = O

50%

Interpretation 1: Sentence PI > C PI: T2 > T1 C: T2 = T1 Interpretation 2: Discourse PI > C PI: T2 > T1 C: T2 = T1 Interpretation 3: Discourse PI > C PI: T2 > T1 C: T2 = T1 Production: Sentence PI > C PI: T2 > T1 C: T2 = T1

82.8%

PI v. TI v. C Interpretation: Sentence T1 v. T2 PI > TI PI > C TI = C T2 > T1 Interpretation: Discourse PI > TI PI > C TI = C T2 > T1

81%

67%

49%

62.8%

70.0%

74.3%

43.0%

53.0%

(Continued)

222

Processing Instruction and Discourse

Table 8.3 (Continued) Targeted linguistic item

French causative construction with faire

Subjects

L1 English University students

Treatment

Results

SI v. non-SI Interpretation: Sentence v. C T1: SI = non-SI =C T1 v. T2; T2 v. T3 T2: SI > non-SI T2: SI > C T2: non-SI = C T3: SI > non-SI T3: SI > C T3: non-SI = C

Increase in performance for the PI (SI) groups

57.14%

64.22%

Production: Sentence T1: SI =non-SI=C T2: SI > non-SI T2: SI > C T2: non-SI = C

57.14%

T3: SI > non-SI T3: SI = C T3: non-SI = C

43.61%

C = Control group. PI = Processing Instruction. TI = Traditional Instruction. SI = Structured Input. E = L1 English, L2 only Spanish. E+ = L1 English with multiple L2s. O = L1 other than English. v = versus. T = Time.

the effects of PI or SI using a sentence-level interpretation task. The results are perfectly consistent across these studies and perfectly consistent with the results of all other investigations of PI that included a sentence interpretation task. Receiving PI causes learners to interpret sentences better. The increase in performance across the target linguistic items ranges from 43 percent to 82.8 percent. Three of the four investigations measured the effects of PI or SI using a sentence production task. The results are consistent across the studies that receiving PI or SI causes learners to improve in terms of producing the target form in sentences. The increase in performance ranges from 57.14 percent to 81 percent as measured at the immediate posttest. Our primary purpose was to investigate the effects of PI when working with discourse-level assessment tasks or with discourse-level input. Two of the investigations employed discourse-level interpretation

Conclusions

223

tasks. Learners who received PI on Japanese passive forms and on English simple past tense improved significantly on these discourselevel interpretation tasks. The improvement after instruction ranged from 53 percent to 70 percent. One study employed a discourse-level production task to measure the effects of PI on the Spanish subjunctive. Learners who received PI significantly improved their production of correct subjunctive forms. They also improved in terms of creating contexts to use the subjunctive. Finally, one study provided learners input at the discourse level. Those learners who answered structured input-type questions that required them to process the target form outperformed learners who answered more typical comprehension questions that did not require them to process the target form. We add our findings to those of VanPatten and Sanz (1995), Benati (2001), Cheng (2002, 2004) and Sanz (2004) that the effects of PI and SI are found at the discourse-level.

Context of Other Processing Instruction Research We can also situate our work in the greater context of other Processing Instruction research. The overwhelming majority of the previous PI research has examined adult learners. There are two exceptions; VanPatten and Oikennon (1996) examined American high school-aged learners. Benati and Lee with Houghton (Benati and Lee 2008, Chapter 4) examined Korean middle-school learners. Taking the results of VanPatten and Oikennon (1996) with those of Benati and Lee (2008, Chapter 4), Benati and Lee proposed the Age Hypothesis: The Age Hypothesis. PI will be just as effective as an intervention with younger learners as it is with older learners (Benati and Lee 2008: 168). We can now add the results of a third study to lend support to the Age Hypothesis. The research presented in Chapter 6 on English past tense verb morphology was carried out on Chinese primary school-aged children. The findings are consistent with other PI

224

Processing Instruction and Discourse

research in that learners who received PI outperformed learners who received traditional instruction on interpretation tasks at both sentence and discourse levels. Lee (2004) pointed to a limitation in the research carried out on PI up to that date. The limitation was a focus on native speakers of English learning Romance languages, especially Spanish. By 2008, that limitation was no longer so severe. The database had expanded to include native speakers of Chinese and Greek (Benati 2005), Italian (Lee and Benati 2007a, 2007b), and Korean (Benati and Lee with Houghton 2008). Based on this set of findings Benati and Lee proposed the Target Language Hypothesis: The Target Language Hypothesis: PI will be effective for instilling target-language specific strategies, no matter the native language of the learners. (Benati and Lee 2008:169) Work presented in this book lends support to the Target Language Hypothesis. First, the previous research on the effects of PI with Japanese was carried out on native speakers of Italian (Lee and Benati 2007a, 2007b) whereas the research presented here on Japanese was carried out on native speakers of English (Chapter 5, this volume). Native speakers of Italian and English benefit from PI on Japanese. Second, previous research on the effects of PI on English simple past tense has demonstrated positive results for adult native speakers of Chinese and Greek (Benati 2005) and middle school-aged native speakers of Korean (Benati and Lee with Houghton 2008). These results are strengthened by the results presented in Chapter 6 that examined primary school-aged native speakers of Chinese. Third, and finally, we have the results presented in Chapter 4, this volume. In that study we included native speakers of English, Italian, Cantonese, Mandarin, German, Polish, and Russian and presented them PI on the Spanish subjunctive after the adverb cuando. We found no significant differences between native speakers of English and native speakers of other languages after receiving PI. All groups improved.

Conclusions

225

Conclusions Since VanPatten’s 2004 edited volume much research on PI has been undertaken. The research has opened new avenues of research on PI, such as mode of delivery (Lee and Benati 2007a) and input enhancement (Lee and Benati 2007b). Importantly, research has demonstrated that PI yields not only primary effects but also secondary and cumulative transfer-of-training effects (Benati and Lee 2008). In other words, PI alters the learner’s developing system. With the research we have presented in this book, we now have much stronger evidence that through PI learners can use the target forms to interpret and create discourse. This evidence also lends support to the thesis that PI alters the learner’s developing system. With the research we have presented in this book, we now have stronger evidence that the effects of PI are not restricted to just adult learners. High schoolaged adolescents as well as middle and primary school-aged children have benefited from PI. We now have stronger evidence that the effects of PI are not restricted to just native speakers of English. The inventory of learners who represent other native language backgrounds is increasing.

References

Allen, L. Q. (2000), Form-meaning connections and the French causative. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 69–84. Association for Japanese-Language Teaching (2003), Japanese for Busy People. Tokyo: Kodansha International Ltd. Barcroft, J. and VanPatten, B. (1997), Acoustic salience of grammatical forms: the effect of location stress, and boundedness on Spanish L2 input processing, In W. R. Glass and A. T. Pérez-Leroux (eds), Contemporary Perspectives on the Acquisition of Spanish: Production, Processing, and Comprehension. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, pp. 109–121. Bernhardt, E. B. (1992), Reading Development in a Second Language. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Benati, A. (2001), A comparative study of the effects of processing instruction and output-based instruction on the acquisition of the Italian future tense. Language Teaching Research, 5, 95–127. —(2004a), The effects of structured input and explicit information on the acquisition of Italian future tense. In B. VanPatten (ed.), Processing Instruction: Theory, Research, and Commentary. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 207–255. —(2004b), The effects of processing instruction and its components on the acquisition of gender agreement in Italian. Language Awareness, 13, 67–80. —(2005), The effects of PI, TI and MOI in the acquisition of English simple past tense. Language Teaching Research, 9, 67–113. —(2009), Japanese Language Teaching: A Communicative Approach. London: Continuum. Benati, A. and Lee, J. F. (2008), Grammar Acquisition and Processing Instruction: Secondary and Cumulative Effects. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Benati, A. and Lee, J. F., with Houghton, S. D. (2008), Chapter 4: From processing instruction on the acquisition of past tense to secondary transferof-training effects on English third person singular present tense. In A. Benati and J. F. Lee, Grammar Acquisition and Processing Instruction: Secondary and Cumulative Effects. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters, pp. 88–120. Benati, A. and Lee, J. F., with Laval, C. (2008), Chapter 5: From processing instruction on the acquisition of French imparfait to secondary transferof-training effects on French subjunctive and to cumulative transfer-of-training effects with French causative constructions. In A. Benati and J. F. Lee, Grammar Acquisition and Processing Instruction: Secondary and Cumulative Effects. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters, pp. 121–157. Bever, T. G. (1970), The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In R. Hayes (ed.), Cognition and Language Development. New York: Wiley and Sons, pp. 279–362.

References

227

Bransdorfer, R. (1989), Processing function words in input: Does meaning make a difference?. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Teachers of Spanish and Portuguese, San Antonio. —(1991), Communicative Value and Linguistic Knowledge in Second Language Oral Input Processing. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Cadierno, T. (1995), Formal instruction from a processing perspective: an investigation into the Spanish past tense. The Modern Language Journal, 79, 179–193. Carroll, S. (2004), Commentary: some general and specific comments on input processing and processing instruction. In B. VanPatten (ed.), Processing Instruction: Theory, Research, and Commentary. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 293–309. Carroll, S. (2007), Autonomous induction theory. In B. VanPatten and J. Williams (eds), Theories of Second Language Acquisition: An Introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 155–173. Cheng, A. (2002), The effects of processing instruction on the acquisition of ser and estar. Hispania, 85, 308–323. —(2004), Processing instruction and Spanish ser and estar: forms with semanticaspectual value. In B. VanPatten (ed.), Processing Instruction: Theory, Research, and Commentary. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 119–141. Collentine, J. G. (1998), Processing instruction and the subjunctive. Hispania, 81, 576–587. —(2004), Commentary: where PI research has been and where it should be going. In B. VanPatten (ed.), Processing Instruction: Theory, Research, and Commentary. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 119–141. DeKeyser, R., Salaberry, R., Robinson, P., and Harrington, M. (2002),What get processed in processing instruction? A commentary on Bill VanPatten’s “Processing Instruction: an update’’. Language Learning, 52, 805–823. Echevarría, M. S. (1978), Desarrollo de la comprensión infantil de la sintaxis española. Concepción, Chile: Universidad de Concepción. Ervin-Tripp, S. (1974), Is second language learning like the first?. TESOL Quarterly, 8, 111–127. Farley, A. P. (2001a), The effects of processing instruction and meaning-based output instruction. Spanish Applied Linguistics, 5, 57–94. —(2001b), Authentic processing instruction and the Spanish subjunctive. Hispania, 84, 289–299. —(2004a), The relative effects of processing instruction and meaning-based output instruction. In B. VanPatten (ed.), Processing Instruction: Theory, Research, and Commentary. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 143–168. —(2004b), Processing instruction and the Spanish subjunctive: is explicit information needed?. In B. VanPatten (ed.), Processing Instruction: Theory, Research, and Commentary. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 227–239. —(2005), Structured Input: Grammar Instruction for the Acquisition-Oriented Classroom. New York: McGraw-Hill. González, N. (1997), A parametric study of L2 acquisition: interpretation of Spanish word order. In A. T. Pérez-Leroux and W. R. Glass (eds), Contemporary

228

References

Perspectives on the Acquisition of Spanish, Volume 1: Developing Grammars. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, pp. 133–148. Hikima, N. and Hikima Y. (2006), We are Bilinguals. Nadaku Kobe, Japan: Taiseido Shobo Co., Ltd. Houston, T. (1997), Sentence processing in Spanish and background knowledge. In W. R. Glass and A. T. Pérez-Leroux (eds), Contemporary Perspectives on the Acquisition of Spanish: Production, Processing and Comprehension. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, pp. 123–134. Klein, W. (1986), Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lee, J. F. (1987), Comprehending the Spanish subjunctive: an information processing perspective. Modern Language Journal, 71, 50–57. —(1990), Constructive processes evidenced by early stage non-native readers of Spanish in comprehending an expository text. Hispanic Linguistics, 4, 129–148. —(1998), The relationship of verb morphology to second language reading comprehension and input processing. Modern Language Journal, 82, 33–48. —(1999), On levels of processing and levels of comprehension. In J. GutiérrezRexach and F. Martínez-Gil (eds), Advances in Hispanic Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, pp. 42–59. —(2002), The incidental acquisition of Spanish future tense morphology through reading in a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 55–80. —(2003), Cognitive and linguistic perspectives on the acquisition of object pronouns in Spanish. In B. Lafford and R. Salaberry (eds), Spanish Second Language Acquisition: State of the Science. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, pp. 98–129. —(2004), Commentary: on the generalizability, limits, and potential future directions of processing instruction research. In B. VanPatten (ed.), Processing Instruction: Theory, Research, and Commentary. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 311–323. Lee, J. and Benati, A. (2007a), Second Language Processing: An Analysis of Theory, Problems and Solutions. London: Continuum. —(2007b), Delivering Processing Instruction in Classrooms and Virtual Contexts: Research and Practice. London: Equinox. —(2009), Research and Perspectives on Processing Instruction. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Lee, J. F. and Benati, A., with Aguilar-Sánchez, J. and McNulty, E. M. (2007), Chapter 4: Comparing three modes of delivering processing instruction on preterite/imperfect distinction and negative informal commands in Spanish. In J. Lee and A. Benati, Delivering Processing Instruction in Classrooms and Virtual Contexts: Research and Practice. London: Equinox, pp. 73–98. Lee J., Cadierno, T., Glass, W., and VanPatten, B. (1997), The effects of lexical and grammatical cues on processing past temporal reference in second language input. Applied Language Learning, 8, 1–27. Lee, J. F. and Rodríguez, R. (1997), The effects of lexemic and morphosyntactic modifications on L2 reading comprehension and input processing. In W. Glass and A. Pérez-Leroux (eds), Contemporary Perspectives on the Acquisition

References

229

of Spanish: Production, Processing, and Comprehension. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, pp. 135–157. Lee, J. F. and Rossomondo, A. (2004), Cross experimental evidence for the incidental acquisition of Spanish future tense morphology. Paper presented at the Annual Symposium on Hispanic Linguistics. Minneapolis, MN. Lee, J. and VanPatten, B. (1995), Making Communicative Language Teaching Happen. New York: McGraw-Hill. —(2003), Making Communicative Language Teaching Happen, 2nd edn. New York: McGraw-Hill. LoCoco, V. (1987), Learner comprehension of oral and written importance of word order. In B. VanPatten, T. Dvorak and J. F. Lee (eds), Foreign Language Learning: A Research Perspective. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, pp. 119–129. Malovrh, P. A. (2006), L2 sentence processing of Spanish OVS word order and direct object pronouns: an analysis of contextual constraints. In N. Sagarra and A. J. Toribio (eds), Selected Proceedings of the 9th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 169–179. Mangubhai, F. (1991), The processing behaviours of adult second language learners and their relationship to second language proficiency. Applied Linguistics 12, 268–297. Marsden, E. (2006), Exploring input processing in the classroom: an experimental comparison of processing instruction and enriched input. Language Learning, 56, 507–566. McNulty, E. M. (2010), On Activity Types and Activity Order in The Processing Instruction Of Spanish cuando Plus the Subjunctive/Indicative Contrast. Minna no Nihongo, Yasashii Sakubun (2007), 3A Corporation. Mitchell, R. and Miles, F. (2004), Second Language Learning Theories, 2nd edn. London: Hodder Arnold. Morgan-Short, K. and Bowden, H. W. (2006), Processing instruction and meaningful output-based instruction: effects on second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 31–65. Musumeci, D. (1989), The Ability of Second Language Learners to Assign Tense at the Sentence Level: A Cross-Linguistic Study. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Nam, E. (1975), Child and adult perceptual strategies in second language acquisition. Paper presented at the annual TESOL Convention, Los Angeles. Norris, J. M. and Ortega, L. (2000), Effectiveness of L2 instruction: a research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417–528. Ortega, L. (2007), Second language learning explained. SLA across nine contemporary theories. In B. VanPatten and J. Williams (eds), Theories in Second Language Acquisition: An Introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 212–250. Peters, A. M. (1985). Language segmentation: Operating principles for the analysis and perception of language”. In D. Slobin (Ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition, vol.2. (pp. 1029–1067). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Rosa, E. and O’ Neill, M. (1998), Effects of stress and location on acoustic salience at the initial stages of Spanish L2 input processing. Spanish Applied Linguistics, 2, 24–52.

230

References

Rossomondo, A. E. (2007), The role of lexical temporal indicators and text interaction format on the incidental acquisition of Spanish future tense morphology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29, 39–66. Sanz, C. (1997), Experimental tasks in SLA research: amount of production, modality, memory, and production processes. In W. R. Glass and A. T. PérezLeroux (eds), Contemporary Perspectives on the Acquisition of Spanish: Production, Processing, and Comprehension. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, pp. 41–56. —(2004), Computer delivered implicit versus explicit feedback in processing instruction. In B. VanPatten (ed.), Processing Instruction: Theory, Research, and Commentary. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 241–255. Sanz, C. and Morgan-Short, K. (2004), Positive evidence versus explicit rule presentation and explicit negative feedback: a computer-assisted study. Language Learning, 54, 35–78. Sanz, C. and VanPatten, B. (1998), Processing the content of input processing and processing instruction research: a response to DeKeyser, Salaberry, Robinson, and Harrington. Language Learning, 52, 825–831. Slobin, D. I. (1966), Grammatical transformations and sentence comprehension in childhood and adulthood. Journal of Verbal learning and Verbal Behaviour, 5, 219–227. —(1973), Cognitive prerequisites for the development of grammar. In C. A. Ferguson and D. I. Slobin (eds), Studies of Child Language Development. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. VanPatten, B. (1984a), Processing strategies and morpheme acquisition. In F. R. Eckman, L. H. Bell, and D. Nelson (eds), Universals of Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, pp. 88–98. —(1984b), Learners’ comprehension of clitic pronouns: more evidence for a word order strategy. Hispanic Linguistics, 1, 57–67. —(1985a), The acquisition of ser and estar by adult learners of Spanish: a preliminary investigation of transitional stages of competence. Hispania, 68, 399–406. —(1985b), Communicative value and information processing in second language acquisition. In E. Judd, P. Nelson, and D. Messerschmitt (eds), On TESOL ’84: A Brave New World. Washington, D.C.: TESOL, pp. 88–99. —(1990), Attending to content and form in the input: An experiment in consciousness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 287–301. —(1993), Grammar instruction for the acquisition rich classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 26, 433–450. —(1996), Input Processing and Grammar Instruction: Theory and Research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. —(2000), Processing instruction as form-meaning connections: issues in theory and research. In J. F. Lee and A. Valdman (eds), Form and Meaning: Multiple Perspectives. Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle, pp. 43–68. —(2002), Processing instruction: an update. Language Learning, 52, 755–803. —(2003), From Input to Output: A Teacher’s Guide to Second Language Acquisition. New York: McGraw-Hill. —(ed.) (2004a), Processing Instruction: Theory, Research, and Commentary. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

References

231

—(2004b), Input processing in second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten (ed.), Processing Instruction: Theory, Research, and Commentary. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 5–31. —(2007), Input processing in adult second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten and J. Williams (eds), Theories in Second Language Acquisition: An Introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 115–135. VanPatten, B. and Cadierno, T. (1993), Explicit instruction and input processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 225–243. VanPatten, B. and Fernández, C. (2004), The long-term effects of processing instruction. In B. VanPatten (ed.), Processing Instruction: Theory, Research, and Commentary. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 273–289. VanPatten, B. and Houston, T. (1998), Contextual effects in processing L2 input sentences. Spanish Applied Linguistics, 2, 53–70. VanPatten, B. and Oikennon, S. (1996), Explanation vs. structured input in processing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 495–510. VanPatten, B. and Sanz, C. (1995), From input to output: processing instruction and communicative tasks. In F. R. Eckman, D. Highland, P. W. Lee, J. Mileham, and R. R. Weber (eds), Second Language Acquisition: Theory and Pedagogy. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 169–185. VanPatten, B. and Williams, J. (2007a), Theories in Second Language Acquisition: An Introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. —(2007b), Introduction: the nature of theories. In B. VanPatten and J. Williams (eds), Theories in Second Language Acquisition: An Introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 1–16. VanPatten, B. and Wong, W. (2004), Processing instruction and the French causative: another replication. In B. VanPatten (ed.), Processing Instruction: Theory, Research, and Commentary. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 97–118. Wong, W. (2002), Decreasing attentional demands: A textual enhancement study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Second Language Research forum. Toronto, Canada. 3–6, 2002. —(2003), Textual enhancement and simplified input: effects on L2 comprehension and acquisition of non-meaningful grammatical form. Applied Language Learning, 13, 17–47. —(2004a), The nature of processing instruction. In B. VanPatten (ed.) Processing Instruction: Theory, Research, and Commentary. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 33–63. —(2004b), Processing instruction in French: the roles of explicit information and structured input. In B. VanPatten (ed.), Processing Instruction: Theory, Research, and Commentary. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 187–205. —(2005), Input Enhancement: From Theory and Research to the Classroom. New York: McGraw-Hill. —(2008), Rethinking a focus on grammar: from drills to processing instruction— data from the French subjunctive. In S. L. Katz and J. Watzinger-Tharp (eds), Conceptions of L2 Grammar: Theoretical Approaches and Their Application in the L2 Classroom. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning, pp. 72–92. Wong, W. and VanPatten, B. (2003), The evidence is IN: drills are OUT. Foreign Language Annals, 36, 403–423.

This page intentionally left blank

Subject Index

developing system 24, 30, 33, 55, 76, 104, 124, 177, 225 discourse level/task/s 41, 46, 87–8, 90–3, 104, 107, 113, 118, 123–6, 148, 152, 174, 176, 182, 192, 199–200, 202–3, 211–12, 215–16, 218, 222–4 explicit information (EI) 34–6, 57, 67–75, 106, 108–9, 112, 130, 151, 154, 156, 179, 185, 198 form-meaning connections 4, 19, 30–1, 33, 34, 38, 41, 64, 87, 199, 214 input 3–8, 12–15, 17, 19–20, 23, 29, 30–8, 40–4, 46, 52, 63–4, 66–7, 76, 81, 87, 92, 99, 101, 103, 108–10, 124, 148, 156, 158, 185, 202–3, 211–16, 218, 220, 222, 225 input processing 3–6, 13–15, 19–20, 30, 32–3, 38, 42, 177, 201, 214–16 intake 4, 30, 33, 55, 81, 124 interpretation task/s 60–1, 63–4, 69, 77, 80, 86–7, 93, 103, 105–7, 117–18, 123–5, 127, 149–50, 175–7, 180–2, 188, 191–2, 199, 204–5, 207, 209, 212–13, 222, 224 Meaning output-based instruction (MOI) 45, 57–66,

76, 78, 80–2, 102–3, 148, 179–80, 198 output 31–2, 62–4, 66, 93, 179, 183, 185, 187, 214, 216 processing instruction (PI) 32–45–82, 87–93, 102–9, 116, 121–8, 148–54, 159, 163, 169–77, 179–80, 182, 184, 186, 188, 190, 192–9, 217–18, 220–224–225 production task/s 78, 84, 87, 89–90, 92, 93, 102–3, 105–7, 117–18, 123–4, 126–7, 148–51, 170, 175, 180, 184, 199, 204–6, 210–15, 218, 222 sentence level/task/s 41, 45, 47, 49, 51–5, 58, 60–4, 66–7, 69–70, 72–5, 77–8, 83–4, 86–7, 89–90, 92–3, 107, 123–7, 169–71, 174–5, 177, 199–201, 213–14, 222 structured input activities (SIA) 34–8, 40–4, 46, 67–76, 81–7, 85, 93, 102, 108, 124, 152, 156, 179, 185, 198–204, 206–7, 209–216–218, 222 traditional instruction (TI) 32, 62, 64–7, 76, 90–2, 104, 110–12, 179–83, 192–6, 198, 199, 203–4, 207, 221–2, 224

Author Index

Aguilar-Sánchez, J. 76, 106, 126–7 Allen, L. Q. 25 Barcroft, J. 22, 99 Benati, A. 5, 18, 34, 52–3, 56–7, 61–2, 64–6, 70–1, 73–4, 76, 78–85, 97, 102–4, 106, 108, 112, 126–8, 148, 177–81, 184–5, 196, 198, 217–19, 223–5 Bernhardt, E. B. 9, 10 Bever, T. G. 24 Bowden, H. W. 63–6, 198 Bransdorfer, R. 19 Cadierno, T. 15, 50, 89, 175, 198–9, 201, 218 Carroll, S. 8, 13–14 Cheng, A. 116, 124, 149, 198, 217–18, 223 Collentine, J. G. 105 Echevarría, M. S. 25 Ervin-Tripp, S. 24 Farley, A. P. 15, 34, 41, 57, 59–62, 64–6, 71, 74–5, 97, 102, 128, 185, 198

Klein, W. 8, 99 Laval, C. 102, 104 Lee, J. F. 5–7, 11–13, 15–16, 18, 20, 24–5, 30, 34, 65–6, 76, 78–86, 97, 102–4, 106, 108, 126–8, 149, 152, 154, 176, 178–82, 184, 196, 198, 217–19, 223–5 LoCoco, V. 24, 25, 26 Malovrh, P. A. 27–8 Mangubhai, F. 8 Marsden, E. 215 McNulty, E. M. 76, 100, 106, 108, 109, 112, 126–7 Miles, F. 3, 4, 30 Mitchell, R. 3, 4, 30 Morgan-Short, K. 63–6, 198 Musumeci, D. 16, 17 Nam, E. 24 Norris, J. M. 125 Oikennon, S. 68–9, 73, 114, 175, 178, 223 O’Neill, M. 22, 99 Ortega, L. 125 Peters, A. M. 6

Glass, W. 15 González, N. 25 Hikima, N. 168 Hikima, Y. 168 Houghton, D. 126, 128, 178, 180, 185, 196, 223, 224 Houston, T. 27, 28

Rodriguez, R. 6 Rosa, E. 22, 99 Rossomondo, A. E. 7, 15 Sanz, C. 87–9, 92, 124, 128, 148–9, 152, 156, 175, 198, 217, 223 Slobin, D. I. 24

Author Index VanPatten, B. 3–19, 21–30, 32–4, 37–8, 41–3, 46–8, 50–1, 53–7, 63, 67, 69–70, 76, 86–7, 89, 92, 98–9, 102, 104, 108, 149, 152, 154, 175–6, 179, 198–9, 201, 204, 214, 217–18, 223, 225

Williams, J. 3, 4, 5 Wong, W. 3–4, 10–11, 25–6, 34, 41, 54, 56–7, 71, 73, 102, 112, 176, 185, 198–9, 201, 204, 214, 218

235