Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-17T11:18:50.677Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE EFFECTS OF PROCESSING INSTRUCTION AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION ON L2 ONLINE PROCESSING OF THE CAUSATIVE CONSTRUCTION IN FRENCH

AN EYE-TRACKING STUDY

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 December 2017

Wynne Wong  and
Kiwako Ito
Wynne Wong*
Affiliation:
The Ohio State University
Kiwako Ito
Affiliation:
The Ohio State University
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Wynne Wong, Department of French and Italian, The Ohio State University, 1775 College Road, #200 Hagerty Hall, Columbus, OH 43210. E-mail: wong.240@osu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

While previous research has shown that processing instruction (PI) can more effectively facilitate the acquisition of target structures than traditional drill practice, the processing mechanism of PI has not been adequately examined because most assessment tasks have been offline. Using eye-tracking, this two-experiment study compared changes in processing patterns between two types of training: PI and traditional instruction (TI) on intermediate-level L2 learners’ acquisition of the French causative. Both experiments used a pretraining/posttraining design involving a dichotomous scene selection eye-tracking task to measure eye-movement patterns and accuracy in picture selection while participants processed auditory sentences. Neither group received explicit information (EI) in Experiment 1 while both experimental groups in Experiment 2 received EI before processing sentences. Results of Experiment 1 revealed the PI group had significantly higher accuracy scores than the TI group. A change in eye-movement pattern was also observed after training for the PI group but not for the TI group. In Experiment 2, when both groups received EI, PI subjects were again significantly more accurate than TI subjects, but both groups’ accuracy scores were not reliably higher than subjects in the PI and TI groups in Experiment 1 who did not receive EI. Eye-movement patterns in Experiment 2 showed that both TI and PI started to shift their gaze to the correct picture at the same point as PI subjects did in Experiment 1. This suggests that EI helped the TI group start entertaining the correct picture as a possible response sooner but the EI did not help the PI group process the target structure sooner than the TI group.

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 40 , Issue 2 , June 2018 , pp. 241 - 268
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

The authors would like to thank James Brennan, Caroline Creed, Michael DeMatteo, Sarah Ewing, Laurene Glimois, and Whitney Parker for their invaluable assistance with this project. Any errors remain our own.

References

REFERENCES

Altmann, G. T. M., & Kamide, Y. (1999). Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition, 73, 247–264.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barr, D. J. (2008). Analyzing “visual world” eyetracking data using multilevel logistic regression. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 457–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benati, A. (2004). The effects of structured input activities and explicit information on the acquisition of the Italian future tense. In VanPatten, B. (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research and commentary (pp. 207–225). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (1992–2014). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer. Retrieved from www.praat.org.Google Scholar
Cadierno, T. (1995). Formal instruction in processing perspective: An investigation into the Spanish past tense. The Modern Language Journal, 79, 179–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comer, W. J., & DeBenedette, L. (2010). Processing instruction and Russian: Issues, materials, and preliminary experimental results. Slavic and East European Journal, 54, 118–146.Google Scholar
Culman, H., Henry, N., & VanPatten, B. (2009). The role of explicit information in instructed SLA: An on-line study with processing instruction and German accusative case inflections. Die Unterrichts-praxis/Teaching German, 42, 19–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dracos, M. (2012). The effects of form-focused training and working memory on the L2 processing and learning of morphological cues (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Pennsylvania State University.Google Scholar
Fernandez, C. (2008). Reexamining the role of explicit information in processing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 277–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grodzinsky, Y. (2000). The neurology of syntax: Language use without Broca’s area. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 1–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Henry, N. (2015). Morphosyntactic processing, cue interaction, and the effects of instruction: An investigation of processing instruction and the acquisition of case markings in L2 German (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Pennsylvania State University.Google Scholar
Henry, N. (2017). The role of prosody and explicit instruction in processing instruction. The Modern Language Journal, 101, 294–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henry, N., Culman, H., & VanPatten, B. (2009). More on the effects of explicit information in instructed SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 559–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kamide, Y., Altmann, G. T. M., & Haywood, S. L. (2003). The time-course of prediction in incremental sentence processing: Evidence from anticipatory eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 133–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keating, G. (2014). Eye-tracking with text. In Jegerski, J. & VanPatten, B. (Eds.), Research methods in second language psycholinguistics (pp. 69–92). London, UK: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
Keating, G., & Jegerski, J. (2015). Experimental designs in sentence processing research: A methodological review and user’s guide. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37, 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leonard, L. B., Wong, A. M.-Y., Deevy, P., Stokes, S. F., & Fletcher, P. (2006). The production of passives by children with specific language impairment acquiring English or Cantonese. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 267–299.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McManus, K., & Marsden, E. (2016). L1 explicit instruction can improve L2 online and of ine perfor-mance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39, 459–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, A. M., Mack, J. E., & Thompson, C. K. (2012). Tracking passive sentence comprehension in Agrammatic Aphasia. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 25, 31–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Paulston, C. B. (1972). Structural pattern drills: A classification. In Allen, H. & Campbell, R. (Eds.), Teaching English as a second language (pp. 129–138). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
Sanz, C. (2004). Computer delivered implicit versus explicit feedback in processing instruction. In VanPatten, B. (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 241–55). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Sanz, C., & Morgan-Short, K. (2004). Positive evidence vs. explicit rule presentation and explicit negative feedback: A computer-assisted study. Language Learning, 54, 35–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-prime reference guide. Pittsburgh, PA: Psychology Software Tools.Google Scholar
Stromswold, K., Eisenband, J., Norland, E., & Ratzan, J. (2002). Tracking the acquisition and processing of English passives: Using acoustic cues to disambiguate actives and passives. Paper presented at the CUNY Conference on Sentence Processing, New York, NY.Google Scholar
Swinney, D., & Zurif, E. (1995). Syntactic processing in aphasia. Brain and Language, 50, 225–239.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Trueswell, J. C., & Tanenhaus, M. (2005). Approaches to studying world-situated language use: Bridging the language-as-product and the language-as-action traditions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction: Theory and research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (2004). Input processing in second language acquisition. In VanPatten, B. (Ed.). Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 5–31). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B. (2015a). Input processing in adult second language acquisition. In VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (2nd ed.) (pp. 113–134). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (2015b). Foundations of processing instruction. IRAL, 53, 91–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B., & Cadierno, T. (1993). Explicit instruction and input processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 225–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B., & Oikkenon, S. (1996). Explanation vs. structured input in processing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 495–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B., & Wong, W. (2004). Processing instruction and the French causative: A replication. In VanPatten, B. (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research and commentary (pp. 97–118). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B., Borst, S., Collopy, E., Qualin, A., & Price, J. (2013). Explicit information, grammatical sensitivity, and the first-noun principle: A cross-linguistic study in processing instruction. The Modern Language Journal, 97, 506–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wong, W. (2004a). The nature of processing instruction. In VanPatten, B. (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 33–63). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Wong, W. (2004b). Processing instruction in French: The role of explicit information and structured input. In VanPatten, B. (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research and commentary (pp. 187–205). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar