Keywords
input flood
textual enhancement
processing instruction
How to Cite
Number of views: 1307
Number of downloads: 606
Abstract
Researchers in the field of instructed second language acquisition have been examining the issue of how learners interact with input by conducting research measuring particular kinds of instructional interventions (input-oriented and meaning-based). These interventions include such things as input flood, textual enhancement and processing instruction. Although the findings are not completely conclusive on whether these instructional interventions have an impact on acquisition, it is clear that we have witnessed a shift in the field from the original question “Does instruction make a difference?” to the more specific question “Does manipulating input make a difference?” In this article, the key classroom-based research conducted to measure the relative effects of different types of enhancement and manipulation is reviewed. Three main research foci are considered: (a) research measuring the effects of saturating the input with the target form (input flood), (b) research measuring the effects of different types of textual enhancements to draw learners’ attention to the target form, and (c) research measuring input restructuring to improve interpretation and processing of target forms or structures (processing instruction).
References
Alanen, R. (1995). Input enhancement and rule presentation in second language acquisition. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 259-302). Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press.
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.
Benati, A. (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 (pp. 207-255). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Benati, A. (2004b). The effects of processing instruction and its components on the acquisition of gender agreement in Italian. Language Awareness, 13, 67-80.
Benati, A. (2005). The effects of PI, TI, and MOI in the acquisition of English simple past tense. Language Teaching Research, 9, 67-113.
Benati, A. (2013). Age and the effects of processing instruction on the acquisition of English passive constructions among school children and adult native speakers of Turkish. In James F. Lee & A. Benati (Eds.), Individual differences and Processing Instruction (pp. 83-104). Sheffield, UK: Equinox.
Benati, A. (2015). The effects of re-exposure to instruction and the use of discourse-level interpretation tasks on processing instruction and the Japanese passive. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 53, 127-150.
Benati, A., & Lee, J. (2008). Grammar acquisition and processing instruction: Secondary and cumulative effects. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Benati, A., & Lee, J. (2010). Processing instruction and discourse. London: Continuum.
Benati, A. G., & Lee, J. F. (Eds.). (2015). Processing Instruction: New insights after twenty years of theory, research and application [Special issue]. IRAL, 53(2).
Benati, A., Lee, J., & Hikima, N. (2010). Exploring the effects of processing instruction on discourse-level interpretation tasks with the Japanese passive construction. In A. Benati & J. Lee (Eds.), Processing instruction and discourse (pp. 148-177). London: Continuum.
Benati, A., Lee, J., & Houghton, S. D. (2008). From processing instruction on the acquisition of English past tense to secondary transfer-of-training effects on English third person singular present tense. In A. Benati & J. Lee (Eds.), Grammar acquisition and processing instruction: Secondary and cumulative effects (pp. 88-120). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Benati, A., Lee, J. F., & Laval, C. (2008). From processing instruction on the acquisition of French imparfait to secondary transfer-of-training effects on French subjunctive and to cumulative transfer-of-training effects with French causative constructions. In A. Benati & J. F. Lee (Eds.), Transfer of training effects for processing instruction: Research and practice (pp. 89-121). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Benati, A., Lee, J., & McNulty, E. (2010). Exploring the effects of processing instruction on a discourse-level guided composition with the Spanish subjunctive after the adverb cuando. In A. Benati & J. Lee (Eds.), Processing instruction and discourse (pp. 97-147). London: Continuum.
Cadierno, T. (1995). Formal instruction from a processing perspective: An investigation into the Spanish past tense. The Modern Language Journal, 79, 179-93.
Cheng, A. (2002). The effects of processing instruction on the acquisition of ser and estar. Hispania, 85, 308-323.
Cheng, A. (2004). Processing instruction and Spanish ser and estar: Forms with semantic-aspectual value. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 119-141). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ellis, N., & Wulff, S. (2015). Usage-based approaches to SLA. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (2nd ed.) (pp. 75-93). New York: Routledge.
Farley, A. (2001a). Authentic processing instruction and the Spanish subjunctive. Hispania, 84, 289-299.
Farley, A. (2001b). Processing Instruction and meaning-based output instruction: A comparative study. Spanish Applied Linguistics, 5, 57-93.
Farley, A. (2004). The relative effects of processing instruction and meaning-based output instruction. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 143-168). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gass, S., & Mackey, A. (2015). Input, interaction and output in second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (2nd ed.) (pp.180-206). New York: Routledge.
Han, Z., Park, E. S., & Combs, C. (2008). Textual enhancement of input: Issues and possibilities. Applied Linguistics, 29, 597-618.
Hernández, T. (2011). Reexamining the role of explicit instruction and input flood on the acquisition of Spanish discourse markers. Language Teaching Research, 15, 159-182.
Jourdenais, R., Ota, M., Stauffer, S., Boyson, B., & Doughty, C. (1995). Does textual enhancement promote noticing? A think aloud protocol analysis. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 183-216). Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Keating, G., & Farley, A. (2008). Processing instruction, meaning-based output instruction, and meaning-based drills: Impacts on classroom L2 acquisition of Spanish object pronouns. Hispania, 19, 639-650.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. London: Pergamon.
Krashen, S. (2009). The comprehension hypothesis extended. In T. Piske & M. Young-Scholten (Eds.), Input matters (pp. 81-94). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
LaBrozzi, R. (2014). The effects of textual enhancement type on L2 form recognition and reading comprehension in Spanish. Language Teaching Research. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1362168814561903
Lee, J., & Benati, A. (2007a). Delivering processing instruction in classrooms and virtual contexts: Research and practice. Equinox: London.
Lee, J., & Benati, A. (2007b). Second language processing: An analysis of theory, problems and possible solutions. Continuum: London.
Lee, J., & Benati, A. (2009). Research and perspectives on processing instruction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Lee, J., & Benati, A. (Eds.). (2013). Individual differences and processing instruction. Sheffield: Equinox.
Lee, J., & VanPatten, B. (2003). Making communicative language teaching happen (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lee, S-K. (2007). Effects of textual enhancement and topic familiarity on Korean EFL students’ reading comprehension and learning of passive. Language Learning, 57, 87-118.
Lee, S.-K., & Huang, H. (2008). Visual input enhancement and grammar learning: A meta-analytic review. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 307-331.
Lee, J. F., Benati, A., Aguilar-Sánchez, J. & McNulty, E. (2007). Comparing three modes of delivering processing instruction on preterite/imperfect distinction and negative informal commands in Spanish. In J. F. Lee & A. Benati (Eds.), Delivering processing instruction in classrooms and virtual contexts: Research and practice (pp. 73-98). London: Equinox.
Leeser, M., & DeMil, A. (2013). Investigating the secondary effects of processing instruction in Spanish: From instruction on accusative clitics to transfer-of-training effects on dative clitics. Hispania, 96, 748-762.
Leow, R. (1997). The effects of input enhancement and text length on adult L2 readers’ comprehension and intake in second language acquisition. Applied Language Learning, 8, 151-182.
Leow, R. (2001). Do learners notice enhanced forms while interacting with the L2? An online and offline study of the role of written input enhancement in L2 reading. Hispania, 84, 496-509.
Leow, R., Egi, T., Nuevo, A., & Tsai, Y. (2003). The roles of textual enhancement and type of linguistic item in adult L2 learners’ comprehension and intake. Applied Language Learning, 13, 1-16.
Mavrantoni, M., & Benati, A. (2013). The effects of processing instruction and traditional instruction on two different school-age learners: The case of English present simple tense, third person singular. In J. Lee & A. Benati (Eds.), Individual differences and processing instruction (pp. 185-210). Sheffield: Equinox.
Morgan-Short, K., & Bowden, H. W. (2006). Processing instruction and meaningful output-based instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 31-65.
Overstreet, M. (1998). Text enhancement and content familiarity: The focus of learner attention. Spanish Applied Linguistics, 2, 229-258.
Pienemann, M., & Lenzing, A. (2015). Processability theory. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams, J. (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (2nd ed.) (pp. 159-179). New York: Routledge.
Reinders, H., & Ellis, R. (2009). The effects of two types of input on intake and the acquisition of implicit and explicit knowledge. In R. Ellis, S. Loewen, C. Elder, R. Erlam, J. Philp, & R. Reinders (Eds.), Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language learning, testing and teaching (pp. 282-302). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Sanz, C. (1997). Experimental tasks in SLA research: Amount of production, modality, memory, and production processes. In A. Pérez-Leroux & W. Glass (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives on the acquisition of Spanish: Vol. 2 production, processing and comprehension (pp. 41-56). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla.
Sanz, C. (2004). Computer delivered implicit versus explicit feedback in processing instruction. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 241-255). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Sanz, C., & Morgan-Short, C. (2004). Positive evidence versus explicit rule presentation and explicit negative feedback: A computer-assisted study. Language Learning, 54, 35-78.
Sharwood Smith, M. (1993). Input enhancement in instructed SLA: Theoretical bases. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 165-179.
Shook, D. J. (1994). What foreign language reading recalls reveal about the input-to-intake phenomenon. Applied Language Learning, 10, 39-76.
Simard, D. (2009). Differential effects of textual enhancement formats on intake. System, 37, 124-135.
Trahey, M., & White, L. (1993). Positive evidence and preemption in the second language classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 181-204.
Uludag, O., & VanPatten, B. (2012). The comparative effects of processing instruction and dictogloss on the acquisition of the English passive by speakers of Turkish. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 50, 189-212.
VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction in second language acquisition: Theory and research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
VanPatten, B. (2004). Input processing in second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 5-32). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Van Patten, B. (2015a). Input processing in adult SLA. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams, J. (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (2nd ed.) (pp. 113-135). New York: Routledge.
VanPatten, B. (2015b). Foundations of processing instruction. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 53, 91-109.
VanPatten, B., & Benati, A. (2015). Key terms in SLA (2nd ed.). London: Bloomsbury.
VanPatten, B., & Cadierno, T. (1993). Explicit instruction and input processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 225-244.
VanPatten, B., Collopy, E., Price, J., Borst, S., & Qualin, A. (2013). Explicit information, grammatical sensitivity, and the First-Noun Principle: A cross-linguistic study in processing instruction. Modern Language Journal, 97, 504-525.
VanPatten, B., Farmer, J., & Clardy, C. (2009). Processing instruction and meaning based output instruction: A response to Keating and Farley (2008). Hispania, 92, 116-126.
VanPatten, B., & Fernández, C. (2004). The long-term effects of processing instruction. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 273-289). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
VanPatten, B., & Oikennon, S. (1996). Explanation vs. structured input in processing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 495-510.
VanPatten, B., & Sanz, C. (1995). From input to output: Processing instruction and communicative tasks. In F. R. Eckman, D. Highland, P. W. Lee, J. Mileham, & R. R. Weber (Eds.), Second language acquisition theory and pedagogy (pp. 169-185). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
VanPatten, B., & Wong, W. (2004). Processing instruction and the French causative: Another replication. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 97-118). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
White, J. (1998). Getting the learners’ attention: a typographical input enhancement study. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 85-113). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
White, J. P., & DeMil, A. (2013a). Primary and secondary effects of PI. International Journal of Language Studies, 7, 59-88.
White, J. P., & DeMil., A. (2013b). Transfer-of-training effects in processing instruction: The role of form-related explicit information. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 519-544.
White, L. (2015). Linguistic theory, universal grammar, and second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams, J. (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (2nd ed.) (pp. 34-53). New York: Routledge.
Williams, J., & Evans, J. (1998). What kind of focus and on which forms? In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 139-155). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Winke, P. (2013). The effects of input enhancement on grammar learning and comprehension. A modified replication of Lee (2007) with eye-movement data. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 323-352.
Wong, W. (2002). Decreasing attention demands in input processing: A textual enhancement study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Second Language Research Forum (SLRF), Toronto, Canada. October 3-6, 2002. Modality and attention to meaning and form in the input. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 345-368.
Wong, W. (2003). Textual enhancement and simplified input: Effects n L2 comprehension and acquisition of non-meaningful grammatical form. Applied Language Learning, 13, 17-45.
Wong, W. (2004). Processing instruction in French: The roles of explicit information and structured input. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 187-205). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Wong, W. (2005). Input enhancement: From theory and research to the classroom. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Zyzik, E., & Marqués Pascual, L. (2012). Spanish differential object marking: An empirical study of implicit and explicit instruction. Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics, 12, 387-421.
License
1.1 The Author hereby warrants that he/she is the owner of all the copyright and other intellectual property rights in the Work and that, within the scope of the present Agreement, the paper does not infringe the legal rights of another person. The owner of the copyright work also warrants that he/she is the sole and original creator thereof and that is not bound by any legal constraints in regard to the use or sale of the work.
1.2. The Publisher warrants that is the owner of the PRESSto platform for open access journals, hereinafter referred to as the PRESSto Platform.
2. The Author grants the Publisher non-exclusive and free of charge license to unlimited use worldwide over an unspecified period of time in the following areas of exploitation:
2.1. production of multiple copies of the Work produced according to the specific application of a given technology, including printing, reproduction of graphics through mechanical or electrical means (reprography) and digital technology;
2.2. marketing authorisation, loan or lease of the original or copies thereof;
2.3. public performance, public performance in the broadcast, video screening, media enhancements as well as broadcasting and rebroadcasting, made available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them;
2.4. inclusion of the Work into a collective work (i.e. with a number of contributions);
2.5. inclusion of the Work in the electronic version to be offered on an electronic platform, or any other conceivable introduction of the Work in its electronic version to the Internet;
2.6. dissemination of electronic versions of the Work in its electronic version online, in a collective work or independently;
2.7. making the Work in the electronic version available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them, in particular by making it accessible via the Internet, Intranet, Extranet;
2.8. making the Work available according to appropriate license pattern Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) as well as another language version of this license or any later version published by Creative Commons.
3. The Author grants the Publisher permission to reproduce a single copy (print or download) and royalty-free use and disposal of rights to compilations of the Work and these compilations.
4. The Author grants the Publisher permission to send metadata files related to the Work, including to commercial and non-commercial journal-indexing databases.
5. The Author represents that, on the basis of the license granted in the present Agreement, the Publisher is entitled and obliged to:
5.1. allow third parties to obtain further licenses (sublicenses) to the Work and to other materials, including derivatives thereof or compilations made, based on or including the Work, whereas the provisions of such sub-licenses will be the same as with the Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) Creative Commons sub-license or another language version of this license, or any later version of this license published by Creative Commons;
5.2. make the Work available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them, without any technological constraints;
5.3. appropriately inform members of the public to whom the Work is to be made available about sublicenses in such a way as to ensure that all parties are properly informed (appropriate informing messages).
6. Because of the royalty-free provision of services of the Author (resulting from the scope of obligations stipulated in the present Agreement), the Author shall not be entitled to any author’s fee due and payable on the part of the Publisher (no fee or royalty is payable by the Publisher to the Author).
7.1. In the case of third party claims or actions for indemnity against the Publisher owing to any infractions related to any form of infringement of intellectual property rights protection, including copyright infringements, the Author is obliged to take all possible measures necessary to protect against these claims and, when as a result of legal action, the Publisher, or any third party licensed by the Publisher to use the Work, will have to abandon using the Work in its entirety or in part or, following a court ruling in a legal challenge, to pay damages to a third party, whatever the legal basis
7.2. The Author will immediately inform the Publisher about any damage claims related to intellectual property infringements, including the author’s proprietary rights pertaining to a copyrighted work, filed against the Author. of liability, the Author is obliged to redress the damage resulting from claims made by third party, including costs and expenditures incurred in the process.
7.3. To all matters not settled herein provisions of the Polish Civil Code and the Polish Copyright and Related Rights Act shall apply.