Main Article Content
Noticing plays an important role for second language acquisition. Since the formulation of the output hypothesis (Swain, 1985), it has been proven that producing output can lead to noticing. Studies on noticing have revealed little focus on grammar, and an in-depth investigation of grammar noticing has not been conducted so far. Studies into problemsolving strategies applied to resolve noticing in writing have provided differing classifications. The current study investigates the noticing of ten young learners (15 to 16 years) of L2 English while performing a writing task, with a special focus on grammar. The problem-solving strategies these learners applied are analyzed. With regard to the linguistic areas, results suggest that verb forms, especially the use of modals, and the choice of prepositions, are the main issues encountered in morphology. In syntax, learners mainly dealt with the length of sentences and the ways of connecting clauses. Learners relied on their intuition and existing knowledge, common sense and rephrasing as grammar problem-solving strategies. These results open a new area of study into noticing grammar and suggest some implications for teaching.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International 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.
- Adams, R. (2003). L2 output, reformulation and noticing: Implications for IL development. Language Teaching Research, 7(3), 347-376. doi: 10.1191/1362168803LR127OA
- Ammar, A., Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2010). Awareness of L1/L2 differences: Does it matter? Language Awareness, 19(2), 129-146. doi: 10.1080/09658411003746612
- Angelovska, T., & Hahn, A. (2014). Raising language awareness for learning and teaching L3 grammar. In A. Benati, C. Laval, & M. Arche (Eds.), The grammar dimension in instructed second language learning (pp. 185-207). London: Bloomsbury Academic.
- Armengol, L., & Cots, J. M. (2009). Attention processes observed in think-aloud protocols: Two multilingual informants writing in two languages. Language Awareness, 18(3/4), 259-276.
- Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 102-118.
- Bowles, M. A. (2010). The think-aloud controversy in second language research (1st publ. ed.). New York – Oxon: Routledge.
- Cohen, A. D. (1996). Second language learning and use strategies: Clarifying the issues. CARLA Working Paper Series #3. The University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.
- Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Cumming, A. (1989). Writing expertise and second-language proficiency. Language Learning, 39(1), 81-135. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1989.tb00592.x
- Dégi, Z. (2010). Effects on the linguistic awareness of foreign language learners. Acta Universitatis Sapientiae, Philologica, 2(2), 299-311.
- Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (Eds.). (1998). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
- Edstrom, A. (2006). Students as evaluators of writing: Learning from what they notice. Language Awareness, 15(1), 53-57.
- Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System, 36(3), 353-371.
- Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis. Verbal reports as data. (Revised ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
- Færch, C., & Kasper, G. (1983). Plans and strategies in foreign language communication. In C. Færch & G. Kasper (Eds.), Strategies in interlanguage communication (pp. 20-60). London and New York: Longman.
- Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Pub.
- Hanaoka, O. (2007). Output, noticing, and learning: An investigation into the role of spontaneous attention to form in a four-stage writing task. Language Teaching Research, 11(4), 459-479. doi: 10.1177/1362168807080963
- Hanaoka, O., & Izumi, S. (2012). Noticing and uptake: Addressing pre-articulated covert problems in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 332-347.
- Heift, T., & Rimrott, A. (2008). Learner responses to corrective feedback for spelling errors in CALL. System, 36(2), 196-213.
- Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(4), 541-577. doi: 10.1017/S0272263102004023
- Izumi, S., & Bigelow, M. (2000). Does output promote noticing and second language acquisition? TESOL Quarterly, 34(2), 239-278. doi: 10.2307/3587952
- Izumi, S., Bigelow, M., Fujiwara, M., & Fearnow, S. (1999). Testing the output hypothesis: Effects of output on noticing and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(3), 421-452.
- Kelle, U., & Kluge, S. (2010). Vom Einzelfall zum Typus. Fallvergleich und Fallkontrastierung in der qualitativen Sozialforschung (2nd ed.). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
- Kiely, R. (2009). Observing, noticing, and understanding: two case studies in language awareness in the development of academic literacy. Language Awareness, 18(3/4), 329-344. doi: 10.1080/09658410903197298
- Kormos, J. (1999). The effect of speaker variables on the self-correction behavior of L2 learners. System, 27(2), 207-221. doi: 10.1016/s0346-251x(99)00017-2
- Kormos, J. (2012). The role of individual differences in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 390-403. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.003
- Lázaro Ibarolla, A. (2009). Reformulation and self-correction: Testing the validity of correction strategies in the classroom. RESLA, 22, 189-215.
- Mackey, A. (2006). Feedback, noticing and instructed second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 27(3), 405-430. doi: 10.1093/applin/ami051
- Masny, D. (1997). Linguistic awareness and writing: Exploring the relationship with language awareness. Language Awareness, 6(2-3), 105-118. doi:10.1080/09658416.1997.9959921
- Pienemann, M. (1998). Language processing and second language development. processability theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
- Qi, D. S., & Lapkin, S. (2001). Exploring the role of noticing in a three-stage second language writing task. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(4), 277-303. doi: 10.1016/s1060-3743(01)00046-7
- Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129-158. doi: 10.1093/applin/11.2.129
- Shehadeh, A. (2003). Learner output, hypothesis testing, and internalizing linguistic knowledge. System, 31(2), 155-171.
- Shekary, M., & Tahririan, M. H. (2006). Negotiation of meaning and noticing in text-based online chat. Modern Language Journal, 90(4), 557-573. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2006.00504.x
- Song, M.-J., & Suh, B.-R. (2008). The effects of output task types on noticing and learning of the English past counterfactual conditional. System, 36(2), 295-312.
- Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. M. Gass & C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
- Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16(3), 371-391.
- Uggen, M. S. (2012). Reinvestigating the noticing function of output. Language Learning, 62(2), 506-540. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00693.x
- Uzawa, K., & Cumming, A. (1989). Writing strategies in Japanese as a foreign language: Lowering or keeping up the standards. Canadian Modern Language Review, 46(1), 178-194.
- Varnosfadrani, A. D., & Basturkmen, H. (2009). The effectiveness of implicit and explicit error correction on learners’ performance. System, 37(1), 82-98.
- VOICE Project. (2007). VOICE Transcription Conventions [2.1]. Retrieved from http://www.univie.ac.at/voice/voice.php?page=transcription_general_in formation
- Whalen, K., & Ménard, N. (1995). L1 and L2 writers’ strategic and linguistic knowledge: A model of multiple-level discourse processing. Language Learning, 45(3), 381-418. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1995.tb00447.x
- Williams, J. (1999). Learner-generated attention to form. Language Learning, 49(4), 583-625.
- Williams, J. (2001). The effectiveness of spontaneous attention to form. System, 29(3), 325-340.
- Williams, J. (2012). The potential role(s) of writing in second language development. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 321-331.
- Zhao, S. Y., & Bitchener, J. (2007). Incidental focus on form in teacher-learner and learner-learner interactions. System, 35(4), 431-447.