Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T09:01:14.765Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

EXPLORING THE INTERFACE

Explicit Focus-on-Form Instruction and Learned Attentional Biases in L2 Latin

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2015

Myrna Cintrón-Valentín  and
Nick C. Ellis
Myrna Cintrón-Valentín*
Affiliation:
University of Michigan
Nick C. Ellis
Affiliation:
University of Michigan
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Myrna Cintrón-Valentín, Department of Psychology, 530 Church Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48109. E-mail: mcintron@umich.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Eye-tracking was used to investigate the attentional processes whereby different types of focus on form (FonF) instruction assist learners in overcoming learned attention and blocking effects in their online processing of second language input. English native speakers viewed Latin utterances combining lexical and morphological cues to temporality under control conditions and three types of explicit FonF: verb grammar instruction, verb salience with textual enhancement, and verb pretraining. Chinese native speakers were also tested on control and verb grammar conditions. All groups participated in three phases: exposure, comprehension test, and production test. Verb grammar participants viewed a short lesson on Latin tense morphology prior to exposure. Verb salience participants saw the verb inflections highlighted in bold and red during exposure. Verb pretraining participants took part in an additional introductory phase in which they were presented with solitary verb forms and were trained on their English translations. Instructed participants showed greater sensitivity to morphological cues in comprehension and production. Eye-tracking revealed how FonF affects learners’ attention during online processing and thus modulates long-term blocking of verb morphology.

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 37 , Special Issue 2: New Directions in the Study of Implicit and Explicit Learning , June 2015 , pp. 197 - 235
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Alanen, R. (1995). Input enhancement and rule presentation in second language acquisition. In Schmidt, R. (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 259–302). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai‘i Press.Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1992). The use of adverbials and natural order in the development of temporal expression. IRAL—International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 30(4), 299–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2000). Tense and aspect in second language acquisition: Form, meaning, and use. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Benati, A. (2013). The input processing theory in second language acquisition. In García Mayo, M. d. P., Gutierrez Mangado, M. J., Martínez Adrián, M., Myles, F., Rothman, J., & VanPatten, B. (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 93–110). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, P. W., & Holyoak, K. J. (1995). Adaptive systems as intuitive statisticians: Causality, contingency, and prediction. In Meyer, J.-A. & Roitblat, H. (Eds.), Comparative approaches to cognition (pp. 271–302). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cho, M. Y. (2010). The effects of input enhancement and written recall on noticing and acquisition. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 4, 71–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006). Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 3–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corey, D. M., Dunlap, W. P., & Burke, M. J. (1998). Averaging correlations: Expected values and bias in combined Pearson rs and Fisher’s z transformations. Journal of General Psychology, 125, 245–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2001). Automaticity and automatization. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language acquisition (pp. 125–151). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (Ed.). (2007). Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (Eds.). (1998). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (1993). Rules and instances in foreign language learning: Interactions of explicit and implicit knowledge. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 5, 289–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (Ed.). (1994). Implicit and explicit learning of languages. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 143–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2005). At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 305–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2006a). The associative-cognitive CREED. In Patten, B. V. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 77–96). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2006b). Selective attention and transfer phenomena in SLA: Contingency, cue competition, salience, interference, overshadowing, blocking, and perceptual learning. Applied Linguistics, 27, 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C., Hafeez, K., Martin, K. I., Chen, L., Boland, J., & Sagarra, N. (2014). An eye-tracking study of learned attention in second language acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 35, 547–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & Sagarra, N. (2010a). The bounds of adult language acquisition: Blocking and learned attention. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 553–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & Sagarra, N. (2010b). Learned attention effects in L2 temporal reference: The first hour and the next eight semesters. Language Learning, 60(Suppl. 2), 85–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & Sagarra, N. (2011). Learned attention in adult language acquisition: A replication and generalization study and meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33, 589–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2006). Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 83–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2008). Explicit form-focused instruction and second language acquisition. In Spolsky, B. & Hult, F. M. (Eds.), The handbook of educational linguistics (pp. 437–455). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2012). Language teaching research and language pedagogy. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gitelman, D. R. (2002). ILAB: A program for post experimental eye movement analysis. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments and Computers, 34, 605–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldschneider, J. M., & DeKeyser, R. (2001). Explaining the “natural order of L2 morpheme acquisition” in English: A meta-analysis of multiple determinants. Language Learning, 51, 1–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Han, Z.-H., Park, E. S., & Combs, C. (2008). Textual enhancement of input: Issues and possibilities. Applied Linguistics, 29, 597–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis: An experimental study on ESL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 541–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jourdenais, R., Ota, M., Stauffer, S., Boyson, B., & Doughty, C. (1995). Does textual enhancement promote noticing? A think-aloud protocol analysis. In Schmidt, R. (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 182–209.). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai‘i Press.Google Scholar
Kamin, L. J. (1969). Predictability, surprise, attention, and conditioning. In Campbell, B. A. & Church, R. M. (Eds.), Punishment and aversive behavior (pp. 276–296). New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
Klein, W. (1998). The contribution of second language acquisition research. Language Learning, 48, 527–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London, UK: Longman.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. D., & Terrell, T. (1983). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Kruschke, J. K. (2006, June). Learned attention. Paper presented at the Fifth International Conference on Development and Learning, Indiana University, Bloomington.Google Scholar
Kruschke, J. K., & Blair, N. J. (2000). Blocking and backward blocking involve learned inattention. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7, 636–645.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kruschke, J. K., Kappenman, E. S., & Hetrick, W. P. (2005). Eye gaze and individual differences consistent with learned attention in associative blocking and highlighting. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 830–845.Google ScholarPubMed
Lee, J. F. (2002). The incidental acquisition of Spanish future morphology through reading in a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 55–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, S.-K. (2007). Effects of textual enhancement and topic familiarity on Korean EFL students’ reading comprehension and learning of passive form. Language Learning, 57, 87–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leow, R. P. (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.Google Scholar
Leow, R. P. (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leow, R. P. (2007). Input in the L2 classroom: An attentional perspective on receptive practice. In DeKeyser, R. K. (Ed.), Practice in a second language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Leow, R. P., Egi, T., Nuevo, A. M., & Tsai, Y.-C. (2003). The roles of textual enhancement and type of linguistic item in adult L2 learners’ comprehension and intake. Applied Language Learning, 13, 93–108.Google Scholar
Li, C. N., & Thompson, S. A. (1987). Chinese. In Comrie, B. (Ed.), The world’s major languages (pp. 811–833). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lightbown, P. M. (2008). Transfer appropriate processing in classroom second language acquisition. In Han, Z.-H. (Ed.), Understanding second language process (pp. 27–44). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In de Bot, K., Ginsberg, R., & Kramsch, C. (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39–52). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H. (2006). Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Mackintosh, N. J. (1975). A theory of attention: Variations in the associability of stimuli with reinforcement. Psychological Review, 82, 276–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (1987). The competition model. In MacWhinney, B. (Ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition (pp. 249–308). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2001). The competition model: The input, the context, and the brain. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 69–90). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B., & Bates, E. (1989). The crosslinguistic study of sentence processing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B., Bates, E., & Kliegl, R. (1984). Cue validity and sentence interpretation in English, German, and Italian. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 127–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matessa, M., & Anderson, J. R. (2000). Modeling focused learning in role assignment. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15, 263–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MATLAB (Version 7.12.0.635) [Computer software]. Natick, MA: MathWorks.Google Scholar
McDonald, J. L. (1986). The development of sentence comprehension strategies in English and Dutch. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 41, 317–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meisel, J. (1987). Reference to past events and actions in the development of natural second language acquisition. In Pfaff, C. (Ed.), First and second language acquisition (pp. 206–224). New York, NY: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noyau, C., Klein, W., & Dietrich, R. (1995). Acquisition of temporality in a second language. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Overstreet, M. (1998). Text enhancement and content familiarity: The focus of learner attention. Spanish Applied Linguistics, 2, 229–258.Google Scholar
Rebuschat, P. (Ed.). (in press). Implicit and explicit learning of language. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Rescorla, R. A., & Wagner, A. R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In Black, A. H. & Prokasy, W. F. (Eds.), Classical conditioning II: Current theory and research (pp. 64–99). New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
Roberts, L., & Siyanova-Chanturia, A. (2013). Using eye-tracking to investigate topics in L2 acquisition and L2 processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 213–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1984). The strengths and limitations of acquisition: A case study of an untutored language learner. Language, Learning, and Communication, 3, 1–16.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1993). Awareness and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 206–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-Prime user’s guide. Pittsburgh, PA: Psychology Software Tools.Google Scholar
Segalowitz, N. (2010). The cognitive bases of second language fluency. New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shanks, D. R. (1995). The psychology of associative learning. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharwood Smith, M. (1993). Input enhancement in instructed SLA: Theoretical bases. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 165–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shook, D. J. (1994). FL/L2 reading, grammatical information, and the input to intake phenomenon. Applied Language Learning, 5, 57–93.Google Scholar
Spada, N. (1997). Form-focused instruction and second language acquisition: A review of classroom and laboratory research. Language Teaching Research, 30, 73–87.Google Scholar
Spada, N., & Tomita, Y. (2010). Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 1–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terrell, T. (1991). The role of grammar instruction in a communicative approach. Modern Language Journal, 75, 52–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tolentino, L. C., & Tokowicz, N. (2014). Cross-language similarity modulates effectiveness of second language grammar instruction. Language Learning, 64, 279–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction in second language acquisition. New York, NY: Ablex.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (2006). Input processing. In VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 115–136). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wills, A. J. (2005). New directions in human associative learning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winke, P. M. (2013). The effects of input enhancement on grammar learning and comprehension. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 323–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winke, P. M., Godfroid, A., & Gass, S. M. (2013). Introduction to the special issue. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 205–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wong, W. (2003). Textual enhancement and simplified input effects on L2 comprehension and acquisition of non-meaningful grammatical form. Applied Language Learning, 13, 109–132.Google Scholar