Bill VanPatten

Explicit instruction and input processing

In this paper we describe an experiment in explicit instruction that compares traditional form-focused instruction and what we call processing instruction. Traditional instruction involves explanation and output practice of a grammatical point. Processing instruction involves explanation and practice/experience processing input data, taking learner strategies in input processing as the starting point for determining what explicit instruction should look like. Pretest and posttest measures involving both a sentence-level interpretation (comprehension) task and a sentence-level production task were submitted to an analysis of variance. Results reveal significant gains in both comprehension and production for subjects who experienced processing instruction. For those experiencing traditional instruction, significant gains were made in production only.

Attending to Form and Content in the Input

This study explores the question of whether or not learners can consciously attend to both form and meaning when processing input. An experimental procedure is presented in which three levels of learners in four groups were asked to process information under four different conditions: attention to meaning alone; simultaneous attention to meaning and an important lexical item; simultaneous attention to meaning and a grammatical functor; and simultaneous attention to meaning and a verb form. Results suggest that learners, in particular early stage learners, have great difficulty in attending to both form and content. These results raise important questions for current discussions of the role of consciousness in input processing.

Explanation versus Structured Input in Processing Instruction

This study replicates VanPatten and Cadierno (1993) in an attempt to determine whether or not explicit information given to learners receiving processing instruction is responsible for the beneficial effects of instruction. Fifty-nine subjects were divided into three groups: (1) one receiving processing instruction in object pronouns and word order in Spanish as in VanPatten and Cadierno (1993), (2) another receiving explanation only with no activities or practice, (3) and another receiving only the structured input activities with no explanation. A pretest/post-test assessment was used involving two tests, an interpretation test and a sentence-level production test. Results showed that the beneficial effects of instruction were due to the structured input activities and not to the explicit information (explanation) provided to learners.

Processing Instruction : Theory, Research, and Commentary

Contents: Part I: Foundations. B. VanPatten, Input Processing in SLA. W. Wong, The Nature of Processing Instruction. P. Lightbown, Commentary: What to Teach? How to Teach? M. Harrington, Commentary: Input Processing as a Theory of Processing Input. Part II: Processing Instruction Versus Other Types of Instruction. B. VanPatten, W. Wong, Processing Instruction and the French Causative: Another Replication. A.C. Cheng, Processing Instruction and Spanish Ser and Estar: Forms With Semantic-Aspectual Values. A.P. Farley, The Relative Effects of Processing Instruction and Meaning-Based Output Instruction. J. Collentine, Commentary: Where PI Research Has Been and Where It Should Be Going. Part III: The Roles of Structured Input and Explicit Information. W. Wong, Processing Instruction in French: The Roles of Explicit Information and Structured Input. A. Benati, The Effects of Structured Input Activities and Explicit Information on the Acquisition of the Italian Future Tense. A.P. Farley, Processing Instruction and the Spanish Subjunctive: Is Explicit Information Needed? C. Sanz, Computer Delivered Implicit Versus Explicit Feedback in Processing Instruction. C.J. Doughty, Commentary: When PI Is Focus on Form It Is Very, Very Good, but When It Is Focus on Forms... Part IV: Long-Term Effects of PI. B. VanPatten, C. Fernandez, The Long-Term Effects of Processing Instruction. Part V: Final Commentaries. S. Carroll, Some Comments on Input Processing and Processing Instruction. J.F. Lee, On the Generalizability, Limits, and Potential Future Directions of Processing Instruction Research. B. VanPatten, Several Reflections on Why There Is Good Reason to Continue Researching the Effects of Processing Instruction.

Input processing in second language acquisition

Contents: Part I: Foundations. B. VanPatten, Input Processing in SLA. W. Wong, The Nature of Processing Instruction. P. Lightbown, Commentary: What to Teach? How to Teach? M. Harrington, Commentary: Input Processing as a Theory of Processing Input. Part II: Processing Instruction Versus Other Types of Instruction. B. VanPatten, W. Wong, Processing Instruction and the French Causative: Another Replication. A.C. Cheng, Processing Instruction and Spanish Ser and Estar: Forms With Semantic-Aspectual Values. A.P. Farley, The Relative Effects of Processing Instruction and Meaning-Based Output Instruction. J. Collentine, Commentary: Where PI Research Has Been and Where It Should Be Going. Part III: The Roles of Structured Input and Explicit Information. W. Wong, Processing Instruction in French: The Roles of Explicit Information and Structured Input. A. Benati, The Effects of Structured Input Activities and Explicit Information on the Acquisition of the Italian Future Tense. A.P. Farley, Processing Instruction and the Spanish Subjunctive: Is Explicit Information Needed? C. Sanz, Computer Delivered Implicit Versus Explicit Feedback in Processing Instruction. C.J. Doughty, Commentary: When PI Is Focus on Form It Is Very, Very Good, but When It Is Focus on Forms... Part IV: Long-Term Effects of PI. B. VanPatten, C. Fernandez, The Long-Term Effects of Processing Instruction. Part V: Final Commentaries. S. Carroll, Some Comments on Input Processing and Processing Instruction. J.F. Lee, On the Generalizability, Limits, and Potential Future Directions of Processing Instruction Research. B. VanPatten, Several Reflections on Why There Is Good Reason to Continue Researching the Effects of Processing Instruction.

WHO WAS WALKING ON THE BEACH? Anaphora Resolution in Spanish Heritage Speakers and Adult Second Language Learners

The position of antecedent strategy (Carminati, 2002 ) claims that speakers of null-subject languages prefer to resolve intrasentential anaphora by linking pro to an antecedent in the specifier of the inflection phrase and the overt pronoun to an antecedent lower in the clause. The present study has two aims: (a) to determine whether adult early Spanish-English bilinguals (Spanish heritage speakers) and late English-Spanish bilinguals (adult second language [L2] learners of Spanish) utilize the same antecedent assignment strategies as monolingually raised Spanish speakers, and (b) to determine whether early exposure to and use of Spanish confers advantages to Spanish heritage speakers relative to L2 learners. Spanish speakers raised without English contact ( n = 19), Spanish heritage speakers ( n = 25), and L2 learners of Spanish ( n = 19) completed an offline questionnaire that comprised complex sentences such as Juan vio a Carlos mientras pro /el caminaba en la playa “John saw Charles while he was walking on the beach.” Comprehension questions probed participants’ preferences regarding the antecedent of null and overt pronouns. The results indicate that the monolingually raised Spanish speakers showed an antecedent bias, but the heritage speakers and the L2 learners did not. Furthermore, the two groups of bilinguals differed from the controls in different ways: The heritage speakers displayed a stronger subject bias for the overt pronoun, whereas the L2 learners did not exhibit any clear antecedent biases.

Second language acquisition/foreign language learning

Part 1 Some perspectives on SLA-FLL: theory and research in SLA and FLL - on producers and consumers what is foreign language research second and foreign language learning - same, different or none of the above models, processes, principles and strategies - second language acquisition in and out of the classroom. Part 2 Frameworks and approaches to research issues: Terence Odlin - word-order transfer, metalinguistics awareness and constraints on foreign language learning the acquisition of clitic pronouns in Spanish - two case studies, co-existing discourse worlds - the development of pragmatic competence in and outside the classroom foreign language learning - a social interaction and perspective on topic choice in oral proficiency assessment. Part 3 From research and theory to practice: second language acquisiton/foreign language learning, nothing is more practical than a good theory prefabricated speech for language learning a role for communicative competence and the acqusition/learning distinction in translator training can foreign language learning be like second language acquisition? - the curious case of immersion conservation of language resources.

Processing instruction and the French causative: Another replication

Contents: Part I: Foundations. B. VanPatten, Input Processing in SLA. W. Wong, The Nature of Processing Instruction. P. Lightbown, Commentary: What to Teach? How to Teach? M. Harrington, Commentary: Input Processing as a Theory of Processing Input. Part II: Processing Instruction Versus Other Types of Instruction. B. VanPatten, W. Wong, Processing Instruction and the French Causative: Another Replication. A.C. Cheng, Processing Instruction and Spanish Ser and Estar: Forms With Semantic-Aspectual Values. A.P. Farley, The Relative Effects of Processing Instruction and Meaning-Based Output Instruction. J. Collentine, Commentary: Where PI Research Has Been and Where It Should Be Going. Part III: The Roles of Structured Input and Explicit Information. W. Wong, Processing Instruction in French: The Roles of Explicit Information and Structured Input. A. Benati, The Effects of Structured Input Activities and Explicit Information on the Acquisition of the Italian Future Tense. A.P. Farley, Processing Instruction and the Spanish Subjunctive: Is Explicit Information Needed? C. Sanz, Computer Delivered Implicit Versus Explicit Feedback in Processing Instruction. C.J. Doughty, Commentary: When PI Is Focus on Form It Is Very, Very Good, but When It Is Focus on Forms... Part IV: Long-Term Effects of PI. B. VanPatten, C. Fernandez, The Long-Term Effects of Processing Instruction. Part V: Final Commentaries. S. Carroll, Some Comments on Input Processing and Processing Instruction. J.F. Lee, On the Generalizability, Limits, and Potential Future Directions of Processing Instruction Research. B. VanPatten, Several Reflections on Why There Is Good Reason to Continue Researching the Effects of Processing Instruction.

Input and output in establishing form-meaning connections

Contents: Preface. B. VanPatten, J. Williams, S. Rott, Form-Meaning Connections in Second Language Acquisition. Part I: Factors and Processes. B. VanPatten, Input and Output in Establishing Form-Meaning Connections. N.C. Ellis, The Processes of Second Language Acquisition. S.M. Gass, Context and Second Language Acquisition. Y. Shirai, A Multiple-Factor Account for the Form-Meaning Connections in the Acquisition of Tense-Aspect Morphology. Part II: Evidence and Impact. K. Bardovi-Harlig, The Emergence of Grammaticalized Future Expression in Longitudinal Production Data. T. Cadierno, K. Lund, Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition: Motion Events in a Typological Framework. E.C. Klein, Beyond Syntax: Performance Factors in L2 Behavior. Part III: Research and the Classroom. C.J. Doughty, Effects of Instruction on Learning a Second Language: A Critique of Instructed SLA Research. J.N. Williams, Implicit Learning of Form-Meaning Connections. J. Barcroft, Theoretical and Methodological Issues in Research on Semantic and Structural Elaboration in Lexical Acquisition. Part IV: Commentary. D. Larsen-Freeman, Reflections on Form-Meaning Connection Research in Second Language Acquisition.

Cross-linguistic variation and the acquisition of pronominal reference in L2 Spanish

The current investigation tested two predictions regarding second language (L2) processing at the syntax—discourse interface: (1) that L2 performance on measures of interface phenomena can differ from that of native speakers; and (2) that cross-linguistic influence can be a source of such divergence. Specifically, we examined the offline interpretation of ambiguous subject pronouns with intrasentential antecedents in Spanish and English, including discourse—syntactic constraints that are active in pro-drop Spanish and principles of discourse structure that affect pronominal reference in English. Two participant groups of English-speaking learners of L2 Spanish — an intermediate group and an advanced group — failed to show categorically native-like differentiation between null and overt pronouns in Spanish. Both groups, however, did show marginal effects for Discourse Structure (coordination or subordination of clauses), an effect that was also present in their native English. Furthermore, there was a significant interaction with the advanced group between Pronoun and Discourse Structure, so this group seemed to employ to a certain degree a hybrid strategy. This outcome suggests that pre-existing referential strategy persists even at an advanced level of L2 proficiency and may be a primary barrier to native-like performance, even after target-like L2 principles are acquired and begin to apply.