Harriet Wood Bowden

PROCESSING INSTRUCTION AND MEANINGFUL OUTPUT-BASED INSTRUCTION:: Effects on Second Language Development

This study investigates the effects of meaningful input- and output-based practice on SLA. First-semester Spanish students ( n = 45) were assigned to processing instruction, meaningful output-based instruction, or control groups. Experimental groups received the same input in instruction but received meaningful practice that was input or output based. Both experimental groups showed significant gains on immediate and delayed interpretation and production tasks. Repeated-measures analyses of variance showed that overall, for interpretation, both experimental groups outperformed the control group. For production, only the meaningful output-based group outperformed the control group. These results suggest that not only input-based but also output-based instruction can lead to linguistic development. We thank Ron Leow, Alison Mackey, and Cristina Sanz for their continual support and valuable input throughout the various phases of this research and for their comments on earlier versions of this manuscript. Likewise, we express our gratitude to Bill VanPatten and the various anonymous reviewers for their comments on the manuscript. We also thank the Linguistics Department for the use of its laboratory and equipment during data collection and Ru San Chen for assistance with statistical analyses. Special thanks to Gorky Cruz and Cristina Sanz for the use of digital photographs. Any errors or omissions are ours alone.

Native-like brain processing of syntax can be attained by university foreign language learners.

Using event-related potentials (ERPs), we examined the neurocognition of late-learned second language (L2) Spanish in two groups of typical university foreign-language learners (as compared to native (L1) speakers): one group with only one year of college classroom experience, and low-intermediate proficiency (L2 Low), and another group with over three years of college classroom experience as well as 1-2 semesters of immersion experience abroad, and advanced proficiency (L2 Advanced). Semantic violations elicited N400s in all three groups, whereas syntactic word-order violations elicited LAN/P600 responses in the L1 and L2 Advanced groups, but not the L2 Low group. Indeed, the LAN and P600 responses were statistically indistinguishable between the L1 and L2 Advanced groups. The results support and extend previous findings. Consistent with previous research, the results suggest that L2 semantic processing always depends on L1-like neurocognitive mechanisms, whereas L2 syntactic processing initially differs from L1, but can shift to native-like processes with sufficient proficiency or exposure, and perhaps with immersion experience in particular. The findings further demonstrate that substantial native-like brain processing of syntax can be achieved even by typical university foreign-language learners.

A fine-grained analysis of the effects of negative evidence with and without metalinguistic information in language development

The current study compared the effectiveness of computer-delivered task-essential practice coupled with feedback consisting of (1) negative evidence with metalinguistic information (NE+MI) or (2) negative evidence without metalinguistic information (NE–MI) in promoting absolute beginners’ (n = 58) initial learning of aspects of Latin morphosyntax. This study measured language development on a variety of dependent measures (three comprehension-based tests and one production test), assessing both changes in accuracy and reaction time as well as examining effects on trained (old) vs. untrained (new) items. Although participants under both conditions improved in accuracy and reaction time on all measures, on immediate post-tests, participants receiving metalinguistic information outperformed those who did not. However, this advantage had largely dissipated by the time of the delayed tests. Performance on untrained items also suggests an advantage for metalinguistic feedback on system learning and on transfer of skills from comprehension-based practice to production. Furthermore, we argue, based on findings in cognitive neuroscience, that greater maintenance of gains in accuracy as well as evidence of some faster processing by participants not exposed to metalinguistic information may reflect qualitatively different learning processes at work: more explicit learning in the [NE+MI] group and more implicit learning in the [NE–MI] group (Li, 2010).

ASSESSING SECOND-LANGUAGE ORAL PROFICIENCY FOR RESEARCH

Proficiency is a key variable in late second language (L2) learning, but one that is undermeasured in current research. This study investigates whether L2 oral proficiency can be quickly and reliably assessed via the Spanish “elicited imitation task” (EIT; Ortega, Iwashita, Rabie, & Norris, 1999 ). Thirty-seven L2 learners of Spanish with varied L2 experience (from low to very advanced) were tested. The EIT’s external validity was assessed via correlation with the simulated oral proficiency interview. Further analyses examined the EIT’s internal reliability, discriminatory power, and usefulness in identifying subgroups (clusters) of learners within the sample. Results strongly support the utility of the Spanish EIT for measurement of oral proficiency in SLA research. Moreover, the availability of parallel EITs in other languages promises to facilitate comparisons across studies. Thus, more precise measurement and analysis of proficiency in SLA research is called for via standardized measurements including the EIT.

Two Birds, One Stone, or How Learning a Foreign Language Makes You a Better Language Learner

Experience with a second language (L2) has been shown to facilitate learning of a third or subsequent language (L3) (Sanz 2000). However, little is known about how much L2 experience is needed before benefits for L3 development emerge, or about whether effects depend on type of L3 instruction. We report two experiments investigating initial learning of semantic role (agent/patient) assignment in L3 Latin by native English speakers at different levels of formal experience in L2 Spanish (Beginning, Intermediate, Advanced, Very Advanced). In Experiment 1, (N 5 76), learners engaged in a computerized Latin practice session that included metalinguistic information in feedback. In Experiment 2, (N 5 0), feedback indicated only if learners’ responses in practice were right or wrong. Development was operationalized as improvement in accuracy and/or reaction time. Results showed that when feedback was metalinguistic, an intermediate level of formal L2 experience was enough to yield an advantage, however only those learners with very advanced L2 experience showed longer-term retention of that advantage. In contrast, in the absence of metalinguistic feedback, very advanced experience was required for any advantage to appear. These results inform classroom accommodations for learners with different levels of previous language experience.