Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T17:10:59.930Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Signatures of automaticity during practice: Explicit instruction about L1 processing routines can improve L2 grammatical processing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 December 2018

KEVIN MCMANUS Open the ORCID record for KEVIN MCMANUS [Opens in a new window]  and
EMMA MARSDEN
KEVIN MCMANUS*
Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University
EMMA MARSDEN
Affiliation:
University of York
*
*ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Kevin McManus, Center for Language Acquisition, Department of Applied Linguistics, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802. E-mail: kmcmanus@psu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study examined the extent to which explicit instruction about first language (L1) and second language (L2) processing routines improved the accuracy, speed, and automaticity of learners’ responses during sentence interpretation practice. Fifty-three English-speaking learners of L2 French were assigned to one of the following treatments: (a) a “core” treatment consisting of L2 explicit information (EI) with L2 interpretation practice (L2-only group); (b) the same L2 core+L1 practice with L1 EI (L2+L1 group); or (c) the same L2 core+L1 practice but without L1 EI (L2+L1prac group). Findings indicated that increasing amounts of practice led to more accurate and faster performance only for learners who received L1 EI (L2+L1 group). Coefficient of variation analyses (Segalowitz & Segalowitz, 1993) indicated knowledge restructuring early on that appeared to lead to gradual automatization over time (Solovyeva & DeKeyser, 2017; Suzuki, 2017). Our findings that EI and practice about L1 processing routines benefited the accuracy, speed, and automaticity of L2 performance have major implications for theories of L2 learning, the role of L1 EI in L2 grammar learning, and L2 pedagogy.

Keywords

automaticityexplicit instructionL1 influenceL2 learningmorphosyntaxpractice
Type
Original Article
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 40 , Issue 1 , January 2019 , pp. 205 - 234
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2018 

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

Ammar, A., Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (2010). Awareness of L1/L2 differences: Does it matter? Language Awareness, 19, 129–146.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. (1983). A spreading activation theory of memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 261–295.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 390–412.Google Scholar
Bartning, I., & Schlyter, S. (2004). Itinéraires acquisitionnels et stades de développement en français L2. Journal of French Language Studies, 14, 281–299.Google Scholar
Bartolotti, J., & Marian, V. (2014). Wordlikeness and novel word learning. In Proceedings of the 36th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 146–151). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Bartoñ, K. (2018). MuMIn: Multi-model inference. R package version 1.40.4. Accessed at https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=MuMIn Google Scholar
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 1–48.Google Scholar
Brown, H., & Gaskell, G. (2014). The time-course of talker-specificity and lexical competition during word learning. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29, 1163–1179.Google Scholar
Cintrón-Valentín, M. C., & Ellis, N. C. (2016). Salience in second language acquisition: Physical form, learner attention, and instructional focus. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1284.Google Scholar
Cornillie, F., Van Den Noortgate, W., Van den Branden, K., & Desmet, P. (2017). Examining focused L2 practice: From in vitro to in vivo. Language Learning & Technology, 21, 121–145.Google Scholar
Cunnings, I., & Finlayson, I. (2015). Mixed effects modeling and longitudinal data analysis. In L. Plonsky (Ed.), Advancing quantitative methods in second language research (pp. 159–181). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (1997). Beyond explicit rule learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 195–221.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2015). Skill acquisition theory. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 94–112). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. (2006). Selective attention and transfer phenomena in L2 acquisition: Contingency, cue competition, salience, interference, overshadowing, blocking, and perceptual learning. Applied Linguistics, 27, 164–194.Google Scholar
Ellis, N., 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.Google Scholar
Ellis, N., & 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.Google Scholar
Field, A., Miles, J., & Field, Z. (2012). Discovering statistics using R. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Grabe, W. P., & Stoller, F. L. (2013). Teaching and researching: Reading. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hopp, H., & Lemmerth, N. (2018). Lexical and syntactic congruency in L2 predictive gender processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40, 171–199.Google Scholar
Horst, M., White, J., & Bell, P. (2010). First and second language knowledge in the language classroom. International Journal of Bilingualism, 14, 331–349.Google Scholar
Howard, M. (2005). Les contextes prototypiques et marquées de l’emploi de l’imparfait par l’apprenant du français langue étrangère. In E. Labeau & P. Larrivée (Eds.), Nouveaux développements de l’imparfait. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Huensch, A., & Tracy-Ventura, N. (2017). Understanding second language fluency behavior: The effects of individual differences in first language fluency, cross-linguistic differences, and proficiency over time. Applied Psycholinguistics, 38, 755–785.Google Scholar
Hulstijn, J. H., van Gelderen, A., & Schoonen, R. (2009). Automatization in second language acquisition: What does the coefficient of variation tell us? Applied Psycholinguistics, 30, 555–582.Google Scholar
Izquierdo, J., & Collins, L. (2008). The facilitative role of L1 influence in tense-aspect marking: A comparison of Hispanophone and Anglophone learners of French. Modern Language Journal, 92, 350–368.Google Scholar
Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 434–446.Google Scholar
Keating, G., & Jegerski, J. (2015). Experimental designs in sentence processing research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37, 1–32.Google Scholar
Kupferberg, I. (1999). The cognitive turn of contrastive analysis: Empirical evidence. Language Awareness, 8, 210–213.Google Scholar
Li, M., & DeKeyser, R. (2017). Perception practice, production practice, and musical ability in L2 Mandarin tone-word learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39, 593–620.Google Scholar
Lim, H., & Godfroid, A. (2015). Automatization in second language sentence processing: A partial, conceptual replication of Hulstijn, Van Gelderen, and Schoonen’s 2009 study. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36, 1247–1282.Google Scholar
Linck, J. A., & Cunnings, I. (2015). The utility and application of mixed‐effects models in second language research. Language Learning, 65, 185–207.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2005). A unified model of language acquisition. In J. F. Kroll & A. M. B. De Groot (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches (pp. 49–67). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2012). The logic of the unified model. In S. M. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 211–227). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Marsden, E. (2006). Exploring input processing in the classroom: An experimental comparison of processing instruction and enriched input. Language Learning, 56, 507–566.Google Scholar
McManus, K. (2013). Prototypical influence in second language acquisition: What now for the aspect hypothesis. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 51, 299–322.Google Scholar
McManus, K. (2015). L1-L2 differences in the acquisition of form-meaning pairings: A comparison of English and German learners of French. Canadian Modern Language Review, 71, 51–77.Google Scholar
McManus, K., & Marsden, E. (2017). L1 explicit instruction can improve L2 online and offline performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39, 459–492.Google Scholar
McManus, K., & Marsden, E. (2018). Online and offline effects of L1 practice in L2 grammar learning: A partial replication. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40, 459–475.Google Scholar
Murakami, A. (2016). Modeling systematicity and individuality in nonlinear second language development: The case of English grammatical morphemes. Language Learning, 66, 834–871.Google Scholar
Murakami, A., & Alexopoulou, T. (2016). L1 influence on the acquisition order of English grammatical morphemes. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 365–401.Google Scholar
Nakagawa, S., & Schielzeth, H. (2013). A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed‐effects models. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 4, 133–142.Google Scholar
O’Grady, W. (2013). The illusion of language acquisition. Approaches to Bilingualism, 3, 253–285.Google Scholar
Paradis, M. (2009). Declarative and procedural determinants of second languages. Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Pinheiro, J., Bates, D., DebRoy, S., Sarkar, D., & R Core Team. (2018). nlme: Linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. R package version 3.1-131.1. Accessed at https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=nlme Google Scholar
Plonsky, L., & Derrick, D. (2016). A meta-analysis of reliability coefficients in second language research. Modern Language Journal, 100, 1–15.Google Scholar
Plonsky, L., & Ghanbar, H. (2018). Multiple regression in L2 research: A methodological synthesis and guide to interpreting R 2 values. Modern Language Journal. Advance online publication.Google Scholar
Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L. (2017). Multiple regression as a flexible alternative to ANOVA in L2 research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39, 579–592.Google Scholar
R Core Team. (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Accessed at https://www.R-project.org/ Google Scholar
Roberts, L., & Liszka, S. A. (2013). Processing tense/aspect-agreement violations on-line in the second language: A self-paced reading study with French and German L2 learners of English. Second Language Research, 29, 413–439.Google Scholar
Schneider, W., Dumais, D., & Schiffrin, R. (1984). Automatic and control processing and attention. In R. Parasuraman (Ed.), Varieties of attention. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Segalowitz, N. (2010). Cognitive bases of second language fluency. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Segalowitz, N., & Segalowitz, S. (1993). Skilled performance, practice, and the differentiation of speed-up from automatization effects: Evidence from second language word recognition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 14, 369–385.Google Scholar
Shintani, N. (2015). The effectiveness of processing instruction and production-based instruction on L2 grammar acquisition: A meta-analysis. Applied Linguistics, 36, 306–325.Google Scholar
Silva-Corvalán, C. (2014). Bilingual language acquisition: Spanish and English in the first six years. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Google Scholar
Solovyeva, K., & DeKeyser, R. (2017). Response time variability signatures of novel word learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40, 225–239.Google Scholar
Suzuki, Y. (2017). The role of procedural learning ability in automatization of L2 morphology under different learning schedules. An exploratory study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. Advance online publication.Google Scholar
Suzuki, Y., & Sunada, M. (2016). Automatization in second language sentence processing: Relationship between elicited imitation and maze tasks. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 21, 32–46.Google Scholar
Tolentino, L., & Tokowicz, N. (2014). Cross-language similarity modulates effectiveness of second language grammar instruction. Language Learning, 64, 279–309.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (2002). Processing instruction: An update. Language Learning, 52, 755–803.Google Scholar
Xiao, R., & McEnery, T. (2004). Aspect in Mandarin Chinese: A corpus-based study. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar