Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T23:16:55.922Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE INCIDENTAL ACQUISITION OF ENGLISH PLURAL –S BY JAPANESE CHILDREN IN COMPREHENSION-BASED AND PRODUCTION-BASED LESSONS

A Process-Product Study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 January 2011

Natsuko Shintani  and
Rod Ellis
Natsuko Shintani
Affiliation:
University of Auckland
Rod Ellis*
Affiliation:
University of Auckland
*
*Address correspondence to: Rod Ellis, Department of Applied Language Studies and Linguistics, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, New Zealand; e-mail: r.ellis@auckland.ac.nz.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Most studies that have investigated the effects of instruction on the SLA of specific grammatical features have focused on intentional learning. This study investigated incidental acquisition by comparing the relative effects of two types of instruction—comprehension-based instruction (CBI) and production-based instruction (PBI)—on young Japanese learners’ incidental acquisition of English plural –s. Results showed that both the CBI and PBI groups performed significantly better than the control group on both the comprehension and production tests. There were no statistically significant differences between the two experimental groups. However, a comparison of those learners in the two groups who were complete beginners indicated an advantage for the CBI instruction. A quantitative and qualitative analysis of the interactions in one CBI and one PBI class showed that the students who received both kinds of instruction had ample exposure to plural –s nouns but that the nature of the corrective feedback they received differed. Whereas the feedback that the students in the CBI group received on their comprehension errors enabled them to distinguish the meanings of plural and singular nouns, the feedback that the students in the PBI group received on their production errors—in the form of recasts—did not result in the repair of errors.

Type
Research Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 32 , Issue 4 , December 2010 , pp. 607 - 637
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

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

Anderson, J. R. (1993). Rules of the mind. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Asher, J. J. (1977). Learning another language through actions. Los Gatos, CA: Sky Oaks Productions.Google Scholar
Athanasopoulos, P., & Kasai, C. (2008). Language and thought in bilinguals: The case of grammatical number and nonverbal classification preferences. Applied Psycholinguistics, 29, 105–123.Google Scholar
Berko, J. (1958). The child’s learning of English morphology. Word, 14, 150–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burt, M., Dulay, H., & Hernandez, E. (1973). Bilingual syntax measure. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M., & Sokalski, K. J. (1996). The differential role of comprehension and production practice. Language Learning, 46, 613–642.Google Scholar
Dupuy, B., & Krashen, S. (1993). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in French as a foreign language. Applied Language Learning, 4, 55–63.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.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (1999a). Input-based approaches to teaching grammar: A review of classroom-oriented research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 64–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (1999b). Learning a second language through interaction. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2005). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 141–172.Google Scholar
Ernst, G. (1994). “Talking circle”: Conversation and negotiation in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 293–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gower, R., & Walters, S. (1983). A teaching practice handbook. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Hakuta, K. (1978). A report on the development of the grammatical morphemes in a Japanese girl learning English as a second language. In Hatch, E. (Ed.), Second language acquisition (pp. 132–147). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Hawkins, R. (2001). Second language syntax: A generative introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hubbard, P., Jones, H., Thornton, B., & Wheeler, R. (1983). A training course for TEFL. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hulstijn, J. H. (1989). Implicit and incidental second language learning: Experiments in the processing of natural and partly artificial input. In Dechert, H. W. & Raupach, M. (Eds.), Interlingual processing (pp. 49–73). Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Hulstijn, J. H. (2003). Incidental and intentional learning. In Doughty, C. J. & Long, M. H. (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 349–381). Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Izumi, S., & Bigelow, M. (2000). Does output promote noticing and second language acquisition? TESOL Quarterly, 34, 239–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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, 421–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jia, G. (2003). The acquisition of the English plural morpheme by native Mandarin Chinese-speaking children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 46, 1297–1311.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, K. (1995). Understanding communication in second language classroom. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jourdenais, R., Ota, M., Stauffer, S., Boyson, B., & Doughty, C. J. (1995). Does textual enhancement promote noticing? A think-aloud protocol analysis. In Schmidt, R. (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 183–216). Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press.Google Scholar
Knowlton, B. J., & Squire, L. R. (1996). Artificial grammar learning depends on implicit acquisition of both abstract and exemplar-specific information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 169–181.Google ScholarPubMed
Kowal, M., & Swain, M. (1994). Using collaborative language production tasks to promote students’ language awareness. Language Awareness, 3, 73–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kowal, M., & Swain, M. (1997). From semantic to syntactic processing: How can we promote metalinguistic awareness in the French immersion classroom? In Johnson, R. & Swain, M. (Eds.), Immersion education: International perspectives (pp. 284–309). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1977). Some issues relating to the monitor model. In Brown, H., Yurio, C., & Crymes, R. (Eds.), On TESOL ’77 (pp. 144–158). Washington, DC: TESOL.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1989). We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading: Additional evidence for the input hypothesis. Modern Language Journal, 73, 440–464.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Second language learning as a mediated process. Language Teaching, 33, 79–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LaPierre, D. (1994). Language output in a cooperative learning setting: Determining its effects on second language learning. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.Google Scholar
Loewen, S., Erlam, R., & Ellis, R. (2009). Implicit and explicit knowledge and second language learning: Testing and teaching. 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: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction, and second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 557–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Makino, T. (1993). Perspectives on second language acquisition. Tokyo: Yumi Press.Google Scholar
Monbusho (Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture). (2006). Shogakko eigo katsudo jissi-jyoukyo chosa [Survey on English teaching practice in elementary school]. Retrieved January 10, 2009, from http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/houdou/18/03/06031408.htmGoogle Scholar
Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second-language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language Learning, 44, 493–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (1996). Learning simple and complex rules under implicit, incidental rule-search conditions, and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 27–67.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (1997). Generalizability and automaticity of second language learning under implicit, incidental, enhanced, and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 223–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (2005). Cognitive abilities, chunk-strength, and frequency effects in implicit artificial grammar and incidental L2 learning: Replications of Reber, Walkenfeld, and Hernstadt (1991) and Knowlton and Squire (1996) and their relevance for SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 235–268.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1994). Deconstructing consciousness in search of useful definitions for applied linguistics. AILA Review, 11, 11–26.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Seedhouse, P. (2001). Case of the missing “no”: The relationship between pedagogy and interaction. In Ellis, R. (Ed.), Form-focused instruction and second language learning (pp. 347–385). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2006). Exploring the relationship between characteristics of recasts and learner uptake. Language Teaching Research, 10, 361–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slimani, A. (1989). The role of topicalization in classroom language learning. System, 17, 223–234.Google Scholar
Trahey, M., & White, L. (1993). Positive evidence and preemption in the second language classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 181–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ur, P. (1996). A course in language teaching: Practice and theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction: Theory and research. Westport, CT: Ablex.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B., & Cadierno, T. (1993). Explicit instruction and input processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 225–243.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B., & Oikkenon, S. (1996). Explanation versus structured input in processing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 495–510.Google Scholar
Wajnryb, R. (1990). Grammar dictation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wakabayashi, S. (1997). The acquisition of functional categories by learners of English. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Cambridge, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Wells, G., & Montgomery, M. (1981). Adult-child interaction at home and at school. In French, P. & McLure, M. (Eds.), Adult-child conversation (pp. 210–243). New York: St Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
White, J. (1998). Getting the learners’ attention: A typographical input enhancement study. In Doughty, C. J. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 85–113). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar