Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T14:30:25.309Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

PROCESSING INSTRUCTION AND THE EFFECTS OF INPUT MODALITY AND VOICE FAMILIARITY ON THE ACQUISITION OF THE FRENCH CAUSATIVE CONSTRUCTION

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2019

Kiwako Ito  and
Wynne Wong
Kiwako Ito*
Affiliation:
The Ohio State University
Wynne Wong
Affiliation:
The Ohio State University
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Kiwako Ito, Department of Linguistics, The Ohio State University, 221 Oxley Hall, 1712 Neil Avenue, Columbus, OH 43210. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Two eye-tracking experiments tested (a) whether L2 learners benefit from the consistency of input modality (auditory instead of written processing instruction [PI] training) and (b) whether they benefit from training using the same voice as the test voice. Results confirmed a robust effect of PI training on picture-selection accuracy, yet the improvement did not differ between training modalities. Eye-tracking data revealed resilient looks to the incorrect (first noun = agent) picture even after training, demonstrating the challenge in tuning to the grammatical forms while processing auditory L2 input. The effect of voice familiarity was larger for the male voice, which had longer duration for the later cue (à Marie/Pierre) than the female voice. Auditory PI training can be as effective as written PI training, but it does not immediately enhance learners’ sensitivity to grammatical cues. However, learners may benefit from hearing a salient grammatical cue toward the end of the sentence.

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 41 , Issue 2 , May 2019 , pp. 443 - 468
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

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

Absalom, M., & Rizzi, A. (2008). Comparing the outcomes of online listening versus online text-based tasks in university level Italian L2 study. ReCALL, 20, 55–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barcroft, J. (2008). Second language partial word form learning in the written mode. Estudios de Lingüistica Aplicada, 47, 53–72.Google Scholar
Barcroft, J., & Sommers, M. S. (2005). Effects of acoustic variability on second language vocabulary learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 387–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barcroft, J., & Sommers, M. (2014). Effects of variability in fundamental frequency on L2 vocabulary learning: A comparison between learners who do and do not speak a tone language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36, 423–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barker, B. A., & Meyer Turner, L. (2015). Influences of foreign accent on preschoolers’ word recognition and story comprehension. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36, 1111–1132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benati, A. (2001). A comparative study of the effects of processing instruction and output-based instruction on the acquisition of the Italian future tense. Language Teaching Research, 5, 95–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bent, T. (2014). Children’s perception of foreign-accented words. Journal of Child Language, 41, 1334–1355.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bent, T., & Bradlow, A. R. (2003). The interlanguage speech intelligibility benefit. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 114, 1600–1610.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bent, T., & Holt, R. F. (2013). The influence of talker and foreign-accent variability on spoken word identification. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 133, 1677–1686.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2016). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (Version 6.0.29) [Computer program]. Retrieved from http://www.praat.org.Google Scholar
Bradlow, A. R., & Bent, T. (2008). Perceptual adaptation to non-native speech. Cognition, 106, 707–729.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bradlow, A. R., Pisoni, D. B., Akahane-Yamada, R., & Tohkura, Y. (1997). Training Japanese listeners to identify English/r/and/l/: IV. Some effects of perceptual learning on speech production. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 101, 2299–2310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, G. D. A., & Hulme, C. (1992). Cognitive processing and second language processing: The role of short-term memory. In Harris, R. J. (Ed.), Cognitive processing in bilinguals (pp. 105–121). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cadierno, T. (1995). Formal instruction in processing perspective: An investigation into the Spanish past tense. The Modern Language Journal, 79, 179–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chinney, G. M. (2006). Emerging technologies. Going to the MALL: Mobile assisted language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 10, 9–16.Google Scholar
Clarke, C. M., and Garrett, M. F. (2004). Rapid adaptation to foreign-accented English. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 116, 3647–3658.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Comer, W. J., & DeBenedette, L. (2010). Processing instruction and Russian: Issues, materials, and preliminary experimental results. Slavic and East European Journal, 54, 118–146.Google Scholar
Creel, S. C. (2012). Phonological similarity and mutual exclusivity: On-line recognition of atypical pronunciations in 3–5-year-olds. Developmental Science, 15, 697–713.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dahan, D., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Chambers, C. G. (2002). Accent and reference resolution in spoken language comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 292–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dracos, M. (2012). The effects of form-focused training and working memory on the L2 processing and learning of morphological cues (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Pennsylvania State University.Google Scholar
Fernandez, C. (2008). Reexamining the role of explicit information in processing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 277–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grodzinsky, Y. (2000). The neurology of syntax: Language use without Broca’s area. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 1–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hama, M., & Leow, R. P. (2010). Learning without awareness revisited: Extending Williams (2005). Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 465–491.Google Scholar
Hede, A. J. (1973). Stimulus array and recall method as variables in audio-visual split-span memory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 25, 130–137.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Henry, N. (2015). Morphosyntactic processing, cue interaction, and the effects of instruction: An investigation of processing instruction and the acquisition of case markings in L2 German (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Pennsylvania State University.Google Scholar
Henry, N., Culman, H., & VanPatten, B. (2009). More on the effects of explicit information in instructed SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 559–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jun, S.-A., & Fougeron, C. (2000). A Phonological model of French intonation. In Botinis, A. (Ed.), Intonation: Analysis, modeling and technology (pp. 209–242). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerz, E., Wiechmann, D., & Riedel, F. (2017). Implicit learning in the crowd: Investigating the role of awareness in the acquisition of L2 knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39, 711–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kukulska-Hulme, A., Pettit, J., Bradley, L., Carvalho, A., Herrington, A., Kennedy, D., & Walker, A. (2011). Mature students using mobile devices in life and learning. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 31, 18–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leonard, L. B., Wong, A. M.-Y., Deevy, P., Stokes, S. F., & Fletcher, P. (2006). The production of passives by children with specific language impairment acquiring English or Cantonese. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 267–299.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leow, R. (1993). To simplify or not to simplify: A look at intake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 333–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leow, R. P. (1995). Modality and intake in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 79–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lively, S. E., Logan, J. S., & Pisoni, D. B. (1993). Training Japanese listeners to identify English/r/and/l/. II: The role of phonetic environment and talker variability in learning new perceptual categories. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 94, 1242–1255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Logan, J. S., Lively, S. E., & Pisoni, D. B. (1991). Training Japanese listeners to identify English/r/and/l/: A first report. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 89, 874–886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lund, R. J. (1991). A comparison of second language listening and reading comprehension. Modern Language Journal, 75, 196–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madsen, M. C., Rollins, H. A., & Senf, G. M. (1970). Variables affecting immediate memory for bisensory stimuli: Eye-ear analogue studies of dichotic listening. Journal of Experimental Psychology Monographs, 83, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McManus, K., & Marsden, E. (2016). L1 explicit instruction can improve L2 online and offline performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39, 459–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, A. M., Mack, J. E., & Thompson, C. K. (2012). Tracking passive sentence comprehension in Agrammatic Aphasia. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 25, 31–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Munro, M. J. (1998). The effects of noise on the intelligibility of foreign-accented speech. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 139–154.Google Scholar
Nathan, L., & Wells, B. (2001). Can children with speech difficulties process an unfamiliar accent? Applied Psycholinguistics, 22, 343–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nathan, L., Wells, B., & Donlan, C. (1998). Children’s comprehension of unfamiliar regional accents: A preliminary investigation. Journal of Child Language, 25, 343–365.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O’Malley, C., Vavoula, G., Glew, J. P., Taylor, J., Sharples, M., & Lefrere, P. (2005). MOBIlearn WP4—Guidelines for learning/teaching/tutoring in a mobile environment. Retrieved from https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00696244.Google Scholar
Park, G. P. (2004). Comparison of L2 listening and reading comprehension by university students learning English in Korea. Foreign Language Annals, 37, 448–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Penney, C. G. (1980). Order of report in bisensory verbal short-term memory. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 34, 190–195.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Penney, C. G. (1989). Modality effects and the structure of short-term memory. Memory and Cognition, 17, 398–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Penney, C. G., & Burr, A. K. (1986). Within- and between-modality associations in probed recall: A test of the separate-streams hypothesis. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 40, I–II.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perrachione, T. K., Lee, J., Ha, L. Y. Y., & Wong, P. C. M. (2011). Learning a novel phonological contrast depends on interactions between individual differences and training paradigm design. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 130, 461–472.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rodríguez-Arancón, P., Arús, J., & Calle, C. (2013). The use of current mobile learning applications in EFL. Procedia–Social and Behavioral Sciences, 103, 1189–1196.Google Scholar
Ronnberg, J., Nilsson, L.-G., & Ohlsson, K. (1982). Organization by modality, language, and category compared. Psychological Research, 44, 369–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sadakata, M., and McQueen, J. M. (2014). Individual aptitude in Mandarin lexical tone perception predicts effectiveness of high-variability training. Frontiers in Psychology, 25, 1318.Google Scholar
Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-Prime (Version 2.0). [Computer software and manual]. Pittsburgh, PA: Psychology Software Tools Inc.Google Scholar
Swinney, D., & Zurif, E. (1995). Syntactic processing in aphasia. Brain and Language, 50, 225–239.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
VanPatten, B. (1990). Attending to form and content in the input. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 287–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B. (2004). Input processing in second language acquisition. In VanPatten, B. (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research and commentary (pp. 5–31). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B., & Cadierno, T. (1993). Explicit instruction and input processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 225–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B., & Wong, W. (2004). Processing instruction and the French causative: A replication. In VanPatten, B. (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research and commentary (pp. 97–118). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wade, T., Jongman, A., & Sereno, J. (2007). Effects of acoustic variability in the perceptual learning of non-native-accented speech sounds. Phonetica, 64, 122–144.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wang, Y., Spence, M. M., Jongman, A., & Sereno, J. A. (1999). Training American listeners to perceive Mandarin tones. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 106, 3649–3658.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Williams, J. N. (2005). Learning without awareness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 269–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wong, W. (2001). Modality and attention to meaning and form in the input. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 345–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wong, W., & Ito, K. (2018). The effects of processing instruction and traditional instruction on L2 online processing of the causative construction in French. An eye-tracking study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40, 241–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar