Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T15:22:44.608Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ON THE SCOPE OF OUTPUT IN SLA

TASK MODALITY, SALIENCE, L2 GRAMMAR NOTICING, AND DEVELOPMENT

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 June 2020

Janire Zalbidea Open the ORCID record for Janire Zalbidea [Opens in a new window]
Janire Zalbidea*
Affiliation:
Temple University
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Janire Zalbidea, Department of Spanish and Portuguese, Temple University, Anderson Hall 413, 1114 W. Polett Walk, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19122. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Following calls for more modality-sensitive perspectives of SLA, this study investigated the extent to which (a) producing the second language (L2) in the oral modality impacts learner-generated noticing and L2 development of grammatical structures embedded in subsequent auditory input, and whether (b) engaging in L2 production and input processing in the written modality differentially contributes to learner noticing and L2 outcomes compared to the oral modality. Participants were beginner-level L2 Spanish learners assigned to one of three pedagogic task conditions (No-output, Speaking, Writing). Two target structures differing in their relative intrinsic salience were considered in the study. Learners’ noticing behaviors were gauged using stimulated recall protocols, and L2 grammar development was measured using pre-, post-, and delayed posttests of production and written and aural acceptability judgment. Results revealed that engaging in oral output promoted greater noticing and deeper analysis of auditory input as well as more robust L2 grammar development compared to no output. However, sustained linguistic gains on the lower-salience target structure were only observed among participants who engaged in output and input processing in the written modality.

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 43 , Issue 1 , March 2021 , pp. 50 - 82
Check for updates
Open Practices
Open materials
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

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.)

Footnotes

The experiment in this article earned an Open Materials badge for transparent practices. The materials are available at: https://www.iris-database.org/iris/app/home/detail?id=york%3a937905&ref=search; https://www.iris-database.org/iris/app/home/detail?id=york%3a937906&ref=search; https://www.iris-database.org/iris/app/home/detail?id=york%3a937907&ref=search

I am most grateful to Cristina Sanz, Ronald P. Leow, Lourdes Ortega, and Andrea Révész for their valuable feedback in conducting this research. I also thank Meagan Driver, Linxi Zhang, and Aitor Martínez de la Pera for their support with various aspects of the study, and Nick Pandža for his guidance with statistical analyses. The manuscript benefitted greatly from the helpful comments of the SSLA editors and anonymous reviewers. Any remaining errors are my own.

References

REFERENCES

Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 1–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bulté, B., & Housen, A. (2012). Defining and operationalising L2 complexity. In Housen, A., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in SLA (pp. 21–46). John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrnes, H., & Manchón, R. M. (2014). Task-based language learning: Insights from and for L2 writing—An introduction. In Byrnes, H. & Manchón, R. M. (Eds.), Task-based language learning—Insights from and for L2 writing (pp. 1–23). John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Cerezo, L., Caras, A., & Leow, R. P. (2016). The effectiveness of guided induction versus deductive instruction on the development of complex Spanish gustar structures: An analysis of learning outcomes and processes. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 265–291.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cleland, A. A., & Pickering, M. J. (2006). Do writing and speaking employ the same syntactic representations? Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 185–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (2005). What makes learning second-language grammar difficult? A review of issues. Language Learning, 55, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2004). The processes of second language acquisition. In VanPatten, B., Williams, J., Rott, S., & Overstreet, M. (Eds.), Form-meaning connections in second language acquisition (pp. 49–76). Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2017). Salience. In Hundt, M., Mollin, S., & Pfenninger, S. (Eds.), The changing English language: Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 71–92). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fox, J., & Weisberg, S. (2011). An R companion to applied regression (2nd ed.). Sage.Google Scholar
García Mayo, M. P., & Azkarai, A. (2016). EFL task-based interaction: Does task modality impact on language-related episodes? In Sato, M. & Ballinger, S. (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 241–266). John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2017). Stimulated recall methodology in applied linguistics and L2 research (2nd ed.). Routledge.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M., Spinner, P., & Behney, J. (2017). Salience in second language acquisition. Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilabert, R., Manchón, R., & Vasylets, L. (2016). Mode in theoretical and empirical TBLT research: Advancing research agendas. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 117–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldschneider, J. M., & DeKeyser, R. M. (2001). Explaining the “natural order of L2 morpheme acquisition” in English: A meta‐analysis of multiple determinants. Language Learning, 51, 1–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harklau, L. (2002). The role of writing in classroom second language acquisition. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11, 329–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Housen, A., & Simoens, H. (2016). Introduction: Cognitive perspectives on difficulty and complexity in L2 acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 163–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Indrarathne, B., & Kormos, J. (2017). Attentional processing of input in explicit and implicit conditions: An eye-tracking study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39, 401–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 541–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Izumi, S. (2003). Comprehension and production processes in second language learning: In search of the psycholinguistic rationale of the output hypothesis. Applied Linguistics, 24, 168–196.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
Izumi, Y., & Izumi, S. (2004). Investigating the effects of oral output on the learning of relative clauses in English: Issues in the psycholinguistic requirements for effective output tasks. Canadian Modern Language Review, 60, 587–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kellogg, R. T. (1996). A model of working memory in writing. In Levy, C. M. & Ransdell, S. (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences and applications (pp. 57–71). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Kellogg, R. T. (2007). Are written and spoken recall of text equivalent? American Journal of Psychology, 120, 415–428.Google ScholarPubMed
Kormos, J. (2006). Speech production and second language acquisition. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2017). lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed-effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laver, J. (1994). Principles of phonetics. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leeser, M. J. (2007). Learner-based factors in L2 reading comprehension and processing grammatical form: Topic familiarity and working memory. Language Learning, 57, 229–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leeser, M. J. (2008). Pushed output, noticing, and development of past tense morphology in content-based instruction. Canadian Modern Language Review, 65, 195–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leow, R. P. (2015). Explicit learning in the L2 classroom: A student-centered approach. Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levelt, W. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. MIT Press.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manchón, R. M. (2014). The internal dimension of tasks: The interaction between task factors and learner factors in bringing about learning through writing. In Byrnes, H. & Manchón, R. M. (Eds.), Task-based language learning—Insights from and for L2 writing (pp. 27–53). John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ortega, L. (2012). Epilogue: Exploring L2 writing–SLA interfaces. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 404–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ortega, L., & Long, M. H. (1997). The effects of models and recasts on the acquisition of object topicalization and adverb placement in L2 Spanish. Spanish Applied Linguistics, 1, 65–86.Google Scholar
Park, E. S. (2013). Learner-generated noticing behavior by novice learners: Tracing the effects of learners’ L1 on their emerging L2. Applied Linguistics, 34, 74–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Philp, J., & Iwashita, N. (2013). Talking, tuning in and noticing: Exploring the benefits of output in task-based peer interaction. Language Awareness, 22, 353–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plonsky, L., & Derrick, D. J. (2016). A meta‐analysis of reliability coefficients in second language research. Modern Language Journal, 100, 538–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Core Team. (2019). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (version 3.3.1.). R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2003). The cognition hypothesis, task design, and adult task-based language learning. Second Language Studies, 21, 45–105.Google Scholar
Russell, V. (2014). A closer look at the output hypothesis: The effect of pushed output on noticing and inductive learning of the Spanish future tense. Foreign Language Annals, 47, 25–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Song, M. J., & Suh, B. R. (2008). The effects of output task types on noticing and learning of the English past counterfactual conditional. System, 36, 295–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In Cook, G. & Seidlhofer, B. (Eds.), Principles and practice in applied linguistics (pp. 125–144). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In Lantolf, J. P. (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97–114). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: theory and research. In Hinkel, E. (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471–484). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Uggen, M. S. (2012). Reinvestigating the noticing function of output. Language Learning, 62, 506–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B. (2004). Input and output in establishing form-meaning connections. In VanPatten, B., Williams, J., Rott, S., & Overstreet, M. (Eds.), Form-meaning connections in second language acquisition (pp. 29–47). Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vasylets, O., Gilabert, R., & Manchon, R. M. (2017). The effects of mode and task complexity on second language production. Language Learning, 67, 394–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, J. (2012). The potential role(s) of writing in second language development. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 321–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zalbidea, J. (2017). “One task fits all”? The roles of task complexity, modality, and working memory capacity in L2 performance. Modern Language Journal, 101, 335–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zamuner, T. S., Morin-Lessard, E., Strahm, S., & Page, M. A. (2016). Spoken word recognition of novel words, either produced or only heard during learning. Journal of Memory and Language, 89, 55–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Zalbidea Supplementary Materials

Zalbidea Supplementary Materials

Download Zalbidea Supplementary Materials(File)
File 55.1 KB