What gets processed in processing instruction? A commentary on Bill VanPatten's "processing instruction: An update"

Language Learning

Volumn 52, Issue 4, 2002, Pages 805-823

  DeKeyser, Robert ^a   Salaberry, Rafael ^b   Robinson, Peter ^c   Harrington, Michael ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

^b RICE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c AOYAMA GAKUIN UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

^d UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0036897046     PISSN: 00238333     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/1467-9922.00204     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Allen, L.Q. (2000). Form-meaning connections and the French causative: An experiment in processing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 69-84.
2. Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1989). Functionalism and the competition model. In B. MacWhinney & E. Bates (Eds.), The crosslinguistic study of sentence processing (pp 77-117). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
3. 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(2), 95-127.
4. Boland, J.E. (1977). The relationship between syntactic and semantic processors in comprehension. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12, 423-484.
5. Broadbent, D.A. (1958). Perception and communication. New York: Academic Press.
6. Cadierno, T. (1995). Formal instruction from a processing perspective: An investigation into the Spanish past tense. Modern Language Journal, 79, 179-193.
7. Cheng, A. (1995). Grammar instruction and input processing: The acquisition of Spanish ser and estar. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
8. Cheng, A. (2002). The effects of processing instruction on the acquisition of ser and estar. Hispania, 85(2), 308-323.
9. Collentine, J. (1998). Processing instruction and the subjunctive. Hispania, 81, 576-587.
10. Collentine, J. (2002). On the acquisition of the subjunctive and authentic processing instruction: A response to Farley. Hispania, 84(4), 900-909.
11. de Graaff, R. (1997). Differential effects of explicit instruction on second language acquisition. The Hague: Holland Institute of Generative Linguistics.
12. DeKeyser, R. and Sokalski, K. (1996). The differential role of comprehension and production practice. Language Learning, 46, 613-642.
13. Farley, A.P. (2001). Authentic processing instruction and the Spanish subjunctive. Hispania, 84, 289-299.
14. Frazier, L., and Clifton, C. (1996). Construal. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
15. Gopher, D. (1992). Analysis and measurement of mental workload. In G. d'Ydewalle, P. Eelen & P. Bertelson (Eds.), International perspectives on psychological science: Vol. 2, State of the Art (pp. 265-291). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
16. Gregg, K. (2001). Learnability and second language acquisition theory. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 152-180). New York: Cambridge University Press.
17. Harrington, M. (2001). Sentence processing. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 91-124). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
18. Juffs, A., & Harrington, M. (1995). Parsing effects in L2 sentence processing: Subject and object asymmetries in WH-extraction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 485-512.
19. Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
20. Koch, I. & Prinz, W. (2002). Process interference and code overlap in dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Performance, 28, 192-201.
21. Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot, R. Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39-52). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
22. Neumann, O. (1987). Beyond capacity: A functional view of attention. In H. Heuer & A. Sanders (Eds.), Perspectives on attention and action (pp. 361-393). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
23. Neumann, O. (1996). Theories of attention. In O. Neumann & A. Sanders (Eds.), Handbook of perception and action: Vol. 3. Attention. (pp. 389-446). New York: Academic Press.
24. Robinson, P. (2002). Effects of individual differences in intelligence, aptitude and working memory on adult incidental SLA: A replication and extension of Reber, Walkenfield and Hernstadt, 1991. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 211-266). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
25. Robinson, P. (in press) Attention and memory in SLA. In C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
26. Rubinstein, J., Meyer, D., & Evans, J. (2001). Executive control of cognitive processes in task-switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Human Perception and Performance, 27, 763-797.
27. Salaberry, M.R. (1997). The role of input and output practice in second language acquisition. Canadian Modern Language Review, 53, 422-451.
28. Sanders, A. (1998). Elements of human performance: Reaction processes and attention in human skill. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
29. VanPatten, B. (1990). Attending to form and content in the input. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 287-301.
30. VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction: Theory and research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
31. VanPatten, B., & Cadierno, T. (1993). Explicit instruction and input processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 225-243.
32. VanPatten, B., & Oikkenon, S. (1996). Explanation versus structured input in processing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(4), 495-510.
33. Wickens, C. (1984). Processing resources in attention. In R. Parasureman & D. Davies (Eds.), Varieties of attention (pp. 63-102). New York: Wiley.
34. Wong, W. (2001). Modality and attention to meaning and form in the input. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 345-368.