Positive Evidence Versus Explicit Rule Presentation and Explicit Negative Feedback: A Computer-Assisted Study

Language Learning

Volumn 54, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 35-78

  Sanz, Cristina ^a,b   Morgan Short, Kara ^a,b  

^a GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Department of Spanish ^*  (Spain)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 1642633665     PISSN: 00238333     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2004.00248.x     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Alanen, R. (1995). Input enhancement and rule presentation in second language acquisition. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 259-302). Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press.
2. Benati, A. (2003). The effects of structured input activities and explicit information on the acquisition of Italian future tense. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
3. Cadierno, T. (1995). Formal instruction from a processing perspective: An investigation into the Spanish past tense. Modern Language Journal, 79, 179-193.
4. Carroll, S., & Swain, M. (1993). Explicit and implicit negative feedback: An empirical study of the learning of linguistic generalizations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 357-386.
5. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
6. de Graaff, R. (1997). The eXperanto experiment: Effects of explicit instruction on second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 249-276.
7. DeKeyser, R. (1993). The effect of error correction on L2 grammar knowledge and oral proficiency. Modern Language Journal, 77, 501-514.
8. DeKeyser, R. (1995). Learning second language grammar rules: An experiment with a miniature linguistic system. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 379-410.
9. Doughty, C. (2001). Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 206-257). New York: Cambridge University Press.
10. Ellis, N. (1993). Rule and instances in foreign language learning: Interactions of explicit and implicit knowledge. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 5, 289-318.
11. Farley, A. P. (2001). The effects of processing instruction and meaning-based output instruction. Spanish Applied Linguistics, 5, 57-94.
12. Farley, A. P. (2003). Processing instruction and the Spanish subjunctive: Is explicit information needed? In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
13. Krashen, Stephen. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
14. Krashen, Stephen D. (1985). The input hypothesis. London: Longman.
15. Lee, J. F., & VanPatten, B. (1995). Making communicative language teaching happen. San Francisco: McGraw-Hill
16. Leeman, J. (2000). Towards a new classification of input: An empirical study of the effect of recasts, negative evidence, and enhanced salience of L2 development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
17. Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (1990). Focus-on-form and corrective feedback in communicative language teaching: Effects on second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 429-448.
18. LoCoco, V. (1987). Learner comprehension of oral and written sentences in German and Spanish: The importance of word order. In B. VanPatten, T. R. Dovrak, & J. F. Lee (Eds.), Foreign language learning: A research perspective (pp. 116-129). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
19. Loschky L., & Bley-Vroman R. (1993) Grammar and task-based learning. In G. Crookes & S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: integrating theory and practice (pp. 123-167). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
20. Nagata, N. (1993). Intelligent computer feedback for second language instruction. Modern Language Journal, 77(3), 330-339.
21. Nagata, N., & Swisher, M. V. (1995). A study of consciousness-raising by computer: The effect of metalinguistic feedback on SLA. Foreign Language Annals, 28, 336-347.
22. Robinson, P. (1996). Learning simple and complex second language rules under implicit, incidental, rule-search and instructed condition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 27-68.
23. 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.
24. Rosa, E. (1999). A cognitive approach to task-based research: Explicitness, awareness and L2 development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
25. Rosa, E., & O'Neill, M. (1999). Explicitness, intake, and the issue of awareness: Another piece to the puzzle. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 511-556.
26. Sanz, C. (1994). Task, mode and the effects of input-based explicit instruction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
27. Sanz, C. (1997). Experimental tasks in SLA research: Amount of production, modality, memory, and production processes. In W. R. Glass and A. T. Pérez-Lerroux (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives on the acquisition of Spanish (Vol. 2, pp. 41-56). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
28. Sanz, C. (1999). What form to focus on? Linguistics, language awareness, and the education of L2 teachers. In J. F. Lee & A. Valdman (Eds.), Meaning and form: Multiple perspectives (pp. 3-23). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
29. Sanz, C. (2000). Implementing LIBRA for the design of experimental research in SLA. Language Learning and Technology, 13, 27-31.
30. Slobin, D., & Bever, T. (1982). Children use canonical schemes: A cross-linguistic study of work order and inflections. Cognition, 12, 229-265.
31. Spada, N. (1997). Form-focussed instruction and second language acquisition: A review of classroom and laboratory research. Language Teaching, 30(2), 73-87.
32. VanPatten, B. (1984). Learners' comprehension of clitic pronouns: More evidence for a word order strategy. Hispanic Linguistics, 1, 57-67.
33. VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction: Theory and research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
34. VanPatten, B. (2002). Processing instruction: An update. Language Learning, 52(4), 755-803.
35. VanPatten, B. (2003). Processing instruction. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
36. VanPatten, B., & Cadierno, T. (1993). Input processing and second language acquisition: A role for instruction. Modern Language Journal, 77, 45-57.
37. VanPatten, B., & Oikkenon, S. (1996). Explanation versus structured input in processing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 495-510.
38. VanPatten, B., & Sanz, C. (1995). From input to output: Processing instruction and communicative tasks. In F. R. Eckman, D. Highland, P. W. Lee, J. Mileham, & R. R. Weber (Eds.), Second language acquisition: Theory and pedagogy (pp. 169-185). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
39. VanPatten, B., & Wong, W. (2001, February). Processing instruction and the French causative: A replication. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Applied Linguistics, St. Louis, MO.
40. Wong, W. (2003). Processing instruction in French: The roles of explicit information and structured input. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.