Syntactic priming and ESL question development

Studies in Second Language Acquisition

Volumn 30, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 31-47

  McDonough, Kim ^a   Mackey, Alison ^b  

^a NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 38649142800     PISSN: 02722631     EISSN: 14701545     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0272263108080029     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Bock, K. (1986). Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 355-387.
2. Bock, K. (1989). Closed-class immanence in sentence production. Cognition, 31, 163-186.
3. Bock, K. (1990). Structure in language: Creating form in talk. American Psychologist, 45, 1221-1236.
4. Bock, K., & Griffin, Z. (2000). The persistence of structural priming: Transient activation or implicit learning? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129, 177-192.
5. Bock, K., & Loebell, H. (1990). Framing sentences. Cognition, 35, 1-39.
6. Bock, K., Loebell, H., & Morey, R. (1992). From conceptual roles to structural relations: Bridging the syntactic cleft. Psychological Review, 99, 150-171.
7. Branigan, H., Pickering, M., & Cleland, A. (2000). Syntactic co-ordination in dialogue. Cognition, 75, B13-B25.
8. Branigan, H., Pickering, M., Liversedge, S., Stewart, A., & Urbach, T. (1995). Syntactic priming: Investigating the mental representation of language. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 24, 489-506.
9. Branigan, H., Pickering, M., Stewart, A., & McLean, J. (2000). Syntactic priming in spoken production: Linguistic and temporal interference. Memory & Cognition, 28, 1297-1302.
10. de Bot, K. (1996). The psycholinguistics of the output hypothesis. Language Learning, 46, 529-555.
11. DeKeyser, R. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. In C. J. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 42-63). New York: Cambridge University Press.
12. Ellis, N. C. (1998). Emergentism, connectionism, and language learning. Language Learning, 48, 631-664.
13. Ellis, N. C. (2002a). Frequency effects in language acquisition: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 143-188.
14. Ellis, N. C. (2002b). Reflections on frequency effects in language acquisition: A response to commentaries. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 297-339.
15. Ellis, N. C. (2005). Constructions, chunking and connectionism: The emergence of second language structure. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 63-103). Oxford: Blackwell.
16. Ellis, R. (1991). The interaction hypothesis: A critical evaluation. In E. Sadtano (Ed.), Language acquisition and the second/foreign language classroom (pp. 179-211). Singapore: Regional English Language Centre.
17. Gass, S. M. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
18. Gass, S. M. (2003). Input and interaction. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 224-255). Oxford: Blackwell.
19. Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2007). Input, interaction and output in second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 175-199). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
20. Haberman, S. (1973). The analysis of residuals in cross-classified tables. Biometrics, 29, 205-220.
21. Hare, M., & Goldberg, A. (1999). Structural priming: Purely syntactic? In M. Hahn & S. Stones (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 208-211). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
22. Havranek, G. (2002). When is corrective feedback most likely to succeed? International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 255-270.
23. Huttenlocher, J., Vasilyeva, M., & Shimpi, P. (2004). Syntactic priming in young children. Journal of Memory and Language, 50, 182-195.
24. Iwashita, N. (2003). Negative feedback and positive evidence in task-based interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25 1-36.
25. Keck, C., Iberri-Shea, G., Tracy-Ventura, N., & Wa-Mbaleka, S. (2006). Investigating the empirical link between task-based interaction and acquisition: A meta-analysis. In J. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 91-131). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
26. Leeman, J. (2003). Recasts and second language development: Beyond negative evidence. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 37-63.
27. Loewen, S., & Philp, J. (2006). Recasts in the adult English L2 classroom: Characteristics, explicitness, and effectiveness. Modern Language Journal, 90, 536-556.
28. Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of language acquisition: Vol. 2. Second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
29. Long, M. H. (2006). Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
30. Long, M. H., Inagaki, S., & Ortega, L. (1998). The role of interactional feedback in SLA: Models and recasts in Japanese and Spanish. Modern Language Journal, 82, 357-371.
31. Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction, and second language development: An empirical study of question formation in ESL. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 557-587.
32. Mackey, A., & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 407-452). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
33. McDonough, K. (2005). Identifying the impact of negative feedback and learners' responses on ESL question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 79-103.
34. McDonough, K. (2006). Interaction and syntactic priming: English L2 speakers' production of dative constructions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 179-207.
35. McDonough, K., & Mackey, A. (2006). Responses to recasts: Repetitions, primed production and linguistic development. Language Learning, 54 693-720.
36. Melinger, A., & Dobel, C. (2005). Lexically-driven syntactic priming. Cognition, 98, B11-B20.
37. Nobuyoshi, J., & Ellis, R. (1993). Focused communication tasks and second language acquisition. ELT Journal, 47, 203-210.
38. Panova, I., & Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 573-595.
39. Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second-language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language Learning, 44, 493-527.
40. Pickering, M., & Branigan, H. (1998). The representation of verbs: Evidence from syntactic priming in language production. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 633-651.
41. Pienemann, M. (1998). Language processing and second language development: Processability theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
42. Pienemann, M. (2007). Processability theory. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 137-154). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
43. Pienemann, M., & Johnston, M. (1987). Factors influencing the development of language proficiency. In D. Nunan (Ed.), Applying second language acquisition research (pp. 45-141). Adelaide, Australia: National Curriculum Resource Centre, AMEP.
44. Pienemann, M., Johnston, M., & Brindley, G. (1988). Constructing an acquisition-based procedure for second language assessment. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 10, 217-243.
45. Sachs, H., Shegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematic for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696-735.
46. Savage, C., Lieven, E., Theakston, A., & Tomasello, M. (2003). Testing the abstractness of children's linguistic representations: Lexical and structural priming of syntactic constructions in young children. Developmental Sciences, 6, 557-567.
47. Schmidt, R. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of attention and awareness in learning. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (Tech. Rep. No. 9, pp. 1-63). Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press.
48. Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3-32). New York: Cambridge University Press.
49. Silver, R. E. (2000). Input, output, and negotiation: Conditions for second language development. In B. Swierzbin, F. Morris, M. E. Anderson, C. A. Klee, & E. Tarone (Eds.), Social and cognitive factors in second language acquisition: Selected proceedings of the 1999 Second Language Research Forum (pp. 345-371). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
50. Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. (1999). Instruction, first language influence, and developmental readiness in second language acquisition. Modern Language Journal, 83, 1-22.
51. Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125-144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
52. Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97-114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
53. Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471-484). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
54. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371-391.
55. Tomasello, M. (2000). The item-based nature of children's early syntactic development. Trends in Cognitive Science, 4, 156-163.