Re-examining the role of explicit instruction and input flood on the acquisition of spanish discourse markers

Language Teaching Research

Volumn 15, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 159-182

  Hernández, Todd A ^a  

^a MARQUETTE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

discourse markers; explicit instruction; form focused instruction; input flood; task essential practice

Indexed keywords

EID: 79952582125     PISSN: 13621688     EISSN: 14770954     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1362168810388694     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) (1999). ACTFL Proficiency guidelines: Speaking. Revised. Hastings-on-Hudson, NY: ACTFL.
2. Aijmer, K. (2002). English discourse particles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
3. 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, HI: University of Hawai'i Press.
4. Andersen, R.W. (1990). Models, processes, principles and strategies: Second language acquisition inside and outside the classroom. In B. VanPatten & J.F. Lee (Eds.), Second language acquisition: Foreign language learning (pp. 45-68). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
5. Bardovi-Harlig, K. & Reynolds, D. (1995). The role of lexical aspect in the acquisition of tense and aspect. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 107-31.
6. Benati, A. (2004). The effects of structured input activities and explicit information on the acquisition of Italian tense. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 207-25). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
7. Carroll, S. & Swain, M. (1993). Explicit and implicit negative feedback: An empirical study of the learning of linguistic generalization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 357-86.
8. Caycedo Garner, L., Rusch, D., & Domínguez, M. (1991). En parejas: A four-book series of communicative activities. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
9. Center for Applied Linguistics (1995). The Spanish speaking test. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
10. de Graaff, R. (1997). The eXperanto experiment: Effects of explicit instruction on second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 249-76.
11. DeKeyser, R. (1995). Learning second language grammar rules: An experiment with a miniature linguistic system. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 379-410.
12. DeKeyser, R. (1997). Beyond explicit rule learning: Automatizing second language morphosyntax. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 195-221.
13. de la Fuente, M. (2009). The role of pedagogical tasks and focus on form in acquisition of discourse markers by advanced learners. In R.P. Leow, H. Campos & D. Lardiere (Eds.), Little words: Their history, phonology, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and acquisition (pp. 211-21). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
14. Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (1998). Pedagogical choices in focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114-38). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
15. Ellis, N. (1993). Rule and instances in foreign language learning: Interactions of explicit and implicit knowledge. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 5, 289-318.
16. Farley, A. (2004). Processing instruction and the Spanish subjunctive: Is explicit information needed? In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 227-39). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
17. Fraser, B. (1999). What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 931-52.
18. Fung, L. & Carter, R. (2007). Discourse markers and spoken English: Native and non-native use in pedagogic settings. Applied Linguistics, 28, 410-39.
19. Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
20. Gass, S. & Mackey, A. (2000). Stimulated recall methodology in second language research. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
21. Hatch, E. & Wagner-Gough, J. (1976). Explaining sequence and variations in second language acquisition. Language Learning (Special issue) 4, 39-47.
22. Hernández, T.A. (2008). The effect of explicit instruction and input flood on students' use of discourse markers on a simulated oral proficiency interview. Hispania, 91, 665-75.
23. Jones, C. (2009). Well, you know, I mean: The teaching and learning of spoken discourse markers. UCLan Journal of Pedagogic Research, 1, 11-20.
24. Lee, J.F. & VanPatten, B. (2003). Making communicative language teaching happen. 2nd edition. New York: McGraw-Hill.
25. Leeser, M. (2004). Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language Teaching Research, 8, 55-81.
26. Leow, R.P. (2000). A study of the role of awareness in foreign language behavior: Aware vs. unaware learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 557-84.
27. Leow, R.P. (2007). Input in the L2 classroom: An attentional perspective on receptive practice. In R. DeKeyser (Eds.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 21-50). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
28. Leow, R.P., Egi, T., Nuevo, A.M., & Tsai, Y.-C. (2003). The roles of textual enhancement and type of linguistic item in adult L2 learners' comprehension and intake. Applied Language Learning, 13, 1-16.
29. 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. 123-67). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
30. Mackey, A. (2006). Feedback, noticing, and instructed second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 27, 405-30.
31. McDonough, K. (2005). Identifying the impact of negative feedback on ESL question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 79-103.
32. Nagata, N. (1993). Intelligent computer feedback for second language instruction. Modern Language Journal, 77, 330-39.
33. Nagata, N. & Swisher, M.V. (1995). A study of consciousness-raising by computer: The effect of metalinguistic feedback on SLA. Foreign Language Annals, 28, 336-47.
34. Norris, J. & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417-528.
35. Pica, T., Kang, H.S., & Sauro, S. (2006). Information gap tasks: Their multiple roles and contributions to interaction research methodology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 301-08.
36. Reinders, H. & Ellis, R. (2009). The effects of two types of input on intake and the acquisition of implicit and explicit knowledge. In R. Ellis, S. Loewen, C. Elder, R. Erlam, J. Philp & H. Reinders (Eds.), Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language learning, testing and teaching (pp. 281-302). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
37. Robinson, P. (1996). Learning simple and complex second language rules under implicit, incidental, enhanced, and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 27-68.
38. Robinson, P. (1997). Generalizability and automaticity of second language learning under implicit, incidental, enhanced, and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 223-47.
39. Rosa, E.E. & Leow, R.P. (2004). Computerized task-based exposure, explicitness and type of feedback on Spanish L2 development. Modern Language Journal, 88, 192-217.
40. Rosa, E.E. & O'Neill, M. (1999). Explicitness, intake, and the issue of awareness: Another piece to the puzzle. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 511-66.
41. Rusch, D., Domínguez, M., & Caycedo Garner, L. (2005). Fuentes: Conversación y gramática. 3rd edition. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
42. Sanz, C. & Morgan-Short, K. (2004). Positive evidence vs. explicit rule presentation and explicit negative feedback: A computer-assisted study. Language Learning, 54, 35-78.
43. Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 206-26.
44. 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 (pp. 1-63). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai'i.
45. Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3-32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
46. Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17, 38-62.
47. Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
48. Skehan, P. & Foster, P. (2001). Cognition and tasks. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 183-205). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
49. Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-53). Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.
50. Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in Honour of H.G. Widdowson (pp. 125-44). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
51. Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 64-82). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
52. Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. 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.), The handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471-83). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
54. Trahey, M. & White, L. (1993). Positive evidence and preemption in the second language classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 181-204.
55. VanPatten, B. (1985). Communicative value and information processing in second language acquisition. In P. Larson, E. Judd, & D.S. Messerschmitt (Eds.), On TESOL: A brave new world for TESOL (pp. 89-100). Washington, DC: TESOL.
56. VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction in second language acquisition: Theory and research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
57. VanPatten, B. (2004). Input processing in second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 5-32). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
58. VanPatten, B. & Cadierno, T. (1993). Explicit instruction and input processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 225-43.
59. VanPatten, B. & Oikkenon, S. (1996). Explanation vs. structured input in processing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 495-510.
60. White, J. (1998). Getting the learners' attention: A typographical input enhancement study. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 85-113). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
61. Williams, J. (1999). Learner-generated attention to form. Language Learning, 49, 583-625.
62. Williams, J. & Evans, J. (1998). What kind of focus and on which forms? In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 139-55). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
63. Wong, W. (2004). Processing instruction in French: The roles of explicit information and structured input. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 187-205). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
64. Wong, W. (2005). Input enhancement: From theory and research to the classroom. New York: McGraw-Hill.
65. Yoshimi, D.R. (2001). Explicit instruction and JFL learners' use of interactional discourse markers. In K. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 223-44). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.