Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vsgnj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T12:05:21.176Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

EYE GAZE AND PRODUCTION ACCURACY PREDICT ENGLISH L2 SPEAKERS’ MORPHOSYNTACTIC LEARNING

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 December 2016

Kim McDonough ,
Pavel Trofimovich ,
Phung Dao  and
Alexandre Dion
Kim McDonough*
Affiliation:
Concordia University
Pavel Trofimovich
Affiliation:
Concordia University
Phung Dao
Affiliation:
Concordia University
Alexandre Dion
Affiliation:
Concordia University
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Kim McDonough, 1455 de Maisonneuve Blvd W., Education Department, FG 6-151, Montreal, QC H3G 1M8 Canada. E-mail: kim.mcdonough@concordia.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study investigated the relationship between second language (L2) speakers’ success in learning a new morphosyntactic pattern and characteristics of one-on-one learning activities, including opportunities to comprehend and produce the target pattern, receive feedback from an interlocutor, and attend to the meaning of the pattern through self- and interlocutor-initiated eye-gaze behaviors. L2 English students (N = 48) were exposed to the transitive construction in Esperanto (e.g., filino mordas pomon [SVO] or pomon mordas filino [OVS] “girl bites apple”) through comprehension and production activities with an interlocutor, receiving feedback in the form of recasts for their Esperanto errors. The L2 speakers’ interpretation and production of Esperanto transitives were then tested using known and novel lexical items. The results indicated that OVS test performance was predicted by the duration of self-initiated eye gaze to images illustrating the OVS pattern during the comprehension learning activity and by accurate production of OVS sentences during the production learning activity. The findings suggest important roles for eye-gaze behavior and production opportunities in L2 pattern learning.

Type
Research Reports
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 39 , Issue 4 , December 2017 , pp. 851 - 868
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

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

We would like to thank the research assistants who helped with data collection, transcription, and coding: Abigael Sherby, Stella Carolina Stella, and Lauren Strachan. This research was supported by grants from the Social Sciences and Humanities Council of Canada (435-2015-1206) and the Canada Research Chairs program (950-221304).

References

REFERENCES

Bavelas, J., Coates, L., & Johnson, T. (2002). Listener responses as collaborative process: The role of gaze. Journal of Communication, 52, 566–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C., Hafeez, K., Martin, K. I., Chen, L., Boland, J., & Sagarra, N. (2014). An eye-tracking study of learned attention in second language acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 35, 547–579.Google Scholar
Ferreira, F. (2003). The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 47, 164–203.Google Scholar
Ferreira, V. S., & Bock, K. (2006). The functions of structural priming. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21, 1011–1029.Google Scholar
Fulga, A., & McDonough, K. (2016). The impact of L1 background and visual information on the effectiveness of low variability input. Applied Psycholinguistics, 37, 265–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. (2003). Input and interaction. In Doughty, C. & Long, M. (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 224–255). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Goo, J., & Mackey, A. (2013). The case against the case against recasts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 127–165.Google Scholar
Gullberg, M., Roberts, L., & Dimroth, C. (2012). What word-level knowledge can adult learners acquire after minimal exposure to a new language? IRAL, 50, 239–276.Google Scholar
Kelly, S. D., & Lee, A. L. (2012). When actions speak too much louder than words: Hand gestures disrupt word learning when phonetic demands are high. Language and Cognitive Processes, 27, 793–807.Google Scholar
Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In Ritchie, W. & Bhatia, T. (Eds.), Handbook of language acquisition: Second language acquisition (Vol. 2, pp. 413–468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (2013). Counterpoint piece: The case for variety in corrective feedback research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 167–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A. (2012). Input, interaction and corrective feedback in L2 learning. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., Gass, S., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471–497.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2012). The logic of the unified model. In Gass, S. M. & Mackey, A. (Eds.), Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 211–227). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
McDonough, K., & Chaikitmongkol, W. (2010). Collaborative syntactic priming activities and EFL learners’ production of wh-questions. Canadian Modern Language Review, 66, 817–841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonough, K., & Fulga, A. (2015). The detection and primed production of novel constructions. Language Learning, 65, 353–384.Google Scholar
McDonough, K., & Kim, Y. (2009). Syntactic priming, type frequency, and EFL learners’ production of wh-questions. The Modern Language Journal, 93, 386–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonough, K., & Trofimovich, P. (2013). Learning a novel pattern through balanced and skewed input. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16, 654–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonough, K., & Trofimovich, P. (2015). Structural priming and the acquisition of novel form-meaning mappings. In Eskildsen, S. & Cardierno, T. (Eds.), Usage-based perspectives on second language learning (pp. 105–123). Berlin: Mouten De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonough, K., & Trofimovich, P. (2016). The role of statistical learning and working memory in L2 speakers’ pattern learning. The Modern Language Journal, 100, 428–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonough, K., Crowther, D., Kielstra, P., & Trofimovich, P. (2015). Exploring the potential role of eye-gaze in eliciting English L2 speakers’ responses to recasts. Second Language Research, 31, 563–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, D., & Dunham, P. J. (1995). Joint attention: Its origin and role in development. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Nakamura, D. (2012). Input skewedness, consistency, and order of frequent verbs in frequency-driven second language construction learning: A replication and extension of Casenhiser and Goldberg (2005) to adult second language acquisition. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 50, 31–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plonsky, L. (2013). Study quality in SLA: An assessment of designs, analyses, and reporting practices in quantitative L2 research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 655–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plonsky, L., & Gass, S. (2011). Quantitative research methods, study quality, and outcomes: The case of interaction research. Language Learning, 61, 325–366.Google Scholar
Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L. (2014). How big is “big”? Interpreting effects sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64, 878–912.Google Scholar
Rayner, K., & Castelhano, M. (2007). Eye movements. Scholarpedia, 2, 3649.Google Scholar
Rossano, F., Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (2009). Gaze, questioning and culture. In Sidnell, J. (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Comparative perspectives (pp. 187–249). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction in second language acquisition. Westport, CT: Ablex.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (Ed.) (2004). Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (2007). Input processing in adult second language acquisition. In VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 115–135). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
White, L. (2007). Linguistic theory, universal grammar, and second language acquisition. In VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 37–55). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Year, J., & Gordon, P. (2009). Korean speakers’ acquisition of the English ditransitive construction: The role of verb prototype, input distribution, and frequency. The Modern Language Journal, 93, 399–417.Google Scholar