Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

ONLINE AND OFFLINE EFFECTS OF L1 PRACTICE IN L2 GRAMMAR LEARNING: A PARTIAL REPLICATION

  • Kevin McManus (a1) and Emma Marsden (a2)

Abstract

This study partially replicates McManus and Marsden (2017), who found that providing L1 explicit information (EI) plus task-essential practice led L2 learners to make more accurate and faster interpretations of French morphosyntax. The current study removed the original study’s L1 EI component to examine the role of the L1 practice. This design tested whether providing L1 task-essential practice only (alongside a core treatment of L2 EI plus L2 practice) resulted in similar online and offline learning gains compared to the original study’s L1 EI plus L1 practice. We used the same online and offline tests, with a similar population of English-speaking learners of L2 French (n = 19). For accuracy and speed of online and offline L2 processing, the findings suggest that additional L1 practice without L1 EI was no more beneficial than L2 EI plus L2 practice alone, indicating that the original study’s combination of additional L1 EI with L1 practice appeared to contribute to previously observed learning benefits.

Copyright

Corresponding author

*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Kevin McManus, Center for Language Acquisition, Department of Applied Linguistics, 209 Sparks Building, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802. E-mail: kmcmanus@psu.edu

Footnotes

Hide All

The experiment in this article earned an Open Materials badge for transparent practices. The materials are available at https://www.iris-database.org/iris/app/home/detail?id=york:932243.

This research was supported by a British Academy Postdoctoral Fellowship (PF130001) awarded to Kevin McManus, with Emma Marsden as Mentor. Many thanks to the learners who participated in this study, and to Angela O’Flaherty and Nigel Armstrong for help with recruitment. We would also like to thank the editors and two anonymous SSLA reviewers for their valuable comments, and Oriane Boulay, Margaret Coleman, and Sylvie Goodlow for their research assistance.

Footnotes

References

Hide All
Andringa, S., & Curcic, M. (2015). How explicit knowledge affects online L2 processing: Evidence from differential object marking acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37, 237268.
Brown, A. (2015). Universal development and L1–L2 convergence in bilingual construal of manner in speech and gesture in Mandarin, Japanese, and English. The Modern Language Journal, 99, 6682.
Brown, A., & Gullberg, M. (2013). L1–L2 convergence in clausal packaging in Japanese and English. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16, 477494.
DeKeyser, R. (2015). Skill acquisition theory. In VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction. London, UK: Routledge.
DeKeyser, R., & Prieto Botana, G. (2015). The effectiveness of processing instruction in L2 grammar acquisition: A narrative review. Applied Linguistics, 36, 290305.
Dracos, M. (2013). The effects of form-focused training and working memory on the L2 processing and learning of morphological cues (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University.
Ellis, N. C. (2006). Selective attention and transfer phenomena in SLA: Contingency, cue competition, salience, interference, overshadowing, blocking and perceptual saliency. Applied Linguistics, 27, 131.
Fernández, C. (2008). Reexamining the role of explicit information in processing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 277305.
González, P. (2008). Towards effective instruction on aspect in L2 Spanish. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 46, 91112.
Henry, N. (2015). Morphosyntactic processing, cue interaction, and the effects of instruction: An investigation of processing instruction and the acquisition of case markings in L2 German (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University.
Henry, N., Culman, H., & VanPatten, B. (2009). More on the effects of explicit information in instructed SLA: A partial replication and a response to Fernández (2008). Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 559575.
Horst, M., White, J., & Bell, P. (2010). First and second language knowledge in the language classroom. International Journal of Bilingualism, 14, 331349.
Howard, M. (2005). Les contextes prototypiques et marqués de l’emploi de l’imparfait par l’apprenant du français langue étrangère. In Labeau, E. & Larrivée, P. (Eds.), Nouveaux développements de l’imparfait (pp. 175197). Amsterdam, The Netherlands, and New York, NY: Rodopi.
Izquierdo, J., & Collins, L. (2008). The facilitative role of L1 influence in tense-aspect marking: A comparison of Hispanophone and Anglophone learners of French. Modern Language Journal, 92, 350368.
Keating, G., & Jegerski, J. (2015). Experimental designs in sentence processing research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37, 132.
Marsden, E. (2006). Exploring input processing in the classroom: An experimental comparison of processing instruction and enriched input. Language Learning, 56, 507566.
Marsden, E., & Chen, H-Y. (2011). The roles of structures input activities in processing instruction and the kinds of knowledge they promote. Language Learning, 61, 10581098.
Marsden, E., Williams, J., & Liu, X. (2013). Learning novel morphology: The role of meaning and orientation of attention at initial exposure. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 619654.
McManus, K. (2013). Prototypical influence in second language acquisition: What now for the aspect hypothesis? IRAL: International Review of Applied Linguistics in Teaching, 51, 299322.
McManus, K. (2015). L1–L2 differences in the acquisition of form-meaning pairings: A comparison of English and German learners of French. Canadian Modern Language Review, 71, 5177.
McManus, K., & Marsden, E. (2017). L1 explicit information can improve L2 online and offline performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39, 134. doi: 10.1017/S027226311600022X
Morris, S. B., & DeShon, R. P. (2002). Combining effect size estimates in meta-analysis with repeated measures and independent-groups designs. Psychological Methods, 7, 105125.
O’Grady, W. (2013). The illusion of language acquisition. Linguistic Approaching to Bilingualism, 3, 253285.10.1075/lab.3.3.01ogr
Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L. (2014). How big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 65, 878912.
Roberts, L., & Liszka, S. A. (2013). Processing tense/aspect agreement violations online in the second language: A self-paced reading study with French and German L2 learners of English. Second Language Research, 29, 413439.
Runnqvist, E., Gollan, T. H., Costa, A., & Ferreira, V. S. (2013). A disadvantage in bilingual sentence production modulated by syntactic frequency and similarity across languages. Cognition, 129, 256263.
Sanoudaki, E., & Thierry, G. (2014). Juggling two grammars. In Thomas, E. M. & Mennen, I. (Eds.), Advances in the study of bilingualism (pp. 214230). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Sanz, C., & Morgan-Short, K. (2004). Positive evidence versus explicit rule presentation and explicit negative feedback: A computer-assisted study. Language Learning, 24, 3578.
Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2012). E-Prime reference guide. Pittsburgh, PA: Psychology Software Tools.
Shintani, N. (2015). The effectiveness of processing instruction and production-based instruction on L2 grammar acquisition: A meta-analysis. Applied Linguistics, 36, 306325.
Spada, N., & Tomita, Y. (2010). Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 263308.
Spada, N., Lightbown, P. M., & White, J. (2005). The importance of form/meaning mappings in explicit form-focused instruction. In Housen, A. & Pierrard, M. (Eds.), Investigations in Instructed Second Language Acquisition (pp. 199234). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Stafford, C. A., Bowden, H. W., & Sanz, C. (2012). Optimizing language instruction: Matters of explicitness, practice, and cue learning. Language Learning, 62, 741768.
Tokowicz, N., & Warren, T. (2010). Beginning adult L2 learners’ sensitivity to morphosyntactic violations: A self-paced reading study. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 22, 10921106.
VanPatten, B. (2002). Processing instruction: An update. Language Learning, 52, 755803.
VanPatten, B. (2015). Foundations of processing instruction. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 53, 91109.
VanPatten, B., & Borst, S. (2012). The role of explicit information and grammatical sensitivity in processing instruction: Nominative-accusative case marking and word order in German L2. Foreign Language Annals, 45, 495510.
VanPatten, B., & Oikkenon, S. (1996). Explanation versus structured input in processing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 495510.
VanPatten, B., Collopy, E., Price, J. E., Borst, S., & Qualin, A. (2013). Explicit information, grammatical sensitivity, and the first-noun principle: A cross-linguistic study in processing instruction. The Modern Language Journal, 97, 506527.
Type Description Title
WORD
Supplementary materials

McManus and Marsden supplementary material
Tables S1-S3

 Word (29 KB)
29 KB

ONLINE AND OFFLINE EFFECTS OF L1 PRACTICE IN L2 GRAMMAR LEARNING: A PARTIAL REPLICATION

  • Kevin McManus (a1) and Emma Marsden (a2)

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed