No abstract

Article:McManus, Kevin orcid.org/0000-0002-7855-6733 and Marsden, Emma orcid.org/0000-0003-4086-5765 (2017) L1 explicit instruction can improve L2 online and offline performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. pp. 459-492. ISSN 1470459-492. ISSN -1545 https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226311600022X eprints@whiterose.ac.uk https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ Reuse Items deposited in White Rose Research Online are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved unless indicated otherwise. They may be downloaded and/or printed for private study, or other acts as permitted by national copyright laws. The publisher or other rights holders may allow further reproduction and re-use of the full text version. This is indicated by the licence information on the White Rose Research Online record for the item. TakedownIf you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing eprints@whiterose.ac.uk including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. Explicit information and practice in L2 learningThe usefulness of providing L2 learners with explicit information (EI) about a target feature and subsequent practice in processing the input is not fully understood. As noted by Henry, Culman and VanPatten (2009, p.573) Ònot all EI is the same, not all structures are the same, and the interaction of EI, structure, and processing problem may yield different results in different studiesÓ. The current study investigates the effects of EI with practice in the L2 and also, in light of research documenting persistent difficulty when the L1 and L2 express the same meaning differently (Izquierdo & Collins, 2008;McManus, 2013McManus, , 2015Roberts & Liszka, 2013), whether additional EI about the L1 with L1 practice can help a specific processing problem Ð interpreting the habitual versus ongoing meanings of L2 French Imparfait for L1 English learners. We tested whether making this conceptual distinction explicit, via EI and meaning-based practice in both L1 and L2, would aid form-meaning mapping. First, we briefly discuss research into L2 EI and practice, before justifying the investigation of a role for L1 EI and practice, and then move on to discuss why EI and practice (in L2 and L1) may have an effect on online processing. L2 EI and PracticeEI about the L2 is useful for learning, according to information processing and skill acquisition theories, because some declarative information can become proceduralised via practice and automatized, resulting in automatised declarative knowledge and/or knowledge that appears indistinguishable from implicit knowledge (DeKeyser, 2015). 'Weaker' accounts suggest that learners can use EI to segment or parse the input (Terrell, 1991), notice features (Schmidt, 1990), understand a rule and help production (Leow, 2015), and arrive at correct interpretations with fewer practice items (Henry et al., 2009 4 ! to depend on several factors, including its precise nature Ð the type of information conveyed and the feature in focus. T...

Mills. We would also like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions. Elicited imitation as a measure of oral proficiency in L2 French (2014)

A major difference between first language (L1) acquisition and adult second language (L2) acquisition is that L2 learners come to the learning task already equipped with a fully developed language system. A central question in L2 research necessarily concerns, therefore, how, and to what extent, prior language knowledge impacts on subsequent language learning. A recent focus of research on L1 influence deals with the nature of L1-L2 differences in terms of the connections between meaning and form (Izquierdo & Collins, 2008;Salaberry, 2008;Sugaya & Shirai, 2007). Because languages do not always pair form and meaning consistently, new associations between meaning and form are required when the L1 and the L2 differ in how they express the same meaning. In a German L1-French L2 learning situation, for example, German implicitly conveys aspect (discourse context and lexical content), whilst French explicitly expresses it with inflectional morphology. As a result, the German speaker learning French needs to establish different form-meaning mappings in which aspect is grammaticalized (i.e. mapped to inflectional morphology).Although the process of form-meaning mapping is claimed to constitute one of the most difficult aspects of L2 grammar learning (Ellis, 2013), some studies claim that learning different form-meaning pairings is ultimately successful (Slabakova & Montrul, 2003), yet others suggest persistent L1 influence at the advanced-stages of learning (Salaberry, 2008).L2 form-meaning mapping arguably depends on precisely how individual L1s and L2s express the same meaning. It is hypothesized to be most difficult when in the L1 a series of different meanings are mapped together to a single form, but then in the L2 these same meanings are isolated and mapped to different forms (Collins, 2004;Izquierdo, 2009). There also appear to be clear effects for differences in the manner of expressing meaning, such as grammatically versus lexically (Roberts & Liszka, 2013). The present study contributes to

No abstract