10. Juggling Two Grammars

Sanoudaki, Eirini; Thierry, Guillaume

doi:10.21832/9781783091713-013

Cited by 14 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Clearer habituality and ongoing conceptual distinctions could have given anticipatory benefits for accessing the appropriate French in the stimuli, for example, increasing the speed of processing interclausal forms required for habituality. These findings are broadly compatible with existing evidence about L1 effects during L2 processing (e.g., Sanoudaki & Thierry, 2014; Tolentino & Tokowicz, 2011). However, further research is required to examine whether (a) this coactivation is unique to mixed language tests (our CMTs and SPR both included an L1 context and L2 stimulus) and (b) current findings would hold for tests only presented in the L2.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…Similarly, Roberts and Liszka (2013) with advanced learners found slower reading times at morphosyntactic (aspectual) violations in L2 English when L1 and L2 both grammaticalized aspect (L1 French), but not when the means of expressing aspect was unique to the L2 (L1 German). L1-L2 morphosyntactic coactivation has also been documented among bilinguals, for example, during comprehension (Sanoudaki & Thierry, 2014), production (Runnqvist, Gollan, Costa, & Ferreira, 2013), and cross-linguistic priming (Hartsuiker & Pickering, 2008). However, there is surprisingly little evidence about the role of the L1 in online processing among learners , rather than bilinguals/near natives.…”

Section: Online Effects Of Ei and Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

L1 Explicit Instruction Can Improve L2 Online and Offline Performance

McManus

Marsden

2016

Stud Second Lang Acquis

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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...

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Section: Online Effects Of Ei and Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

L1 Explicit Instruction Can Improve L2 Online and Offline Performance

McManus

Marsden

2016

Stud Second Lang Acquis

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This knowledge (or rehearsed processing routine) may have helped the L2+L1 group to parse and/or anticipate cues in the linguistic context needed to disambiguate the Imparfait's habitual and ongoing functions more accurately and faster than the L2-only group. (For evidence of L1 activation during L2 processing and production, see Runnqvist, Gollan, Costa, and Ferreira, 2013;Sanoudaki and Thierry, 2014). Given the above, the possibly different roles played by the EI and practice are unclear.…”

Section: Motivation For the Present Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Online and Offline Effects of L1 Practice in L2 Grammar Learning

McManus

Marsden

2017

Stud Second Lang Acquis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…Second, two languages in a bilingual speaker are often simultaneously activated and compete for selection, even when only one language is used. This language nonselectivity has been predominantly demonstrated in lexical processing (Gollan, Montoya, Cera, & Sandoval, ; Kroll & Steward, ; Marian & Spivey, ; Weber & Cutler, ), but some recent research also suggests parallel activation of syntactic structures in bilingual processing, both in comprehension (Sanoudaki & Thierry, ) and in production (Runnqvist, Gollan, Costa, & Ferreira, ). Earlier research on cross‐linguistic priming (Hartsuiker & Pickering, ; Hartsuiker, Pickering, & Veltkamp, ; Shin & Christianson, ) and transfer in sentence processing (MacWhinney, ) lends further support for L1–L2 structural co‐activation in online processing.…”

Section: The L1–l2 Structural Competition Accountmentioning

confidence: 99%

Structural Competition in Second Language Production: Towards a Constraint‐Satisfaction Model

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Second language (L2) learners often show inconsistent production of some aspects of L2 grammar. One view, primarily based on data from L2 article production, suggests that grammatical patterns licensed by learners' native language (L1) and those licensed by their L2 compete for selection, leading to variability in the production of L2 functional morphology. In this study, we show that the idea of structural competition has broader applicability, in correctly predicting certain asymmetries in the production of both the definite article the and plural marking -s by Thai learners of English. At the same time, we recognize that learners' growing sensitivity to structural regularities in the L2 might be an additional contributing factor, and therefore make a novel proposal for how the L1-L2 structural competition model and the sensitivity-to-L2-structural regularities account could be integrated and their respective contributions studied under the constraint-satisfaction model of language processing. We argue that this approach is particularly suited to studying bilingual processing as it provides a natural framework for explaining how highly disparate factors, including partially activated options from both languages, interact during processing.

show abstract

10. Juggling Two Grammars

Cited by 14 publications

References 0 publications

L1 Explicit Instruction Can Improve L2 Online and Offline Performance

L1 Explicit Instruction Can Improve L2 Online and Offline Performance

Online and Offline Effects of L1 Practice in L2 Grammar Learning

Structural Competition in Second Language Production: Towards a Constraint‐Satisfaction Model

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About