The Cognitive Turn of Contrastive Analysis: Empirical Evidence

Kupferberg, Irit

doi:10.1080/09658419908667130

Cited by 30 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Compatible with previous studies that explored teaching/knowledge about the L1 for L2 learning (Kupferberg, 1999;Horst et al, 2010;Spada et al, 2005), it seems likely that our L2+L1 treatment was beneficial (and more reliably so than L2-only) because of the specific nature of the learning problem i.e. L1-L2 form-meaning mapping differences.…”

Section: Observation Of Online Effectsmentioning

confidence: 84%

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: Observation Of Online Effectsmentioning

confidence: 84%

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

“…As contrastive analysis (CA) was 'rehabilitated' almost thirty years ago, when it took on a cognitive turn (Ringbom, 1987;Kupferberg, 1999), one could have expected to see an increased interest in investigating the connection between overcoming learning difficulties and heightening the learners' awareness on the one hand and the differences between L1 and L2 that were causing them on the other. As James (2005) points out, in the cross-linguistic influence (CLI) framework, the role of CA is to define salient foreign language input which may assist L2 learners by raising their cross-language awareness.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The results of these studies are still inconclusive. Some showed that providing learners with cross-linguistic information proves to be effective in the instruction of some selected structures but less so in the case of others (Kupferberg andOlshtain, 1996, andKupferberg, 1999, Sheen, 1996Sheen, , 2005, for interrogatives and placement of frequency adverbs by French learners of English, Vaezi and Mirzaie, 2007 for passive voice, indirect speech and conditionals by Persian Learners of English). In sum, the small number of studies available and the differences between the studies in terms of the types of CFFI provided, research designs and measurements used, make it difficult to draw any strong conclusions about the effectiveness of CFFI relative to other types of instruction.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effect of Comparative FonF Structure on Learning L2 Verb Components

Parvizi¹

2018

WJEL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study focuses on the impact of the type of form-focused instruction (FFI) on its efficiency in mastering L2 forms. The hypothesis that FFI, which induces structural and metalinguistic salience on the basis of contrastive analysis of the learner's L1 and L2, would be particularly effective at facilitating the acquisition of difficult L2 forms was tested in a quasi-experimental study comparing the effectiveness of two types of FFI, one with and one without a contrastive component. The contrastive FFI explicitly drew learners' attention to the cross-linguistic differences in the tense-aspect systems of their L2 and L1 while the non-contrastive treatment only focused on the tense-aspect system of the L2. The effects of these two types of FFI were assessed by analyzing the learners' pre-test and post-test performance on two tasks differing in the extent to which they involve the activation of explicit and implicit linguistic knowledge: a grammatical judgment task and a controlled translation task. The subjects of the study comprised of 43 students majoring in English language in the Iranian capital university, Tehran, 22 were selected as for experimental group and 21 for control group randomly. The results of the study revealed that the quantitative analysis of the Grammatical Judgment Test (GJT) data indicated no significant effect of CFFI due to the novelty of the translatory technique, or the potential individual differences in the learning orientation of the learners. On the contrary, the qualitative analysis indicated differential effects of this type of FFI according to the nature of target form, i.e. CFFI was beneficial in raising the grammatical judgment of Persian Learners of English (PLE) regarding present perfect form but not effective in their judgment of ungrammatical progressive forms. In terms of translation task, the CFFI appeared to be effective in the correct use of the target structures by PLE. This may be mainly due to the fact that Translation Test (TT) needed explicit knowledge which was presented in CFFI and that translation is a contrastive activity in nature.

show abstract

“…Second, research demonstrated that providing learners with explicit contrastive L1-L2 information contributed to L2 performance (e.g. Kupferberg and Olshtain 1996, Kupferberg 1999, Ammar, Lightbown and Spada 2010.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Learners’ perceptions of grammar-translation as consciousness raising

Scheffler

2013

Language Awareness

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Foreign language teaching methodologies of the 20th century were dominated by the principle of monolingualism. Language teaching specialists and linguists of that time generally argued in their publications against using learners' own languages in the classroom and described translation as a dull activity which did not contribute anything to language learning. However, since the beginning of the 21st century calls for a reassessment of translation have begun to appear. This article offers an argument for a reassessment of grammar-translation in language teaching based on learners' perceptions of this activity. It reports a study in which 45 secondary school Polish learners of English were asked to evaluate two consciousness-raising activities they had performed: a grammar-translation task and a communicative language exchange. The results show that the learners considered translating sentences from Polish into English to be as useful and interesting as communicatively-oriented consciousness raising.

show abstract

The Cognitive Turn of Contrastive Analysis: Empirical Evidence

Cited by 30 publications

References 11 publications

L1 Explicit Instruction Can Improve L2 Online and Offline Performance

L1 Explicit Instruction Can Improve L2 Online and Offline Performance

The Effect of Comparative FonF Structure on Learning L2 Verb Components

Learners’ perceptions of grammar-translation as consciousness raising

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About