Processing Instruction

Theory, Research, and Commentary

Bill VanPatten, BIll VanPatten

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2004
• ISBN:
  9781135622176
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education Theory & Practice

This new book, Processing Instruction: Theory, Research, and Commentary, edited by Bill VanPatten--a pioneer in processing instruction (PI)--is a refreshing presentation of 10 related and not widely available articles that illustrate the role of processing instruction in second language acquisition. The articles provide both historical and current context, as well as describe the influence of the input processing model on PI. The contents include empirical papers presenting new data that demonstrate both the theoretical and pedagogical threads of research. Aside from simply establishing where PI stands in the field of instructed SLA, the book addresses issues, such as processing instruction versus other types of instruction; the impact of processing instruction on various linguistic structures; the role of explicit information in instructional intervention; and the long-term effects of processing instruction. Each section of the book is highlighted by commentaries from noted researchers in instructed SLA. An attempt was made to include voices that offer critical perspectives on various issues of PI research. The book achieves an unusually balanced approach to a subject that has stirred debate in the field. Processing Instruction: Theory, Research, and Commentary will serve as an important source of information regarding research methodology and replication in second language acquisition. It will also be useful in graduate courses where students need exposure to research design and is especially useful for illustrating the usefulness of replication in SLA research.

Part I
Foundations

A series of publications (Lee & VanPatten, 1995, 2003; VanPatten, 1993, 1996, 2000, 2002a) has described and discussed both the nature of input processing and the nature of processing instruction (PI). Sometimes confused in the literature (one sometimes finds reference to input processing when the instructional treatment is meant, and it is not uncommon for some to call processing instruction input processing instruction), input processing refers to the strategies and mechanisms learners use to link linguistic form with its meaning and/or function. The description of these strategies and mechanisms are considered to be context neutral (i.e., the principles described in the model do not change depending on classroom or nonclassroom context). The roots of input processing research stem from early L2 work that was informed by some of the processing principles first described in Slobin (1973) and Bever (1970) for child L1 acquisition. Earlier L2 work (Lee, 1987; LoCoco, 1987; Nam, 1975; VanPatten, 1984) was principally interested in the assignment of function to nouns (e.g., subject/agent vs. object/patient), but work on input processing has subsequently led to questions about how learners link particular forms (e.g., inflections) to their meanings and functions. More recently, issues of sentence parsing in L2 research have surfaced and it is perhaps here that the greatest challenge faces a model of input processing. As I discuss in this section, it is not quite clear how L1 models of parsing can be applied to L2 context to consider the notion of acquisition of form and meaning or function. Because the L1 models are concerned with ambiguity resolution, their potential for explicating acquisition is not clear. Nonetheless, what is clear is that at some point a model of how the L2 parser develops will take on increased importance as we look at the nature of sentence comprehension by L2 learners.

Processing instruction, of course, is the pedagogical intervention that draws insights from a model of input processing. In the same way that some within a Universal Grammar (UG) perspective have asked “If we know what the problem is based on, can we provide instruction that will facilitate parameter resetting?,” those working with PI ask “If we know something about input processing, can we use this information to structure activities to improve processing?” VanPatten (2002a) has provided an update on PI research, but it is actually in this volume that recent unpublished research on PI has been gathered for publication. Because of the controversy and debate that has surrounded the PI research (e.g., DeKeyser, Salaberry, Robinson, & Harrington, 2002; DeKeyser & Sokalski, 1996; Salaberry, 1997; Sanz & VanPatten, 1998; VanPatten, 2002b), readers will want to read carefully the descriptions and comments in all chapters given that part of the controversy is at least partially based on interpretations of certain constructs and assumptions about PI.

Chapters 1 and 2 in this volume update and expand on previous descriptions of input processing and PI. Chapter 1 (VanPatten) reconsiders some of the basic principles from VanPatten (1996) and also addresses some of the criticisms of the input processing model that have appeared since then. Chapter 2 (Wong) describes in detail the nature of PI, in particular, structured input activities, offering a good deal of examples from several languages and structural features. The section concludes with insightful comments by Patsy Lightbown and Michael Harrington, each of whom brings a different perspective to the task of commenting on the model and the pedagogical intervention.

REFERENCES

Bever, T.G. (1970). The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In J.R.Hayes (Ed.), Cognition and the development of language (pp. 279–362). NewYork: Wiley.

DeKeyser, R., & Sokalski, K. (1996). The differential role of comprehension and production practice. Language Learning , 46 , 613–642.

DeKeyser, R.M., Salaberry, R., Robinson, P., & Harrington, M. (2002). What gets processed in processing instruction: A response to Bill VanPatten’s “Update.” Language Learning , 52 , 805–823.

Lee, J.F. (1987). Morphological factors influencing pronominal reference assignment by learners of Spanish. In T.A.Morgan, J.F.Lee & B. VanPatten (Eds.), Language and language use: Studies in Spanish (pp. 221–232). Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Lee, J.F., & VanPatten, B. (1995). Making communicative language teaching happen . New York: McGraw-Hill.

Lee, J.F., & VanPatten, B. (2003). Making communicative language teaching happen (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

LoCoco, V. (1987). Learner comprehension of oral and written sentences in German and Spanish: The importance of word order. In B.VanPatten, T.R. Dvorak & J.F.Lee (Eds.), Foreign language learning: A research perspective (pp. 119–129). Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.

Nam, E. (1975). Child and adult perceptual strategies in second language acquisition. Paper presented at the 1975 TESOL Convention, Los Angeles.

Salaberry, M.R. (1997). The role of input and output practice in second language acquisition. The Canadian Modern Language Review , 53 , 422–451.

Sanz, C., & VanPatten, B. (1998). On input processing, processing instruction, and the nature of replication tasks: a response to M.Rafael Salaberry. The Canadian Modern Language Review , 54 , 263–273.

Slobin, D.I. (1973). Cognitive prerequisites for the development of grammar. In C.Ferguson & D.Slobin (Eds.), Studies of child language development (pp. 175–208). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

VanPatten, B. (1984). Learners’ comprehension of clitic pronouns: More evidence for a word order strategy. Hispanic Linguistics , 1 , 57–67.

VanPatten, B. (1993). Grammar teaching for the acquisition-rich classroom. Foreign Language Annals , 26 , 435–450.

VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction: Theory and research . Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

VanPatten, B. (2000). Processing instruction as form-meaning connections: Issues in theory and research. In J.F.Lee & A.Valdman (Eds.) Form and meaning in language teaching (pp. 43–68). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

VanPatten, B. (2002a). Processing instruction: An update. Language Learning , 52 , 755–803.

VanPatten, B. (2002b). Processing the content of input processing and processing instruction research: A response to DeKeyser, Salaberry, Robinson, and Harrington. Language Learning , 52 , 825–831.

Chapter 1
Input Processing in Second Language Acquisition

Bill VanPatten
University of Illinois at Chicago

Without a doubt, second language acquisition (SLA) is complex. It is complex for at least two reasons. It involves the acquisition of a complex implicit linguistic system consisting of lexical entries and their features and forms, an abstract syntactic system, a phonological system, and rules on pragmatic use of language, among other components related to language. In addition, acquisition cannot be reduced to a single process. SLA is best conceived of as involving multiple processes that in turn may contain subprocesses that work at every stage of acquisition.

This chapter is concerned with only one of the processes involved in SLA, the initial process by which learners connect grammatical forms with their meanings as well as how they interpret the roles of nouns in relationship to verbs. This process is termed input processing (cf., Chaudron, 1985). In earlier work, I have discussed input processing vis à vis four principles that guide learner attention to linguistic form in the input. Here I will review those principles and expand on them. Before doing so, several points need clarification. The first is that any model of input processing is not per se a model or theory of acquisition. As mentioned previously, acquisition consists of multiple processes. Thus, the mechanisms responsible for how learners restructure grammars (e.g., rese...

Table of contents

• Second Language Acquisition Research Theoretical and Methodological Issues
• Contents
• Acknowledgments
• About the Contributors
• Part I Foundations
• Part II Processing Instruction Versus Other Types of Instruction
• Part III The Roles of Structured Input and Explicit Information
• Part IV Long-Term Effects of PI
• Part V Final Commentaries
• Author Index
• Subject Index