In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

nine Processing Instruction bill vanpatten key words Focus on form ■ input processing ■ processing instruction ■ structured input. 1. Introduction Ever since the publication of VanPatten and Cadierno (1993), the field of instructed second language acquisition (SLA) has witnessed increasing interest in what is now called processing instruction (PI). This interest has given rise to an active research agenda on PI and the generalizability of its effects (i.e., do the positive results generalize to all structures in languages?), the interaction of its components (i.e., to what extent do explicit information and feedback play significant roles in the outcomes?), and its long-term effects (e.g., Benati, 2001; Cadierno, 1995; Cheng, 2002; Collentine, 1998; Farley, 2001; Sanz and Morgan-Short, 2004; VanPatten and Oikkenon, 1996; VanPatten and Sanz, 1995; Wong, 2002; and the collection of empirical research articles in VanPatten, 2004a). In addition, the research on PI has led to discussions of theoretical matters in SLA (e.g., Carroll, 2001; Jordens, 1996; Lightbown, 1998; Lightbown and Spada, 1999; Skehan, 1998) as well as lively debate on the interpretation of the results of PI (e.g., Batstone, 2002; DeKeyser, Salaberry , Robinson, and Harrington, 2002; Salaberry, 1998; Sanz and VanPatten , 1998; VanPatten, 2002a, 2002b 2002c, 2004a, 2004d). In short, PI is a technique that has proven to be worthy of scrutiny in any discussion of focus on form, pedagogical intervention, or computer-assisted language learning. The purpose of the present paper is to briefly describe PI as well as provide an updated set of references for the reader. If not the only one, PI is one of the few pedagogical interventions that are based on psycholinguistic processes occurring during learner comprehension of second language (L2) input. Unlike text enhancement, recasts, and other input-oriented techniques, PI considers the nature of real-time input processing and the ways in which learners make form-meaning connections during comprehension. Thus it attempts to identify particular processing problems and treat them. To this end, it is important to understand L2 input processing. The first 267 section of this chapter provides an outline of the nature of input processing in SLA and the model that informs PI. The subsequent section describes the nature of PI itself. The third offers a brief description of the research on PI. 2. One Model of Input Processing IP is concerned with how learners derive intake from input regardless of the language being learned and regardless of the context (i.e., instructed or noninstructed). I define intake as the linguistic data actually processed from the input and held in working memory for further processing (e.g., VanPatten , 2004b). Thus intake is not equivalent to acquired linguistic form. Of principal concern is the question, “What form-meaning connections do learners make, when do they make them, and why some and not others?” Because we are concerned with what learners do with input, a model of IP attempts to explain how learners get form from input and how they parse sentences during the act of comprehension while their primary attention is on meaning. Form in this model refers to surface features of language (e.g., functors and inflections ). This does not mean, however, that IP has little to say about syntax (see VanPatten, 1996, chapter 5, as well as Carroll, 2001). In VanPatten (1996, 2004a) one model of IP is presented. This model consists of a set of principles and corollaries that interact in complex ways in working memory. It is important to point out the role of working memory in this model since the first principles are predicated on a limited capacity for processing information; that is, learners can only do so much in their working memory before attentional resources are depleted, and working memory is forced to dump information to make room for more (incoming) information. The principles are listed in (1). (The reader should be aware that these principles are a revised set of principles; see VanPatten, 2004b.) (1) Principles of L2 Input Processing (based on VanPatten, 1996, 2004b) 1. The Primacy of Meaning Principle: Learners process input for meaning before they process it for form. a. The Primacy of Content Words Principle: Learners process content words in the input before anything else. b. The Lexical Preference Principle. Learners will tend to rely on lexical items as opposed to grammatical form to get meaning when both encode the same semantic information. c. The Preference for Nonredundancy Principle: Learners are more likely to process nonredundant meaningful grammatical form before they process redundant meaningful...

Share