This study discusses the impact of interactionist output-oriented approaches, specifically, the effects of collaborative text reconstruction on subjunctive recognition and production in the written modality by English-dominant Spanish second-language learners. It also examines whether students’ text length and text complexity increase after treatment. A total of 104 fifth-semester Spanish learners participated in the study and were assigned to three conditions: control (n = 36), dictogloss (n = 33) and dictogloss plus explicit instruction (n = 35). In order to measure target form recognition and production as well as text quality, participants completed a pre-, post- and delayed-post-test that included a guided written task and a recognition task. Results indicated that participants in both treatment groups increased their production of the subjunctive mood in the written modality in expected contexts at similar rates, which was also maintained over time. Participants also increased recognition rates, irrespective of group, pointing to a lack of relationship between this type of collaborative text reconstruction and subjunctive recognition. Lastly, an effect of group and time was also observed for text length and syntactic complexity, as participants in the treatment groups produced significantly longer texts, as well as a higher number of complement clauses.
Adrada-RafaelS. (2017). Processing the Spanish imperfect subjunctive: Depth of processing under different instructional conditions. Applied Psycholinguistics, 38, 477–508.
2.
Alegría de la ColinaA.García MayoM.P. (2009). Oral interaction in task-based EFL learning: The use of the L1 as a cognitive tool. IRAL: International Review of Applied Linguistics, 47, 325–345.
3.
AzkaraiA.García MayoM.P. (2015). Task modality and L1 use in EFL oral interaction. Language Teaching Research, 19, 550–571.
4.
Bardovi-HarligK. (1992). A second look at T-unit analysis: Reconsidering the sentence. TESOL Quarterly, 26, 390–395.
5.
BasterrecheaM.García MayoM.P. (2013). Language-related episodes during collaborative tasks: A comparison of CLIL and EFL learners. In McDonoughK.MackeyA. (Eds.), Interaction in diverse educational settings (pp. 25–44). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
6.
BasterrecheaM.LeeserM.García MayoM.P. (2014). Pushed output and noticing in a dictogloss task: Task implementation in the CLIL classroom. Porta Linguarum, 22, 7–22.
7.
BiberD.DavisM.JonesJ.Tracy-VenturaN. (2006). Spoken and written register variation in Spanish: A multi-dimensional analysis. Corpora, 1, 1–37.
8.
BonillaC. (2014). From number agreement to the subjunctive: Evidence for Processability Theory in L2 Spanish. Second Language Research, 31, 53–74.
9.
BuschH.-J. (2009). La enseñanza del subjuntivo en EEUU: El subjuntivo en cláusulas nominales [Teaching the subjunctive in the USA: The subjunctive in nominal clauses]. Revista de Linguistica Teórica y Aplicada, 47, 145–166.
10.
BuschH.-J. (2014). The subjunctive, a marker of ‘subordinance’?: A comparison between German and Spanish. Borealis. International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics, 3, 103–123.
11.
BuschH.-J. (2017). Complete guide to the Spanish subjunctive. New York: Routledge.
12.
CollentineJ. (1995). Development of complex syntax and mood-selection abilities by intermediate-level learners of Spanish. Hispania, 78, 122–135.
13.
CollentineJ. (1997). Effects of irregular stems on the detection of verbs in the subjunctive. Spanish Applied Linguistics, 1, 3–23.
14.
CollentineJ. (1998). Processing instruction and the subjunctive. Hispania, 81, 576–587.
15.
CollentineJ. (2002). On the acquisition of the subjunctive and authentic Processing instruction: A response to Farley. Hispania, 85, 879–888.
16.
CollentineJ. (2003). Development of subjunctive and complex-syntactic abilities among foreign language learners of Spanish. In LaffordB.SalaberryR. (Eds.), Studies in Spanish second language acquisition: The state of the science (pp. 74–97). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
17.
CollentineJ. (2010). Acquisition and teaching of the Spanish subjunctive: An update on current findings. Hispania, 93, 39–51.
18.
CollentineJ. (2014). Subjunctive in second language Spanish. In GeeslinK. (Ed.), The handbook of Spanish second language acquisition (pp. 270–286). New York: Wiley and Sons.
19.
CollentineJ.CollentineK.ClarkV.FruginalE. (2002). Subjunctive instruction enhanced with linguistic instruction. In LeeJ.GeeslinK.ClementsJ.C. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium (pp. 32–45). Sommerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
20.
DaviesM. (2014). Corpus del español [Spanish corpus]. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University.
21.
DeKeyserR. (2005). What makes learning a second-language grammar difficult?: A review of issues. Language Learning, 55, 1–25.
22.
EllisR. (2006). Modelling learning difficulty and second language proficiency: The differential contributions of implicit and explicit knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 27, 431–463.
23.
ElolaI.OskozA. (2010). Collaborative writing: Fostering L2 development and mastery of writing conventions. Language Learning & Technology, 14, 51–71.
24.
FarleyA. (2001). Authentic processing instruction and the Spanish subjunctive. Hispania, 84, 289–299.
25.
FarleyA. (2004). Processing instruction and the Spanish subjunctive: Is explicit information needed?. In VanPattenB. (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 227–240). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
26.
FernándezC. (2008). Reexamining the role of explicit information in processing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 277–305.
27.
Fernández DobaoA. (2012). Collaborative writing tasks in the L2 classroom: Comparing group, pair, and individual work. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 40–58.
28.
Fernández UlloaT.Portillo MayorgaR. (2000). Uso del imperfecto y pluscuamperfecto de subjuntivo entre estudiantes universitarios de Bilbao y Santander [Use of imperfect and plus-perfect subjunctive among university students from Bilbao and Santander]. Onomázein, 5, 167–187.
29.
FortuneA. (2005). Learners’ use of metalanguage in collaborative form-focused L2 output tasks. Language Awareness, 14, 21–38.
30.
GallegoM. (2014). Second language learners’ reflections on the effectiveness of dictogloss: A multi-sectional, multi-level analysis. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 4, 33–50.
31.
GallegoM. (2016). The effectiveness of collaborative tasks on the acquisition of the Spanish subjunctive and development of mood selection abilities: Exploring form-focused instruction. Hispania, 99, 274–288.
32.
GallegoM.PozziR. (2018). Mood recognition and production: Modality, morphological irregularity, and L2 Spanish subjunctive development. Hispania, 101, 408–421.
33.
GallegoM.Alonso-MarksE. (2014a). Degrees of subjunctive vitality among monolingual speakers of Peninsular and Argentinian Spanish. Borealis: International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics, 3, 95–104.
34.
GallegoM.Alonso-MarksE. (2014b). Subjunctive variation among monolingual speakers: A cross-dialect Analysis. Spanish in Context, 11, 357–380.
35.
GallegoM.Alonso-MarksE. (2015). The frequency of subjunctive use in oral production by native Spanish speakers of two varieties. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 173, 162–167.
36.
García MayoM.P. (2002). Effectiveness of two form-focused tasks in advanced EFL pedagogy. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 12, 156–175.
37.
GudmestadA. (2006). L2 variation of Spanish subjunctive: Linguistic features predicting use. In KleeC.FaceT. (Eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 7th Conference on the Acquisition of Spanish and Portuguese as First and Second Languages (pp. 170–184). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla.
38.
GudmestadA. (2012a). Toward an understanding of the relationship between mood use and form regularity: Evidence of variation across tasks, lexical items, and participant groups. In GeeslinK.L.Díaz-CamposM. (Eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 14th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium (pp. 214–227). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla.
39.
GudmestadA. (2012b). Acquiring a variable structure: An interlanguage analysis of second language mood use in Spanish. Language Learning, 62, 373–402.
40.
HenshawF. (2013). How effective are affective activities?: Relative benefits of two types of structured input activities as part of a computer-delivered lesson on the Spanish subjunctive. Language Teaching Research, 16, 393–419.
41.
HousenA.KuikenF. (2009). Complexity, accuracy and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30, 461–473.
42.
IsabelliC. (2007). Development of the Spanish subjunctive by advance learners: Study abroad followed by at-home instruction. Foreign Language Annals, 40, 330–341.
43.
IsabelliC.NishidaC. (2005). Development of the Spanish subjunctive in a nine-month study-abroad Setting. In EddingtonD. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 6th Conference on the Acquisition of Spanish and Portuguese as First and Second Languages (pp. 78–91). Sommerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
44.
JabbarpoorS.TajeddinZ. (2013). Enhanced input, individual output, and collaborative output: Effects on the acquisition of the English subjunctive mood. Revista Signos: Estudios de Lingüística, 26, 213–235.
45.
KirkR. (2013). The effects of processing instruction with or without output: Acquisition of the Spanish subjunctive in three conjunctional phrases. Hispania, 96, 153–169.
46.
KowalM.SwainM. (1994). Using collaborative language production tasks to promote students’ language awareness. Language Awareness, 3, 73–93.
47.
KuikenF.VedderI. (2002). The effect of interaction in acquiring the grammar of a second language. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 343–358.
48.
LantolfJ. (2000). Second language learning as a mediated process. Language Teaching, 33, 79–86.
49.
LantolfJ. (2014). A bridge not needed: The sociocultural perspective. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36, 368–374.
50.
LantolfJ.ThorneS. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
51.
LastraY.ButragueñoP. (2012). Aproximación al uso del modo subjuntivo en el corpus sociolingüístico de la ciudad de México [Approach to the use of the subjunctive mood in the sociolinguistic corpus of Mexico City]. Boletín de Filología, 47, 101–131.
52.
LeeJ. (1987). Comprehending the Spanish subjunctive: An information processing perspective. Modern Language Journal, 71, 50–57.
53.
LeeserM. (2004). Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language Teaching Research, 8, 55–81.
54.
LeowR. (1995). Modality and intake in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 78–89.
55.
LongM. (1983). Does second language instruction make a difference? A review of research. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 359–382.
56.
LongM. (1996). Role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In RitchieW.BhatiaT. (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. 413–468.
57.
LuH. (2010). Interacción entre la simplicación morfológica y sintáctica, y la comprensión en la adquisición del subjuntivo [Interaction between morphological and syntactic simplification, and understanding in the acquisition of the subjunctive]. RESLA, 23, 215–227.
58.
Lubbers QuesadaM. (1998). L2 acquisition of the Spanish subjunctive mood and prototype schema development. Spanish Applied Linguistics, 2, 1–22.
59.
MalmqvistA. (2005). How does group discussion in reconstruction tasks affect written language output?Language Awareness, 14, 128–141.
60.
ManchónR.M. (2011). Writing to learn the language: Issues in theory and research. In ManchónR.M. (Ed.), Learning-to-write and writing-to-learn in an additional language (pp. 61–82). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
61.
NabeiT. (1996). Dictogloss: Is it an effective language learning task?Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 12, 59–74.
62.
NorrisJ.OrtegaL. (2009). Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30, 555–578.
63.
OrtegaL. (2003). Syntactic complexity measures and their relationship to L2 proficiency: A research synthesis of college-level L2 writing. Applied Linguistics, 24, 492–518.
64.
QinJ. (2008). Effect of processing instruction and dictogloss tasks on acquisition of the English passive voice. Language Teaching Research, 12, 61–82.
65.
ReindersH. (2009). Learner uptake and acquisition in three grammar-oriented production activities. Language Teaching Research, 13, 201–222.
66.
ReindersH. (2012). Towards a definition of intake in second language acquisition. Applied Research on EnglishLanguage, 1, 15–36.
67.
Salazar CampilloP. (2006). Focus on Form tasks and the provision of corrective feedback. Ibérica, 11, 123–138.
68.
SessaregoC. (2016). A discourse–pragmatic approach to teaching indicative/subjunctive mood selection in the intermediate Spanish language class: New information versus reformulation. Hispania, 99, 392–406.
69.
Silva-CorvalánC. (1994). The gradual loss of mood distinctions in Los Angeles Spanish. Language Variation and Change, 6, 255–272.
70.
Silva-CorvalánC. (2001). Sociolingüística y pragmática del español[Sociolinguistics and pragmatics of Spanish]. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
71.
StokesJ. (1988). Some factors in the acquisition of the present subjunctive in Spanish. Hispania, 71, 705–710.
72.
StorchN. (1998). A classroom-based study: Insights from a collaborative text reconstruction task. ELT Journal, 5, 291–300.
73.
StorchN. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process and students’ reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 153–173.
74.
StorchN. (2013). Collaborative writing in L2 classrooms. London: Multilingual Matters.
75.
StorchN.AldosariA. (2013). Pairing learners for pair work activity. Language Teaching Research, 17, 31–48.
76.
StorchN.WigglesworthG. (2003). Is there a role for the use of the L1 in an L2 setting?TESOL Quarterly, 37, 760–770.
77.
StorchN.WigglesworthG. (2007). Writing tasks: Comparing individual and collaborative writing. In García MayoM.P. (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 157–177). London: Multilingual Matters.
78.
SwainM. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In DoughtyC.WilliamsJ. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 64–81). New York: Cambridge University Press.
79.
SwainM. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In LantolfJ.P. (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97–114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
80.
SwainM.LapkinS. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion learners working together. The Modern Language Journal, 8, 320–327.
81.
SwainM.LapkinS. (2001). Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effects. In BygateM.SkehanP.SwainM. (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 99–118). London: Longman.
82.
TerrellT.HooperJ. (1974). A semantically based analysis of mood in Spanish. Hispania, 57, 484–494.
83.
TerrellT.BaycroftB.PerroneC. (1987). The subjunctive in Spanish interlanguage: Accuracy and comprehensibility. In VanPattenB.DvorakT.R.LeeJ. (Eds.), Foreign language learning: A research perspective (pp. 19–32). Cambridge: Newbury.
84.
UludagO.VanPattenB. (2012). The comparative effects of processing instruction and dictogloss on the acquisition of the English passive by speakers of Turkish. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 50, 189–212.
85.
VygotskyL. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
86.
WajnrybR. (1990). Grammar dictation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
87.
WigglesworthG.StorchN. (2009). Pair versus individual writing: Effects on fluency, complexity and accuracy. Language Testing, 26, 445–466.
88.
WilliamsJ. (2012). The potential role(s) of writing in second language development. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 321–331.
89.
WongW. (2004). The nature of processing instruction. In VanPattenB. (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research and commentary (pp. 33–63). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
