This study investigates the effects of Processing Instruction (PI) on the acquisition of grammatical gender and gender-marked pronouns in German. PI was compared to Traditional Instruction, i.e. a traditional, vocabulary-oriented approach using color cues (TI) and a Categorization and Memorization task (CM). The results of an immediate posttest showed that the PI group outperformed both TI and CM with respect to gender assignment on both a gender selection task and a writing task. The PI group also scored higher and responded faster than the TI and CM groups on a comprehension task that required accurate processing of gender-marked pronouns. However, differences between the three groups were not sustained on delayed posttests. These results extend the findings of previous research on PI (e.g. Benati, 2004) by showing that PI can be applied to target forms that are low in communicative value and must be learned item-by-item like grammatical gender in German. Results also lend support to psycholinguistic research that suggests that second language (L2) learners have difficulty acquiring grammatical gender because they do not process nouns together with gender information (Arnon & Ramscar, 2012).
AngelovskaT.RoehmD. (2020). Processing instruction effects regardless of input modality and developmental processing constraints? A school lab classroom study on the morphosyntactic acquisition of L2 English. Instructed Second Language Acquisition, 4, 180–202.
2.
ArnonI.RamscarM. (2012). Granularity and the acquisition of grammatical gender: How order-of-acquisition affects what gets learned. Cognition, 122, 292–305.
3.
ArztJ.KostC. (2016). Effect of different teaching techniques on the acquisition of grammatical gender by beginning German second language learners. Die Unterrichtspraxis / Teaching German, 49, 1–23.
4.
BatesD.MächlerM.BolkerB.M.WalkerS.C. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 1–48.
5.
BenatiA. (2001). A comparative study of the effects of processing instruction and output-based instruction on the acquisition of the Italian future tense. Language Teaching Research, 5, 95–127.
6.
BenatiA. (2004). The effects of processing instruction and its components on the acquisition of gender agreement in Italian. Language Awareness, 13, 67–80.
7.
BenatiA. (2005). The effects of processing instruction, traditional instruction and meaning–output instruction on the acquisition of the English past simple tense. Language Teaching Research, 9, 67–93.
8.
BenatiA.AngelovskaT. (2015). The effects of processing instruction on the acquisition of English past simple tense: Age and cognitive tasks demands. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching (IRAL), 53, 249–269
9.
BjornstadJ. (2014). Der? Die? Das? Easing the struggle to learn definite articles. Die Unterrichtspraxis / Teaching German, 47, 69–78.
10.
CadiernoT. (1995). Formal instruction from a processing perspective: An investigation into the Spanish past tense. The Modern Language Journal, 79, 179–193.
11.
ChanA.LievenE.TomaselloM. (2009). Children’s understanding of the agent–patient relations in the transitive construction: Cross-linguistic comparisons between Cantonese, German, and English. Cognitive Linguistics, 20, 267–300.
12.
ChengA.C. (2002). The effects of Processing Instruction on the acquisition of ser and estar. Hispania, 85, 308–323.
13.
ChewJ.S. (1989). Learning german nouns: Bridging the gender gap. Die Unterrichtspraxis / Teaching German, 22, 52–54.
14.
Cintrón-ValentínM.EllisN.C. (2016). Salience in second language acquistion: Physical form, learner attention, and instructional focus. Frontiers in Psychology, section Language Science, 7, 1–21.
15.
ClahsenH.FelserC. (2006). Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 3–42.
16.
CollentineJ. (1998). Processing Instruction and the subjunctive. Hispania, 81, 576–587.
17.
DahanD.SwingleyD.TanenhausM.K.MagnusonJ.S. (2000). Linguistic gender and spoken-word recognition in French. Journal of Memory and Language, 42, 465–480.
18.
DesrochersA.WielandL.D.CoteM. (1991). Instructional effects in the use of the mnemonic keyword method for learning German nouns and their grammatical gender. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5, 19–36.
19.
DracosM.HenryN. (2018). The effects of task-essential training on L2 processing strategies and the development of Spanish verbal morphology. Foreign Language Annals, 51, 344–368.
20.
DracosM.HenryN. (2021). Task essential training and L2 Spanish verbal morphology: An investigation of online processing and working memory capacity. Languages, 6, 24.
21.
DussiasP.E.Valdés KroffJ.R.Guzzardo TamargoR.E.GerfenC. (2013). When gender and looking go hand in hand. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 353–387.
22.
FernándezC. (2008). Reexamining the role of explicit information in Processing Instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 277–305.
23.
FoucartA.Frenck-MestreC. (2011). Grammatical gender processing in L2: Electrophysiological evidence of the effect of L1–L2 syntactic similarity. Bilingualism, 14, 379–399.
24.
FranceschinaF. (2001). Morphological or syntactic deficits in near-native speakers? An assessment of some current proposals. Second Language Research, 17, 213–247.
25.
Gillon DowensM.VergaraM.BarberH.A.CarreirasM. (2010). Morphosyntactic processing in late second-language learners. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22, 1870–1887.
26.
Gillon DowensM.GuoT.GuoJ.BarberH.CarreirasM. (2011). Gender and number processing in Chinese learners of Spanish: Evidence from event related potentials. Neuropsychologia, 49, 1651–1659.
27.
GrünlohT.LievenE.TomaselloM. (2011). German children use prosody to identify participant roles in transitive sentences. Cognitive Linguistics, 22, 393–419.
28.
GrüterT.Lew-WilliamsC.FernaldA. (2012). Grammatical gender in L2: A production or a real-time processing problem?Second Language Research, 28, 191–215.
29.
HawkinsR.ChanC.Y.H. (1997). The partial availability of Universal Grammar in second language acquisition: The ‘failed functional features hypothesis.’Second Language Research, 13, 187–226.
30.
HenryN. (2022). The effects of prosody on the processing of morphosyntax in L2 German. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. Epub ahead of print 6April2022. DOI: 10.1017/S0272263122000092.
31.
HenryN.CulmanH.VanPattenB. (2009). More on the effects of explicit information in instructed SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 559–575.
32.
HenryN.JacksonC.N.DiMidioJ. (2017). The role of explicit instruction and prosodic cues in Processing Instruction. The Modern Language Journal, 101, 294–314.
33.
HoppH. (2013). Grammatical gender in adult L2 acquisition: Relations between lexical and syntactic variability. Second Language Research, 29, 33–56.
34.
HoppH. (2016). Learning (not) to predict: Grammatical gender processing in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 32, 277–307.
35.
HuettigF. (2015). Four central questions about prediction in language processing. Brain Research, 1626, 118–135.
36.
JacksonC.N.FowlerC.J.GavinB.HenryN. (2018). Zusammenhänge zwischen der Sprachverarbeitung und dem Erwerb neuer Strukturen unter erwachsenen Lernern [Connections between sentence processing and the acquisition of new structures among adult L2 learners]. In SchimkeS.HoppH. (Eds.), Sprachverarbeitung im Zweitspracherwerb [Sentence processing and second language acquisition]. De Gruyter.
37.
Johnson FowlerC.JacksonC.N. (in preparation). Learning grammatical gender through processing instruction methods: Making L2 learners aware of gender’s role in the language.
38.
KeatingG.D. (2009). Sensitivity to violations of gender agreement in native and nonnative Spanish: An eye-movement investigation. Language Learning, 59, 503–535.
39.
KohlerT. (2009). Using neurocognitive theory to develop a new approach for teaching German grammar the effect of color-coding German grammar on language acquisition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA.
40.
KöpkeK.ZubinD. (1984). Sechs Prinzipien für die Genuszuweisung im Deutschen: Ein Beitrag zur natürlichen Klassifikation [Six principles for the gender assignment in German: A contribution to natural classification]. Linguistische Berichte, 93, 26–50.
41.
KraissA. (2014). Taking the awful out of the German language: A study of a new way to teach German gender and plural assignment. Die Unterrichtspraxis / Teaching German, 47, 23–41.
42.
LemhöferK.SchriefersH.IndefreyP. (2014). Idiosyncratic grammars: Syntactic processing in second language comprehension uses subjective feature representations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 26, 1428–1444.
43.
Lew-WilliamsC.FernaldA. (2007). Young children learning Spanish make rapid use of grammatical gender in spoken word recognition. Psychological Science, 18, 193–198.
44.
Lew-WilliamsC.FernaldA. (2009). Fluency in using morphosyntactic cues to establish reference: How do native and non-native speakers differ? In ChandleeJ.FranchiniM.LordS.RheinerG. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd annual Boston University conference on language development: Volume 1 (pp. 290–301). Cascadilla Press.
45.
MarsdenE.ChenH.Y. (2011). The roles of structured input activities in processing instruction and the kinds of knowledge they promote. Language Learning, 61, 1058–1098.
46.
MarsdenE.MackeyA.PlonskyL. (2016). The IRIS Repository: Advancing research practice and methodology. In MackeyA.MarsdenE. (Eds.), Advancing methodology and practice: The IRIS Repository of Instruments for Research into Second Languages (pp. 1–21). Routledge.
47.
McManusK.MarsdenE. (2019). Signatures of automaticity during practice: Explicit instruction about L1 processing routines can improve L2 grammatical processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 40, 205–234.
48.
Morgan-ShortK.SanzC.SteinhauerK.UllmanM.T. (2010). Second language acquisition of gender agreement in explicit and implicit training conditions: An event-related potential study. Language Learning, 60, 154–193.
49.
NyikosM. (1987). The effect of color and imagery as mnemonic strategies on learning and retention of lexical items in German. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA.
50.
PressonN.MacWhinneyB.TokowiczN. (2012). Learning grammatical gender: The use of rules by novice learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 35, 709–737.
51.
R Studio Team. (2021). RStudio: Integreted development environment for R [software]. RStudio, PBC.
52.
RitterbuschR.LaFondL.AgustinM. (2008). Learner difficulties with German case: Implications from an action research study. Die Unterrichtspraxis / Teaching German, 39, 30–45.
53.
SantosV.D.O. (2015). Can colors, voices, and images help learners acquire the grammatical gender of German nouns?Language Teaching Research, 19, 473–498.
54.
SchemppP.L. (2017). L2 learners’ processing of grammatical gender varies according to cognate status and proficiency: An ERP study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA.
55.
ScheragA.DemuthL.RöslerF.NevilleH.J.RöderB. (2004). The effects of late acquisition of L2 and the consequences of immigration on L1 for semantic and morpho-syntactic language aspects. Cognition, 93, 97–108.
56.
SchirrmeisterL. (2015). Möglichkeiten der regelgeleiteten Genusvermittlung im Deutschen als Fremdsprache. In HandwerkerB.BäuerleR.DovalI.LübkeB. (Eds.), Zwischenräume: Lexikon und Grammatik im Deutschen als Fremdsprache (pp. 137–154). Schneider Hohengehren.
57.
SchriefersH.JescheniakJ.D. (1999). Representation and processing of grammatical gender in language production: A review. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 28, 575–600.
58.
ShintaniN. (2014). The effectiveness of Processing Instruction and production-based instruction on L2 grammar acquisition: A meta-analysis. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1–21.
59.
SingmannH.BolkerB.WestfallJ.AustF.Ben-SchacharM. (2021). afex: Analysis of factorial experiments [software]. Available at: https://cran.r-project.org/package=afex (accessed April 2022).
60.
TrudgillP. (1999). Language contact and the function of linguistic gender. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 35, 133–152.
61.
VanPattenB. (2015a). Foundations of processing instruction. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 53, 91–109.
62.
VanPattenB. (2015b). Input processing in adult SLA. In VanPattenB.WilliamsJ. (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 113–134). 2nd edition.Lawrence Erlbaum.
63.
VanPattenB.CadiernoT. (1993). Explicit instruction and input processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 225–241.
64.
WongW.ItoK. (2018). The effects of processing instruction and traditional instruction on L2 online processing of the causative construction in French: An eye-tracking study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40, 241–268.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
