This article investigates how different types of input and instruction can affect L1-Mandarin L2-English learners’ acquisition of English inverse scope. English quantifier–negation sentences such as All the kids didn’t climb the tree are ambiguous between a surface-scope reading (‘none of the kids climbed the tree’) and an inverse-scope reading (‘it is not the case that all the kids climbed the tree’), while the Mandarin equivalent only has the surface-scope reading. Inverse scope can be challenging even for advanced learners, due to its low frequency in naturalistic input and/or its complex form–meaning mapping. The present study implemented an intervention with inverse scope: learners received either input flooding (increased frequency) or explicit instruction (explicit explanations about form–meaning mappings). For learners receiving explicit instruction, acceptance of inverse scope increased significantly after instruction. In contrast, learners receiving input flooding did not show significant improvement; results from debriefing questionnaires indicated that learners in the input flooding group failed to either notice the target structure or further process the input. This suggests that input flooding alone is not as effective as explicit instruction in learning a property that has complex form–meaning mapping, such as inverse scope.
AounJ.LiY.-h.A. (1989). Scope and constituency. Linguistic Inquiry, 20, 141–172.
2.
AounJ.LiY.-h.A. (1993). The syntax of scope. MIT Press.
3.
Bardovi-HarligK. (1992). The relationship of form and meaning: A cross-sectional study of tense and aspect in the interlanguage of learners of English as a second language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 13, 253–278.
4.
Bardovi-HarligK.ReynoldsD.W. (1995). The role of lexical aspect in the acquisition of tense and aspect. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 107–131.
5.
Bley-VromanR. (1986). Hypothesis testing in second-language acquisition theory. Language Learning, 36, 353–376.
6.
BowlesM. (2019). Verbal reports in instructed SLA research: Opportunities, challenges, and limitations. In LeowR.P. (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language research in classroom learning (pp. 31–43). Routledge.
7.
ChristensenR.H.B. (2019). ordinal – Regression models for ordinal data: R package version 2019.12–10. Available at: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ordinal (accessed January 2023).
8.
de GraaffR. (1997). The experanto experiment: Effects of explicit instruction on second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 249–276.
9.
DeKeyserR. (2005). What makes learning second-language grammar difficult? A review of issues. Language Learning, 55, 1–25.
10.
EllisN.C. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 143–188.
11.
EllisN.C. (2004). The processes of second language acquisition. In VanPattenB.WilliamsJ.RottS.OverstreetM. (Eds.), Form–meaning connections in second language acquisition (pp. 49–76). Erlbaum.
12.
EllisN.C.CollinsL. (2009). Input and second language acquisition: The roles of frequency, form, and function introduction to the special issue. The Modern Language Journal, 93, 329–335.
13.
FanL. (2017). No ‘Chinese-speaking phase’ in Chinese children’s early grammar: A study of the scope between negation and universal quantification in Mandarin Chinese. Lingua, 185, 42–66.
14.
FoxD. (2000). Economy and semantic interpretation. MIT press.
15.
GassS.M. (2018). Input, interaction, and the second language learner (reissued). Routledge.
16.
HanZ.ParkE.CombsC. (2008). Textual enhancement of input: Issues and possibilities. Applied Linguistics, 29, 597–618.
17.
HernándezT.A. (2011). Re-examining the role of explicit instruction and input flood on the acquisition of Spanish discourse markers. Language Teaching Research, 15, 159–182.
18.
HernándezT.A.Rodríguez-GonzálezE. (2013). Impact of instruction on the use of L2 discourse markers. Journal of Second Language Teaching and Research, 2, 3–32.
19.
HuangC.-T.J. (1982). Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Unpublished PhD dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA, USA.
20.
HuangC.-T.J. (1983). On the representation of scope in Chinese. Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 11, 37–91.
21.
HuangS.-F. (1981). On the scope phenomena of Chinese quantifiers. Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 9, 226–243.
22.
InagakiS. (2002). Japanese learners’ acquisition of English manner-of-motion verbs with locational/directional PPs. Second Language Research, 18, 3–27.
23.
IndrarathneB.KormosJ. (2017). Attentional processing of input in explicit and implicit conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39, 401–430.
24.
IoninT.MontrulS. (2010). The role of L1-transfer in the interpretation of articles with definite plurals in L2-English. Language Learning, 60, 877–925.
25.
IoninT.KoH.WexlerK. (2004). Article semantics in L2 acquisition: The role of specificity. Language Acquisition, 12, 3–69.
26.
LenthR. (2020) emmeans: Estimated Marinal means, aka Least-Squares Means: R package version 1.4.7. Available at: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans (accessed January 2023).
27.
LeowR.P. (2000). A study of the role of awareness in foreign language behavior: Aware versus unaware learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 557–584.
28.
LeowR.P.BowlesM. (2005). Attention and awareness in SLA. In SanzC. (Ed.), Mind and context in adult second language acquisition: Methods, theory, and practice (pp. 179–203). Georgetown University Press.
29.
LightbownP.M. (2001). Input filters in second language acquisition. In Foster-CohenS.NizegorodcewA. (Eds.), EuroSLA yearbook: Volume 1 (pp. 79–97). John Benjamins.
30.
LoewenS.SatoM. (2017). The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition. Routledge.
31.
MontrulS. (2001). Agentive verbs of manner of motion in Spanish and English as second languages. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 171–206.
32.
MusolinoJ.LidzJ. (2006). Why children aren’t universally successful with quantification. Linguistics, 44, 817–852.
NorrisJ.OrtegaL. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417–528.
35.
O’NeillR.CorneliusE.WashburnG. (1991). American kernal lessons: Advanced students’ book. Longman.
36.
RebuschatP.WilliamsJ.N. (2012). Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 33, 829–856.
37.
ReindersH.EllisR. (2009). The effects of two types of enhanced input on intake and the acquisition of implicit and explicit knowledge. In LoewenS.ElderC.EllisR. (Eds.), Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language learning, testing and teaching (pp. 281–302). Multilingual Matters.
38.
RobinsonP. (1995). Attention, memory, and the ‘noticing’ hypothesis. Language Learning, 45, 283–331.
39.
RobinsonP. (1996). Learning simple and complex second language rules under implicit, incidental, rule-search, and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 27–67.
40.
RobinsonP. (1997a). Individual differences and the fundamental similarity of implicit and explicit adult second language learning. Language Learning, 47, 45–99.
41.
RobinsonP. (1997b). Generalizability and automaticity of second language learning under implicit, incidental, enhanced, and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 223–247.
42.
RobinsonP.MackeyA.GassS.SchmidtR. (2012). Attention and awareness in second language acquisition. In GassS.MackeyA. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 247–267). Routledge.
43.
RosaE.O’NeillM.D. (1999). Explicitness, intake, and the issue of awareness: Another piece to the puzzle. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 511–556.
44.
SchmidtR. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–158.
45.
SchmidtR. (1992). Awareness and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 206–226.
46.
SchmidtR. (1994). Deconstructing consciousness in search of useful definitions for applied linguistics. AILA Review, 11, 11–26.
47.
SchmidtR. (2001). Attention. In RobinsonP. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge University Press.
48.
Sharwood SmithM. (1993). Input enhancement in instructed SLA: Theoretical bases. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 165–179.
49.
SlabakovaR. (2015). The effect of construction frequency and native transfer on second language knowledge of the syntax–discourse interface. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36, 671–699.
50.
SoraceA. (1993). Incomplete vs. divergent representations of unaccusativity in non-native grammars of Italian. Second Language Research, 9, 22–47.
51.
SpadaN.LightbownP.M. (1993). Instruction and the development of questions in L2 classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 205–224.
52.
SpadaN.LightbownP.M. (1999). Instruction, first language influence, and developmental readiness in second language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 83, 1–22.
53.
SpadaN.TomitaY. (2010). Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 263–308.
54.
TomlinR.S.VillaV. (1994). Attention in cognitive science and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 183–203.
55.
TraheyM. (1996). Positive evidence in second language acquisition: Some long-term effects. Second Language Research, 12, 111–139.
56.
TraheyM.WhiteL. (1993). Positive evidence and preemption in the second language classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 181–204.
57.
TruscottJ.SmithM.S. (2011). Input, intake, and consciousness: The quest for a theoretical foundation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33, 497–528.
58.
UmedaM.SnapeN.YusaN.WiltshierJ. (2019). The long-term effect of explicit instruction on learners’ knowledge on English articles. Language Teaching Research, 23, 179–199.
59.
VanPattenB. (2002). Processing instruction: An update. Language Learning, 52, 755–803.
60.
VanPattenB.WilliamsJ.RottS. (2004). Form–meaning connections in second language acquisition. In VanPattenB.WilliamsJ.RottS.OverstreetM. (Eds.), Form–meaning connections in second language acquisition (pp. 1–26). Lawrence Erlbaum.
61.
WhiteJ. (1998). Getting the learners’ attention: A typographical input enhancement study. In DoughtyC.WilliamsJ. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 85–113). Cambridge University Press.
62.
WhiteL. (1991a). Argument structure in second language acquisition. Journal of French Language Studies, 1, 189–207.
63.
WhiteL. (1991b). Adverb placement in second language acquisition: Some effects of positive and negative evidence in the classroom. Second Language Research, 7, 133–161.
WilliamsJ.EvansJ. (1998). What kind of focus and on which forms? In DoughtyC.WilliamsJ. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 85–113). Cambridge University Press.
66.
WongW. (2005). Input enhancement: From theory and research to the classroom. McGraw-Hill.
67.
WuM.-J.IoninT. (2019). L1-Mandarin L2-English speakers’ acquisition of English quantifier–negation Scope. In BrownM.DaileyB. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 43th Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 716–729). Cascadilla Press.
68.
WuM.-J.IoninT. (2022). Does explicit instruction affect L2 linguistic competence? An examination with L2 acquisition of English inverse scope. Second Language Research, 38, 607–637.
69.
ZhaoH.MacWhinneyB. (2018). The instructed learning of form–function mappings in the English article system. The Modern Language Journal, 102, 99–119.
70.
ZhouP.CrainS. (2009). Scope assignment in child language: Evidence from the acquisition of Chinese. Lingua, 119, 973–988.
