Does manipulating foreknowledge of output tasks lead to differences in reading behaviour,text comprehension and noticing of language form?

Abstract

This paper reports an experiment that addresses whether manipulating foreknowledge of output tasks leads to differences in reading behaviour, text comprehension and noticing of language form. Three tasks are used: reading for memorization, reading for retelling and reading for visualization. Reading for memorization and reading for retelling are different kinds of FL (foreign language) output tasks, while reading for visualization does not involve any FL output. The participants’ reading behaviour, text comprehension and noticing of language form were analysed using self-reports, comprehension test scores and retention or appropriate use of verb forms in the subsequent text production. The results suggest that foreknowledge of output tasks did influence reading behaviour: Participants used more translation into their L1, showed more matching between their interlanguage and target language, and paid more attention toward language form in the input. In addition, distinct reading behaviour and noticing of form were induced by different kinds of output tasks. Little difference was found in the text comprehension among the three groups. Implications from this study are (1) that language processing is affected by foreknowledge of output tasks - whether or not those output tasks are actually performed - and (2) different kinds of output tasks seem to cause different effects on language processing.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bygate, M. 1999: Task as the context for the framing, re-framing, and un-framing of language . System 27: 33-48 .

Ellis, R. 2003: Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford University Press .

Gass, S. M. 1997: Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Lawrence Erlbaum .

Izumi, S. 2002: Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis: an experimental study on ESL relativization . Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24: 541-577 .

Izumi, S. 2003: Comprehension and production processes in second language learning: in search of the psycholinguistic rationale of the output hypothesis . Applied Linguistics 24(2): 168-196 .

Izumi, S. , Bigelow, M. , Fujiwara, M. and Fearnow, S. 1999: Testing the output hypothesis: effects of output on noticing and second language acquisition . Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21: 421-452 .

Long, M. H. 1983: Does second language instruction make a difference? A review of research . TESOL Quarterly 17(3): 359-382 .

Long, M. H. 1996: The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In Ritchie, W. C. and Bhatia, T. K. , editors, Handbook of second language acquisition. Academic Press , 413-446.

Long, M. H. and Robinson, P. 1998: Focus on form: theory, research, and practice. In Doughty, C. and Williams, J. , editors, Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge University Press , 15-41.

10.

Ortega, L. 1999: Planning and focus on form in L2 oral performance . Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21: 109-148 .

11.

Schmidt, R. W. 2001: Attention. In Robinson, P. , editor, Cognition and second language instruction. Cambridge University Press , 3-32.

12.

Schmidt, R. W. and Frota, S. 1986: Developing basic conversational ability in a second language: a case study of an adult learner of Portuguese. In Day, R. R. , editor, Talking to learn: conversation in second language acquisition. Newbury House , 237-326.

13.

Sharwood Smith, M. 1986: Comprehension versus acquisition: two ways of processing input . Applied Linguistics 7(3): 239-256 .

14.

Sharwood Smith, M. 1993: Input enhancement in instructed SLA: theoretical bases . Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15(2): 165-180 .

15.

Skehan, P. 1998: A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford University Press .

16.

Swain, M. 1985: Communicative competence: some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In Gass, S. M. and Madden, C. G. , editors, Input in second language acquisition. Newbury House , 235-253.

17.

Swain, M. 1995: Three functions of output in second language learning. In Cook, G. and Seidlhofer, B. , editors, Principle and practice in applied linguistics: studies in honor of H.G. Widdowson. Oxford University Press , 125-144.

18.

Swain, M. and Lapkin, S. 1995: Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: a step towards second language learning . Applied Linguistics 16(3): 371-391 .

19.

VanPatten, B. 1990: Attending to form and content in the input: an experiment in consciousness . Studies in Second Language Acquisition 12: 287-301 .

20.

VanPatten, B. 1996: Input processing and grammar instruction in second language acquisition. Ablex .

21.

VanPatten, B. 2002: Processing instruction: an update . Language Learning 52(4): 755-803 .

22.

White, J. 1998: Getting the learners’ attention: a typographical input enhancement study. In Doughty, C. and Williams, J. , editors, Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge University Press , 85-113.