Top Banner
INFORMATION TO USERS This manuseript has been reproduced trom the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, sorne thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be trom any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction i5 dependent upon the quality of the copy submitled. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. ln the unlikely avent that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, chans) are reproduced by sedioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand (".omer and continuing trom left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Photographs induded in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographicaJly in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographie prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. Bell & Howell Information and Leaming 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346 USA 800-521-0600
333
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript

INFORMATION TO USERSThismanuseripthasbeenreproducedtromthemicrofilmmaster. UMI filmsthetext directly fromthe original or copysubmitted. Thus, sornethesisanddissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be trom any type ofcomputer printer.Thequalityof thisreproductioni5dependent uponthequalityof thecopy submitled. Broken or indistinct print,colored or poor quality illustrationsand photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improperalignment can adversely affect reproduction.lntheunlikely avent that theauthor did not sendUMI acompletemanuscriptand there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorizedcopyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, chans) are reproduced bysedioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand(".omer andcontinuingtrom left to right in equal sections with small overlaps.Photographs induded in the original manuscript have been reproducedxerographicaJly in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and whitephotographie prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearingin this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.Bell &Howell Information and Leaming300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346 USA800-521-0600NOTE TO USERSThis reproduction is the best copy available.DMI-.An Input Enhancement Study with ESL Children:Effects on the Acquisition of Possessive DeterminersJoannaL. WhiteA Thesis Submitted to the Faculty ofGraduate Studies and Research inPanial Fulfillment of the Requirements of theDegree of Doctor of PhilosophyDepartment of Second Language EducationMcGill University, MontrealNovember, 1996 Joanna L. White1+1National Libraryof CanadaAcquisitions andBibliographie Services395 Wellington StreetOttawa ON K1AON4CanadaBibliothque nationaledu CanadaACOlJisitions etserVices bibliographiques395. rue WellingtonOttawa ONK1A ON4CanadaYour hie Votre refrenr:eOur fileNorre rsfsrsnceThe author has granted a oon-exclusive licence allowing theNational Library of Canada toreproduce, loan., distribute or sellcopies of this thesis in microfonn,paper or electronic formats.The author retains ownership of thecopyright in this thesis. Neither thethesis nor substantial extracts from itmay be printed or othe1Wisereproduced without the author' spemusslon.L., auteur a accord une licence nonexclusive pennettant laBibliothque nationale du Canada dereproduire, prter, distribuer ouvendre des copies de cette thse sousla forme de microfiche/film., dereproduction sur papier ou sur fonnatlectronique.L'auteur conserve la proprit dudroit d'auteur qui protge cette thse.Ni la thse ni des extraits substantielsde celle-ci ne doivent tre imprimsou autrement reproduits sans sonautorisation.0--612-44663-8CanadaThis dissertation is dedicated to the memory of my tther,LeRoy P. L o n d o n ~who shared his love of books with everyone he knew.AcknowledgementsMany people have made important contributions to this doctoral research study. 1would like to begin by thanking Dr. Nina Spada, my supervisor, for the intellectualguidance and moral support she has offered at every stage ofthis research. Herrecommendations have strengthened the study in countless ways, and her high standardsfor conducting and reporting classroom...based SLA research are reflected in thisdocument. Equally important, her enthusiasm for the study kept me going when the dataseemed overwhelming and when other responsibilities slowed progress. 1am deeplygratefu] for her help.1would also like to thank the members ofmy committee, Dr. Janet D o n i n ~ Dr.Mary Maguire; Dr. Lydia White, who shared their expertise at many points along theway. Their contributions ta the design ofthe study and the interpretation of the resultshave been indispensable, and their attention to detail is much appreciated.The Concordia-McGill Research Group has played a central raie in supportingthis research. *A very special thanks goes to Dr. Patsy Lightbown, whose wise counsel,encouragement, and generosity in ail matters have been greatly appreciated over theyears. With respect to this study, she shared the resources ofthe research team during thecollection, coding and transcription of the data and alwaysfound time to discuss myfindings and my interpretations of them. 1would like to express particular thanks toRandall Halter, whose guidance, meticulous work, and kindness were essential tocanying out the statistical analyses of the data. 1wouJd also like to thank Leila Ranta forsharing her knowledge of SLA and her experience in classroom-based research at everystep during the planning, implementation, and interpretation ofthis study, and for herhumour and emotional support during sorne of the inevitable difficult times. Thank youto everyone else in the Research Group forYOUf many suggestions and for your interest. A number of research assistants and graduate students at McGill and ConcordiaUniversities have contributed in different ways to helping me organize the vast amountsof data l collected 1would like to thank each ofthem individually: Patrick Berger, JudyCook, Pamela Craven, Tamara Loring, Kay Powell, Martha Trahey,My colleagues at the TESL Centre at Concordia University have been verysupportive and cooperative throughout my doctoral studies. l greatly appreciate theirconfidence in me and their willingness to make adjustrnents so that l could complete thisresearch. Others in the university administration have shown flexibility at various times,and l thank them sincerely for this.l would aiso like to thank the Grade 6 students, teachers, and principal in the"school outside ofMontrear' where this study took place. For five months in1993, theyopened their classrooms to me and shared the excitement and challenge of teaching andleaming English. The opportunity to spend this time with themprovided a rich contextin which to interpret the data. In particular, 1would like to thank the teacher of GroupE+, \vhose enthusiasm for reading stories to her students facilitated the implementationof the "book flood" and enriched the experience immeasurably.My deepest gratitude is reserved for my husband, Bob, and my daughters, Katbyand Andrea. Without their unwavering support and encouragement, 1would Dever havehad the strength to finish this project. Thank you again.*This research was funded in part through the following grants: McGill Faculty ofGraduate Studies and Research Special Funds # 3 8 8 5 ~ SSHRC # 410..93-0899 and # 410-96-0520; fCAR # 96ER0153.IfAbstractIn this c1assroom-basedthe effects of input enhancement on the acquisitionof a linguistic featureknown to be problematic to francophone childrenleamingEnglish.were investigated. The research questions were: 1) Can L2 leamers benefit tromtypographicallyenhancedinput intheiracquisitionof thirdpersonsingularpossessivedeterminers? 2) Is typographically enhanced input more effective than unenhancedinput? 3) [s typographically enhanced input more effective \vhen combined with a booktloodH?To investigate these questions. three treatment conditions were implemented withGrade6ESLlearners. Groups Eand E+ receiveda typographicallyenhanced inputflood. Thisdid notinclude expl icil referencetothelearners' LI nor was apedagogicalrulepresented at any time. [n additiontothe typographically enhanced GroupE+\Vas exposed to extensive reading and Iistening activities. To ensure that ail groupsin thestudy were exposed to wrinen input containing the target tatures, Group Ureadunenhanced versions of the texts read by the other two groups. Aimmediate anddelayed posttest design was used in this quasi-experimental study.Results indicatedthat aIl three instructional treatments improvedthe learners'acquisition of the target formsand that thosein GroupE+received the greatest apparentbenefits. At theimmediateleamers inGroupE+outperfonnedthose intheother two groups on wrinen tasksdesigned tomeasure their ability torecognize correctinstances of the target faons. Leamersin Group E+ also outperformed the others on an111oral production task. On the delayed posttest five\veeks l a t e r ~ however, Groups E and Uhad caught up with Group E+, and most of the bet\veen-group differences haddisappeared.The finding that ail leamers hadsignitcantlyincreasedintheiraccuracyanddevelopment of possessivedeterminersimmediatelyfollo\\inginstructionsuggests thatthe target formswere equally salient to theleamersin the three groups. That ail learnerscontinued to improve but did not reach advanced developmental stages, however,suggeststhat thesalienceof thesefeatures intheinput maynot have beensufficientlyexplicit. The results are discussed in terms ofthe potential need for more explicitinstructionintheacquisition of thirdpersensingular possessivedeterminers. Thismaybe particularly important because of substantial ditIerences in the way inwhich gender ismarked in English and French.IVRsumCette tude mene en classelangue seconde, est une enqute sur leseffets d'input mis en vidence sur racquisition du dtenninant possessif: lmentlinguistique qui s'avre difficile pour les apprenants francophones. Les questions derecherche sont les suivantes: 1) Les apprenants peuvent-ils bnficier d'un input mis envidence par des moyens typographiques dans l'acquisition du dterminant possessif dela troisime personne du singulier Chis et her)? 2) L'input typographiquement mis envidence est-il plus efficace pour l'apprentissage que l'input qui nel'est pac;? 3) L'inputtypographiquement mis en vidence est-il plus efficace quand il est associ l'accsaccru aux livres et aux activits de lecture?Trois conditions de traitement ont t retenues pour mettre en oeuvre cette tudeauprs d'lves en sixime anne du primaire. Les groupes E et E+ ont lu des textes danslesquels les pronoms ont t mis en vidence typographiquement. Dans cesdeLLxconditions,il n'y a eu aucune rfrence explicite la langue maternelle ni aux rglesgrammaticales. De plus, le groupe E+ a particip a un grand nombre d'activits delecture et d'coute. Pour pouvoir distinguer entre les effets eventuels de la mise envidence et de la frquence de l'exposition l'iment linguistique vis, le group U a lules mmes textes lus par les groupes E et E+ dans lesquelsil n'y avait aucune mise envidence. Le plan de cette tude quasi-experimentale comprenait trois volets: des pr-tests, des post-tests, et des post-tests diffrs donns plusieurs semaines aprs la fin dutraitement.vLes rsultats dmontrent que les lves exposs au.x trois conditions ont progressdans1- acquisition du dtenninant possessif. Ce sont les lves du group E+ quisemblaient faire le plus grand progrs immdiatement aprs le traitement. C e p e n d a n t ~aux post-tests diffrs les groupes E et U ont rattrap le groupe E+puisque la plupart desdiffrences existant entre les groupes avaient disparu.Letit que tousles groupes ont fait du progrs significatif dans leur rendementaux post-tests tout de suite aprsle traitement laisse supposer que les trois groupes ontperu dufaon gale rlmentlinguistique en question. Que tousles apprenants aientcontinu s"amliorer sans toutefois arriver aux tapes les plus avances fait supposerquelafrquence et la mise en vidence ne sont pas suffisantes pour amener lesapprenants matriser cet lment linguistique. Les rsultats de cet tude dbouchent surune proposition pour un enseignement explicite des fonnes du dterminant possessif dela troisime personne du singulier. Cela prendune importance particulire en raison dufait quele genre grammatical est indiqu diffremment en ce qui a trait au dtenninantspossessifs en anglais et en franais.VlTable of ContentsAcknowledgementsAbstractRsumTable of contentsList of tablesList of figuresChapter 1: Input and Second Language Acquisition1IIIVvuXlXVI1.0 Introduction 11.1 The role ofthe Iinguistic environment in second language acquisition 61.1.1 Defining input and intake 61. 1.2 The raie of input 71.1.2.1The innatist perspective 71.1.2.2The cognitive perspective 111.2 Interlanguage knowledge 121.3 Attending to the input 161.3.1 Tomlin and Villa 171.3.2 Schmidt 181.3.3 Robinson 201.4 Describing input in the second language c1assroom 211.4. 1 Input from the teacher 211.4.2 Input From other learners 221.4.3 Input from books 241.5 Improving the quality of classroom input empirical studies ofbook floods 301.6 Problems arising from exclusively meaning-based instruction 321.7 Chapter summary 35Chapter 2: Form-focused Instruction and Second Language Acquisition 382.0 introduction2. 1 Theoretical framework2.2 Classroom-based empirical research2.2. 1 Studies with children and adolescents2.2.1.1French immersion studies2.2. 1.2Intensive ESL2.2.2 Studies with adults2.2.2.1Visual enhancement2.2.2.2Input processing2.2.2.3Garden path studies2.2.2.4ImplicitlExplicit feedbackVII3838434343495858636466") "'"Chapter summary 69 .... -'Chapter 3: Target Features. Research Questions and Hypotheses 713.0 Introduction 713.1 The acquisition of pronouns and possessive detenniners 713.1.1 Theoretical issues 713.1.2 Empirical evidence 763.2 Investigating the acquisition of possessive detenniners throughenhancement 933.2.1 Research questions and hypotheses 94Chapter 4: t\tlethodol0ID" 1014.0 Introduction 1014.1 Research context lOI4.1.1 Background 1014.1.2 School 1054.2 Participants 1084.3 Design 1104.4 Research schedule 1104.5 Treatment materials III4.5.1 EnhancedJunenhanced input materials 1124.5.2 Materials for book flood (intensified exposure to books) 1154.5.2.1 Selection ofbooks 1164.5.2.2Book tlood activities 1174.6 Assignment of treatrnent conditions 1224.7 Classroom observations during study 1234.8 Measures 1244.8.1 Baseline tests 1244.8.2 Measures of second language development 1254.8.2.1Grammaticalityjudgement tests 1264.8,2.2Multiple choice test 1314.8.2.3Oral production task 1334.8.2.4Independent measure of general abilities in English 1354.8.3 Enhancement activities questionnaire 135Chapter 5: Analyses and Resulu5.0 Introduction 1395.1 Paper and pencil tests 1405.1.1 Baseline tests 1405.1.2 Grammaticalityjudgement tests 1415.1.2. 1 Passage correction task 141Vill5.1.2.2Truth value task 1545.1.3 Multiple choice test 1545.1.3.1Initial pretest 1545. 1.3.2 Immediate pretes!.. immediate posnest and delayed posttest scores:third person singular pronouns and possessive detenniners 1555.1.4 Etfects ofthe treatment: performance on paper and pencil tasks 1585.2 Oral production measure 1585.2.1 Quantitative analyses. 1605.2.2 Qualitative analyses 1785.2.3 Effeet of the treatment: perfonnance on the oral production task 1855.3 Independent measure ofgeneral abilities in English 185Chapter 6: Discussion and Conclusions 1886.0 Introduction 1886.1 Results in relation to the hypotheses 1886.2 Salience and explicimess 1896.2.1 Salience 1906.2.2 Explicitnt:ss 1996.3 Developmental sequence 2106.4 Limitations ofthe study 2146.5 Contributions and implications for future research 215References 219Appendices 236Appendix A Classroom observation coding sheet 236Appendix B Sample of treatrnent materials 239Appendix C Criteria for the selection of books 255Appendix 0 Language measures 258Baldwin-Cartier test de classement 259Passage correction task 261Truth value task 263Multiple choice baseline test 265Multiple choice pretest/posttest 267Oral production task 269Picture Set A 270Picture Set B 272Picture Set C 274MEQtest 277Enhancement activities questionnaire 279Appendix E Anova tables 281IXAppendix F Possessive detenniner stagesCoding sheet used for individuallearnersFull description of stagesStage development of individual learnersx302303305307List ofTablesTables in text3.1reflexive, possessive pronouns, trom Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech &Svartvik, 1972 72.... .,Accurate use of possessive detenniners by francophone ESL -'.-adapted trom Lightbown and Spada (1990, p. 442) 89.., ....Acquisition sequence of possessive detenniners by francophone ESL students .J ..)(Lightbown and Spada., 1990:441, based on Zobl, 1985) 904.1 Number of intensive ESL groups by grade and school board during the1992-93 academic year (adapted from Watts and Snow..1993: 15) 1024.2 Number of boys and girls in each group 1104.3 PC task: contexts required tor deviant third person singular pronouns andpossessive determiners and well-formed tokens supplied 1284.4 Pronouns and possessivt: detenniners tested in truth value task 1314.5 Third person singular pronoun and possessive determiner forrns tested in the24-ltem multiple cholce test 1335.1 Mean scores ln percent and standard deviations by group on Bald\vin CartierTest de classement 1415.3 Passage correction task - mean out of24: grammatical corrections of deviantthird person singular personal pronouns and JX)ssessive detenniners 1445.8 Passage correction task: grammatical correction of deviant third personslngularmean out of 8 1475.12 Passage correction task, mean scores out of 8: grammatical corrections ofdeviant possessive determiners, contexts for his and her 1495.20 Passage correction task - number of leamers correctly correcting deviantforms in PD contexts (3 contexts for kin-different and 2 contexts for bodyparts) 1525.21 Passage correction task - number ofleamers in each group making one ormore changes to weil fonned and deviant possessive detenniners 1535.22 Multiple choice test., initial pretest- group means out of42 1555.24 Multiple choice test; group scores out of24 1565.29 Mean number ofgrammatical and ungrammatical uses ofthird personsingular subject and object pronouns and possessive detenniners usedwith Picture Set A at immediate pretest and immediate posttest 162Xl5.34 Mean nwnber ofgrammatical and ungrammatical uses of third per:onsingular subject and object pronouns and possessive detenniners used\vith Picture Set Bat inunediate pretest and immediate posttest 1645.39 Accuracy ratios for personal pronouns in picture description task 1705.42 Accuracy ratios for Izis and her in picture description task 1725.45 Accuracy ratios for third persan singular possessive detenniners in fourdomains in picture description task 1755.50 Developmental sequence in the acquisition of the English agreementrule for possessive detenniners: adapted from Zobl ( 1984, 1 9 8 5 ) ~Lightbown and Spada (1990) 1795.51 Stage development, picture description task (nurnber oflearners per group) 1815.52 Mean scores in percentages and standard deviations by group on AIEQTt!st 1856.1 Percentage of leamers who produced two masculine pronominal fonnsand percentage who producedt\VO feminine pronominal forrosduring oral production task at end of 5-month intensive program(Martens, [988, and current study 1956.2 Percentage oflearners who used both !lis and her correctly at least onceduring oral production task (Lightbo\\'TI and Spada, 1990, and current srudy) 1966.3 Comparison of scores in % on possessive detenniner items in passage 197correction lask (Manens, 1988, and current study)6.4 Multiple choice delayed posttest - mean score in percentages for 4 semanticdomains (4 test items per damain) 2006.5 Multiple choice test and passage correction task - mean scores onpossessive detenniners in percentages at delayed posttest 2016.6 Picture description task - number of leamers using the with body parts atdelayedposttest 203XIITables in Appendix E5.2 One-Way ANOVA comparing scores on Baldwin-Cartier Test deClassement 2825.4 One-Way ANOVA comparing scores al pretes!, immediateand delayed posttest on Passage Correction task: grammatical correctionsof deviant third person singular pronouns and possessive jeterrniners 2825.5 ANCOVA comparing scores at immediate and delayed posttests on passagecorrection task; grammatical corrections ofdeviant third person singularpronouns and possessive detenniners;immediate pretest scores as covariate 2835.6 Repeated measures ANOVA showing effects of group and timeImmediate delayed posttest), passage correction task 2845.7 Repeated measures ANOVA comparing scores on grammatical correctionsof deviant third person singular pronouns and possessive determinersat immediate and delayed posttests, passage correction task 2845.9 One-Way ANOVA comparing scores al pretest, immediate posnest, anddelayed posttest on passage correction task: grammatical corrections of deviantthird persan singular pronauns 2855.10 ANCOVA comparing scores at immediate and delayed posttests on passagecorrection task; grammatical corrections ofdeviant third persan singular immediate pretest scores as covariate 2865.11 Repeated measures ANOVA comparing scores on grammatical corrections ofdeviant third person singular pronouns at immediate and delayed posttests,passage correction task 2865.13 One-VJay ANOVA comparing scores at pretest, immediate anddelayed posttest on passage correction task: grammatical correctionsof deviant masculine third person singular masculine possessivedetenniners (his) 2875.14 One-Way ANOVA comparing scores at pretest, immediateanddelayed posttest on passage correction task: grammatical correctionsof deviant masculine third person singular possessive detenniners (lzer) 2885.15 ANCOVA with immediate pretest scores as covariate comparing immediateand delayed posttest scores on passage correction task; grammaticalcorrections of deviant masculine possessive determiners (his) 2885.16 ANCOVA with immediate pretest scores as covariate comparing immediateand delayed posttest scores on passage correction task; grammaticalcorrections of deviant feminine possessive detenniners (her) 2895. 17 Repeated measures ANOVA comparing scores on grammatical correctionsof his at immediate and delayed posttests, passage correction task 289xiii5.185.195.235.255.265.275.285.305.315.325.335.355.365.375.385.405.41Repeated measures ANOVAcomparing scores on grammatical correctionsof her at immediate and delayed posttests, passage correction task 290Statistics for trend analysis, passage correction task 291One-Way ANOVA comparing groups scores on multiple choice initialpretest 291One-Way ANOVA comparing groups' scores on multiple choice test at pretest,immediate posttest and delayed posttest 292ANCOVA with immediate pretest scores as covariate comparing immediateand delayed posttest scores on multiple choice test 292Repeated measures ANOVA showing effects of group and time (pretest,immediate posttest, delayed posttest), multiple choice test 293Repeated measures ANOVA comparing scores on grammatical correctionsof /21S al immediate and delayed posttests, passage correction task 293ANCOYA comparing mean number of grammatical uses of subject and objectp r o n o u n s ~ Picture Set A, immediate pretest means as covariate 294ANCOYA comparing mean number of ungrammatical uses of subject andabject p r o n o u n s ~ Picture Set A, immediate pretest means as covariate 294ANCOVA comparing mean number of grammatical uses of possessivedetenniners, Picture Set A ~ immediate pretest means as covariate 294ANCOVA comparing mean number of ungrammaticaluses of possessivedeterminers, Picture Set A, pretest means as covariate, picture descriptiontask 295ANCeyA comparing mean number of grammatical uses of subject andabject p r o n o u n s ~ Picture Set 8, immediate posttest means as covariate 295ANceVA comparing mean number of ungrammatical uses of subject andobject pronouns; Picture Set 8, immediate posttest means as covariate 295ANCeVA comparing Mean number of grammatical uses of possessivedetenniners, Picture Set B; immediate posttest means as covariate 296ANCOVA comparing Mean number of ungrammatical uses of possessivedetenniners, Picture Set B, immediate posttest means as covariate 296One-Way ANOVA comparing groups' scores on subject pronouns, picturedescription task 297One-Way ANQVA acomparing groups scores on object pronouns, picturedescription task 297xiv5.43 One-Way ANOVA comparing groups' scores on his 2985.44 One-Way ANOVA comparing groups' scores on her 2985.46 One-Way ANOVA comparing groups' scores on inanimate 2995.47 One-Way ANOVA comparing groups' scores on kin-same 2995.48 One-Way ANOVA comparing groups' scores on kin-different 3005.49 One-Way_ANOVA comparing groups' scores on body parts 3005.53 One-way ANOVA Comparing Groups' Scores on MEQ Test 301xvList of Figures4.1Research schedule III5.1 Mean scores for third persan singular pronouns and possessivepassage correction test 1455.2 Mean scores for third persan singular passage correctiontask 1485.3 Mean scores for !lis, passage correction task 1505.4 Mean scores for /zer,passage correction task 1505.5 Mean scores for multiple choice test 1575.6 Mean number of grammatical and ungrammatical subject andobject pronouns, Picture Set A 1625.7 Mean number of grammatical and ungrammatical possessivedeterminers, Picture Set A 1625.8 Mean number of grammatical and ungrammatical subject andobject pronouns, Picture Set B 1655.9 Mean number of grammatical and ungrammatical possessivedetenniners, Picture Set B 1655.10 Accuracy ratios forhUi and 11er, picture description task 1735.11 Accuracy ratios for third person singular possessive determiners.four description task 1765.12 Stage development ofthird person singular possessive determinersat three test sessions 1825.13 Developmental paths tor third persan singular possessive determiners 1846.1 Stage development of third person singular possessive experimental groups and comparison group at delayed posttest,oral production task 198XV1Chapter 1Input and Second Language Acquisition1.0 IntroductionFor most of the history of secondlanguage teaching, instrllctionalapproaches havebeen based on the asswnption that an explicit focus on language foon is necessary for secondlanguage (L2) acquisition to take place. In this view of language teaching, isolated linguisticelements (e.g.sound contrasts, lexical items) are the organizational units of thesyllabus and the subject matter of individual lessons. Input is manipulated throughpedagogicaJ practices which include grammar and vocabulary explanations, dialoguedisplayerror correction., and fill-in-the-blank exercises.For the last several decades., however., this structure-by-structure approach tolanguage teaching bas been questioned by a number of researchers who see the acquisition ofL2knowledgeas an essentiallyimplicit processsimilartofirst language(L1)acquisition.,which proceeds in a systematic and largely predictable manner through exposure to rich andvariedlinguisticinput thatis provided inhighJy contextualized social interactionsforexample., Krashen., 1981., 1982; Dulay and 1973). Themorphemeacquisitionanddevelopmental sequencestudies in tirst andsecondlanguageacquisitionresearchwouldseemtoconfirmthehypothesis that languagedevelopment is under thecontrol ofthelearner's built-in syllabus and is basically unaffectedby instruction which focuses explicitlyon targeted grammatical structures (Krashen., 1977;1981). Although there has beensorne evidence suggesting that extensive grammar practice and drilling may have an effect byalteringthenatura! processes, theseeffectshavebeenshowntobetemporaryinnature(Lightbown, 1983a,b; and see discussion in Long, 1988).The structure-by-structure approach has also been questioned by teachers andcurriculum planners (e.g.Prabhu, 1987), who suggest that to help leamers attain an accurateand fluent command of the target language, it makes better sense to provide opportunities forthemto experience language as a medium of communication than tomakeit anobject ofstudy. Asa consequence, a number of nstructional approacheshaveemergedwhichde-emphasizetheimportanceof explicitteachingof linguisticfonnsandstress,thevalue ofexposure to comprehensible input (CI) and the use ofthe L2 in meaningfulinteraction. These include the Natural Approach (Krashen and Terrell, 1983),comprehension-based second language programs (e.g.1981; 1992a), andCommunicativeLanguage Teaching (CLT) (Brurnfit, 1984; LittJewtX>2]PretestPost 1Post 2*includes 1student from Stage 7 at pretestFigure 5.13 Development paths for third person singular possessive determiners184s..~.. 50715.2.3Effect of the treatment: performance on the oral production taskLike the paper and pencil the oral datadonot reveal the bet\\"een-groupdifferences that were predicted by the hypotheses, namely E+ > E >U. In Chapter thesefindings are discussed.5.J Independeot measure of general abilities in EnglishTheMEQ test was administered to thethreegroups duringthe delayedposttestingsession. Mean scores and standard deviations expressedinpercentages are showll in Table5.52 below. An ANOVA indicated that the difTerences among the groups were not significant[F (2,83)=P=.71] (Table Appendix E). \Vhen the scorestor these three groupswere compared \vith 47 previously tested intensive classes in Quebec, they were foundto beamong the highest. Mean scores on this measure for aH50 groups ranged froln a lo\v of47%to a high of 78%.Table 5.52Mean Scores in Percentages and Standard Deviations bv Group on AIEQ TestGroupE+EUN273029l\lean78.1375.4776.97185SD10.9912.5912.76Thequantitativeandqualitative analyses reportedinthis chapter showthat thepredicted advantage for typographicalaJone and in combination with a book were not supported. The next chapter offers Interpretations for these results.186End Notes for Chapter 51. Two coding conventions should he noted here. First, the pronoun he was not included in thesubjectpronoun count whenit was usedasanintroducer, asin "hehave amother and afather". Second, when the leamer made a falsestart or self-corrected, ooly the last pronoun\vas counted. In the foUowing examples from a student in Group U at the delayed posttest,the pronoun that was cotmted is underlined:1) "and he teU his, his boy, 'show me your brotherNOW!"'; 2) "and the boy teU her mom, his mom that is not him, and aU kind of stupid thingslike that..".2. Thebody parts category was kept separatefromtheinanimate category. Zobl (1985) andMartens (1988) combined these two categories.3. As noted earlier, in the accuracy ratios caicuIated in this study, the nwnber of grammatical usesincontext appearsin the numerator. In contrast,Zobl calculated whathe called"difficultyratios", in which the nwnber of ungrammatical uses in context appears in the nwnerator.4. The use of the tenn emergence criteria refers to the minimwn munber of foons a leamer mustproduce in arder ta he assigned to each of the eight stages. Emergence criteria say nothingabout accuracy. The tenn emergence is also used to describe Stage 3 and Stage 4, when theleamer beginstousegender-markedfaons but shows noevidenceof usingthe Englishagreement mie.5. Thereisnorestrictionon how these fOUT usesmust be distributed over the differentpicturedescriptions. That is, criterion could be reached in the description ofonJy one picture althoughthis rarely occlDTed with these data.6. At the pretest, one leamer in Group E met the criteria for classification al Stage 7. However,this indi"idual used only his (Stage 4)al the tirst posttest and continued to overgeneralize hisat the delayed posttest, with instances ofher below criterion(Stage 4).187Cbapter 6Discussion and CODclusions6.0 Introductionln this chapter, an interpretation and discussion ofthe results are provided. ln Section6.1, the results are examined in relation to the hypotheses stated in Chapter 3. Section 6.2presents a discussion of the results within the context of the theoretical and empirical workon the role of salience and explicitness in L2 teaching and learmng. Section 6.3 outlines andexaminestheissuesrelevant tothedevelopmental frameworkusedintheanalysisof theleamer data. Section6.4oullinesthelimitations of thestudy. Section6.5describesthecontributions of thisstudy to classroomresearch inL2learning, and suggestionsforfutureresearch are made.6.1 Results in relation to the hypothesesHypotheses 1 and2predictedthat onmeasures ofpossessivedetenniner (PD)development al the immediate posttest, the group exposed to typographicaHy enhanced inputin combination with extensive teading and listening activities (Group E+) would outperfonnthe group exposed to typographically enhanced input without extensive reading and listening(Group E), which in turn would outperform the group exposed to input that wastypographically unenhanced for PDs (Group U). Hypotheses1and 2 can he summarized asfol1ows: Group E+ > Group E > GroupU. While mean scores on the wnnen measures andaccuracy ratios calculated on the oraldata generally followedthepredicted order, the oolystatistically significant differences obtained were benveen Group E+ and GroupU. Thus thefindings do not support the hypotheses ofthis study which predieted an effect fortypographical enhancement.188Hypothesis3predicted that thedifferencesthat wereanticipated at theilnmediateposttest would stillhe significant at the delayedposttestfiveweekslater. This whichis dependent onHypotheses1 and2, wasnot supported. Moreover,the ditferencesbetween Groups E+andUobserved at theinunediateposttestwerenolonger statisticallysignificant. Thisfinding does not retlect a declinein performance by leamersin Group E+betweentheimlnediateanddelayedposttests, but rathercontinuingilnprovement bytheIearnersin aH three groups between the iffiJnediate and delayed posttests. The improvementdemonstrated by Groups E and Uduring this t\ e-week period was such that leamers in thesetwo groups caught up\\l'ith Group E+. Inparticular, the strong perfonnance by GroupUonthedelayedposnest measures was not anticipated. The tollowingdiscussionexarninesseveral tctors which may have contributed to equalizing the three groups' chances ofacquiring PDs.6.2 Salience and explicitnessAs indicatedin Chapters1and 2, inputis a crucialvariableinand thewaysinwhichlt ismanipuJated, andenhancedintheleamingenvirorunentcanleadtodifferentresultsintheL2leamer's acquisitionof thetarget language. A hypothesisin theSLAliterature which is central to issues concemingthe role ofinput in SLA inparticular, totheresearch questionsinvestigatedin thisstudyisthe "noticinghypothesis".This hypothesis states that getting learners to attend to linguistic fonnsin the inputis a basicprerequisite for leaming1994;Schmidt and1986). Two questions whichdirectly arisefromthishypothesisare: a)How caoweget learnersto"-notice" particularfeatures of the L2 in the input? and 2) Are there more effective ways for learners to noticethese features which may enable them to convert the input nto intake?189[ntheSLAliterature. efforts tocreateinstructional contexts whichdrawthe L2attentiontofeatures inthe input bymakingthelnmoresalient orexplicit havevaried. While sorne research has shown that explicit efforts to get learners to '''notice''mayhe required.. otherresearchershave argued thatless explicit (i.e. implicit)methodsmaybeequally beneficial. Asindicated in Chapter 2, Sharwood Smith (1981, 1991) has suggestedthat the expllcit/implicit distinctionis best viewed as a continuumrather than a dichotomy.Thus, theinstruetional treatment usedin thepresent studyis best described asless explicitthanthat providedintheresearch of Lyster(1994b), SpadaandLightbown(1993), White(1991)andWhiteetal. (1991), moreexplicit thanthe "inputinstudiesbyTrahey(1992, 1996), Traheyand\\1ute {1993) andthat of other booktloodstudies (ElleyandMangubhai,Lightbo\vn. Hafiz and Tudor, 1989, 1990) and 1ess explicit than thevisual enhancement conditions inlplementedby Doughty(1991). In thesections whichtllow, issues related to the conceptualizationandoperationalizationofsuch notions assalience and explicitness are discussed in relationship to the findings.6.2.1 Sai ienceAnwnberofSLAresearchers have pointedout that for input ta becomeintake,learners must attend to linguistic featuresin the input as weIl as to messages (e.g. Shaewood1986; VanPattenandCadiemo, 1993). Hulstijn(1989) proposedthat attentiontafonu at thepoint of input encodingis the necessary and sufficient condition for learning totake place. However, the dual requirement of processing input for meaning as well as fonnrisks imposing excessively large demands on the leamers' attentional capacity, to the possibledetriment ofeither ofthe two processes, comprehension or acquisition (V1990).190Third person singular pronouns and POs were visually enhanced in this study ta makethemmoresalient andincreasethelikelihoodthat learnerswouldpay attentiontathemwithoutoverloadingshort-tennmemory. It wasexpectedthat additional saliencewouldresult from an increase in the frequency with which learners encountered the foonsas theycompleted a set of leaming tasks. However, there is evidence from the oral data suggestingthat POs May have been equally salient in the input available to leamers in all three groupsalthough this was not intended.Thefirst evidencecornesfromthenumerousself-correctionsandfaIse startsthatoccurred as leamers struggled to describe each ofthe pictures. The following example showshowa leamer eventually arrived at the correct PD form after a number of unsuccessful tries:Leamer Uh theboyshaveuh ailthe band-aid And the herlegituh hand.And 00..lnterviewer Where are the band-aids did you say?Leamer ln the, in his leg. And uh her, uh his hand.Of particularinterest was whether there was anincreaseinthe number of self-corrections involvingpronouns andPDs immediatelyfollowing the two-weektreatmentperiod since such anincreasemight berelatedtathe salience of pronominal formsintheinput treatmenl Toinvestigate this,thedataforPietureSet Awereusedto compare thenwnber of self-corrections made by learners in each group immediately before andimmediately after the two-week instructionaJ period. Learners in ail three groups showed asimilar increase of about 10%. Furthennore, the percentageofpronoun andPDself-corrections out of the total nwnber of self corrections was simi1ar in ail groups at bath thepretest(14-19%) andthe posttest (25...29%). Althoughnofurther analysesof theself-correction data were carriedo ~ these findings suggest that the enhanced andunenhanced191input had a sunilar effect on promoting self-corrections ofthe target fonns..Additional evidence that salience was similar across groups cornes from the findingthat leamers in Groups E and Uwere more accurate on her than on his al the irnmediateposttest, a finding which is contradietory to claims made by other researchers that learners aremore accuratein their use of masculine pronominal foonsin carly stages of development(Zobl, 1985; Martens, 1988). One interpretation of this finding is that the higher frequencyof her as compared to hisin the enhanced and unenhanced input treatment materials madethe feminine forms more salient than the masculine fonns. Recall that Alanen (1995) foundthat leamersexposedtoenhancedinput overgeneralizedthemost frequent fonns. Thefindingthat accuracywas sili1ilaronhis andher for learners inGroup E+ would notconstitute counter evidence since this group' s exposure to stories containing large amounts ofinput that was moregender-balancedmight beexpectedtoreduce the effects oftheimbalance. Thusitappearsthatwhilethetreatment conditions were designedtoprovidethreedifferent typesof i n p u ~ otherfactors mayhavebeenoperatingwhichreducedtheimpact ofthese differences.Another factor involved the nature of the written tests and the frequency with whichtheywereadministered Inparticular, the multiplechoice test createdcontexts whichcontrastedhisandherandrequiredthelearnerstochooseamongseveral fonns. It isplausible that the process of deliberating over the forms at the pretest and immediate posttestdrew the leamers' attention to the gaps in their knowledge and increased the salience of thefOnDS that they encountered in the enhanced and unenhanced treatment materials, as weil asin the regular c1assroominput. Leamers who found the fonns puzzlingwould havefonnulated hypotheses about the English rule, and they would have had Many opportunitiesto test their hypotheses. Thus the testing procedure itselfmay have enhanced the target fonns192similarly for in ail three of the treatInent groups.Thee\'idence presentedabove lends support tothe c1aitn that different types ofenhancement may have contributed equally to the leamers'acquisition of PDs in this study.thequestionas towhythe most salient typeof enhancement provided(i.e.typographica1 enhancement)didnot benefit leamees morestill remains. OneexplanationInay he related to the learners' tanlilianty \vith the target tonns. lt is certain that learners hadalreadyencounteredthetarget fonns intheir regular intensive ESLprogram. FollowingCook' s (1991. 1993)they mayhave been abletodecode (understand)messagescontainingPDs eventhoughmost hadnot yetbrokenthecode(workedout theunderlyingrule). [notherwords, thetonns maynot have beennovel enoughtoattract the leamers'attention to the extent predieted (see Harley,tor a similar interpretation).Another tctor maybe thenunlber of tormsthatwere visuallymanipulated. A totalof sixpronominal tormsweretypographicallyenhanced: thesubjeetpronounsIzeandshe:the abjectpronouns lum and lier:thepossessive detenninershi.'Iandht!r. This\vas doneinordertoncrease thesalenceof the gendercontrast andto implicitlydrawthe learners'attentiontothefaerthat filsandIzerarepart of thethirdpersonsingularpronounsystemAlthough PDs were always enlarged more than subject and objectit is possible thatlearnersdidnot perceivethisdifference. Recall frolnChapter 4that learnershadnohelpfromtheir teachersinmaking the distinction and were simplyinfonned that sorne wordsinthe texts were highlighted because "these are words you have trouble and \ve want youto notice how they areused". Thus sornelearners mayhavefound thepages clutteredan...., 'C

.cfic:: .. t: ..&Jfi CI} CIMC)fa.0M CI}lUU.... i!

zCl)0 J: W (&J

l'l'

1.0CI),

f-l

0()0,f&1Hra.H0!Teacher Feedback on ErrorDate: Teacher:School:-/for grammar; x for vocabularYi Pfor pronunclatlonExp11 c 1tl correct lon1Act./BD Imgllclt correct1Qn,Hetallnqulstlc otherlCali onlIodel Other correct Model parallnaulstlcanother st. no signal -+ stress f+lnt. +lnt. -+stres.li Quest-ron aule Gest. Volee l'ace: 1...1j1--- .1,1Appendix B: Sampie of treatment materialsActivity 2 - The Frog PrincePart of the text andrelated task'lQEnbanced treatment240Activity 2Patrt 1'l'be . ~ r O l ....inceOnce upon a lime there wu a king. Ht had a beautiful, young daughter. For htrbirthday, the king gave hera golden bail thal she played wilh every day.The king and his daughler Iived neac a dark foresl There was a deep weil near thecastle. Sometimcs, the princess would sil by the weil and play with herball. One day.the princess threw hergolden baU in the air but il did nol fall into htrhands. It fell intothe weIl. Splash! Th weil wu deep and the princess was sure she would never sec herball again. So sh, cried and cried and could not stop.-What is the matter'?- said a voice behind htr. The girl looked around, and sh, saw afrag. Ilewa:s in the weil, his head sticking out of the Waler.Oh, ifs you" said the girl. "My baU feU into the weU:-1 can help,- said the frog. "1 an get your baU. What will you give Ole if 1do']""Whatevcr you want,- said ahe princesse l'lI give you my beautiful gald ring. l'IIgive you tlowcn from my larden..( do not wanl your bcautiful gold ring or f10wers from your garden, said the frag._Uut 1would Iike to live with you and be your friend.ACt\'ity 2l'art 2....ioct5s, King or .'rogWho dues lhe underliMd wonJ reJer 10'1 Wrile l'in the blank. if;t reJers10 the princess.wrile Kin Ihe bl"nk if;, reJn 10 the king, and write F in the b/anJc if;,reJeTS 10lhefrog.Ilnecessary, loole /Jacle Dllhe siory. l'he fini OM is dOMJor )lU",1. For htr birthday, IK had givenh ~ r a Bolden bail.2. The princess lived with lJJ.m. near~ dark foresl.3. She played with !JH. golden bail.4. She dropped !lHgolden bail in the weil.S. !!.l. was in the weil, sticking hls head out of the water6. She offered ta give !J.im. h ~ , fine golden ring and flowen from her garden.1. The frog said he wanlcd to be !JHfriend.241Enhanced AlIinstances of he, she, l1im,11er, lus.11er were enhanced in the texts and activity sheets.Theteacher corrected the answersraeachtaskwiththe c1assbeforebeginning thenextone.Activity 1: Encvclooedia BrownWorkingindividually, studentsreadashort mystery story thattookplace in thesummeraboutaboydetective, EncyclopediaBro\vn, andthentriedtasolvethemysterywithapartner. They were encouraged ta reread relevant parts of the story.Studentsread a similar story that tookplacein the winter, toldl'romthepoint of view ofa girl detective. They\Vereencouragedtatinddiffrencesbetweenthestaries andthenta solve the mystery asinPart 1.Studentsread 35 sentences and,withoutlooking back at the texts, identified which of thetwostarieseachsentencecamefrom. Cluesconsist of thirdpersonsingularpronounsandpossessivedeterminers. Students correctedtheirpartners' papersbytindingeachsentence in the appropriate story.Activity 2: The Frog PrinceAfter eliciting information about afamiliar fairytale,the Frog Prince, the teacher askedstudents taidentifycharacteristicsofthis andother fairy tales. Workingindividually,students read a traditional version of the Frog Prince.Students worked \Vith apartner to answer 20 questions about the story; the task requiredthemtowritetheinitial of thepersontowhomthe underlinedpronounor possessivedeterminer referred (K for the King; P for the Princess; F for the frog).242Parts 3 and 4Afterlooking ata cartoonwiththecaptton .... [ washappier when1 wasastudentsdiscussed why hislife as ahuman might havebeen more difficult thanhis Iit as afrog.Theteacherreadthe illustratedstorybook TheFrogPrinceContinuedwhile studentsfollowed along withtheir own textsinwhich pronounsand possessive determinerswereenhanced.Studentsreadaletterfromtheprincesstoherfather inwhichsorneof thecontent waswrong. Errorsprimarilyinvolvedpronounsandpossessivebut other errorsoffaet were included. Students circledthe errors inthe letter and\Vfote the correctinfonnationabovetheerror. Studentsexchangedtheirpapersandreferredbacktothestory to correct them.Activitv J: HelenKellerAlter discussing what it wouldbeliketobe deaf andblind, students looked at apictureof Helen Keller and discussed whattheykne\v about her. Working indi\ldually, they reada story about her discovery of the meaning of the word waler.Working in groups of six, students took tums answering questions about thewater story.Pronouns were used instead ofproper nouns whenever possible. The task requiredstudents to go back to the text tofindtheinformation.Studentsread another textaboutHelenKeller and askedeachother questionsabout herlife. Questions contained pronouns instead of proper nouns.The teacher asked the questions with third person singular pronouns and possessivedeterminers about Helen Keller and her teacher, Annie Sullivan. Students \Vererequiredto understand which woman the pronouns referred to.Students answeredadditional factual questions about Helenandher teacher, Annie.They had to reread portions of the tex! to answer them. Answers were corrected with theclass..243Students\Vere told that Helen \vas a difficult chi Id who oftenfought \vith her teacher and\Vth her father. They read questions withmasculine andtminine pronounsandhad topredicttowhich of n,o stories each questionreferred"FightingwithAnnieorFiQhting\vith Father. They corrected their own answers by reading the relevant texts.Activity 4: PoemsActivin lStudents followedalongastheteacher readaloudtenhumorous poems inwhichthegender of thecharacterscouIdonlybedetenninedbyunderstandingthepronounsandpossessivedetenniners. As theyreadalong" theyselected atitlefor each poemfromalist pro\ided. Workingwitha partner. students confinnedtheirchoiceoftitles andanswered questionsaboutthegenders of thcharacters (e.g. lsthespeakera boyor agirl? \}/hat makes you think so?).Working in pairs, students grouped the poems according to themes.Each student chose a poem to practice: several students pertonned or read them aloud tothe class.Students read a new poem and created a title \vith a partner.Activio 5Omitted.Activitv 6: Brothers and SistersStudentsread one of nvo complementary stories about a brother and sister \vho didnotget a l o n ~ One storywas written fromthe sister' s perspective, the other fromthebrother' s perspective.244Working in groups ofthree, students decided whether six statements containing pronounsandpossessive determinersweretrueorfaIse, based onthestory theyhadread. Theyunderlined passagesin the textsupporting their responses. Students compared ans\versfor thet\VO different texts andfoundthat they \vere different. They then read theotherstory. The teacher pointed out that the perspective of the speaker can change the story.Students read a story about triplets, separatedinearly childhoo