Publishing Partner: Cambridge University Press CUP Extra Wiley-Blackwell Publisher Login
amazon logo
More Info


New from Oxford University Press!

ad

Language Planning as a Sociolinguistic Experiment

By: Ernst Jahr

Provides richly detailed insight into the uniqueness of the Norwegian language development. Marks the 200th anniversary of the birth of the Norwegian nation following centuries of Danish rule


New from Cambridge University Press!

ad

Acquiring Phonology: A Cross-Generational Case-Study

By Neil Smith

The study also highlights the constructs of current linguistic theory, arguing for distinctive features and the notion 'onset' and against some of the claims of Optimality Theory and Usage-based accounts.


New from Brill!

ad

Language Production and Interpretation: Linguistics meets Cognition

By Henk Zeevat

The importance of Henk Zeevat's new monograph cannot be overstated. [...] I recommend it to anyone who combines interests in language, logic, and computation [...]. David Beaver, University of Texas at Austin


Academic Paper


Title: The Effects of Input Enhancement on Grammar Learning and Comprehension
Author: PaulaMarieWinke
Email: click here to access email
Homepage: http://www.georgetown.edu/users/pmw2/
Institution: Michigan State University
Linguistic Field: Language Acquisition
Subject Language: English
Abstract: In his 2007 study “Effects of Textual Enhancement and Topic Familiarity on Korean EFL Students’ Reading Comprehension and Learning of Passive Form,” Lee demonstrated that learners were better able to correct written sentences that contained incorrect English passive forms after exposure to texts flooded with enhanced (versus nonenhanced) passive forms. But with enhanced forms, learners did worse on comprehension tests, which arguably demonstrated a trade-off: More attention to forms resulted in less to meaning. In this study, a conceptual replication of Lee’s using eye-movement data, I assessed how English passive construction enhancement affects English language learners’ (a) learning of the form (via pre- and posttest gains on passive construction tests) and (b) text comprehension. In contrast to Lee’s results, I found enhancement did not significantly increase form correction gain scores, nor did enhancement significantly detract from comprehension. There was no trade-off effect. Form learning and comprehension did not correlate. By recording learners’ eye movements while reading, I found enhancement significantly impacted learners’ noticing of the passive forms through longer gaze durations and rereading times. Thus, enhancement in this study functioned as intuitively and originally (Sharwood Smith, , 1993) proposed; it promoted noticing, but, in this case, without further explicit instruction, it appeared to have done little else.

CUP at LINGUIST

This article appears in Studies in Second Language Acquisition Vol. 35, Issue 2, which you can read on Cambridge's site or on LINGUIST .



Back
Add a new paper
Return to Academic Papers main page
Return to Directory of Linguists main page