Home The pedagogical relevance of processing instruction in second language idiom acquisition
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

The pedagogical relevance of processing instruction in second language idiom acquisition

  • Jeong-eun Kim EMAIL logo and Hosung Nam EMAIL logo
Published/Copyright: May 13, 2017

Abstract

This study explores the relevance and effectiveness of processing instruction in second language (L2) idiom learning by examining (1) whether structured input (SI) is more effective than non-SI, comprehension-based activities and (2) whether explicit information (EI) in addition to SI can facilitate L2 idiom learning. One hundred adult L2 English speakers were randomly assigned to one of six conditions: four groups who participated in SI activities in one of four EI conditions (i. e., no EI; EI before SI, EI during SI, or EI both before and during SI), a non-SI group, and a control group. Results from three types of tasks (translation, interpretation, and production) showed that (1) SI is more effective than comprehension-based activities in developing learners’ L2 idiom production ability and (2) EI can facilitate learners’ accurate L2 idiom translation, particularly when it is provided before the SI activities. No beneficial effect was observed from EI provided during the SI activities.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2016S1A5A2A03926788).

References

Abel, Beate. 2003. English idioms in the first language and second language lexicon: A dual representation approach. Second Language Research 19. 329–358.10.1191/0267658303sr226oaSearch in Google Scholar

Andersen, Roger W. 1984. The one to one principle of interlanguage construction. Language Learning 34. 77–95.10.1111/j.1467-1770.1984.tb00353.xSearch in Google Scholar

Barcroft, Joe. 2007. Effects of opportunities for word retrieval during second language vocabulary learning. Language Learning 57. 355–356.10.1111/j.1467-9922.2007.00398.xSearch in Google Scholar

Barcroft, Joe. 2013. Input-based incremental vocabulary instruction for the L2 classroom. In John W. Schwieter (ed.), Innovative research and practices in second language acquisition and bilingualism, 107–138. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/lllt.38.09barSearch in Google Scholar

Benati, Alessandro. 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. 95–127.10.1177/136216880100500202Search in Google Scholar

Benati, Alessandro. 2004. The effects of structured input activities and explicit information on the acquisition of the Italian future tense. In Bill VanPatten (ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary, 207–225. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Search in Google Scholar

Bobrow, Samuel A. & Susan M. Bell. 1973. On catching on to idiomatic expressions. Memory & Cognition 1. 342–346.10.3758/BF03198118Search in Google Scholar

Boers, Frank & Murielle Demecheleer. 2001. Measuring the impact of cross-cultural differences on learners’ comprehension of imageable idioms. ELT Journal 55. 255–262.10.1093/elt/55.3.255Search in Google Scholar

Boers, Frank, Murielle Demecheleer & June Eyckmans. 2004. Etymological elaboration as a strategy for learning figurative idioms. In Paul Bogaards & Batia Laufer (eds.), Vocabulary in a second language: Selection, acquisition and testing, 53–78. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/lllt.10.07boeSearch in Google Scholar

Boers, Frank, June Eyckmans, Jenny Kappel, Hélène Stengers & Murielle Demecheleer. 2006. Formulaic sequences and perceived oral proficiency: Putting a lexical approach to the test. Language Teaching Research 10. 245–261.10.1191/1362168806lr195oaSearch in Google Scholar

Buck, Marilyn. 2006. The effects of processing instruction on the acquisition of English progressive aspect. Estudios de Lingüística Aplicada 24. 77–95.Search in Google Scholar

Cacciari, Cristina & Patrizia Tabossi. 1988. The comprehension of idioms. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.10.1016/0749-596X(88)90014-9Search in Google Scholar

Cadierno, Teresa. 1995. Formal instruction from a processing perspective: An investigation into the Spanish past tense. The Modern Language Journal 79. 179–193.10.1111/j.1540-4781.1995.tb05430.xSearch in Google Scholar

Choueka, Yaacov. 1988. Looking for needles in a haystack or locating interesting collocation expressions in large textual databases. Proceedings of the RIAO, 38–43.Search in Google Scholar

Cieślicka, Anna B. 2006. Literal salience in on-line processing of idiomatic expressions by L2 speakers. Second Language Research 22. 115–144.10.1191/0267658306sr263oaSearch in Google Scholar

Cieślicka, Anna B. 2015. Idiom acquisition and processing by second/foreign language learners. In Roberto R. Heredia & Anna B. Cieślicka (eds.), Bilingual figurative language processing, 208–244. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139342100.012Search in Google Scholar

Cieślicka, Anna B. & Roberto R. Heredia. 2011. Hemispheric asymmetries in processing L1 and L2 idioms: Effects of salience and context. Brain and Language 116. 136–150.10.1016/j.bandl.2010.09.007Search in Google Scholar

Colombo, Lucia. 1993. The comprehension of ambiguous idioms in context. In Cristina Cacciari & Patrizia Tabossi (eds.), Idioms: Processing, structure, and interpretation, 163–200. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Search in Google Scholar

Conklin, Kathy & Norbert Schmitt. 2008. Formulaic sequences: Are they processed more quickly than nonformulaic language by native and non-native speakers? Applied Linguistics 29. 72–89.10.1093/applin/amm022Search in Google Scholar

Cooper, Thomas C. 1999. Processing of idioms by L2 learners of English. TESOL Quarterly 33(2). 233–262.10.2307/3587719Search in Google Scholar

Cornell, Alan. 1999. Idioms: An approach to identifying major pitfalls for learners. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 37. 1–11.10.1515/iral.1999.37.1.1Search in Google Scholar

DeKeyser, Robert M. 2005. What makes learning second-language grammar difficult? A review of issues. Language Learning 55. 1–25.10.1111/j.0023-8333.2005.00294.xSearch in Google Scholar

Doughty, Catherine J. 2001. Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In Peter Robinson (ed.), Cognition and second language instruction, 206–257. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139524780.010Search in Google Scholar

Doughty, Catherine J. & Jessica Williams (eds.). 1998. Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Ellis, Rod. 1994. The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Ellis, Rod (ed.). 2001. Form-focused instruction and second language learning. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar

Farley, Andrew P. 2001. Authentic processing instruction and the Spanish subjunctive. Hispania 84. 289–299.10.2307/3657760Search in Google Scholar

Farley, Andrew P. 2004. Processing instruction and the Spanish subjunctive: Is explicit information needed? In Bill VanPatten (ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary, 227–239. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Search in Google Scholar

Fernández, Claudia. 2008. Reexamining the role of explicit information in processing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 30. 277–305.10.1017/S0272263108080467Search in Google Scholar

Fernando, Chitra & Roger Flavell. 1981. On idiom: Critical views and perspectives (Exeter Linguistic Studies 5). Exeter, UK: University of Exeter.Search in Google Scholar

Gass, Susan & Larry Selinker. 2001. Second language acquisition: An introductory course, 2nd edn. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.10.4324/9781410604651Search in Google Scholar

Gibbs, Raymond, Nandini P. Nayak & Cooper Cutting. 1989a. How to kick the bucket and not decompose: Analyzability and idiom processing. Journal of Memory and Language 28. 576–593.10.1016/0749-596X(89)90014-4Search in Google Scholar

Gibbs, Raymond W. 1980. Spilling the beans on understanding and memory for idioms in conversation. Memory & Cognition 8. 149–156.10.3758/BF03213418Search in Google Scholar

Gibbs, Raymond W. 1992. What do idioms really mean? Journal of Memory and Language 31. 485–506.10.1016/0749-596X(92)90025-SSearch in Google Scholar

Gibbs, Raymond W. 1993. Why idioms are not dead metaphors. In Cristina Cacciari & Patrizia Tabossi (eds.), Idioms: Processing, structure, and interpretation, 57–77. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Search in Google Scholar

Gibbs, Raymond W. 2002. A new look at literal meaning in understanding what is said and implicated. Journal of Pragmatics 34. 457–486.10.1016/S0378-2166(01)00046-7Search in Google Scholar

Gibbs, Raymond W. & Gayle P. Gonzales. 1985. Syntactic frozenness in processing and remembering idioms. Cognition 20. 243–259.10.1016/0010-0277(85)90010-1Search in Google Scholar

Gibbs, Raymond W. & Nandini P. Nayak. 1989. Psycholinguistic studies on the syntactic behavior of idioms. Cognitive Psychology 21. 100–138.10.1016/0010-0285(89)90004-2Search in Google Scholar

Gibbs, Raymond W., Nandini P. Nayak, John L. Bolton & Melissa E. Keppel. 1989b. Speakers’ assumptions about the lexical flexibility of idioms. Memory & Cognition 17. 58–68.10.3758/BF03199557Search in Google Scholar

Grant, Lynn & Laurie Bauer. 2004. Criteria for re-defining idioms: Are we barking up the wrong tree? Applied Linguistics 25. 38–61.10.1093/applin/25.1.38Search in Google Scholar

Henry, Nicholas, Hillah Culman & Bill VanPatten. 2009. More on the effects of explicit information in instructed SLA: A partial replication and a response to Fernández (2008). Studies in Second Language Acquisition 31. 559–575.10.1017/S0272263109990027Search in Google Scholar

Kecskés, István & Tunde Papp. 2000. Metaphorical competence in trilingual language production. In Jasone Cenoz & Ulrike Jessner (eds.), English in Europe: The acquisition of a third language, 99–120. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Search in Google Scholar

Laufer, Batia. 1998. The development of passive and active vocabulary in a second language: Same or different? Applied Linguistics 19. 255–271.10.1093/applin/19.2.255Search in Google Scholar

Laufer, Batia. 2000. Avoidance of idioms in a second language: The effect of L1–L2 degree of similarity. Studia Linguistica 54. 186–196.10.1111/1467-9582.00059Search in Google Scholar

Laufer, Batia. 2005. Focus on form in second language vocabulary. EUROSLA Yearbook 5. 223–250.10.1075/eurosla.5.11lauSearch in Google Scholar

Laufer, Batia & Zahava Goldstein. 2004. Testing vocabulary knowledge: Size, strength, and computer adaptiveness. Language Learning 54. 469–523.10.1111/j.0023-8333.2004.00260.xSearch in Google Scholar

Laufer, Batia & T. Sima Paribakht. 1998. The relationship between passive and active vocabularies: Effects of language learning context. Language Learning 48. 365–391.10.1111/0023-8333.00046Search in Google Scholar

Lee, James F. & Bill VanPatten. 1995. Making communicative language teaching happen. New York: McGraw Hill.Search in Google Scholar

Lewis, Michael. 1993. The lexical approach. Hove, UK: Language Teaching.Search in Google Scholar

Lewis, Michael. 1997. Implementing the lexical approach: Putting theory into practice. Hove, UK: Language Teaching.Search in Google Scholar

Lewis, Michael. 2000. Language in the lexical approach. In Michael Lewis (ed.), Teaching collocation: Further developments in the lexical approach, 126–154. Hove, UK: Language Teaching.Search in Google Scholar

Liontas, John I. 2002. Context and idiom understanding in second languages. EUROSLA Yearbook 2. 155–185.10.1075/eurosla.2.11lioSearch in Google Scholar

Long, Michael. 2000. Focus on form in task-based language teaching. In Richard D. Lambert & Elana Shohamy (eds.), Language policy and pedagogy, 179–192. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/z.96.11lonSearch in Google Scholar

Loschky, Lester & Robert Bley-Vroman. 1993. Grammar and task-based methodology. In Graham V. Crookes & Susan M. Gass (eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice, 123–167. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Search in Google Scholar

McGill, Robert, John W. Tukey & Wayne A. Larsen. 1978. Variations of box plots. The American Statistician 32(1). 12–16.10.1080/00031305.1978.10479236Search in Google Scholar

Meara, Paul M. 2009. Connected words: Word associations and second language lexical acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/lllt.24Search in Google Scholar

Melka Teichroew, Francine J. 1982. Receptive versus productive vocabulary: A survey. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin 6. 5–33.Search in Google Scholar

Morris, C. Donald, John D. Bransford & Jeffrey J. Franks. 1977. Levels of processing versus transfer appropriate processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 16. 519–533.10.1016/S0022-5371(77)80016-9Search in Google Scholar

Nation, I. S. P. 2001. Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139524759Search in Google Scholar

Norris, J. M., & Lourdes Ortega. 2000. Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta‐analysis. Language Learning 50. 417–528.10.1111/0023-8333.00136Search in Google Scholar

Nunberg, Geoffrey. 1978. The pragmatics of reference. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics.Search in Google Scholar

Pollio, Howard R., Jack M. Barlow, Harold J. Fine & Marilyn R. Pollio. 1977. Psychology and the poetics of growth: Figurative language in psychology, psychotherapy, and education. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Search in Google Scholar

Read, John. 1998. Validating a test to measure depth of vocabulary knowledge. In Antony John Kunnan (ed.), Validation in language assessment, 41–60. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Search in Google Scholar

Read, John. 2000. Assessing vocabulary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511732942Search in Google Scholar

Read, John. 2004. Research in teaching vocabulary. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 24. 146–161.10.1017/S0267190504000078Search in Google Scholar

Robinson, Peter. 1995. Attention, memory, and the “noticing” hypothesis. Language Learning 45. 283–331.10.1111/j.1467-1770.1995.tb00441.xSearch in Google Scholar

Robinson, Peter. 2001a. Cognition and second language instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139524780Search in Google Scholar

Robinson, Peter. 2001b. Task complexity, task difficulty and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics 22. 27–57.10.1093/applin/22.1.27Search in Google Scholar

Sanz, Cristina & Kara Morgan-Short. 2004. Positive evidence versus explicit rule presentation and explicit negative feedback: A computer-assisted study. Language Learning 54. 35–78.10.1111/j.1467-9922.2004.00248.xSearch in Google Scholar

Sanz, Cristina & Bill VanPatten. 1998. On input processing, processing instruction, and the nature of replication tasks: A response to M. R. Salaberry. Canadian Modern Language Review 54. 263–273.10.3138/cmlr.54.2.263Search in Google Scholar

Schmidt, Richard. 1995. Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on attention and awareness in learning. In Richard Schmidt (ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning, 1–63. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i, National Foreign Language Resource Center.Search in Google Scholar

Siyanova-Chanturia, Anna, Kathy Conklin & Norbert Schmitt. 2011. Adding more fuel to the fire: An eye-tracking study of idiom processing by native and nonnative speakers. Second Language Research 27. 251–272.10.1177/0267658310382068Search in Google Scholar

Spada, Nina. 1997. Form-focused instruction and second language acquisition: A review of classroom and laboratory research. Language Teaching 30. 73–87.10.1017/S0261444800012799Search in Google Scholar

Stafford, Catherine A., Harriet W. Bowden & Cristina Sanz. 2012. Optimizing language instruction: Matters of explicitness, practice, and cue learning. Language Learning 62. 741–768.10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00648.xSearch in Google Scholar

Steinel, Margarita P., Jan H. Hulstijn & Wolfgang Steinel. 2007. Second language idiom learning in a paired-associate paradigm: Effects of direction of learning, direction of testing, idiom imageability, and idiom transparency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 29. 449–484.10.1017/S0272263107070271Search in Google Scholar

Swinney, David A. & Anne Cutler. 1979. The access and processing of idiomatic expressions. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 18. 523–534.10.1016/S0022-5371(79)90284-6Search in Google Scholar

Tabossi, Patrizia & Francesco Zardon. 1993. The activation of idiomatic meaning in spoken language. In Cristina Cacciari & Patrizia Tabossi (eds.). Idioms: Processing, structure and interpretation, 145–162. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Search in Google Scholar

Tabossi, Patrizia & Francesco Zardon. 1995. The activation of idiomatic meaning. In Martin Everaert, Erik-Jan Van Der Linden, Andr Schenk & Rob Schreuder (eds.), Idioms: Structural and psychological perspectives, 273–282. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Search in Google Scholar

Takala, Sauli. 1984. Evaluation of students’ knowledge of English vocabulary in Finnish comprehensive school (Rep. No. 350). Jyvaskyla, Finland: Institute of Educational Research.Search in Google Scholar

Titone, Debra A. & Cynthia M. Connine. 1999. On the compositional and non-compositional nature of idiomatic expressions. Journal of Pragmatics 31. 1655–1674.10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00008-9Search in Google Scholar

Tomlin, Russell S. & Victor Villa. 1994. Attention in cognitive science and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 16. 183–203.10.1017/S0272263100012870Search in Google Scholar

VanPatten, Bill. 2004. Input processing in second language acquisition. In Bill VanPatten (ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary, 5–31. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.10.4324/9781410610195Search in Google Scholar

VanPatten, Bill. 2005. Processing instruction. In Cristina Sanz (ed.), Mind and context in adult second language acquisition: Methods, theory, and practice, 267–281. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Search in Google Scholar

VanPatten, Bill & Teresa Cadierno. 1993. Explicit instruction and input processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15. 225–241.10.1017/S0272263100011979Search in Google Scholar

VanPatten, Bill, Jeffrey L. Farmer & Caleb L. Clardy. 2009. Processing instruction and meaning-based output instruction: A response to Keating and Farley (2008). Hispania 92. 116–126.Search in Google Scholar

VanPatten, Bill & Soile Oikkenon. 1996. Explanation versus structured input in processing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18. 495–510.10.1017/S0272263100015394Search in Google Scholar

VanPatten, Bill & Cristina Sanz. 1995. From input to output: Processing instruction and communicative tasks. In Fred R. Eckman, Diane Highland, Peter W. Lee, Jean Mileham & Rita Rutkowski Weber (eds.), Second language acquisition: Theory and pedagogy, 169–185. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Search in Google Scholar

VanPatten, Bill & Wynne Wong. 2004. Processing instruction and the French causative: A replication. In Bill VanPatten (ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research and commentary, 97–118. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.10.4324/9781410610195Search in Google Scholar

Vega Moreno, Rosa E. 2005. Idioms, transparency and pragmatic inference. UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics 17. 389–425.Search in Google Scholar

Waring, Rob. 1997. A comparison of receptive and productive vocabulary sizes of some second language learners. Immaculata 19. 287–307.Search in Google Scholar

Wong, Wynne. 2004. Processing instruction in French: The roles of explicit information and structured input. In Bill VanPatten (ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary, 187–205. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Search in Google Scholar

Zyzik, Eve. 2011. Second language idiom learning: The effects of lexical knowledge and pedagogical sequencing. Language Teaching Research 15. 413–433.10.1177/1362168811412025Search in Google Scholar

Zyzik, Eve & Laura Marqués Pascual. 2012. Spanish differential object marking: An empirical study of implicit and explicit instruction. Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics 5. 387–422.10.1515/shll-2012-1135Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2017-5-13
Published in Print: 2017-6-27

© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 27.11.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/iral-2015-0027/pdf
Scroll to top button