Volume 56, Issue 3 -

This study explored whether Japanese EFL learners can utilize syntactically–driven algorithmic processing. For this purpose, the study attempted to inhibit other forms of processing (i. e., semantically–driven heuristic processing and processing with explicit knowledge) by using a self–paced reading task with priming of PP–attachment ambiguity. In the experiment, 20 highly proficient Japanese learners and 18 native speakers of English engaged in a phrase–by–phrase self–paced reading task after reading prime sentences. Although the results of non–native speakers (NNSs) showed a similar tendency to the NSs, there were slight differences between NSs and NNSs in terms of the size of the priming effects. This indicated that highly proficient Japanese EFL learners can utilize syntactically–driven algorithmic processing, but the process may be relatively “fragile” compared to that of NSs.

Spanish gustar -type psychological verbs have a reverse, intransitive structure that is notably different from their direct, transitive counterpart in English. Research has pointed to the dative marker a to be the most problematic element for learners to acquire (Quesada, M. 2008. *Yo gusto pasteles de chocolate: De la transitividad hacia la intransitividad en la adquisición de verbos psicológicos en español. In R. M. Ortiz Ciscomani (ed.), Memoria del IX EILN , 55–72. Hermosillo, México: Editorial Universidad de Sonora; Toth, P. D. 2003. Psych verbs and morphosyntactic development in instructed L2 Spanish. In S. Montrul & F. Ordóñez (eds.), Linguistic theory and language development in Hispanic languages , 468–497. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press), although other studies have noted the difficulties of verb-theme agreement (Montrul 1997b; Toribio, A. J. & C. Nye. 2006. Restructuring of reverse psychological predicates. In C. Nishida & J. P. Montreuil (eds.), New perspectives on romance linguistics , 263–277. Austin, TX: Benjamins). This study examines how 24 low-intermediate and 24 high-intermediate learners of L2 Spanish with L1 English, as well as 20 native speakers (NSs), performed on a 99-item grammaticality judgment test. Sentences varied in their use of the dative marker, theme-verb agreement, and indirect object clitic pronouns. Reading times were also captured for each item. Results reveal that learners responded significantly differently from NSs. Furthermore, the fact that the most critical elements of such constructions were different for NSs than for what is currently emphasized in the classroom has relevant pedagogical implications.

Despite the efforts exerted on error correction by teachers and students during English for Academic Purposes (EAP) courses, the literature is split about whether such instruction succeeds in reducing grammatical and lexical errors in student writing. In this study, a longitudinal corpus of essays and reports collected at three key data points along a tertiary EAP course (pre-course, immediate post-course and final assessment) totalling 205,682 words was annotated for 12,996 errors across 10 grammatical and lexical error types. The results, including a mixed-effects linear model, showed a general significant decline in the number of errors produced over the duration of the course. However, closer examination revealed that the frequencies of the majority of individual lexical and grammatical error categories remained unchanged over time, despite specific out-of-class instruction on these errors as well as numerous occasions where teachers provided written corrective feedback. The overall usefulness of the error correction feedback and instruction resulting from the EAP course in question therefore remains inconclusive, although students and other stakeholders may still call for the inclusion of such feedback and instruction on EAP curricula.

This study investigates effects of pragmatics-focused instruction using different types of written corrective feedback (CF) on the development of pragmatic competence of Vietnamese learners of English as a foreign language. Five intermediate-level groups of learners who were learning syntactic downgraders for mitigating their email requests were randomly assigned to either the control or one of the four treatment conditions: instruction + clarification requests, instruction + recasts, instruction + metapragmatic feedback, and instruction + explicit correction. The performance of the treatment groups on a DCT pre-test, immediate post-test, and two follow-up tests at one and eight months after the treatments was compared with that of a control group who received only routine instruction. Results showed that the four treatment groups performed significantly better than the control group when measured at all three post-tests, but there was no difference among the treatment groups in their post-treatment scores.