Cover not available
Part of
Input Processing and Processing Instruction: The acquisition of Italian and Modern Standard Arabic
Alessandro G. Benati
[Bilingual Processing and Acquisition 11] 2021
► pp. 157–176

Chapter 8
Implications, limitations and further research

Article outline
  • 8.1What is the role of input processing in second language acquisition?
  • 8.2What are the most effective components in processing instruction?
  • 8.3What are the results of offline research?
    • a.Offline effects of processing instruction compared to other pedagogical interventions
    • b.Offline effects of processing instruction at discourse level
    • c.Offline durative effects of processing instruction
    • d.Offline secondary effects of processing instruction
    • e.Offline effects of structured input activities
  • 8.4What are the results of online research?
    • Self-paced reading studies
    • Eye-tracking studies
  • 8.5What is the role of explicit grammar instruction?
  • 8.6What are the limitations of research on processing instruction and avenues for further research?
  • 8.7Conclusion
  • References
Published online: 8 September 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/bpa.11.c8
References (43)
References
Allen, L. Q. (2000). Form-Meaning Connections and the French Causative. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 22, 69–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Angelovska, T., & Roehm, D. (2020). Processing instruction and the effects of input modality on morphosyntactic acquisition of English as L2: An Austrian school-lab classroom study. Instructed Second Language Acquisition, 4, 180–201. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benati, A. (2004a). The effects of structured input and explicit information on the acquisition of Italian future tense. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 207–255). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
(2004b). The effects of processing instruction and its components on the acquisition of gender agreement in Italian. Language Awareness, 13, 67–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005). The effects of PI, TI and MOI in the acquisition of English simple past tense. Language Teaching Research, 9, 67–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013a). The Input Processing Theory. In P. Garcia Mayo, Contemporary approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 93–110). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013b). Age and the effects of processing instruction on the acquisition of English Passive constructions among school children and adult native speakers of Turkish. In J. F. Lee & A. Benati (Eds.), Individual differences and processing instruction (pp. 83–104). Equinox.Google Scholar
(2019). Classroom-oriented research: Processing Instruction. Language Teaching, 52(3), 343–359. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020a). The effects of structured input and traditional instruction on the acquisition of the English causative passive forms: An eye-tracking study measuring accuracy in responses and processing patterns. Language Teaching Research, 24, 1–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020b). An eye-tracking study on the effects of structured input and traditional instruction on the acquisition of English passive constructions: An eye tracking study. Instructed Second Language Acquisition, 4, 158–179. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benati, A., & Lee, J. (2008). Grammar acquisition and processing instruction: Secondary and cumulative effects. Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). Processing instruction and discourse. Continuum.Google Scholar
(Eds.). (2015). Processing instruction: New insights after twenty years of theory, research and application. Special issue in International Review of Applied Linguistics (IRAL), 53(2).Google Scholar
Benati, A., & Batziou, M. (2017). The effects of structured-input and structured-output tasks on the acquisition of English causative. International Review of Applied Linguistics (IRAL), 57, 265–288. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benati, A., & Schwieter, J. (2017). Input processing and processing instruction: Pedagogical and cognitive considerations for L3 acquisition In A. Tanja & A. Hahn (Eds.), L3 syntactic transfer: Models, new developments and implications (pp. 195–223). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benati, A., & Batziou, M. (2019). Discourse and long-term effects of structured-input and structured-output tasks in combination and isolation on the acquisition of passive English causative forms. Language Awareness, 28(2) 1–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chiuchiu, G., & Benati, A. (2020). A self-paced-reading study on the effects of structured input and textual enhancement on the acquisition of the Italian subjunctive of doubt. Instructed Second Language Acquisition, 4, 235–257. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M., & Sokalski, K. J. (1996) The differential role of comprehension and production practice. Language Learning 46, 613–642. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Farley, A. (2004). Processing instruction and the Spanish subjunctive: Is explicit information needed? In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 227–239). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Henry, N. (2015). Morphosyntactic processing, cue interaction, and the effects of instruction: An investigation of processing instruction and the acquisition of case markings in L2 German (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA.
Ito, K., & Wong, W. (2019). Processing instruction and the effects of input modality and voice familiarity on the acquisition of the French causative construction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41, 443–468. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laval, C., & Lowe, H. (2020). The use of eye-tracking in experimental approaches in second language acquisition research: The primary effects of processing instruction in the acquisition of the French imperfect. Journal of French Language Studies, 30, 189–210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, J. (2015). The milestones in twenty years of processing instruction research. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 53, 111–126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, J., & Benati, A. (2007a). Delivering processing instruction in classrooms and virtual contexts: Research and practice. Equinox.Google Scholar
(2007b). Second language processing: An analysis of theory, problems and possible solutions. Continuum.Google Scholar
(2009). Research and perspectives on processing instruction. Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, J., & Doherty, S. (2018). Native and nonnative processing of active and passive sentence: The effects of processing instruction on the allocation of visual attention. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 42, 853–879.Google Scholar
Lee, J., Malovrh, P., Doherty, S., & Nichols, A. (2020). A self-paced reading study of the effects of processing instruction on the L2 processing of active and passive sentences. Language Teaching Research, 53, 127–150. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Long, M. (1983). Does second language instruction make a difference? TESOL Quarterly, 17, 359–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of second language instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417–528. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Salaberry, M. R. (1997). The role of input and output practice in second language acquisition. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 53, 422–451. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction: Theory and research. Ablex.Google Scholar
(2004). Input processing in second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 5–31). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015a). Input processing in adult SLA. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (2nd ed., pp.113–134). Routledge.Google Scholar
(2015b). Foundations of processing instruction. International Review of Applied Linguistics (IRAL), 53, 91–109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B., & Benati, A. (2015). Key terms in second language acquisition. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B., & Cadierno, T. (1993). Explicit instruction and input processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 225–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B., & Oikennon, S. (1996). Explanation vs. structured input in processing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 495–510. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B., & Rothman, J. (2014). Against rules. In A. Benati, C. Laval & M. Arche (eds.), The grammar dimension in instructed second language learning (15–35). London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B., & Wong, W. (2004). Processing instruction and the French causative: Another replication. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 97–118). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B., & Fernández, C. (2004). The long-term effects of processing instruction. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing Instruction: Theory, Research, and Commentary (pp. 273–289). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B., Farmer, J., & Clardy, C. (2009). Processing instruction and meaning- based output instruction: A response to Keating and Farley (2008). Hispania, 92, 116–126.Google Scholar
Wong, W., & Ito, K. (2018). The effects of processing instruction and traditional instruction on L2 online processing of the causative construction in French: An eye-tracking study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40, 241–268. DOI logoGoogle Scholar