learner-generated noticing behavior by novice learners: tracing the effects of learners' l1 on...

Applied Linguistics 2013: 34/1: 74–98 � Oxford University Press 2013

doi:10.1093/applin/ams016

Learner-Generated Noticing Behavior ByNovice Learners: Tracing the Effects ofLearners’ L1 on Their Emerging L2

EUN SUNG PARK

Department of English, Sogang University, Seoul, Korea

E-mail: [email protected]

This study examines novice learners’ self-generated input noticing approaches

and strategies. It is motivated by previous research on input enhancement which

yielded insights that learners are naturally prone to notice certain aspects of

L2 input on their own without any external means to channel their attention.

Two L1 groups (Japanese and English) with no prior experience with the

L2 (Korean) were exposed to written L2 input and probed for their noticing

behavior under the ‘zero-knowledge’, and ‘some-knowledge’ conditions. The

results indicate that under the zero-knowledge condition, both groups exhibited

a form-oriented noticing behavior, prompted largely by perceptual properties

of L2 input. Under the some-knowledge condition, however, the two groups

exhibited divergent noticing patterns: the Japanese group adopted a more

meaning-oriented approach, employing comprehension-based strategies,

whereas the English group maintained their form-oriented approach to input

processing, focusing on the formal properties of the L2. The two groups’ input

noticing patterns are discussed in light of their L1 knowledge and its interaction

with their emerging knowledge of the L2.

INTRODUCTION

The role of attention has been of prime importance in the second language

acquisition (SLA) theory, research, and pedagogy, especially in the past three

decades. Ever since Corder’s (1967) distinction between input and intake, L2

researchers have tried to explicate how input gets processed as intake, which

constitutes the data for developing learners’ L2 competence. SLA researchers,

especially those with a cognitive orientation, generally agree that some type of

attention or ‘noticing’ is important in converting input into intake (Schmidt

1990, 1993). Although the degree and the type of attention required for

SLA remains a point of contention (Tomlin and Villa 1994; Robinson 1995;

Schmidt 2001), the importance of attention and noticing in mediating the

input-to-intake process has spawned a plethora of research on how to best

facilitate learners’ noticing of L2 input. The abundance of research on atten-

tion and noticing notwithstanding, it remains unclear exactly ‘what it means

to draw a learner’s attention to form, or how this is to be accomplished’ (Williams

and Evans 1998: 139). Most studies have incorporated some type of

at Main L

ibrary of Gazi U

niversity on Novem

ber 2, 2014http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/

Dow

nloaded from

http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/

pedagogical intervention to manipulate learners’ attention, widely subsumed

under the umbrella term ‘focus on form’ (Doughty and Williams 1998). Such

studies have examined whether learners attend to certain forms that have

been made salient to them via some type of external intervention and have

tapped into their noticing of those forms. Findings from these studies have

yielded insights that the externally created salience of target forms does not

always facilitate learner noticing, and that learners often have their own

internal agenda for learning which prompts them to notice nontarget forms

(i.e. learners’ internally generated noticing). In this regard, a better under-

standing of learner-generated noticing processes seems timely and worthwhile.

However, no study has directly tapped into learners’ internally generated

(as opposed to externally generated) noticing of L2 input (see, however,

Park 2007, 2011).

The present study is part of a larger, exploratory study designed to examine

learners’ internally generated noticing of L2 input when left to their own de-

vices. The original study (Park 2007) examined the ‘what’, ‘why’, and ‘how’ of

learner-generated noticing. The ‘what’ and ‘why’ of learner-generated noticing

are reported in a separate study (Park 2011), and the present study reports on

the ‘how’ of noticing, that is, the noticing approaches and strategies undertaken

by learners. The objective of this study is largely twofold: (i) to gain insights into

learners’ input noticing approaches and strategies when left to freely interact

with L2 input without any predetermined target forms and (ii) to trace the

effects of two factors deemed to affect learner-generated noticing—the learners’

knowledge of their L1, and their existing L2 knowledge. Given the lack of em-

pirical research on learners’ internally generated noticing, the ensuing literature

review begins by providing a theoretical background of input enhancement

focusing on the importance of matching learners’ externally generated salience

with their internally generated salience. This is followed by VanPatten’s (2002,

2004) model of input processing, which pertains to learners’ naturally driven

input processing tendency, and by a review of recent research on learners’ de-

fault input processing behavior in their ab initio state.1

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Input enhancement: matching the two types of salience

Sharwood Smith (1991, 1993) introduced the term input enhancement which he

defined as a process whereby input becomes salient to the learner. It can be

created from the outside, typically by a teacher (externally generated salience),

or from within, that is, by the learner (internally generated salience). In creat-

ing external salience, the teacher can put ‘flags’ in the input by manipulating

the presentation of target forms in order to direct the learner’s attention to

those forms. In the case of internally generated salience, it is the learner who

automatically pays attention to various aspects of L2 input, driven by his or her

own internal mechanisms (Sharwood Smith 1991). For example, the learner

E. S. PARK 75

at Main L

ibrary of Gazi U

niversity on Novem


Dow

nloaded from


may be naturally attracted to frequently occurring words (a subconscious pro-

cess), or he or she may decide to memorize a list of vocabulary items related to

cooking (a conscious process; Sharwood Smith 1999). The latter type of sali-

ence is based on the premise that the learner possesses his/her own natural

learning mechanisms that, in and of themselves, can generate internally gen-

erated salience, which may or may not coincide with the externally created

salience engineered by the teacher/researcher. To date, most empirical studies

of input enhancement have resorted to creating external salience, mainly by

incorporating textual enhancement (TE) techniques2 involving the modifica-

tion of the input presentation by changing the font size, underlining, and

bolding, among others, to increase the perceptual salience of target linguistic

features.

A plethora of TE research conducted thus far has shown an inconclusive role

of enhancement in directing learners’ attention to target forms. Some reported

that TE can facilitate learners’ noticing of the enhanced forms (e.g. Doughty

1991; Jourdenais et al. 1995; Leeman et al. 1995), whereas others have found

its effects to be negligible (e.g. Alanen 1995; Leow 1997; White 1998; Shook

1999; Leow et al. 2003; see Han et al. 2008, for a review of TE research).

Additionally, and perhaps more importantly, evidence has shown that learners

also notice items that are unenhanced (i.e. nontarget forms), driven by their

own psycholinguistic agenda (e.g. Williams and Evans 1998; Gass et al. 2003).

Such findings, however, have largely surfaced as an incidental byproduct, not

as a result of direct inquiry. Researchers have addressed the importance of

learners’ internally generated noticing by drawing on observations based lar-

gely on their intuition (e.g. Corder 1981; Sharwood Smith 1991, 1993); by

culling insights from pertinent studies (e.g. Doughty 2003; Robinson 2003;

Han et al. 2008); or by addressing the issue in the discussion of a study as an

added insight (e.g. Leow 1997; Williams and Evans 1998; Gass et al. 2003).

That learners may notice unenhanced forms over enhanced forms echoes

Sharwood Smith’s (1991: 130) foresight that a mismatch may result between

‘the intentions lying behind teacher . . . and the actual effect it comes to have

on the learner system.’ This is noteworthy in that it underscores the import-

ance of ‘matching’ the two types of salience—externally generated salience

and internally generated salience—for the enhanced input to have the desired

effect on the learner. Although the issue of matching the two types of salience

is certainly appealing, it remains unclear how learner-generated salience

comes about, and how learners naturally notice and interact with the L2

input when left to their own devices. As the first step toward the ‘matching’

process, it may be useful to seek insights from other related studies, particu-

larly those pertaining to learners’ naturally driven input processing tendency.

Learners’ input processing tendency: meaning or form primacy?

The most well-known and widely discussed model of L2 learners’ input pro-

cessing tendency pertains to VanPatten’s (2002, 2004) model of input

76 LEARNER-GENERATED NOTICING BEHAVIOR BY NOVICE LEARNERS

at Main L

ibrary of Gazi U

niversity on Novem


Dow

nloaded from


processing, which is predicated on the cognitivist perspective that humans

have a limited attentional capacity to deal with incoming stimuli (e.g.

Kintsch 1998; Baddeley 2001), and that because of such constraints, form

and meaning3 may compete for attentional resources during online input pro-

cessing. Over the years, this assumption has developed into the input process-

ing model, which encompasses a number of principles characterizing learners’

natural tendencies when processing a nonprimary language. Defining input

processing as ‘the strategies and mechanisms learners use to link linguistic

form with its meaning and/or function’ (VanPatten 2004: 1), VanPatten pos-

ited two overarching principles in this model: (i) The Primacy of Meaning

Principle which proposes that learners are naturally prone to process input

for meaning before processing it for form; and (ii) The First Noun Principle

which stipulates that learners tend to process the first noun as the subject/

agent of the sentence. The Primacy of Meaning principle, which is of particular

interest in the present study, subsumes six subprinciples. The first four

subprinciples are directly related to learners’ general tendency to process

input for meaning than for form, including learners’ preference for content

words over functors, and their reliance on lexical items rather than grammat-

ical forms to retrieve meaning. The fifth subprinciple pertains to the availability

of attentional resources for either type of processing (meaning or

form-oriented processing) to take place, and the sixth subprinciple depicts

learners’ processing preference for perceptually salient forms over less salient

ones. The Primacy of Meaning principle and its subprinciples were initially

motivated by empirical studies on simultaneous attention to form and mean-

ing, which are reviewed below.

One of the earlier well-known studies is VanPatten (1990), which examined

learners’ ability to simultaneously process meaning and form in the input.

Participants comprised L2 Spanish learners divided into four groups—

Content Only, Lexical Item, Article, and Morphology—who listened to a

short text on inflation. Learners in the Content Only group only had to

listen to the content. In each of the other groups, learners had to listen to

the content and also listen for a target item: the word inflation, the article le, or

the verb morpheme –n. Upon hearing the target item, the participants had to

make a check mark on a piece of paper. Results revealed that those learners

who attended to the content of the message and a related lexical item (infla-

cion) demonstrated better comprehension of the text than those who listened

for content and a grammatical form. VanPatten reasoned that because form

and meaning compete for limited attentional resources, those participants who

listened for both content and a select form were not able to recall as much

content as those who only had to process the text for meaning. Based on the

findings, VanPatten concluded that learners in the early and intermediate

stages of acquisition are likely to adopt a meaning-based approach to input

processing (cf. Carroll 2004).

VanPatten’s (1990) study has been partially replicated in subsequent studies,

and similar results have been reported by Bransdorfer (1991) who used similar

E. S. PARK 77

at Main L

ibrary of Gazi U

niversity on Novem


Dow

nloaded from


tasks but with different linguistic items (examenes ‘exams,’ versus esta, the

copula), and by Lee et al. (1997) who found that learners who listened to

a passage containing adverbs of past temporal reference scored better than

those who listened to the same passage with no adverbs, but with the same

semantic content morphologically marked. Another study by Mangubhai

(1991), which examined the processing behaviors of beginning adult learners

of L2 Hindi, also found that learners’ input processing behaviors were largely

devoted to the extraction of meaning. Mangubhai further pointed out that

some learners were also found to occasionally devote their attention to form;

however, this occurred only when ‘meaning retrieval was more automatic’ (p.

268). Although Manghbhai (1991) was not based on the input processing

model, his findings echo VanPatten’s position that processing input for gram-

matical morphemes/functors is predicated upon the learners’ attentional re-

sources being available as meaning comprehension becomes more automatic.

VanPatten’s study has also been replicated in the written mode by

Greenslade et al. (1999) who reported that processing for meaning and form

in the written mode also competed for the learner’s limited attentional re-

sources. In another study, Wong (2001) directly compared learners’ attention

to form and meaning in the aural and written modes to determine whether

similar results would obtain for different modalities, by targeting L1-French

learners of L2 English. The results were similar to VanPatten (1990) for the

aural mode, with participants who listened for ‘content only’ comprehending

significantly more than those who listened to the definite article the. However,

no statistical differences were found for comprehension scores between the

control and the definite article groups, and between the lexical item (inflation)

and the definite article group in the written mode, suggesting that learners’

limited attentional capacity may not be constrained in the same way in aural

and written modes.

More recently, Leow et al. (2008) revisited the issue of simultaneous atten-

tion to form and meaning in relation to L2 reading comprehension.

Participants comprised 72 L2-Spanish students who were randomly assigned

to the following four groups: (i) those reading for meaning only; (ii) those

reading for meaning and circling all instances of sol; (iii) those reading for

meaning and circling the definite article, la; and (iv) those reading for meaning

and circling the clitic, lo. They addressed some methodological issues of previ-

ous studies, one of which involved the incorporation of concurrent

think-aloud data to ensure that learners were in fact processing the text for

meaning during the treatment. Their results revealed no differential effects of

attentional condition on learners’ L2 reading comprehension, consequently

leading the researchers to speculate that learners’ cognitive constraints may

vary according to the modality of exposure. Based on their findings, Leow et al.

(2008) highlighted the need for further research in testing the Primacy of

Meaning Principle in the written mode.

As the foregoing studies show, empirical research on simultaneous attention

to form and meaning has produced mixed results for the written mode


at Main L

ibrary of Gazi U

niversity on Novem


Dow

nloaded from


compared with the results from the aural mode which generally yielded

support for the Primacy of Meaning Principle. In addition, studies on

Processing Instruction (a pedagogical proposal based on the input processing

model) have also shown that helping learners to free up their attentional

capacity by ensuring their prior comprehension so that they are free to

attend to the form of L2 input, and explicitly directing them to process

the input in a certain way, can facilitate their intake of target items (see

VanPatten 2004, 2011; Lee and Benati 2009, for a review).4 These studies

have been premised on the assumption that the input processing prin-

ciples are universally applicable to all L2 learners, and that L2 practitioners

should manipulate learners’ default input processing strategies so that

their strategies may be altered to echo the processing strategies that conform

to the L2. Most of these studies have focused on Spanish, French, and Italian as

an L2, and incorporated learners with at least one or more semesters of

L2 study.

Novice learners’ default input processing tendency

Recently, a new line of research tapping into learners’ default input processing

tendencies has surfaced. This line of research is not exactly based on the input

processing model, but still constitutes an attempt to examine learners’ natur-

ally driven input processing preferences. These studies have typically targeted

learners with no knowledge of the L2, with no predetermined target forms,

thereby allowing learners the freedom to focus on any input item(s) as they

pleased (Han and Peverly 2007; Park 2007, 2011; Park and Han 2007). Han

and Peverly (2007), for example, recruited participants (N = 12) with no know-

ledge of the L2 (Norwegian) and examined the content of their input process-

ing. They asked the participants to ‘read’ a Norwegian text, and complete a

recall task (i.e. a comprehension task), a fill-in-the-blank task (i.e. an intake

task), and a postexperiment questionnaire. Based on their results, Han and

Peverly (2007) argued that VanPatten’s (2002, 2004) Primacy of Meaning

Principle may not be the ‘default’ input processing strategy for all learners in

that genuine beginners are more likely to employ a form-based, rather than a

meaning-based approach, to processing the input. In addition, they proposed

the following two hypotheses:

Assuming that there is no contextual support,

1 Learners who have developed intermediary grammars will adopt a

meaning-based approach to processing input.

2 Beginning learners will adopt a form-based approach to processing input.

(p. 34)

Their study is noteworthy in that it examined the default input processing

approach of learners in their zero knowledge state. Following Han and Peverly,

the current study also targeted novice learners with no prior exposure to the

L2. However, unlike Han and Peverly who included learners with multiple

E. S. PARK 79

at Main L

ibrary of Gazi U

niversity on Novem


Dow

nloaded from


L1’s, the current study controlled for the learners’ L1 by recruiting learners

from two specific L1 backgrounds. In addition, learners’ L2 knowledge was

carefully controlled in order to examine the noticing differences mediated by

their existing L2 knowledge (or lack thereof). Controlling for learners’ L1 and

the extent of their L2 knowledge was deemed to be important since these two

learner-internal factors [as opposed to learner-external factors (see Schmidt

2001)] have been known to affect learners’ internally generated noticing of L2

input, as briefly discussed below.

Two learner-internal factors

All adult learners start their L2 learning with the existing knowledge of their

L1, and their L1 knowledge and experience have long been hypothesized to

affect various stages of SLA. Researchers working under various paradigms

have discussed L1 as a major factor in influencing learners’ processing of L2

input, arguing that human processing mechanisms can change as a result of

their L1 acquisition (e.g. Carroll 1999; Doughty 2003; MacWhinney 2006);

their L1 linguistic and/or experiential knowledge (e.g. Sorace 1993;

Kellerman 1995; Slobin 1996; Cadierno and Lund 2004); and their L1 literacy

experience (Gass and Selinker 2001), among others. Given the role of L1 in L2

processing, the present study isolated its potential effect by recruiting partici-

pants from two L1 backgrounds: L1 speakers of Japanese and L1 speakers of

English. The two L1s were chosen based on the typological distance relative to

the L2, Korean: Japanese, a verb-final language, is deemed to be typologically

close to Korean, whereas English, an SVO language, is deemed to be typolo-

gically distant from Korean (see Park 2011, for similarities and differences

between the three languages including the writing system).

Along with the learner’s L1, there is another learner-internal factor that

has been hypothesized to shape his/her noticing of L2 input—i.e. his/her

current knowledge of the L2. According to White (1987: 97), the learner’s

current grammar serves as a ‘filter’ on the input in that ‘the learner rejects

input which cannot be interpreted in terms of his or her current know-

ledge, or modifies it so that it can be dealt with.’ This view is shared by

other researchers (e.g. Lightbown 2000; VanPatten et al. 2004; Ellis 2005;

Han and Peverly 2007), who have also argued that learners’ existing L2 can

influence what in the input is filtered and processed. Similarly, Lightbown

(2000: 451) pointed out that learners may filter the L2 input ‘because of

characteristics of their L1 or their current interlanguage,’ suggesting that

both the learners’ L1 and their L2 are operative in L2 processing. In view

of these insights, the present study controlled for the amount of learners’ L2

knowledge by creating the following two conditions: (i) the ‘zero know-

ledge’ condition, in which learners had no knowledge of the L2; and (ii) the

‘some knowledge’ condition, in which the same learners were provided

with some L2 knowledge.


at Main L

ibrary of Gazi U

niversity on Novem


Dow

nloaded from


Research questions

The following three research questions guided the present study:

1 Under the ‘zero knowledge’ condition, what input noticing/processing

approaches5 do learners exhibit and what strategies do they employ in

processing L2 input?

2 Under the ‘some knowledge’ condition, what input noticing/processing

approaches do learners exhibit, and what strategies do they employ in

processing L2 input?

3 Do learners with different L1 backgrounds exhibit differential input

noticing behavior? If so, how is it affected by their existing L2 knowledge

(or lack thereof)?

METHODS

Participants

A total of 60 participants (30 in each group) were recruited for this study.

All were born and educated in their respective L1 environment and had no

formal exposure to the L2 (Korean) prior to the study. All had at least an

undergraduate degree and had some L2-learning experience. The Japanese

speakers had studied English as an L2 in junior high/high schools where it

was mandatorily taught; and the English speakers had studied French,

Spanish, German, or Russian as an L2. None of the participants had studied

an Asian language as an L2. Among the 60 participants, 47 were female and

13 male (mean age = 29 years).

Input text

Two separate input texts were devised for the ‘zero-knowledge’ and the ‘some--

knowledge’ conditions, based on the textbook Integrated Korean: Beginning 1

(Cho et al. 2000). The two texts were comparable in that each contained 11

sentences comprising 130 and 131 syllable blocks, respectively,6 and featured

the words and structures typically introduced in the first four weeks of an intro-

ductory Korean class. Two native speakers of Korean verified the naturalness of

the two texts, and a Korean language instructor who had used the textbook for

several years helped to verify the comparability of the two texts in terms of the

type of vocabulary and the level of grammar. The texts were not enhanced in any

way (Supplementary Appendices A and B).

Tasks

Given that the aim of the present study was to examine learners’ naturally

driven input noticing behavior, it was deemed important to allow the

participants as much freedom as possible. Data obtained from two tasks were

E. S. PARK 81

at Main L

ibrary of Gazi U

niversity on Novem


Dow

nloaded from

http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/ams016/DC1



analyzed in this study.7 The first was a relatively novel task in which learners

were given an input text, and each learner was provided with an opportunity

to ask any questions concerning the text that he/she had just ‘read’ by writing

the questions on a piece of paper [learner-generated questions (LGQs) here-

after]. The use of this task was motivated by Williams’ (2001) study which

examined learners’ spontaneous attention to form by periodically recording

their classroom interactions. Williams observed that learners were likely to

pose questions to the teacher when they wanted to know about a form or a

word, and noted that ‘if such questions are an indication of learner noticing, it

may be useful to pay special attention to what learners want to know’ (pp.

326–7). Guided by this insight, the LGQ task was incorporated based on the

assumption that if a learner asked a question about a particular feature, it

would indicate that he/she had noticed it and was attempting to process it

in some way.8 The second task was a postexposure questionnaire in which

the participants had to respond to two questions pertaining to their input

processing strategy.9 The questions were given immediately after the reading,

and the participants were simply asked what helped them to ‘read’ the text,

and what strategies they used in reading the text.

Procedure

Each participant met individually with the researcher.10 After filling out a back-

ground questionnaire, the participant was provided with a one-page text, and

performed the aforementioned tasks under the two conditions: the ‘zero know-

ledge’ or [�L2] condition, and the ‘some knowledge’ or [+L2] condition.

As shown in Figure 1, the tasks performed under each condition were exactly

the same except for the fact that two different texts were used for each condi-

tion, and that the participants were exposed to Input Text 1 under the [�L2]

condition, whereas under the [+L2] condition, they were exposed to Input Text

2 after they were taught six words from Input Text 2 (Table 1).11

The preteaching was a way to provide the participants with some (albeit

minimal) knowledge of the L2. During the preteaching, each participant

was provided with a handout which contained a direct translation of the

six pretaught items into either Japanese or English. For the last two items

(the topic marker, and the prepositional suffix), a sample sentence was also

provided to illustrate how each item could be used in a sentence. The

preteaching took approximately seven minutes.12

Condition Japanese Group English Group Exposure to Text 1 under the [–L2] condition

Learner-Generated Qs. (10 min.)Postexposure Qs. (10 min.)


Pre-teaching of six linguistic items from Input Text 2

Exposure to Text 2 under the [+L2] condition



Figure 1: Data collection procedure


at Main L

ibrary of Gazi U

niversity on Novem


Dow

nloaded from


Data analysis

To capture the learner’s spontaneous, naturally driven noticing, an attempt

was made to let the data guide the analysis without any predetermined cate-

gories. For the first task (LGQs), the analysis began with a careful review of the

questions, which allowed for different categories to emerge based on the con-

tent of each question. For instance, the question ‘Does Korean have gender?’ led

to the creation of the ‘Gender’ category. Each question was assigned to per-

tinent categories, modifying and allowing for additional categories to emerge

in an iterative manner. The questions falling into a specific category were then

added up to produce a frequency sum for each category, for each L1 group. The

LGQs were coded by the researcher five times, which were then coded by a

second rater (agreement rate = 92 per cent).

For the second task (postexposure questions), the participants’ responses

were examined in a similar manner to create a set of categories that best re-

flected their responses. For example, the learner response ‘I looked for any pat-

terns’ led to the creation of ‘Looking for patterns’ category. One point was

given for each response that fell into the corresponding category, which

were summed and converted into percentages. The responses were coded by

the researcher five times, which were then coded by a second rater (agreement

rate = 96 per cent).

RESULTS

The results are presented in the order of the tasks for each condition, mirroring

the research questions.

Results for the ‘zero knowledge’ condition

LGQs

The number of questions generated ranged from three to eight questions per

participant, averaging 5.5 questions per person. A total of 135 questions

Table 1: Pretaught items for the [+L2] condition

Linguistic item (romanization) Meaning/function

(tongsayng) ‘younger sibling’

(ilum) ‘name’

(ita) the copula ‘to be’

(cenkonghata) ‘to major’

(un/nun) subject/topic marker

(eyse) prepositional suffix (‘on, in’)

E. S. PARK 83

at Main L

ibrary of Gazi U

niversity on Novem


Dow

nloaded from


(mean = 4.50; SD = 1.61) were generated by the Japanese group (JG), and 197

questions (mean = 6.57; SD = 1.57) by the English group (EG), which

amounted to 45.9 per cent more than the JG. In terms of the ‘content’ of

LGQs, the emerged categories were quite diverse since this constituted an

open-ended task that allowed the participants to ask any number of questions

about any aspect of the L2.

As seen in Table 2, a substantial number of questions were directed at the

orthography and format of the text, which may be explained by the partici-

pants’ general knowledge of language or conventional writing practices that

they were familiar with. The EG participants were more likely to ask such

questions as they made more frequent references to the title, punctuation

marks, the format of the text, and the direction of reading.

There were also certain categories that generated questions exclusively from

one group. For example, only the JG asked whether Korean used different

types of writing systems such as Kanji, Hiragana, and Katakana, all of which are

used in the Japanese writing system, and whether polite forms were used in

the text. On the other hand, only the EG asked whether any capitalization was

used, and whether gender was marked in Korean—an insight that was likely

drawn from their L1 (or L2).13

Postexposure questionnaire

This section addresses the results obtained from the postexposure question-

naire. The first question addressed the clues that the participants might have

used in ‘reading’ the text (Q1: What helped you in ‘reading’ the text?).

As seen in Table 3, both groups reported similar clues. They both approached

the ‘reading’ task by looking mainly for recurring patterns and repetitions, and

by making use of familiar textual features such as punctuation marks and the

title. Of note is the fact that although both groups made use of their conven-

tional knowledge of written language, it was the EG that actually reported that

‘Conventions of written language’ (33 per cent) helped them to ‘read’ the text.

The EG was also more likely to rely on textual cues such as punctuation marks

and the title, suggesting that they made active use of the L1-literacy experience

for any clues in interacting with the input.

The second question explicitly asked each participant to report on any

strategies that he/she used (Q2: What strategies did you use in ‘reading’ the

text?). As seen in Table 4, 50 per cent of the participants from both groups

reported that they looked for repeated characters and words. They also looked

for patterns, and drew on their L1 knowledge. Note, however, that although

four out of the eight strategies were reported equally by both groups, only the

EG reported the use of four additional strategies (‘Looking for punctuation’,

‘Focusing on the overall format’, ‘Comparing one sentence with the next’, and

‘Looking for the title’), which seemed to be geared toward obtaining a general

feel for the overall structure of the text.


at Main L

ibrary of Gazi U

niversity on Novem


Dow

nloaded from


Table 2: LGQs under the [�L2] condition

Question about . . . Japaneseraw(per cent)

Englishraw(per cent)

Samplequestion

1. Text content 12 (40) 13 (43) What is the text about? (JG)

2. , the verb-ending 11 (37) 12 (40) Why does each sentence end with thecharacter ? (EG)

3. What each ‘character’represents

7 (23) 14 (47) Does one character represent a word ora thought or idea or something else?(EG)

4. Character formation 8 (27) 14 (47) How are the characters created—i.e.parts put together? (EG)

5. Alphabet 11 (37) 10 (33) How many letters are there in theKorean language? (EG)

6. Random grammar 9 (30) 9 (30) What words do you need to have a sen-tence—parts of speech (SVO)? (EG)

7. Punctuation 5 (17) 10 (33) Are periods and commas the only punc-tuation used? (EG)

8. Title 4 (13) 9 (30) What is the title of this writing? (EG)

9. Use of spaces 5 (17) 8 (27) Do the spaces between the groups ofcharacters indicate a pause? (EG)

10. Meaning of a certainword

5 (17) 7 (23) What does mean? It repeatsthroughout the sample. (JG)

11. Type of text 3 (10) 10 (33) Is this a story, song, essay? (EG)

12. Word boundary 3 (10) 7 (23) What does each segment mean? (JG)

13. Pronunciation 4 (13) 6 (20) If one can add on to the characters,how does that affect pronunciation?(EG)

14. (empty consonant) 4 (13) 6 (20) Do the circular marks ( ) indicatevowels? (EG)

15. Direction of reading 2 (7) 13 (43) In which direction is the languageread? (EG)

16. Suffixes, particles 3 (10) 2 (7) Does it have a connecting word likeJapanese wa, ga, wo, ni? (JG)

17. Consonant/vowel 1 (3) 5 (17) How many vowels are there in Korean?(EG)

18. Polite forms 2 (7) 0 (0) Does Korean use polite forms likeJapanese? (JG)

19. Use of Kanji, Hiragana,Katakana

12 (40) 0 (0) Japanese consists of the combinationsof Kanji and Hiragana. What aboutKorean? (JG)

20. Capitalization 0 (0) 5 (17) Are there capital and lower case letters?(EG)

21. Gender 0 (0) 2 (7) Does Korean have feminine and mascu-line forms? (EG)

Note. Enclosed in the parentheses is the L1 group from which the sample question was

generated.

E. S. PARK 85

at Main L

ibrary of Gazi U

niversity on Novem


Dow

nloaded from


Results for the ‘some knowledge’ condition

The second research question addressed the learners’ noticing behavior after

they had been equipped with some L2 knowledge.

LGQs

A total of 304 questions were generated by the two groups, with a median of

five questions for each group. The JG generated a total of 145 questions

(mean = 4.83; SD = 1.62), and the EG, 159 questions (mean = 5.3; SD = 1.49).

Following the same procedures for the [�L2] condition, the LGQs were coded

into 16 categories (Table 5).

As seen in Table 5, the ‘content’ of the questions generated by the two

groups was quite different under the [+L2] condition: the EG asked more

questions about the grammar of the L2, including the word order,

Table 3: Helpful clues used under the [�L2] condition (Q1)

Q1: What helped youin ‘reading’ the text?

Japaneseraw(per cent)


Sample response

1. Punctuation 6 (20) 15 (50) I did not think I read it. Commasand periods helped because thatgave me a feel for a sentence.(EG)

2. Same character/word 13 (43) 14 (47) I tried to find the same character.(JG)

Looking for repeated words, pat-terns. It’s like deciphering acode. (EG)

3. Pattern/structure 7 (23) 10 (33) Some specific patterns shown re-peatedly. (JG)

4. L1 3 (10) 2 (7) Comparing the structure toEnglish. (EG)

5. The title 1 (3) 3 (10) I couldn’t read it—the title, Iguess. (JG)

6. Spaces 2 (7) 0 (0) There were many spaces so Ithought the spaces were separ-ating the words. (JG)

7. Conventions ofwritten language

0 (0) 10 (33) As far as I know, I didn’t read it. Idid, however, make guessesbased upon rules of written lan-guage, e.g. spatial layout, div-iders of characters and blocksof text. (EG)


at Main L

ibrary of Gazi U

niversity on Novem


Dow

nloaded from


tense, topic marker, and the verb position,’ whereas the JG was more likely to

ask questions pertaining to the meaning of specific words (e.g. What does

mean?).

Postexposure questions

Table 6 summarizes the results from Q1 that asked the learners to report on the

clues that helped them to ‘read’ the text. A cursory look at Table 6 shows that

at least two-thirds of the participants from both groups actively looked for the

pretaught items. However, the remaining categories emerging from the two

groups were quite different, with relatively small percentages of participants

reporting those strategies. Such differences are more clearly illustrated in

Table 7, which summarizes the most frequently used strategies for each group.

As seen in Table 7, the JG reported that they looked mainly for repeated

characters and words and used their L1 knowledge. On the other hand, the EG

reported that they looked for similar patterns, noted the position or placement

of words within a sentence, and tried to identify the subject and the verb of a

sentence.

Table 4: Strategies used under the [�L2] condition (Q2)

Q2: What strategies didyou use in ‘reading’ the text?



Sample response

1. Looking for repeatedcharacters/words

15 (50) 15 (50) Finding words that are simi-lar or same. (JG)

2. Looking for patterns 6 (20) 9 (30) I looked for any patterns.(EG)

3. Using L1 knowledge 2 (7) 3 (10) I looked for similarities toEnglish. (EG)

4. Focusing on combinationsof characters

1 (3) 3 (10) Look for patterns of charac-ters that happen together.(JG)

5. Looking for punctuation 0 (0) 8 (27) Looking at the placement ofpunctuation. (EG)

6. Looking at the layout/format 0 (0) 5 (17) I looked for overall view (sawwhat could be the title &sentences). (EG)

7. Comparing sentences 0 (0) 3 (10) Look for similar sections; tryto compare one sentencewith the next. (EG)

8. Looking for charactersfrom title

0 (0) 2 (7) Looking for characters fromthe title. (EG)

E. S. PARK 87

at Main L

ibrary of Gazi U

niversity on Novem


Dow

nloaded from


Finally, the results from Q2 are presented in Table 8. Consistent with the

results for Q1, both groups reported that their most frequently used strategy

was to look for the words they knew. Aside from the ‘Looking for taught

words’ strategy, there were five common strategies that both groups used fre-

quently (Table 9).

Table 5: LGQs under the [+L2] condition

Question about . . . Japaneseraw(per cent)


Sample question

1. Text content 16 (53) 12 (40) Does the passage talk about wherethe sibling is a student? (EG)

2. Meaning of a word 17 (57) 10 (33) — is this a person’s name?(JG)

3. Word order 7 (23) 16 (53) What is the word order in a typicalKorean sentence? (EG)

4. Other suffixes 9 (30) 10 (33) If you have characters that canidentify the subject, do you alsohave characters that can identifythe object? (JG)

5. Meaning of 11 (37) 4 (13) Does mean My? (JG)

6. Tense 3 (10) 11 (37) How do you distinguish presenttense from past tense? (EG)

7. Topic marker 2 (7) 7 (23) Why does the subject get markedby a symbol and not wordorder? (EG)

8. Verb position 2 (7) 6 (20) Does a verb always end a sen-tence? (EG)

9. Gender 1 (3) 6 (20) How is gender represented throughKorean language? (EG)

10. Subject 4 (13) 5 (17) How many subjects can appear inthe same sentence? (EG)

11. Postpositional ‘in’ 3 (10) 3 (10) Does the preposition always comeafter the noun? (JG)

12. Use of pronouns 1 (3) 2 (7) Are pronouns such as ‘he,’ ‘she’and ‘it’ expressly written or arethey part of the verb form? (EG)

13. Respectful form 3 (10) 0 (0) Which part of the writing is the re-spectful form? (JG)

14. Word groupings 0 (0) 3 (10) How do you know to break upwords/space between? (EG)

15. Use of articles 0 (0) 2 (7) Are there articles written in Koreanor are they simply implied? (EG)

16. Use of possessives 0 (0) 2 (7) How do you denote possession?(EG)


at Main L

ibrary of Gazi U

niversity on Novem


Dow

nloaded from


As seen in Table 9, the three most frequently used strategies for the JG were

generally meaning-based in that these participants relied on what they knew:

‘Looking for taught items’, ‘Relating to L1’, and ‘Guessing.’ On the other hand,

the EG made active use of strategies such as ‘Figuring out patterns’ and

Table 6: Helpful clues used under the [+L2] condition (Q2)

Q1: What helped youin ‘reading’ the text?



Sample response

1. Taught words 20 (67) 22 (73) The words that were taughthelped me a lot. (JG)

2. Repeated char/words 7 (23) 3 (10) Repetitions of words and end-ings. (EG)

3. Similar patterns 2 (7) 6 (20) Patterns of similar or identifiablecharacters. (JG)

4. Position in thesentence/text

1 (3) 5 (17) Understanding verb placementand subject placement. (EG)

5. Placement of subject 3 (10) 4 (13) Identifying the placement ofsubject. (EG)

6. Placement of verb 2 (7) 4 (13) Knowing how to detect verbs.(EG)

7. Punctuation 2 (7) 2 (7) Punctuation and the few wordsthat I learned. (EG)

8. L1 knowledge 5 (17) 0 (0) I thought the last characters ofeach sentences were charac-ters like ‘desu’ or ‘masu’. (JG)

9. Grammaticalcomponentsof a sentence

0 (0) 3 (10) Finding the different grammat-ical parts of the sentencehelped me to feel like I was be-ginning to decode the sentenceand gain meanings. (EG)

Table 7: Frequently used clues under the [+L2] condition (Q1)

Japanese group English group

1. Taught words (67 per cent) 1. Taught words (77 per cent)

2. Repeated characters/words(23 per cent)

2. Similar patterns (20 per cent)

3. L1 knowledge (17 per cent) 3. Position in the sentence/text (17 per cent)

4. Placement of subject(10 per cent)

4. Placement of subject (13 per cent)

Placement of verb (13 per cent)

E. S. PARK 89

at Main L

ibrary of Gazi U

niversity on Novem


Dow

nloaded from


‘Looking for repetitions.’ They also tried to identify different parts of speech

and noted the placement of words.

Interaction between learners’ L1 and their L2 knowledge

The third research question addressed the interaction of learners’ L1 and their

existing L2 knowledge on their noticing behavior which necessitated a com-

parison of the results for the two conditions. It may be recalled that the EG

generated more LGQs under both conditions. However, a closer examination

of the LGQs revealed that the EG actually asked 19.3 per cent fewer questions

under the [+L2] condition than under the [�L2] condition, whereas the JG

asked 10.7 per cent more questions under the [+L2] condition, suggesting that

Table 8: Strategies used under the [+L2] condition (Q2)

Q2: What strategies didyou use in ’reading’the text?



Sample response

1. Looking for taughtwords

16 (53) 15 (50) I tried to find, throughout thetext, the example words whichwere taught to me. (EG)

2. Figuring out patterns 3 (10) 11 (37) I tried to figure out patterns re-peatedly used in the sentences.(JG)

3. Looking for samecharacters/ words

4 (13) 8 (27) Looking for reappearing vocabu-lary . . . (EG)

4. Guessing 5 (17) 2 (7) I guessed from the title, grammar,words. (JG)

5. Translating 2 (7) 2 (7) Matching the appearance ofwords, and translating intoEnglish. (EG)

6. Identifying thetopic/subject

1 (3) 2 (7) Identifying the subject of eachsentence. (EG)

I tried to read the text with thehelp of – (JG)

7. Relating to L1 6 (20) 0 (0) I related often into Japanese (e.g.–masu; –mashita). I read thetext as if I was readingJapanese. (JG)

8. Identifying partsof speech

0 (0) 6 (20) I think it was some sort of iden-tifying parts of speech and thenidentifying words. (EG)

9. Noting the placementof words

0 (0) 4 (13) Trying to use the placement ofwords within the sentence topuzzle out the meaning. (EG)


at Main L

ibrary of Gazi U

niversity on Novem


Dow

nloaded from


the JG became more active in interacting with the L2 input under this

condition.

In addition to the quantitative differences in the number of LGQs, some

qualitative differences also emerged with regard to the ‘content’ of LGQs, es-

pecially under the [+L2] condition, in which many LGQs from the EG ad-

dressed the formal features of the L2, compared with the JG whence a

substantial number of questions were directed at the meaning of certain lexical

items as well as the content of the text. This prompted a reexamination of the

LGQs in which the questions were arranged into the following four categories:

Form-oriented, Meaning-oriented, Orthography/Format-related, and ‘Other’

questions (see Supplementary Appendix C, for sample questions in each cat-

egory). For reliable coding of questions, a rubric was created by the researcher

who coded the data three times, which were then coded by a second rater

based on the rubric (agreement rate = 92 per cent). Figure 2 summarizes the

distribution of question types for the two conditions.14

Figure 2 shows that under the [�L2] condition, the two groups exhibited

much similarity in terms of the types of questions they asked: more than 50 per

cent of the LQGs generated by both groups fell into the Orthography/Format

category, followed by Form-oriented questions, and then by Meaning-oriented

questions. However, a striking difference was found in the number of form

versus meaning-oriented questions generated by the two groups under the

[+L2] condition: the EG asked more form-oriented questions (54 per cent)

whereas the JG asked more meaning-oriented questions (48 per cent), sug-

gesting that the EG was more likely to ask questions about the form, or the

formal features of the L2 than the JG, who focused on the content or meaning

under the [+L2] condition. A series of Chi-square analyses revealed signifi-

cant differences for both meaning-oriented (�2 = 16.547, p< .001) and

form-oriented questions (�2 = 10.961; p< .001) under the [+L2] condition,

but not for the [�L2] condition. This lack of significance under the [�L2]

condition indicates that when devoid of L2 knowledge, the two groups adopted

a similar noticing approach, that is, a form-oriented approach to the processing

Table 9: Frequently used strategies under the [+L2] condition (Q2)

Japanese group English group

1. Looking for taught words(53 per cent)

1. Looking for taught words (50 per cent)

2. Relating to L1 (20 per cent) 2. Figuring out patterns (37 per cent)

3. Guessing (17 per cent) 3. Looking for repeating char/words (27 per cent)

4. Looking for repeatedchar/words (13 per cent)

4. Identifying parts of speech (20 per cent)

5. Figuring out patterns(10 per cent)

5. Noting the placement of words (13 per cent)

E. S. PARK 91

at Main L

ibrary of Gazi U

niversity on Novem


Dow

nloaded from



of L2 input. However, upon gaining some L2 knowledge, the two groups

adopted different L2 processing approaches: the JG switched to a more

meaning-oriented approach, whereas the EG continued to employ a

form-oriented approach to processing the L2 input.

DISCUSSION

The current results indicate that the two groups exhibited similar noticing

behavior under the [�L2] condition, but not under the [+L2] condition.

Under the [�L2] condition, sans L2 knowledge, both groups had no choice

but to adopt what may be considered a form-oriented approach to the process-

ing of L2 input (Han and Peverly 2007). As illustrated by the LGQs obtained

under the [�L2] condition, both groups asked more questions pertaining to the

formal properties of the L2, inquiring about perceptually salient input items

such as the verb-ending (‘Does the verb always come at the end?’), and the mean-

ing of some frequently occurring lexical items (‘What does X mean? It repeats

throughout the sample’). Their sensitivity to frequently occurring items and

recurring patterns may be corroborated by the strategies that they employed

in ‘reading’ the text in that the most frequently reported strategies for both

groups were ‘Looking for repeated characters/words’ and ‘Looking for pat-

terns,’ suggesting that these participants were actively searching for any reg-

ularities in the input (Ellis 2002). Thus, it seems that learners, in their ab initio

state, devoid of any means to retrieive meaning from the input, treated ‘read-

ing’ as a code-breaking task as much as a language task, and the clues that

they relied on (e.g. word position, recurring pattern, and word frequency)

Figure 2: Distribution of question types across the two conditions


at Main L

ibrary of Gazi U

niversity on Novem


Dow

nloaded from


seemed to have been grounded on their general perception, aided by their

general psycholinguistic strategies.

Equipped with some L2 knowledge, the participants exhibited starkly differ-

ent noticing patterns, with the EG asking even more questions about the

formal features of the L2, and the JG switching to asking more

meaning-oriented questions. Interestingly, many LGQs from the EG targeted

the L2 word order, which they were very intent on deciphering (e.g. ‘I am not

sure about the word order. What is the word order in a typical Korean sentence?’).

They also made frequent inquiries regarding the use of suffixes (‘Are there other

endings than for the subject to indicate how nouns are used?’), the tense (‘How do you

distinguish present tense from past tense?’), and the verb position (‘Is the verb always

the last part of each sentence?’).

In terms of learners’ input noticing/processing strategies, it is perhaps not

surprising that the most frequently used strategy by both groups was to look

for the words they knew. This was followed by more meaning-based strategies

(‘Looking for taught items,’ ‘Relating to L1,‘ and ‘Guessing’) for the JG, com-

pared with the EG who frequently employed strategies such as ‘Figuring out

patterns’ and ‘Looking for repetitions’. The EG also attempted to identify dif-

ferent parts of sentences and noted the placement of words, which seemed to

be geared toward figuring out the L2 grammar by identifying the constituents

of a sentence. In this regard, it appears that the strategies employed by the EG

seem to have been largely concerned with ‘breaking the code’ or analyzing the

L2 grammar, whereas the JG strategies emphasized a more top-down ap-

proach, geared mainly toward ‘decoding the language’ (Cook 1997).

Two potential explanations may be sought in accounting for the different

strategies used by each group. The first concerns the L1 and L2 distance. After

gaining some L2 knowledge, the EG might have realized that the L2 grammar

was substantially different from their L1, and the perceived L1 and L2 distance

might have induced them to draw on all means possible to process the un-

familiar input. Their remarks such as ‘The word order is unusual and hard to

decipher’ are indicative of their frustration and their resulting preoccupation

with puzzling out the L2 grammar. In addition, this may also partially explain

why the EG employed a wider range of strategies (four additional strategies;

see Table 4) than the JG in that the L1 and L2 distance might have induced

them to actively draw on any possible clues available to them. On the other

hand, the JG, upon discerning some similarities in the L1 and L2 structures,

may have resorted to more comprehension-based strategies in processing the

L2 input.

An alternative explanation for the EG’s propensity to employ

‘code-breaking’ strategies may also be found in the characteristics of their

L1, which is a syntactically oriented language, and one of the most rigid

word order languages (Bates and MacWhinney 1981). It is possible that the

EG might have transferred their L1-based processing strategy, which is more

syntactically oriented, to process the L2. By contrast, Japanese is considered a

pragmatics-based language (Sasaki 1991), and as such, the JG might have been

E. S. PARK 93

at Main L

ibrary of Gazi U

niversity on Novem


Dow

nloaded from


more prone to employ comprehension-based strategies typically used in

Japanese. Hence, the two L1 groups might have ‘transferred’ their L1-based

processing strategies to processing the L2.

The result indicating that learners in their ‘zero knowledge’ state adopted a

form-oriented approach to the processing of L2 input is consistent with Han

and Peverly’s (2007) findings and provides support for their second hypothesis,

which postulated a form-based input processing approach for novice

learners.15 In addition, the current results further indicate that the

form-oriented approach may change as a result of learners’ increasing L2 know-

ledge, as evidenced by the switch that the JG made from a form-oriented to a

meaning-oriented approach under the [+L2] condition.

The differential processing orientation exhibited by the two groups suggests

an interaction between the learners’ emerging L2 and the typological distance

between their L1 and L2 in that (i) form-oriented processing is likely to switch

to meaning-oriented processing as learners gain more knowledge of the L2;

and (ii) such a shift may take place earlier if the L1 is typologically close to the

L2 (as in the case of the JG). The current results therefore suggest that meaning

primacy in L2 input processing may not be automatic for all learners, at least

not for zero beginners. Instead, the initial input noticing tendency of complete

novice learners appears to be form oriented, and their subsequent input pro-

cessing approach seems to be mediated by at least three factors: the learner’s

L1, his or her existing knowledge of the L2, and the L1 and L2 distance.

LIMITATIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH

This section discusses some of the limitations which need to be addressed in

further research. First, the participants for this study should ideally consist of

monolingual speakers. Although care was taken to recruit native speakers of

Japanese or English who were born and raised in their respective L1 environ-

ment, it was very difficult to recruit monolingual speakers of each language:

The Japanese-speaking participants had studied English as a mandatory subject

in secondary schools, and the English-speaking participants also studied an L2

in secondary school and/or in college. Thus, it is likely that their prior L2

learning experience could have affected the results by introducing confound-

ing variables. Another concern regarding the participants pertains to their

metalinguistic knowledge. It is possible that some learners may have had

higher level of metalinguistic ability, inducing them to be more sensitive to

the syntactic patterns of the L2. As one of the reviewers pointed out, it would

have been desirable to incorporate an additional measure to assess the

learner’s metalinguistic ability, thereby isolating it as an independent variable.

There were also some task-related limitations. Recall that learner responses

to postexposure questions were used to probe their input noticing strategies;

however, these strategies were self-reported by the learners, making it difficult

to determine the reliability of the reported strategies. Future research should

attempt to triangulate data from multiple sources in order to supplement the


at Main L

ibrary of Gazi U

niversity on Novem


Dow

nloaded from


self-reported data, one of which should ideally include concurrent think-aloud

protocols.16 Finally, a comment needs to be made with regard to the

preteaching of six words which was an effort to provide the participants

with some L2 knowledge in order to examine how their noticing patterns

would change from a zero-knowledge to a some-knowledge condition. This was

a rather artificial method of controlling for learners’ L2 knowledge, and the

preteaching phase undoubtedly primed the participants to notice those words.

Future studies should strive for a more ecological way of controlling for lear-

ners’ L2 knowledge.

The above limitations notwithstanding, this study provides a direct examin-

ation of novice learners’ self-generated noticing behavior, providing some

valuable insight into their input noticing patterns and how these may

change as their knowledge of the L2 accumulates. Note, however, that the

current investigation is an exploratory study with preliminary findings, and

further studies are needed to gain a better understanding of learners’ natural

tendency to process L2 input, and how various factors (e.g. their L1 and their

current L2 knowledge) facilitate or hinder the process. A deeper understanding

of learners’ internally generated noticing process should have important im-

plications for both researchers and practitioners in their efforts to increase the

likelihood of ‘matching’ the instructional intervention (i.e. externally created

salience) with the learners’ internal, naturally derived salience.

SUPPLEMENTARY DATA

Supplementary material is available at Applied Linguistics online.

FUNDING

The writing of this article was supported by the Sogang University Research

Grant of 2010 (#201010047). Portions of the article were presented at Second

Language Research Forum held at the University of Hawaii in Manoa on

October 20, 2008; and at Georgetown University Round Table on Language

and Linguistics on March 13, 2009. Preliminary results from one of the tasks

have been reported in a book chapter (Park & Han 2007).

NOTES

1 A series of studies pertinent to this

line of research were presented at

an invited panel on ‘Learner

Spontaneous Attention on L2 Input

Processing’ at Georgetown

University Round Table on

Language and Linguistics on March

13, 2009.

2 TE techniques are also known as

visual input enhancement or simply

as input enhancement.

3 In the L2 literature ‘form’ generally

refers to some grammatical or linguis-

tic form, and ‘meaning’ as the infor-

mational content of the input (Leow

et al. 2008).

E. S. PARK 95

at Main L

ibrary of Gazi U

niversity on Novem


Dow

nloaded from



4 It is beyond the scope of this article to

review all of the recent studies on

Input Processing, and I have select-

ively chosen studies that specifically

address learners’ simultaneous atten-

tion to form and meaning.

5 In this article, noticing refers to ‘any

conscious registration of a form, but

not necessarily with any meaning at-

tached to it’ (VanPatten 2004: 6).

Processing is about making form-

meaning/function connections, and

implies that noticing has occurred,

but not necessarily vice versa

(VanPatten 2004).

6 In the Korean written system (Hangul),

the grapheme or ‘letter’, which repre-

sents a single consonant or vowel,

never appears individually, but is

packed into syllable blocks. Thus, it is

more conventional to count the

number of syllables, instead of words.

7 There were four tasks in the original

study (Park 2007).

8 Note that the absence of an LGQ on a

particular aspect of input does not ne-

cessarily indicate a lack of noticing.

9 There were four questions in the ori-

ginal study (Park 2007). The results

from two questions have been pub-

lished in another study (Park 2011).

10 A Japanese-speaking assistant was

present for each Japanese participant.

11 These six items were chosen because

they reflect the routine words and

grammar taught in the first four

weeks of an introductory Korean class

and typically appear in the first two

chapters of an introductory Korean

textbook used in US colleges. In fact,

at least three of these items (the topic

marker, the copula, and ‘name’) are

typically taught in the first or second

lesson in an introductory Korean class.

12 Each participant was taught the

words, but no measures were taken

to ensure that he/she had actually

‘learned’ those words.

13 The student who asked about gender

marking in Korean had learned

French as an L2.

14 This figure has been reproduced from

Park and Han (2007: 127).

15 Note that technically speaking, it

would be more accurate to use the

term ‘noticing’ rather than ‘process-

ing’ in this context as the learners in

their zero knowledge condition did

not make form-meaning connections

(VanPatten 2011).

16 It should be noted that the original

study provided the participants

with an opportunity to think aloud

their thoughts if it came naturally

to them (i.e. learner-generated

think-aloud). The think-aloud results,

however, are not reported in the pre-

sent study.

REFERENCES

Alanen, R. 1995. ‘Input enhancement and rule

presentation in SLA’ in R. Schmidt (ed.):

Attention and Awareness in Foreign Language

Learning. University of Hawaii Press,

pp. 259–302.

Baddeley, A. 2001. ‘Is working memory still

working?,’ American Psychologist 56: 849–64.

Bates, E. and B. MacWhinney. 1981. ‘SLA from

a functionalist perspective: pragmatic,

semantic, and perceptual strategies’

in H. Winitz (ed.): Annals of the New York

Academy of Sciences of Conference on Native &

Foreign Language Acquisition. NY Academy of

Sciences, pp. 190–214.

Bransdorfer, R. 1991. ‘Communicative value

and linguistic knowledge in L2 oral input pro-

cessing,’ Unpublished doctoral dissertation,

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.


at Main L

ibrary of Gazi U

niversity on Novem


Dow

nloaded from


Cadierno, T. and K. Lund. 2004. ‘Cognitive lin-

guistics and SLA: Motion events in a typological

framework’ in B. VanPatten, J. Williams, and

S. Rott (eds): Form-Meaning Connections in SLA.

Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 139–54.

Carroll, S. 1999. ‘Adults’ sensitivity to dif-

ferent sorts of input,’ Language Learning 49/1:

37–92.

Carroll, S. 2004. ‘Some comments on input

processing and processing instruction’

in B. VanPatten (ed.): Processing Instruction:

Theory, Research, and Commentary. Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates, pp. 293–309.

Cho, Y., H. Lee, C. Schulz, H. Sohn, and

S. Sohn. 2000. Integrated Korean: Beginning 1.

University of Hawaii Press.

Cook, V. 1997. Second Language Learning and

Language Teaching. Arnold.

Corder, S. 1967. ‘The significance of learners’

errors,’ International Review of Applied

Linguistics 5: 161–70.

Corder, S. 1981. Error Analysis and Interlanguage.

Oxford University Press.

Doughty, C. 1991. ‘L2 instruction does make a

difference: Evidence from an empirical study of

relativization,’ Studies in Second Language

Acquisition 13/4: 431–69.

Doughty, C. 2003. ‘Instructed SLA: Constraints,

compensation, and enhancement’

in C. Doughty and M. Long (eds): Handbook

of SLA. Blackwell, pp. 256–310.

Doughty, C. and J. Williams. 1998. ‘Pedagogical

choices in focus on form’ in C. Doughty and

J. Williams (eds): Focus on Form in Classroom

SLA. Cambridge University Press, pp. 197–262.

Ellis, N. 2002. ‘Frequency effects in language ac-

quisition,’ Studies in Second Language Acquisition

24/2: 143–88.

Ellis, N. 2005. ‘At the interface: Dynamic inter-

actions of explicit and implicit language know-

ledge,’ Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27:

305–52.

Gass, S. and L. Selinker. 2001. SLA: An

Introductory Course. Erlbaum Associates.

Gass, S., I. Svetics, and S. Lemelin. 2003.

‘Differential effects of attention,’ Language

Learning 53/3: 497–545.

Greenslade, T., L. Bouden, and C. Sanz. 1999.

‘Attending to form and content in processing

L2 reading texts,’ Spanish Applied Linguistics 3:

65–90.

Han, Z-H. and S. Peverly. 2007. ‘Input process-

ing: A study of ab initio learners with

multilingual backgrounds,’ The International

Journal of Multilingualism 4/1: 17–37.

Han, Z-H., E. S. Park, and C. Combs. 2008.

‘Textual enhancement of input: issues and

Possibilities,’ Applied Linguistics 29/4: 597–618.

Jourdenais, R., M. Ota, S. Stauffer,

B. Boyson, and C. Doughty. 1995. ‘Does

textual enhancement promote noticing?’

in R. Schmidt (ed.): Attention and Awareness in

Foreign Language Learning. University of Hawaii

Press, pp. 183–216.

Kellerman, E. 1995. ‘Crosslinguistic influence:

Transfer to nowhere,’ Annual Review of

Applied Linguistics 15: 125–50.

Kintsch, W. 1998. Comprehension: A Paradigm for

Cognition. Cambridge University Press.

Lee, J. and A. Benati. 2009. Research and

Perspectives on Processing Instruction. Mouton de

Gruyter.

Lee, J., T. Cadierno, W. Glass, and

B. VanPatten. 1997. ‘The effects of lexical

and grammatical cues on processing past tem-

poral reference in L2 input,’ Applied Language

Learning 8: 1–23.

Leeman, J., I. Arteagoitia, B. Fridman, and

C. Doughty. 1995. ‘Integrating attention to

form with meaning’ in R. Schmidt (ed.):

Attention and Awareness in Foreign Language

Learning. University of Hawaii Press,

pp. 217–58.

Leow, R. 1997. ‘Attention, awareness and for-

eign language behavior,’ Language Learning

47: 467–505.

Leow, R., T. Egi, A. Nuevo, and Y. Tsai. 2003.

‘The roles of textual enhancement and type of

linguistic item in adult L2 learners’ compre-

hension and intake,’ Applied Language

Learning 13/2: 1–16.

Leow, R., H. Hsieh, and N. Moreno. 2008.

‘Attention to form and meaning revisited,’

Language Learning 58: 665–95.

Lightbown, P. 2000. ‘Classroom SLA research

and L2 teaching,’ Applied Linguistics 21: 431–62.

Long, M. and P. Robinson. 1998. ‘Focus on

form: Theory, research, and practice’

in C. Doughty and J. Williams (eds): Focus on

Form in Classroom SLA. Cambridge University

Press, pp. 15–41.

MacWhinney, B. 2006. ‘Emergent fossilization’

in Z-H. Han and T. Odlin (eds): Studies of

Fossilization in SLA. Multilingual Matters,

pp. 134–56.

E. S. PARK 97

at Main L

ibrary of Gazi U

niversity on Novem


Dow

nloaded from


Mangubhai, F. 1991. ‘The processing behaviors

of adults L2 learners and their relationship to

proficiency,’ Applied Linguistics 12: 268–98.

Park, E. S. 2007. ‘Learner-generated noticing of L2

input: An exploratory study’ Unpublished doc-

toral dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia

University.

Park, E. S. 2011. ‘Learner-generated noticing of

written L2 input: What do learners notice and

why?,’ Language Learning 61: 146–86.

Park, E. S. and Z-H. Han. 2007. ‘Learner spon-

taneous attention in second language input

processing: An exploratory study’ in Z-H. Han

(ed.): Understanding Second Language Process.

Multilingual Matters, pp. 106–32.

Robinson, P. 1995. ‘Review article: Attention,

memory and the noticing hypothesis,’

Language Learning 45/2: 283–331.

Robinson, P. 2003. ‘Attention and Memory in

SLA’ in C. Doughty and M. Long (eds):

Handbook of SLA. Blackwell, pp. 631–78.

Sasaki, Y. 1991. ‘English and Japanese interlan-

guage comprehension strategies: An analysis

based on the competition model,’ Applied

Psycholinguistics 12/1: 47–73.

Schmidt, R. 1990. ‘The role of consciousness

in L2 learning,’ Applied Linguistics 11/2:

129–58.

Schmidt, R. 1993. ‘Awareness and SLA,’ Annual

Review of Applied Linguistics 13: 206–26.

Schmidt, R. 2001. ‘Attention’ in P. Robinson

(ed.): Cognition and Second Language Instruction.

Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–32.

Sharwood Smith, M. 1991. ‘Speaking to many

minds: On the relevance of different types of

language information for the L2 learner,’

Second Language Research 7/2: 118–32.

Sharwood Smith, M. 1993. ‘Input enhance-

ment in instructed SLA,’ Studies in Second

Language Acquisition 15/2: 165–79.

Sharwood Smith, M. 1999. Noticing and

the lexicon available at www.hw.ac.uk/

langWWW/mss/Swansea/sld001.htm. Accessed

27 January 2006.

Shook, D. 1999. ‘What foreign language reading

recalls reveal about the input-to-intake phe-

nomenon,’ Applied Language Learning 10:

39–76.

Slobin, D. 1996. ‘From ‘thought and language’ to

‘thinking for speaking’’ in J. Gumperz and

S. Levinson (eds): Rethinking Linguistic Relativity.

Cambridge University Press, pp. 70–96.

Sorace, A. 1993. ‘‘Incomplete vs. divergent

representations of unaccusativity in near-

native grammars of Italian’,’ Second Language

Research 9: 22–47.

Tomlin, R. and H. Villa. 1994. ‘Attention in

cognitive science and SLA,’ Studies in Second

Language Acquisition 16/2: 183–203.

VanPatten, B. 1990. ‘Attending to form and

content in the input,’ Studies in Second

Language Acquisition 12: 287–301.

VanPatten, B. 2002. ‘Processing instruction: An

update,’ Language Learning 52/4: 755–803.

VanPatten, B. 2004. ‘Input processing in SLA’

in B. VanPatten (ed.): Processing Instruction:

Theory, Research, and Commentary. Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates, pp. 5–32.

VanPatten, B. 2011. ‘Input processing’

in S. Gass and A. Mackey (eds): The Routledge

Handbook of SLA. Routledge, pp. 268–81.

VanPatten, B., J. Williams, and S. Rott. 2004.

‘Form-meaning connections in SLA’

in B. VanPatten, J. Williams, S. Rott, and

M. Overstreet (eds): Form-Meaning Connections

in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum,

pp. 1–28.

White, J. 1998. ‘Getting the learner’s attention:

A typographical input enhancement study’



Press, pp. 85–113.

White, L. 1987. ‘Against comprehensible input:

The Input Hypothesis and the development of

L2 competence,’ Applied Linguistics 8/1: 95–110.

Williams, J. 2001. ‘The effectiveness of spontan-

eous attention to form,’ System 29/3: 325–40.

Williams, J. and J. Evans. 1998. ‘What kind of

focus on form and on which forms?’



Press, pp. 139–55.

Wong, W. 2001. ‘Modality and attention to form

and meaning in the input,’ Studies in Second

Language Acquisition 23: 369–88.


at Main L

ibrary of Gazi U

niversity on Novem


Dow

nloaded from

www.hw.ac.uk/langWWW/mss/Swansea/sld001.htm

www.hw.ac.uk/langWWW/mss/Swansea/sld001.htm


learner-generated noticing behavior by novice learners: tracing the effects of learners' l1 on...

Documents