Cover not available
Part of
Research on Second Language Processing and Processing Instruction: Studies in honor of Bill VanPatten
Edited by Michael J. Leeser, Gregory D. Keating and Wynne Wong
[Studies in Bilingualism 62] 2021
► pp. 295–324

Chapter 10
Why does processing instruction work?

The role of PI within a framework of language and second language development

| Florida State University

Research on processing instruction (PI) has shown that PI is an effective instructional intervention for learners of various languages and contexts. This chapter addresses a basic question: Why does PI work? In the first section, I provide an overview of the language faculty and discuss how PI differs from other research in terms of the nature of language. The second section explores how VanPatten’s model of input processing (VanPatten, 1996, 2004, 2020) can be understood within larger frameworks that integrate language processing and acquisition. The third section discusses the characteristics of PI and the findings of PI research within the wider context of growth within the language faculty. Finally, I conclude with thoughts on future directions of PI research.

Keywords: input processing, language faculty, language processing, processing instruction, structured input
Article outline
  • “What’s in the Mind”: The nature of language and the architecture of the language faculty
    • The complexity of language
      • The parallel architecture
    • The lexicon, words, and “rules”
  • “How it gets there”: Processing considerations
    • Input processing
  • Processing instruction
    • Purpose and characteristics of PI
  • Research on processing instruction
    • VanPatten and Cadierno (1993)
    • Fernández (2008)
    • Main findings of PI research
    • Limitations and future directions of PI
  • Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 17 March 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.62.10lee
References
Benati, A. G.
(2004a) The effects of processing instruction and its components on the acquisition of gender agreement in Italian. Language Awareness, 13, 67–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2004b) The effects of structured input activities and explicit information on the acquisition of the Italian future tense. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 207–225). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
(2005) The effects of processing instruction, traditional instruction, and meaning-output instruction on the acquisition of the English past simple tense. Language Teaching Research, 9, 67–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benati, A.
(2013) 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. G. Benati (Eds.), Individual differences and processing instruction (pp. 83–103). Sheffield, UK: Equinox.Google Scholar
Benati, A. G., & Lee, J. F.
(2008) Grammar acquisition and processing instruction: Secondary and cumulative effects (pp. 54–87). Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(Eds.) (2010) Processing instruction and discourse. New York, NY: Continuum.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. W.
(2001) Lexical-functional syntax. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cadierno, T.
(1995) Formal instruction from a processing perspective: An investigation into the Spanish past tense. The Modern Language Journal, 79, 179–193. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carroll, S. E.
(2001) Input and evidence: The raw material of second language acquisition. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007) Autonomous induction theory. In B. VanPatten and J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 155–174). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Carroll, S. E., & Widjaja, E.
(2013) Learning exponents of number on first exposure to an L2. Second Language Research, 29, 201–229. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cheng, A. C.
(2002) The effects of processing instruction on the acquisition of ser and estar . Hispania, 85, 308–323. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N.
(1995) The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Collentine, J.
(2004) Commentary: Where PI research has been and where it should be going. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 169–181). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Cox, J. G.
(2017) Explicit instruction, bilingualism, and the older adult learner. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39, 29–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cox, J. G., & Sanz, C.
(2015) Deconstructing PI for the ages: Explicit instruction vs. practice in young and older adult bilinguals. IRAL, 53, 225–248. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culicover, P. W., & Jackendoff, R.
(2005) Simpler syntax. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P.
(1980) Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 450–466. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M., & Prieto Botana, G.
(2015) The effectiveness of processing instruction in L2 grammar acquisition: A narrative review. Applied Linguistics, 36, 290–305. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M., Salaberry, R., Robinson, P., & Harrington, M.
(2002) What gets processed in processing instruction? A commentary on Bill VanPatten’s “Processing instruction: An update”. Language Learning, 52, 805–823. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M., & Sokalksi, K.
(1996) The differential role of comprehension and production practice. Language Learning, 46, 613–642. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C.
(2003) Instructed SLA: Constraints, compensation, and enhancement. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 256–310). Malden, MA: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2004) When PI is focus on form it is very, very good, but when it is focus on forms…. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 257–270). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Farley, A. P.
(2001) The effects of processing instruction and meaning-based output instruction. Spanish Applied Linguistics, 5, 57–94.Google Scholar
(2004) Processing instruction and the Spanish subjunctive: Is explicit information needed? In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 227–239). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
(2005) Structured input: Grammar instruction for the acquisition-oriented classroom. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Fernández, C.
(2008) Reexamining the role of explicit information in processing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 277–305. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gilmois, L.
(2019) The effects of input flood, structured input, explicit information, and language background on beginner learners’ acquisition of a target structure in Mandarin Chinese [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, J. A.
(1979) Autosegmental phonology. New York, NY: Garland Press.Google Scholar
(1990) Autosegmental and metrical phonology. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A.
(1995) Constructions: A construction approach to argument structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Green, D. W.
(1998) Mental control of the bilingual lexico-semantic system. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1, 67–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Henry, N., Culman, H., & VanPatten, B.
(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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Henry, N., Jackson, C. N., & Dimidio, J.
(2017) The role of prosody and explicit instruction in processing instruction. The Modern Language Journal, 101, 294–314. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herculano-Houzel, S.
(2009) The human brain in numbers: A linearly scaled-up primate brain. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 3, 1–11. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R.
(1990) Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
(2002) Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007a) Language, consciousness, culture: Essays on mental structure. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007b) A parallel architecture perspective on language processing. Brain Research, 1146, 2–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011) What is the human language capacity? Two views. Language, 87, 586–624. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017) In defense of theory. Cognitive Science, 41(S2), 185–212. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keating, G., & Farley, A.
(2008) Processing instruction, meaning-based output instruction, and meaning-based drills: Impacts on classroom L2 acquisition of Spanish object pronouns. Hispania, 91, 639–650.Google Scholar
Langacker, R.
(1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lee, J. F.
(2015a) The milestones in twenty years of processing instruction research. IRAL, 53, 111–126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015b) Processing instruction on the Spanish passive with transfer-of-training effects to anaphoric and cataphoric reference contexts. IRAL, 53, 203–223. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, J. F., & Benati, A.
(2007) Second language processing: An analysis of theory, problems and possible solutions. London, UK: Continuum.Google Scholar
(Eds.) (2013) Individual differences and processing instruction. London, UK: Equinox.Google Scholar
Lee, J. F., & Doherty, S.
(2019) Native and nonnative processing of active and passive sentences: The effects of processing instruction on the allocation of visual attention. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41, 853–879. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, J. F., & McNulty, E.
(2013) The effects of language background on the results of processing instruction on the Spanish subjunctive/indicative contrast aster the adverb candy. In J. F. Lee & A. G. Benati (Eds.), Individual differences and processing instruction (pp. 49–82). Sheffield, UK: Equinox.Google Scholar
Lee, J. F., & VanPatten, B.
(1995) Making communicative language teaching happen. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
(2003) Making communicative language teaching happen (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Leeser, M., & DeMil, A.
(2013) Investigating the secondary effects of processing instruction in Spanish: From instruction on accusative clitics to transfer-of-training effects on dative clitics. Hispania, 96, 748–762. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leow, R. P.
(2015) Explicit learning in the L2 classroom: A student centered approach. New York, NY: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lightbown, P.
(2004) Commentary: What to teach? How to teach? In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 65–78). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Marsden, E., & H. Chen
(2011) The roles of structured input activities in processing instruction and the kinds of knowledge they promote. Language Learning, 61, 1058-1098. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morgan-Short, K., & Bowden, H. W.
(2006) Processing instruction and meaningful output-based instruction: Effects on second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 31–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S.
(1997) How the mind works. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Pollard, C., & Sag, I.
(1994) Head-driven phrase structure grammar. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Sanz, C., & Morgan-Short, K.
(2004) Positive evidence vs. explicit rule presentation and explicit negative feedback: A computer assisted study. Language Learning, 54, 35–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sharwood Smith, M.
(2019) The compatibility within a modular framework of emergent and dynamical processes in mind and brain. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 49, 240–244. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sharwood Smith, M., & Truscott, J.
(2014) The multilingual mind: A modular processing perspective. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sharwood Smith, M., Truscott, J., & Hawkins, R.
(2013) Explaining change in transition grammars. In J. Herschensohn and M. Young-Scholten (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 560–580). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swinney, D.
(1979) Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re)consideration of context effects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 645–659. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tanenhaus, M., Leiman, J. M., & Seidenberg, M.
(1979) Evidence for multiple stages in the processing of ambiguous words in syntactic contexts. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 427–440. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Truscott, J.
(2015) Consciousness in SLA: A modular perspective. Second Language Research, 31, 413–434. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B.
(1996) Input processing and grammar instruction: Theory and research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
(2002) Processing the content of input processing and processing instruction research: A response to DeKeyser, Salaberry, Robinson, and Harrington. Language Learning, 52, 825–831. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003) From input to output: A teacher’s guide to second language acquisition. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
(2004) Input processing in second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 5–31). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015a) Foundations of processing instruction. IRAL, 53, 91–109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015b) Processing perspectives on instructed second language acquisition. In J. Schwieter (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of bilingual processing (pp. 200–215). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015c) Input processing in adult SLA. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (2nd ed.) (pp. 113–134). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2016) Why explicit knowledge cannot become implicit knowledge. Foreign Language Annals, 49, 650–657. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017a) Processing instruction. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 166–180). New York, NY: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017b) Situating instructed language acquisition: Facts about second language acquisition. Instructed Second Language Acquisition, 1, 45–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2020). Input processing in adult L2 acquisition. In B. VanPatten, G. D. Keating, & S. Wulff Eds. Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction 3rd ed. New York, NY Routledge
VanPatten, B., & Cadierno, T.
(1993) Explicit instruction and input processing, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 225–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B., Borst, S., Collopy, E., Qualin, A., & Price, J. E.
(2013) Explicit information, grammatical sensitivity, and the first-noun principle: A cross-linguistic study in processing instruction. The Modern Language Journal, 97, 506–527. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B., Farmer, J. L., & Clardy, C. C.
(2009) Processing instruction and meaning-based output instruction: A response to Keating and Farley (2008). Hispania, 92, 116–126.Google 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). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B., Inclezan, D., Salazar, H., & Farley, A. P.
(2009) Processing instruction and dictogloss: A study on object pronouns and word order in Spanish. Foreign Language Annals, 42, 557–575. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B., & Oikkenon, S.
(1996) Explanation verses 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. J. Arche (Eds.), The grammar dimension in instructed second language acquisition: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 15–35). London, UK: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B., & Sanz, C.
(1995) From input to output: Processing instruction and communicative tasks. In F. R. Eckman, D. Highland, P. W. Lee, J. Milcham, & R. Ruthkowski Weber (Eds.), Second language acquisition theory and pedagogy (pp. 169–185). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B., & Uludag, O.
(2011) Transfer of training and processing instruction: From input to output. System, 39, 44–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B., & Wong, W.
(2004) Processing instruction and the French causative: A replication. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 97–118). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
White, J. P., & Demil, A. J.
(2013) Transfer-of-training effects in processing instruction: The role of form-related explicit information. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 519–544. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wong, W.
(2004a) The nature of processing instruction. In B. VanPatten (Ed.). Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 33–63). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
(2004b) Processing instruction and French: The roles of explicit information and structured input. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 183–205). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
(2005) Input enhancement: From theory and research to the classroom. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
(2015) Input, input processing, and output: A study with discourse-level input and the French causative. IRAL, 53, 181–202. DOI logoGoogle 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