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. 327–356

Chapter 11
Online methods in research on input processing and processing instruction

| San Diego State University
Evidence for the input processing (IP) model (VanPatten, 1996, 2004, 2007, 2015a, 2020) and the benefits of processing instruction (PI) comes largely from offline tasks, despite the fact that both are concerned with online sentence comprehension. This chapter aims to stimulate more online research in these areas. I first provide a brief summary of techniques that measure real-time sentence comprehension and then offer suggestions for how they can be used in research on the IP model and PI. Lastly, I review recent online studies of the effects of PI on second language (L2) learners’ real-time sentence comprehension. I end by proposing two new hypotheses regarding the potential that PI has to benefit L2 learners’ online processing of input.
Keywords: online methods, input processing, processing instruction, structured input
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Online measures of sentence comprehension
    • Spoken language comprehension
      • The visual world paradigm
      • Mouse tracking
      • Cross-modal priming
    • Written language comprehension
      • Self-paced reading
      • Eye tracking during reading
      • Event-related potentials
  • Online methods and VanPatten’s IP model
    • The primacy of content words principle
    • The lexical preference principle
    • The preference for nonredundancy principle
    • The meaning-before-nonmeaning principle
    • The first noun principle
    • The sentence location principle
  • Current directions in the online study of IP and PI
    • Using online measures during PI/SI treatments
    • Using online measures in pre- and post-test assessments
  • Future directions in the online study of IP and PI
    • PI and predictive processing
    • PI and morphological decomposition
  • Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 17 March 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.62.11kea
References (62)
References
Altmann, G. T. M., & Kamide, Y. (1999). Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition, 73, 247–264. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bever, T. G., & McElree, B. (1988). Empty categories access their antecedents during comprehension. Linguistic Inquiry, 19, 35–43.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006). Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 3–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018). Some notes on the shallow structure hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40, 693–706. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, H., Felser, C., Neubauer, K., Sato, M., & Silva, R. (2010). Morphological structure in native and nonnative language processing. Language Learning, 60, 21–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dussias, P. E., Valdés Kroff, J., & Gerfen, C. (2014). Visual world eye-tracking. In J. Jegerski & B. VanPatten (Eds.), Research methods in second language psycholinguistics (pp. 93–126). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Freeman, J. B. (2018). Doing psychological science by hand. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27, 315–323. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Freeman, J. B., & Ambady, N. (2010). MouseTracker: Software for studying real-time mental processing using a computer mouse-tracking method. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 226–241. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Freeman, J. B., Dale, R., & Farmer, T. A. (2011). Hand in motion reveals mind in motion. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frenck-Mestre, C., Kim, S. K., Choo, H., Ghio, A., Herschensohn, J., & Koh, S. (2019). Look and listen!: The online processing of Korean case by native and non-native speakers. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 34, 385–404. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grüter, T., Rohde, H., & Schafer, A. J. (2017). Coreference and discourse coherence in L2: The roles of grammatical aspect and referential form. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 7, 199–229. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hehman, E., Stolier, R. M., & Freeman, J. B. (2014). Advanced mouse-tracking analytic techniques for enhancing psychological science. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 18, 384–401. DOI logoGoogle 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.Google Scholar
Huettig, F., & Mani, N. (2016). Is prediction necessary to understand language?: Probably not. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31, 19–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huettig, F., Rommers, J., & Meyer, A. S. (2011). Using the visual world paradigm to study language processing: A review and critical evaluation. Acta Psychologica, 137, 151–171. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Issa, B. I. (2019). Examining the relationships among attentional allocation, working memory, and second language development. In R. P. Leow (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language research in classroom learning (pp. 464–479). New York, NY: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Issa, B. I., & Morgan-Short, K. (2019). Effects of external and internal attentional manipulations on second language grammar development: An eye-tracking study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41, 389–417. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Issa, B., Morgan-Short, K., Villegas, B., & Raney, G. (2015). An eye-tracking study on the role of attention and its relationship with motivation. EuroSLA Yearbook, 15, 114–142. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Jacob, G. (2018). Morphological priming in bilingualism research. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 21, 443–447. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jegerski, J. (2014). Self-paced reading. In J. Jegerski & B. VanPatten (Eds.), Research methods in second language psycholinguistics (pp. 20–49). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jegerski, J., & VanPatten, B. (2014). Research methods in second language psycholinguistics. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Just, M. A., Carpenter, P. A., & Wooley, J. D. (1982). Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 111, 228–238. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaan, E. (2014). Predictive sentence processing in L2 and L1: What is different? Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 4, 257–282. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keating, G. D. (2014). Eye-tracking with text. In J. Jegerski & B. VanPatten (Eds.), Research methods in second language psycholinguistics (pp. 69–92). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kieslich, P. J., & Henninger, F. (2017). Mousetrap: An integrated, open-source mouse-tracking package. Behavior Research Methods, 49, 1652–1667. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kieslich, P. J., Schoemann, M., Grage, T., Hepp, J., & Scherbaum, S. (2020). Design factors in mouse-tracking: What makes a difference? Behavior Research Methods, 52, 317-341. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuperberg, G. R., & Jaeger, T. F. (2016). What do we mean by prediction in language comprehension? Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31, 32–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, J. F., & Doherty, S. (2019a). 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
(2019b). The effects of implicit positive and negative feedback on processing subsequent linguistic target items. In R. P. Leow (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language research in classroom learning (pp. 361–374). New York, NY: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, J. F., & VanPatten, B. (2003). Making communicative language teaching happen (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Leeser, M. J. (2014). On psycholinguistic methods. In J. Jegerski & B. VanPatten (Eds.), Research methods in second language psycholinguistics (pp. 231–251). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Love, T., & Swinney, D. (1996). Coreference processing and levels of analysis in object-relative constructions: Demonstration of antecedent reactivation with the cross-modal priming paradigm. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25, 5–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Luck, S. J. (2014). An introduction to the event-related potential technique (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Marinis, T. (2018). Cross-modal priming in bilingual sentence processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 21, 456–461. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Milin, P., Smolka, E., & Feldman, L. B. (2018). Models of lexical access and morphological processing. In E. M. Fernández & H. Smith Cairns (Eds.), The handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 240–268). Oxford, UK: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Mitchell, D. C. (2004). On-line methods in language processing: Introduction and historical overview. In M. Carreiras & C. Clifton, Jr. (Eds.), The on-line study of sentence comprehension: Eyetracking, ERPs and beyond (pp. 15–32). New York, NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Mitsugi, S. (2017). Incremental comprehension of Japanese passives: Evidence from the visual-world paradigm. Applied Psycholinguistics, 38, 953–983. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mitsugi, S., & MacWhinney, B. (2016). The use of case marking for predictive processing in second language Japanese. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19, 19–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morgan-Short, K., & Tanner, D. (2014). Event-related potentials (ERPs). In J. Jegerski & B. VanPatten (Eds.), Research methods in second language psycholinguistics (pp. 127–152). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nicol, J. L., & Swinney, D. (1989). The role of structure in coreference assignment during sentence comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18, 5–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rayner, K. (1978). Eye movements in reading and information processing. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 618–660. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 372–422. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009). Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 1457–1506. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberts, L. (2014). Cross-modal priming with sentences. In J. Jegerski & B. VanPatten (Eds.), Research methods in second language psycholinguistics (pp. 212–230). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Roberts, L., Gullberg, M., & Indefrey, P. (2008). Online pronoun resolution in L2 discourse: L1 influence and general learner effects. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 333–357. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stillman, P. E., Shen, X., & Ferguson, M. J. (2018). How mouse-tracking can advance social cognitive theory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22, 531–543. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swinney, D. (1979). Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re)consideration of context effects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 645–660. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swinney, D., & Prather, P. (1989). On the comprehension of lexical ambiguity by young children: Investigations into the development of mental modularity. In D. S. Gorfein (Ed.), Resolving semantic ambiguity (pp. 225–238). New York, NY: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traxler, M. J. (2012). Introduction to psycholinguistics: Understanding language science. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction: Theory and research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
(2002). Processing instruction: An update. Language Learning, 52, 755–803. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2004). Input processing in second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 5–31). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007). Input processing in adult SLA. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 115–135). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google 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). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2015b). Foundations of processing instruction. IRAL, 53, 91–109. 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.) (pp. 105-127). New York, NY: Routledge.
VanPatten, B., & Cadierno, C. (1993). Explicit instruction and input processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 225–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B., & Smith, M. (2015). Aptitude as grammatical sensitivity and the initial stages of learning Japanese as a L2: Parametric variation and case marking. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37, 135–165. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wong, W. (2004). 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
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
Wulff, D. W., Haslbeck, J. M. B., Kieslich, P. J., Henninger, F., & Schulte-Mechlenbeck, M. (2019). Mouse-tracking: Detecting types in movement trajectories. In M. Schulte-Mecklenbeck, A. Kuehberger, & J. G. Johnson (Eds.), A handbook of process tracing methods (2nd ed.) (pp. 131–145). New York, NY: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar