This study investigates the effects of three types of production activities on uptake (operationalized as correct suppliance of the target structure during the treatment) and acquisition of negative adverbs in English. It also investigates the relationship between uptake and acquisition. The three production activities included a dictation, an individual reconstruction and a collaborative reconstruction activity. Each of these asked participants to produce the target structure but differed in (1) whether the activity was completed individually or collaboratively; (2) the amount of text participants had to produce; and (3) their degree of complexity and cognitive demand. It was found that all three activities resulted in uptake with the collaborative reconstruction, the dictation activities resulting in greater uptake than the individual reconstruction activity. There was also an effect for the activities on acquisition (of grammatical items only), but no differential effect for any of the three types of activities. It was concluded that a production activity can lead to increased uptake, but not to increased acquisition, and vice versa. The results may help language teachers look beyond immediate performance on an activity as a measure of success, and make better-informed decisions about when to use what type of activities.
Birdsong, D. (1989). Metalinguistic performance and interlinguistic competence. New York: Springer.
2.
Bygate, M. (1996). Effects of task repetition: Appraising the developing language of learners. In J. Willis and M. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching (pp. 136-146). Oxford: Heinemann.
3.
Council of Europe (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: learning, teaching, assessment . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
4.
Craik, F.I.M. and Lockhart, R.S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research . Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671-683.
5.
de Bot, K. (1992). A bilingual processing model: Levelt's `speaking' model adapted. Applied Linguistics, 13, 1-24.
6.
de Bot, K. (1996). Language attrition. In P. Nelde and W. Wölck (Eds.), Handbuch Sprach Kontakt. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
7.
Ellis, N.C. (1996). Sequencing in SLA: Phonological memory, chunking, and points of order. Studies in Second Language Acquisition , 18, 91-126.
8.
Ellis, N.C. (2001). Memory for language. In P. Robinson and J. Richards (Eds.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 33-68). Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
9.
Ellis, N.C. (2003). Constructions, chunking, and connectionism: The emergence of Second language structure. In C. Doughty and M. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 63-103). Oxford : Blackwell.
10.
Ellis, N.C. and Beaton, A. (1993). Factors affecting the learning of foreign language vocabulary: Imagery keyword mediators and phonological short-term memory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46A, 533-558.
11.
Ellis, N.C. and Schmidt, R. (1997). Morphology and longer distance dependencies: Laboratory research illuminating the A in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 145-171.
12.
Ellis, N.C. and Sinclair, B. (1996). Working memory in the acquisition of vocabulary and syntax: Putting language in good order. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49A, 234-249.
13.
Ellis, R. (2000). Task-based research and language pedagogy. Language Teaching Research, 4, 193-220.
14.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
15.
Ellis, R. (2005). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: a psychometric study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 141-172.
16.
Ellis, R. and He, X. (1999). The roles of modified input and output in the incidental acquisition of word meanings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 285- 301.
17.
Ellis, R. and Sheen, Y. (2006). Re-examining the role of recasts in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 575-600.
18.
Ericsson, K. and Simon, H. (1993). Protocol analysis: verbal reports as data. 2nd edition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
19.
Han, Y. and Ellis, R. (1998). Implicit knowledge, explicit knowledge and general language proficiency. Language Teaching Research, 2, 1-23.
20.
Hedgcock, J. (1993). Well-formed vs. ill-formed strings in L2 metalingual tasks: Specifying features of grammaticality judgements. Second Language Research, 9, 1-21.
21.
Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis . Studies in Second Language acquisition, 24, 541-577.
22.
Izumi, S. (2003). Comprehension and production processes in second language learning: In search of the psycholinguistic rationale of the noticing hypothesis. Applied Linguistics, 24, 168-196.
23.
Izumi, S., Bigelow, M., Fujiwara, M. and Fearnow, S. (1999). Testing the output hypothesis: Effects of output on noticing and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 421-452.
24.
Leow, R.P. (1998). The effects of amount and type of exposure on adult learners' L2 development in SLA. Modern Language Journal , 82, 49-68.
25.
Long, M.H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie and T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of research on second language acquisition. New York: Academic Press.
26.
Ohta, A.S. (2000). Rethinking recasts: A learner-centered examination of corrective feedback in the Japanese language classroom. In J.K. Hall and L.S. Verplaeste (Eds.), The construction of second and foreign language learning through classroom instruction (pp. 47-71). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
27.
Pica, T. (1988). Interlanguage adjustments as an outcome of NS-NNS negotiated interaction. Language Learning, 38, 45-73.
28.
Pienemann, M. (1989). Is language teachable? Psycholinguistic experiments and hypotheses. Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 52-79.
29.
Reinders, H. and Ellis, R. (2009). The effects of two types of positive enhanced input on intake and L2 acquisition. In R. Ellis, S. Loewen, R. Erlam, J. Philp , C. Elder and H. Reinders (Eds.), Implicit and explicit knowledge in a second language. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
30.
Robinson, P. (2001a). Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: A triadic framework for examining task influences on SLA. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
31.
Robinson, P. (2001b). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring Interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 21, 27-57.
32.
Robinson, P. (2003). Attention and memory during SLA. In C. Doughty and M. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 631-678). Oxford: Blackwell.
33.
Song, M. and Suh, B. (2008). The effects of output task types on noticing and learning of the English past counterfactual conditional. System, 36, 295-312.
34.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning . In G. Cook and B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: studies in honor of Henry Widdowson (pp. 125-144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
35.
Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty and J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 64-81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
36.
Swain, M. and Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processing they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371-391.
37.
Swain, M. and Lapkin, S. (2001). Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: exploring task effects. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan and M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 99-118). Harlow: Longman.
38.
Williams, J. (1999). Memory, attention, and inductive learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 1-48.
