Processing Instruction and a Role for Output in Second Language Acquisition

By P. Toth. 2006

133 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Language and Linguistics, Literature and Literary Theory

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d71cae86383297c53ee235c622854a282f7248df

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

In Language and Linguistics

In Literature and Literary Theory

Citations in the corpus

The Routledge handbook of English language teaching (2018, background): “Therefore, it is ill-advised in the teaching of propositions to treat the locatives as canonical and the other uses as idiosyncrasies to be learned use-by-use in a rote fashion.”
The Effects of Instruction on Linguistic Development in Spanish Heritage Language Speakers (2009, result): “Further, the fact that L2 learners also showed improvement on a grammaticality judgment task is consistent with previous findings (Toth, 2006).”
Teacher‐ and Learner‐Led Discourse in Task‐Based Grammar Instruction: Providing Procedural Assistance for L2 Morphosyntactic Development (2008, background): “It follows, then, that when the structural complexity of one’s usable metalinguistic knowledge exceeds that of the extant implicit L2 grammar, L2 development might be helped if such knowledge can be employed online to guide lexical selection and grammatical encoding during communicative task perform”
The Potential Role(s) of Writing in Second Language Development. (2012, background): “A growing body of research has shown that output can play an important role in all of these processes (Fortune, 2005; Izumi & Bigelow, 2000; Lapkin, Swain, & Smith, 2002; Swain, 1998, 2000; Swain & Lapkin, 1995; Toth, 2006).”
Implicit and Explicit Knowledge in Second Language Learning, Testing and Teaching (2009, methodology): “GJTs have a relatively long history of use in SLA, and they continue to be popular, as evidenced by their use in numerous, recent studies (Bley-Vroman & Joo, 2001; De Jong, 2005b; Flege & Liu, 2001; Helms-Park, 2001; Inagaki, 2001; Montrul, 2005; Nabei & Swain, 2002; Sorace & Shomura, 2001; Toth, 20”
THE CONSTRUCT VALIDITY OF GRAMMATICALITY JUDGMENT TESTS AS MEASURES OF IMPLICIT AND EXPLICIT KNOWLEDGE (2013, background): “…in SLA as a measure of learners’ linguistic ability in the L2 (e.g., Bialystok, 1979 ; Bley-Vroman, Felix, & Ioup, 1988 ; De Jong, 2005 ; Han & Ellis, 1998 ; Loewen & Erlam, 2006 ; Montrul, 2005 ; Sorace, 1985 ; Toth, 2006 ), and have been popular for a variety of practical and theoretical reasons.”
Research into practice: Grammar learning and teaching (2015, unknown): “Swain (1985) built on her findings by making the case for comprehensible output, asserting that the value of learners’ producing the language was unappreciated with Krashen’s exclusive focus on comprehensible input (see also Morgan-Short & Bowden 2006; Toth 2006).”