Chapter published in:
Hispanic Linguistics: Current issues and new directions
Edited by Alfonso Morales-Front, Michael J. Ferreira, Ronald P. Leow and Cristina Sanz
[Issues in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics 26] 2020
► pp. 34–52

Insights into the cognition of mood selection in L2 learners of Spanish

| Northern Arizona University
| Northern Arizona University
DeKeyser (2007a) submits that second-language acquisition research must identify the ideal task-design features for automatizing grammatical abilities in practice. We therefore report the results of a study that used meaningful computer assisted language learning (CALL) practice to promote foreign-language learners’ proceduralization of Spanish mood-selection in relative clauses (e.g., Busco un libro que es/sea muy interesante) premised on skill acquisition theory (DeKeyser, 2007b). The results indicate that, when CALL practice is deliberate, meaningful, and entails metalinguistic feedback (Cerezo, 2010), learners process mood selection more fluently and efficiently as practice progresses. The analysis also indicates that elaborate practice activities (i.e., involving multiple features of relative clauses) are more effective at promoting grammatical proceduralization than simple activities.
Keywords: tutorial CALL, proceduralization, practice, grammar instruction, subjunctive, relative clauses
Published online: 13 May 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/ihll.26.02col
References

References

Anderson, J. R.
(1993) Rules of the mind. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Cerezo Ceballos, L.
(2010)  Talking to avatars: The computer as a tutor and the incidence of learner’s agency, feedback, and grammatical form in SLA (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
Chapelle, C. A.
(2009) The relationship between second language acquisition theory and computer-assisted language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 93, 741–753. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Collentine, J.
(2010) The acquisition and teaching of the Spanish subjunctive: An update on current findings. Hispania, 93(1), 39–51.Google Scholar
Collentine, J., & Collentine, K.
(2015) Input and output grammar instruction in tutorial CALL with a complex grammatical structure. CALICO Journal, 32(2), 273–298. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cunnings, I., & Finlayson, I.
(2015) Mixed effects modelling and longitudinal data analysis. In L. Plonsky (Ed.), Advancing quantitative methods in second language research (pp. 159–181). Abingdon: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M.
(2007a) The future of practice. In R. M. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 287–304). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2007b) Skill acquisition theory. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 97–113). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M., & Prieto Botana, G.
(2013) The acquisition of grammar by instructed learners. In K. Geeslin (Ed.), The handbook of Spanish second language acquisition (pp. 449–465). New York, NY: Wiley and Sons. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C., & Long, H. M.
(2003) Optimal psycholinguistic environments for distance foreign language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 7(3), 50–80.Google Scholar
Farley, A.
(2004) Processing instruction and the Spanish subjunctive: Is explicit information needed? In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing Instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 227–240). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Fernández, C.
(2008) Reexamining the role of explicit information in processing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30(3), 277–305. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, R.
(2007) How do we know what students are actually doing? Monitoring students’ behavior in CALL. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20(2), 409–442. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Geeslin, K., & Gudmestad, A.
(2008) Comparing interview and written elicitation tasks in native and non-native data: do speakers do what we think they do?’ In J. Bruhn de Garavito & E. Valenzuela (Eds.), Selected Proceedings of the Hispanic Linguistics Symposium (pp. 67–77). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Godwin-Jones, R.
(2014) Towards transparent computing: Content authoring using open standards. Language Learning & Technology 18(1), 1–10.Google Scholar
Gudmestad, A.
(2006) L2 variation and the Spanish subjunctive: Linguistic features predicting mood selection. In C. Klee & T. Face (Eds.), Selected papers of the 7th Conference on the Acquisition of Spanish and Portuguese as First and Second Languages (pp. 170–184). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
(2012) Acquiring a variable structure: An interlanguage analysis of second language mood use in Spanish. Language Learning, 62(2), 373–402. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Han, Z.-H., Park, E., & Combs, C.
(2008) Textual input enhancement: Issues and possibilities. Applied Linguistics, 29(4), 597–618. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heift, T., & Vyatkina, N.
(2017) Technologies for teaching L2 grammar. In C. Chapelle & S. Sauro (Eds.), Handbook of technology and second language teaching and learning, (pp. 25–45). New York, NY: Wiley & Sons. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hubbard, P., & Bradin Siskin, C.
(2004) Another look at tutorial CALL. ReCALL 16(2), 448–461. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kim, S., Lee, J., & Thomas, M.
(2012) Between purpose and method: A review of educational research on 3D virtual worlds. Journal of Virtual Worlds Research, 5(1), 1–18. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kornell, N., Hays, M., & Bjork, R.
(2009) Unsuccessful retrieval attempts enhance subsequent learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35(4), 989–998. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lee, J., & Rodríguez, R.
(1997) The effects of lexemic and morphosyntactic modifications on L2 reading comprehension and input processing. In W. Glass & A. Pérez-Leroux (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives on the acquisition of Spanish (Vol. II, pp. 135–157). Sommerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Leow, R.
(2007) Input in the L2 classroom: An attentional perspective on receptive practice. In R. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 21–50). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., & Saito, K.
(2010) Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 265–302. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Morris, M., Handcock M., & Hunter D.
(2008) Specification of exponential-family random graph models: Terms and computational aspects. Journal of Statistical Software 24(4), 1–24. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Muranoi, H.
(2007) Output practice in the L2 classroom. In R. M. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 51–84). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ranta, L., & Lyster, R.
(2007) A cognitive approach to improving immersion students' oral language abilities: The awareness-practice-feedback sequence. In R. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 141–160). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rastegar, M.
(2006) Causal modeling – Path analysis: A new trend in research in applied linguistics. The Linguistics Journal, 1(3), 97–109.Google Scholar
Robinson, P.
(2001) Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 27–57. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schulze, M.
(2008) AI in CALL: Artificially inflated or almost imminent? CALICO Journal, 25(3), 510–527. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B.
(2004) Input processing in SLA. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 5–31). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) Mental representation and skill in instructed SLA. In J. Schwieter (Ed.), Innovations in SLA, bilingualism, and cognition: Research and practice (pp. 3–22). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B., & Benati, A.
(2010) Key terms in second language acquisition. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Vitevitch, M.
(2008) What can graph theory tell us about word learning and lexical retrieval? Journal of Speech , Language, and Hearing Research, 51(2), 408–422. CrossrefGoogle Scholar