Next or Beyond Next: Effect of Contrastive Phrase-Based Treatment on Stage Gain Across Self-Paced and More Time-Constrained Tasks

Document Type : Research Article


Payame Noor University


This study explored the effect of contrastive phrase resynthesis instruction on
gaining the teachability hypothesis stages in self-paced versus time-constrained oral
production and recognition. Three groups (i.e., 23 learners) of high beginner female
learners in an English language institute were randomly selected from a cohort of
learners. One group received contrastive metalinguistic instruction on the concept
and structure of English phrases. The second group received the same instruction
only in English. The third group served as a comparison group. Self-Paced Picture
Differences Tests and Time-Constrained Oral and GJTs were used for collecting the
data. Chi-square analyses through Fisher’s Exact Test showed that the treatment,
especially in its contrastive form, significantly contributed to gaining next, next + 1,
and next + 2 stages in spontaneous oral production, but only to next + 1 and + 2
stages in self-paced oral production and time-constrained recognition. The
theoretical implications of the findings are discussed.


Arnon, I. (2010). Starting big: The role of multiword phrases in language learning and use. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University.
Bannard, C., & Matthews, D. (2008). Stored word sequences in language learning:  The effect of familiarity on children's repetition of four-word combinations.  Psychological Science, 19(3), 241-248.
Bod, R. (2009). From exemplar to grammar: A probabilistic analogy-based model of Language learning. Cognitive Science, 33(5), 752-793.
Bonilla, C. L. (2012). Testing processability theory in L2 Spanish: Can readiness or  markedness predict development? Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh.
Brandt, S., Verhagen, A., Lieven E., & Tomasello, M. (2009). Development of syntactic productivity across constructions and items. Talk given at the 33rd Stanford Child Language Research Forum, Berkeley.
Bresnan, J. (1982). The mental representation of grammatical relations. Cambridge:
               MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris
Cook, V. J., & Newson, M. (2007). Chomsky’s universal grammar. New Jersey: Blackwell.
Ellis, N. (2005). At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit  
              knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 305-352.
Ellis, N. (2006). Selective attention and transfer phenomena in SLA: Contingency,
               cue competition, salience, interference, overshadowing, blocking, and perceptual learning.  Applied Linguistics, 27(2), 164-194.
Farley, A., & McCollam, K. (2004). Learner readiness and L2 production in  
              Spanish: Processability theory on trial. Estudios de Linguistica Aplicada,  
              40, 47-l69.
James, C. (1999). Language awareness: Implications for the language curriculum.  
              Language, Culture, and Curriculum, 12(1), 94-115.
Housen, A., & Pierrard, M. (Eds.). (2006). Investigations in instructed second   
              language acquisition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Jusczyk, P. W. (1999). How infants begin to extract words from speech. Trends in  
             Cognitive Science, 3(9), 323-328.
Kawaguchi, S. (2005). Argument structure and syntactic development in Japanese as
             a second language. In M. Pienemann (Ed.). Cross-linguistic aspects of
             processability theory (pp. 253-298). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kawaguchi, S., & Di Biase, B. (2012). Acquiring procedural skills in L2: Processability theory and skill acquisition. Studies in Language Sciences, 11, 68-96.
Kupferberg, I., & Olshtain, E. (1996). Explicit contrastive instruction facilitates the acquisition of difficult L2 forms. Language Awareness, 5, 149-165.
Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction, and second language development: An empirical study of question formation in ESL. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 557-587.
Meisel, J., Clashen, H., & Pienemann, M. (1981). On determining developmental stages in natural second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 3(2), 109-135.
Mansouri, F., & Duffy, L. (2005). The pedagogic effectiveness of developmental readiness in ESL grammar instruction. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 28(1), 81-99.
Pienemann, M. (1984). Psychological constraints on the teachability of languages. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6(2), 186-214.
Pienemann, M. (1989). Is language teachable? Psycholinguistic experiments and hypotheses. Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 52-79.
Pienemann, M. (Ed.). (2005). Cross-linguistic aspects of processability theory.          Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. M. (1999). Instruction, first language influence and developmental readiness in second language acquisition. Modern Language Journal, 83(1), 1-22.
Spada, N., Lightbown, P. M., & White, J. (2006). The importance of form/meaning mappings in explicit form-focused instruction. In A. Housen & M. Pierrard, (Eds.), Investigations in instructed second language acquisition (pp. 199-234). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
Tomasello, M. (2000). The item based nature of children's early syntactic development. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(4), 156-163.
Trevise, A. (1996). Contrastive metalinguistic representations: The case of ‘very French’ learners of English. Language Awareness, 5, 188-195.
White, L., Spada, N., Lightbown, P. M., & Ranta, L. (1991). Input enhancement and L2 question formation. Applied Linguistics, 12, 416-432.