Language Learning ISSN 0023-8333

Attention to Form and Meaning Revisited
Ronald P. Leow
Georgetown University

Hui-Chen Hsieh
Wenzao Ursuline College of Languages

Nina Moreno
University of South Carolina

The present study revisited the issue of simultaneous attention to form and meaning from a methodological perspective that addressed several potential methodological issues of previous research in this strand of inquiry. Seventy-two second-semester-level participants were randomly assigned to one of five experimental groups, including a control, and requested to read a Spanish text and also circle one of four targeted forms (10 occurrences each) in the input. To measure comprehension, a 10-item multiple-choice test was administered immediately after the reading. Both qualitative (think-aloud protocols) and quantitative analyses were conducted to address the following research question: Does type of attentional condition have a differential effect on adult second language reading comprehension? The quantitative analysis revealed no significant difference in comprehension among all five groups. To explicate the findings, the quantitative and qualitative data and analyses are discussed with regard to the issues of modality, depth or level of processing, and research methodology. Keywords simultaneous attention; levels of processing; form vs. meaning; hybrid design; input processing; The Primacy of Meaning Principle; think-aloud protocols

There are several theoretical models in second language acquisition (SLA) that have posited an important role for attention in adult second/foreign language (L2) development (e.g., Robinson, 1995; Schmidt, 1990, 2001; Tomlin & Villa 1994; VanPatten, 1994, 2004). Empirical support for the beneficial role of attention has been provided by several SLA studies in strands of research directly or indirectly premised on the role attention plays in L2 input processing (e.g.,
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Ronald P. Leow, Department of Spanish and Portuguese, Georgetown University, 37th and O Sts, NW, Washington, DC 20057. Internet: leowr@georgetown.edu

Language Learning 58:3, September 2008, pp. 665–695 C 2008 Language Learning Research Club, University of Michigan

665

Leow, Hsieh, and Moreno

Form and Meaning Revisited

Greenslade, Bouden, & Sanz, 1999; Leow, 1993; Mackey, 2006; Shook, 1994; Williams & Evans, 1998; Wong, 2001). Some of these studies have been based on the psycholinguistic notion of the adult L2 learner as a limited capacity processor (cf. McLaughlin, 1987). More specifically, it is hypothesized that during input processing, available attentional resources are limited and compete to be allocated to certain aspects of the input (e.g., attention to form [usually viewed as some grammatical or linguistic form] vs. attention to meaning [the informational content of the input]). VanPatten (1994, 1996, 2004) has discussed L2 input processing within a model that outlines certain principles that guide the learner’s attention to linguistic form in the input. His Primacy of Meaning Principle (Principle 1) postulates that learners process input for meaning before they process it for form. Research on simultaneous attention to form and meaning appears to partially support this principle (Greenslade et al., 1999; VanPatten, 1990; Wong, 2001) and shed some light on the apparent effect of simultaneous allocation of attention to both form and meaning while exposed to either aural or written L2 input. However, whether learners did indeed pay attention to either form or meaning or both simultaneously remains methodologically unclear given that the research designs employed are premised on the assumption that all participants paid attention to meaning irrespective of experimental condition and that the only variable that differentiated these conditions was attention to type of form. This methodological approach to attentional functions arguably does not address the processes that take place while learners interact with the L2 input. In other words, learners’ attention to meaning and/or form during exposure to the L2 data has not been methodologically established before its effect on comprehension has been statistically measured. The present study sought to address this methodological issue by employing a concurrent data elicitation procedure (i.e., think-aloud protocols) to first establish learner attention to meaning while interacting with the L2 data before addressing whether attentional condition, differentiated by attention to type of form, had differential effects on learners’ subsequent comprehension. In an effort to further control the potential impact of several variables in the research design, the study also addressed the type and distribution of form and the amount of exposure to the L2 input. Theoretical Background: VanPatten (1994, 1996, 2004) VanPatten (1994, 1996) proposed a model of input processing in SLA in which he defined input processing as an initial stage of the acquisition process in which learners connect grammatical forms with their meanings and/or functions. He
Language Learning 58:3, September 2008, pp. 665–695 666

Leow, Hsieh, and Moreno

Form and Meaning Revisited

presented several principles that are postulated to guide learner attention to linguistic forms in the input. These principles can be traced to the findings of previous empirical research (both published and unpublished) that has addressed the attentional constraints of adult L2 learners in specific experimental processing conditions (e.g., Bransdorfer, 1991; Musumeci, 1989; VanPatten, 1990). He posited that learners will get meaning depending on the attentional resources they have present at the time of processing the L2 input. This hypothesis goes back to the notion of learners as limited capacity processors, which has its origins in cognitive theory (cf. McLaughlin, 1987, and McLaughlin & Heredia, 1996, for a more detailed discussion of the tenets of cognitive theory). VanPatten (2004) updated his model of input processing by further finetuning his principles while invoking the notions of noticing (Schmidt, 1990)— that is, attention with (a low level of) awareness, and working memory. For VanPatten, processing is “about making form-meaning/function connections during real time comprehension” and “an on-line phenomenon that takes place in working memory” (VanPatten, p. 7). He provided one major principle (The Primacy of Meaning Principle) accompanied by five subprinciples to account for L2 learners’ primary focus on meaning while exposed to L2 input. Principle 1. The Primacy of Meaning Principle. Learners process input for meaning before they process it for form. As can be seen, VanPatten’s principle addresses the availability of the attentional resources learners employ while interacting with L2 input, with an obvious preference to process for meaning before processing for form. The Primacy of Meaning Principle, then, pertains specifically to the issue of whether learners who are paying attention to or processing the input for meaning can simultaneously pay attention to or process form in the same input. In other words, if learners are limited capacity processors, then simultaneous attention to both meaning and form should result in a cognitive overload that impacts negatively on comprehension and/or intake (defined as a subset of the input processed in working memory that might be available for further processing). This is also tied to language experience. Comprehension will be more effortful for beginning and intermediate students because they will need to employ more attentional resources to make those form-meaning/function connections. Empirical Studies To our knowledge, there are three published studies1 (e.g., Greenslade et al., 1999; VanPatten, 1990; Wong, 2001) that are pertinent to the strand of simultaneous attention to form and meaning and, consequently, empirically address
667 Language Learning 58:3, September 2008, pp. 665–695

Leow, Hsieh, and Moreno

Form and Meaning Revisited

VanPatten’s Primacy of Meaning Principle. A summary of these studies is presented in Table 1. In VanPatten (1990), the first of the series of studies in this theoretical strand of research, a total of 202 first-semester, fourth-semester, and thirdyear English-speaking college-level students of Spanish in intact classes were exposed to four listening tasks: I—listening for content (control task), II— listening for content and simultaneously noting the key lexical item inflaci´ n o (“inflation”), III—listening for content and simultaneously noting the feminine definite article la (“the”), and IV—listening for content and simultaneously noting the verb morpheme –n. The passage was a text (275 words) on inflation in Latin America, taken from a textbook titled Con mucho gusto (1978). There were 11 instances of the lexical item inflaci´ n, 13 of la, and 12 of –n. In the o first two of four paragraphs, almost 82% of instances of inflaci´ n, 61% of la, o and only 25% of –n were found. In addition, two thirds of instances of –n were located in the third paragraph, the longest paragraph of 112 words. Paying attention to a minimum of 60% of the target items in the passage was required for a participant’s data to be included in the pool. Attention to form was operationalized by having participants put a check mark anywhere on a blank piece of paper each time they heard a targeted item. Only participants with six or more marks (73%, 61%, and 67% for inflaci´ n, la, and –n, respectively) o were included in the study. Time on task was 3 min. Attention to meaning was measured via a postexposure recall task in which participants were requested to write down in English all that they could remember from the experimental text. Comprehension was measured through these free written recalls, which were later scored using an idea unit analysis (cf. Carrell, 1985). The number of idea units recalled was subsequently used to measure comprehension of the content and, indirectly, to reflect the type of attentional processing that took place during exposure to the L2 input. Results of an ANOVA and two pairwise tests revealed a significant drop in recall scores when participants were asked to listen for content and a grammatical morpheme (la, –n) simultaneously. In addition, the researcher did not find any significant difference in comprehension between (a) learners who listened for content only and those who listened to content and simultaneously noted a lexical item and (b) learners who listened to content and simultaneously noted la and those who listened to content and simultaneously noted –n. Based on these findings, VanPatten concluded that conscious attention to form in the input competes with conscious attention to meaning and, by extension, that only when input is easily understood can learners attend to form as part of the intake process (Van Patten, 1990, p. 296).
Language Learning 58:3, September 2008, pp. 665–695 668

669 Language Learning 58:3, September 2008, pp. 665–695

Leow, Hsieh, and Moreno

Table 1 Summary of the three studies under the rubric of attention to form and meaning VanPatten (1990) Participants 202 SFL (L1 English) College-level Intact classes 3 levels (first-semester, fourth-semester, third-year conversation) Group 1: Control Group 2: –n Group 3: la Group 4: inflaci´ n o Con mucho gusto (1978) inflaci´ n o 1 5 3 0 2 11 la −n 0 0 4 0 4 3 2 8 3 1 13 12 Greenslade et al. (1999) 53 SFL (L1 English) College-level third-semester Intact classes Wong (2001) 79 EFL (L1 French) College-level (low-intermediate EFL) Intact classes

Groups

Same as VanPatten

Same as VanPatten (with the exception of –n)

Experimental text Distribution of targeted items

Same as VanPatten Same as VanPatten

Title Paragraph 1 Paragraph 2 Paragraph 3 Paragraph 4 Total

Same as VanPatten (translated into English) Same as VanPatten (with the exception of –n)

Form and Meaning Revisited

(continued)

Language Learning 58:3, September 2008, pp. 665–695 670

Leow, Hsieh, and Moreno

Table 1 (Continued) VanPatten (1990) Time on task Amount of exposure to L2 input controlled? Measurement of attention 3 min Yes Marking of target items; less than eight marks not included for analysis (73%, 67%, 61%) Listening only Immediate recall Coded for idea units Listening Control > –n Control > la Inflaci´ n > –n o Inflaci´ n > la o Control = inflaci´ n o –n = la Greenslade et al. (1999) 2.5 min ? Same as VanPatten 2.5 min? ? Same as VanPatten Wong (2001)

Modality Assessment of comprehension Results

Reading only Same as VanPatten Reading Control > –n Control > la ∗ Inflaci´ n = –n o ∗ Inflaci´ n > la o Control = inflaci´ n o –n = la

Listening and reading Same as VanPatten Listening N/A Control > the N/A ∗ Inflation = the Control = inflation N/A Reading N/A ∗ Control = the N/A ∗ Inflation = the Control = inflation N/A

Form and Meaning Revisited

Note. An asterisk indicates differences in results

Leow, Hsieh, and Moreno

Form and Meaning Revisited

As can be seen in Table 1, there are two published empirical studies that specifically addressed the issue of simultaneous attention to form and meaning in the SLA literature by conceptually or partially replicating VanPatten’s original study (Greenslade et al., 1999; Wong, 2001). Whereas Greenslade et al.’s replication study changed the input mode from aural to written, Wong conducted a partial replication of both VanPatten (1990) and Greenslade et al. Her research design differed from both VanPatten’s and Greenslade et al.’s in that it directly compared the aural and written modes within the same participant pool and sought to explore whether similar results would hold across different modalities. In addition, given that her participants were English as a foreign language (French) students, VanPatten’s experimental text was translated into English, resulting in the loss of the morpheme –n as one of the targeted forms. Greenslade et al.’s (1999) results paralleled those found in VanPatten’s (1990) study with one apparently major difference: No significant difference in comprehension was found between the lexical item inflaci´ n and verbal moro pheme –n groups, arguably the two experimental groups representing the ends of a form continuum in this study in terms of saliency of item. In spite of this contradictory finding, Greenslade et al. concluded that during the early stages of L2 acquisition, processing for meaning and form in the written mode also competes for learners’ limited attentional resources. In the aural mode, Wong (2001) reported, like VanPatten (1990), that participants listening to content only comprehended significantly more than participants listening to the definite article the but performed statistically similar to the inflation group. However, differing from VanPatten, no significant difference in comprehension was found between the inflation and the definite article the groups. In the written mode, Wong reported, like Greenslade et al. (1999), no significant difference in comprehension between the read for content only group and the inflation group. However, her findings differed in the other two conditions identical in the two written studies: No differences in comprehension were found between the control and the definite article the groups and between the inflation and the definite article the groups. Overall, only the control and inflation groups’ statistically similar performances supported the previous studies. Wong concluded that her findings suggest that “learners’ limited attentional capacity is not constrained in the same way during input processing in the aural and written modes” (p. 358) (cf. Leow, 1995). Methodological Issues of Previous Research As can be seen in Table 1, there are inconclusive results about the effects of attentional conditions regarding adult L2 learners’ simultaneous attention
671 Language Learning 58:3, September 2008, pp. 665–695

Leow, Hsieh, and Moreno

Form and Meaning Revisited

to form and meaning in the input on their subsequent comprehension of the text content. A careful analysis of the research methodology employed in the previous studies reveals several potential issues. One issue pertains to choice of experimental or targeted forms. From a methodological standpoint, and especially in the aural mode, the word inflaci´ n (Spanish), inflation (French), and inflation (English) is polysyllabic, o which could increase its saliency when compared to the monosyllabic forms (la, the, –n) employed in other conditions and also potentially influence the amount of attention paid to the targeted form (DeKeyser, 2003). In addition, the selection of a lexical item, a definite article, and a verbal morpheme as targeted forms in the input might be improved by including one that addresses the notion of input processing defined as connecting grammatical form with its meaning and/or function. Another methodological issue pertains to a lack of even distribution of targeted forms in the input. As Table 1 shows, the inflation group was exposed to 82% of the occurrences of this form by the third paragraph, whereas the –n group was exposed to only 25% of its targeted form by the same paragraph. In addition, the latter group was exposed to two thirds (67%) of its targeted form in one paragraph (the fourth paragraph) that comprised 40% of the total passage. Given adult L2 learners’ limited cognitive capacity, it might be argued that providing exposure to targeted forms in the input in differential doses might play a role in what they attend to or process in the input. The amount of exposure to the L2 input (i.e., whether participants were exposed to an equal amount of L2 input) was also not controlled in the studies conducted in the written mode. Providing a time limit for reading a text is not the same as providing the same input in the aural mode. Whereas the amount of exposure might be controlled in the aural mode, in the written mode data need to be gathered and reported to ensure that all participants did indeed finish reading the experimental text within the allotted time period. In order to statistically compare experimental groups, the need to control for an equal amount of exposure in each group is clearly warranted in the research design. Another methodological consideration might be the assessment task employed to measure comprehension. In the previous studies, written recalls were employed to reflect learners’ degree of comprehension. Note that the recall protocols gathered reflected only 33% of the total number of idea units, indicating that 67% of data was not accounted for. In addition, no reliability test result was reported for the assessment task employed in previous studies. It could be argued that recall tasks might depend too much on the memory capacities of
Language Learning 58:3, September 2008, pp. 665–695 672

Leow, Hsieh, and Moreno

Form and Meaning Revisited

participants, which might compromise the reliability of comprehension results. There is a need for a comprehension task that can provide increased reliability with regard to the amount of comprehended input. Probably the most crucial methodological issue lies in the operationalization of the allocation of attentional resources in regard to paying attention to meaning and to form. The methodological assumption clearly underlying all three previous studies is that all participants in each attentional condition were minimally processing the L2 input for meaning, an assumption that was not supported by any empirical evidence reported in the studies. Indeed, in the original study (VanPatten, 1990), the comments reported on page 295 are revealing; that is, participants were clearly not simultaneously paying attention to both meaning and form (e.g., “I don’t know, I forgot to pay attention to the meaning of the passage. I was concentrating on the verbs.”). Effectively measuring the effects of simultaneous attention to both form and meaning might have been compromised through the inclusion of these participants. Likewise, processing for (attention to) form is operationalized by having students under the pertinent experimental conditions put a check mark on a piece of paper (for listening) or underline or circle the targeted form (for reading). Although this operationalization is laudable, it is debatable whether this operationalization truly reflects VanPatten’s definition of input processing, which is related to making form-meaning connections. Note that VanPatten’s Primacy of Meaning Principle is premised on the allocation of attentional resources to specific data in L2 input. However, based on the methodology employed in previous studies, it can only be assumed that participants’ division of attention did indeed take place based on experimental condition, given that no concurrent data of attention to meaning or to a particular form were gathered to support the simultaneity of attention being paid under each condition. In other words, concurrent data need to be gathered to support the presupposition that all participants primarily processed for meaning (the baseline requirement for inclusion in the participant pool) and the only difference between groups lies in their differential attention to a specific form in the input.2 It is essential, then, to establish first where learners’ attentional resources are being allocated during exposure to the input, which will, in turn, provide data on the reported processes that are representative of what participants in each cell are doing under each condition; that is, concurrent think-aloud protocols can provide data to elucidate whether participants were performing in accordance with task conditions and ultimately improve the internal validity of the study (cf. Leow, 2000, for further discussion of internal validity of studies premised on the role of attention in SLA).
673 Language Learning 58:3, September 2008, pp. 665–695

Leow, Hsieh, and Moreno

Form and Meaning Revisited

The present study, then, revisited the issue of simultaneous attention to form and meaning in the input (Primacy of Meaning Principle) in light of VanPatten’s (2004) model of input processing from a different perspective, which addressed several potential methodological issues of previous research in this strand of inquiry. To establish learner attention to (processing for) meaning and form, concurrent data of participants’ reported allocation of attentional resources while interacting with the L2 input were gathered before statistically addressing the differential effects of attentional condition on subsequent text comprehension. The following research question was formulated to guide the study: Does type of attentional condition have a differential effect on adult L2 reading comprehension? Method In an effort to arrive at a more robust interpretation of the first principle of VanPatten’s (2004) model of input processing, the present study set out to address potential methodological issues identified in the research design employed in previous studies conducted under the attention to form and meaning rubric by providing methodological modifications via a hybrid design3 that would raise the internal validity of its findings. These modifications are presented below. 1. Targeted Forms: The first key difference was choice of targeted forms: The word sol “sun” instead of inflaci´ n “inflation” and the addition of the o clitic lo “it.” The monosyllabic word “sol” was chosen, from a methodological perspective, to equalize the salience of the targeted forms in all experimental conditions. As pointed out earlier, the polysyllabic word inflaci´ n, compared o with the other key elements (la, the, and –n) in previous studies, was much more salient, both visually and auditorily, than the other three. In addition, changing inflaci´ n to sol could also address the question of why the lexical o item is easier to process. In other words, the use of sol instead of inflaci´ n o could minimally exclude the issues of the form being a cognate or multisyllabic that could potentially reduce the cognitive effort needed to process lexical items. Including this monosyllabic word, insofar as research methodology and input processing are concerned, could prove to be more informative than using a polysyllabic word. To address more directly the form-meaning/function connection issue discussed earlier, participants were also directed to attend to the clitic lo “it,” given that its inclusion could provide revealing results concerning paying attention to a form that carries both meaning and grammatical function in the input. In
Language Learning 58:3, September 2008, pp. 665–695 674

Leow, Hsieh, and Moreno

Form and Meaning Revisited

addition, due to its lexical-morphological characteristic, it cannot be classified as a full lexical item or a full morphological item and serves as a direct contrast to the other targeted forms. Its inclusion in the study should help us better understand input processing when attention to both form and meaning/function is at issue. 2. Comprehension Assessment: Another main methodological difference in the present study was the type of assessment instrument employed for measuring comprehension. VanPatten (1990) and the successive replication studies employed written recalls to measure comprehension of the experimental passage content. Given the relatively low number of recalls typically produced in previous studies (approximately 33% and less), the reliability of this type of task arguably might be undermined by the role of individual memory capacities in the results. The present study, then, employed a multiple-choice comprehension test designed to measure both global and specific comprehension and submitted it to a test of reliability. Following a common norm in the field for reading comprehension tasks, the questions were prepared in English; this practice ensured that what was being measured was how much of the text content participants had understood, not what words or phrases they remembered from the passage. 3. Operationalization of Attention: As mentioned earlier, all of the studies investigating the effects of simultaneous attention to form and meaning on subsequent comprehension of text content are premised on attention being paid to meaning during exposure to the L2 input. A crucial statement in VanPatten (1990, p. 288) is: “While humans may indeed direct conscious attention to form in and of itself, the question is not whether they can do this; the question is whether or not they can do this while they process input for meaning.” (The italics are in the original text.) Thus, it is vital that procedures are employed that not only establish that learners did primarily pay attention to meaning but also provide concurrent data on the processes that occurred in relation to meaning and form. One of the recent advancements in operationalizing and measuring attention is the incorporation of think-aloud protocols in research designs. Think-aloud protocols are verbal reports provided by participants while they are interacting with the L2 input and can be of two types: metalinguistic (i.e., they also provide some additional information; e.g., reasoning or explanation) and a metacognitive report on what they think their processes are, and nonmetalinguistic (i.e., they focus on the task with the think-aloud secondary and only voice their thoughts without explaining them). The use of such online process measures also directly addresses the representative nature of participants’ performance in experimental groups in studies conducted within an attentional framework.
675 Language Learning 58:3, September 2008, pp. 665–695

Leow, Hsieh, and Moreno

Form and Meaning Revisited

Empirical evidence supports the value of operationalizing attention using concurrent measures (e.g., online think-alouds in Bowles, 2003, 2004, in press; Leow, 1997, 1998a, 1998b, 2000, 2001a, 2001b; Rosa & Leow, 2004a, 2004b; Rosa & O’Neill, 1999). In the written mode, three studies (Bowles, 2008; Bowles & Leow, 2005; Leow & Morgan-Short, 2004) have also explored the issue of reactivity (the positive or negative effects of think-alouds on learners’ processing of the language while performing the task) that could arise from the use of concurrent elicitation procedures during exposure to the input. These three studies have reported that metalinguistic and/or nonmetalinguistic verbalization during text processing did not significantly affect learners’ subsequent performances when compared to a control group, except for latency (i.e., time on task), which was greater among learners who thought out loud than for those who did not. The present study included concurrent measures that would help to elucidate whether the types of processing assumed by attentional condition did indeed occur. In other words, think-aloud protocols were included in the research design in order to provide important concurrent data that would shed light on the actual processes that learners engaged in while interacting with the input. Participants The original pool of participants comprised 99 second-semester college-level students of Spanish randomly assigned to one of five experimental conditions (cf. Procedure subsection). Participants had received an average of 60 hr of formal exposure to Spanish in a curriculum that focused on all four skills and met three times (50-min sessions) a week. The text used was Vistazos (McGrawHill).4 As in previous studies, participants were required to demonstrate paying attention to a minimum of 60% of the targeted forms in order to be included in the participant pool. Twenty-seven participants were eliminated from the study due to their overall failure to complete the requirements of the study, be it not fulfilling the 60% attentional requirement, not completing all sections of the study, or not following the instructions provided (cf. Coding subsection). Therefore, the data of only 72 participants were included in the analyses for this study. Materials The reading passage was a modified version of an authentic article on the Aztecs (Rangel Montemayor) adapted from an online cultural website. Modifications included shortening the length of the passage to 358 words and controlling not
Language Learning 58:3, September 2008, pp. 665–695 676

Leow, Hsieh, and Moreno

Form and Meaning Revisited

only for an equivalent number of targeted linguistic forms (10 occurrences of each) but also for an even distribution of the occurrences of the targeted forms in the input (Appendix A). Procedure Participants reported to the Language Laboratory and were randomly assigned to one of the five groups: Condition 1: control (read for meaning only); Condition 2: sol (read for meaning and circle all instances of sol); Condition 3: la (read for meaning and circle all instances of la); Condition 4: lo (read for meaning and circle all instances of lo); and Condition 5: –n (read for meaning and circle all instances of verbal –n). Before participating in the study, all participants put on headphones and signed into the AudioHijack program in order to perform a warm-up exercise to practice how to think aloud during a problem-solving task. Participants then received the experimental text accompanied by the following general instruction: Please read as quickly as you can the following text on the Aztecs for comprehension. You will be asked to answer some questions after your reading without referring back to the text. In addition, as you read the article and answer the questions, please think your thoughts aloud. That is, say whatever passes through your mind while you read the text for information and answer the questions. You may speak in either English or Spanish. Participants in Conditions 2–5 were also requested to circle their respective targeted form as they read the text. No time limit was set and participants were then directed to switch on their microphones and begin to think aloud as they read the passage. Multiple-Choice Assessment Task A 10-item multiple-choice assessment task that closely followed the corresponding number of targeted forms in the text was designed. For example, a paragraph with three targeted forms resulted in three comprehension content questions assigned to this paragraph. Participants were requested to choose the letter corresponding to the phrase that correctly completed the sentence, based on what they had just read (Appendix B). Scoring of Multiple-Choice Assessment Task The multiple-choice assessment test was scored one point or zero per item for a maximum total of 10 points.
677 Language Learning 58:3, September 2008, pp. 665–695

Leow, Hsieh, and Moreno

Form and Meaning Revisited

Analysis and Results Qualitative Analyses Coding: Operationalization of Attention to Meaning and to Form The think-aloud protocols gathered for Conditions 2–5 were coded to establish that participants did indeed process the input for meaning and also reported paying attention to the targeted linguistic forms in the text. To operationalize attention to meaning, any sustained effort to read the text primarily for meaning was coded as processing for meaning. In other words, participants who not only spent less than a minute on the reading text but also clearly demonstrated only an attempt to seek out the targeted forms were deemed not to be representative of a learner who processed the input primarily for meaning, the baseline requirement for inclusion in the study. As reported earlier, these participants were eliminated from the final pool. To operationalize attention to form, targeted items circled and/or mentioned in the think-alouds were coded as instances of attention. One half of the thinkaloud protocols were independently coded by two raters, who achieved an interrater reliability of 100%. As in previous studies, only those participants who did pay attention, as operationalized earlier, to a minimum of 60% of the targeted items, were included in the participant pool. Results of Coding The think-aloud protocols revealed that for Conditions 2–5 there were several participants who clearly did not process the input for meaning and simply chose to seek out the targeted form to which they were also requested to pay attention. There were also several participants who went back to the text content to look for answers (backtracking) while completing the comprehension test. As reported earlier, these participants were eliminated from the study’s participant pool. Concurrent data revealed that participant mortality due to failure to follow instructions (e.g., only marking targeted forms or backtracking) was found in higher numbers for the la (45%), –n (35%), sol (25%), and lo (20%) conditions when compared to control (10%). These findings are revealing, given that inclusion of these participants who did not fulfill the baseline requirement of processing the input for meaning could have impacted the overall final results. The think-aloud protocols also revealed that although participants in Conditions 2–5 also reported paying attention to the targeted items; this attention was characterized by minimal effort being spent processing both the meaning and form of the targeted items, ranging from simply circling or mentioning the targeted form, a simple pronunciation of the forms, a slight raising of their
Language Learning 58:3, September 2008, pp. 665–695 678

Leow, Hsieh, and Moreno

Form and Meaning Revisited

intonation of the targeted forms, an occasional comment such as “oh, here is another one,” to a few instances of interpreting or translating the targeted form. Depth or Levels of Processing To probe more deeply into the apparent issue of depth or level of processing [e.g., mere attention to (simply circling) versus interpreting or translating], the concurrent data were further analyzed qualitatively by two coders (interrater reliability: 100%) to categorize levels of participants’ processes while interacting with the targeted forms in the input. The think-aloud data revealed the following three levels: Level 1—merely circling targeted forms; Level 2—providing a report of attending to the targeted form (e.g., a simple pronunciation of the forms, a slight raising of their intonation of the targeted forms, an occasional comment such as “oh, here is another one”); and Level 3—interpreting or translating the targeted form. For the –n morpheme, translation was taken as an English sentence containing the plural subject pronoun “they” and the verb (e.g., “they had” for ten´an). This analysis is reported in Table 2. ı As can be seen, Column I represents the selection of participants who, by virtue of circling the targeted forms, can be claimed to have processed the targeted forms at least minimally. In Column II, these participants are further divided into those who only circled but did not speak aloud the targeted forms (Level 1) and those who circled the form and clearly gave some report of having paid additional attention to or processed a little deeper the targeted forms (i.e., Level 2 and higher). Not surprisingly, for the sol group, 73% showed signs of having processed the lexical item a little deeper in some way, whereas 27% of the participants did not. On the other hand, the difference in reporting processing the targeted forms a little deeper was not as clear for the rest of the attentional conditions as for the sol group; that is, only 45.5% of the participants (for the la group), 31% (for the lo group), and 31% (for the -n group) indicated processing the targeted forms in their protocols more deeply. These participants provided comments made in connection to the targeted form (“sol, circled that”), paused after every instance of the form, or emphasized the reading of the form by changing their intonation or by reading it louder than the rest of the text, all coded as indications of having devoted relatively greater attentional resources to or processed a little deeper the forms they were to circle. Column III further classifies participants of Level 2 into those participants who reported processing the targeted form a little deeper (Level 2) but did not report making some attempt to translate or interpret the form, whether correct or incorrect, and those who reported making such attempts (Level 3).
679 Language Learning 58:3, September 2008, pp. 665–695

Language Learning 58:3, September 2008, pp. 665–695 680

Leow, Hsieh, and Moreno

Table 2 Levels of processing of targeted forms Column I Participants circling a minimum of 60% of the targeted forms Control (17) Sol (15) La (11) Lo (16) –n (13) Column II + report of attending to targeted forms Level 1 –report N/A 4 (27%) 6 (54.5%) 11 (69%) 9 (69%) Levels 2 & 3 +report N/A 11 (73%) 5 (45.5%) 5 (31%) 4 (31%) Column III + interpreting targeted forms Level 2 –interpret N/A 3 (20%) 2 (18%) 1 (6%) 3 (23%) Level 3 +interpret N/A 8 (53%) 3 (27%) 4 (25%) 1 (8%) Column IV Correct interpretation of targeted forms # of participants (# of correct forms) 2(1), 2(2), 1(4), 2(5), 1(8) 1(1), 2(2) 1(2), 2(3), 1(4) 1(2)

Form and Meaning Revisited

Leow, Hsieh, and Moreno

Form and Meaning Revisited

The data in Column III reveal that the percentages of participants in each group who reported spending extra effort in processing the targeted forms appear to be quite proportionate with the degree of saliency of the targeted forms: 53% of participants in the sol group, 27% and 25% in the la and lo groups, respectively, and 8% in the –n group, which indicate that the forms assumed to reduce participants’ attention from processing for meaning did not appear to have done so. Column IV (Level 3) provides additional data on the performances of the few participants who did report attempting to translate or interpret the targeted forms. As can be seen, with the not surprising exception of the sol group (53%), only 27% (la), 25% (lo), and 8% (–n) of the other experimental groups attempted to interpret the targeted forms. It is also noted that the amount of attentional resources spent at this level does not appear to be very large, as seen from the low number of forms participants processed at this level. In other words, the majority of participants who translated or interpreted the targeted forms did so on very few items out of a total of 10 (see the last column on Table 2). In sum, although it can be claimed that participants in the study did indeed pay attention to targeted forms while processing for meaning, the same might not hold true for their simultaneous processing of both form and meaning of the targeted forms at a deep and consistent level. These findings run counter to those of some of the previous studies that reported differential attentional performances based on experimental conditions. Quantitative Analysis To address the research question, namely whether type of attentional condition has a differential effect on adult L2 readers’ subsequent comprehension of text content, the issue of the reliability of the comprehension test was first addressed. The results of Cronbach’s test of reliability revealed that the reliability of the dependent variable, the comprehension test, was indeed high (α = .915).5 Subsequently, the comprehension scores were submitted to a oneway ANOVA with a one between-subject factor (Condition). The mean scores and standard deviations for each condition are reported in Table 3. The ANOVA results revealed no significant difference in comprehension between conditions, F(4, 72) = 0.67, p = .62. In other words, attentional condition did not have a significant effect on adult L2 learners’ subsequent comprehension of the text content to which they were exposed. Given the nonsignificant difference in comprehension between experimental conditions, the qualitative attentional data were further analyzed to compare hypothesized depth of processing with amount of comprehension (Table 4).
681 Language Learning 58:3, September 2008, pp. 665–695

Leow, Hsieh, and Moreno

Form and Meaning Revisited

Table 3 Mean comprehension scores and standard deviations by condition Group Control Sol La Lo –n Total Note. Maximum score: 10. Mean 4.65 5.20 4.36 4.63 5.15 4.81 N 17 15 11 16 13 72 SD 1.902 1.568 1.027 1.857 1.345 1.607

Table 4 Average comprehension scores according to reported level of processing of targeted forms No. of participants Average comprehension score

Level 1 [–report] Control (17) Sol (15) La (11) Lo (16) –n (13) N/A 4 (27%) 6 (54.5%) 11 (69%) 9 (69%)

Level 2 Level 3 Level 2 Level 3 [+report [+report Level 1 [+report [+report –interpret] +interpret] [–report] –interpret] +interpret] N/A 3 (20%) 2 (18%) 1 (6%) 3 (23%) N/A 8 (53%) 3 (27%) 4 (25%) 1 (8%) N/A 6.50 4.17 3.91 5.33 N/A 3.67 4.00 6.00 5.33 N/A 5.13 5.00 6.25 4.00

It was hypothesized that, due to additional cognitive effort to process both form and meaning simultaneously when compared to simply processing for meaning or a single lexical item in the input, participants who had reported not only circling but also processing deeper the targeted forms would have yielded lower average comprehension scores when compared to those who had not. Table 4 does not reveal a clear pattern to support this prediction. For example, at Level 1, the lo and la groups appear to show the opposite tendency compared to the sol and –n groups. At Level 2, the least salient form (–n) posts a higher comprehension mean score when compared to the most salient form (sol). At Level 3, it is the sol and la groups that appear to have relatively similar comprehension means; the –n group posts the lowest mean comprehension score and the lo group the highest. In sum, the hypothesis that deeper processing of form would negatively impact participants’ processing for meaning (comprehension) does not appear to be supported by the data found in this study.
Language Learning 58:3, September 2008, pp. 665–695 682

Leow, Hsieh, and Moreno

Form and Meaning Revisited

Although it was not feasible to run statistical analyses to compare comprehension means due to the low number of participants, the results of the lo condition appear to indicate that processing this nonsemantic form in the input did not lead to any perceivable decrease in comprehension at Level 3, when compared to Level 1 (6.25 vs. 3.91, respectively). In other words, connecting form with its meaning or function did not appear to contribute detrimentally to readers’ comprehension of the content matter, an apparent contradiction to what was hypothesized. However, caution is recommended in interpreting these results given the low numbers in the experimental cells and absence of statistical analyses. To control for amount of exposure on the reading task as a confounding variable, a one-way ANOVA was performed on groups’ mean amount of time spent reading the passage: control (4.2 min), sol (4.48 min), la (4.55 min), lo (4.18 min), and –n (5.55 min). Although the results revealed no significant difference for time spent reading the text (p = .063), indicating that amount of exposure did not play a role in the results of the study, the alpha level does indicate a trend toward significance. Discussion In the written mode, the quantitative findings of the present study revealed that type of attentional condition (i.e., requesting L2 readers to process a written text for meaning while paying attention to specified forms in the input) did not appear to have had a differential effect on reading comprehension measured subsequently. These results support those found in Wong (2001), who also did not find any significant difference in comprehension among her groups (control, the, and lexical item), but differ in results from Greenslade et al. (1999). In that study, the researchers reported several significant differences: The control performed significantly better than the –n and la groups and the lexical item group was significantly better than the la group. The results found in Greenslade et al.’s (1999) study generally reflect those found in VanPatten’s (1990) study, which was conducted in the aural mode. The only difference found in the two studies is that whereas VanPatten found a significant difference between his lexical item condition and the –n condition, this difference was not reported in Greenslade et al.’s study. On the other hand, Wong (2001), who also addressed the aural mode in her study, reported conflicting findings when compared to VanPatten’s study. Although both studies share the same findings for comparisons found between the control and the and lexical item groups, respectively (i.e., control > the (la) and control = lexical
683 Language Learning 58:3, September 2008, pp. 665–695

Leow, Hsieh, and Moreno

Form and Meaning Revisited

item), the same does not hold true for the comparison between lexical item and the (VanPatten found lexical item > la, whereas Wong found lexical item = the). Based on the findings reported by previous research and the present study, it might be argued that the issue of modality might have played a role in the results. In the aural mode, although Wong (2001) only addressed two of the three targeted forms in the input (she omitted the –n due to the language, namely English, she used in her experimental text), her findings concur with VanPatten’s (1990) in two out of three identical comparisons. In the written mode, whereas Wong and the present study concur on all three identical comparisons in the two studies, both Wong and the present study differ from Greenslade et al. (1999) in two out of three and three out of six identical comparisons, respectively. Another plausible explanation for the difference purportedly found for modality might be due to methodological issues. Recall that in this study, based on concurrent data, participant mortality was reported to be higher in the experimental conditions when compared to the control condition. A methodological issue that might have had an impact in VanPatten (1990) and Greenslade et al. (1999), on the other hand, was that in the aural mode, participants were required to mark all instances of the targeted form during exposure and that approximately 67% of the –n form was provided in one paragraph. Consequently, whether participants were indeed processing the input for meaning as well as for form, especially in that loaded paragraph, might be questionable. An analysis of idea units produced by participants in this group could have been revealing with regard to recall of information per paragraph. Note also that it was reported in VanPatten that several of the participants admitted not following instructions to process the input simultaneously for meaning and form, raising questions about the representativeness of participants in experimental cells. Given all these quantitative findings, it appears that cognitive constraints might be different in aural versus written exposure (cf. Leow, 1995), and, consequently, in the written mode, empirical support for VanPatten’s Primacy of Meaning Principle might need further investigation. On the other hand, the introspective data (think-aloud protocols) gathered while learners were performing the reading task provide yet another plausible explanation for the finding reported for this study, namely no significant difference in comprehension between attentional conditions. In the written mode, the issue might not simply be one of simultaneous attention to form and meaning but also of level or depth of processing (cf. Craik & Lockhart, 1972) in relation to form and meaning. As revealed by the concurrent think-aloud protocols (cf. Table 2), the reported attention paid to the targeted items was characterized
Language Learning 58:3, September 2008, pp. 665–695 684

Leow, Hsieh, and Moreno

Form and Meaning Revisited

by very minimal time being spent processing simultaneously both form and meaning. In other words, this limited extra effort might not have been too taxing on their attentional resources, which is what would normally hinder the processing for the meaning of the text as VanPatten (1990) and Greenslade et al. (1999) suggested. Hence, a simple request to pay attention to specific linguistic forms (such as circling items or reporting paying attention) while processing for meaning as the main focus of the task might not have had much effect on competing for (or depleting) learners’ attentional resources in order to impact the overall comprehension of the text (see empirical results in cognitive psychology regarding the success of dual-task performance such as Cohen, Ivry, & Keele, 1990; Curran & Keele, 1993; Frensch, Buchner, & Lin, 1994; Keele & Jennings, 1992). The finding that relatively deeper processing of the targeted forms in the input was demonstrated to be relatively minimal (i.e., participants did not appear to have spent much effort in elaborating, commenting on, interpreting, or translating the targeted forms) might shed some more light on explaining the nonsignificant difference among groups in terms of the hypothesized detrimental effect on their text comprehension. The argument that depth of processing, or lack thereof, might have played a role in the findings of this study is supported by the finding that there does not appear to be a direct correlation between the average comprehension scores and the percentage of participants reported to have processed the targeted items more deeply (cf. Table 2, Level 3); that is, whereas the sol and lo groups achieved the highest scores in comprehension (cf. Table 4, Level 3), the sol group had more than double the percentage of the lo group that reported processing the targeted forms at this level. Indeed, the lo group, arguably the group to address the form-meaning connection concept, produced results that appear to run counter to the prediction that simultaneously processing for form and meaning would lead to a decrease in comprehension. These findings appear to corroborate the apparent noneffectiveness of attention-draining forms in the input on processing for meaning. Type of targeted form might have also played a partial role in these findings. Sol, being a content word, carried more meaning and clearly attracted readers’ attention more easily to it, whereas the bound verbal morpheme –n, carrying less semantic weight, did not. However, despite the difference in the percentages of readers who demonstrated processing the targeted forms a little deeper, Table 2 clearly indicates that the majority of them (82%), irrespective of condition, only elaborated 1 to 4 of the targeted items out of a total of 10, thereby displaying overall a relatively minimal level of processing of the targeted forms in the input.
685 Language Learning 58:3, September 2008, pp. 665–695

Leow, Hsieh, and Moreno

Form and Meaning Revisited

In sum, based on the concurrent data regarding adult L2 readers’ reported processing of the targeted forms in the input, the nonsignificant difference in comprehension between experimental conditions might be attributed to the relatively low level of processing reported in all experimental groups in regard to the targeted forms. This low level of processing did not appear to have created any differential cognitive overload while processing for meaning, contrary to what was reported in Greenslade et al. (1999) in the written mode and VanPatten (1990) in the aural mode. Limitations of the Present Study and Future Research In an effort to ensure that participants in each experimental cell represented the expected behavior of that cell, the present study found it necessary to eliminate one quarter of the original participant pool. As suggested by one reviewer, one way for future studies to avoid higher attrition rates would be to present the passage and the comprehension questions in a computerized format that would not allow for backtracking. In addition, the present study only addressed one text type and one language level so the findings are only generalizable to the text type and language level employed in this study. The concurrent data revealed that depth of processing (identified in the present study as three levels), or lack thereof, might have played a role in the results of the present study. These findings raise the methodological issue of whether simultaneous attention to form and meaning has been adequately operationalized in previous studies and, to a lesser extent, in the present study. A closer reading of previous research in this strand appears to indicate a conflation of the terms “attention” and “processing.” Indeed, the previous operationalization of attention to form (i.e., requesting learners to simply mark or circle the targeted form in the input) might not be robust enough to address the issue of processing that form in relation to its connection with its meaning or function (VanPatten, 2004) or, as Wong (2007) puts it, “how that message is encoded linguistically” (p. 91). In addition, the selection of lexical items, definite articles, and verbal morphology raises the question of whether these forms are adequate to not only address the definition of input processing following VanPatten’s model of input processing but also provide empirical support for his Primacy of Meaning Principle. The concurrent data of the present study indicated that attention to form, as operationalized in this strand of research, resulted in a relatively low level of processing that might not correlate with the notion of making form-meaning connections. Given that the data revealed quite a low level of reported processing
Language Learning 58:3, September 2008, pp. 665–695 686

Leow, Hsieh, and Moreno

Form and Meaning Revisited

in relation to the targeted forms in the input, future research might need to address the potential detrimental role of deeper processing of form at the level of form-meaning/function connection while processing for meaning in relation to a lower level of comprehension (as argued by Greenslade et al., 1999, and VanPatten, 1990). To this end, an experimental task that promotes relatively deeper processing of targeted forms in addition to processing for meaning/ function needs to be designed and compared with one that does not promote such deeper processing. This experimental task would possibly address more adequately the condition postulated by VanPatten’s (2004) Primacy of Meaning Principle—that is, learners process input for meaning before they process it for form—with the caveat that simultaneous attention to or processing of both form and meaning would result in decreased comprehension due to attentional overload. In addition, such a study should also include intake as a dependent variable to address another stage of the acquisition process. It might also be useful to differentiate whether simultaneous attention to form and meaning is viewed from a global or local perspective. A global perspective might assume that a reader is processing both form and meaning simultaneously throughout the text, whereas a local perspective might view such simultaneous processing at the level of the targeted form in the input. In addition, the issue of which is processed first (meaning or form) or whether both are processed simultaneously needs to be addressed empirically. The simultaneity of processing form and meaning might be too simplistic and not easily and empirically tested. One recent empirical attempt to address the issue of which is processed first (meaning or form) is Han and Peverly (2007), who, in a study of 12 multilingual learners exposed to a language (Norwegian) of which they had no prior knowledge, reported that these learners adopted a form-based approach to input processing instead of a meaning-based approach, as postulated by VanPatten’s (2004) Primacy Meaning Principle. They concluded that learners of some prior knowledge of an L2 will adopt a meaning-based approach, whereas lack of such knowledge will result in a form-based approach. Finally, the definition of what constitutes the term “form” also needs to be considered. In the previous studies and the present one, form has been defined as including both lexical and linguistic items (cf. DeKeyser, Salaberry, Robinson, & Harrington, 2002, for further discussion of the issue of what constitutes form according to VanPatten). However, as indicated by the concurrent data, whereas the more salient form sol was attended to more substantially than the least salient form –n, it might not be the salience of the form but how readers process it that might have an impact on their comprehension and potential intake of the form. This is clearly an issue to be further investigated.
687 Language Learning 58:3, September 2008, pp. 665–695

Leow, Hsieh, and Moreno

Form and Meaning Revisited

Conclusions The present study was conducted to revisit the issue of simultaneous attention to form and meaning in the input in relation to the Primacy of Meaning Principle of VanPatten’s (2004) model of input processing given the inconclusive findings from current literature in this strand of SLA research. Potential methodological issues of previous research were addressed by controlling both the form and distribution of the targeted forms in the input, controlling the amount of time spent during exposure, employing a comprehension test with high reliability, and gathering concurrent data to establish that the L2 readers were indeed processing the text for meaning (the baseline requirement for inclusion in the study) before statistically addressing the differential effects of attentional condition on adult L2 reading comprehension. The quantitative results indicated, in the written mode, no significant difference in comprehension between attentional conditions (i.e., processing for meaning while paying attention to specific forms in the input). Based on previous research and the quantitative data of the present study, modality (aural vs. written input) was proposed as one plausible explanation for these findings. Qualitative results, based on the concurrent data collected while participants were performing the reading task, indicated that these findings might also be attributed to depth of processing, or lack thereof, of which three levels were identified. The overall depth of processing reported in the think-aloud protocols appeared to be relatively low, which, in turn, might not have had the hypothesized detrimental effect on the overall processing for meaning of the text. From an empirical perspective, the findings of the present study offer partial support to previous findings on the nonsignificant effect of simultaneous attention to form and meaning on reading comprehension (Wong, 2001). From a theoretical perspective, the findings do not support or refute VanPatten’s (2004) Primacy of Meaning Principle due to the low level of processing reported. However, the findings do underscore the methodological issues that need to be addressed in order to adequately test this primary principle of his model of input processing before any strong statement can be made regarding its prediction in relation to L2 learners’ simultaneous attention to form and meaning in the written and aural modes. Employing a hybrid research design that included both quantitative and qualitative analyses provided a richer insight into the process of attention, upon which the study was premised, and additional data to explicate the quantitative results. As evident in the present study, such a design promotes

Language Learning 58:3, September 2008, pp. 665–695

688

Leow, Hsieh, and Moreno

Form and Meaning Revisited

higher internal validity of the study and reduces the potential for committing a Type I or Type II error.
Revised version accepted 26 October 2007

Notes
1 Given that VanPatten (1989) is similar to VanPatten (1990), we have opted to report the more recent study in our review of the literature. 2 Recent studies (e.g., Alanen, 1995; Leow, 1997, 1998a, 2000; Rosa & Leow, 2004a, 2004b; Rosa & O’Neill, 1999) that have employed online data collection procedures have revealed that not all participants in one experimental group performed according to the condition to which they were assigned. 3 Hybrid research designs employ both qualitative and quantitative analyses of elicited data, promote higher internal validity of the study, and reduce the potential for committing a Type I or Type II error. A Type I error falsely reports a difference in the data when in fact there is none, whereas a Type II error reports the converse; that is, there does not exist a difference in the data when in fact there is one (Isaac & Michael, 1997). 4 One reviewer queried the comparability of the experimental and control groups’ comprehension and linguistic abilities. Although no pretest was conducted to measure formally these two abilities like in most previous studies, it was assumed that the following measures taken in the study would address this issue: (a) Participants were at the same level of language proficiency; (b) they were exposed to and formally tested on several reading exercises at this level; and (c) they were randomly assigned to the experimental groups. 5 Cronbach’s alpha measures how well a set of items (or variables) measures a single unidimensional latent construct (e.g., comprehension). A multidimensional structure in the data will usually produce a low Cronbach’s alpha. There is evidence that the items are measuring the same underlying construct when the interitem correlations are high and usually expressed by a study possessing “high” or “good” reliability. Technically speaking, Cronbach’s alpha is not a statistical test; it is a coefficient of reliability (or consistency). For further information, visit the SPSS Web site http:/www.ats.ucla.edu/STAT/SPSS/faq/alpha.html

References
Alanen, R. (1995). Input enhancement and rule presentation in second language acquisition. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention & awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 259–302). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press. Bowles, M. A. (2003). The effects of textual input enhancement on language learning: An online/offline study of fourth-semester Spanish students. In P. Kempchinsky &

689

Language Learning 58:3, September 2008, pp. 665–695

Leow, Hsieh, and Moreno

Form and Meaning Revisited

C. E. Pi˜ eros (Eds.), Theory, practice, and acquisition: Papers from the 6th n Hispanic linguistics symposium and the 5th conference on the acquisition of Spanish and Portuguese (pp. 395–411). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Bowles, M. A. (2004). L2 glossing: To CALL or not to CALL. Hispania, 87(3), 543–555. Bowles, M. A. (2008). Task type and reactivity of verbal reports in SLA: A first look at a L2 task other than reading. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30 (3), 359–387. Bowles, M., & Leow, R. P. (2005). Reactivity and type of verbal report in SLA research methodology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 415–440. Bransdorfer, R. L. (1991). Communicative value and linguistic knowledge in second language input processing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Carrell, P. (1985). Facilitating ESL reading by teaching text structure. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 727–752. Cohen, A., Ivry, R., & Keele, S.W. (1990). Attention and structure in sequence learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 17–30. Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, II, 671–684. Curran, T., & Keele, S. W. (1993). Attentional and nonattentional forms of sequence learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 189–202. DeKeyser, R. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning. In C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 313–348), Oxford: Blackwell. DeKeyser, R., Salaberry, R., Robinson, P., & Harrington, M. (2002). What gets processed in processing instruction? A commentary on Bill VanPatten’s “Processing Instruction: An Update.” Language Learning, 52, 805–823. Frensch, P. A., Buchner, A., & Lin, J. (1994). Implicit learning of unique and ambiguous serial transitions in the presence and absence of a distractor task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 567–584. Greenslade, T., Bouden, L., & Sanz, C. (1999). Attending to form and content in processing L2 reading texts. Spanish Applied Linguistics, 3, 65–90. Han, Z.-H., & Peverly, S. (2007). Input processing: A study of ab initio learners with multilingual backgrounds. The International Journal of Multilingualism, 4(1), 17–37. Isaac, S., & Michael, W. B. (1997). Handbook in research and evaluation (2nd ed.). San Diego: EdITS. Keele, S. W., & Jennings, P. J. (1992). Attention in the representation of sequence: Experiment and theory. Human Movement Science, 11, 125–138. Leow, R. P. (1993). To simplify or not to simplify: A look at intake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 333–355.
Language Learning 58:3, September 2008, pp. 665–695 690

Leow, Hsieh, and Moreno

Form and Meaning Revisited

Leow, R. P. (1995). Modality and intake in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 79–89. Leow, R. P. (1997). Attention, awareness, and foreign language behavior. Language Learning, 47(3), 467–505. Leow, R. P. (1998a). The effects of amount and type of exposure on adult learners’ L2 development in SLA. Modern Language Journal, 82(1), 49–68. Leow, R. P. (1998b). Toward operationalizing the process of attention in SLA: Evidence for Tomlin and Villa’s (1994) fine-grained analysis of attention. Applied Psycholinguistics, 19(1), 133–159. Leow, R. P. (2000). A study of the role of awareness in foreign language behavior: Aware versus unaware learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(4), 557–584. Leow, R. P. (2001a). Attention, awareness, and foreign language behavior. Language Learning, 51(Suppl. 1), 113–155. Leow, R. P. (2001b). Do learners notice enhanced forms while interacting with the L2? An online and offline study of the role of written input enhancement in L2 reading. Hispania, 84(3), 496–509. Leow, R. P., & Morgan-Short, K. (2004). To think aloud or not to think aloud: The issue of reactivity in SLA research methodology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 35–57. Mackey, A. (2006). Feedback, noticing and instructed second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 27, 1–27. McLaughlin, B. (1987). Theories of second language learning. London: Edward Arnold. McLaughlin, B., & Heredia, R. (1996). Information-processing approaches to research on second language acquisition and use. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 213–228). San Diego: Academic Press. Musumeci, D. (1989). The ability of second language learners to assign tense at the sentence level: A crosslinguistic study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Rangel Montemayor, I. E. (2005) Los Aztecas II. Retrieved January 18, 2005 from http://www.monografias.com/trabajos/aztecas2/aztecas2.shtml Robinson, P. (1995). Attention, memory and the “noticing” hypothesis. Language Learning, 45, 283–331. Rosa, E., & Leow, R. P. (2004a). Computerized task-based exposure, explicitness, type of feedback, and Spanish L2 development. Modern Language Journal, 88, 193– 217. Rosa, E., & Leow, R. P. (2004b). Awareness, different learning conditions, and L2 development. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25, 269–292. Rosa, E., & O’Neill, M. D. (1999). Explicitness, intake, and the issue of awareness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(4), 511–556.
691 Language Learning 58:3, September 2008, pp. 665–695

Leow, Hsieh, and Moreno

Form and Meaning Revisited

Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–158. Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Shook, D. J. (1994). FL/L2 reading, grammatical information, and the input-to-intake phenomenon. Applied Language Learning, 5, 57–93. Tomlin, R., & Villa, V (1994). Attention in cognitive science and second language . acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 183–203. VanPatten, B. (1989). Can learners attend to form and content while processing input? Hispania, 72, 409–417. VanPatten, B. (1990). Attending to form and content in the input: An experiment in consciousness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 287–301. VanPatten, B. (1994). Evaluating the role of consciousness in second language acquisition: Terms, linguistic features and research methodology. AILA Review, 11, 27–36. VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction: Theory and research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. VanPatten, B. (2004). Input processing in SLA. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 5–31). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Williams, J., & Evans, J. (1998). What kind of focus and on which forms? In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 139–155). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wong, W. (2001). Modality and attention to meaning and form in the input. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 345–368. Wong, W. (2007). Processing instruction and structured input as input enhancement. In C. Gascoigne (Ed.), Assessing the impact of input enhancement in second language education (pp. 89–106). Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press.

Appendix A Experimental Text Los Aztecas II (Rangel Montemayos) El pueblo azteca, como pueblo primitivo, pod´a encontrar una soluci´ n a los ı o problemas presentados por las fuerzas de la naturaleza. Daba mucha importancia a su religi´ n. En ella su Dios principal y todopoderoso era Tonatiuh (el sol). Se o lo admir´ mucho. Tonatiuh ten´a las bondades y los defectos de los humanos, o ı pero con un gran poder sobrenatural. Seg´ n la religi´ n azteca, el sol Tonatiuh u o necesitaba que lo alimentaran con una sustancia m´ gica: la vida del hombre. a Los antiguos mexicanos ten´an sacrificios humanos para el sol pero no lo hac´an ı ı por crueldad ni instintos b´ rbaros. a
Language Learning 58:3, September 2008, pp. 665–695 692

Leow, Hsieh, and Moreno

Form and Meaning Revisited

Hab´a tambi´ n muchos monumentos en la vida azteca que honraban al ı e sol, Entre ellos el m´ s importante es la Piedra del Sol. Lo conocen tambi´ n a e con los nombres de Calendario Azteca o J´cara de Aguilas (Cuauhxicalli). El ı Calendario Azteca es una de las obras de arte m´ s hermosas de esta cultura. Es a un monolito o monumento de piedra. Todo el mundo lo visita diariamente. El 17 de diciembre de 1790, se encontr´ el monolito. Ten´a una cara esculpo ı ida y estaba vuelta hacia abajo. Esta era el rostro del Tonatiuh, el sol, a quien honraban los aztecas y que era el amo y se˜ or de los cielos. Despu´ s de enn e contrar el calendario por primera vez se lo traslad´ a la Catedral Metropolitana o y en 1885 se coloc´ el calendario en una de las salas del Museo Nacional de o Historia. Hoy d´a est´ en el Museo Nacional de Antropolog´a en el Bosque de ı a ı Chapultepec. El sol tiene mucha luz, una raz´ n por la cual el pueblo azteca lo admiraba o mucho, y por eso los cabellos de Tonatiuh son de color dorado. En el rostro del sol se notan las arrugas que son caracter´sticas de una persona vieja y que, ı seg´ n los aztecas, demostraban la madurez y sabidur´a en el car´ cter. Se lo u ı a admira universalmente. Por ultimo se encuentra la lengua del sol en forma de cuchillo expuesta hacia ´ afuera, y que indica que es necesario que lo alimenten con sustancia m´ gica, a que inclu´a el coraz´ n humano. La lengua en el sol simboliza el rayo de luz y ı o los aztecas lo respetaban mucho.

Appendix B Comprehension Test Based on what you have just read, choose the letter that correctly completes the sentence. 1. As a primitive civilization, the Aztecs A. unfortunately were unable to cope with the problems that the forces of nature provided. B. nevertheless were able to cope with the problems that the forces of nature provided. C. were only able to cope with some of the problems that the forces of nature provided. D. were not afraid of the problems that the forces of nature provided. 2. Tonatiuh possessed the following characteristics: A. a great supernatural power. B. human strengths, but accompanied by a supernatural power.
693 Language Learning 58:3, September 2008, pp. 665–695

Leow, Hsieh, and Moreno

Form and Meaning Revisited

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

C. human weaknesses, but accompanied by a supernatural power. D. human strengths and weaknesses, together with a supernatural power. The Aztecs performed human sacrifices A. to appease Tonatiuh. B. to appease their gods and also because they were barbaric warriors. C. because they were known for their barbaric instincts and cruelty. D. All of the above. The most important monument in Aztec life was A. J´cara de Aguilas. ı B. Piedra del Sol. C. Cuauhxicalli. D. All of the above. The Calendario Azteca was A. the famous Aztec calendar known for its accuracy. B. the name of a well-known museum in Mexico. C. a monument made of stone. D. a special ritual for Tonatiuh. The Calendario Azteca became known in 1790 and in 1885 was found in A. el Museo Nacional de Antropolog´a. ı B. el Museo Nacional de Historia. C. la Catedral Metropolitana. D. el Bosque de Chapultepec. The color of Tonatiuh’s hair was A. red. B. jet black. C. white. D. golden. Tonatiuh’s face appears A. old. B. young. C. bright. D. dark. Tonatiuh’s tongue is A. extended in the form of a knife. B. one of the longest among the different gods. C. thought to hold magical powers. D. decorated with magical substance.

Language Learning 58:3, September 2008, pp. 665–695

694

Leow, Hsieh, and Moreno

Form and Meaning Revisited

10. Tonatiuh’s tongue symbolizes A. strength. B. the ray of light. C. magic. D. life.

695

Language Learning 58:3, September 2008, pp. 665–695