Recent years have seen a growing interest in the role of tasks in second language acquisition. A substantial body of research now exists investigating the effects of different task types and their accompanying instructions on learning. Less is known about how tasks affect intake and the relationship between intake and acquisition. This study investigated the effects of 1) implicit and explicit inductive instructions and 2) various task types on both intake and acquisition of two English grammatical structures. Fifty adult ESL learners enrolled in private language schools in New Zealand were pretested with the help of a timed and an untimed grammaticality judgement test for prior knowledge of negative adverbs and adverb placement and were randomly assigned to either a dictation, an individual reconstruction, or a collaborative reconstruction treatment. Treatments were accompanied by either implicit instructions (containing only practical instructions on how to perform the task) or explicit instructions (drawing participants' attention to the target structures and giving an example of them). Performance on the treatments was taken as a measure of intake, and talk-aloud reports were obtained to gauge participants' awareness during task completion. Gain scores from pretest to posttest and to delayed posttest were taken as an indication of learning effects. The results show that the explicit instructions of the inductive type used in this study were unable to affect participants' intake and acquisition in comparison with the implicit instructions. Also, the three types of treatments did not have an effect on acquisition in many cases. Where there was an effect, the treatments differentially affected intake and acquisition. Dictation led to high intake, but less acquisition, and the individual reconstruction treatment led to low intake, but greater acquisition. The collaborative reconstruction treatment was the most consistent of the three. The cognitively more demanding reconstruction treatments (i.e. those involving the retention of larger amounts of texts over longer periods of time) resulted in greater acquisition than the dictation treatment. The main theoretical implications of the results are that the type of inductive and low-level explicit instructions used in this study were not sufficient to differentially affect intake and acquisition. Other, more explicit types of treatments may be necessary. The results also indicate that task types that are relatively easy, affect intake to a greater extent than more demanding tasks, but that more demanding tasks are more likely to affect acquisition. On a methodological level, the concept of intake was found to be very difficult to operationalise, and it is suggested that additional measures be developed. Finally, the implications for teaching practice are that for relatively complex structures such as negative adverbs and adverb placement exposure to the input with minimal pedagogic intervention may not be sufficient. Teachers may also want to consider the effects of different task types on both intake and acquisition and both teachers and researchers need to be careful in drawing conclusionson the basis of immediate task performance.

Recent years have seen a growing interest in the role of tasks in second language acquisition. A substantial body of research now exists investigating the effects of different task types and their accompanying instructions on learning. Less is known about how tasks affect intake and the relationship between intake and acquisition. This study investigated the effects of 1) implicit and explicit inductive instructions and 2) various task types on both intake and acquisition of two English grammatical structures. Fifty adult ESL learners enrolled in private language schools in New Zealand were pretested with the help of a timed and an untimed grammaticality judgement test for prior knowledge of negative adverbs and adverb placement and were randomly assigned to either a dictation, an individual reconstruction, or a collaborative reconstruction treatment. Treatments were accompanied by either implicit instructions (containing only practical instructions on how to perform the task) or explicit instructions (drawing participants' attention to the target structures and giving an example of them). Performance on the treatments was taken as a measure of intake, and talk-aloud reports were obtained to gauge participants' awareness during task completion. Gain scores from pretest to posttest and to delayed posttest were taken as an indication of learning effects. The results show that the explicit instructions of the inductive type used in this study were unable to affect participants' intake and acquisition in comparison with the implicit instructions. Also, the three types of treatments did not have an effect on acquisition in many cases. Where there was an effect, the treatments differentially affected intake and acquisition. Dictation led to high intake, but less acquisition, and the individual reconstruction treatment led to low intake, but greater acquisition. The collaborative reconstruction treatment was the most consistent of the three. The cognitively more demanding reconstruction treatments (i.e. those involving the retention of larger amounts of texts over longer periods of time) resulted in greater acquisition than the dictation treatment. The main theoretical implications of the results are that the type of inductive and low-level explicit instructions used in this study were not sufficient to differentially affect intake and acquisition. Other, more explicit types of treatments may be necessary. The results also indicate that task types that are relatively easy, affect intake to a greater extent than more demanding tasks, but that more demanding tasks are more likely to affect acquisition. On a methodological level, the concept of intake was found to be very difficult to operationalise, and it is suggested that additional measures be developed. Finally, the implications for teaching practice are that for relatively complex structures such as negative adverbs and adverb placement exposure to the input with minimal pedagogic intervention may not be sufficient. Teachers may also want to consider the effects of different task types on both intake and acquisition and both teachers and researchers need to be careful in drawing conclusionson the basis of immediate task performance.

Recent years have seen a growing interest in the role of tasks in second language acquisition. A substantial body of research now exists investigating the effects of different task types and their accompanying instructions on learning. Less is known about how tasks affect intake and the relationship between intake and acquisition. This study investigated the effects of 1) implicit and explicit inductive instructions and 2) various task types on both intake and acquisition of two English grammatical structures. Fifty adult ESL learners enrolled in private language schools in New Zealand were pretested with the help of a timed and an untimed grammaticality judgement test for prior knowledge of negative adverbs and adverb placement and were randomly assigned to either a dictation, an individual reconstruction, or a collaborative reconstruction treatment. Treatments were accompanied by either implicit instructions (containing only practical instructions on how to perform the task) or explicit instructions (drawing participants' attention to the target structures and giving an example of them). Performance on the treatments was taken as a measure of intake, and talk-aloud reports were obtained to gauge participants' awareness during task completion. Gain scores from pretest to posttest and to delayed posttest were taken as an indication of learning effects. The results show that the explicit instructions of the inductive type used in this study were unable to affect participants' intake and acquisition in comparison with the implicit instructions. Also, the three types of treatments did not have an effect on acquisition in many cases. Where there was an effect, the treatments differentially affected intake and acquisition. Dictation led to high intake, but less acquisition, and the individual reconstruction treatment led to low intake, but greater acquisition. The collaborative reconstruction treatment was the most consistent of the three. The cognitively more demanding reconstruction treatments (i.e. those involving the retention of larger amounts of texts over longer periods of time) resulted in greater acquisition than the dictation treatment. The main theoretical implications of the results are that the type of inductive and low-level explicit instructions used in this study were not sufficient to differentially affect intake and acquisition. Other, more explicit types of treatments may be necessary. The results also indicate that task types that are relatively easy, affect intake to a greater extent than more demanding tasks, but that more demanding tasks are more likely to affect acquisition. On a methodological level, the concept of intake was found to be very difficult to operationalise, and it is suggested that additional measures be developed. Finally, the implications for teaching practice are that for relatively complex structures such as negative adverbs and adverb placement exposure to the input with minimal pedagogic intervention may not be sufficient. Teachers may also want to consider the effects of different task types on both intake and acquisition and both teachers and researchers need to be careful in drawing conclusionson the basis of immediate task performance.

Recent years have seen a growing interest in the role of tasks in second language acquisition. A substantial body of research now exists investigating the effects of different task types and their accompanying instructions on learning. Less is known about how tasks affect intake and the relationship between intake and acquisition. This study investigated the effects of 1) implicit and explicit inductive instructions and 2) various task types on both intake and acquisition of two English grammatical structures. Fifty adult ESL learners enrolled in private language schools in New Zealand were pretested with the help of a timed and an untimed grammaticality judgement test for prior knowledge of negative adverbs and adverb placement and were randomly assigned to either a dictation, an individual reconstruction, or a collaborative reconstruction treatment. Treatments were accompanied by either implicit instructions (containing only practical instructions on how to perform the task) or explicit instructions (drawing participants' attention to the target structures and giving an example of them). Performance on the treatments was taken as a measure of intake, and talk-aloud reports were obtained to gauge participants' awareness during task completion. Gain scores from pretest to posttest and to delayed posttest were taken as an indication of learning effects. The results show that the explicit instructions of the inductive type used in this study were unable to affect participants' intake and acquisition in comparison with the implicit instructions. Also, the three types of treatments did not have an effect on acquisition in many cases. Where there was an effect, the treatments differentially affected intake and acquisition. Dictation led to high intake, but less acquisition, and the individual reconstruction treatment led to low intake, but greater acquisition. The collaborative reconstruction treatment was the most consistent of the three. The cognitively more demanding reconstruction treatments (i.e. those involving the retention of larger amounts of texts over longer periods of time) resulted in greater acquisition than the dictation treatment. The main theoretical implications of the results are that the type of inductive and low-level explicit instructions used in this study were not sufficient to differentially affect intake and acquisition. Other, more explicit types of treatments may be necessary. The results also indicate that task types that are relatively easy, affect intake to a greater extent than more demanding tasks, but that more demanding tasks are more likely to affect acquisition. On a methodological level, the concept of intake was found to be very difficult to operationalise, and it is suggested that additional measures be developed. Finally, the implications for teaching practice are that for relatively complex structures such as negative adverbs and adverb placement exposure to the input with minimal pedagogic intervention may not be sufficient. Teachers may also want to consider the effects of different task types on both intake and acquisition and both teachers and researchers need to be careful in drawing conclusionson the basis of immediate task performance.

Master of Arts / Department of Modern Languages / Mary T. Copple / El tema de este estudio es el reconocimiento de los verbos en presente, futuro e imperfecto por parte de estudiantes intermedios y avanzados de español como un segundo idioma. Los estudiantes escucharon los estímulos y asignaron el valor del tiempo en cada oración. En general los avanzados demostraron un mejor dominio en el reconocimiento del valor temporal morfológico de los verbos. Ambos grupos reconocieron con más certeza el presente que el futuro. Los intermedios reconocieron con más facilidad el presente que el imperfecto. Sin embargo, a los avanzados les fue más fácil reconocer el imperfecto que el presente. En este caso los morfemas del imperfecto presentaban aspectos sobresalientes tales como silabas más largas, las tildes y el estrés tónico. Aunque a ambos grupos beneficia la exposición a la lengua, son los intermedios los que necesitan periodos más largos de tiempo expuestos al segundo idioma. Los intermedios requieren más input formal o informal para poder percibir o comprender mejor la temporalidad de los verbos.

Interlanguage pragmatics research has contributed a great deal to our understanding of L2 pragmatic use but less to our understanding of L2 pragmatic development, although developmental issues are also its primary research goal. Additionally, previous studies have been confined to a rather small set of speech acts, under-researching such face-damaging acts as criticizing and responding to criticism even though these may be more challenging for L2 learners. The present study examines pragmatic development in the use of criticizing and responding to criticism by a group of Vietnamese EFL learners with a view to shedding light on the pragmatic properties of these speech acts. IL data were collected from 12 high beginners, 12 intermediate learners, and 12 advanced learners, via a written questionnaire and role play, and analyzed with reference to L1 and L2 baseline data collected from 12 Vietnamese and 12 Australian NSs via the same methods. Metapragmatic data were collected via retrospective interview. Four main findings are discussed. Firstly, the learners criticized and responded to criticism very differently from the NSs. This difference might have adversely affected how the learners negotiated their intentions expressed via speech act realizations. Secondly, there was little evidence of any proficiency effect on the learners' use of these two speech acts. This was probably because pragmatic development was limited by the EFL context, as the learners had had insufficient exposure to the target norms. Thirdly, there was evidence of pragmatic transfer in the learners' production. This transfer was affected by the learners' perception of L1-L2 proximity and assumption of L2 reasonableness. Finally, the retrospective interviews with learners suggested four main sources of influence on their pragmatic decision-making: insufficient L2 pragmatic knowledge, transfer of communication and learning, processing difficulty, and learning experience. The present study lends support to a number of SLA theories, including Bialystoks' processing model and Meisel et al.'s complexification hypothesis. It found that the major challenge for learners in L2 pragmatic acquisition is to gain control over processing. It also found an acquisitional order of modality markers which was dependent upon their structural complexity and the processing demands involved in producing them. / Subscription resource available via Digital Dissertations only.

Interlanguage pragmatics research has contributed a great deal to our understanding of L2 pragmatic use but less to our understanding of L2 pragmatic development, although developmental issues are also its primary research goal. Additionally, previous studies have been confined to a rather small set of speech acts, under-researching such face-damaging acts as criticizing and responding to criticism even though these may be more challenging for L2 learners. The present study examines pragmatic development in the use of criticizing and responding to criticism by a group of Vietnamese EFL learners with a view to shedding light on the pragmatic properties of these speech acts. IL data were collected from 12 high beginners, 12 intermediate learners, and 12 advanced learners, via a written questionnaire and role play, and analyzed with reference to L1 and L2 baseline data collected from 12 Vietnamese and 12 Australian NSs via the same methods. Metapragmatic data were collected via retrospective interview. Four main findings are discussed. Firstly, the learners criticized and responded to criticism very differently from the NSs. This difference might have adversely affected how the learners negotiated their intentions expressed via speech act realizations. Secondly, there was little evidence of any proficiency effect on the learners' use of these two speech acts. This was probably because pragmatic development was limited by the EFL context, as the learners had had insufficient exposure to the target norms. Thirdly, there was evidence of pragmatic transfer in the learners' production. This transfer was affected by the learners' perception of L1-L2 proximity and assumption of L2 reasonableness. Finally, the retrospective interviews with learners suggested four main sources of influence on their pragmatic decision-making: insufficient L2 pragmatic knowledge, transfer of communication and learning, processing difficulty, and learning experience. The present study lends support to a number of SLA theories, including Bialystoks' processing model and Meisel et al.'s complexification hypothesis. It found that the major challenge for learners in L2 pragmatic acquisition is to gain control over processing. It also found an acquisitional order of modality markers which was dependent upon their structural complexity and the processing demands involved in producing them. / Subscription resource available via Digital Dissertations only.

Interlanguage pragmatics research has contributed a great deal to our understanding of L2 pragmatic use but less to our understanding of L2 pragmatic development, although developmental issues are also its primary research goal. Additionally, previous studies have been confined to a rather small set of speech acts, under-researching such face-damaging acts as criticizing and responding to criticism even though these may be more challenging for L2 learners. The present study examines pragmatic development in the use of criticizing and responding to criticism by a group of Vietnamese EFL learners with a view to shedding light on the pragmatic properties of these speech acts. IL data were collected from 12 high beginners, 12 intermediate learners, and 12 advanced learners, via a written questionnaire and role play, and analyzed with reference to L1 and L2 baseline data collected from 12 Vietnamese and 12 Australian NSs via the same methods. Metapragmatic data were collected via retrospective interview. Four main findings are discussed. Firstly, the learners criticized and responded to criticism very differently from the NSs. This difference might have adversely affected how the learners negotiated their intentions expressed via speech act realizations. Secondly, there was little evidence of any proficiency effect on the learners' use of these two speech acts. This was probably because pragmatic development was limited by the EFL context, as the learners had had insufficient exposure to the target norms. Thirdly, there was evidence of pragmatic transfer in the learners' production. This transfer was affected by the learners' perception of L1-L2 proximity and assumption of L2 reasonableness. Finally, the retrospective interviews with learners suggested four main sources of influence on their pragmatic decision-making: insufficient L2 pragmatic knowledge, transfer of communication and learning, processing difficulty, and learning experience. The present study lends support to a number of SLA theories, including Bialystoks' processing model and Meisel et al.'s complexification hypothesis. It found that the major challenge for learners in L2 pragmatic acquisition is to gain control over processing. It also found an acquisitional order of modality markers which was dependent upon their structural complexity and the processing demands involved in producing them. / Subscription resource available via Digital Dissertations only.

Interlanguage pragmatics research has contributed a great deal to our understanding of L2 pragmatic use but less to our understanding of L2 pragmatic development, although developmental issues are also its primary research goal. Additionally, previous studies have been confined to a rather small set of speech acts, under-researching such face-damaging acts as criticizing and responding to criticism even though these may be more challenging for L2 learners. The present study examines pragmatic development in the use of criticizing and responding to criticism by a group of Vietnamese EFL learners with a view to shedding light on the pragmatic properties of these speech acts. IL data were collected from 12 high beginners, 12 intermediate learners, and 12 advanced learners, via a written questionnaire and role play, and analyzed with reference to L1 and L2 baseline data collected from 12 Vietnamese and 12 Australian NSs via the same methods. Metapragmatic data were collected via retrospective interview. Four main findings are discussed. Firstly, the learners criticized and responded to criticism very differently from the NSs. This difference might have adversely affected how the learners negotiated their intentions expressed via speech act realizations. Secondly, there was little evidence of any proficiency effect on the learners' use of these two speech acts. This was probably because pragmatic development was limited by the EFL context, as the learners had had insufficient exposure to the target norms. Thirdly, there was evidence of pragmatic transfer in the learners' production. This transfer was affected by the learners' perception of L1-L2 proximity and assumption of L2 reasonableness. Finally, the retrospective interviews with learners suggested four main sources of influence on their pragmatic decision-making: insufficient L2 pragmatic knowledge, transfer of communication and learning, processing difficulty, and learning experience. The present study lends support to a number of SLA theories, including Bialystoks' processing model and Meisel et al.'s complexification hypothesis. It found that the major challenge for learners in L2 pragmatic acquisition is to gain control over processing. It also found an acquisitional order of modality markers which was dependent upon their structural complexity and the processing demands involved in producing them. / Subscription resource available via Digital Dissertations only.

Interlanguage pragmatics research has contributed a great deal to our understanding of L2 pragmatic use but less to our understanding of L2 pragmatic development, although developmental issues are also its primary research goal. Additionally, previous studies have been confined to a rather small set of speech acts, under-researching such face-damaging acts as criticizing and responding to criticism even though these may be more challenging for L2 learners. The present study examines pragmatic development in the use of criticizing and responding to criticism by a group of Vietnamese EFL learners with a view to shedding light on the pragmatic properties of these speech acts. IL data were collected from 12 high beginners, 12 intermediate learners, and 12 advanced learners, via a written questionnaire and role play, and analyzed with reference to L1 and L2 baseline data collected from 12 Vietnamese and 12 Australian NSs via the same methods. Metapragmatic data were collected via retrospective interview. Four main findings are discussed. Firstly, the learners criticized and responded to criticism very differently from the NSs. This difference might have adversely affected how the learners negotiated their intentions expressed via speech act realizations. Secondly, there was little evidence of any proficiency effect on the learners' use of these two speech acts. This was probably because pragmatic development was limited by the EFL context, as the learners had had insufficient exposure to the target norms. Thirdly, there was evidence of pragmatic transfer in the learners' production. This transfer was affected by the learners' perception of L1-L2 proximity and assumption of L2 reasonableness. Finally, the retrospective interviews with learners suggested four main sources of influence on their pragmatic decision-making: insufficient L2 pragmatic knowledge, transfer of communication and learning, processing difficulty, and learning experience. The present study lends support to a number of SLA theories, including Bialystoks' processing model and Meisel et al.'s complexification hypothesis. It found that the major challenge for learners in L2 pragmatic acquisition is to gain control over processing. It also found an acquisitional order of modality markers which was dependent upon their structural complexity and the processing demands involved in producing them. / Subscription resource available via Digital Dissertations only.