Chapter 11. Input Processing and Processing Instruction: Pedagogical and cognitive considerations for L3 acquisition

Abstract

This book fills an existing gap in the field of third language acquisition (L3A) by bringing together theoretical, empirical, and practical accounts that contribute to informed teaching practices in multilingual classrooms. The volume is organised into three sections that focus on prominent syntactic transfer models in the field of L3A and together provide insights into the interplay of the influences of prior languages in L3 syntax and how we can enrich the practical field of instructed L3 acquisition. Part I includes original papers dealing with new developments of existing theoretical models on syntactic transfer in L3A and Part II consists of empirical studies testing existing models from different perspectives (formal, lexico-functional, and neurocognitive). Following these two sections, Part III discusses how theory can inform practices for L3 learning and teaching. This concise compilation brings to light innovations, not only in terms of theoretical refinements and practical implementations, but also in offering an impressive range of language combinations. This book is intended to act as a unique resource for scholars, applied linguists, language educators, both novices and experts alike, in and beyond the field of L3A.

Full text

 ./bpa..ben
©  John Benjamins Publishing Company
 
Input Processing and Processing Instruction
Pedagogical and cognitive considerations
for L3 acquisition
Alessandro Benati and John W. Schwieter
University of Portsmouth and Wilfrid Laurier University / University
of Greenwich, Centre for Applied Research and Outreach in Language
Education
Input Processing refers to the initial process by which learners connect gram-
matical forms with their meanings as well as how they interpret the roles of
nouns in relationship to verbs. e pedagogical intervention derived from this
theoretical framework, Processing Instruction (PI), has consistently shown suc-
cess at improving second language (L2) learners’ processing strategies. PI helps
learners to intake “better input” by directing their attention to targeted forms
during input processing and to assign grammatical and semantic roles. Although
previous ndings reveal that PI is an eective pedagogy in L2 learning, in this
chapter we explore whether similar benets would hold for third language (L3)
learning. rough considerations related to the complimentary and competi-
tive nature of rst languages (L1s) and L2s, along with insight from cognitive
bilingualism, we advocate for future studies to test the hypotheses discussed
in this chapter.
Keywords: processing instruction, input processing, L3 learning, cognitive
bilingualism
Introduction
What is Input Processing?
One of the key assumptions in theories of L2 acquisition is that there is not a one-
to-one correspondence between the linguistic input learners are exposed to and
their internal language system (interlanguage). Only a small proportion of input is
actually taken in (intake) by learners during comprehension. e question is: Why

 Alessandro Benati and John W. Schwieter
would L2 learners process some elements in the input and not others? e Input
Processing (IP) theoretical framework (VanPatten, 1996, 2004, 2015a), in the at-
tempt to address this main inquiry, is concerned with the following:
a. e linguistic data L2 learners attend and/or do not attend to during compre-
hension and why;
b. e conditions under which L2 learners make from-meaning mappings; and
c. e grammatical roles L2 learners assign to nouns based on their position in
an utterance.
VanPatten’s theory of IP consists of two main principles addressing dierent
aspects of processing. e rst principle (P1) called e Primacy of Meaning
Principle asserts that when L2 learners are exposed to input, they are primarily
concerned with extracting meaning before they process grammatical forms. e
second principle (P2) called e First Noun Principle asserts that the order in
which L2 learners encounter sentence elements is a powerful factor in assigning
grammatical relations amongst sentence elements. Each of the two main princi-
ples is further explicated with a number of sub-principles (see Table1).
Table1. Input Processing principles and sub-principles (adapted from VanPatten, 2004,
p. 14–18)
Principle 1. e Primacy of Meaning Principle: Learners process input for meaning before
they process it for form.
1a. e Primacy of Content Words Principle: Learners process content words in the
input before anything else.
1b. e Lexical Preference Principle: Learners will tend to rely on lexical items as
opposed to grammatical form to get meaning when both encode the same semantic
information.
1c. e Preference for Nonredundancy Principle: Learners are more likely to process
nonredundant meaningful grammatical form before they process redundant meaning-
ful forms.
1d. e Meaning-Before-Nonmeaning Principle: Learners are more likely to process
meaningful grammatical forms before nonmeaningful forms irrespective of redun-
dancy.
1e. e Availability of Resources Principle: For learners to process either redundant
meaningful grammatical forms or nonmeaningful forms, the processing of overall
sentential meaning must not drain available processing resources.
1f. e Sentence Location Principle: Learners tend to process items in sentence initial
position before those in nal position and those in medial position.
Principle 2. e First Noun Principle: Learners tend to process the rst noun or pronoun
they encounter in a sentence as the subject or agent.

Chapter11. Input Processing and Processing Instruction 
Table1. (continued)
2a. e Lexical Semantics Principle: Learners may rely on lexical semantics, where pos-
sible, instead of word order to interpret sentences.
2b. e Event Probabilities Principle: Learners may rely on event probabilities, where
possible, instead of word order to interpret sentences.
2c. e Contextual Constraint Principle: Learners may rely less on the First Noun
Principle if preceding context constrains the possible interpretation of a clause or
sentence.
e sub-components of the Primacy of Meaning Principle capture the possible
interplay of a variety of linguistic and cognitive features during comprehension
(content words, lexical preference, redundancy and meaningfulness, allocation
of resources during comprehension and location). e sub-components of the
First Noun Principle encapsulate the possible elements that might attenuate L2
learners’ misuse of the principle (lexical semantics, event probabilities, contextual
constraints).
What is Processing Instruction?
Processing Instruction (PI) is a pedagogical intervention to grammar instruc-
tion predicated on the IP theoretical model that we have described above. e
characteristics of this pedagogical intervention have been described in detail in
previous work (Benati & Lee, 2015; Farley, 2005; Lee & Benati, 2009, 2013; Lee
& VanPatten, 2003; VanPatten, 2015a; VanPatten, 2015b; Wong, 2004, 2005).
VanPatten (1996) argued that the main goal in this pedagogical intervention ‘‘is to
alter the processing strategies that learners take to the task of comprehension and
to encourage them to make better form-meaning connections than they would
if le to their own devices’’ (p. 60). Importantly, PI ‘‘has never focused on the in-
ternalization of rules in the classic sense. Instead, PI has always focused on the
processing of morpho-phonological units as well as sentences’’ (VanPatten, 2015a,
p. 98). Processing instruction is a pedagogical intervention which focuses on the
development of underlying competence and it is not meant to assist in skill devel-
opment (VanPatten, 2015).
When L2 learners are exposed to input, they tend to rely on the IP principles,
described in the previous section, to process the input. As a result, L2 learners
might not be able to make correct form-meaning connections and to assign gram-
matical relations amongst sentence elements appropriately. Wong (2004) asserts
that ‘‘the goal of PI is to help L2 learners derive richer intake from input by having
them engage in structured input activities (SIA) that push them away from the
strategies they normally use to make form-meaning connections’’ (p. 33). Most

 Alessandro Benati and John W. Schwieter
simply put, a main objective of PI is to ensure that L2 learners process forms and
structures (one at a time) correctly and eciently in the input they receive. SIA are
the main component (input practice component) and the causative factor for the
positive eects of PI in helping L2 learners to process linguistics features in the in-
put more accurately and eciently. In order to develop eective SIA a step-by-step
procedure needs to be followed (see VanPatten & Sanz, 1995).
PI seeks to intervene in the processes L2 learners use to get data from the
input. Its main objective is to help L2 learners to circumvent the processing prin-
ciples they use to derive intake data by making them to rely exclusively on forms/
grammatical structures to derive meaning from input. PI must ensure that the in-
put data are processed (linked to meaning) during comprehension. PI is not about
noticing but it is about processing (e.g., a past tense marker such as -ed has to be
tagged as meaning <+past> <-present> for it to be acquired). PI consists of three
main components:
a. L2 learners are given explicit information about a linguistic structure or form.
Forms and/or structures are presented one at a time (e.g., third person singu-
lar -s; paste tense endings -ed, etc.);
b. Within the linguistic information provided to L2 learners about a target form
or structure, learners are also given information on a particular processing
principle that may negatively aect their picking up of the form and/or struc-
ture during comprehension. In the case of lexical preference for example, L2
learners are warned to pay attention to tense endings to understand when the
action takes place rather than relying on temporal indicators. In the case of
word order, L2 learners are warned that the rst noun they might encounter
in a sentence is not always the agent. Furthermore, L2 learners might need to
pay attention to who did what to whom (e.g., passive construction structures);
c. L2 learners are pushed to process the form and/or structure during struc-
tured-input tasks in which the input is manipulated in particular ways to push
learners to become dependent on form and/or structure to get meaning. Van
Patten and Sanz (1995) have originally produced the following guidelines for
structured input activities: present one thing at a time; keep meaning in focus;
move from sentences to connected discourse; use both oral and written in-
put; have the learner do something with the input; and keep the learner’s pro-
cessing strategies in mind. e main goal of structured-input tasks is to alter
the default processing principles that L2 learners use when interpreting and
processing input language and help learners in making correct form-meaning
connections and appropriate computing sentence structure. Research investi-
gating the role of explicit information and structured-input practice (Benati,
2004, 2004b; Farley, 2004; Lee & Benati, 2007a; Sanz, 2004; Van Patten &

Chapter11. Input Processing and Processing Instruction 
Oikkenon, 1996; VanPatten et al., 2013; Wong, 2004) has repeatedly showed
that is it the structured-input component the most signicant variable within
PI. Structured input is the causative factor.
In this chapter, we review some of the empirical evidence supporting IP and its
pedagogical application, PI. We will rst each of the sub-principles along with
some evidence that supports them. Following this review, we make inquiries
and extensions as to whether these hypotheses would hold for the teaching and
learning of an L3.
Input Processing research
eories from IP are concerned with the processes by which L2 learners make an
initial connection between a form and its meaning. Research into IP addresses two
fundamental questions:
a. Do L2 learners make correct form-meaning connections when they are ex-
posed to input?
b. Do L2 learners assign appropriate grammatical relations amongst sentence el-
ements?
Meaning rst
e IP theory asserts that learners are primarily driven to comprehend the message
in the input before they look at how the message is grammatically encoded. Learners
process content words in the input before anything else (VanPatten, 2015c).
VanPatten (1990) demonstrated that learners are directed toward the detec-
tion of content words in order to grasp the meaning of an utterance. ey use
content words as building blocks of meaning in so far as they do not have sucient
attentional resources to allocate elsewhere. Research on L1 and L2 development
supports the view that L2 learners process meaning rst. Empirical evidence in
support of the ‘meaning rst’ concept comes from L2 research in both an intro-
spection study (Mangubhai, 1991) and experimental studies (Bransdorfer, 1989;
Hulstijn, 1989; VanPatten, 1990). Lee (1999) also demonstrates that learner’s pri-
mary task is to process the input for meaning even though the passage contains a
series of grammatical forms.
More evidence for how learners process input for meaning before they pro-
cess it for form comes from the recall data reported in Lee (2002, 2003) and
Rossomondo (2006). Bernhardt (2007) examined the dierent text processing
strategies employed by native and inexperienced nonnative readers. In tracking

 Alessandro Benati and John W. Schwieter
their eye movements across the lines of a text, she found out that the nonnative
readers valued content words highly and valued word nal morphology much less.
Lexical preference
e IP theory asserts that when learners have both a word and form to consider,
they tend to work with the word. “If grammatical forms express a meaning that
can be also encoded lexically (i.e., that grammatical marker is redundant), then
learners will not initially process those grammatical forms until they have lexi-
cal forms to which they can match them” (VanPatten, 2015c, p. 116). Empirical
evidence in support of the learners’ preference for lexical items over grammati-
cal ones comes from research on the acquisition of tense (e.g., Bardovi-Harlig,
1992; Klein, 1986). is research has provided evidence that learners typically
mark or encode temporality early in the acquisition of verb morphology through
lexical items. Lexical preference is also well documented in studies on process-
ing (Cadierno & Glass, 1990; Lee, 1999; Lee, Cadierno, Glass, & VanPatten, 1997;
Musumeci, 1989). Overall, the results of these studies conrmed that the main
factor determining correct tense assignment was the presence or absence of lexical
temporal adverbs in the input sentences.
Redundancy and meaningfulness
e IP theory asserts that formal features of an L2, from a learner’s perspective,
are either of high or low communicative value. “Communicative value refers to the
relative contribution a form makes to the referential meaning of an utterance and
is based on the presence or absence of two features: inherent semantic value and
redundancy within the sentence-utterance.” (VanPatten, 1996, p. 24). Learners
are more likely to process non-redundant and/or meaningful grammatical mark-
ers before they process redundant and/or nonmeaningful grammatical markers
(VanPatten, 2015c). Learners would make a from-meaning connection sooner for
a nonredundant meaningful form. Lee (1987), in one empirical study, demon-
strates how learners fail to process grammatical features of lower communicative
value during comprehension of written input.
Resources
e IP theory asserts that human beings have limited capacity in processing in-
formation. eir processors with have limited processing resources available for
dierent tasks. e limitations of our processing resources are made more severe
in an L2 context. VanPatten (1990) and Bransdorfer (1991) showed with their

Chapter11. Input Processing and Processing Instruction 
simultaneous processing tasks that learners can be directed to attend to nonmean-
ingful forms but at a loss to comprehension. Lee (1999) demonstrated that com-
prehension diculties contributed to IP diculties. If getting the meaning is dif-
cult and eortful, it drains processing resources (VanPatten, 2015c). Increasing
the opportunity for learners to comprehend should result in the increased oppor-
tunity for learners to process forms in the input.
Location
e IP theory lays out a hierarchy of processing saliency with regard to location
of L2 features in the input. Learners tend to process elements in a sentence in the
initial position, before the ones in nal position and last the ones in medial posi-
tion (VanPatten, 2015c). e empirical evidence suggests that initial position is
the rst processing position. Barcro and VanPatten (1997) found that learners
repeated items most successfully in initial position, more so than in medial posi-
tion and more so than in nal position. Rosa and O’Neill (1998) also found that
initial position is the most favorable processing position and that nal position is
more favorable than medial position.
Word order and attenuating factors
e IP theory asserts that learners tend to assign the role of subject or agent to
the rst noun they encounter in the input string (VanPatten, 2015c). Even though
languages have a typologically canonical word order, such as SVO for English and
SOV for Japanese, other word orders are permissible. Even passive constructions
in many languages are sometimes misinterpreted because of the use of the First
Noun Principle. LoCoco (1987) found that learners normally assign to the rst
noun the grammatical role of subject. Her research also teased some of the ‘at-
tenuating’ factors’ such as event probability or lexical semantics. Learners do not
automatically use the First Noun Principle to assign grammatical and semantic
roles. ey are sensitive to several factors that attenuate their use of this process-
ing strategy: lexical semantics; event probabilities; and contextual constraints.
e lexical semantics of the verb ‘kick’, for example, requires an animate agent
(Houston, 1997).
A sentence such as “e ball was kicked by the child” is unlikely to be mis-
interpreted because a ball cannot perform the action. In (1) and (2), both nouns
are capable of performing the action but one interpretation is more likely than the
other is. e event probabilities are low for the rst noun being the agent and are
higher for the second noun being the agent.

 Alessandro Benati and John W. Schwieter
(1) e farmer was kicked by the horse.
(2) e child was bitten by the dog.
Sentence-internal context attenuate learners’ use of the First Noun Principle for
assigning grammatical roles. Context does provide learners an additional clue
for processing the formal elements of the sentence (VanPatten & Houston, 1998).
Learners use of the First Noun Principle is strong in both the context and no-
context sentence types. However, the context does give learners an additional clue
for processing the formal elements of the sentence.
Processing Instruction research
ere is large research database on PI research (for recent reviews, see Lee, 2015;
Lee & Benati, 2009). Research into the relative eects of PI has addressed, among
other issues, the following questions:
a. How does it compare to other types of instructional interventions?
b. Can its eects be measured on dierent processing problems, dierent lan-
guages and among dierent populations?
c. Can secondary eects for PI be measured?
d. Is there a correlation between this pedagogical intervention and age?
e. Does it have an eect on discourse?
f. Does it have long-term eects?
Comparison to other instructional interventions
PI is an eective pedagogical intervention which has consistently demonstrated
signicant improvement in learner performance on both interpretation and pro-
duction tasks. In the interpretation task learners where asked to interpret sen-
tences containing the target feature. In the production task learners were asked to
produce correct forms in a short passage or in a story. e eects of PI, investi-
gated in a number of empirical studies, have shown that PI is a better instructional
intervention than traditional instruction at improving learners’ rate of processing
and at increasing learners’ accuracy in production (e.g., Benati, 2001; Cadierno,
1995; Cheng, 2004; VanPatten & Cadierno, 1993; VanPatten & Wong, 2004). ese
positive eects have also been compared to other instructional interventions such
as meaning-based output instruction (Benati, 2005; Farley, 2001a; Gely, 2005;
Lee & Benati, 2007b; Morgan-Short & Bowden, 2006), input-based interventions
(Agiasophiti, 2013; Lee & Benati, 2007a; Marsden, 2006), and dictoglosses (Uludag

Chapter11. Input Processing and Processing Instruction 
& VanPatten 2012; VanPatten et al., 2009). Meaning-based output instruction is a
type of instruction based on the tenets of structured-output activities (Benati &
Lee, 2015).ese comparative analyses not only demonstrate that PI is successful
at altering learners’ processing problems, but it also seems to be superior to a vari-
ety of other teaching approaches.
Populations from dierent L1s and L2s
PI has been eective in altering non-optimal processing principles such as the
Lexical Preference Principle (e.g., Benati, 2001, 2004b, 2005, 2013; Benati, Lee,
& Houghton, 2008; Cadierno, 1995; Farley, 2001a; Lee & Benati, 2007a), the
Preference for Nonredundancy Principe (e.g., Benati, 2004a; Cheng, 2004), e
Sentence Location Principle (e.g., Farley, 2001b, 2004; Lee & Benati, 2007a),
First Non Principle (e.g., Lee & Malovrh, 2009; Morgan-Short & Bowden 2006;
VanPatten & Cadierno, 1993; VanPatten & Wong, 2004). PI research examined na-
tive speakers of English learning romance languages (Spanish, French, Italian) and
non-romance languages such as Japanese, Russian, German, and Chinese. Other
studies examined native speakers of Chinese, Korean, Turkish, Italian and Greek
learning English as an L2 (e.g., Benati, 2005, 2009, 2013; Benati & Lee, 2010; Lee
& Benati, 2007a, 2007b; Lee, Benati, & Houghton; Uludag & VanPatten, 2012).
Benati, Lee, and McNulty (2010) and Lee and McNulty (2013) examined the learn-
ers’ native language background as a variable in the research design. One of their
groups consisted of non-native speakers of English for whom Spanish was a third
or subsequent language. ey found positive eects for PI with (individual) na-
tive speakers of German, Polish, and Russian as well as Italian, Cantonese and
Mandarin. PI is eective across all these native languages because PI targets a spe-
cic processing problem associated with the L2.
Secondary eects
Benati and Lee (2008) examined transfer-of-training eects. ey produced the
evidence that the developing system had been aected. ey provided training to
L2 learners on Italian noun-adjective gender agreement and found that it trans-
ferred to the future tense. ey found that training on the English past tense mark-
er -ed transferred to the third-person singular present tense marker -s. Benati, Lee,
and Laval (2008) trained L2 learners to process imperfective verb morphology in
French and found that it transferred to subjunctive forms. Subsequent research
has supported Benati and Lee’s ndings on interpretation (Leeser & DeMil, 2013;
White & DeMil, 2013a, 2013b).

 Alessandro Benati and John W. Schwieter
Age
PI has examined the role of age on results generated by this pedagogical interven-
tion. VanPatten and Oikennon (1996) examined the eects of PI on high-school
students, aged 15–16 years. Benati (2005) measured the positive eects of PI with
12–13 year old Chinese and Greek children, as did Marsden (2006) with 13–14
year olds native speakers of English. Benati and Lee with Houghton (2008) exam-
ined middle-school-aged Korean children. Benati and Lee (2010) found positive
eects for PI on English simple past tense with native speakers of Chinese who
were primary-school-aged children. Benati (2013) examined secondary students
and adults, Angelovska and Benati (2013) 10.5 year olds in comparison to adoles-
cent (mean age 26 years old) students, Mavrontoni and Benati (2013) compared
the performance of pre- and post-puberty adolescents.
Discourse eects
VanPatten and Sanz (1995), Sanz (1997, 2004), and Sanz and Morgan-Short (2004)
are studies which have all demonstrated that PI has an eect on discourse-level
production tasks (oral and written video-based retellings and oral and written
structured interview). Cheng (2002, 2004) and Benati, Lee, and McNulty (2010)
found positive eects for PI using a picture-based guided composition. Benati and
Lee (2010) and Benati (2015) extended these nding by assessing the eects of
PI using discourse-level interpretation tasks (English past tense, Japanese passive
constructions).
Longitudinal eectiveness
e seminal study by VanPatten and Cadierno (1993) and Cadierno (1995) dem-
onstrated that the eects of PI were retained one month aer instruction. Many
subsequent studies have included delayed post-testing that show learners retain
the benets of PI, be the post-testing one week aer instruction (Cadierno; Lee &
Benati, 2007b; Lee, Benati, Aguilar-Sánchez, & McNulty, 2007; Morgan-Short &
Bowden, 2006; VanPatten & Cadierno), two weeks (Farley, 2001a, 2001b, 2004a,
2004b), three weeks (Benati, 2001; Cheng, 2002, 2004), four weeks (Benati, 2004a;
Cadierno; Keating & Farley, 2008; VanPatten & Cadierno), six weeks (VanPatten,
Farmer, & Clardy, 2009; VanPatten, Inclezan, Salazar, & Farley, 2009), and eight
months (VanPatten & Fernández, 2004). e eects of instruction were measured
using a variety of tasks including aural interpretation, oral or written production,
form selection, and guided composition.

Chapter11. Input Processing and Processing Instruction 
Beyond L2 acquisition: Considerations for L3 acquisition
us far, we have considered a signicant amount of evidence supporting the ben-
ets of PI in L2 learning. However, we know very little about the eectiveness of PI
in L3 learning. Would modications need to be made to IP theories or PI practices
to take into account the role of the L2? Does the L2 modulate the eectiveness
of PI in an L3? What about learners who have already been exposed (or not) to
PI in an L2? Are the benets of PI in L2 learning conned to the L2 or are they
extendable to the learning of other languages (e.g., L3, L4, etc.)? Would these po-
tential transfer eects be sensitive to the typological relatedness of the L2 and L3?
Investigating whether or not PI is an eective pedagogical intervention to assist
language learning beyond a language in which it was rst employed could reveal
robust ndings about the language learning and processing in general.
In previous PI work, and particularly in EFL studies, some mention has been
made to the fact that L2 learner participants also had knowledge of an additional
language (Hashemnezhad & Zangalani, 2012; Lee & McNulty, 2013). One of the
only studies that has conducted analyses on the role of language background in
PI has been by Lee and McNulty. In this study, the researchers asked whether PI
brings about changes in the developing system of learners with various language
backgrounds. eir within- and between-group comparisons were conducted on
three groups of language learners of Spanish: 1) L1 English speakers learning L2
Spanish (“English” group); 2) L1 English speakers who had knowledge of a variety
of L2s and were also learning L3 Spanish (“English +” group); and L1 speakers of
a variety of languages who had English as an L2 and were also learning L3 or L4
Spanish (“Other” group). Perhaps the most important nding from this study is
the fact that although the “Other group” scored marginally signicantly higher
(p < .06) than the other two groups in the pre-test (perhaps demonstrating their
robust language backgrounds), this dierence was no longer apparent aer the PI
intervention. Indeed, while each of the three groups preformed signicantly better
aer PI, these dierences were no longer signicant between the groups.
In Lee and McNulty (2013), PI appears to have “leveled-out the playing eld”
between learners with a more robust language repertoire and those learning their
rst foreign language. What we do not know is whether these “catch-up” eects
could be replicated in and compared to traditional pedagogies or whether there
is something special about PI. Furthermore, Lee and McNulty did not discuss the
possible eects of language typology nor did they elaborate on the types of language
pedagogies to which the participants with more language repertoire had been pre-
viously exposed. As mentioned above, it is still unclear as to whether the benets
of PI are conned to the language of instruction or are extendable to the learning
of other languages that are typologically similar or dissimilar. Additionally, there is

 Alessandro Benati and John W. Schwieter
quite a bit of evidence suggesting that other individual dierences may modulate
the eectiveness of PI (see Lee & Benati). We will next discuss and make exten-
sions to how these factors may also play a role in language learning beyond an L2.
e role of prior linguistic knowledge
In the last few years, we have witnessed an increased interest in research inves-
tigating the possible eects of learners’ previous knowledge of an L1 and an L2
in the acquisition of an L3. e key issue addressed in these studies is whether
or not learners’ previous linguistic knowledge has an aect on the L3 acquisition
process. Bardel and Falk (2007) suggest that the L2 is the main source of transfer
independently of the relative typological similarity. Subsequently, Falk and Bardel
(2011) formulated the so-called L2 Status Factor Hypothesis, which is said to pre-
dict transfer from L2 (and not L1) in L3 learning.
Two models have been recently proposed: the Cumulative Enhancement
Model (Flynn et al., 2004); and the Typological Primacy Model (Rothman, 2011).
According to the former, language acquisition is cumulative. Previous linguistic
knowledge would either enhance subsequent language acquisition of another lan-
guage or remain completely neutral. Transfer can only be positive transfer or it
would not take place at all.
e Typological Primacy Model argues that the L1 or the L2 can be the source
of transfer and not in all cases transfer has a facilitative role. No matter the order
of acquisition, typology is the key factor for transfer between languages. For ex-
ample, L3 syntactic transfer might come from either the L1 or the L2. According
to Rothman (2011), typological proximity between the languages is the key factor
for cross-linguistic inuence although he also distinguishes between transfer and
CLI, placing the former one only on mental representational level.
Despite the fact that some studies (see Section3.6 in this chapter) investigated
the role that language background might play in the eects of PI, it is necessary
to conduct new research, within the PI framework, that more specically consid-
ers the possible role of cross-linguistic transfer on the acquisition of grammatical
features in the L3.
e role of individual dierences
Many, if not all, of the individual dierences that are discussed in the L2 litera-
ture could have an eect on L3 acquisition. Some of these factors include working
memory, aptitude, language background, gender, and age (see Lee & Benati, 2013
for a volume-length exploration). Needless to say, in L3 acquisition, the L2 will
not always be the same for all learners, it is important to consider this factor. For

Chapter11. Input Processing and Processing Instruction 
instance, in a Spanish-as-a-foreign-language classroom in Canada, many of the
English L1 speakers will have had some sort of exposure to French due to provin-
cial and/or federal language requirements. However, other students who may speak
another language at home could be English-Polish bilinguals learning Spanish as
an L3 (or L4). Language background, linguistic repertoire, and language typology
along with language dominance and amount of language use in the individual
languages could all have an eect on L3 acquisition. Does the relatedness of an L3
to either an L2 or L1 play a role in L3 learning and if so, are there modications
needed to PI to accommodate for this? In the next section, we use as an example
how the L3 and L2 may rely on lexical or conceptual links to access the meaning
of words in the trilingual mental lexicon. e meaning of words in one language
can be directly associated with their conceptual representations or indirectly as-
sociated through words in the other language. e access of meaning, thus, can be
either be conceptually mediated or lexically mediated, respectively. We will discuss
how this may also be sensitive to things such as language relatedness.
e role of a multilingual lexical-conceptual system
In the cognitive bilingualism literature, researchers have learned a great deal by
investigating the dynamic and developmental nature of the lexical-conceptual
system (see Schwieter & Ferreira, 2013 for a review). Kroll and Stewart’s (1994)
Revised Hierarchical Model (RHM; see Figure1) depicting the architecture of the
bilingual memory explains how L1 and L2 words are mapped onto their meanings.
e model puts forth that words either have direct access to the conceptual store
or have indirect access through association with their translation equivalents.
Figure1 shows the two routes that lead from an L2 word form to its conceptual
representation: the word association route, where concepts are accessed through
the L1 word form via lexical links; and the concept mediation route, with direct ac-
cess of L2 words to concepts via conceptual links. e developmental nature of the
model is supported in empirical studies (see Kroll, van Hell, Tokowicz, & Green,
2010 for a review) suggesting that the lexical route is typical of language learners
with lower prociency and that the conceptual route is achievable and more com-
mon as prociency level increases.

 Alessandro Benati and John W. Schwieter
lexical
links
L1 L2
concepts
Conceptual
links
Conceptual
links
Figure1. e Revised Hierarchical Model (taken from Kroll & Stewart, 1994).
A number of studies have argued that when L2 learners acquire new words,
conceptual restructuring occurs to accommodate for word-to-concept mapping
(Athanasopoulos, 2009, 2011; Athanasopoulos & Kasai, 2008; Cook, Bassetti,
Kasai, Sasaki, & Takahashi, 2006; Pavlenko, 2009). As such, a multimodal repre-
sentation of the conceptual system is hypothesized to consist of revised catego-
ries that are equivalent (fully-shared), partially equivalent (partially overlapping),
lexical links
L1 words
Conceptual
links Conceptual
links
L2 words
L2-specic
categories
L1-specic
categories
L1 transfer
L2 transfer
Conceptual development and
restructuring
Shared
Categories
Figure2. e Modied Hierarchical Model (taken from Pavlenko, 2009).

Chapter11. Input Processing and Processing Instruction 
or non-equivalent (entirely language-specic). Pavlenko’s Modied Hierarchical
Model (MHM) is shown in Figure2. Like the RHM, the MHM presents a dynam-
ic account of conceptual and lexical processing which retains the developmental
progression from lexical to conceptual mediation to account for L2 acquisition. In
addition to a uniquely organized conceptual store, the MHM incorporates con-
ceptual and semantic transfer (see also Jarvis & Pavlenko, 2008).
How can the MHM be extended to learning an L3 and what are the pedagogi-
cal implications for PI? Both the RHM and MHM can tell us a great deal about
how a trilingual lexical-conceptual system may look and function. Like the MHM,
the Trilingual Modied Hierarchical Model (TMHM; see Figure3) incorporates
the idea of conceptual restructuring and target-like development of linguistic cat-
egories: L2 and L3 acquisition both lead to a process of conceptual reorganizing.
However, the addition of an L3 implies that lexical mediation from the L3 to the
L2 can occur (although empirical support would be needed to tease apart whether
the preferred path of lexical mediation for the L3 would be via L1 or L2 words
and whether these things are modulated by other factors). For instance, when an
English (L1), Spanish (L2), Italian (L3) language learner is asked to name an L3
word (e.g., gatto), he/she may have to access its meaning by rst associating it with
the L2 word (e.g., gato) rather than with the L1 word cat. L3-to-L2 word associa-
tion may be sensitive to factors such as cognate status, language typologies, lexical
robustness (i.e., an element of prociency in which automaticity of word retrieval
is due to the familiarity with and frequency of its access; Schwieter & Sunderman,
2008, 2009), and overall prociency level. Future studies should test the modulat-
ing nature of these variables while also keeping in mind that lexical transfer may
also trigger syntactic transfer.
e theoretical predications of the TMHM can have implications for L3 ac-
quisition and for language pedagogies including PI. In terms of L3 acquisition
theories, the model implies that a general objective in L3 learning should be to
establish strong conceptual links between the L3 and conceptual store which is a
theoretical characteristic of automaticity and uency. What we do not yet know,
however, is whether at beginning stages of L3 learning, L3 word processing is a
lexically-mediated through L1 words or L2 words and whether or not this is sensi-
tive to the relative prociency level in the L2, or other variables such as language
typology (e.g., several example combinations of related and unrelated languag-
es: English-Spanish-Mandarin vs. Spanish-French-Italian vs. German-Spanish-
Portuguese; Dutch-German-Japanese). Furthermore, we are unsure as to whether
lexical transfer could be the cause for syntactic transfer. Language teaching meth-
ods should consider ways that facilitate the shi from lexical mediation to concep-
tual mediations while also keeping in mind potential eects from the dierences
we have outlined above.

 Alessandro Benati and John W. Schwieter
L1
words
L2
words
L3
words
L1-specic
categories
L2-specic
categories
L3-specic
categories
L1 transfer
L2 transfer Conceptual
inks
Conceptual
links
Conceptual
inks
L3 transfer
Lexical links
Lexical links
Lexical links
Conceptual development and
restructuring
L1-L2-L3 Shared Categories
L1-L2 L2-L3 L1-L3
Figure3. e Trilingual Modied Hierarchical Model.
While IP makes claims for the general processing of input, models such as the
TMHM are not sentence-level processing models and fail to shed light on the in-
take that learners attend to in the input. Nonetheless, it does remind us of the im-
portance of considering that, at least during lexical access, the L3 may be mediated
via L2 word association and it may be worth revisiting some of the IP principles
and sub-principles to consider whether modications need to be made to accom-
modate for L3 learning. For instance, in Principle 2, e First Noun Principle –
which argues that learners tend to process the rst noun or pronoun they en-
counter in a sentence as the subject or agent – could it be possible that once an L2
learner has been exposed to techniques that push them away from this potentially
erroneous processing technique, they be able to transfer such benets to L3 learn-
ing? If lexical mediation is possible from L3 to L2, could the same hold true to pro-
cessing techniques in the L3 and L2? Specically regarding word learning in an L3,

Chapter11. Input Processing and Processing Instruction 
activities that help to build stronger conceptual links from the L3 to the conceptual
store and to help facilitate the development of shared-categories would be ideal.
Applied linguists and language educators should also consider exploring and/
or implementing pedagogical approaches that help facilitate the development of
appropriate categories for both of their languages. Although immersion learning
and its role in developing language control abilities (Linck et al., 2009) and lexical
development (Schwieter, 2013), classroom-based activities certainly could be ad-
opted to accomplish similar goals. Activities would be valuable that emphasize the
meaningful development of connections between concepts (e.g., pictures) and the
words they represent hand-in-hand eective pedagogies such as PI. Additional ac-
tivities that may be incorporated could target the eective use of language produc-
tion in mixed-language environments either by induced language switching and
working on activities equally in both languages (see Schwieter & Ferreira, 2013).
It may be the case that the practice of switching between languages in which one
language is activated while the other(s) are inhibited may eectively lead to gains
in prociency and uidity. Ideally, these pedagogical considerations will take into
account previous ndings and the importance of developing conceptual media-
tion in all three languages.
Conclusion
In this chapter, we have reviewed the prominent theoretical framework in L2 ac-
quisition, namely IP which refers to the initial process by which learners connect
grammatical forms with their meanings as well as how they interpret the roles of
nouns in relationship to verbs. We then discussed the pedagogical intervention
derived from this line of thought, PI which has shown success at improving pro-
cessing strategies in order to facilitate L2 acquisition. Learners from dierent L1s
and backgrounds make consistent gains in interpretation and production tests at
sentence and discourse-level. e eects of PI are consistent, durative, measurable
on dierent languages, dierent linguistics features aected by processing prob-
lems, with learners of dierent ages, and its positive eects seem to be transferable
(Benati & Lee, 2015).
Following these discussions, we explored some considerations for L3 acquisi-
tion while keeping in mind the complimentary and competitive nature of the L1
and L2, in addition to other factors such as prior linguistic knowledge, previous
experience with languages pedagogies, individual dierences, and lexical-concep-
tual mediation in the trilingual memory. Future studies within these frameworks
will need to consider, among other things, the individual characteristics of the
learner and the language under investigation.

 Alessandro Benati and John W. Schwieter
Some of the research questions we have discussed in this paper – and deserve
attention in future work – in relation to PI and L3 learning are:
a. Does the L2 modulate the eectiveness of PI in an L3?
b. Are the benets of PI in L2 learning conned to the L2 or are they extendable
to the learning of other languages (e.g., L3, L4, etc.)?
c. What is the role of cross-linguistic transfer on the acquisition of grammatical
features in a L3?
d. Does the relatedness of an L3 to either an L2 or L1 play a role in L3 learning
and if so, are there modications needed to PI to accommodate for this?
Other fruitful questions which we have not discussed in this chapter due to space
limitations yet deserve attention are:
a. Can PI override any negative eects of processing strategies from typologi-
cally unrelated L2 and L3?
b. Does PI as an intervention that instills the correct processing strategies change
or blocks any of the elements of the mental processor (lexicon, phonology/
phonotactics, functional morphology and syntactic structure)?
c. Is PI more eective at initial L3A or later L3A?
d. Is PI more eective if an individual learns two typologically similar or dier-
ent target languages at the same time?
Finally, from a methodological point of view, PI experimental research has pri-
marily made use of listening and reading measures (i.e., the so-called o-line mea-
sures) to elicit how learners comprehend and process sentences and discourse.
While these measures have provided fruitful explanations, we argue that on-line
methods such as eye tracking, self-paced reading, and event-related potentials
(ERPs) should be incorporated into PI research to provide a ner-grained analysis
of implicit knowledge.
References
Angelovska, T., & Benati, A. (2013). Processing instruction and the age factor: Can adults and
school-age speakers of German process English simple past tense correctly? In J. Lee & A.
Benati (Eds.), Individual dierences and processing instruction, 131–152. Sheeld: Equinox.
Athanasopoulos, P. (2009). Cognitive representation of color in bilinguals: e case of Greek
blues. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12(1), 83–95.
doi: 10.1017/S136672890800388X.
Athanasopoulos, P. (2011). Cognitive restructuring in bilingualism. In A. Pavlenko (Ed.),
inking and speaking in two languages (pp. 29–65). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Chapter11. Input Processing and Processing Instruction 
Athanasopoulos, P., & Kasai, C. (2008). Language and thought in bilinguals: e case of gram-
matical number and nonverbal classication preferences. Applied Psycholinguistics, 29(1),
105–121.
doi: 10.1017/S0142716408080053.
Bardel, C., & Falk, Y. (2007). e role of the second language in third language acquisition: e
case of Germanic syntax. Second Language Research, 23(4), 459–484.
doi: 10.1177/0267658307080557.
Benati, A. (2001). A comparative study of the eects of processing instruction and output-based
instruction on the acquisition of the Italian future tense. Language Teaching Research, 5(2),
95–127.
doi: 10.1191/136216801678766877.
Benati, A. (2004a). e eects of structured input and explicit information on the acquisition
of Italian future tense. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: eory, research, and
commentary (pp. 207–255). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Benati, A. (2004b). e eects of processing instruction and its components on the acquisition
of gender agreement in Italian. Language Awareness, 13(2), 67–80.
doi: 10.1080/09658410408667087.
Benati, A. (2005). e eects of PI, TI, and MOI in the acquisition of English simple past tense.
Language Teaching Research, 9, 67–113.
doi: 10.1191/1362168805lr154oa
Benati, A. (2013). Age and the eects of processing instruction on the acquisition of English pas-
sive constructions among school children and adult native speakers of Turkish. In J. Lee & A.
Benati (Eds.), Individual dierences and processing instruction, 83–104. Sheeld: Equinox.
Benati, A., & Lee, J. (2008). Grammar acquisition and processing instruction: Secondary and cu-
mulative eects. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Benati, A., Lee, J., & Houghton, S. (2008). From processing instruction on the acquisition of
English past tense to secondary transfer-of-training eects on English third person sin-
gular present tense. In A. Benati & J. Lee, Grammar acquisition and processing instruction:
Secondary and cumulative eects (pp. 88–120). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Benati, A., Lee, J., & Laval, C. (2008). From processing instruction on the acquisition of French
imparfait to secondary transfer-of-training eects on French subjunctive and to cumula-
tive transfer-of-training eects with French causative constructions. In A. Benati & J. Lee,
Grammar acquisition and processing instruction: Secondary and cumulative eects (pp. 121–
157). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Benati, A., & Lee, J. (2010). Processing instruction and discourse. London: Continuum.
Benati, A., Lee, J., & Hikima, N. (2010). Exploring the eects of processing instruction on dis-
course-level interpretation tasks with the Japanese passive construction. In A. Benati & J.
Lee, Processing instruction and discourse (pp. 148–177). London: Continuum.
Benati, A., Lee, J., & McNulty, E. (2010). Exploring the eects of processing instruction on a dis-
course-level guided composition with the Spanish subjunctive aer the adverb cuando. In
A. Benati & J. Lee, Processing instruction and discourse (pp. 97–147). London: Continuum.
Benati, A., & Lee, J. (Eds.) (2015). Processing Instruction: New insights aer twenty years of
theory, research, and application. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 53(2).
Cadierno, T. (1995). Formal instruction from a processing perspective: An investigation into the
Spanish past tense. e Modern Language Journal, 79(2), 179–93.
doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.1995.tb05430.x.
Cheng, A. (2002). e eects of processing instruction on the acquisition of ser and estar.
Hispania, 85, 308–323.

 Alessandro Benati and John W. Schwieter
Cheng, A. (2004). Processing instruction and Spanish ser and estar: Forms with semantic-aspec-
tual value. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: eory, research, and commentary
(pp. 119–141). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cook, V., Bassetti, B., Kasai, C., Sasaki, M., & Takahashi, J. (2006). Do bilinguals have dierent
concepts? e case of shape and material in Japanese L2 users of English. International
Journal of Bilingualism, 10(2), 137–152.
doi: 10.1177/13670069060100020201.
Culman, H., Henry, N., & VanPatten, B. (2009). e role of explicit information in instructed
SLA: An on-line study with processing instruction and German accusative case inections.
Die Unterrichtspraxis, 42(1), 19–31.
doi: 10.1111/j.1756-1221.2009.00032.x.
Falk, Y., & Bardel, C. (2011). Object pronouns in German L3 syntax: Evidence for the L2 status
factor. Second Language Research, 27(1), 59–82.
doi: 10.1177/0267658310386647.
Farley, A. (2001a). e eects of processing instruction and meaning-based output instruction.
Spanish Applied Linguistics, 5, 57–94.
Farley, A. (2001b). Authentic processing instruction and the Spanish subjunctive. Hispania,
84(2), 289–299.
doi: 10.2307/3657760.
Farley, A. (2004a). e relative eects of processing instruction and meaning-based output in-
struction. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: eory, research, and commentary
(pp. 143–168). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Farley, A. (2004b). Processing instruction and the Spanish subjunctive: Is explicit information
needed? In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: eory, research, and commentary
(pp. 227–239). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Fernández, C. (2008). Reexamining the role of explicit information in processing instruction.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30(3), 277–305.
doi: 10.1017/S0272263108080467.
Hashemnezhad, H., & Zangalani, S. (2012). e eects of Processing Instruction and traditional
instruction on Iranian EFL learners’ writing ability. English Language Teaching, 5(11), 125–
135.
doi: 10.5539/elt.v5n11p125.
Henry, N., Culman, H., & VanPatten, B. (2009). More on the eects of explicit information in
instructed SLA: A partial replication and a response to Fernández 2008. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 31(4), 559–575.
doi: 10.1017/S0272263109990027.
Jarvis. S., & Pavlenko, A. (Eds.) (2008). Crosslinguistic inuence in language and cognition. New
York, NY: Routledge.
Keating, G., & Farley, A. (2008). Processing instruction, meaning-based output instruction, and
meaning-based drills: Impacts on classroom L2 acquisition of Spanish object pronouns.
Hispania, 19, 639–650.
Kroll, J., & Stewart, E. (1994). Category interference in translation and picture naming: Evidence
for asymmetric connections between bilingual memory representations. Journal of Memory
and Language, 33(2), 149–174.
doi: 10.1006/jmla.1994.1008.
Lee, J. (2004). On the generalizability, limits, and potential future directions of processing in-
struction research. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: eory, research, and com-
mentary (pp. 311–323). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lee, J., & Benati, A. (2007a). Delivering processing instruction in classrooms and virtual contexts:
Research and practice. London: Equinox.
Lee, J., & Benati, A. (2007b). Second language processing: An analysis of theory, problems and pos-
sible solutions. London: Continuum.
Lee, J., & Benati, A. (2009). Research and perspectives on processing instruction. Berlin: Mouton
de Gruyter.
doi: 10.1515/9783110215335

Chapter11. Input Processing and Processing Instruction 
Lee, J., & Benati, A. (Eds.) (2013). Individual dierences and Processing Instruction. Sheeld:
Equinox.
Lee, J., Benati, A., Aguilar-Sánchez, J., & McNulty, E. (2007). Comparing three modes of deliver-
ing processing instruction on preterite/imperfect distinction and negative informal com-
mands in Spanish. In J. Lee & A. Benati, Delivering processing instruction in classrooms and
virtual contexts: Research and practice (pp. 73–98). London: Equinox.
Lee, J., & McNulty, E. (2013). e eects of language background on the results of Processing
Instruction on the Spanish subjunctive/indicative contrast aer the adverb cuando. In
J. Lee & A. Benati (Eds.), Individual dierences and Processing Instruction (pp. 49–82).
Sheeld: Equinox.
Leeser, M., & DeMil, A. (2013). Investigating the secondary eects of processing instruction in
Spanish: From instruction on accusative clitics to transfer-of-training eects on dative clit-
ics. Hispania, 96, 748–762.
doi: 10.1353/hpn.2013.0106
Lenet, A., Sanz, C, Lado, B., Howard, J., & Howard, D. (2011). Aging, pedagogical conditions,
and dierential success in SLA: An empirical study. In C. Sanz & R. Leow (Eds.), Implicit
and explicit language learning: Conditions, processes, and knowledge in SLA and bilingualism
(pp. 73–84). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Linck J. A., Kroll, J., & Sunderman, G. (2009). Losing access to the native language while im-
mersed in a second language: Evidence for the role of inhibition in second language learn-
ing. Psychological Science, 20(12), 1507–1515.
doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02480.x.
Marsden, E. (2006). Exploring input processing in the classroom: An experimental comparison
of processing instruction and enriched input. Language Learning, 56(3), 507–566.
doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2006.00375.x.
Mavrontoni, M., & Benati, A. (2013). e eects of processing instruction and traditional in-
struction on two dierent school-age learners: e case of English present simple tense,
third person singular. In J. Lee & A. Benati (Eds.), Individual dierences and processing
instruction (pp. 185–210). Sheeld: Equinox.
Morgan-Short, K., & Bowden, H. (2006). Processing instruction and meaningful output-
based instruction: Eects on second language development. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 28(1), 31–65.
doi: 10.1017/S0272263106060025.
Pavlenko, A. (2009). Conceptual representation in the bilingual lexicon and second language
vocabulary learning. In A. Pavlenko (Ed.), e bilingual mental lexicon: Interdisciplinary
approaches (pp. 125–160). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Sanz, C. (1997). Experimental tasks in SLA research: Amount of production, modality, memory,
and production processes. In A. Pérez-Leroux & R. Glass (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives
on the acquisition of Spanish, Vol. 2: Production, processing and comprehension (pp. 41–56).
Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Sanz, C. (2004). Computer delivered implicit versus explicit feedback in processing instruc-
tion. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: eory, research, and commentary (pp.
241–255). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Sanz, C., & Morgan-Short, K. (2004). Positive evidence versus explicit rule presentation and
explicit negative feedback: A computer-assisted study. Language Learning, 54(1), 35–78.
doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2004.00248.x.
Schwieter, J. W. (2013). Study abroad: Implications for L2 and lexical development. In J. W.
Schwieter (Ed.), Studies and global perspectives of second language teaching and learning.
Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

 Alessandro Benati and John W. Schwieter
Schwieter, J. W., & Ferreira, A. (2013). Language selection, control, and conceptual-lexical de-
velopment in bilinguals and multilinguals. In J. W. Schwieter (Ed.), Innovative research and
practices in second language acquisition and bilingualism (Language Learning & Language
Teaching 38) (pp. 241–266). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
doi: 10.1075/lllt.38.15sch
Schwieter, J. W., & Sunderman, G. (2008). Language switching in bilingual speech production:
In search of the language-specic selection mechanism. e Mental Lexicon, 3, 214–238.
doi: 10.1075/ml.3.2.06sch
Schwieter, J. W., & Sunderman, G. (2009). Concept selection and developmental eects in bilin-
gual speech production. Language Learning, 59(4), 897–927.
doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00529.x.
Staord, C, Sanz, C., & Bowden, H. (2010). An experimental study of early L3 development:
Age, bilingualism and classroom exposure. International Journal of Multilingualism, 7(2),
162–183.
doi: 10.1080/14790710903528122.
Uludag, O., & VanPatten, B. (2012). e comparative eects of processing instruction and dicto-
gloss on the acquisition of the English passive by speakers of Turkish. International Review
of Applied Linguistics, 50(3), 189–212.
doi: 10.1515/iral-2012-0008.
VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction: eory and research. Norwood,
NJ: Ablex.
VanPatten, B. (2004). Input processing in second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten (Ed.),
Processing instruction: eory, research, and commentary (pp. 5–31). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
VanPatten, B. (2015a). Foundations of processing instruction. International Review of Applied
Linguistics, 53(2), 91–109.
doi: 10.1515/iral-2015-0005.
VanPatten, B. (2015b). Processing perspectives on instructed second language acquisition. In J.
W. Schwieter, e Cambridge handbook of bilingual processing (pp. 200–215). Cambridge:
CUP.
doi: 10.1017/CBO9781107447257.008
VanPatten, B. (2015c). Input processing in adult SLA. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.),
eories in second language acquisition, (pp.113–134). New York, NY: Routledge.
VanPatten, B., & Cadierno, T. (1993). Explicit instruction and input processing. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 15(2), 225–243.
doi: 10.1017/S0272263100011979.
VanPatten, B. & Sanz, C. (1995). From input to output: processing instruction and communica-
tive tasks. In F. Eckman, D. Highland, P. Lee, J. Mileham, & R. Weber (Eds.), Second language
acquisition theory and pedagogy (pp. 169–185). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
VanPatten, B., & Oikennon, S. (1996). Explanation vs. structured input in processing instruc-
tion. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(4), 495–510.
doi: 10.1017/S0272263100015394.
VanPatten, B., & Fernández, C. (2004). e long-term eects of processing instruction. In B.
VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: eory, research, and commentary, (pp. 273–289).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
VanPatten, B., & Wong, W. (2004). Processing instruction and the French causative: Another
replication. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: eory, research, and commentary
(pp. 97–118). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
VanPatten, B., Inclezan, D., Salazar, H., & Farley, A. (2009). Processing instruction and dicto-
gloss: A study on object pronouns and word order in Spanish. Foreign Language Annals,
42(3), 557–575.
doi: 10.1111/j.1944-9720.2009.01033.x.
VanPatten, B., Farmer, J., & Clardy, C. (2009). Processing instruction and meaning-based output
instruction: A response to Keating and Farley (2008). Hispania, 92(1), 116–126.

Chapter11. Input Processing and Processing Instruction 
VanPatten, B., & Borst, S. (2012a). e roles of explicit information and grammatical sensitivity
in Processing Instruction: Nominative-accusative case marking and word order in German
L2. Foreign Language Annals, 45(1), 92–109.
doi: 10.1111/j.1944-9720.2012.01169.x.
VanPatten, B., & Borst, S. (2012b). e roles of explicit information and grammatical sensitivity
in the processing of clitic object pronouns and word order in L2 Spanish. Hispania, 95(2),
270–284. Retrieved from <http://www.jstor.org/stable/23266212>
VanPatten, B., Collopy, E., Price, J., Borst, S., & Qualin, A. (2013). Explicit information, gram-
matical sensitivity, and the First-Noun Principle: A cross-linguistic study in processing in-
struction. Modern Language Journal, 97(2), 504–525.
doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.12007.x.
White, J., & DeMil, A. (2013a). Primary and secondary eects of PI. International Journal of
Language Studies, 7(3), 59–88.
White, J. & DeMil, A. (2013b). Transfer-of-training eects in processing instruction: e role of
form-related explicit information. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35(3), 519–544.
doi: 10.1017/S0272263113000120.
Wong, W. (2004). Processing instruction in French: e roles of explicit information and struc-
tured input. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: eory, research, and commentary
(pp. 187–205). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Wong, W. (2010). Exploring the eects of discourse-level structured input activities with French
causative. In A. Benati & J. F. Lee, Processing instruction and discourse (pp. 198–216).
London: Continuum.