Ley General del Sistema Nacional Anticorrupción

! In addition to addressing the limitations set out in the previous section,

future research on this topic would benefit from considering the following points.

! Provided with the initial results set forth in the current study, future

studies on attention to and processing of phrasal verbs may gather additional evidence by the use of eye-tracking technology, which could provide data on the kinds of movements that participants’ eyes make while reading the phrasal verb texts under different conditions. Given the current evidence that syntactic complexity in phrasal verb constructions does lead to less efficient processing in nonnative speakers, eye tracking technology could provide more specific data as to how learners are processing these structures.

! Despite the prevalence of phrasal verb constructions in the English

language and the clear difficulty that nonnative speakers have with the structure, there is relatively little research in the literature about how nonnative speakers attend to and process these constructions. Future research could deal with some of the other issues with phrasal verb constructions that were not investigated in

this study, such as the behavior of transitive phrasal verbs with direct object pronouns. Direct object pronouns were not included in the current study because their use eliminates syntactic optionality (1) - (4).

! (1) a. John picked up the blue pen.

! b. John picked the blue pen up.

! (2) a. John picked it up.

! b. *John picked up it.

! (3) a. John picked up his son.

! b. John picked his son up.

! (4) a. John picked him up.

! b. *John picked up him.

The necessity of using the separated verbal form with pronouns is especially interesting when considering nonnative speakers’ significant preference for the phrasal verbs in their contiguous forms. Future research into how this issue affects the concepts discussed in this study would certainly be beneficial in understanding nonnative speakers’ strategies for processing phrasal verbs.

C

HAPTER

6

C

ONCLUSIONS

! This study has attempted to shed new light on second language attention

and processing by exploring how these components of language are affected by a lexical item that also contains elements of syntactic variability. The results of the sentence repetition task in this study have shown that participants seem to be able to process the meaning of the lexical item without attending to the structure intrinsically tied to the use of the verb in the sentence (as repeated in (1), below).

! (1). a. “Mr. White filled out the job application.”

! (original sentence: Mr. White filled the job application out.)

! b. “The student picked up his blue pen up.”

! (original sentence: The student picked his blue pen up.)

This type of error was not rare in the study, occurring in 19.2% of the errors made by nonnative speakers, and a full 37.7% of errors in which an intelligible response was actually given. This seems to indicate that when a lexical item contains elements of both syntax and lexicon, the noticing of the grammatical- structural elements of the item occurs separately from the noticing of lexical- semantic elements within the same item, and further, that the prioritization of

meaning over form occurs even within a single expression. In other words, there appears to be no obligatory link between the noticing of the syntax in a multi- word lexical item and the processing of the item.

! Regarding the effect of syntactic and structural complexity on attention to

structure and processing of written input, it seems to be the combination of both of these that results in both the inability to attend to structure in input and the lack of comprehension of the input. This is unsurprising, since the combination of semantic and syntactic complexity would seem most likely to exhaust attentional resources and force participants to prioritize meaning in the first case, and to cause them to actually fail to make meaning out of the complex input in the second. As for processing efficiency, while it was the syntactically and semantically simple input that was read the most quickly, the only statistically significant difference in reading times was seen between conditions of different syntactic structure, pointing to the fact that syntactic complexity in multi-word expressions is generally more likely to cause problems in processing than semantic complexity. However, since we see that syntactic complexity alone was not significantly more likely to cause comprehension problems, it seems that syntactic processing inefficiencies were not sufficient to impede comprehension. This result is echoed in the sentence repetition task, where it once again appears

to be the case that comprehension is not necessarily affected by failure to properly attend to syntactic input.

! The phrasal verbs in this study, transitive phrasal verbs that are capable of

separating across direct object, are the largest and most productive type of phrasal verb in English (Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman, 1999). Failure to properly use and understand these verbs has already been noted to restrict nonnative speakers from achieving native-like proficiency in English (Dagut and Laufer, 1985), and it appears that this will become even more true as more transitive phrasal verbs are added to the English language. It is therefore important that English instructors not only have a solid understanding of the functioning of these verbs themselves, but also that they understand how transitive phrasal verbs are processed by learners of English.

! The results of this study indicate that nonnative speakers show a marked

preference for phrasal verbs in their contiguous position which native speakers do not appear to exhibit. This may be in part a result of the way phrasal verbs are taught in the classroom, as a single vocabulary word. While this approach is not necessarily flawed, since learners of English seem to be able to understand the verbs in their separated position, it may be exacerbating the processing inefficiencies that occur when the phrasal verb is separated by a direct object. It has been observed in this study that the separation of directional phrasal verbs,

which are generally more frequently taught in the English classroom, caused a significant slowing of processing time when compared to directional verbs that were not separated. This result was not seen in metaphorical phrasal verbs, which are less frequently a focus in the classroom. It seems likely that the frequent teaching of directional phrasal verbs as single lexical units contributes to slower processing when they are separated, and it would therefore perhaps be beneficial for English teachers to de-emphasize the attachment of verb and particle in transitive phrasal verbs.

R

EFERENCES

Cappelle, B., Shtyrov, Y., & Pulvermüller, F. (2010). Heating up or cooling up the

! brain? MEG evidence that phrasal verbs are lexical units. Brain and

! Language 115 (3), 189–201. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2010.09.004 Celce-Murcia, M., Larsen-Freeman, D., & Williams, H. A. (1999). The

! grammar book: an ESL/EFL teacher’s course. Boston: Heinle & Heinle. Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006). Grammatical processing in language

! learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27(01), 3–42. doi:10.1017/

! S0142716406060024

Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2009). Grammatical Processing of Spoken

! Language in !Child and Adult Language Learners. Journal of

! Psycholinguistic Research, 38(3), 305–319. doi:10.1007/s10936-009-9104-8

Cowan, N. (1993). Activation, attention, and short-term memory. Memory &

! Cognition, 21(2), 162–167. doi:10.3758/BF03202728

Dagut, M., & Laufer, B. (1985). Avoidance of Phrasal Verbs—A Case for

! Contrastive Analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7(01), 73.

! doi:10.1017/S0272263100005167

Dussias, P. E. (2010). Uses of Eye-Tracking Data in Second Language

! Sentence Processing Research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30,

! 149–166. doi:10.1017/S026719051000005X

Ferreira, F., Bailey, K. G. D., & Ferraro, V. (2002). Good-Enough Representations

! in Language Comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science,

! 11(1), 11–15. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00158

Ferreira, F., & Engelhardt, P. E. (2006). Syntax and Production. In Matthew !J.

! Traxler & Morton A. Gernsbacher (Eds.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics

! (Second Edition) (pp. 61–91). London: Academic Press.

Ferreira, F., & Patson, N. D. (2007). The “Good Enough” Approach to

! Language Comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1(1-2),

! 71–83. doi:10.1111/j.1749-818X.2007.00007.x

Fodor, J.D. (1995). Comprehending sentence structure. In L.R. Gleitman & M.

! Liberman (Eds.), An invitation to cognitive science: Vol. 1. Language (2nd ed.,

! pp. 209-246). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Frenck-Mestre, C. (2005). Eye-movement recording as a tool for studying

! syntactic processing in a second language: a review of

! methodologies and experimental findings. Second Language Research,

Gardner, D., & Davies, M. (2007). Pointing Out Frequent Phrasal Verbs: A

! Corpus-Based Analysis. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 339–359.

! doi:10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00062.x

Gass, S., Svetics, I., & Lemelin, S. (2003). Differential Effects of Attention.

! Language Learning, 53(3), 497–546. doi:10.1111/1467-9922.00233 Greenslade, T., Bouden, L., & Sanz, C. (1999). Attending to form and

! content in processing L2 reading texts. Spanish Applied Linguistics, 3(1),

! 65–90.

Jackendoff, R. (2002). English particle constructions, the lexicon, and the

! autonomy of syntax. In N. Dehé (Ed.), Verb-Particle Explorations. Walter

! de Gruyter.

Juffs, A. (2004). Representation, processing, and working memory in a second

! language. Transactions of the Philological Society, 102, 199-225.

Krashen, S. (1981). Second Language Acquisition and Second Language !Learning.

! Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Lee, J. (2003). Cognitive and linguistic perspectives on the acquisition of object

! pronouns in Spanish as a second language. In Spanish Second !Language

! Acquisition: State of the Science (pp. 98–129). Washington D.C.: Georgetown

Leow, R. P. (2002). Models, attention, and awareness in SLA. Studies in Second

! Language Acquisition, 24(01), 113–119.

Leow, R. P., Hsieh, H.-C., & Moreno, N. (2008). Attention to Form and

! Meaning Revisited. Language Learning, 58(3), 665–695. doi:10.1111/

! j.1467-9922.2008.00453.x

Lobeck, A. C. (2000). Discovering grammar: an introduction to English sentence

! structure. New York: Oxford University Press.

MacWhinney, B. (1987). The Competition Model. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.),

! Mechanisms of language acquisition (pp. 249–308). Hillsdale, NJ:

! Erlbaum.

MacWhinney, B. (2005). A unified model of language acquisition. In J. Kroll

! & A. DeGroot (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic

! approaches (pp. 49–67). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Marinis, T. (2003). Psycholinguistic techniques in second language acquisition

! research. Second Language Research, 19(2), 144–161. doi

! 10.1191/0267658303sr217ra

Masini, F. (2005). Multi-word expressions between syntax and the lexicon: the

! case of Italian verb-particle constructions. SKY Journal of Linguistics, 18,

Matlock, T., & Herediag, R. R. (2002). Understanding phrasal verbs in

! monolinguals and bilinguals. In R. R. Heredia & J. Altarriba (Eds.),

! Bilingual sentence processing (pp. 251–274). Amsterdam,  Netherlands:

! North-Holland/Elsevier Science Publishers.

Napoli, D. J. (1993). Syntax: theory and problems. New York: Oxford University

! Press.

Robinson, P. (1995). Attention, Memory, and the “Noticing” Hypothesis.

! Language Learning, 45(2), 283–331. doi:10.1111/j.!1467-1770.1995.tb00441.x Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The Role of Consciousness in Second Language

! Learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158. doi:10.1093/

! applin/11.2.129

Seliger, H. W. (1983.). The language learner as linguist : metaphors and

! realities. Applied linguistics, 4(3), 179–191.

Side, R. (1990). Phrasal verbs: sorting them out. ELT Journal, 44(2), 144–152.

! doi:10.1093/elt/44.2.144

Siyanova, A., & Schmitt, N. (2007). Native and nonnative use of multi-word vs.

! one-word verbs. IRAL - International Review of Applied Linguistics in

! Language Teaching, 45, 119–139.

Smith, B. (2012). Eye Tracking as a Measure of Noticing: A Study of !Explicit

Sorace, A. (2006). Possible manifestations of shallow processing in advanced

! second language speakers. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27(01), 88–91.

Tallerman, M. (2005). Understanding syntax. London: Hodder Arnold.

Tomlin, R. S., & Villa, V. (1994). Attention in Cognitive Science and Second

! Language Acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16(02),

! 183. doi:10.1017/S0272263100012870

VanPatten, B. (1990). Attending to Form and Content in the Input. Studies in

! Second Language Acquisition, 12(03), 287–301. doi:10.1017/

! S0272263100009177

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. (2004a). Input processing in second language acquisition. In B.

! VanPatten (Ed.) Processing instruction. (pp. 5-31). London: Erlbaum.

VanPatten, B., Williams, J., Rott, S., & Overstreet, M. (2004b). Form-meaning

! connections in second language acquisition. !Mahwah: Erlbaum.

VanPatten, B., & Williams, J. (2007). Theories in second language acquisition : an

! introduction. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Wong, W. (2001). Modality and attention to meaning and form in the input.

Wyss, R. (2003). Putting Phrasal Verbs Into Perspective. TESOL Journal, 12(1),

A

PPENDIX

A

PARTICIPANT DATA

TABLEA.1PARTICIPANTDATA

indicates that participant was eliminated from sentence repetition task indicates that participant was eliminated from self-paced reading task indicates that participant was eliminated from both tasks

CLASS LEVEL AGE NATIVE LANGUAGE

NNS1 5 20 ARABIC NNS2 5 29 ARABIC NNS3 5 28 ARABIC NNS4 5 33 ARABIC NNS5 5 17 SPANISH NNS6 5 28 ARABIC NNS7 5 22 ARABIC NNS8 5 27 ARABIC NNS9 5 34 ARABIC NNS10 5 22 JAPANESE NNS11 5 32 ARABIC NNS12 5 19 ARABIC NNS13 5 23 SPANISH

CLASS LEVEL AGE NATIVE LANGUAGE

In document El sistema nacional anticorrupción: propuesta de modelo para e funcionamiento de los sistemas locales anticorrupión (página 63-66)