La ocupación del suelo en Ciudad Real durante el boom inmobiliario 1996 2006

In reviewing output-induced noticing research with a pre-determined language focus, inconclusive findings emerge. The studies have reported output-induced noticing gains (Izumi, 2002; Kang, 2010; Khatib & Alizadeh, 2012; V. Russell, 2014; Soleimani et al., 2008; Z. Song, 2010; Uggen, 2012; Vickers & Ene, 2006), partial gains (Leeser,

2008; M. J. Song & Suh, 2008), or no specific gains (Izumi & Bigelow, 2000; Izumi et al., 1999). Nevertheless, a closer look at the methodologies and results raises issues that merit a re-examination of these conclusions.

Some of the most influential output-induced noticing research to date comes from the pioneering work of Izumi and colleagues (Izumi & Bigelow, 2000; Izumi et al., 1999). The results of these early studies imparted a skeptical outlook on the role of output in promoting the noticing of L2 form. Izumi et al. and its replication study, Izumi and Bigelow, investigated whether output would promote the noticing and acquisition of the hypothetical conditional in English. In an elaborate research methodology inspiring subsequent output-induced noticing studies, Izumi et al. included a pretest, two treatment phases with an experimental group (output) and a control group (input), and two posttests over a period of one month. For the experimental group, phase 1 included two rounds of exposure to input, each followed by a text reconstruction task. Phase 2 had the same sequence, but involved an essay writing rather than a text reconstruction task. For the control group, phase 1 included two rounds of exposure to input, each followed by comprehension questions. Phase 2 involved writing an essay on an unrelated topic, input exposure, and comprehension questions. Noticing was operationalized by underlining words or parts of words in the input needed for subsequent reproduction or

comprehension. Acquisition was operationalized by the production of the target form in the second text-reconstruction, essay writing, and posttests. The replication study had a similar design, but manipulated one different variable: the order of the treatment phases.

In the original study, phase 1 involved a text reconstruction task and phase 2 an essay writing task. The reverse order of the phases was used in the replication study.

Both studies had partial noticing and acquisition gains. However, as the

experimental and control groups in both studies were not found to differ in their noticing of the target form, the researchers concluded that there were no unique output-induced noticing effects. Some learners were shown to have been involved in the deeper-level phenomenon of understanding with increased attention and processing (see Schmidt, 1990, 1995), correlating with a higher level of accuracy of target feature production. Brief reports from interviews with select participants displayed individual variation in noticing (e.g. form vs. meaning and organization). This learner variation did not match the pre-determined form focus of the studies, masking output effects with only target- form related noticing considered in data analysis.

In a laboratory study controlling for previous knowledge of the target form and incidental form processing in the input condition, Izumi (2002) reported a significant positive output role in promoting the noticing and acquisition of relativization in English. Izumi investigated output alongside textual enhancement in a five group design (four experimental groups and one control group) along two treatment conditions: +/–output and +/–textual enhancement. Izumi reported positive textual enhancement gains in form noticing rather than form acquisition, and superior learner performance when combining output with textual enhancement. In addition, all four experimental groups showed increased noticing from the first to the second input exposure, but the output-input conditions had higher instances of noticing, uptake, and text comprehension compared to

input-only conditions. In line with the Noticing Hypothesis, noticing gains correlated with intake gains, a result that seems to have been enhanced by the combination of pushed output and input exposure.

In a recent replication of Izumi (2002), V. Russell (2014) investigated noticing in the acquisition of L2 Spanish. Russell investigated a form that she considered more salient than Izumi’s relativization in English: the future tense expressed by the third person singular bound inflectional morpheme á added to the infinitive form of the verb. Russell’s findings corroborated those of Izumi; output promoted the learners’ noticing and acquisition of the target form, while input enhancement only enhanced form noticing. Text comprehension gains were also reported in the output-input conditions.

Other output-induced noticing research with a pre-determined language focus reported only partial gains. Drawing on the work of Izumi and colleagues, M. J. Song and Suh (2008), conducted in an EFL Korean setting, studied task type in relation to L2 noticing and acquisition. The study used picture-cued and text-reconstruction tasks over three treatment sessions and included a pretest and a posttest, following a design similar to that of Izumi and colleagues (see above). While no differences were shown in noticing gains from the first to the second input exposure, the output groups outperformed the control group in the total amount of noticing as measured by text underlines, and in form acquisition as measured by the production posttest. Accordingly, the researchers only report partial noticing and acquisition gains. Nevertheless, they concur that “it seems plausible to reason that the greater total amount of noticing of the two output groups may have played a role in mediating input and learning” (p. 307). They, therefore, argue that

their study seems to have “lent support to the favorable effects of attention and noticing on L2 learning” (p. 307). No output task effect was reported in acquisition, but the picture-cued task was more facilitative of noticing.

Similarly, while integrating the modality of aural input, Leeser (2008)

investigated whether pushed output during a multi-stage reconstruction task promotes learners’ noticing and development of L2 Spanish past tense morphology. Leeser

reported only partial output-induced gains, as did M. J. Song and Suh (2008) above. The output group showed more noticing of nouns and total number of words, and a small- scale noticing of imperfect words. This group also had an increased rate of attempted uses of past tense forms and a decrease in non-target like forms from the pretest to the posttest. The observed advantage for the output group in target-like and interlanguage forms was not statistically confirmed, however. Despite his conservative interpretations, Leeser supported a noticing account. He remarked that “if noticing is indeed a

prerequisite for L2 development,” it follows that the output group’s consistent increase in the post-treatment writing task “suggests that some kind of noticing of tense-aspect forms took place for these learners, even if it was not evident in their notes” (p. 211). In

addition, it could be argued that Leeser’s methodology might have masked clearer gains in the output group; explicitly drawing learners’ attention to past tense morphology in the pretest writing task and the pre-treatment grammatical review of the form might have triggered comparable noticing in the input and output groups.

Clearer significant output gains come from other recent studies. Vickers and Ene (2006) and Kang (2010) provided further empirical support to the noticing-intake

connection and the noticing function of the Output Hypothesis. In the former study, learners’ noticing of their past hypothetical conditional-related problems and exposure to a typographically enhanced text resulted in gains in both immediate and delayed

incorporations of target forms. Similarly, Kang reported that output production promoted conscious noticing of forms-related linguistic problems. This production triggered a solution-search by the participants as they compared their production with a native speaker model, and led to form incorporation. While both groups reported conscious noticing and intake, it was the more focal attention prompted by the note-taking treatment which seemed to have promoted a deeper level of processing and more form integration, in line with Schmidt’s (1990, 1995) notion of understanding.

In a recent replication of Izumi and Bigelow (2000), Uggen (2012) investigated the noticing function of output with a focus on insights from think-aloud protocols. Uggen manipulated the complexity of the target form as a study variable: the past hypothetical-conditional (the more complex structure) vs. the present hypothetical- conditional (the less complex structure). The study reported positive output effects on noticing and learning, and an effect for the complexity of the target structure. The more complex structure prompted more attention to form and learning gains as the past hypothetical conditional group showed the largest gains from the pretest to posttest 1. Stimulated recall results showed that 86% of think-aloud episodes showed noticing, even if not directly related to the target structures, reminiscent of learner-created salience (Sharwood Smith, 1991, 1993).

In addition to M. J. Song and Suh (2008) reported above, other studies have been conducted in an EFL setting. Soleimani et al. (2008) investigated learner noticing and learning of rhetorical structures used in contrast paragraphs in English. They compared an “output-first-then-input activities” condition to a “preemptive input” condition. In the latter condition, the participants received explicit explanation of paragraphs of contrast followed by output production. The study reported significant output gains in promoting the noticing of rhetorical structures. The output groups showed significant superior noticing and acquisition of the forms than the control instruction group, and had less individual variation in noticing. These findings prompted the researchers to conclude that “output-first-then-input activities” were “much more effective” than pre-emptive input activities.

Another EFL study, Z. Song (2010), explored the role of output in the noticing and acquisition of lexical phrases. The study employed a classic pretest-treatment- posttest experimental design, and involved a typical output-induced noticing research design. Output production was restricted to sentence translation, however. The study reported superior noticing and immediate uptake in the output group; this group showed a significant improvement in the accurate usage of the forms from the first to the second production in the treatment session, and in form acquisition as measured by the posttest.

In another EFL study reminiscent of M. J. Song and Suh (2008), Khatib and Alizadeh (2012) investigated the effects of using two types of output tasks (picture-cued writing and text-reconstruction) on the noticing and acquisition of the past tense in English. The study employed the same experimental grouping and sequence as that of

Song and Suh, but involved listening to the model input and note taking rather than reading and underlining, a non-typical mode of input exposure in output-induced noticing studies (see Leeser, 2008, however). The study provided a pattern of findings

contradicting that of Song and Suh. First, a clearer support for the noticing function of output was reported, as the output groups outperformed the control group in form noticing and acquisition. However, given the lack of a second round of input exposure following the first output task, it is not possible to judge noticing gains as compared to Song and Suh, who did not report such gains from the first to the second input exposure round. Second, the text reconstruction task promoted a higher level of noticing (picture- cued task in Song and Suh), while no task type effects were reported in acquisition results.

While presenting some mixed output-induced noticing findings, all of the studies in this section collectively offer insights in line with Schmidt’s (1990, 1993, 1994, 1995) proposal of conscious noticing serving as a mechanism for converting input to intake. More consistently positive results are reported in the next section, presenting findings from output-induced noticing research with a self-initiated language focus.