Ellis, RodSheppard, Christopher (Chris)2012-04-272012-04-272006Thesis (PhD--Language Learning and Teaching)--University of Auckland, 2006https://hdl.handle.net/2292/17583Full text is available to authenticated members of The University of Auckland only.This thesis exammes the role of output in second language acquisition by posing the following questions. 1) Do the research treatments (stimulated recall, input, and repair) produce different results in second language learners' narrative task production? 2) Does the learners' awareness of linguistic problems (gaps in their linguistic knowledge and their language hypotheses) orient them to relevant information in subsequent input, leading them to incorporate this information? 3) Does working memory capacity affect the rates of noticing of problems and incorporation of information? To explore these questions, eighty-one Japanese university students were randomly placed into one of four groups. Each group completed a pretest and three posttests. The Control Group completed these tests only. The Stimulated Recall Group completed a stimulated recall of their pretest performance. This group was included to investigate any possible unique contribution from this procedure. The Input Group, after completing the stimulated recall procedure, listened to a native speaker version of the narrative task (positive evidence) which they had completed in the pretest. The Repair group received immediate feedback (negative + positive evidence) after they reported that they were aware of linguistic problems during stimulated recall of their first production. To answer the first research question the performance of each of the four groups was analyzed, using six production measures altogether. An exploratory factor analysis confirmed the construct validity of these measures. There were three fluency measures (speaking rate, filled pauses and self-repair), two complexity measures (lexical richness and complexity), and one accuracy measure. Results demonstrated lhat 1) the stimulated recall procedure had an overall effect on speaking rate. A comparison of the three treatment groups showed that 2) stimulated recall had an effect on fluency, 3) repair had an effect on accuracy, and 4) input had an effect on complexity. Results for the second research question confirmed that awareness of linguistic problems can lead participants to incorporate related linguistic information in their subsequent output. Both the Input and Repair Groups were able to incorporate information related to noticed gaps. However, only the Repair Group was able to incorporate information related to their language hypotheses. Finally, no correlation was found between working memory capacity, the rate of noticing linguistic problems or the rate of incorporation.Restricted Item. Available to authenticated members of The University of Auckland.Items in ResearchSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/docs/uoa-docs/rights.htmThesis2012-04-26Copyright: The authorQ112868768