以生成語法為主的第二語言習得研究(GenSLA)都集中於了解普遍語法(Universal Grammar)是否可以進入到第二語言成人學習者。而孤島限制(island constraints)這個現象被假設為普遍語法的一部分，在該領域研究中扮演一個重要的角色。在英文中，wh疑問詞移位(wh-movement)是受限於特定的句法界線，稱之為「孤島(island)」(Ross, 1967)，而這樣的句法規則也被稱為「孤島限制(island constraints)」。第二語言成人學習者是否可以察覺到英文中的孤島限制這個議題已經被廣泛地研究，但檢視這個研究主題的結果充滿著不確定性。一些針對句法知識層面的研究(offline studies)支持中介語(interlanguage)的發展是受限於普遍語法這個主張(e.g., Li, 1998)，但其他研究否定這項假設(e.g., Schachter, 1990)。一些針對實際語句處理的研究(online studies)顯示第二語言學習者對於孤島限制的覺察(e.g., Cunnings et al., 2010)，但其他研究發現，以英文為第二語言學習者的母語如果擁有疑問詞原位(wh-in-situ)這樣的特質，會影響到其英文wh疑問詞移位的形成處理(e.g., Kim et al., 2015)。這些不一致的研究結果需要進一步的探討。此外，之前的研究都只專注在高程度的第二語言學習者。較低程度的第二語言學習者對於孤島限制的知識與實際語句處理是否受限於普遍語法尚未清楚。除了專注在第二語言學習者的句法知識以及實際語句處理表現，課室教學是否會影響到像孤島限制這類抽象句法知識的習得也是令人好奇的。有些學者主張學得的知識(learned knowledge)無法影響習得的知識(acquired knowledge)的形成(e.g., Schwartz, 1993)，但其他學者相信學得的知識對於像是普遍語法這樣無意識的能力有其影響力(e.g., Ellis, 2007, VanPatten, 2011)。以生成語法為主的第二語言習得研究和語言教學之間的連結關係仍然是難以捉摸的。為了填補先前文獻中這些空白模糊處，此研究專注在關係子句孤島限制(the RC island constraint)這其中一種孤島限制結構，並且探討以下兩個研究問題:(a)第二語言學習者對於關係子句孤島限制這個現象的句法知識與實際語句處理如何被第二語言能力所調節(b)不同類型的教學方式是否對第二語言學習者學習關係子句孤島限制這個句法結構會發生作用。
本研究執行了兩個實驗。實驗一調查第二語言能力在第二語言學習者對於關係子句孤島限制這類句子的句法知識與實際語句處理中所扮演的角色。以中文為母語的英文學習者被招募到此實驗，其中20位為高等程度，另外20位為中等程度。本實驗採用兩種工具:五點接受度判斷任務(5-point scale acceptability judgment task)以及自我控制閱讀速度任務(self-paced reading task)。接受度判斷任務的結果顯示，大多數的高等程度學習者展現出關係子句孤島限制的句法知識，但是大多數的中等程度學習者無法察覺到這個句法結構。閱讀時間的資料顯示，總體來說，相對於中等程度學習者，高等程度學習者展現出顯著較高的理解準確性及顯著較短的閱讀時間。然而，這兩組都沒有顯示出在實際語句處理中應用關係子句孤島限制這個結構的明確證據。
實驗二採用前後測設計，比較外顯(explicit)/內隱(implicit)這兩種教學方法在學習關係子句孤島限制這個結構的成效。20位參加實驗一的中等程度學習者被隨機分配到兩個組別，並分別接受100分鐘的教學。一組採用輸入訊息處理教學法(Processing Instruction)，而另一組採用內隱接觸教學方式(implicit exposure)。各自教學的成效透過接受度判斷任務來檢驗。結果顯示，相對於採用內隱教學的組別，採用外顯教學(輸入訊息處理教學法)的組別對於學習關係子句孤島限制這個結構展現出顯著較好的教學成效。實驗結果支持外顯教學在學習抽象句法知識上是有作用的。
雖然有些研究限制，本研究在理解第二語言能力和語言教學在學習關係子句孤島限制這個句法結構中所扮演的角色仍然做出重要的貢獻。研究發現，相對於實際語句處理，第二語言能力在句法知識層面上扮演更顯著的角色。研究結果也支持，外顯教學對於抽象句法知識有其影響力，並且提供一條把以生成語法為主的第二語言習得研究理論併入到語言教學的可行道路。

Generative second language acquisition (GenSLA) research has focused on whether Universal Grammar (UG) is accessible to adult L2 learners. Hypothesized to be a part of UG, the phenomenon of island constraints has played a critical role. In English, wh-movement is constrained by certain syntactic boundaries called “islands” (Ross, 1967), and this kind of rule is known as “island constraints”. The issue of whether L2 adult learners show sensitivity to island constraints in English has been studied extensively, but the findings have been mixed. Some offline studies supported the claim that interlanguage knowledge is constrained by UG (e.g., Li, 1998), but others rejected this assumption (e.g., Schachter, 1990). Some online studies showed the sensitivity of island constraints for L2 learners, regardless of their L1s (e.g., Cunnings et al., 2010), but others found the influence of a wh-in-situ L1 on processing wh-dependency formation in L2 English (e.g., Kim et al., 2015). These conflicting results call for further investigation. Besides, the previous studies focused only on highly-proficient L2 learners. It is unclear whether less-proficient L2 learners’ knowledge and performance of island sentences are also constrained by UG. In addition to focusing on L2 learners’ online/offline performance, it is curious whether classroom instruction affects the acquisition of abstract syntactic knowledge like island constraints. Some argue that learned knowledge could not result in acquired knowledge (e.g., Schwartz, 1993), but others believe that learned knowledge is able to affect learners’ unconscious competence (e.g., Ellis, 2007, VanPatten, 2011). The link between GenSLA and language instruction still remains elusive. To fill these gaps in the literature, this study focuses on one of island constraints, the RC island constraint, and examines two questions: (a) whether and how L2 learners’ knowledge and online application of the RC island constraint are modulated by L2 proficiency, and (b) how do different types of instruction affect the learning of the RC island constraint for L2 learners.
Two experiments were conducted in this study. Experiment 1 investigated the role of L2 proficiency on learners’ knowledge and real-time performance of sentences involving the RC island constraint. Twenty advanced and twenty intermediate L1 Chinese – L2 English learners were recruited. Two tasks were used: a 5-point scale acceptability judgment task and a self-paced reading task. The offline data suggested most of the advanced L2 learners revealed the knowledge of the RC island constraint, but most of the intermediate L2 learners could not detect it. The reading time data revealed that overall the advanced L2 learners showed significantly higher comprehension accuracy and shorter reading times than the intermediate L2 learners. However, both two groups did not demonstrate clear evidence for successful application of the RC island constraint in real-time processing.
Experiment 2 compared the effects of explicit and implicit instruction on the learning of the RC island constraint in a pretest-posttest design. The 20 intermediate participants in Experiment 1 were randomly divided into two groups for receiving 100-minute instruction: one group with Processing Instruction (PI) and one group with implicit exposure. The acceptability judgment task was conducted to examine the teaching effects. The results showed that the explicit instruction (PI) group revealed significant better teaching effect on learning the structure of the RC island constraint than the implicit exposure group. The results supported the review that explicit instruction could play a role in learning abstract syntactic knowledge.
While having some limitations, this study makes important contributions in understanding the role of L2 proficiency and language instruction on the learning of the RC island constraint. The findings suggest that L2 proficiency plays a more significant role in offline knowledge than in online processing. The findings also support that explicit instruction could have an impact on abstract syntactic knowledge, and provide a possible way to incorporate GenSLA theory into language teaching.

List of Tables iv
List of Figures v
摘要 vi
Abstract viii
Acknowledgement x
Chapter 1 Introduction 1
1.1 Research Background and Motivation 1
1.2 The Present Study and Research Purposes 4
1.3 Overview of the Thesis 6
Chapter 2 Literature Review 7
2.1 Syntax: Island Constraints 7
2.1.1 Wh-questions and Island Constraints in English 7
2.1.2 Wh-questions and Island Constraints in Chinese 9
2.2 Island Constraints for Second Language (L2) Learners 13
2.2.1 L2 learners’ Knowledge of Islands 13
2.2.2 L2 Learners’ Processing of Islands 16
2.2.3 Summary 23
2.3 Proficiency Factor 24
2.4 Explicit Instruction/Implicit Learning and GenSLA Research 29
2.4.1 Natural input vs. Classroom Instruction in L2 29
2.4.2 Acquisition-Learning Debate and GenSLA in L2 Classroom 31
2.4.3 Processing Instruction (PI) in GenSLA 37
2.4.3.1 Input Processing (IP) Theory 37
2.4.3.2 Implication for Pedagogy and Research Findings 40
2.4.4 Implicit Instruction 44
2.4.4.1 Explicit vs. Implicit Instruction 44
2.4.4.2 Input Flood 46
2.5 Summary and Research Questions 47
2.6 Overview of Two Experiments 49
Chapter 3 Experiment 1 51
3.1 Methodology 51
3.1.1 Participants 51
3.1.2 Design and Test Materials 52
3.1.2.1 Online Self-paced Reading (SPR) Task 52
3.1.2.2 Offline Acceptability Judgment Task 55
3.1.3 Procedures 56
3.1.3.1 Online Self-paced Reading (SPR) Task 56
3.1.3.2 Offline Acceptability Judgment Task 57
3.2 Results of the Offline Acceptability Judgment Task 58
3.2.1 Overall Rating Results 58
3.2.2 Rating Pattern (Across Individuals in Two Groups) 59
3.2.3 Correlation between TOEIC Scores and Rating Performance 61
3.2.4 Discussion and Summary 62
3.3 Results of the Self-paced Reading Task 63
3.3.1 Comprehension Accuracy 63
3.3.2 Overall Reading Time Results 64
3.3.3 Reading Time Results for Each Group 70
3.3.3.1 Reading Time Data for the Advanced L2 Group 70
3.3.3.2 Reading Time Data for the Intermediate L2 Group 73
3.3.4 Discussion and Summary 76
Chapter 4 Experiment 2 79
4.1 Methodology 79
4.1.1 Participants 79
4.1.2 Instructional Materials and Implementation 79
4.1.3 Procedures and Data Analysis 84
4.2 Result of Two Different Teaching Methods 85
4.2.1 The Results of Processing Instruction 85
4.2.2 The Results of Implicit Exposure 90
4.2.3 Discussion and Summary 94
Chapter 5 General Discussion 96
5.1 L2 Proficiency and the Knowledge of the RC Island Constraint 96
5.2 The Real-time Performance of the RC Island Constraint 99
5.2.1 The Role of L2 Proficiency in Online Processing 100
5.2.2 The Issue of Plausibility 101
5.2.3 The Issue of Islandhood 105
5.2.3.1 Discussion for the Advanced Group 105
5.2.3.2 Discussion for the Intermediate Group 110
5.3 The Role of Instruction in L2 Acquisition of Syntactic Knowledge 112
5.3.1 The Teaching Effect of Processing Instruction 113
5.3.2 The Teaching Effect of Implicit Exposure 117
Chapter 6 Conclusion 121
6.1 Review of Research Findings 121
6.2 Limitation of the Study 122
6.3 Recommendations for Future Research 123
References 124
Appendix 136
Appendix A. The CEFR Chart 136
Appendix B. Language Profile/Questionnaire 137
Appendix C. The Test Paradigm for the Self-paced Reading Task 138
Appendix D. The Test Paradigm for the Acceptability Judgment Task 144
Appendix E. The Rating Distribution for the Two Groups 148
Appendix F. Vocabulary Checklist 149
Appendix G. Teaching Materials for Input Flood 151
Appendix H. The Teaching Handout for RC Island Constraint 158

Aldosari, S. M. (2015). The role of individual differences in the
acceptability of island violations in native and non-native
speakers. (Doctoral dissertation), University of Kansas, Kansas.

Aldwayan, S., Fiorentino, R., & Gabriele, A. (2009). Using
syntactic constraints in the acquisition and processing of wh-
movement: A study of Najdi Arabic learners of English. Paper
presented at the 10th Biennial Conference on Generative
Approaches to Second Language Acquisi-tion. University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.

Aldwayan, S., Fiorentino, R., & Gabriele, A. (2010). Evidence of syntactic constraints in the processing of wh-movement. In B. VanPatten & J. Jegerski (Eds.), Research in second language processing and parsing (pp. 65-86). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Anderson, J. R. (2000). Learning and memory: An integrated approach (3rd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Baddeley, A. (2000). The episodic buffer: a new component of working memory? Trends in cognitive sciences, 4, 417-423.

Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), Recent advances in learning and motivation (pp. 47-89). New York: Academic Press.

Bader, M., & Meng, M. (1999). Subject-object ambiguities in German embedded clauses: An across-the-board comparison. Journal of psycholinguistic research, 28(2), 121-143.

Barcroft, J. (2000). The effects of sentence writing as semantic elaboration on the allocation of processing resources and second language lexical acquisition. Doctorial Dissertation. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Belikova, A., & White, L. (2009). Evidence for the fundamental difference hypothesis or not?: Island constraints revisited. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31(2), 199-223.

Benati, A. (2004a). The effects of structured input activities and explicit information on the acquisition of the Italian future tense. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 207-225). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Benati, A. (2004b). The effects of processing instruction and its components on the acquisition of gender agreement in Italian. Language Awareness, 13(2), 67-80.

Benati, A. (2013). Issues in second language teaching: Equinox Sheffield.

Bialystok, E. (1982). On the relationship between knowing and using linguistic forms. Applied linguistics, 3, 181-206.

Bley-Vroman, R. (1989). What is the logical problem of foreign language learning. In S. Gass & J. Schachter (Eds.), Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition (Vol. 4, pp. 42-68). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Bley-Vroman, R., Felix, S., & Ioup, G. (1988). The accessibility of Universal Grammar in adult language learning. Second Language Research, 4, 1-32.

Botana, G. (2013). The role of explicit information and task-essentialness in processing instruction. (Doctoral dissertation), University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland.

Caplan, D., DeDe, G., Waters, G., Michaud, J., & Tripodis, Y. (2011). Effects of age, speed of processing, and working memory on comprehension of sentences with relative clauses. Psychology and aging, 26(2), 439.

Celce-Murcia, M., & McIntosh, L. (2001). Teaching English as a second or foreign language. Boston, MA: Heinel & Heinel Pusblishers.

Chen, E., Gibson, E., & Wolf, F. (2005). Online syntactic storage costs in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 52(1), 144-169.

Chen, T.-Y. (2019). An empirical study of subject-object asymmetry in Mandarin Chinese doubly-embedded relative clauses. (Master's thesis), National Tsing Hua Univeristy, Taiwan.

Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006a). How native-like is non-native language processing? Trends in cognitive sciences, 10(12), 564-570.

Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006b). Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27(1), 3-42.

Clifton, C., & Frazier, L. (1989). Comprehending sentences with long-distance dependencies. In G. N. Carlson & M. K. Tanenhaus (Eds.), Linguistic structure in language processing (pp. 273-317). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

Coughlin, C. E., & Tremblay, A. (2013). Proficiency and working memory based explanations for nonnative speakers’ sensitivity to agreement in sentence processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 34(3), 615-646.

Cowart, W. (1997). Experimental Syntax: Applying objective methods to sentence judgments. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Crain, S., & Fodor, J. D. (1985). How can grammars help parsers? In Natural language parsing: Psycholinguistic, computational, and theoretical perspectives (pp. 94-128). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cuetos, F., & Mitchell, D. C. (1998). Cross-linguistic differences in parsing: Restrictions on the use of the Late closure strategy in spanish. Cognition, 30, 73-105.

Cunnings, I. (2017). Parsing and working memory in bilingual sentence processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 20(4), 659-678.

Cunnings, I., Batterham, C., Felser, C., & Clahsen, H. (2010). Constraints on L2 learners’ processing of wh-dependencies. In B. VanPatten & J. Jegerski (Eds.), Research in second language processing and parsing (pp. 87-112). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Dallas, A., & Kaan, E. (2008). Second language processing of filler‐gap dependencies by late learners. Language and Linguistics Compass, 2(3), 372-388.

de Villiers, J., Roeper, T., & Vainikka, A. (1990). The acquisition of long-distance rules. In L. Frazier & J. de Villiers (Eds.), Language processing and language acquisition (pp. 257-297). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

DeKeyser, R. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning. In C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (Vol. 27, pp. 313-348). Oxford: Blackwell.

Dekeyser, R., & Botana, G. P. (2015). The effectiveness of processing instruction in L2 grammar acquisition: A narrative review. Applied linguistics, 36(3), 290-305.

Dornic, S. (1980). Language dominance, spare capacity and perceived effort in bilinguals. Ergonomics, 23(4), 369-377.

Dussias, P. E. (2003). Syntactic ambiguity resolution in L2 learners: Some effects of bilinguality on L1 and L2 processing strategies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25(4), 529-557.

Ellis, N. C. (2005). At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(2), 305-352.

Ellis, N. C. (2007). The weak interface, consciousness, and form-focussed instruction: Mind the doors. In S. Fotos & N. Hossein (Eds.), Form-focused instruction and teacher education: Studies in honour of Rod Ellis (pp. 17-33). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. (1984). The role of instruction in second language acquisition: IRAAL.

Ellis, R. (1997). SLA research and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. (2009). Investigating learning difficulty in terms of implicit and explicit knowledge. In Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language learning, testing and teaching (pp. 143-166). Great Britain: Short Sun Press.

Farley, A. (2004). Processing instruction and the Spanish subjunctive: Is explicit information needed. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 227-239). Mahwah NJ: Erlbaum.

Ferreira, F., & Clifton Jr, C. (1986). The independence of syntactic processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 25(3), 348-368.

Frenck-Mestre, C., & Pynte, J. (1997). Syntactic ambiguity resolution while reading in second and native languages. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A, 50(1), 119-148.

Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Gibson, E., & Warren, T. (2004). Reading‐Time Evidence for Intermediate Linguistic Structure in Long‐Distance Dependencies. Syntax, 7(1), 55-78.

Gil, K.-H., Marsden, H., & Whong, M. (2013). Can explicit grammar instruction serve as evidence for L2 grammar restructuring? In S. Stavarakaki, K. Polyxeni, & L. Mariana (Eds.), Advances in language acquisition Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Han, W. (2020). Cross-Linguistic Transfer and Second Language Learnability. In Universal Grammar and the Initial State of Second Language Learning (pp. 17-25): Springer.

Han, Y., & Ellis, R. (1998). Implicit knowledge, explicit knowledge and general language proficiency. Language Teaching Research, 2(1), 1-23.

HASHIMOTO, K.-i. (2011). Syntactic processing of L2 English relative clause sentences: The effect of proficiency. ARELE: annual review of English language education in Japan, 22, 95-110.

Hawkins, R., & Hattori, H. (2006). Interpretation of English multiple wh-questions by Japanese speakers: A missing uninterpretable feature account. Second Language Research, 22(3), 269-301.

Hemforth, B., & Konieczny, L. (2000). German sentence processing: Kluwer.

Henry, N. A. (2015). Morphosyntactic processing, cue interaction, and the effects of instruction: An investigation of processing instruction and the acquisition of case markings in L2 German. (Doctoral dissertation), Pennsylvania State University, Pennsylvania.

Henshaw, F. (2012). How effective are affective activities? Relative benefits of two types of structured input activities as part of a computer-delivered lesson on the Spanish subjunctive. Language Teaching Research, 16(3), 393-414.

Hernández, T. A. (2011). Re-examining the role of explicit instruction and input flood on the acquisition of Spanish discourse markers. Language Teaching Research, 15(2), 159-182.

Hopp, H. (2006). Syntactic features and reanalysis in near-native processing. Second Language Research, 22(3), 369-397.

Hopp, H. (2010). Ultimate attainment in L2 inflection: Performance similarities between non-native and native speakers. Lingua, 120(4), 901-931.

Hornstein, N., & Lightfoot, D. (1981). Introduction. In N. Hornstein & D. Lightfoot (Eds.), Explanation in linguistics (pp. 9-31). New York: Longman.

Housen, A., & Pierrard, M. (2006). Investigations in instructed second language acquisition (Vol. 25): Walter de Gruyter.

Hsu, C.-c. N. (2008). Revisit relative clause islands in Chinese. Language and Linguistics, 9(1), 23-48.

Huang, C.-T. (1982a). Move WH in a language without WH movement. The linguistic review, 1(4), 369-416.

Huang, C.-T. (1982b). Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Unpublished PhD thesis, MIT, Cambridge, MA, USA.

Jackson, C. (2008). Proficiency level and the interaction of lexical and morphosyntactic information during L2 sentence processing. Language learning, 875-909.

Jackson, C., & van Hell, J. (2011). The effects of L2 proficiency level on the processing of wh-questions among Dutch second language speakers of English. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 49(3), 195-219.

Jegerski, J. (2014). Self-paced reading. In J. Jegerski & B. VanPatten (Eds.), Research methods in second language psycholinguistics (pp. 20-49). New York: Routledge.

Jiang, N. (2004). Morphological insensitivity in second language processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25(4), 603-634.

Jiang, N. (2007). Selective integration of linguistic knowledge in adult second language learning. Language learning, 57(1), 1-33.

Johnson, J. S., & Newport, E. L. (1991). Critical period effects on universal properties of language: The status of subjacency in the acquisition of a second language. Cognition, 39(3), 215-258.

Juffs, A. (2005). Theoretical and empirical issues in the study of implicit and explicit second-language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 121-151.

Juffs, A., & Harrington, M. (1995). Parsing effects in second language sentence processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 483-516.

Juffs, A., & Harrington, M. (2011). Aspects of working memory in L2 learning. Language Teaching, 44(2), 137-166.

Just, M. A., Carpenter, P. A., & Woolley, J. D. (1982). Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension. Journal of experimental psychology: General, 111(2), 228.

Keating, G. D., & Jegerski, J. (2015). Experimental designs in sentence processing research: A methodological review and user’s guide. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37(1), 1-32.

Kim, E., Baek, S., & Tremblay, A. (2015). The role of island constraints in second language sentence processing. Language Acquisition, 22(4), 384-416.

King, J., & Just, M. A. (1991). Individual differences in syntactic processing: The role of working memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 30(5), 580-602.

Krashen, S. (1977). Some issues relating to the monitor model. In H. D. Brown, A. Y. Carlos, & H. C. Ruth (Eds.), On Tesol (Vol. 77). Washington, DC: TESOL.

Krashen, S. D. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Krashen, S. D. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (2014). Teaching grammar. In M. Celce-Murcia, D. M. Britnton, & M. A. Snow (Eds.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (pp. 256-270). Boston, USA: National Geogaphic Learning.

Lee, J. F. (2004). On the generalizability, limits, and potential future directions of processing instruction research. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 311-323). Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Lee, J. F., & Benati, A. (2009). Research and perspectives on processing instruction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Lee, J. F., & VanPatten, B. (1995). Making Communicative Language Teaching Happen. Volume 1: Directions for Language Learning and Teaching: ERIC.

Lee, J. F., & VanPatten, B. (2003). Making communicative language teaching happen (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Li, X. (1998). Adult L2 accessibility to UG: An issue revisited. In S. Flynn, G. Martohardjono, & W. O’neil (Eds.), The generative study of second language acquisition (pp. 232-286).

Li, Y.-H. A. (2002). Word order, structure, and relativization. In S.-W. Tang & L. C.-S. Luther (Eds.), On the formal way to Chinese languages (pp. 45-73). Standford: CSLI.

MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological review, 101(4), 676.

Marinis, T., Leah, R., Felser, C., & Clahsen, H. (2005). Gaps in second language sentence processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 53-78.

Marsden, E., & Chen, H. Y. (2011). The roles of structured input activities in processing instruction and the kinds of knowledge they promote. Language learning, 61(4), 1058-1098.

Marsden, E., Thompson, S., & Plonsky, L. (2018). A methodological synthesis of self-paced reading in second language research. Applied Psycholinguistics, 1-44.

Mathews, R. C., Buss, R. R., Stanley, W. B., Blanchard-Fields, F., Cho, J. R., & Druhan, B. (1989). Role of implicit and explicit processes in learning from examples: A synergistic effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15(6), 1083-1100.

Matsumura, M. (1994). Japanese learners' acquisition of the locality requirement of English reflexives. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16(01), 19-42.

McDonald, J. (2006). Beyond the critical period: Processing-based explanations for poor grammaticality judgment performance by late second language learners. Journal of Memory and Language, 55(3), 381-401.

Muñoz, C. (2008). Symmetries and asymmetries of age effects in naturalistic and instructed L2 learning. Applied linguistics, 29(4), 578-596.

Mueller, J. L. (2009). The influence of lexical familiarity on ERP responses during sentence comprehension in language learners. Second Language Research, 25(1), 43-76.

Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta‐analysis. Language learning, 50(3), 417-528.

Ogle, D. (1986). K-W-L: A teaching model that develops active reading of expository text. The Reading Teacher, 39, 564-570.

Omaki, A., & Schulz, B. (2011). Filler-gap dependencies and island constraints in second-language sentence processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33(4), 563-588.

Otsu, Y. (1981). Universal grammar and syntactic development in children: Toward a theory of syntactic development. (Doctoral dissertation), Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Massachusetts.

Pliatsikas, C., & Marinis, T. (2013). Processing empty categories in a second language: When naturalistic exposure fills the (intermediate) gap. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16(1), 167-182.

Reinders, H., & Ellis, R. (2009). The effects of two types of input on intake and the acquisition of implicit and explicit knowledge. In R. Ellis, S. Loewen, C. Elder, R. Erlam, J. Philp, & R. Reinders (Eds.), Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language learning, testing and teaching (pp. 281-302). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Richek, M. A. (1976). Effect of sentence complexity on the reading comprehension of syntactic structures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68(6), 800.

Rohde, D. (2003). Linger: a flexible platform for language processing experiments. Online: http://tedlab. mit. edu/~ dr/Linger.

Ross, J. R. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax. (Doctoral dissertation), Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Massachusetts.

Rothman, J. (2008). Aspect selection in adult L2 Spanish and the Competing Systems Hypothesis: When pedagogical and linguistic rules conflict. Languages in Contrast, 8(1), 74-106.

Sanz, C. (2004). Computer delivered implicit versus explicit feedback in processing instruction. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Schachter, J. (1989). Testing a proposed universal. In S. M. Gass & J. Schachter (Eds.), Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition. (pp. 73-88). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schachter, J. (1990). On the issue of completeness in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 6(2), 93-124.

Schlesewsky, M., Fanselow, G., Kliegl, G., & Krems, R. (2000). Preferences for grammatical functions in the processing of locally ambiguous wh-questions in German. In B. Hemforth & L. Konieczny (Eds.), German sentence processing. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied linguistics, 11, 17-46.

Schmidt, R. (1994). Deconstructing consciousness in search of useful definitions for applied linguistics. Consciousness in second language learning, 11, 237-326.

Schutz, C., & Sprouse, J. (2014). Judgment data. In R. J. Podesva & D. Sharma (Eds.), Research methods in linguistics: Cambridge University Press.

Schwartz, B. (1987). The modular basis of second language acquisition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Southern California. Los Angeles.

Schwartz, B. (1993). On explicit and negative data effecting and affecting competence and linguistic behavior. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(2), 147-163.

Sharwood Smith, M. (1993). Input enhancement in instructed SLA: Theoretical bases. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(2), 165-179.

Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning: Oxford University Press.

Soleimani, H., Jahangiri, K., & Gohar, M. J. (2015). Effect of explicit and implicit instruction on implicit knowledge of English past simple tense. International Journal of Asian Social Science, 5(5), 257-265.

Spada, N., & Tomita, Y. (2010). Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta‐analysis. Language learning, 60(2), 263-308.

Sprouse, J., Schütze, C. T., & Almeida, D. (2013). A comparison of informal and formal acceptability judgments using a random sample from Linguistic Inquiry 2001–2010. Lingua, 134, 219-248.

Staub, A., & Rayner, K. (2007). Eye movements and on-line comprehension processes. In G. Gaskell (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 327-342). Oxford: Oxford Universiy Press.

Stowe, L. A. (1986). Parsing WH-constructions: Evidence for on-line gap location. Language and cognitive processes, 1(3), 227-245.

Sugisaki, K. (2012). LF Wh-Movement and its Locality Constraints in Child Japanese. Language Acquisition, 19(2), 174-181.

Szabo, S. (2006). KWHHL: A student-driven evolution of the KWL. American Secondary Education, 34(3), 57-67.

Thomas, M. (1994). Assessment of L2 proficiency in second language acquisition research. Language learning, 44(2), 307-336.

Toth, P. D., & Guijarro-Fuentes, P. (2012). The impact of instruction on second-language implicit knowledge: Evidence against encapsulation. Applied Psycholinguistics, 31(1), 1-33.

Traxler, M. J., & Pickering, M. J. (1996). Plausibility and the processing of unbounded dependencies: An eye-tracking study. Journal of Memory and Language, 35(3), 454-475.

Truscott, J., & Smith, M. S. (2004a). Acquisition by processing: A modular perspective on language development. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7(1), 1-20.

Truscott, J., & Smith, M. S. (2004b). How APT is your theory: present status and future prospects. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7(1), 43-47.

Underwood, G. (1996). Implicit cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

VanPatten, B. (1993). Grammar teaching for the acquisition‐rich classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 26(4), 435-450.

VanPatten, B. (1995). Input prcoessing and second language acquisition: On the relationship between form and meaning. In H. P, R. Maldonado, & M. van Naerssen (Eds.), Festschrift in honor of Tracy D. Terrell (pp. 170-183). New York: McGraw-Hill.

VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction: Theory and research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

VanPatten, B. (2002). Processing instruction: An update. Language learning, 52(4), 755-803.

VanPatten, B. (2003). From input to output: A teacher's guide to second language acquisition. New York: McGraw-Hill.

VanPatten, B. (2004a). Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

VanPatten, B. (2004b). Input processing in second language acquisition. Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary, 5-31.

VanPatten, B. (2007). Input processing in adult second language acquisition. . In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 115-135). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

VanPatten, B. (2011). Stubborn syntax: How it resists explicit teaching and learning. In C. Sanz & R. P. Leow (Eds.), Implicit and explicit Language Learning: Conditions, processes, and knowledge (pp. 9-21). Washington: Georgetown University Press.

VanPatten, B., & Cadierno, T. (1993). Input processing and second language acquisition: A role for instruction. The Modern Language Journal, 77(1), 45-57.

VanPatten, B., Collopy, E., Price, J. E., Borst, S., & Qualin, A. (2013). Explicit information, grammatical sensitivity, and the first‐noun principle: A cross‐linguistic study in processing instruction. The Modern Language Journal, 97(2), 506-527.

VanPatten, B., & Sanz, C. (1995). From input to output: Processing instruction and communicative tasks. In F. R. Eckman, D. Highland, P. W. Lee, J. Mileham, & R. R. Weber (Eds.), Second language acquisition theory and pedagogy (pp. 169-185). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

VanPatten, B., & Wong, W. (2004). Processing instruction and the French causative: Another replication. Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary, 97-118.

White, L. (2003). Second language acquisition and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

White, L., & Juffs, A. (1998). Constraints on wh-movement in two different contexts of nonnative language acquisition: Competence and processing. In F. Suzzan, M. Gita, & O. N. Wayne (Eds.), The generative study of second language acquisition (pp. 111-129). Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Whong, M. (2011). Language Teaching: Linguistic Theory in Practice: Linguistic Theory in Practice: Edinburgh University Press.

Whong, M., Gil, K.-H., & Marsden, H. (2013). Introduction: Generative second language acquisition and language pedagogy: Springer.

Whong, M., Marsden, H., & Gil, K.-H. (2013). How we can learn from acquisition: The acquisition-learning debate revisited. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 12th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference, Somerville, MA.

Williams, J., & Evans, J. (1998). What kind of focus and on which forms. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 139-155). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Williams, J. N. (2006). Incremental interpretation in second language sentence processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 9(1), 71-88.

Williams, J. N., Mobius, P., & Kim, C. (2001). Native and non-native processing of English wh- questions: Parsing strategies and plausibility constraints. Applied Psycholinguistics, 22(04), 509-540. doi:doi:10.1017/S0142716401004027

Witzel, N., Witzel, J., & Forster, K. (2012). Comparisons of online reading paradigms: Eye tracking, moving-window, and maze. Journal of psycholinguistic research, 41(2), 105-128.

Wong, W. (2004a). The nature of processing instruction. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 33-63). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Wong, W. (2004b). Processing instruction in French: The roles of explicit information and structured input. In B. Vanpatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 187-205). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Wong, W. (2005). Input enhancement: From theory and research to the classroom: McGraw-hill.

Wong, W., & Ito, K. (2018). The effects of processing instruction and traditional instruction on L2 online processing of the causative construction in French: An eye-tracking study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40(2), 241-268.

Yang, P.-L., & Shih, S.-C. (2013). A reading-time study of the main verb versus reduced relative clause ambiguity resolution by English learners in Taiwan. Applied Psycholinguistics, 34(6), 1109-1133.

Yusa, N., Koizumi, M., Kim, J., Kimura, N., Uchida, S., Yokoyama, S., . . . Hagiwara, H. (2011). Second-language instinct and instruction effects: Nature and nurture in second-language acquisition. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(10), 2716-2730.

Zhang, R. (2015). Examining the role of implicit and explicit L2 knowledge in general L2 proficiency. International Journal of English Linguistics, 5(3), 79-87.