Language Learning ISSN 0023-8333

Attention to Form and Meaning Revisited

Ronald P. Leow
Georgetown University

Hui-Chen Hsieh
Wenzao Ursuline College of Languages

Nina Moreno
University of South Carolina

The present study revisited the issue of simultaneous attention to form and meaning from
a methodological perspective that addressed several potential methodological issues of
previous research in this strand of inquiry. Seventy-two second-semester-level partici-
pants were randomly assigned to one of five experimental groups, including a control,
and requested to read a Spanish text and also circle one of four targeted forms (10 oc-
currences each) in the input. To measure comprehension, a 10-item multiple-choice test
was administered immediately after the reading. Both qualitative (think-aloud protocols)
and quantitative analyses were conducted to address the following research question:
Does type of attentional condition have a differential effect on adult second language
reading comprehension? The quantitative analysis revealed no significant difference in
comprehension among all five groups. To explicate the findings, the quantitative and
qualitative data and analyses are discussed with regard to the issues of modality, depth
or level of processing, and research methodology.

Keywords simultaneous attention; levels of processing; form vs. meaning; hybrid de-
sign; input processing; The Primacy of Meaning Principle; think-aloud protocols

There are several theoretical models in second language acquisition (SLA) that
have posited an important role for attention in adult second/foreign language
(L2) development (e.g., Robinson, 1995; Schmidt, 1990, 2001; Tomlin & Villa
1994; VanPatten, 1994, 2004). Empirical support for the beneficial role of
attention has been provided by several SLA studies in strands of research directly
or indirectly premised on the role attention plays in L2 input processing (e.g.,

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Ronald P. Leow, Department of

Spanish and Portuguese, Georgetown University, 37th and O Sts, NW, Washington, DC 20057.
Internet: leowr@georgetown.edu

Language Learning 58:3, September 2008, pp. 665–695 665

C 2008 Language Learning Research Club, University of Michigan
⃝
Leow, Hsieh, and Moreno Form and Meaning Revisited

Greenslade, Bouden, & Sanz, 1999; Leow, 1993; Mackey, 2006; Shook, 1994;
Williams & Evans, 1998; Wong, 2001). Some of these studies have been based
on the psycholinguistic notion of the adult L2 learner as a limited capacity
processor (cf. McLaughlin, 1987). More specifically, it is hypothesized that
during input processing, available attentional resources are limited and compete
to be allocated to certain aspects of the input (e.g., attention to form [usually
viewed as some grammatical or linguistic form] vs. attention to meaning [the
informational content of the input]).
VanPatten (1994, 1996, 2004) has discussed L2 input processing within
a model that outlines certain principles that guide the learner’s attention to
linguistic form in the input. His Primacy of Meaning Principle (Principle 1)
postulates that learners process input for meaning before they process it for
form. Research on simultaneous attention to form and meaning appears to par-
tially support this principle (Greenslade et al., 1999; VanPatten, 1990; Wong,
2001) and shed some light on the apparent effect of simultaneous allocation
of attention to both form and meaning while exposed to either aural or written
L2 input. However, whether learners did indeed pay attention to either form or
meaning or both simultaneously remains methodologically unclear given that
the research designs employed are premised on the assumption that all partici-
pants paid attention to meaning irrespective of experimental condition and that
the only variable that differentiated these conditions was attention to type of
form. This methodological approach to attentional functions arguably does not
address the processes that take place while learners interact with the L2 input.
In other words, learners’ attention to meaning and/or form during exposure to
the L2 data has not been methodologically established before its effect on com-
prehension has been statistically measured. The present study sought to address
this methodological issue by employing a concurrent data elicitation procedure
(i.e., think-aloud protocols) to first establish learner attention to meaning while
interacting with the L2 data before addressing whether attentional condition,
differentiated by attention to type of form, had differential effects on learners’
subsequent comprehension. In an effort to further control the potential impact
of several variables in the research design, the study also addressed the type
and distribution of form and the amount of exposure to the L2 input.

Theoretical Background: VanPatten (1994, 1996, 2004)

VanPatten (1994, 1996) proposed a model of input processing in SLA in which
he defined input processing as an initial stage of the acquisition process in which
learners connect grammatical forms with their meanings and/or functions. He

Language Learning 58:3, September 2008, pp. 665–695 666

Leow, Hsieh, and Moreno Form and Meaning Revisited

presented several principles that are postulated to guide learner attention to

linguistic forms in the input. These principles can be traced to the findings
of previous empirical research (both published and unpublished) that has ad-
dressed the attentional constraints of adult L2 learners in specific experimental
processing conditions (e.g., Bransdorfer, 1991; Musumeci, 1989; VanPatten,
1990). He posited that learners will get meaning depending on the attentional
resources they have present at the time of processing the L2 input. This hypoth-
esis goes back to the notion of learners as limited capacity processors, which
has its origins in cognitive theory (cf. McLaughlin, 1987, and McLaughlin &
Heredia, 1996, for a more detailed discussion of the tenets of cognitive theory).
VanPatten (2004) updated his model of input processing by further fine-
tuning his principles while invoking the notions of noticing (Schmidt, 1990)—
that is, attention with (a low level of) awareness, and working memory. For
VanPatten, processing is “about making form-meaning/function connections
during real time comprehension” and “an on-line phenomenon that takes place
in working memory” (VanPatten, p. 7). He provided one major principle (The
Primacy of Meaning Principle) accompanied by five subprinciples to account
for L2 learners’ primary focus on meaning while exposed to L2 input.
Principle 1. The Primacy of Meaning Principle. Learners process input
for meaning before they process it for form.
As can be seen, VanPatten’s principle addresses the availability of the at-
tentional resources learners employ while interacting with L2 input, with an
obvious preference to process for meaning before processing for form. The Pri-
macy of Meaning Principle, then, pertains specifically to the issue of whether
learners who are paying attention to or processing the input for meaning can
simultaneously pay attention to or process form in the same input. In other
words, if learners are limited capacity processors, then simultaneous attention
to both meaning and form should result in a cognitive overload that impacts
negatively on comprehension and/or intake (defined as a subset of the input
processed in working memory that might be available for further processing).
This is also tied to language experience. Comprehension will be more effortful
for beginning and intermediate students because they will need to employ more
attentional resources to make those form-meaning/function connections.

Empirical Studies
To our knowledge, there are three published studies1 (e.g., Greenslade et al.,
1999; VanPatten, 1990; Wong, 2001) that are pertinent to the strand of simul-
taneous attention to form and meaning and, consequently, empirically address

667 Language Learning 58:3, September 2008, pp. 665–695

Leow, Hsieh, and Moreno Form and Meaning Revisited

VanPatten’s Primacy of Meaning Principle. A summary of these studies is pre-

sented in Table 1.
In VanPatten (1990), the first of the series of studies in this theoretical
strand of research, a total of 202 first-semester, fourth-semester, and third-
year English-speaking college-level students of Spanish in intact classes were
exposed to four listening tasks: I—listening for content (control task), II—
listening for content and simultaneously noting the key lexical item inflación
(“inflation”), III—listening for content and simultaneously noting the feminine
definite article la (“the”), and IV—listening for content and simultaneously
noting the verb morpheme –n. The passage was a text (275 words) on inflation
in Latin America, taken from a textbook titled Con mucho gusto (1978). There
were 11 instances of the lexical item inflación, 13 of la, and 12 of –n. In the
first two of four paragraphs, almost 82% of instances of inflación, 61% of la,
and only 25% of –n were found. In addition, two thirds of instances of –n were
located in the third paragraph, the longest paragraph of 112 words.
Paying attention to a minimum of 60% of the target items in the passage was
required for a participant’s data to be included in the pool. Attention to form was
operationalized by having participants put a check mark anywhere on a blank
piece of paper each time they heard a targeted item. Only participants with six
or more marks (73%, 61%, and 67% for inflación, la, and –n, respectively)
were included in the study. Time on task was 3 min. Attention to meaning was
measured via a postexposure recall task in which participants were requested
to write down in English all that they could remember from the experimental
text. Comprehension was measured through these free written recalls, which
were later scored using an idea unit analysis (cf. Carrell, 1985). The number
of idea units recalled was subsequently used to measure comprehension of the
content and, indirectly, to reflect the type of attentional processing that took
place during exposure to the L2 input.
Results of an ANOVA and two pairwise tests revealed a significant drop in
recall scores when participants were asked to listen for content and a grammat-
ical morpheme (la, –n) simultaneously. In addition, the researcher did not find
any significant difference in comprehension between (a) learners who listened
for content only and those who listened to content and simultaneously noted a
lexical item and (b) learners who listened to content and simultaneously noted
la and those who listened to content and simultaneously noted –n. Based on
these findings, VanPatten concluded that conscious attention to form in the in-
put competes with conscious attention to meaning and, by extension, that only
when input is easily understood can learners attend to form as part of the intake
process (Van Patten, 1990, p. 296).

Language Learning 58:3, September 2008, pp. 665–695 668

669
Table 1 Summary of the three studies under the rubric of attention to form and meaning

VanPatten (1990) Greenslade et al. (1999) Wong (2001)

Participants 202 SFL (L1 English) 53 SFL (L1 English) 79 EFL (L1 French)
College-level College-level College-level (low-intermediate EFL)
Intact classes third-semester Intact classes
Leow, Hsieh, and Moreno

3 levels (first-semester, Intact classes

fourth-semester, third-year
conversation)
Groups Group 1: Control Same as VanPatten Same as VanPatten (with the exception of
Group 2: –n –n)
Group 3: la
Group 4: inflación
Experimental text Con mucho gusto (1978) Same as VanPatten Same as VanPatten (translated into
English)
Distribution of inflación la −n Same as VanPatten Same as VanPatten (with the exception
targeted items Title 1 0 0 of –n)
Paragraph 1 5 4 0
Paragraph 2 3 4 3
Paragraph 3 0 2 8
Paragraph 4 2 3 1
Total 11 13 12
(continued)

Language Learning 58:3, September 2008, pp. 665–695

Form and Meaning Revisited
 Table 1 (Continued)

VanPatten (1990) Greenslade et al. (1999) Wong (2001)

Time on task 3 min 2.5 min 2.5 min?

Amount of exposure to Yes ? ?
Leow, Hsieh, and Moreno

L2 input controlled?
Measurement of Marking of target items; Same as VanPatten Same as VanPatten
attention less than eight marks not
included for analysis
(73%, 67%, 61%)
Modality Listening only Reading only Listening and reading
Assessment of Immediate recall Same as VanPatten Same as VanPatten

Language Learning 58:3, September 2008, pp. 665–695

comprehension Coded for idea units
Results Listening Reading Listening Reading
Control > –n Control > –n N/A N/A
Control > la Control > la Control > the ∗
Control = the
Inflación > –n ∗
Inflación = –n N/A N/A
Inflación > la ∗
Inflación > la ∗
Inflation = the ∗
Inflation = the
Control = inflación Control = inflación Control = inflation Control = inflation
–n = la –n = la N/A N/A
Note. An asterisk indicates differences in results

670
Form and Meaning Revisited
Leow, Hsieh, and Moreno Form and Meaning Revisited

As can be seen in Table 1, there are two published empirical studies that
specifically addressed the issue of simultaneous attention to form and mean-
ing in the SLA literature by conceptually or partially replicating VanPatten’s
original study (Greenslade et al., 1999; Wong, 2001). Whereas Greenslade et
al.’s replication study changed the input mode from aural to written, Wong con-
ducted a partial replication of both VanPatten (1990) and Greenslade et al. Her
research design differed from both VanPatten’s and Greenslade et al.’s in that
it directly compared the aural and written modes within the same participant
pool and sought to explore whether similar results would hold across different
modalities. In addition, given that her participants were English as a foreign
language (French) students, VanPatten’s experimental text was translated into
English, resulting in the loss of the morpheme –n as one of the targeted forms.
Greenslade et al.’s (1999) results paralleled those found in VanPatten’s
(1990) study with one apparently major difference: No significant difference in
comprehension was found between the lexical item inflación and verbal mor-
pheme –n groups, arguably the two experimental groups representing the ends
of a form continuum in this study in terms of saliency of item. In spite of this
contradictory finding, Greenslade et al. concluded that during the early stages
of L2 acquisition, processing for meaning and form in the written mode also
competes for learners’ limited attentional resources.
In the aural mode, Wong (2001) reported, like VanPatten (1990), that par-
ticipants listening to content only comprehended significantly more than par-
ticipants listening to the definite article the but performed statistically similar
to the inflation group. However, differing from VanPatten, no significant differ-
ence in comprehension was found between the inflation and the definite article
the groups. In the written mode, Wong reported, like Greenslade et al. (1999),
no significant difference in comprehension between the read for content only
group and the inflation group. However, her findings differed in the other two
conditions identical in the two written studies: No differences in comprehension
were found between the control and the definite article the groups and between
the inflation and the definite article the groups. Overall, only the control and
inflation groups’ statistically similar performances supported the previous stud-
ies. Wong concluded that her findings suggest that “learners’ limited attentional
capacity is not constrained in the same way during input processing in the aural
and written modes” (p. 358) (cf. Leow, 1995).

Methodological Issues of Previous Research

As can be seen in Table 1, there are inconclusive results about the effects
of attentional conditions regarding adult L2 learners’ simultaneous attention

671 Language Learning 58:3, September 2008, pp. 665–695

Leow, Hsieh, and Moreno Form and Meaning Revisited

to form and meaning in the input on their subsequent comprehension of the

text content. A careful analysis of the research methodology employed in the
previous studies reveals several potential issues.
One issue pertains to choice of experimental or targeted forms. From a
methodological standpoint, and especially in the aural mode, the word in-
flación (Spanish), inflation (French), and inflation (English) is polysyllabic,
which could increase its saliency when compared to the monosyllabic forms
(la, the, –n) employed in other conditions and also potentially influence the
amount of attention paid to the targeted form (DeKeyser, 2003). In addition,
the selection of a lexical item, a definite article, and a verbal morpheme as
targeted forms in the input might be improved by including one that addresses
the notion of input processing defined as connecting grammatical form with its
meaning and/or function.
Another methodological issue pertains to a lack of even distribution of
targeted forms in the input. As Table 1 shows, the inflation group was exposed
to 82% of the occurrences of this form by the third paragraph, whereas the –n
group was exposed to only 25% of its targeted form by the same paragraph.
In addition, the latter group was exposed to two thirds (67%) of its targeted
form in one paragraph (the fourth paragraph) that comprised 40% of the total
passage. Given adult L2 learners’ limited cognitive capacity, it might be argued
that providing exposure to targeted forms in the input in differential doses might
play a role in what they attend to or process in the input.
The amount of exposure to the L2 input (i.e., whether participants were
exposed to an equal amount of L2 input) was also not controlled in the stud-
ies conducted in the written mode. Providing a time limit for reading a text
is not the same as providing the same input in the aural mode. Whereas the
amount of exposure might be controlled in the aural mode, in the written mode
data need to be gathered and reported to ensure that all participants did in-
deed finish reading the experimental text within the allotted time period. In
order to statistically compare experimental groups, the need to control for an
equal amount of exposure in each group is clearly warranted in the research
design.
Another methodological consideration might be the assessment task em-
ployed to measure comprehension. In the previous studies, written recalls were
employed to reflect learners’ degree of comprehension. Note that the recall pro-
tocols gathered reflected only 33% of the total number of idea units, indicating
that 67% of data was not accounted for. In addition, no reliability test result
was reported for the assessment task employed in previous studies. It could be
argued that recall tasks might depend too much on the memory capacities of

Language Learning 58:3, September 2008, pp. 665–695 672

Leow, Hsieh, and Moreno Form and Meaning Revisited

participants, which might compromise the reliability of comprehension results.

There is a need for a comprehension task that can provide increased reliability
with regard to the amount of comprehended input.
Probably the most crucial methodological issue lies in the operationaliza-
tion of the allocation of attentional resources in regard to paying attention to
meaning and to form. The methodological assumption clearly underlying all
three previous studies is that all participants in each attentional condition were
minimally processing the L2 input for meaning, an assumption that was not
supported by any empirical evidence reported in the studies. Indeed, in the
original study (VanPatten, 1990), the comments reported on page 295 are re-
vealing; that is, participants were clearly not simultaneously paying attention
to both meaning and form (e.g., “I don’t know, I forgot to pay attention to the
meaning of the passage. I was concentrating on the verbs.”). Effectively mea-
suring the effects of simultaneous attention to both form and meaning might
have been compromised through the inclusion of these participants. Likewise,
processing for (attention to) form is operationalized by having students under
the pertinent experimental conditions put a check mark on a piece of paper
(for listening) or underline or circle the targeted form (for reading). Although
this operationalization is laudable, it is debatable whether this operationaliza-
tion truly reflects VanPatten’s definition of input processing, which is related to
making form-meaning connections.
Note that VanPatten’s Primacy of Meaning Principle is premised on the al-
location of attentional resources to specific data in L2 input. However, based
on the methodology employed in previous studies, it can only be assumed that
participants’ division of attention did indeed take place based on experimental
condition, given that no concurrent data of attention to meaning or to a par-
ticular form were gathered to support the simultaneity of attention being paid
under each condition. In other words, concurrent data need to be gathered to
support the presupposition that all participants primarily processed for mean-
ing (the baseline requirement for inclusion in the participant pool) and the only
difference between groups lies in their differential attention to a specific form
in the input.2 It is essential, then, to establish first where learners’ attentional
resources are being allocated during exposure to the input, which will, in turn,
provide data on the reported processes that are representative of what partici-
pants in each cell are doing under each condition; that is, concurrent think-aloud
protocols can provide data to elucidate whether participants were performing in
accordance with task conditions and ultimately improve the internal validity of
the study (cf. Leow, 2000, for further discussion of internal validity of studies
premised on the role of attention in SLA).

673 Language Learning 58:3, September 2008, pp. 665–695

Leow, Hsieh, and Moreno Form and Meaning Revisited

The present study, then, revisited the issue of simultaneous attention to

form and meaning in the input (Primacy of Meaning Principle) in light of
VanPatten’s (2004) model of input processing from a different perspective,
which addressed several potential methodological issues of previous research in
this strand of inquiry. To establish learner attention to (processing for) meaning
and form, concurrent data of participants’ reported allocation of attentional
resources while interacting with the L2 input were gathered before statistically
addressing the differential effects of attentional condition on subsequent text
comprehension.
The following research question was formulated to guide the study: Does
type of attentional condition have a differential effect on adult L2 reading
comprehension?

Method
In an effort to arrive at a more robust interpretation of the first principle of Van-
Patten’s (2004) model of input processing, the present study set out to address
potential methodological issues identified in the research design employed in
previous studies conducted under the attention to form and meaning rubric by
providing methodological modifications via a hybrid design3 that would raise
the internal validity of its findings. These modifications are presented below.
1. Targeted Forms: The first key difference was choice of targeted forms:
The word sol “sun” instead of inflación “inflation” and the addition of the
clitic lo “it.” The monosyllabic word “sol” was chosen, from a methodological
perspective, to equalize the salience of the targeted forms in all experimental
conditions. As pointed out earlier, the polysyllabic word inflación, compared
with the other key elements (la, the, and –n) in previous studies, was much
more salient, both visually and auditorily, than the other three. In addition,
changing inflación to sol could also address the question of why the lexical
item is easier to process. In other words, the use of sol instead of inflación
could minimally exclude the issues of the form being a cognate or multisyllabic
that could potentially reduce the cognitive effort needed to process lexical items.
Including this monosyllabic word, insofar as research methodology and input
processing are concerned, could prove to be more informative than using a
polysyllabic word.
To address more directly the form-meaning/function connection issue dis-
cussed earlier, participants were also directed to attend to the clitic lo “it,” given
that its inclusion could provide revealing results concerning paying attention
to a form that carries both meaning and grammatical function in the input. In

Language Learning 58:3, September 2008, pp. 665–695 674

Leow, Hsieh, and Moreno Form and Meaning Revisited

addition, due to its lexical-morphological characteristic, it cannot be classified

as a full lexical item or a full morphological item and serves as a direct contrast
to the other targeted forms. Its inclusion in the study should help us better un-
derstand input processing when attention to both form and meaning/function is
at issue.
2. Comprehension Assessment: Another main methodological difference in
the present study was the type of assessment instrument employed for mea-
suring comprehension. VanPatten (1990) and the successive replication studies
employed written recalls to measure comprehension of the experimental pas-
sage content. Given the relatively low number of recalls typically produced in
previous studies (approximately 33% and less), the reliability of this type of task
arguably might be undermined by the role of individual memory capacities in
the results. The present study, then, employed a multiple-choice comprehension
test designed to measure both global and specific comprehension and submitted
it to a test of reliability. Following a common norm in the field for reading com-
prehension tasks, the questions were prepared in English; this practice ensured
that what was being measured was how much of the text content participants
had understood, not what words or phrases they remembered from the passage.
3. Operationalization of Attention: As mentioned earlier, all of the studies
investigating the effects of simultaneous attention to form and meaning on
subsequent comprehension of text content are premised on attention being paid
to meaning during exposure to the L2 input. A crucial statement in VanPatten
(1990, p. 288) is: “While humans may indeed direct conscious attention to
form in and of itself, the question is not whether they can do this; the question
is whether or not they can do this while they process input for meaning.” (The
italics are in the original text.) Thus, it is vital that procedures are employed that
not only establish that learners did primarily pay attention to meaning but also
provide concurrent data on the processes that occurred in relation to meaning
and form.
One of the recent advancements in operationalizing and measuring attention
is the incorporation of think-aloud protocols in research designs. Think-aloud
protocols are verbal reports provided by participants while they are interacting
with the L2 input and can be of two types: metalinguistic (i.e., they also provide
some additional information; e.g., reasoning or explanation) and a metacogni-
tive report on what they think their processes are, and nonmetalinguistic (i.e.,
they focus on the task with the think-aloud secondary and only voice their
thoughts without explaining them). The use of such online process measures
also directly addresses the representative nature of participants’ performance
in experimental groups in studies conducted within an attentional framework.

675 Language Learning 58:3, September 2008, pp. 665–695

Leow, Hsieh, and Moreno Form and Meaning Revisited

Empirical evidence supports the value of operationalizing attention using con-

current measures (e.g., online think-alouds in Bowles, 2003, 2004, in press;
Leow, 1997, 1998a, 1998b, 2000, 2001a, 2001b; Rosa & Leow, 2004a, 2004b;
Rosa & O’Neill, 1999). In the written mode, three studies (Bowles, 2008;
Bowles & Leow, 2005; Leow & Morgan-Short, 2004) have also explored the
issue of reactivity (the positive or negative effects of think-alouds on learners’
processing of the language while performing the task) that could arise from
the use of concurrent elicitation procedures during exposure to the input. These
three studies have reported that metalinguistic and/or nonmetalinguistic verbal-
ization during text processing did not significantly affect learners’ subsequent
performances when compared to a control group, except for latency (i.e., time
on task), which was greater among learners who thought out loud than for those
who did not.
The present study included concurrent measures that would help to elucidate
whether the types of processing assumed by attentional condition did indeed
occur. In other words, think-aloud protocols were included in the research design
in order to provide important concurrent data that would shed light on the actual
processes that learners engaged in while interacting with the input.

Participants
The original pool of participants comprised 99 second-semester college-level
students of Spanish randomly assigned to one of five experimental conditions
(cf. Procedure subsection). Participants had received an average of 60 hr of
formal exposure to Spanish in a curriculum that focused on all four skills and
met three times (50-min sessions) a week. The text used was Vistazos (McGraw-
Hill).4
As in previous studies, participants were required to demonstrate paying
attention to a minimum of 60% of the targeted forms in order to be included
in the participant pool. Twenty-seven participants were eliminated from the
study due to their overall failure to complete the requirements of the study, be
it not fulfilling the 60% attentional requirement, not completing all sections of
the study, or not following the instructions provided (cf. Coding subsection).
Therefore, the data of only 72 participants were included in the analyses for
this study.

Materials
The reading passage was a modified version of an authentic article on the Aztecs
(Rangel Montemayor) adapted from an online cultural website. Modifications
included shortening the length of the passage to 358 words and controlling not

Language Learning 58:3, September 2008, pp. 665–695 676

Leow, Hsieh, and Moreno Form and Meaning Revisited

only for an equivalent number of targeted linguistic forms (10 occurrences of

each) but also for an even distribution of the occurrences of the targeted forms
in the input (Appendix A).

Procedure
Participants reported to the Language Laboratory and were randomly assigned
to one of the five groups: Condition 1: control (read for meaning only); Con-
dition 2: sol (read for meaning and circle all instances of sol); Condition 3:
la (read for meaning and circle all instances of la); Condition 4: lo (read for
meaning and circle all instances of lo); and Condition 5: –n (read for meaning
and circle all instances of verbal –n).
Before participating in the study, all participants put on headphones and
signed into the AudioHijack program in order to perform a warm-up exercise to
practice how to think aloud during a problem-solving task. Participants then re-
ceived the experimental text accompanied by the following general instruction:

Please read as quickly as you can the following text on the Aztecs for
comprehension. You will be asked to answer some questions after your
reading without referring back to the text. In addition, as you read the
article and answer the questions, please think your thoughts aloud. That
is, say whatever passes through your mind while you read the text for
information and answer the questions. You may speak in either English
or Spanish.

Participants in Conditions 2–5 were also requested to circle their respective

targeted form as they read the text. No time limit was set and participants were
then directed to switch on their microphones and begin to think aloud as they
read the passage.

Multiple-Choice Assessment Task

A 10-item multiple-choice assessment task that closely followed the corre-
sponding number of targeted forms in the text was designed. For example, a
paragraph with three targeted forms resulted in three comprehension content
questions assigned to this paragraph. Participants were requested to choose the
letter corresponding to the phrase that correctly completed the sentence, based
on what they had just read (Appendix B).

Scoring of Multiple-Choice Assessment Task

The multiple-choice assessment test was scored one point or zero per item for
a maximum total of 10 points.

677 Language Learning 58:3, September 2008, pp. 665–695

Leow, Hsieh, and Moreno Form and Meaning Revisited

Analysis and Results

Qualitative Analyses
Coding: Operationalization of Attention to Meaning and to Form
The think-aloud protocols gathered for Conditions 2–5 were coded to establish
that participants did indeed process the input for meaning and also reported
paying attention to the targeted linguistic forms in the text. To operationalize
attention to meaning, any sustained effort to read the text primarily for meaning
was coded as processing for meaning. In other words, participants who not only
spent less than a minute on the reading text but also clearly demonstrated only an
attempt to seek out the targeted forms were deemed not to be representative of a
learner who processed the input primarily for meaning, the baseline requirement
for inclusion in the study. As reported earlier, these participants were eliminated
from the final pool.
To operationalize attention to form, targeted items circled and/or mentioned
in the think-alouds were coded as instances of attention. One half of the think-
aloud protocols were independently coded by two raters, who achieved an inter-
rater reliability of 100%. As in previous studies, only those participants who did
pay attention, as operationalized earlier, to a minimum of 60% of the targeted
items, were included in the participant pool.

Results of Coding
The think-aloud protocols revealed that for Conditions 2–5 there were several
participants who clearly did not process the input for meaning and simply chose
to seek out the targeted form to which they were also requested to pay atten-
tion. There were also several participants who went back to the text content to
look for answers (backtracking) while completing the comprehension test. As
reported earlier, these participants were eliminated from the study’s participant
pool. Concurrent data revealed that participant mortality due to failure to fol-
low instructions (e.g., only marking targeted forms or backtracking) was found
in higher numbers for the la (45%), –n (35%), sol (25%), and lo (20%) con-
ditions when compared to control (10%). These findings are revealing, given
that inclusion of these participants who did not fulfill the baseline require-
ment of processing the input for meaning could have impacted the overall final
results.
The think-aloud protocols also revealed that although participants in Con-
ditions 2–5 also reported paying attention to the targeted items; this attention
was characterized by minimal effort being spent processing both the meaning
and form of the targeted items, ranging from simply circling or mentioning
the targeted form, a simple pronunciation of the forms, a slight raising of their

Language Learning 58:3, September 2008, pp. 665–695 678

Leow, Hsieh, and Moreno Form and Meaning Revisited

intonation of the targeted forms, an occasional comment such as “oh, here is

another one,” to a few instances of interpreting or translating the targeted form.

Depth or Levels of Processing

To probe more deeply into the apparent issue of depth or level of processing
[e.g., mere attention to (simply circling) versus interpreting or translating], the
concurrent data were further analyzed qualitatively by two coders (interrater re-
liability: 100%) to categorize levels of participants’ processes while interacting
with the targeted forms in the input. The think-aloud data revealed the following
three levels: Level 1—merely circling targeted forms; Level 2—providing a re-
port of attending to the targeted form (e.g., a simple pronunciation of the forms,
a slight raising of their intonation of the targeted forms, an occasional comment
such as “oh, here is another one”); and Level 3—interpreting or translating
the targeted form. For the –n morpheme, translation was taken as an English
sentence containing the plural subject pronoun “they” and the verb (e.g., “they
had” for tenı́an). This analysis is reported in Table 2.
As can be seen, Column I represents the selection of participants who, by
virtue of circling the targeted forms, can be claimed to have processed the
targeted forms at least minimally. In Column II, these participants are further
divided into those who only circled but did not speak aloud the targeted forms
(Level 1) and those who circled the form and clearly gave some report of having
paid additional attention to or processed a little deeper the targeted forms (i.e.,
Level 2 and higher).
Not surprisingly, for the sol group, 73% showed signs of having processed
the lexical item a little deeper in some way, whereas 27% of the participants did
not. On the other hand, the difference in reporting processing the targeted forms
a little deeper was not as clear for the rest of the attentional conditions as for the
sol group; that is, only 45.5% of the participants (for the la group), 31% (for the
lo group), and 31% (for the -n group) indicated processing the targeted forms
in their protocols more deeply. These participants provided comments made in
connection to the targeted form (“sol, circled that”), paused after every instance
of the form, or emphasized the reading of the form by changing their intonation
or by reading it louder than the rest of the text, all coded as indications of having
devoted relatively greater attentional resources to or processed a little deeper
the forms they were to circle.
Column III further classifies participants of Level 2 into those participants
who reported processing the targeted form a little deeper (Level 2) but did not
report making some attempt to translate or interpret the form, whether correct
or incorrect, and those who reported making such attempts (Level 3).

679 Language Learning 58:3, September 2008, pp. 665–695

 Leow, Hsieh, and Moreno

Table 2 Levels of processing of targeted forms

Column I Column II Column III Column IV

Participants circling + report of attending to targeted forms + interpreting targeted forms Correct interpretation
a minimum of of targeted forms
60% of the Level 1 Levels 2 & 3 Level 2 Level 3 # of participants
targeted forms –report +report –interpret +interpret (# of correct forms)

Language Learning 58:3, September 2008, pp. 665–695

Control (17) N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sol (15) 4 (27%) 11 (73%) 3 (20%) 8 (53%) 2(1), 2(2), 1(4), 2(5), 1(8)
La (11) 6 (54.5%) 5 (45.5%) 2 (18%) 3 (27%) 1(1), 2(2)
Lo (16) 11 (69%) 5 (31%) 1 (6%) 4 (25%) 1(2), 2(3), 1(4)
–n (13) 9 (69%) 4 (31%) 3 (23%) 1 (8%) 1(2)

680
Form and Meaning Revisited
Leow, Hsieh, and Moreno Form and Meaning Revisited

The data in Column III reveal that the percentages of participants in each
group who reported spending extra effort in processing the targeted forms
appear to be quite proportionate with the degree of saliency of the targeted
forms: 53% of participants in the sol group, 27% and 25% in the la and lo
groups, respectively, and 8% in the –n group, which indicate that the forms
assumed to reduce participants’ attention from processing for meaning did not
appear to have done so.
Column IV (Level 3) provides additional data on the performances of the
few participants who did report attempting to translate or interpret the targeted
forms. As can be seen, with the not surprising exception of the sol group (53%),
only 27% (la), 25% (lo), and 8% (–n) of the other experimental groups attempted
to interpret the targeted forms. It is also noted that the amount of attentional
resources spent at this level does not appear to be very large, as seen from the
low number of forms participants processed at this level. In other words, the
majority of participants who translated or interpreted the targeted forms did so
on very few items out of a total of 10 (see the last column on Table 2).
In sum, although it can be claimed that participants in the study did indeed
pay attention to targeted forms while processing for meaning, the same might
not hold true for their simultaneous processing of both form and meaning of
the targeted forms at a deep and consistent level. These findings run counter
to those of some of the previous studies that reported differential attentional
performances based on experimental conditions.

Quantitative Analysis
To address the research question, namely whether type of attentional condi-
tion has a differential effect on adult L2 readers’ subsequent comprehension
of text content, the issue of the reliability of the comprehension test was first
addressed. The results of Cronbach’s test of reliability revealed that the re-
liability of the dependent variable, the comprehension test, was indeed high
(α = .915).5 Subsequently, the comprehension scores were submitted to a one-
way ANOVA with a one between-subject factor (Condition). The mean scores
and standard deviations for each condition are reported in Table 3. The ANOVA
results revealed no significant difference in comprehension between conditions,
F(4, 72) = 0.67, p = .62. In other words, attentional condition did not have a
significant effect on adult L2 learners’ subsequent comprehension of the text
content to which they were exposed.
Given the nonsignificant difference in comprehension between experimental
conditions, the qualitative attentional data were further analyzed to compare
hypothesized depth of processing with amount of comprehension (Table 4).

681 Language Learning 58:3, September 2008, pp. 665–695

Leow, Hsieh, and Moreno Form and Meaning Revisited

Table 3 Mean comprehension scores and standard deviations by condition

Group Mean N SD

Control 4.65 17 1.902

Sol 5.20 15 1.568
La 4.36 11 1.027
Lo 4.63 16 1.857
–n 5.15 13 1.345
Total 4.81 72 1.607
Note. Maximum score: 10.

Table 4 Average comprehension scores according to reported level of processing of

targeted forms

No. of participants Average comprehension score

Level 2 Level 3 Level 2 Level 3

Level 1 [+report [+report Level 1 [+report [+report
[–report] –interpret] +interpret] [–report] –interpret] +interpret]

Control (17) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Sol (15) 4 (27%) 3 (20%) 8 (53%) 6.50 3.67 5.13
La (11) 6 (54.5%) 2 (18%) 3 (27%) 4.17 4.00 5.00
Lo (16) 11 (69%) 1 (6%) 4 (25%) 3.91 6.00 6.25
–n (13) 9 (69%) 3 (23%) 1 (8%) 5.33 5.33 4.00

It was hypothesized that, due to additional cognitive effort to process both

form and meaning simultaneously when compared to simply processing for
meaning or a single lexical item in the input, participants who had reported not
only circling but also processing deeper the targeted forms would have yielded
lower average comprehension scores when compared to those who had not.
Table 4 does not reveal a clear pattern to support this prediction. For ex-
ample, at Level 1, the lo and la groups appear to show the opposite tendency
compared to the sol and –n groups. At Level 2, the least salient form (–n) posts
a higher comprehension mean score when compared to the most salient form
(sol). At Level 3, it is the sol and la groups that appear to have relatively simi-
lar comprehension means; the –n group posts the lowest mean comprehension
score and the lo group the highest. In sum, the hypothesis that deeper pro-
cessing of form would negatively impact participants’ processing for meaning
(comprehension) does not appear to be supported by the data found in this study.

Language Learning 58:3, September 2008, pp. 665–695 682

Leow, Hsieh, and Moreno Form and Meaning Revisited

Although it was not feasible to run statistical analyses to compare com-

prehension means due to the low number of participants, the results of the lo
condition appear to indicate that processing this nonsemantic form in the input
did not lead to any perceivable decrease in comprehension at Level 3, when
compared to Level 1 (6.25 vs. 3.91, respectively). In other words, connecting
form with its meaning or function did not appear to contribute detrimentally
to readers’ comprehension of the content matter, an apparent contradiction to
what was hypothesized. However, caution is recommended in interpreting these
results given the low numbers in the experimental cells and absence of statistical
analyses.
To control for amount of exposure on the reading task as a confounding
variable, a one-way ANOVA was performed on groups’ mean amount of time
spent reading the passage: control (4.2 min), sol (4.48 min), la (4.55 min),
lo (4.18 min), and –n (5.55 min). Although the results revealed no significant
difference for time spent reading the text (p = .063), indicating that amount
of exposure did not play a role in the results of the study, the alpha level does
indicate a trend toward significance.

Discussion
In the written mode, the quantitative findings of the present study revealed that
type of attentional condition (i.e., requesting L2 readers to process a written
text for meaning while paying attention to specified forms in the input) did not
appear to have had a differential effect on reading comprehension measured
subsequently. These results support those found in Wong (2001), who also did
not find any significant difference in comprehension among her groups (control,
the, and lexical item), but differ in results from Greenslade et al. (1999). In
that study, the researchers reported several significant differences: The control
performed significantly better than the –n and la groups and the lexical item
group was significantly better than the la group.
The results found in Greenslade et al.’s (1999) study generally reflect those
found in VanPatten’s (1990) study, which was conducted in the aural mode.
The only difference found in the two studies is that whereas VanPatten found a
significant difference between his lexical item condition and the –n condition,
this difference was not reported in Greenslade et al.’s study. On the other hand,
Wong (2001), who also addressed the aural mode in her study, reported con-
flicting findings when compared to VanPatten’s study. Although both studies
share the same findings for comparisons found between the control and the and
lexical item groups, respectively (i.e., control > the (la) and control = lexical

683 Language Learning 58:3, September 2008, pp. 665–695

Leow, Hsieh, and Moreno Form and Meaning Revisited

item), the same does not hold true for the comparison between lexical item and
the (VanPatten found lexical item > la, whereas Wong found lexical item =
the).
Based on the findings reported by previous research and the present study,
it might be argued that the issue of modality might have played a role in the
results. In the aural mode, although Wong (2001) only addressed two of the
three targeted forms in the input (she omitted the –n due to the language, namely
English, she used in her experimental text), her findings concur with VanPatten’s
(1990) in two out of three identical comparisons. In the written mode, whereas
Wong and the present study concur on all three identical comparisons in the two
studies, both Wong and the present study differ from Greenslade et al. (1999)
in two out of three and three out of six identical comparisons, respectively.
Another plausible explanation for the difference purportedly found for
modality might be due to methodological issues. Recall that in this study, based
on concurrent data, participant mortality was reported to be higher in the ex-
perimental conditions when compared to the control condition. A methodolog-
ical issue that might have had an impact in VanPatten (1990) and Greenslade
et al. (1999), on the other hand, was that in the aural mode, participants were
required to mark all instances of the targeted form during exposure and that ap-
proximately 67% of the –n form was provided in one paragraph. Consequently,
whether participants were indeed processing the input for meaning as well as for
form, especially in that loaded paragraph, might be questionable. An analysis
of idea units produced by participants in this group could have been revealing
with regard to recall of information per paragraph. Note also that it was reported
in VanPatten that several of the participants admitted not following instructions
to process the input simultaneously for meaning and form, raising questions
about the representativeness of participants in experimental cells.
Given all these quantitative findings, it appears that cognitive constraints
might be different in aural versus written exposure (cf. Leow, 1995), and, con-
sequently, in the written mode, empirical support for VanPatten’s Primacy of
Meaning Principle might need further investigation.
On the other hand, the introspective data (think-aloud protocols) gathered
while learners were performing the reading task provide yet another plausible
explanation for the finding reported for this study, namely no significant differ-
ence in comprehension between attentional conditions. In the written mode, the
issue might not simply be one of simultaneous attention to form and meaning
but also of level or depth of processing (cf. Craik & Lockhart, 1972) in relation
to form and meaning. As revealed by the concurrent think-aloud protocols (cf.
Table 2), the reported attention paid to the targeted items was characterized

Language Learning 58:3, September 2008, pp. 665–695 684

Leow, Hsieh, and Moreno Form and Meaning Revisited

by very minimal time being spent processing simultaneously both form and
meaning. In other words, this limited extra effort might not have been too tax-
ing on their attentional resources, which is what would normally hinder the
processing for the meaning of the text as VanPatten (1990) and Greenslade
et al. (1999) suggested. Hence, a simple request to pay attention to specific
linguistic forms (such as circling items or reporting paying attention) while
processing for meaning as the main focus of the task might not have had much
effect on competing for (or depleting) learners’ attentional resources in order
to impact the overall comprehension of the text (see empirical results in cogni-
tive psychology regarding the success of dual-task performance such as Cohen,
Ivry, & Keele, 1990; Curran & Keele, 1993; Frensch, Buchner, & Lin, 1994;
Keele & Jennings, 1992). The finding that relatively deeper processing of the
targeted forms in the input was demonstrated to be relatively minimal (i.e.,
participants did not appear to have spent much effort in elaborating, comment-
ing on, interpreting, or translating the targeted forms) might shed some more
light on explaining the nonsignificant difference among groups in terms of the
hypothesized detrimental effect on their text comprehension.
The argument that depth of processing, or lack thereof, might have played a
role in the findings of this study is supported by the finding that there does not
appear to be a direct correlation between the average comprehension scores and
the percentage of participants reported to have processed the targeted items more
deeply (cf. Table 2, Level 3); that is, whereas the sol and lo groups achieved the
highest scores in comprehension (cf. Table 4, Level 3), the sol group had more
than double the percentage of the lo group that reported processing the targeted
forms at this level. Indeed, the lo group, arguably the group to address the
form-meaning connection concept, produced results that appear to run counter
to the prediction that simultaneously processing for form and meaning would
lead to a decrease in comprehension. These findings appear to corroborate the
apparent noneffectiveness of attention-draining forms in the input on processing
for meaning.
Type of targeted form might have also played a partial role in these findings.
Sol, being a content word, carried more meaning and clearly attracted readers’
attention more easily to it, whereas the bound verbal morpheme –n, carrying less
semantic weight, did not. However, despite the difference in the percentages of
readers who demonstrated processing the targeted forms a little deeper, Table 2
clearly indicates that the majority of them (82%), irrespective of condition, only
elaborated 1 to 4 of the targeted items out of a total of 10, thereby displaying
overall a relatively minimal level of processing of the targeted forms in the
input.

685 Language Learning 58:3, September 2008, pp. 665–695

Leow, Hsieh, and Moreno Form and Meaning Revisited

In sum, based on the concurrent data regarding adult L2 readers’ reported

processing of the targeted forms in the input, the nonsignificant difference
in comprehension between experimental conditions might be attributed to the
relatively low level of processing reported in all experimental groups in regard
to the targeted forms. This low level of processing did not appear to have created
any differential cognitive overload while processing for meaning, contrary to
what was reported in Greenslade et al. (1999) in the written mode and VanPatten
(1990) in the aural mode.

Limitations of the Present Study and Future Research

In an effort to ensure that participants in each experimental cell represented the
expected behavior of that cell, the present study found it necessary to eliminate
one quarter of the original participant pool. As suggested by one reviewer, one
way for future studies to avoid higher attrition rates would be to present the
passage and the comprehension questions in a computerized format that would
not allow for backtracking. In addition, the present study only addressed one
text type and one language level so the findings are only generalizable to the
text type and language level employed in this study.
The concurrent data revealed that depth of processing (identified in the
present study as three levels), or lack thereof, might have played a role in the
results of the present study. These findings raise the methodological issue of
whether simultaneous attention to form and meaning has been adequately op-
erationalized in previous studies and, to a lesser extent, in the present study. A
closer reading of previous research in this strand appears to indicate a conflation
of the terms “attention” and “processing.” Indeed, the previous operationaliza-
tion of attention to form (i.e., requesting learners to simply mark or circle the
targeted form in the input) might not be robust enough to address the issue of
processing that form in relation to its connection with its meaning or function
(VanPatten, 2004) or, as Wong (2007) puts it, “how that message is encoded lin-
guistically” (p. 91). In addition, the selection of lexical items, definite articles,
and verbal morphology raises the question of whether these forms are adequate
to not only address the definition of input processing following VanPatten’s
model of input processing but also provide empirical support for his Primacy
of Meaning Principle.
The concurrent data of the present study indicated that attention to form,
as operationalized in this strand of research, resulted in a relatively low level
of processing that might not correlate with the notion of making form-meaning
connections. Given that the data revealed quite a low level of reported processing

Language Learning 58:3, September 2008, pp. 665–695 686

Leow, Hsieh, and Moreno Form and Meaning Revisited

in relation to the targeted forms in the input, future research might need to
address the potential detrimental role of deeper processing of form at the level
of form-meaning/function connection while processing for meaning in relation
to a lower level of comprehension (as argued by Greenslade et al., 1999, and
VanPatten, 1990). To this end, an experimental task that promotes relatively
deeper processing of targeted forms in addition to processing for meaning/
function needs to be designed and compared with one that does not promote
such deeper processing. This experimental task would possibly address more
adequately the condition postulated by VanPatten’s (2004) Primacy of Meaning
Principle—that is, learners process input for meaning before they process it
for form—with the caveat that simultaneous attention to or processing of both
form and meaning would result in decreased comprehension due to attentional
overload. In addition, such a study should also include intake as a dependent
variable to address another stage of the acquisition process.
It might also be useful to differentiate whether simultaneous attention to
form and meaning is viewed from a global or local perspective. A global per-
spective might assume that a reader is processing both form and meaning si-
multaneously throughout the text, whereas a local perspective might view such
simultaneous processing at the level of the targeted form in the input. In addi-
tion, the issue of which is processed first (meaning or form) or whether both are
processed simultaneously needs to be addressed empirically. The simultaneity
of processing form and meaning might be too simplistic and not easily and em-
pirically tested. One recent empirical attempt to address the issue of which is
processed first (meaning or form) is Han and Peverly (2007), who, in a study of
12 multilingual learners exposed to a language (Norwegian) of which they had
no prior knowledge, reported that these learners adopted a form-based approach
to input processing instead of a meaning-based approach, as postulated by Van-
Patten’s (2004) Primacy Meaning Principle. They concluded that learners of
some prior knowledge of an L2 will adopt a meaning-based approach, whereas
lack of such knowledge will result in a form-based approach. Finally, the def-
inition of what constitutes the term “form” also needs to be considered. In the
previous studies and the present one, form has been defined as including both
lexical and linguistic items (cf. DeKeyser, Salaberry, Robinson, & Harrington,
2002, for further discussion of the issue of what constitutes form according to
VanPatten). However, as indicated by the concurrent data, whereas the more
salient form sol was attended to more substantially than the least salient form
–n, it might not be the salience of the form but how readers process it that might
have an impact on their comprehension and potential intake of the form. This
is clearly an issue to be further investigated.

687 Language Learning 58:3, September 2008, pp. 665–695

Leow, Hsieh, and Moreno Form and Meaning Revisited

Conclusions
The present study was conducted to revisit the issue of simultaneous attention to
form and meaning in the input in relation to the Primacy of Meaning Principle
of VanPatten’s (2004) model of input processing given the inconclusive findings
from current literature in this strand of SLA research. Potential methodological
issues of previous research were addressed by controlling both the form and
distribution of the targeted forms in the input, controlling the amount of time
spent during exposure, employing a comprehension test with high reliability, and
gathering concurrent data to establish that the L2 readers were indeed processing
the text for meaning (the baseline requirement for inclusion in the study) before
statistically addressing the differential effects of attentional condition on adult
L2 reading comprehension.
The quantitative results indicated, in the written mode, no significant dif-
ference in comprehension between attentional conditions (i.e., processing for
meaning while paying attention to specific forms in the input). Based on pre-
vious research and the quantitative data of the present study, modality (aural
vs. written input) was proposed as one plausible explanation for these findings.
Qualitative results, based on the concurrent data collected while participants
were performing the reading task, indicated that these findings might also be
attributed to depth of processing, or lack thereof, of which three levels were
identified. The overall depth of processing reported in the think-aloud pro-
tocols appeared to be relatively low, which, in turn, might not have had the
hypothesized detrimental effect on the overall processing for meaning of the
text.
From an empirical perspective, the findings of the present study offer partial
support to previous findings on the nonsignificant effect of simultaneous atten-
tion to form and meaning on reading comprehension (Wong, 2001). From a
theoretical perspective, the findings do not support or refute VanPatten’s (2004)
Primacy of Meaning Principle due to the low level of processing reported.
However, the findings do underscore the methodological issues that need to be
addressed in order to adequately test this primary principle of his model of input
processing before any strong statement can be made regarding its prediction
in relation to L2 learners’ simultaneous attention to form and meaning in the
written and aural modes. Employing a hybrid research design that included both
quantitative and qualitative analyses provided a richer insight into the process of
attention, upon which the study was premised, and additional data to explicate
the quantitative results. As evident in the present study, such a design promotes

Language Learning 58:3, September 2008, pp. 665–695 688

Leow, Hsieh, and Moreno Form and Meaning Revisited

higher internal validity of the study and reduces the potential for committing a
Type I or Type II error.
Revised version accepted 26 October 2007

Notes
1 Given that VanPatten (1989) is similar to VanPatten (1990), we have opted to report
the more recent study in our review of the literature.
2 Recent studies (e.g., Alanen, 1995; Leow, 1997, 1998a, 2000; Rosa & Leow, 2004a,
2004b; Rosa & O’Neill, 1999) that have employed online data collection
procedures have revealed that not all participants in one experimental group
performed according to the condition to which they were assigned.
3 Hybrid research designs employ both qualitative and quantitative analyses of
elicited data, promote higher internal validity of the study, and reduce the potential
for committing a Type I or Type II error. A Type I error falsely reports a difference
in the data when in fact there is none, whereas a Type II error reports the converse;
that is, there does not exist a difference in the data when in fact there is one (Isaac
& Michael, 1997).
4 One reviewer queried the comparability of the experimental and control groups’
comprehension and linguistic abilities. Although no pretest was conducted to
measure formally these two abilities like in most previous studies, it was assumed
that the following measures taken in the study would address this issue: (a)
Participants were at the same level of language proficiency; (b) they were exposed
to and formally tested on several reading exercises at this level; and (c) they were
randomly assigned to the experimental groups.
5 Cronbach’s alpha measures how well a set of items (or variables) measures a single
unidimensional latent construct (e.g., comprehension). A multidimensional
structure in the data will usually produce a low Cronbach’s alpha. There is evidence
that the items are measuring the same underlying construct when the interitem
correlations are high and usually expressed by a study possessing “high” or “good”
reliability. Technically speaking, Cronbach’s alpha is not a statistical test; it is a
coefficient of reliability (or consistency). For further information, visit the SPSS
Web site http:/www.ats.ucla.edu/STAT/SPSS/faq/alpha.html

References
Alanen, R. (1995). Input enhancement and rule presentation in second language
acquisition. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention & awareness in foreign language
learning (pp. 259–302). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.
Bowles, M. A. (2003). The effects of textual input enhancement on language learning:
An online/offline study of fourth-semester Spanish students. In P. Kempchinsky &

689 Language Learning 58:3, September 2008, pp. 665–695

Leow, Hsieh, and Moreno Form and Meaning Revisited

C. E. Piñeros (Eds.), Theory, practice, and acquisition: Papers from the 6th
Hispanic linguistics symposium and the 5th conference on the acquisition of
Spanish and Portuguese (pp. 395–411). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Bowles, M. A. (2004). L2 glossing: To CALL or not to CALL. Hispania, 87(3),
543–555.
Bowles, M. A. (2008). Task type and reactivity of verbal reports in SLA: A first look at
a L2 task other than reading. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30 (3),
359–387.
Bowles, M., & Leow, R. P. (2005). Reactivity and type of verbal report in SLA
research methodology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 415–440.
Bransdorfer, R. L. (1991). Communicative value and linguistic knowledge in second
language input processing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois
at Urbana-Champaign.
Carrell, P. (1985). Facilitating ESL reading by teaching text structure. TESOL
Quarterly, 19, 727–752.
Cohen, A., Ivry, R., & Keele, S.W. (1990). Attention and structure in sequence
learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,
16, 17–30.
Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for
memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, II, 671–684.
Curran, T., & Keele, S. W. (1993). Attentional and nonattentional forms of sequence
learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,
19, 189–202.
DeKeyser, R. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning. In C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.),
The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 313–348), Oxford: Blackwell.
DeKeyser, R., Salaberry, R., Robinson, P., & Harrington, M. (2002). What gets
processed in processing instruction? A commentary on Bill VanPatten’s “Processing
Instruction: An Update.” Language Learning, 52, 805–823.
Frensch, P. A., Buchner, A., & Lin, J. (1994). Implicit learning of unique and
ambiguous serial transitions in the presence and absence of a distractor task. Journal
of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 567–584.
Greenslade, T., Bouden, L., & Sanz, C. (1999). Attending to form and content in
processing L2 reading texts. Spanish Applied Linguistics, 3, 65–90.
Han, Z.-H., & Peverly, S. (2007). Input processing: A study of ab initio learners with
multilingual backgrounds. The International Journal of Multilingualism, 4(1),
17–37.
Isaac, S., & Michael, W. B. (1997). Handbook in research and evaluation (2nd ed.).
San Diego: EdITS.
Keele, S. W., & Jennings, P. J. (1992). Attention in the representation of sequence:
Experiment and theory. Human Movement Science, 11, 125–138.
Leow, R. P. (1993). To simplify or not to simplify: A look at intake. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 15, 333–355.

Language Learning 58:3, September 2008, pp. 665–695 690

Leow, Hsieh, and Moreno Form and Meaning Revisited

Leow, R. P. (1995). Modality and intake in second language acquisition. Studies in

Second Language Acquisition, 17, 79–89.
Leow, R. P. (1997). Attention, awareness, and foreign language behavior. Language
Learning, 47(3), 467–505.
Leow, R. P. (1998a). The effects of amount and type of exposure on adult learners’ L2
development in SLA. Modern Language Journal, 82(1), 49–68.
Leow, R. P. (1998b). Toward operationalizing the process of attention in SLA:
Evidence for Tomlin and Villa’s (1994) fine-grained analysis of attention. Applied
Psycholinguistics, 19(1), 133–159.
Leow, R. P. (2000). A study of the role of awareness in foreign language behavior:
Aware versus unaware learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(4),
557–584.
Leow, R. P. (2001a). Attention, awareness, and foreign language behavior. Language
Learning, 51(Suppl. 1), 113–155.
Leow, R. P. (2001b). Do learners notice enhanced forms while interacting with the L2?
An online and offline study of the role of written input enhancement in L2 reading.
Hispania, 84(3), 496–509.
Leow, R. P., & Morgan-Short, K. (2004). To think aloud or not to think aloud: The
issue of reactivity in SLA research methodology. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 26, 35–57.
Mackey, A. (2006). Feedback, noticing and instructed second language learning.
Applied Linguistics, 27, 1–27.
McLaughlin, B. (1987). Theories of second language learning. London: Edward
Arnold.
McLaughlin, B., & Heredia, R. (1996). Information-processing approaches to research
on second language acquisition and use. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.),
Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 213–228). San Diego: Academic
Press.
Musumeci, D. (1989). The ability of second language learners to assign tense at the
sentence level: A crosslinguistic study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Rangel Montemayor, I. E. (2005) Los Aztecas II. Retrieved January 18, 2005 from
http://www.monografias.com/trabajos/aztecas2/aztecas2.shtml
Robinson, P. (1995). Attention, memory and the “noticing” hypothesis. Language
Learning, 45, 283–331.
Rosa, E., & Leow, R. P. (2004a). Computerized task-based exposure, explicitness, type
of feedback, and Spanish L2 development. Modern Language Journal, 88, 193–
217.
Rosa, E., & Leow, R. P. (2004b). Awareness, different learning conditions, and L2
development. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25, 269–292.
Rosa, E., & O’Neill, M. D. (1999). Explicitness, intake, and the issue of awareness.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(4), 511–556.

691 Language Learning 58:3, September 2008, pp. 665–695

Leow, Hsieh, and Moreno Form and Meaning Revisited

Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied

Linguistics, 11, 129–158.
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language
instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shook, D. J. (1994). FL/L2 reading, grammatical information, and the input-to-intake
phenomenon. Applied Language Learning, 5, 57–93.
Tomlin, R., & Villa, V. (1994). Attention in cognitive science and second language
acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 183–203.
VanPatten, B. (1989). Can learners attend to form and content while processing input?
Hispania, 72, 409–417.
VanPatten, B. (1990). Attending to form and content in the input: An experiment in
consciousness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 287–301.
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. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction: Theory and research.
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
VanPatten, B. (2004). Input processing in SLA. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing
instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 5–31). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
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: Cambridge University Press.
Wong, W. (2001). Modality and attention to meaning and form in the input. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 23, 345–368.
Wong, W. (2007). Processing instruction and structured input as input enhancement. In
C. Gascoigne (Ed.), Assessing the impact of input enhancement in second language
education (pp. 89–106). Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press.

Appendix A
Experimental Text
Los Aztecas II (Rangel Montemayos)
El pueblo azteca, como pueblo primitivo, podı́a encontrar una solución a los
problemas presentados por las fuerzas de la naturaleza. Daba mucha importancia
a su religión. En ella su Dios principal y todopoderoso era Tonatiuh (el sol). Se
lo admiró mucho. Tonatiuh tenı́a las bondades y los defectos de los humanos,
pero con un gran poder sobrenatural. Según la religión azteca, el sol Tonatiuh
necesitaba que lo alimentaran con una sustancia mágica: la vida del hombre.
Los antiguos mexicanos tenı́an sacrificios humanos para el sol pero no lo hacı́an
por crueldad ni instintos bárbaros.

Language Learning 58:3, September 2008, pp. 665–695 692

Leow, Hsieh, and Moreno Form and Meaning Revisited

Habı́a también muchos monumentos en la vida azteca que honraban al

sol, Entre ellos el más importante es la Piedra del Sol. Lo conocen también
con los nombres de Calendario Azteca o Jı́cara de Aguilas (Cuauhxicalli). El
Calendario Azteca es una de las obras de arte más hermosas de esta cultura. Es
un monolito o monumento de piedra. Todo el mundo lo visita diariamente.
El 17 de diciembre de 1790, se encontró el monolito. Tenı́a una cara esculp-
ida y estaba vuelta hacia abajo. Esta era el rostro del Tonatiuh, el sol, a quien
honraban los aztecas y que era el amo y señor de los cielos. Después de en-
contrar el calendario por primera vez se lo trasladó a la Catedral Metropolitana
y en 1885 se colocó el calendario en una de las salas del Museo Nacional de
Historia. Hoy dı́a está en el Museo Nacional de Antropologı́a en el Bosque de
Chapultepec.
El sol tiene mucha luz, una razón por la cual el pueblo azteca lo admiraba
mucho, y por eso los cabellos de Tonatiuh son de color dorado. En el rostro
del sol se notan las arrugas que son caracterı́sticas de una persona vieja y que,
según los aztecas, demostraban la madurez y sabidurı́a en el carácter. Se lo
admira universalmente.
Por último se encuentra la lengua del sol en forma de cuchillo expuesta hacia
afuera, y que indica que es necesario que lo alimenten con sustancia mágica,
que incluı́a el corazón humano. La lengua en el sol simboliza el rayo de luz y
los aztecas lo respetaban mucho.

Appendix B
Comprehension Test
Based on what you have just read, choose the letter that correctly completes
the sentence.

1. As a primitive civilization, the Aztecs

A. unfortunately were unable to cope with the problems that the forces of
nature provided.
B. nevertheless were able to cope with the problems that the forces of
nature provided.
C. were only able to cope with some of the problems that the forces of
nature provided.
D. were not afraid of the problems that the forces of nature provided.
2. Tonatiuh possessed the following characteristics:
A. a great supernatural power.
B. human strengths, but accompanied by a supernatural power.

693 Language Learning 58:3, September 2008, pp. 665–695

Leow, Hsieh, and Moreno Form and Meaning Revisited

C. human weaknesses, but accompanied by a supernatural power.

D. human strengths and weaknesses, together with a supernatural power.
3. The Aztecs performed human sacrifices
A. to appease Tonatiuh.
B. to appease their gods and also because they were barbaric warriors.
C. because they were known for their barbaric instincts and cruelty.
D. All of the above.
4. The most important monument in Aztec life was
A. Jı́cara de Aguilas.
B. Piedra del Sol.
C. Cuauhxicalli.
D. All of the above.
5. The Calendario Azteca was
A. the famous Aztec calendar known for its accuracy.
B. the name of a well-known museum in Mexico.
C. a monument made of stone.
D. a special ritual for Tonatiuh.
6. The Calendario Azteca became known in 1790 and in 1885 was found in
A. el Museo Nacional de Antropologı́a.
B. el Museo Nacional de Historia.
C. la Catedral Metropolitana.
D. el Bosque de Chapultepec.
7. The color of Tonatiuh’s hair was
A. red.
B. jet black.
C. white.
D. golden.
8. Tonatiuh’s face appears
A. old.
B. young.
C. bright.
D. dark.
9. Tonatiuh’s tongue is
A. extended in the form of a knife.
B. one of the longest among the different gods.
C. thought to hold magical powers.
D. decorated with magical substance.

Language Learning 58:3, September 2008, pp. 665–695 694

Leow, Hsieh, and Moreno Form and Meaning Revisited

10. Tonatiuh’s tongue symbolizes

A. strength.
B. the ray of light.
C. magic.
D. life.

695 Language Learning 58:3, September 2008, pp. 665–695