Prompted Production
PATRICK REBUSCHAT AND ALISON MACKEY
Prompted production refers to language use that occurs in tasks which encourage, or
“prompt,” participants to produce particular linguistic structures. Prompted production
tasks are widely used in language research (including child language development, second
language research, psycholinguistics, and sociolinguistics) and represent a convenient way
of collecting linguistic data. In contrast to naturalistic data collection procedures (e.g.,
classroom observations, diary studies), prompted production tasks are generally designed
to elicit particular language structures (for example, English plural -s), which greatly
facilitates the data collection process. In this entry, we describe four of the most common
prompted production procedures, from the more structured to the less structured: elicited
imitation, interactive tasks, narratives, and role plays.
Elicited Imitation
Elicited imitation tasks require participants to listen to linguistic stimuli and to repeat them
after a delayed prompt. In a typical elicited imitation task, sentences are presented to
participants auditorily, that is, either via a recording or orally by the researcher. Participants
are instructed to listen to the sentences and to repeat them accurately when prompted to
do so. Typically, directions might be as follows: “You will listen to 60 sentences. After
every sentence, a prompt [++++] will appear on the screen. Your task is then to repeat the
sentence as well as you can. It is important that you do not begin repeating the sentence
before the prompt [++++] has been displayed.” The prompt generally occurs several seconds
after the end of stimulus presentation so that participants cannot reproduce the sentence
based on rote memory alone. The sentences are typically designed to target certain grammatical structures, and the participants’ ability to repeat them accurately is seen as a
reflection of their internal grammatical systems. Elicited imitation has been used extensively
in first language acquisition research since the 1960s (e.g., Fraser, Bellugi, & Brown, 1963).
In second language (L2) research, the technique has gained in prominence as a measure
of L2 competence over the past 15 years (see Munnich, Flynn, & Martohardjono, 1994;
Erlam, 2006, for examples; see Bley-Vroman & Chaudron, 1994; Vinther, 2002; Jessop,
Suzuki, & Tomita, 2007, for overviews).
The basic assumption underlying elicited imitation is that if a participant’s grammatical
system corresponds to the grammar used to generate a given stimulus sentence, it should
be relatively easy to repeat. If not, accurate repetition should be difficult. For example,
English as a second language (ESL) learners with advanced levels of proficiency should
have little difficulty in accurately repeating a sentence like “John is going to talk to Mary
about the new project in the morning,” while accurate repetition of this sentence might
prove too demanding for learners with lower levels of proficiency. The repetition of ungrammatical sentences (“John have went to talking to Mary about the new project in the morning”) should be more challenging than the repetition of grammatical sentences, even though
they contain an equal number of words. This is because elicited imitation goes beyond
rote memory and repetition; it is a reconstructive process during which participants use
The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, Edited by Carol A. Chapelle.
© 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0964
2
prompted production
their own grammatical systems to reproduce stimulus sentences. As Jessop et al. (2007)
point out, participants often correct ungrammatical stimuli spontaneously, which they
would not do if elicited imitations were simply rote repetitions.
Several important factors need to be taken into account when designing elicited imitation tasks. For example, proficiency levels are important because sentences that might be
appropriate for low-proficiency participants might be inappropriate for participants with
higher levels of proficiency. In order to ensure that participants cannot simply repeat the
sentences based on echoic memory, researchers should check (a) that the prompt occurs
after a delay (for example 3–5 seconds), and (b) that the sentences are sufficiently long
(for example, between 12 and 17 syllables depending on proficiency). Finally, it is important to select the location of the target structure carefully. It is well known that the first
and the last units of a sequence (for example, the first and the last words of a sentence)
are generally more salient and therefore better retained than the middle part. In order to
avoid bias in a stimulus set, researchers should ensure that the target structure occurs in
the same location in all stimulus sentences.
Interactive Tasks
A wide range of tasks have been used in interaction-based research to obtain production
data. These include picture description, spot-the-difference, story completion, map, and
consensus tasks. Interactive tasks differ on a number of dimensions—for example, information flow (one-way vs. two-way), resolution (open vs. closed), goal orientation of the
participants (convergent vs. divergent), and number of possible outcomes (single vs.
multiple vs. no outcomes). For a detailed description of interaction tasks, see Mackey and
Gass (2005). For examples of three different types of interactive tasks used in a classroom
context, see Mackey et al. (in press).
Picture description tasks typically require participants to describe a picture to a partner
who cannot see it. Pictures are usually selected by the researcher in order to target a specific
grammatical structure. In a typical picture description task, one of the participants is given
a picture (e.g., of a park scene) and instructed to describe it to a partner who needs to
draw it (see Trahey & White, 1993; Iwashita, 2003, as examples). There are some important
considerations to keep in mind when collecting production data by means of picture
description tasks. For example, it is important to ensure that the picture cannot be seen
by the listener; the drawing should be entirely based on verbal instructions. One way to
accomplish this is through the use of a barrier, which can be made of cardboard or even
a simple file folder. Participants should also be instructed not to reveal their pictures to
their partners. Finally, it is also important to ensure that the pictures are appropriate in
terms of vocabulary for the participants’ proficiency level.
Spot-the-difference tasks utilize pictures that are identical except for a predetermined
number of modifications. Participants are asked to find the differences through verbal
interaction (see Iwashita, 2003, as an example). Often, they are told how many differences
there are so that they have a goal to work toward. Spot-the-difference tasks require two
or more learners to participate, and each holds different information that is vital to the
completion of the task. Since information has to be exchanged among participants, spotthe-difference tasks are considered two-way tasks. Another example of a two-way task is
the story completion task. In this type of activity, participants are given different parts of
a story in written or pictorial form with instructions to work together to make a complete
story (see Foster & Skehan, 1996, as an example). In order to construct a story, the learners
take turns describing their pictures and attempt to come to a consensus on how to sequence
them. As with picture description tasks, it is important to ensure that the pictures in story
prompted production
3
completion tasks are appropriate for the level of the participants in terms of vocabulary.
With regard to implementation, it is once again important that the participants not see
their partners’ pictures.
A final example of a two-way activity is the map task (see Gass, Mackey, & Ross-Feldman,
2005, as an example). Here, participants are given a map of a section of a city. Each participant
can then be provided with different information about street closings, and they must
explain to each other which streets are closed and when. Once this portion is completed,
they have to determine a route from point A to point B, keeping in mind that certain streets
are closed. In another variation of the map task, learners are given similar maps, but with
each map containing different place markers. For example, subject 1 may be given a map
marking the location of the library, city hall, and post office, while subject 2 is provided
with a map showing the location of the high school, pharmacy, and bank. Each participant
is then given a list of locations to find and thus needs to ask a partner for those locations.
Consensus tasks generally involve pairs or groups of participants who must arrive at
an agreement on a given question or topic (see Slimani-Rolls, 2005, as an example). For
example, participants might be told that ten individuals are stranded on an island, but
only five can fit into a boat to return to the mainland. Characteristics are provided for each
individual, and participants must decide which five people should be allowed to get on
the boat. Consensus tasks may perhaps allow for more open discussion than other tasks
since more than one outcome is possible. For this reason, they may provide various opportunities for learners to comprehend input, receive feedback on their output, and modify
output by engaging in active discussion from varied perspectives in the course of reaching
the consensus. As with other interactive tasks, it is important that the instructions stress
the need for all participants to participate.
Narratives
Researchers are often interested in eliciting narratives. Perhaps the most straightforward
way to do this is to ask participants to tell someone (either the researcher or another subject)
about an event that occurred in the past or that will take place in the future, depending,
of course, on what the researcher is interested in eliciting. For example, for tenses, one
could ask participants to narrate what they did yesterday, what their typical day looks
like, or how they intend to spend their summer vacations. A problem with this approach
is that participants can avoid the target structure. A more structured way to elicit narrative
production data is through narrations of video clips. Clips tend to be relatively short
(2–4 minutes) and provide participants with a uniform prompt from which to speak. Data
can be collected by asking participants to narrate or retell a silent film; alternatively, film
clips with minimal dialogue are sometimes used (see Gass, Mackey, Alvarez-Torres, &
Fernández-García, 1999). Gass et al. (1999), for example, selected film strips from Mr. Bean
episodes in which the sound could be removed without affecting learners’ comprehension,
or, as is typical with Mr. Bean, very little dialogue was present in the original. This ensures
that participants are not influenced by the speech of either their native language or the
target language.
An important point to consider when eliciting narratives is planning time. Planning can
impact both the quantity and the quality of the narratives, so researchers need to consider
whether or not participants are given time to plan their utterances, whether they are
allowed to take notes, and, if so, whether they may use those notes during the retelling.
When using video clips to elicit narratives, researchers also need to decide whether the
narrative should be produced orally or in written format, whether participants tell the
story as the film is playing or after it has been shown, and, in the case of oral production,
4
prompted production
whether participants narrate it to the recording device or to someone who they believe
has not seen the film.
Role Plays
Role-play tasks provide another way of eliciting production data. Here, participants are
presented with artificial situations, which are usually based on real life, and asked to
respond naturally. The role play can involve other participants or the researcher. In
Turnbull’s (2001) study, for example, a screen was placed between researcher and subject.
Both had a disconnected telephone as a prop. The researcher then made a pretend phone
call and made a request to which the subject had to respond. Their dialogue was recorded
for subsequent analysis. Role plays result in more naturalistic language data, especially
when participants are not given time for planning. At the same time, the use of role plays
can make it more difficult to elicit instances of the target structure. Since there are no
specific prompts (say, in the form of pictures or video clips), participants might avoid the
use of the target form more easily.
There are, broadly speaking, two types of role plays: open and closed. In closed role
plays, participants are presented with scenarios and asked to give one-turn oral responses.
For example, participants might be told that they missed a flight because of a delayed
wake-up call and would then be asked to respond (e.g., what would they say to the hotel
manager to receive compensation?). Closed role plays might not reflect naturally occurring
language, but they have methodological advantages. Since they do not require interlocutors, closed role plays can be implemented with relative ease. (Participants could listen to
the scenario from a tape, for example, and record their response on the same machine.)
In addition, they offer focused opportunities to practice specific linguistic forms that are
commonly used in certain speech acts (e.g., requests, apologies, etc.). In open role plays,
participants are provided with a scenario (e.g., complaining about a hotel room to a receptionist) and asked to play it out. Participants may or may not be given time to plan their
discourse in advance. Open role plays usually reflect natural language use more exactly.
Having said that, one must recognize that, just like the other prompted production procedures, role plays are still collected in a non-natural environment (the classroom) and so
are subject to some of the same limitations as other prompted production measures.
SEE ALSO: Grammar Analysis Techniques; Interviews; Prompted Responses; Quantitative
Methods
References
Bley-Vroman, R., & Chaudron, C. (1994). Elicited imitation as a measure of second-language
competence. In E. Tarone, S. Gass, & A. Cohen (Eds.), Research methodology in second-language
acquisition (pp. 245–61). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Erlam, R. (2006). Elicited imitation as a measure of L2 implicit knowledge: An empirical validation
study. Applied Linguistics, 27(3), 464–91.
Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language
performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 299–323.
Fraser, C., Bellugi, U., & Brown, R. (1963). Control of grammar in imitation, comprehension,
and production. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 2, 121–35.
Gass, S., Mackey, A., Alvarez-Torres, M., & Fernández-García, M. (1999). The effects of task
repetition on linguistic output. Language Learning, 49, 549–81.
prompted production
5
Gass, S., Mackey, A., & Ross-Feldman, L. (2005). Task-based interactions in classroom and
laboratory settings. Language Learning, 55, 575–611.
Iwashita, N. (2003). Negative feedback and positive evidence in task-based interaction: Differential
effects on L2 development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 1–36.
Jessop, L., Suzuki, W., & Tomita, Y. (2007). Elicited imitation in second language acquisition
research. Canadian Modern Language Review/ La Revue Canadienne des Langues Vivantes, 64(1),
215–38.
Mackey, A., Fujii, A., Biesenbach-Lucas, S., Weger-Guntharp, H., Jacobsen, N., Fogle, L., . . . &
Watanabe, A. (in press). Comparing the effectiveness of traditional and communicative
tasks for Japanese EFL/ESL learners. In K. McDonough & A. Mackey (Eds.), Interaction in
diverse educational settings. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2005). Second language research: Methodology and design. London,
England: Routledge.
Munnich, E., Flynn, S., & Martohardjono, G. (1994). Elicited imitation and grammaticality judgment tasks: What they measure and how they relate to each other. In E. Tarone, S. Gass,
& A. Cohen (Eds.), Research methodology in second-language acquisition (pp. 227–45). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Slimani-Rolls, A. (2005). Rethinking task-based language learning: What we can learn from the
learners. Language Teaching Research, 9, 195–218.
Trahey, M., & White, L. (1993). Positive evidence and preemption in the second language classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 181–204.
Turnbull, W. (2001). An appraisal of pragmatic elicitation techniques for the social psychological
study of talk: The case of request refusals. Pragmatics, 11, 31–61.
Vinther, T. (2002). Elicited imitation: A brief overview. International Journal of Applied Linguistics,
12(1), 54–73.
Suggested Reading
Gass, S., & Mackey, A. (2007). Data elicitation for second and foreign language research. Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.