Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T19:31:19.389Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comprehensible Input and Second Language Acquisition

What is the Relationship?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Lester Loschky
Lester Loschky
Affiliation:
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study attempts to test aspects of the input hypothesis (Krashen, 1980, 1983, 1985) and Long's modification of it (Long, 1980, 1983a, 1985). Specifically, it experimentally tests the hypothesis that both input and interactional modifications facilitate second language acquisition, using Japanese as the target language. Three experimental groups were differentiated in terms of input and interaction conditions: (1) unmodified input with no interaction, (2) premodified input with no interaction, and (3) unmodified input with the chance for negotiated interaction. The groups were compared in terms of (a) their degree of comprehension of the input and (b) their subsequent retention of vocabulary items and acquisition of two Japanese locative structures. The results indicated that moment-to-moment comprehension was highest for the negotiated interaction group, whereas there was no significant difference between the two noninteraction groups. Furthermore, there was no correlation found between differences in moment-to-moment comprehension and gains in vocabulary recognition and acquisition of structures, though significant gains on both measures were found for all three groups. Discussion of these findings centers on the relationship between comprehension and acquisition.

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 16 , Issue 3 , September 1994 , pp. 303 - 323
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Aston, G. (1986). Trouble-shooting in interaction with learners: The more the merrier? Applied Linguistics, 7, 128–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaudron, C. (1985). Intake: On models and methods for discovering learners' processing of input. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language classrooms: Research on teaching and learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, E. V., & Hecht, B. F. (1983). Comprehension, production, and language acquisition. Annual Review of Psychology, 34, 325–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C. (1991). Second language instruction does make a difference: Evidence from an empirical study of SL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 431–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C., & Pica, T. (1986). Information gap tasks: Do they facilitate second language acquisition? TESOL Quarterly, 20, 305–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (1983). Plans and strategies in foreign language communication. In Faerch, C. & Kasper, G. (Eds.), Strategies in interlanguage communication (pp. 20–60). London: Longman.Google Scholar
Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (1986). The role of comprehension in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 7, 257–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foss, D. (1988). Experimental psycholinguistics. Annual Review of Psychology, 39, 301–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, C., Bellugi, U., & Brown, R. (1963). Control of grammar in imitation, comprehension and production. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 2, 125–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. (1989). How do learners resolve linguistic conflicts? In Gass, S. & Schachter, J. (Eds.), Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition (pp. 183–199). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S., & Varonis, E. (1985). Task variation and nonnative/nonnative negotiation of meaning. In Gass, S. & Madden, C. (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 149–161). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Gass, S., & Varonis, E. (1994). Input, interaction and second language production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16(3), 283–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregg, K. (1984). Krashen's monitor and Occam's razor. Applied Linguistics, 5, 79–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrington, M. (1986). The T-unit as a measure of JSL oral proficiency. Descriptive and Applied Linguistics, 19, 49–56. Tokyo: International University of Japan, Summer Institute in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Herskovits, A. (1985). Semantics and pragmatics of locative expressions. Cognitive Science, 9, 341–378.Google Scholar
Hoji, H., & Kitagawa, Y. (1990). The linguistic notion ‘head’ in Japanese language instruction. Journal of Japanese Linguistics, 12, 53–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hulstijn, J. (1989). Implicit and incidental second language learning: Experiments in the processing of natural and partly artificial input. In Dechert, H. & Raupach, M. (Eds.), Interlingual processes (pp. 49–73). Tubingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Jorden, E. (1963). Beginning Japanese, part I. Tokyo: Tuttle.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1980). The input hypothesis. In Alatis, J. (Ed.), Current issues in bilingual education (pp. 144–158). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1983). Newmark's “Ignorance Hypothesis” and current second language acquisition theory. In Gass, S. & Selinker, L. (Eds.), Language transfer in language learning (pp. 135–153). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Long, M. (1980). Input, interaction, and second language acquisition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Long, M. (1983a). Linguistic and conversational adjustments to non-native speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5, 177–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. (1983b). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4, 126–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. (1985). Input and second language acquisition theory. In Gass, S. & Madden, C. (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 377–393). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Long, M., & Sato, C. (1983). Classroom foreigner talk discourse: Forms and functions of teachers' questions. In Seliger, H. & Long, M. (Eds.), Classroom oriented research in second language acquisition (pp. 268–286). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Loschky, L. (1988, 03). The effects of task and culture on negotiated interaction. Paper presented at the Eighth Second Language Research Forum, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu.Google Scholar
Loschky, L. (1989). The effects of negotiated interaction and premodified input on second language comprehension and retention (Occasional Paper No. 16). Honolulu: University of Hawaii at Manoa, Department of English as a Second Language.Google Scholar
Loschky, L., & Bley-Vroman, R. (1993). Grammar and task-based methodology. In Crookes, G. & Gass, S. (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 123–167). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual matters.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B., & Bates, E. (Eds.) (1989). The cross-linguistic study of sentence processing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, B., Rossman, T., & McLeod, B. (1983). Second-language learning: An information-processing perspective. Language Learning, 33, 135–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murdock, B. B. (1982). Recognition and memory. In Puff, C. (Ed.), Handbook of research methods in human memory and cognition (pp. 2–26). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Nation, I. S. P. (1982). Beginning to learn foreign language vocabulary: A review of the research. RELC Journal, 13, 14–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, K., & Chaudron, C. (1987, 03). The effects of linguistic simplification and elaborative modifications on L2 comprehension. Paper presented at the 21st Annual TESOL Convention, Miami, FL.Google Scholar
Pica, T. (1992, 07). Second language learning through interaction and the negotiation of conditions, processes, and outcomes. Paper presented at the first annual Pacific Second Language Research Forum, University of Sydney, Australia.Google Scholar
Pica, T., & Doughty, C. (1985). Input and interaction in the communicative classroom: A comparison of teacher-fronted and group activities. In Gass, S. & Madden, C. (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 115–132). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Pica, T., Holliday, L., Lewis, N., & Morgenthaler, L. (1989). Comprehensible output as an outcome of linguistic demands on the learner. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 63–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pica, T., Kanagy, R., & Falodun, J. (1993). Choosing and using communication tasks for second language instruction and research. In Crookes, G. & Gass, S. (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 9–34). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual matters.Google Scholar
Pica, T., Young, R., & Doughty, C. (1987). The impact of interaction on comprehension. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 737–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rixon, S. (1979). The ‘information gap’ and the ‘opinion gap’–Ensuring that communication games are communicative. ELT Journal, 33, 104–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, S., Long, M., & Yano, Y. (1991). Simplification or elaboration? The effects of two types of text modifications on foreign language reading comprehension. University of Hawaii Working Papers in ESL, 10(2), 1–32.Google Scholar
Sachs, J., Bard, B., & Johnson, M. (1981). Language learning with restricted input: Case studies of two hearing children of deaf parents. Applied Psycholinguistics, 2, 33–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schachter, J. (1984). A universal input condition. In Rutherford, W. (Ed.), Language universals and second language acquisition (pp. 167–183). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R., & Frota, S. (1986). Developing basic conversational ability in a second language: A case study of an adult learner of Portuguese. In Day, R. (Ed.), Talking to learn (pp. 237–326). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
SharwoodSmith, M. Smith, M. (1986). Comprehension versus acquisition: Two ways of processing input. Applied Linguistics, 7, 239–256.Google Scholar
Shimura, A. (1989). Nihongo no Foreigner Talk to Nihongo kyoiku [Foreigner talk in Japanese as a foreign language], Nihongo Kyoiku: Journal of Japanese Education, 68, 204–215.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. (1989). Foreword. In MacWhinney, B. & Bates, E. (Eds.), The cross-linguistic study of sentence processing (pp. vii–ix). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Snow, C., Arlman-Rupp, A., Hassing, Y., Jobse, J., Joosten, J., & Yorster, J. (1976). Mothers' speech in three social classes. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 5, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snow, C., & Ferguson, C. (1977). Talking to children: Language input and acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sridhar, S. (1989). Cognitive structures in language production: A crosslinguistic study. In MacWhinney, B. & Bates, E. (Eds.), The cross-linguistic study of sentence processing (pp. 209–224). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In Gass, S. & Madden, C. (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Teichroew, F. (1982). Receptive versus productive vocabulary: A survey. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin, 6(2), 3–33.Google Scholar
Varonis, E., & Gass, S. (1985). Non-native/non-native conversations: A model for negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 6, 71–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L. (1987). Against comprehensible input: The input hypothesis and the development of second-language competence. Applied Linguistics, 8, 95–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, R. (1988). Input and interaction. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 9, 122–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar