Literature Review Paper

Jennifer Stone
EDUT&L 927.45
June 6th, 2011

I.

Introduction

Bolded, underlined, highlighted, and italicized: A plethora of written textual enhancements

(the practice of typographically highlighting a particular grammar structure in a written passage
[Cowan, 2008]) reside in texts around the world in many different subjects. In second language
acquisition, and specifically in grammar instruction, textual enhancement strategies like these are
forms of input enhancement, drawing learners attention to linguistic forms through physically
manipulating certain aspects of the text to make them easily noticed (Nassaji & Fotos, 2011).
Whether drawing attention to relative clauses, plural markers, or verb tense, textual enhancement
seeks to implicitly, positively, and unobtrusively highlight correct forms and increase learner
noticing, intake, production, and eventually learning of the given form (Nassaji & Fotos, 2011).
Sharwood Smiths (1993) seminal input enhancement hypothesis posited that target linguistic
forms, when made more salient through methods such as textual enhancement, are more likely to
be paid attention to by learners and thus become intake, the product of attention and noticing.
Therefore, by improving the quality of input, language learning should also improve. Despite
these aims, however, current research is not entirely in agreement on the effectiveness of this
technique, and several different variables appear to affect its usefulness in teaching target
language grammatical constructions.

II.

Summary of Research

Despite the theoretical support for textual enhancement, the results obtained from textual
enhancement studies vary greatly. Neither Leows (1997) nor Alanens (1995) studies, for
example, found significant effects for textual enhancement on intake, acquisition, or
comprehension. Leow (1997) investigated the effects of written input enhancement (specifically
underlined and bold lettering) and text length on 84 first-year college Spanish students L2
comprehension and intake of the impersonal imperative forms of Spanish verbs. Students were
exposed to one of four conditions with enhanced and non-enhanced short and long text (a long,
non-enhanced text; a long, enhanced text; a short, non-enhanced text; and a short, enhanced text).
Afterward, they were then given a short-answer comprehension task and a multiple-choice
recognition task to measure intake. Findings of Leows (1997) study suggested that textual
enhancement had no effect on either comprehension or intake.
Like Leows (1997) study, Alanen (1995) similarly found no significant effect for textual
enhancement on L2 form intake or acquisition. In his investigation, Alanen (1995) examined the
effects of implicit and meaning-based textual enhancement (italicization) compared to explicit,
rule-based, and form-focused instruction, on the acquisition of Finnish locative suffixes and
consonant gradation among 36 university students. The author used sentence completion and
grammaticality judgments to measure learners knowledge of the target form and think-aloud
protocols to measure noticing and rule-awareness. Learners in the study were divided into four
groups: one that received textual enhancement only one that received explicit grammar
instruction, one that received both types of treatment, and one control group that did not receive
any treatment. Subjects exposed to textual enhancement, while achieving different results than
the control group, still underperformed the group receiving explicit grammar instruction. No

evidence was found for implicit learning of the use of locative suffixes or consonant gradation,
although the author admitted that the experiments short duration and relatively limited input
made it difficult to draw any certain conclusions.
In contrast to Leow (1997) and Alanen (1995), other researchers have found positive effects
for textual enhancement on intake, noticing, production, and even learning. For example,
Jourdenais, Ota, Stauffer, Boyson, & Doughty (1995) investigated whether textual enhancement
had any effect on noticing and learners processing of target forms (Spanish preterite and
imperfect verbs). Ten English-speaking learners were assigned to either an enhancement group
or a comparison group. The enhancement group received a text in which instances of the
preterite and imperfect were typographically highlighted through bolding, shadowing,
underlining, enlarging letters, and using different fonts, whereas the comparison group received
the same text with no highlighting. Data was collected through think-aloud protocols and a
writing task based on a picture. The learners who received the textually enhanced text
outperformed those who received the unenhanced text in both noticing and processing of the
target forms.
Like Jourdenais et al. (1995), Shook (1994) also found positive effects for textual
enhancement. In his study, Shook (1994) focused on the transition from intake to input,
investigating the effect of textual enhancement (through bold and enlarged letters) on 125
Spanish learners intake of the present perfect tense and the relative pronouns que and quin.
Two written production tasks and two written recognition tasks were used, each including one
task for the present perfect and one for the relative pronouns. Each task was designed to
stimulate intentional focus on meaning and incidental focus on form. Results of the study

showed that the two groups receiving textual enhancement outperformed the control group on all
tasks.
Partially in response to these varied and overall inconclusive results on the effectiveness of
textual enhancement, Simard (2009) investigated the effects of various forms of textual
enhancement on students learning of English plural markers, hypothesizing that the format of
textual enhancement (the number and type of typographical cues used in a text) would have a
differential impact on intake. 188 French-speaking learners were divided into eight experimental
conditions in which they had to read a text. Various versions of the text were prepared for each
group, allowing for comparisons of the effect of different textual enhancement formats such as
italics, underlining, and color. Results of the study showed that the effects of textual
enhancement varied depending on the target form, number of enhancements, and type of
enhancement. Overall, the use of capital letters and a combination of three textual cues promoted
the highest levels of intake, whereas the use of italics was unlikely to attract learners attention.
Simards (2009) findings suggest that each textual enhancement format has its own intrinsic
saliency potential and that careful selection of textual enhancement techniques may optimize the
subsequent effects on L2 learning.
Han, Park, & Combs (2008) further attempt to reconcile the many different results studies on
textual enhancement found in the existing research. Studying and evaluating 21 investigations on
the effects of textual enhancement, Han, Park & Combs (2008) conclude that these studies
methodological differences limit the extent to which their findings can be generalized. Through
their research review, these authors conclude that:
-Simple enhancement is capable of inducing learner noticing of externally enhanced forms
in meaning-bearing input.

-Whether or not it also leads to acquisition depends largely on whether the learner has
prior knowledge of the target form.

-Learners may automatically notice forms that are meaningful.

-Simple enhancement is more likely to induce learner noticing of the target form when
sequential to comprehension than when it is concurrent with comprehension.
-Simple enhancement of a meaningful form contributes to comprehension.

- Simple enhancement of a non-meaningful form does not hurt comprehension.

-Simple enhancement is more effective if it draws focal rather than peripheral attention.
-Compound enhancement is more likely to induce deeper cognitive processing than simple
enhancement, possibly to the extent of engendering overlearning.
(Han, Park, & Combs, 2008, p. 612)
The researchers suggest that although textual enhancement can lead to learner noticing, it does
not necessarily lead to acquisition of target forms, and several factors (such as prior knowledge,
type of enhancement, and level of attention) affect the degree to which this resource is useful.
The authors suggest further research, particularly longitudinal studies, on the effects of textual
enhancement on acquisition of L2 forms and propose that the implicit nature of input
enhancement may take time to build and be felt.
Like Simard (2009) and Han, Park, & Combs (2008), Wong (2005) also explores various
methods of textual enhancement as well as how to employ them optimally in the L2 classroom.
This book provides detailed descriptions of the many types of input enhancement and explains
the role of input on learner development. Moreover, the author makes a series of research-based
recommendations regarding the use of textual enhancement to enhance input. Such suggestions
include focusing on a limited number of target structures to make salient at the time, and using
textual input that is appropriate for students level of language proficiency (Wong, 2005). Wong
(2005) also cautions that it can sometimes be unclear which forms should be highlighted in texts,

since learners have individual linguistic challenges and instructional needs. Although in previous
studies Wong (2000, 2003) found no effect for textual enhancement on acquisition of
grammatical forms, it is clear through more recent writing that she nonetheless supports the
potential of input to increase awareness and improve learner noticing through the careful use of
textual enhancement in conjunction with other meaning-focused activities.

III.

Analysis and Discussion

Much research, discussion, and controversy clearly surround the topic of textual

enhancement in L2 grammar learning. Studies like those of Jourdenais et al. (1995) and Shook
(1994) have found positive and facilitative effects of textual enhancement on noticing and
acquisition, a contrast to studies like those of Leow (1997) and Alanen (1995) which have found
limited or no effects. Still other investigations, like those of Simard (2009), Han, Park, & Combs
(2008), and Wong (2005) have sought to consolidate the existing research findings into
generalizable conclusions and guidelines for using this instructional tool in the L2 classroom.
Based on the current existing literature, textual enhancement appears effective in facilitating
noticing of grammatical forms (as Sharwood Smith [1993] suggested), but not necessarily
acquisition and learning. Furthermore, the specific methodology and context behind the use of
textual enhancement may play a significant role in how effective it is.
Throughout the first four studies, stark contrasts in apparent impact of textual
enhancement were found in the results, however these differences also were impacted by the
process of language learning being used as a determiner for effectiveness. While Leow (1997)
and Alanen (1995) respectively tested comprehension and acquisition, Jourdenais et al. (1995)

and Shook (1994) tested noticing, production and intake. Thus, as Nassaji & Fotos (2011)
observe, while most studies suggest a positive effect for textual enhancement on noticing, they
do not provide overall proof of acquisition and learning. Han, Park, & Combs (2008) arrive at
this deduction as well in their review of several textual enhancement studies, concluding that
whether textual enhancement also leads to acquisition depends largely on other factors, such as
whether the learner has prior knowledge of the target form. Similarly, Cowan (2008) warns that
although textual enhancement may seem like a quick and easy way of providing enhanced input,
evidence suggests it does not always promote learning that results in improved production. Like
Han, Park, & Combs (2008), Wong (2005) also argues that the way that textual enhancement is
used affects its degree of effectiveness. Cowan (2008) warns that although textual enhancement
may seem like a quick and easy way of providing enhanced input, evidence suggests it does not
always promote learning that results in improved production. According to Nassaji & Fotos
(2011), conclusions like these make sense, since textual enhancement simply provides learners
with correct models of the language ( positive evidence) not information with what is incorrect
in the input (negative evidence) [and] both types of evidence are essential and play an
important role in L2 learning (45).
Even the degree to which textual enhancement is effective in promoting noticing and
intake depend on several factors. Simard (2009) and Han, Park, & Combs (2008) in particular
explore these factors, discussing the various facets of textual enhancement that have been proven
to be most beneficial. Simard (2009) discusses specific typological differences, concluding that
specific enhancements (such as capital letters and three cues) are most effective at promoting
attention intake. Han, Park, & Combs (2008) also discuss factors affecting intake, although they
focus on more general structure and purpose, such as the degree to which the task involving

textual enhancement includes meaning-bearing input, and whether or not the task is sequential
(opposed to concurrent) to comprehension. Likewise, Wong (2005) stresses that the degree to
which textual enhancement promotes noticing and intake also depends on factors such as the
particular target form being highlighted and the number of forms being highlighted. In addition,
the numerous studies carried out on textual enhancement vary significantly in the linguistic
features selected, languages observed, measurement instruments used, and the aforementioned
processes and constructs examined. Overall, research shows textual enhancement to be
potentially effective in promoting noticing and intake, and in a few cases even acquisition, but
the manners in which it is used and evaluated must be carefully chosen, designed, and carried
through with in order to achieve these results.
Despite these generalized conclusions, controversy still remains on the effectiveness of
textual enhancement. Due to the wide variety of methodological differences in the current body
of research, more investigations should be done to compare the effects of textual enhancement
on various processes of second language acquisition. Wong (2005) states the importance of the
specific forms being highlighted, and thus future research should also focus on which
grammatical forms respond best to textual enhancement. Whereas textual enhancement might not
be conducive to forms such as the impersonal imperative (as in Leows (1997) study), forms
such as the Spanish preterite and imperfect (used by Jourdenais et al., 1995) might be more
compatible. Structures that especially seem to lend themselves to textual enhancement include
noun and verb endings and single-word constituents like pronouns, determiners, quantifiers, and
prepositions (Cowan, 2008). Furthermore, other factors might also skew results, such as the prior
knowledge of the learner and previous exposure to the language being taught. Each study on this
important topic provides a glimpse into the usefulness of textual enhancement on grammar

teaching, but further research is needed in order to piece the findings together into a coherent
whole.

IV.

Conclusion
Throughout the current research findings, it is clear that, under certain conditions, textual

enhancement can have positive effects on noticing and intake of particular grammatical forms,
but that it does not always or frequently promote learning. Several studies have been conducted
in the last several decades on this form of input enhancement, with positive and negative results.
These mixed results show that textual enhancement can be both effective and ineffective,
depending on the methodological and learning contexts at hand. Noticing and intake generally
are more greatly affected by implicit input enhancement like this than acquisition and learning.
In order to use textual enhancement to greatest advantage, teachers should take care in choosing
facets of the experience such as the means of typological highlighting, the forms to be
highlighted, the meaning held by the textual input, and the sequencing of the text with other
elements of the lesson such as comprehension. When used thoughtfully and in accordance with
these principals, the positive evidence of grammatical forms conveyed by textual enhancement
hold true to Sharwood Smiths (1993) original input enhancement hypothesis and play an
important role in L2 learning.
Like any method of teaching grammatical forms in second language acquisition, textual
enhancement is one of many tools in teachers repertoires, and should be used in tandem with
other strategies that are both input and output based. Other input strategies such as input flood,
negative evidence (about what is incorrect in the input), as well as output-based strategies such

as dictoglosses, cloze, and collaborative jigsaw tasks also have their place in L2 learning. Like
each of these strategies, textual enhancement must be viewed as an important resource in
grammar teaching, but not the only resource.

References
Alanen, R. (1995). Input enhancement and rule presentation in second language acquisition. In:
Schmidt, R. (Ed.), Attention and Awareness in Foreign Language Acquisition (259-302).
Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Cowan, R. (2008). The Teachers Grammar of English. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Han, Z., Park, E., & Combs, C. (2008). Textual enhancement of input: Issues and possibilities.
Applied Linguistics (29) 597-618.
Jourdenais, R., Ota, M., Stauffer, S., Boyson, B., & Doughty, C. (1995). Does textual
enhancement promote noticing? A think-aloud protocol analysis. In R. Schmidt (Ed.),
Attention and awareness in second language learning (183-216): Technical Report No. 9.
Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
Leow, R. (1997). The effects of input enhancement and text length on adult L2 readers
comprehension and intake in second language acquisition. Applied Language Learning
8(2): 151182.
Nassaji, H. & Fotos, S. (2011). Teaching Grammar in Second Language Classrooms:
Integrating Form Focused Instruction in Communicative Context. New York:
Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Sharwood Smith, M. (1993). Input enhancement in instructed SLA. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition (15): 165-179.
Shook, D. J. (1994). FL/L2 reading, grammatical information, and the input to intake
phenomenon. Applied Linguistics (5): 57-93.
Simard, D. (2009). Differential effects of textual enhancement formats on intake. System (37):
124-135.
Wong, W. (2000). The effects of textual enhancement and simplified input on L2 comprehension
and acquisition of non-meaningful grammatical form. Unpublished dissertation. Urbana
Champaign: University of Illinois.
Wong, W. (2003). Textual enhancement and simplified input: effects on L2 comprehension and
acquisition of non-meaningful grammatical form. Applied Language Learning (13): 17-45.
Wong, W. (2005). Input Enhancement: From Theory and Research to the Classroom. New
York: McGraw-Hill.