Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 10

Teachers College, Columbia University, Working Papers in TESOL & pplie!

Linguistics, "##$, %ol& $, 'o& ( )nput Processing in Secon! Language c*uisition+ ,iscussion o- .our )nput Processing /o!els

Input Processing in Second Language Acquisition: A Discussion of Four Input Processing Models
Yayun Anny Sun1 Teachers College, Columbia University

ABST A!T
The importance o- input has been a 0i!ely recogni1e! concept in the -iel! o- secon! language ac*uisition& /uch research has been con!ucte! to e2amine ho0 input is processe!, the various -acilitative attributes o- input, an! the e--ectiveness o- pe!agogies that !irectly manipulate input& mong these !omains o- input3relate! research, it is critical to -irst un!erstan! the very nature oinput3processing& 4ence, in this paper, -our !i--erent mo!els o- input3processing are e2amine! an! compare! si!e3by3si!e& The !iscussion aims to !isambiguate !iscrepancies in terminologies, i!enti-y common emphases on gap3noticing an! cognitive3comparison, an! suggests the nee! -or -urther research on the role o- attention5consciousness in input3processing&

I"T #D$!TI#"
)nput is one o- the most important elements in the process o- secon! language ac*uisition 6SL 7& s 8ass 6(99:7 points out, secon! language 6L"7 learning simply cannot take place 0ithout input o- some sort& This statement has been generally supporte! by researchers in the -iel! regar!less oone;s theoretical approach& <uil!ing upon this un!erstan!ing, speci-ic issues have been actively !ebate!, such as+ 6(7 ho0 input is processe! !uring SL an! ho0 it is incorporate! into a learner;s !eveloping interlanguage 6)L7 systems 6Carroll, (999, "###= Chau!ron, (9$>= 8ass, (99:= ?rashen, (9$"= Shar0oo! Smith, (9$@, (99A= %anPatten, (99@, "##"7= 6"7 the amount o- input that is necessary to enable ac*uisition 6Ellis, "##"= ?rashen, (9$"= White, (9$97= 6A7 the various attributes o- input an! ho0 they may -acilitate or hin!er ac*uisition 6e&g&, -re*uency, saliency, an! transparency7= an! 6B7 instructional metho!s that may enhance input to promote ac*uisition 6e&g&, various types o- input enhancement, recasts, an! processing instruction7& The above -our !omains o- in*uiry have le! to a plethora o- stu!ies& 4o0ever, be-ore one can logically approach the issues relate! to application, as in the latter three !ebates, there must -irst be an overall un!erstan!ing oho0 input is in -act incorporate! into the interlanguage grammar, as highlighte! in the -irst issue& ,eca!es o- !iscussion on input processing have pro!uce! use-ul insights but also !iverging terminologies an! mo!els& )t is pertinent to un!erstan! them holistically in or!er to -urther the !iscussion in a more organi1e! an! e--icient manner& 4ence, in this paper, ) 0ill -irst seek to clari-y the !e-initions o- key terms& 'e2t, ) 0ill e2plore -our input processing mo!els, propose! by
(

Cayun nny Sun is a !octoral stu!ent in pplie! Linguistics at Teachers College, Columbia University& 4er research interests inclu!e secon! language ac*uisition, especially input processing an! instructe! SL , as 0ell as teacher e!ucation an! classroom !iscourse& She is also a -ull3time ESL instructor at <orough o- /anhattan Community College, CU'C& Correspon!ence shoul! be sent to Cayun nny Sun, Teachers College, >"> W& ("#th Street, <o2 @@, 'e0 Cork City, 'C (##":, E3mail+ yas$Dcolumbia&e!u

Chau!ron 6(9$>7, Shar0oo! Smith 6(9$@7, 8ass 6(99:7, an! Carroll 6(999, "###7, e2trapolate their commonalities an! !iscrepancies, an! i!enti-y key issues that !eman! -urther investigation&

!$

%"T !#"S%"S$S #" I"P$T

Cor!er 6(9@:7 ma!e a signi-icant observation in his seminal paper about ho0 input is perceive! in the process o- L" ac*uisition& 4is insight later became one o- the cornerstones in input3relate! research& 4e !iscusse! the notion o- intake+ The simple -act o- presenting a certain linguistic -orm to a learner in the classroom !oes not necessarily *uali-y it -or the status o- input, -or the reason that input is E0hat goes inF not 0hat is available -or going in, an! 0e may reasonably suppose that it is the learner 0ho controls this input, or more properly his intake& 6p& (@>7 The -act that not all the available !ata in the learner;s environment can be absorbe! an! use! in buil!ing the learner;s )L grammar presents one conun!rum, an! the con!ition that 0oul! enable the conversion o- input into intake has been a central point o- research& Cor!er;s comment also shi-te! the 0ay SL researchers perceive! input+ -rom a strictly e2ternal phenomenon to the inter-ace bet0een the e2ternal stimuli an! learners; internal systems& ,iscussions on learners; !evelopmental rea!iness, teachability, an! other cognitive -actors thus came to the -ore 6e&g&, ,oughty, "##(= Pienemann, (9$97& The common consensus in the -iel! o- SL is that 0hat input learners are actually able to use -or !evelopmental purposes 0ill !epen! on their current state okno0le!ge& .ollo0ing this ackno0le!gement, ho0ever, it remains unclear e2actly 0hat mechanisms an! subprocesses are responsible -or the input3to3intake conversion& The mo!els !escribe! belo0 0ill provi!e some insights into this *uestion& nother basic un!erstan!ing -or SL researchers is that, as input is converte! into intake, learners make use o- this material -or !ual purposes, namely, comprehension an! ac*uisition& ,ra0ing this !istinction is important -or both theory3making an! empirical investigations 6.aerch & ?asper, (9$#= ?rashen, (9$"= Shar0oo! Smith, (9$@= S0ain, (9$>= %anPatten, (99@7& Learners have the natural inclination to !eco!e linguisti c input -or meaning to achieve success-ul communication& <ut the type o- intake !erive! -rom processing3-or3meaning is not e*uivalent or su--icient to that 0hich is nee!e! -or ac*uisition, 0hich entails the creation o- ne0 or revise! mental structures& S0ain;s 6(9$>7 stu!y o- a .rench immersion program reveale! that, base! on communicative an! comprehensible input alone, learners may achieve native3like pro-iciency in their comprehension& <ut their pro-iciency an! accuracy in pro!uction lags behin! that o- native3 speakers !espite years o- e2posure& S0ain;s stu!y provi!es support that comprehensible input !oes not necessarily lea! to ac*uisition& t the same time, it is also true that, 0ithout comprehensible input, learners 0oul! not be able to make the necessary -orm3meaning connection -or ac*uisition to occur= the reasons -or this 0ill become apparent in the !iscussion o- the mo!els belo0 6?rashen, (9$", (9$>= %anPatten & Ca!ierno, (99A7& This !istinction bet0een processing -or comprehension an! ac*uisition is another concept that is commonly accepte! in the -iel! o- SL research& The mo!els belo0 -ocus on ho0 input is processe! !i--erently -or comprehension an! ac*uisition, an! they lay out a!!itional processes that nee! to occur beyon! comprehension to trigger ac*uisition& The t0o !ichotomies Gust !iscusse! 6i&e&, input5intake an! comprehension5ac*uisition7 serve as a starting point -or the mo!els revie0e! belo0& <eyon! the general consensus, the vie0s on

"

input processing an! L" ac*uisition begin to !iverge& The !iscussion 0ill no0 turn to the mo!els themselves to highlight their commonalities an! !i--erences&

M#D%LS A"D DIS!$SSI#"


Hespon!ing to Cor!er;s 6(9@:7 insight an! recogni1ing that the use o- the term input has o-ten been inconsistent in the -iel! o- SL , Chau!ron 6(9$>7 attempte! to !isambiguate an! reconceptuali1e input processing& Chau!ron;s mo!el is presente! -irst because it provi!es a step0ise -rame0ork that is parallele! by many o- the later mo!els& <y a close e2amination o- this mo!el, -urther *uestions can be generate! an! clari-ication sought in the other mo!els& The -our mo!els, propose! by Chau!ron 6(9$>7, Shar0oo! Smith 6(9$@7, 8ass 6(99:7, an! Carroll 6(999, "###7, respectively, are chosen because they all subscribe to a mo!ular, nativist vie0 on ac*uisition, in 0hich linguistic processing is consi!ere! uni*ue -rom other types o- learning, an! is serve! by a linguistic3speci-ic processor& This is !i--erent -rom the connectionist approach, in 0hich input is basically regar!e! as tokens -or cue30eights an! -re*uency3counting, an! -rom 0hich the statistically3base! constructions arise 6Ellis, "##"7& The connectionist -rame0orks !eserve a separate revie0 all their o0n an! thus 0ill not be inclu!e! here& Heturning to the !iscussion o- Chau!ron;s 6(9$>7 mo!el, essentially, it consists o- three intake stages& They are+ 6(7 the preliminary intake 6i&e&, the perception o- input7, 6"7 the subse*uent stage o- reco!ing an! enco!ing o- the semantic in-ormation into long3term memory, an! 6A7 -inal intake 6i&e&, 0here learners -ully integrate an! incorporate the linguistic in-ormation in the input into their !eveloping grammars7& T0o separate bo!ies o- research 0ere incorporate! to capture these sub3processes& .or the preliminary an! subse*uent intake stages, Chau!ron !re0 on a -irst language 6L(7 in-ormation processing mo!el put -orth by /assaro 6(9:>7& ccor!ing to the general vie0 on in-ormation processing, a neural3base! an! bottom3up signal processing takes place initially, 0here au!itory -eature !etectors receive speech 6or visual7 signals as neural impulses an! analy1e them accor!ing to constraints evolve! in the !etectors& The analy1e! input is then store! in short3term storage, 0here linguistic rules an! other kno0le!ge systems are calle! upon -rom long3term memory to interpret this -iltere! signal an! to synthesi1e it into phoneme an! 0or!3strings& Then, as the sur-ace structures -a!e in short3term memory, a more abstract representation o- the speech, through rehearsal an! reco!ing, is retaine! in long3term memory& ,uring this input3comprehen!ing phase, processing operates both in a bottom3up an! top3!o0n -ashion, that is, there is a continuous interaction an! e2change o- in-ormation taking place in 0orking memory, bet0een the -eature3analysis an! pre!ictions ma!e base! on ac*uire! rule systems& This se*uence completes the comprehension aspect o- input processing& -ter comprehension takes place in the -irst t0o intake stages, learners may procee! to the thir! stage 0here their )L grammar is restructure! an! !evelope!& Chau!ron subscribe! to .aerch an! ?asper;s 6(9$#7 an! ?rashen;s 6(9$"7 complementary vie0s& <y having comprehen!e! the input using both their current L" competence an! e2tra3linguistic kno0le!ge, learners may notice the gap bet0een their current )L grammar 6i&e&, i7 an! the i + 1 presente! in the input, 0hich 0oul! become the material that triggers their ne2t step o- !evelopment 6?rashen, (9$", (9$>7& )t is not clear in this mo!el e2actly ho0 certain aspects o- linguistic structures are notice! an! selecte! an! ho0 ne0 rules emerge, but learners; rea!iness an! a natural or!er hypothesis have been suggeste! -or a partial ans0er 6Pienemann, (9$97& Then, once the gap has been notice!, the learner;s innate language ac*uisition !evice 6L ,7 subse*uently uses these ne0 materials to -ormulate )L rules an! per-orm hypotheses3testing& -ter the rule has been initially -ormulate!, learners; output

pro!uction an! the -ee!back they receive 0oul! then serve as a plat-orm to test, con-irm, or revise the rules& With su--icient testing, re-ormulation, an! con-irmation, the ne0 rule is then incorporate! into learners; )L grammar& With the three3stage conceptuali1ation, Chau!ron;s 6(9$>7 mo!el provi!es an overvie0 oinput3processing an! a point o- !eparture -or -urther !iscussion& Several components in the mo!el !eman! -urther e2planation& .or one, interestingly, Chau!ron evoke! the notions o- automatic an! controlle! processing to !escribe the *uality o- processing !uring the preliminary an! secon!ary stages 6Shi--rin & Schnei!er, (9$B7& <y !e-inition, controlle! processing is malleable an! open to e2plicit training 6,e?eyser, "##(7& The implication then is that, other than the har!0ire! an! neural3base! mechanisms, initial processing may be open to a learner;s conscious manipulation, 0hich then can be ma!e automatic through repetition& This implication begs the *uestion o0hether learners 0oul! be able to consciously retrieve phonemic in-ormation -rom long term memory to interpret incoming signals& )- that is the case, this point 0oul! bear substantial theoretical as 0ell as instructional signi-icance& 4o0ever, other mo!els o- input processing !o not seem to support this, as 0ill become more apparent in the later !iscussions& Or at least, Chaul!ron;s mo!el nee!s to provi!e -urther speci-ication to this point& nother point o- ambiguity that is more crucial an! problematic is the notion o- gap-noticing& )t is presente! in this mo!el as the central processing that nee!s to take place be-ore a structure can be ac*uire!& <ut it is not clear e2actly 0hen an! 0here this operation takes place& )s it an encapsulate! sub3process that takes place in the innate L ,I ,oes introspection or a0areness o- this gap3noticing play any role in -acilitating ac*uisitionI These *uestions have been le-t open in Chau!ron;s mo!el o- input processing& Seeking clari-ication -or these *uestions -rom a complementary vie0, ) no0 turn to Shar0oo! Smith;s 6(9$@7 mo!el& )n his mo!el, Shar0oo! Smith 6(9$@7 -ocuse! an! elaborate! on the ac*uisitional aspect oinput processing, 0hich is closer to Chau!ron;s 6(9$>7 notion o- -inal intake, an! bypasse! the initial signal processing component in his e2planation& 4e agree! 0ith Chau!ron;s vie0 ohypothesis3testing, 0hich he terme! the making of mental comparisons, an! he asserte! that this mental comparison in!ee! operates 0ithin the L ,& 4is -ive3stage ac*uisitional proce!ure starts out 0ith learners making comparisons bet0een their semantic representations 6!erive! purely -rom current linguistic competence7 an! the total meaning representations 6!erive! -rom competence an! e2tra3linguistic an! 0orl! kno0le!ge7& )n the secon! stage, learners a!Gust their semantic representations as they compare the t0o sets o- representations& Thir!, learners generate a sur-ace structure -rom the a!Guste! semantic representation, using rules in their current grammar& .ourth, learners compare the original sur-ace structure 0ith the ne0 sur-ace structure an! note any !iscrepancy& .inally, learners restructure their current competence system so that the a!Guste! semantic representation may be !erive! -rom the sur-ace structures encountere! in the -uture& ,uring this -ive3stage operation, Universal 8rammar 6U87 an! learners; L( kno0le!ge may also come into play an! me!iate the entire process& Similar to Chau!ron;s 6(9$>7 mo!el, Shar0oo! Smith 6(9$@7 emphasi1e! the !erivation omeaning be-ore ac*uisition& Without -irst comprehen!ing the messages, learners 0oul! not be able to procee! 0ith the -irst step o- comparing semantic representations 6stage (7& )n this sense, Shar0oo! Smith, like ?rashen 6(9$"7, generally promote! the use o- rich an! comple2 input instea! o- simpli-ie! input& This is so that learners can utili1e the a!!itional e2tra3linguistic cues, available in the linguistic environment, to !erive semantic representations 0hen their current linguistic competence cannot support a -ull un!erstan!ing& 4o0ever, comprehensible input alone is

not su--icient, an! ac*uisition may still break !o0n -or a number o- reasons, 0hich 0ill be e2plicate! belo0& ccor!ing to this mo!el o- input processing, there e2ist several Gunctures 0here processing -or ac*uisition may break !o0n& .irst, i- there is not a noticeable gap bet0een the t0o semantic representations 6i&e&, no glitches in comprehension7, even i- !i--erences may in!ee! e2ist, learners 0oul! not atten! to it& Un!erlying this phenomenon are the issues o- !epth o- analysis 6i&e&, 0hether learners stop short at comprehension or continue to !eeper analysis an! actually process the -orm7 an! attention 6i&e&, 0hether learners 0oul! atten! to the gap, 0ith conscious a0areness or not= Schmi!t, (99#= Schmi!t & .rota, (9$@= Tomlin & %illa, (99B7& The secon! possible break!o0n in ac*uisition is that there is also the !anger o- learners conGuring an incorrect overall representation base! on e2tra3linguistic in-ormation, 0hich then 0oul! lea! to inaccurate mapping& This is one place 0here repeate! e2posure becomes critical -or -ine3tuning the representations an! hypotheses& .inally, even i- learners are a0are o- the !iscrepancy bet0een the t0o semantic representations in stages ( an! ", there is no guarantee that they 0oul! procee! to the thir! stage, 0here a ne0 sur-ace structure is generate! to better -it the a!Guste! representation& )n -act, this suggests an irony in the mo!el& )- the current competence is insu--icient to generate a correct semantic representation in the -irst stage 60hich implies the presence o- incorrect rules or the complete absence o- rules7, ho0 are learners able to generate a ne0 sur-ace structure -rom their incomplete competence -or -urther comparison 6stages A an! B7I What mechanisms, i- not learners; competence, 0oul! in!uce this generation o- ne0 structuresI This last logical problem 0as not a!!resse! !irectly by Shar0oo! Smith 6(9$@7 in his mo!el an! remains a conun!rum& 4o0ever, the issues relate! to noticeable3gap, !epth o- analysis, an! attention are -urther a!!resse! in 8ass;s 6(99:7 mo!el, to 0hich ) 0ill no0 turn& 8ass;s 6(99:7 -rame0ork o- SL inclu!es a similar se*uence as Chau!ron;s 6(9$>7 an! Shar0oo! Smith;s 6(9$@7 mo!els 0ith stages o- apperceive! input, comprehen!e! input, intake, integration, an! output& 8ass ma!e a -iner !istinction bet0een apperceive! input, comprehen!e! input, an! intake, in 0hich the -irst stage o- apperceive! input, in 8ass;s conception, is not a bias3 -ree processing& certain level o- recognition an! selection has alrea!y taken place as a result oattention, in the similar sense as Tomlin an! %illa;s 6(99B7 notion o- orientation& Paralleling Chau!ron;s an! Shar0oo! Smith;s mo!els but going beyon!, 8ass particularly stresse! the importance o- negotiate! interaction !uring input processing an! ac*uisition& .ailure in communicative interaction pushes learners to negotiate -or meaning& Through the act oclari-ication an! elaboration -or comprehension, learners then receive a!!itional an! usable input, an! their attention may be !ra0n to speci-ic problematic -eatures in the L"& Conse*uently, interaction increases the chance -or learners to make mental comparisons bet0een their )L an! the L", in the same sense as propose! by Shar0oo! Smith& Through negotiate! interaction, the input is enhance! in three 0ays& .irst, it is ma!e more comprehensible, 0hich is a prere*uisite o- )L !evelopment& Secon!, problematic -orms that impe!e comprehension are highlighte! an! -orce! to be processe! to achieve success-ul communication& Thir!, through negotiation, learners receive both positive an! negative -ee!back that are Gu2tapose! imme!iately to the problematic -orm, an! the close pro2imity -acilitates hypothesis3testing an! revision 6,oughty, "##(7& )n light o- its three3 -ol! e--ects on ac*uisition, the interaction component o- 8ass;s mo!el really shoul! be regar!e! as a -acilitator o- learning, not a mechanism -or learning& s a mi!point summary, the mo!els revie0e! so -ar, propose! by Chau!ron 6(9$>7, Shar0oo! Smith 6(9$@7, an! 8ass 6(99:7, converge on the necessity o- comprehensible input 6or comprehen!e! input, in 8ass;s term7& Learners must be able to !eco!e enough o- the input to

>

-ormulate a conceptual representation, through 0hich linguistic structures can be calle! upon -rom current competence an! be compare! 0ith the e2ternal an! apperceive! structure& Para!o2ically, but perhaps not incompatibly, there must also be incomprehensible inputJsome e2tra bits olinguistic -orms that cause a mental Golt in processing& 4a! everything in the input been completely un!erstoo!, learners 0oul! generally -eel no nee! to atten! to -orms, an! ac*uisition o- missing structures 0oul! not occur& )n other 0or!s, because o- the incomprehensibility o- the input, learners; attention is !ra0n to the speci-ic structure& Then cognitive comparison bet0een )L representation an! e2ternal representation 0oul! take place, 0hich 0oul! eventually lea! to ac*uisition 68ass, (99:= %anPatten, (99#= White, (9$:7& 8ass;s interaction mo!el aims to create e2actly such moments, as alrea!y !escribe! above& n e2ample o- this interplay bet0een comprehensible an! incomprehensible input is the Processing Instruction approach create! by %anPatten an! his collaborators 6Slobin, (9$>= %anPatten, (99@, "##"= %anPatten & Ca!ierno, (99Aa, (99Ab7& With this approach, they try to in!uce -ailure an! generate the nee! -or learners to !ivert -rom their !e-ault processing strategies to atten! to the speci-ic -orm that re*uires ac*uisition& lthough it is not certain at this point 0hether learners; innate processing strategies themselves can really be altere! through this metho!, it has at least inclu!e! both the comprehensible an! incomprehensible input 0hich nee! to 0ork in tan!em -or the !evelopment o- )L grammar& .or that purpose, the conception o- Processing )nstruction a!heres to the key vie0s presente! in the above mo!els, an! its instructional results have generally been success-ul 6e&g&, <enati, "##>= Cheng, "##B= /organ3Short & <o0!en, "##@= %anPatten & Ca!ierno, (99A7& s can be seen, the thoughts on comprehensible an! incomprehensible input in -act converge& The last mo!el revie0e! here is Carroll;s 6(999, "###7 utonomous )n!uction Theory& )t provi!es a contrast to the above vie0s on the primacy o- comprehension an! attention& Carroll;s mo!el is a!apte! -rom Kacken!o--;s 6(9$:7 mo!ularity mo!el an! 4ollan!, 4olyoak, 'isbett, an! Thagar!;s 6(9$@7 in!uction mo!el& <asically, linguistic -aculty is comprise! o- a chain orepresentations, 0ith the lo0est level interacting 0ith physical stimuli, an! the highest 0ith conceptual representations 6c-& Carroll, (9997& T0o types o- processors are at 0ork -or each level o- representation+ the integrative processor combines smaller representations into larger units, an! the correspon!ence processor is responsible -or moving the representations -rom one level to the ne2t 6e&g&, -rom the acoustic level to the phonological level7& Together, the t0o processors -orm an encapsulate! an! se*uential mo!ule& t each tier o- the encapsulate! mo!ules, the representations are categori1e! an! combine! accor!ing to U83base! or long3term memory3base! rules& This proce!ure outlines ho0 input is processe! -or parsing& Carroll 6(999, "###7 makes a clear !istinction bet0een processing -or parsing an! -or ac*uisition& )t is e2actly 0hen the parsers -ail that the ac*uisitional mechanisms are triggere!Ja vie0 that is some0hat aligne! 0ith the notion o- incomprehensible input& <ut instea! o- using a very general notion o- noticing the gap an! cognitive comparison, Carroll spells out the se*uence o- restructuring an! enhances the un!erstan!ing on this some0hat vague area& 'amely, !uring success-ul parsing, rules are activate! in each processor to categori1e an! combine representations& .ailures occur 0hen the rules are ina!e*uate or missing& Conse*uently, the rule that comes closest to success-ully parse the speci-ic unit 0oul! be selecte! an! 0oul! un!ergo the most economical an! incremental revision& This process is repeate! until parsing succee!s or is at least passable at that given level& This proce!ure e2plains the process o- ac*uisition, 0here the e2act trigger -or ac*uisition is parsing -ailure resulting -rom incomprehensible input&

Continuing 0ith the !iscussion o- comprehensible an! incomprehensible input, Carroll 6"###7 contra!icts the 0ay 8ass 6(99:7 conceptuali1es an! se*uences input3processing in her mo!el& 8ass conceives o- intake as a subset o- comprehen!e! input& 4o0ever, accor!ing to Carroll;s logic, comprehension involves the e2traction o- meaning to -orm conceptual representations, an! conceptual representations are, by nature, open to introspection& ccor!ing to Kacken!o-- 6(9$:7, they are the -ormat in 0hich 0e think& )- the stage o- intake -ollo0s comprehen!e! input 60hich is comprise! o- these conceptual representations7, it may imply that intake an! any -urther mental comparisons are also open to introspection& Carroll argues that this scenario might be -la0e!+ the theoretical concept o- the black3bo2 L , !oes not inclu!e conscious introspection& Empirical support has not yet been provi!e! -or learners being able to utili1e conscious comparison !uring online processing 6Kacken!o--, (9$:7& Upon closer e2amination, though, Carroll;s contra!iction against 8ass; mo!el may simply be an arti-act o- the researcher;s !e-inition o- intake J0ith Caroll;s mo!el !e-ining intake as a subset o- physical stimuli an! 8ass;s mo!el !e-ining intake as a set o- processe! structures 0aiting to be incorporate! into )L grammar& 'evertheless, Carroll;s argument raises a point that ha! not been e2plicitly pointe! out in the previous mo!els+ The stage o- cognitive comparison 60hether it takes place in L , or at each parsing processor7 remains largely automatic an! evasive to conscious re-lection& t best, the a0areness comes only a-ter the -act& This insight is echoe! in all the mo!els revie0e!& Thus -ar, the !iscussion above has !isambiguate! the terminological !i--erence o- intake an! -oun! consensus in the vie0 o- comprehensible5incomprehensible input& lso, the unconscious nature o- mental comparison is brought to the -ore& 4o0ever, there still remains the issue onoticing an! attention& )n the mo!els revie0e!, noticing an! attention have appeare! in several places& .irst, noticing the gap an! making cognitive comparisons are vie0e! by all mo!els as the key to restructuring 6Schmi!t & .rota, (9$@7& s mentione! earlier, regar!less o- the propose! location o- such operation, this process has thus -ar been regar!e! as automatic an! is not open to introspection& s Kacken!o-- 6(9$:7 argue!, learners can at best atten! an! become a0are o- the resulting representations, but not the actual processes that bring about that representation& The secon! Guncture 0here noticing an! attention have also been !iscusse! is at the preliminary, perceptual stage& Chau!ron 6(9$>7, Shar0oo! Smith 6(9$@7, an! 8ass 6(99:7 consi!ere! attention as a re*uire! element to convert e2ternal stimuli into some representations insi!e o- the learners& <ut Carroll 6(999, "###7 asserte! that attention shoul! not be use! as a blanket term, an! an a!e*uate mo!el o- input processing nee!s to take into account the interaction bet0een learners; current kno0le!ge an! attention& )n her conception, attention is evoke! a-ter the input has been preliminarily processe! at the base processor= it is a result o- processing, not a prere*uisite& Cet 0ithin Carroll;s 6"###7 processors, there also e2ists internally Ea selection -unction that restricts the number o- structures un!er analysisF 6p& ("@7& )t has not been speci-ie! by Carroll 0hat mechanisms enable this selection -unction& Synthesi1ing all the above vie0s, Chau!ron, Shar0oo! Smith, an! 8ass; stance on attention is not actually incompatible 0ith Carroll;s& One possible e2planation -or this apparent !isagreement is that it is an arti-act o- the 0ay each researcher conceive! input processing+ Each researcher create! his5her mo!el base! on a !i--erent starting point o- processing& /ore importantly, the !iverging vie0s actually highlighte! the importance oattention, an! it may be so prevalent that it operates be-ore the initial processor, 0ithin the processor, an! as a result o- processing, as suggeste! by the various mo!els& The importance oattention has alrea!y been researche! 0ith great interest, as seen in Schmi!t;s 6(99#7 'oticing 4ypothesis an! the substantial bo!y o- relate! stu!ies 6e&g&, Carr & Curran, (99B= 'issen & <ullemer, (9$:= Schmi!t, (99#, "##(= Tomlin & %illa, (99(= among others7& The 0ay attention

an! input interact has been the central !iscussion point in so much o- the instructional3relate! research, such as input enhancement, recasts, an! processing instruction& .rom the above -our processing mo!els, one can at least conclu!e that attention 6or even a0areness7 remains a me!iating -actor in input processing& The appeal o- attention in SL research is that it seems to be more responsive to manipulation an! enhancement, 0hereas the other mechanisms in the ac*uisitional process 6such as the L ,7 largely remain beyon! conscious control&

!#"!L$SI#"
The !iscussion o- the -our mo!els above aime! to e2plore ho0 input is processe! an! incorporate! in SL & )t also !emonstrate! that the seemingly common terminologies 6input vs& intake= comprehensible vs& incomprehensible input7 in the mo!els have been conceive! by !i--erent researchers to encapsulate !i--erent components an! highlight various aspects o- the process as a 0hole& )t has also been -oun! that all -our mo!els agree that cognitive5structural comparison is the key to !evelopment, regar!less o- the speci-ic location o- operation, though it remains largely beyon! conscious control or instructional manipulation& lternatively, attention may come in as a me!iating -actor at the perceptual level& There is a substantial bo!y o- research available no0 regar!ing the actual e--ect o- attention 6e&g&, Carr & Curran, (99B= 'issen & <ullemer, (9$:= Schmi!t, (99#, "##(= Tomlin & %illa, (99(7& n investigation on the interaction o- attention, input, an! learners; kno0le!ge may prove to be -ruit-ul, especially -or instructe! SL & )n a!!ition, in recent !eca!es, more cognitive an! neurological research para!igms have been brought into the -iel! as a !i--erent lens to e2amine the process o- SL 6e&g&, <a!!eley, "##A= 8athercole, Service, 4itch, !ams, & /artin, (9997& The stu!ies on 0orking memory an! proce!ural an! !eclarative kno0le!ge may provi!e a!!itional evi!ence an! perspectives an! may perhaps augment the mo!els revie0e! above to pro!uce a more comprehensive picture o- the process o- SL &

%F% %"!%S
<a!!eley, & 6"##A7& Working memory an! language+ n overvie0& Journal of Communication isor!ers, "#, ($93"#$& <enati, & 6"##>7& The e--ect o- processing instruction, tra!itional instruction an! meaning3output instruction on the ac*uisition o- the English past simple tense& $anguage Teaching %esearch, &, @:39A& Carr, T& 4&, & Curran, T& 6(99B7& Cognitive -actors in learning about structure! se*uences+ pplications to synta2& 'tu!ies in 'econ! $anguage (c)uisition, 1#, "#>3"A#& Carroll, S& 6(9997& Putting Linput; in its proper place& 'econ! $anguage %esearch, 1*, AA:3A$$& Carroll, S& 6"###7& Input an! evi!ence+ The ra, material of secon! language ac)uisitionPhila!elphia+ Kohn <enGamins& Chau!ron, C& 6(9$>7& )ntake+ On metho!s an! mo!els -or !iscovering learners; processing o- input& 'tu!ies in 'econ! $anguage (c)uisition, ., (3(B& Cheng, & C& 6"##B7& Processing instruction an! Spanish ser an! estar+ .orms 0ith semantic aspectual values& )n <& %anPatten 6E!&7, Processing instruction+ Theory, research, an! commentary 6pp& ((93(B"7& /ah0ah, 'K+ La0rence Erlbaum& Cor!er, S& P& 6(9@:7& The signi-icance o- learnersM errors& I%($, *, (@(3(:#&

,e?eyser, H& 6"##(7& utomaticity an! automati1ation& )n P& Hobinson 6E!&7, Cognition an! secon! language instruction 6pp& (">3(>(7& Cambri!ge, / + Cambri!ge University Press& ,oughty, C& 6"##(7& Cognitive un!erpinnings o- -ocus on -orm& )n P& Hobinson 6E!&7, Cognition an! secon! language instruction 6pp& "#@3">:7& Cambri!ge, / + Cambri!ge University Press& Ellis, '& 6"##"7& .re*uency e--ects in language processing& 'tu!ies in 'econ! $anguage (c)uisition, /0, (BA3($$& .aerch, C&, & ?asper, 8& 6(9$#7& Processing an! strategies in -oreign language learning an! communication& The Interlangauge 'tu!ies 1ulletin2Utrecht, *, B:3(($& 8athercole, S& E&, Service, E&, 4itch, 8& K&, !ams, & /&, & /artin, & K& 6(9997& Phonological short3 term memory an! vocabulary !evelopment+ .urther evi!ence on the nature o- the relationship& (pplie! Cognitive Psychology, 1", @>N::& 8ass, S& /& 6(99:7& Input, interaction, an! the secon! language learner- /ah0ah, 'K+ La0rence Elrbaum& Kacken!o--, H& S& 6(9$:7& Conscious an! the computational min!- Cambri!ge, / + /)T Press& ?rashen, S& ,& 6(9$"7& Principles an! practice in secon! language ac)uisition& O2-or!, U?+ Pergamon& ?rashen, S& ,& 6(9$>7& The input hypothesis+ Issues an! implications- Lon!on+ Longman& /assaro, ,& W& 6E!&7& 6(9:>7& Un!erstan!ing language+ (n information-process ing analysis of speech perception, rea!ing, an! psycholinguistics- 'e0 Cork+ ca!emic Press& /organ3Short, ?&, & <o0!en, 4& W& 6"##@7& Processing instruction an! meaning-ul output3base! instruction& 'tu!ies in 'econ! $anguage (c)uisition, /3, A(3@>& 'issen, /&, & <ullemer, P& 6(9$:7& ttentional re*uirements o- learning+ Evi!ence -rom per-ormance measures& Cognitive psychology, 1&41-"/Pienemann, /& 6(9$97& )s language teachableI Psycholinguistic e2periments an! hypotheses& (pplie! $inguistics, 15, >"3:9& Schmi!t, H& W& 6(99#7& The role o- consciousness in secon! language learning& (pplie! $inguistics, 11, ("93(>$& Schmi!t, H& 6"##(7& ttention& )n P& Hobinson 6E!&7, Cognition an! secon! language instruction 6pp& A3A"7& Cambri!ge U?+ Cambri!ge University Press& Schmi!t, H&, & .rota, S& 6(9$@7& ,eveloping basic conversational ability in a secon! language+ case stu!y o- an a!ult learner o- Portuguese& )n H& ,ay 6E!&7, Talking to learn+ Conversation in secon! language ac)uisition 6pp& "A:3A""7& Ho0ley, / + 'e0bury 4ouse& Shar0oo! Smith, /& 6(9$@7& Comprehension versus ac*uisition+ T0o 0ays o- processing input& (pplie! $inguistics, ., "A93">@& Shar0oo! Smith, /& 6(99A7& )nput enhancement in instructe! SL & 'tu!ies in 'econ! $anguage (c)uisition, 1*, (@>3(:9& Shar0oo! Smith, /& 6(99(7& Speaking to many min!s+ On the relevance o- !i--erent types olanguage in-ormation -or the L" learner& 'econ! $anguage %esearch, ., (($3(A"& Shi--rin, H& /&, & Schnei!er, W& 6(9$B7& utomatic an! controlle! processing revisite!& Psychological %evie,, &1, "@93":@& Slobin, ,& 6(9$>7& Cross3linguistic evi!ence -or the language3making capacity& )n ,& Slobin 6E!&7, The cross-linguistic stu!y of language ac)uisition+ Theoretical issues 6%ol& ", pp& ((>:3("B97& 4ills!ale, 'K+ La0rence Erlbaum& S0ain, /& 6(9$>7& Communicative competence+ Some roles o- comprehensible input an! comprehensible output in its !evelopment& )n S& /& 8ass & C& 8& /a!!en 6E!s&7, Input in secon! language ac)uisition 6pp& "A>3">A7& Ho0ley, / + 'e0bury 4ouse&

Tomlin, H&, & %illa, %& 6(99B7& ttention in cognitive science an! secon! language ac*uisition& 'tu!ies in 'econ! $anguage (c)uisition, 1#, ($A3"#B& %anPatten, <& 6(99@7& Input processing an! grammar instruction in secon! language ac)uisition'or0oo!, 'K+ ble2& %anPatten, <& 6"##"7& Processing instruction+ n up!ate& $anguage $earning, */, :>>3$#A& %anPatten, <&, & Ca!ierno, T& 6(99A7& )nput processing an! secon! language ac*uisition+ role -or instruction& The 6o!ern $anguage Journal, .., B>3>:& White, L& 6(9$:7& gainst comprehensible input+ The input hypothesis an! the !evelopmental osecon! language competence& (pplie! $inguistics, 3, 9>3((#&

(#

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi