Input intake process in second language acquisition

This study firstly defines the concepts of input and intake in relation to the work of a wide range of second language acquisition researchers.. Hence, this thesis is consistent with Gas

Input – Intake Process in Second Language Acquisition

by Chi Do Na

A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL)

Faculty of Education

La Trobe University Bundoora, Victoria, 3086

Australia June 2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS iii

ABSTRACT iv

STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP v

CHAPTER 1INTRODUCTION 1

CHAPTER 2INPUT AND INTAKE IN SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION 7

2.1 Input in second language acquisition 8

2.2 Intake in second language acquisition 15

2.3 Summary of the chapter 20

CHAPTER 3INPUT – INTAKE PROCESSES IN SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION 21

3.1 Apperception 24

3.2 Comprehension 32

3.3 Intake in the Framework of Second Language Acquisition (FoSLA) 38

3.4 Influential factors in input processing for intake 49

3.5 Summary of the chapter 53

CHAPTER 4CONCLUSION 55

REFERENCES 60

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This thesis would never be completed without the help from many people and I would like

to use this occasion to express my sincere thanks to those

First and foremost, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisors, Dr Donna Starks and Dr Howard Nicholas I thank them for their valuable time, patience, encouragement, and useful comments on my ideas and numerous versions of the thesis chapters from the first meeting to the date of submission Even at very busy time, they still organise regular meetings and provide me very detailed recommendations on every piece

of my work Without their guidance, I would never be able to finish this thesis

I am also grateful to Dr Mary Burston for her approval of my thesis proposal and to other lecturers and staff of the Faculty of Education for their supports during my program of study

My special thanks are extended to my great friends, particularly Thanh Giang, Huong Pham, Huda, Ade, Xuan, Thuy, Meo Mup, Hue Nguyen, and Mai Nguyen, who always encouraged me when I was under pressure My appreciation also goes to Ms Anna Brunken and Lan Anh for their time and efforts to proofread my thesis

I also wish to thank the Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID) for the Australian Development Scholarship without which my chance to study in Australia might never be possible

Last but not least, I am always thankful to my beloved family for their understanding, endless love, and spiritual support in all matters of my life

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study is to investigate and re-position descriptions of the input-intake process in second language acquisition This area of study has been chosen because while the input-intake process is seen as a very important one, it has not been as comprehensively and explicitly described as it is needed to understand the relationships between different models The study attempts to integrate a range of highly recognised research in this area

of input-intake process so that a more detailed model can be presented This study firstly defines the concepts of input and intake in relation to the work of a wide range of second language acquisition researchers The main research to be discussed is that undertaken by Chaudron (1985), Gass (1997) and Schmidt (1990, 1993, 1995, 2001, 2010) Chaudron’s (1985) work is used for this study to explain the concept of intake as well as the types and functions of intake in SLA Gass’ (1997) framework of second language acquisition is applied to explain how input becomes intake This framework is integrated with Schmidt’s (1990, 1993, 1995, 2001, 2010) Noticing Hypothesis to assist in developing a more precise model of the input-intake process This is done because while Gass’ framework of second language acquisition is widely supported by researchers, it still remains unclear in some areas and Schmidt’s (1990, 1993, 1995, 2001, 2010) Noticing Hypothesis is utilised to provide more explicit explanations of Gass’ framework

Based on these elaborations of Gass’ (1997) framework, this study describes the

input-intake process from apperception to comprehension and input-intake This process can also be

described more simply as a process moving from recognising the existence of the grammatical features in the input, to recognising the meaning, structure, and functions of those particular features and then to generalisations of grammatical rules or hypothesis formation The other aspects that this study focuses on include the concept of uptake and its relation to input and intake, which involves identifying the influential factors in this input-intake process

This study helps create a more detailed and explicit understanding of both the concepts of input and intake as well as the relationship between these two concepts This is considered

as one of the most important issues in second language acquisition and so ensures the significance of the study

STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP

Except where reference is made in the text of the thesis, this thesis contains no material published elsewhere or extracted in whole or in part from a thesis submitted for the award of any other degree or diploma

No other person’s work has been used without due acknowledgement in the main text of the thesis

This thesis has not been submitted for the award of any degree or diploma in any other tertiary institution

Signature:………

Date:………

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

This study investigates what is seen to be one of the most important issues in the field

of second language1 acquisition2 (SLA), being the input-intake process (Liceras, 1985)

When researchers investigate any aspects of the SLA process, they approach their studies from a diverse range of disciplinary perspectives; each of which is different from the others (de Bot et al 2005; Saville-Troike, 2006) Therefore, it must be stressed that

it should not be expected that the SLA process and its elements, can be entirely and completely described within one particular theory or framework (Gass, 1997) Nevertheless, Saville-Troike (2006) suggests a need for a reformulation or proposal of

a more complete and fuller view of how this SLA process happens To do so, Gass (1988, 1997) suggests revisiting different works on various pieces of the overall SLA process and identifying the relationships among those works This is what this research attempts

to do as it revisits the works related to the input-intake process in the field of SLA Hence, this thesis is consistent with Gass’ (1997) and Saville-Troike’s (2006) recommendations with the focus on the input-intake process and the particular emphasis

on establishing a more accurate view of how intake is related to input and what roles intake plays in the SLA process Consequently, this allows for the development of the

“more complete and fuller view” which Saville-Troike (2006) notes is important However, prior to revisiting these theories, the first need is to develop an understanding

of the two governing concepts - input and intake in SLA These two concepts are

introduced briefly in this chapter and then in more detail in Chapter 2 This is followed

by Chapter 3, which attempts to demonstrate how input becomes intake and the conclusion which presents what I believe to be a “more complete and fuller view”

1

Adopted from Saville-Troike (2006, p.2), this study sees the terms second language

equivalent to target language emphasising “the language that is the aim or goal of learning”

2

Similar to Gass’ (1997, p.ix) work, this study uses the terms acquisition and learning

Input has been acknowledged as a very important element in SLA It is believed by a number of researchers that without input, language acquisition does not occur (Gass, 1997; Krashen, 1985; Lightbown, 1985) Despite researchers’ agreement on the significance of input, there are a number of definitions of input and these form a continuum extending from the broadest (Corder, 1967; Krashen, 1985) to the narrowest (Gass, 1997; Flege, 2009; Saleemi, 1989; VanPatten, 2003) This also happens with the concept of intake, which is also regarded as an important issue in SLA When revisiting the concept of intake, I focus on the works of Chaudron (1985), Corder (1967), Leow (1993), Reinders (2005), and Sato and Jacobs (1992) Most researchers define intake in

a very broad sense indicating that intake is the whole of input or parts of input that have been processed These definitions say little if anything more about the nature of intake itself Gass (1997) admits that while the earliest work on the issue of intake comes from Corder (1967), the most detailed is from Chaudron (1985) Gass’ interpretation is accepted by a wide range of researchers (Gass & Selinker, 2008; Reinders, 2005, 2012; Schmidt, 1990) I have found a need to investigate Chaudron’s definition of intake in more detail in an attempt to substantiate whether Gass’ deduction is accurate and to develop my understanding of the input-intake process It is this reviewing of Chaudron’s (1985) work that has allowed me to see that the concept of intake should be presented

with a more precise view of different types of intake including ‘preliminary intake’ and

‘final intake’ Chaudron (1985) also modifies what functions these types of intake play

in SLA Exploration of Chaudron’s views allows me to verify Gass’ opinion and come

to the conclusion that it is Chaudron’s work, which provides me with the most detailed and comprehensive explanation of intake, which I feel is needed as a basis for my own model Consequently, Chaudron’s (1985) definition of intake is accepted as the governing definition used in this thesis when exploring the input-intake process This study aims to integrate these definitions in an attempt to present a more precise definition which best suits the purpose of this research

Despite a great deal of engagement with the concepts of input and intake, there is only

limited literature that helps explain the process in which input actually becomes intake Most researchers dealing with the input-intake process seem to place a greater emphasis

on what intake means and what roles intake plays in SLA (Corder, 1967; Sato and Jacobs, 1992) As a result, they omit any detailed and explicit clarification of how intake

is created from input They also do not investigate whether there are specific influential elements involved in the creation of intake Hence, there is a need for an in-depth review

of this input-intake process and the relationship between the elements in the process In

so doing, the study moves towards filling this gap In attempting to fill such a gap, Sun’s (2008) work has also proved to be of value as she introduces a significant number of theories and frameworks related to input processing in SLA Among the theories, in addition to the framework of second language acquisition (Gass, 1997), the Noticing Hypothesis (Schmidt, 1990, 1995, 2010) has been particularly important for my understanding of input-intake processes Gass’ (1997) significance rests in the fact that she offers a detailed description of the process of SLA from the starting point of input

to the end point of output In so doing, Gass provides a more holistic and precise view

of the input-intake-output process Her framework has been supported by other researchers (Ellis, 1994; Izumi, 2003; Sun, 2008; Truscott & Sharwood-Smith, 2011) who also note the importance of Gass’ (1997) coverage of a wide range of aspects in the SLA process This support and the significance of Gass’ work in developing my own understanding are the main reasons for the choice of her framework to underpin this study Consequently, I will employ Gass’ (1997) framework as the framing model to investigate the input-intake process as a key relationship in the entire SLA process

Gass’ (1997) framework identifies apperception, comprehension and intake as the key

steps in this part of the overall process Each of these steps will be investigated in depth

in Chapter 3 of this thesis Based on what has been claimed by Gass (1997), after exposure to input, there is a need for learners to recognise the new features that they

have not yet recognised or acquired Gass (1997) categorises this stage as apperception

However, there is only very limited literature that discusses the concept of apperception

in language acquisition In fact, many researchers (Chapelle, 1998; Ellis, 1994; Lai et al, 2008), when discussing apperception, tend to immediately equate this concept with the

concept of noticing presented in Schmidt’s (1990, 1993, 1995, 2001, 2010) Noticing

Hypothesis Even there are cross-references between the concepts of apperception and noticing when Gass (1997) and Schmidt (1990, 2001) discuss these two concepts This raises the question of how noticing is related to apperception Therefore, in order to

better understand the concept of apperception in the framework of SLA (Gass, 1997),

there is a need to explore the Noticing Hypothesis in order to develop a more precise understanding of this part of the framework of second language acquisition Schmidt

(1990, 2001) explains that noticing as a very low level of awareness, and it refers to only

“elements of the surface structure of utterances in the input-instances of language, rather than any abstract rules or principles of which such instances may be exemplars” (Schmidt, 2001, p.5) Schmidt (1990, 2001) then sees noticing as equivalent to apperception This is also the idea which is adopted throughout this study about apperception and noticing Although noticing is a very low level of awareness and means learners’ recognition of the language features in the input, noticing is very important in SLA process

For Schmidt (1990, 1995, 2010), the role of noticing is so important that he concludes that learning will not happen if learners are not able to ‘notice’ features of target languages in the input This view is supported by other studies that share similar views

on the importance of noticing in language development (Mackey, 2006; Reinders, 2005; Soleimani & Najafi, 2012) Consistent with the long tradition of argument in SLA research, it can be concluded from those studies that input contains a large number of features and learners cannot absorb them all It is by noticing that the learners are helped

to focus on certain features in the input The noticing then allows for further processing However, it is important to note that despite the acceptance of these theories, both noticing and apperception are necessary but not necessarily always sufficient for

language acquisition Furthermore, there is no guarantee that acquisition is attributable only to noticing or apperception

In Gass’ (1997) framework, after the stage of apperception, which means learners’ recognition of the existence of specific grammatical features in the input, learners need

to comprehend those features (Gass, 1997) In discussing learners’ comprehension of input, there is a reminder that learners need to be able to achieve comprehension at both semantic and, more importantly, syntactic levels Semantic comprehension refers to the general meaning of the message while syntactic comprehension refers to understanding the linguistic features that encode that message For Gass (1997), comprehension happens as a continuum from the semantic to the syntactic level, but only syntactic comprehension is useful for intake Gass’ (1997) explanation of comprehension is supported by a number of researchers (Loschky, 1994; Truscott & Sharwood-Smith, 2011; VanPatten, 1990), which may be seen to reflect what Chaudron (1985) identified

as preliminary intake This includes the learners’ comprehension of input including the

comprehension of general meaning and grammatical abstractions

The next stage in Gass’ (1997) framework is intake, referring to learners’ generalisations

of grammatical rules and their resultant hypotheses This aligns with what Chaudron

(1985) identified as final intake However, learners’ hypotheses that are generated at this

stage of intake may need to be tested and modified before they become fixed and accepted One issue that emerges from consideration of Gass (1997) is that she seems to move from comprehension to intake without an explicit explanation about how learners form a hypothesis or generate a grammatical rule In fact, it is Schmidt (1995, 2010), in

his Noticing Hypothesis, who explains this clearly in relation to the term understanding;

understanding refers to learners’ generalisations of rules from noticed instances

Schmidt sees such understanding as a higher level of awareness than intake This

provides a significant enhancement of Gass’ (1997) framework, helping us obtain a clearer view of how learners can form a hypothesis on the basis of intake

Apart from what Gass (1997) has mentioned about the input-intake process, another concept arises when discussing how a learner’s hypothesis is tested and confirmed after

it is formed That concept is uptake and refers to learners’ reformulations of errors in

their output Such reformulation of errors is seen to be undertaken through recasts, other forms of feedback or reflection (Lyster & Ranta, 1997) Yet, while uptake is seen to be related to input and intake, there continues to be debate about the level of awareness in uptake The position of uptake in the input-intake process can be more clearly justified

if we are able to identify learners’ awareness of their errors It is these concepts that this study attempts to investigate

Another issue that will be discussed in this thesis relates to the influential factors in the input-intake process presented by Gass (1997) and Schmidt (1990) This is very important because these factors can lead to the breakdowns of the input-intake process Unfortunately, many researchers do not clarify these factors when they research the relationship between input and intake It should be noted that while Gass (1997) and Schmidt (1990) describe a number of external and internal factors, I feel that both researchers fail to mention the mode of input Therefore, I will add the mode of input as

an additional factor to my considerations of what is missing from research into the intake process

input-This study contains four chapters Chapter 1 is the introduction of the study, which has provided the background to the concepts and research Chapter 2 reviews the concepts

of input and intake in SLA, focussing on the range of perspectives that exist, the development of these perspectives and their relationship to each other Chapter 3 provides a detailed overview of how the input-intake process is described in Gass’ framework of SLA (Gass, 1997) Gass’ framework is then explored in relation to Noticing Hypothesis (Schmidt, 1990, 1995, 2010) so that a more precise model may begin to be developed The chapter also presents discussions of uptake and the influential

factors in the input-intake process Finally, Chapter 4 includes the conclusion of the current study and recommendations for further research

CHAPTER 2 INPUT AND INTAKE IN SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

Since the concept of input was introduced in the 1960s (Corder, 1967), its importance

in the field of second language acquisition (SLA) has been growing There are a large

important in language acquisition Sun (2008) thoroughly reviews a wide range of works

in the field of SLA identifying different perspectives in relation to input and input processing In every theory that she reviews, she recognises that input is seen as the starting point for further stages in the SLA process This therefore allows her to come to the logical conclusion that regardless of different theoretical approaches to SLA, the important role of input seems clear and confirmed

To acknowledge the importance of input in SLA, this chapter begins with an overview

of the definitions of input, its roles and characteristics in second language acquisition Besides the concept of input, the issue of intake has also received attention from many researchers (Corder, 1967; Chaudron, 1985; Sharwood-Smith, 1986; Reinders, 2005) This is because in the field of language acquisition, one significant concern includes the role intake plays in the overall process and the relation between input and intake (Liceras, 1985) Regarding intake in SLA, there are also numerous studies that explain the concept of intake and its relation to input and SLA (Corder, 1967; Chaudron, 1985;

Sharwood-Smith, 1986; Reinders, 2005) Reinders (2012) admits that the term intake

has been investigated for such a long period of time, yet even at the time of writing there has not been a particular definition of intake that appears to be broadly acceptable Furthermore, it seems that there is still a lack of a more detailed and comprehensive view

of the input-intake process Therefore, following the need for a detailed revision of the concept of input, this thesis explores the concept of intake and its relation to input in SLA The analysis in this thesis is based on the views of a wide range of researchers This is needed to more fully understand the relationship between input and intake, which underpins this thesis

Definitions of input are varied in different theories in language acquisition because researchers take different positions in relation to the role and significance of input (Saleemi, 1989) No matter how differently input is defined, Gass (1997) argues that it

is undeniable that input is “the single most important concept of second language acquisition” (p.1) The importance of input is also confirmed by other researchers For example, VanPatten (2003, p.28) extends the research into input by emphasising the

critical nature of substantial exposure to the process of language learning Wode (1981,

as cited in Saleemi, 1989) notes the importance of input in SLA, stating “there is no learner on record who learned a language or even part of it without receiving some language input” (p.302) This research supports the point that if learners are not exposed

to the target language in the input, they cannot acquire that language To strengthen this declaration, I refer to Lightbown’s (1985) valuable explanation of the non-acquisition

of a target feature due to learners’ lack of exposure to it Lightbown (1985) uses the example of subject-auxiliary inversion in question formation and claims that learners who are exposed to input data containing non-inverted questions, or lack of input data for inverted forms, will create questions without subject-auxiliary inversion

Because input is regarded as the starting point in the SLA process and the input-intake process (Gass, 1997; Sun, 2008) and it has just been claimed that without input, there is

no acquisition (Gass, 1997; Lightbown, 1985), it is important to revisit how input is defined by different researchers in as much detail as possible and the characteristics input needs to meet for language acquisition to take place Due to the varied viewpoints related to input, this section presents a review of the range of views, which, as noted in Chapter one, Gass (1997) notes is needed to obtain a clearer understanding of the concept In undertaking such review of input, I find it useful to attempt to present the wide range of researchers in sequence I believe this allows for a clearer understanding

of how the concept of input has been developed by consecutive researchers This sequential categorisation presents the research into input from the broadest to the narrowest sense The broadest sense views input as everything that goes into a learner’s mind This includes works like those by Corder (1967) The narrowest sense sees input

as the language provided to learners and includes elements of that language This

includes works like those of VanPatten (2003) and is characterised by its strong focus

on specificity

Definitions of input

Early SLA research emphasised the concept of input in language acquisition Any study attempting to define input should begin with the pioneering study undertaken by Corder (1967) emphasising the intimate relationship between input and intake as “what goes in

not what is available for going in, and we may reasonably suppose that it is the learner

who controls this input, or more properly his intake” (p.165) Although the concept of input was defined early by Corder, the work that raised input to the ultimate role in language acquisition was by Krashen in his Input Hypothesis According to Krashen (1985, p.2), input is the “essential environmental ingredient” provided to learners for language acquisition to happen, and the only way that an individual can learn a language

is through receiving comprehensible input Krashen’s definition of input, as what is

surrounding or provided to learners, seems to be different from what Corder proposed

as “what goes in” Nevertheless, Krashen (1985) attaches the idea of learners’ understanding of the information provided This means that input should be comprehensible so that learners can understand the messages that were being conveyed for SLA to occur For the purposes of this study, Corder’s work is seen to be far too broad Krashen’s work also seems to be too broad for the purposes of this study even though comprehensible input is seen as significant in language acquisition (Loschky, 1994; VanPatten, 2003) and also in input-intake process (Gass, 1997) This will be discussed further in depth in Chapter 3

Numerous researchers, whilst basing their work on Corder’s and Krashen’s statements regarding the priority of input, have shifted their views of input into a narrower and more specific focus (Gagliardi, 2013; Gass, 1997; Saleemi, 1989; Sharwood-Smith, 1993; VanPatten, 2003) The agreement that these researchers have come to is that input is the language that is provided to learners Sharwood-Smith (1993) considers the most

common definition of input in SLA to be “the language data that the learner is exposed

to, that is, learner’s experience of that target language in all its various manifestations” (p.167) In trying to define input, Saleemi (1989) offers a view of input in, but not restricted to, four categories such as linguistic, functional, interactive, and sociocultural dimensions These are explained in detail below:

Linguistic: consisting principally of grammatical forms and the

principles underlying them Functional: comprising categories of

use language is put to in real life and their relationship with

linguistic forms Interactive: pertaining to the norms and strategies

of interpersonal interaction Sociocultural: the conceptual and social

matrix within which a particular language functions (p.174)

It is obvious from those categories that input is related to language, and this idea is supported by other researchers (Gagliardi, 2013; Gass, 1997; VanPatten, 2003) Even

though Saleemi’s view of input is more specific, it is still not considered precise enough because if researchers agree that input is the language that learners encounter rather than what is available to encounter, the question that remains is what elements characterise this kind of language Fortunately, VanPatten (2003) provides a more detailed definition

of input and its elements Input is defined by VanPatten (2003) as the language, whether

in oral or written form, which contains linguistic features such as lexical items, syntactic structures, and morphological forms that together create the meaning of the messages conveyed in the communication More importantly, this definition specifies two

categories of input: conversational input and non-conversational input Conversational

input is the language of information exchange among interlocutors where interactions and responses are expected In contrast, non-conversational input does not require these elements (VanPatten, 2003)

As noted earlier, the concept of input from the aforementioned researchers appears to be largely and diversely identified, moving from the broadest (Corder, 1967; Krashen, 1985) to the narrowest (Gagliardi, 2013; Gass, 1997; Saleemi, 1989; Sharwood-Smith, 1993; VanPatten, 2003) senses Amongst these researchers, I think that VanPatten

(2003) has the clearest definition of input This is because VanPatten (2003) states how input as surrounding language is encountered by learners, whether through reading or hearing, and what the elements of input in SLA are Secondly, VanPatten (2003) emphasises the comprehension of linguistic items that encode the meaning of the message This differs from Krashen (1985) Krashen (1985) places his emphasis on input providers making input comprehensible, but VanPatten (2003) has elaborated the idea

of input comprehension as learners’ control In fact, both of the ideas are important in SLA, particularly in the input-intake process, which is the focus of this study and will

be clarified in the following chapter In addition, although input is the language that is provided to learners, it should not be seen that learners are passive recipients of input (Beebe, 1985; Gagliardi, 2013; Gass, 1997; VanPatten, 2003) Beebe (1985) argues that:

Studies of input in second language acquisition must view non-native

speakers not simply as passive recipients of comprehensible or

incomprehensible input from native speakers, but as active participants in

choosing the target language models they prefer and thus acquiring “the

right stuff” according to their values … they consciously or unconsciously

choose to attend to some target language models rather than others

(p.404)

In fact, it can be understood that there is a shift in a learner’s position in the course of input processing Learners are firstly passive recipients because they receive the input provided from other sources However, later they will play an active role in processing that input for further stages in SLA This idea is noteworthy as a precursor for further discussions about learners as controllers in input processing in SLA This will be also discussed in the following chapters because in the input-intake process, Gass (1997) shows that learners are those who ultimately control this process and this is certainly an aspect of the process that is of great importance

From what researchers have remarked about the role of input, it can be concluded that the very first condition for language acquisition is exposure to input However, it is questionable and also debatable whether all input is valuable for acquisition as research also shows that there are still certain requirements that input needs to satisfy Therefore,

despite a large number of definitions for input, there is limited concentration on the characteristics of input that learners engage with In fact, not all of what learners hear or read is sufficient for language acquisition (Gass, 1997; Krashen 1985) since it is believed that input must have certain characteristics including the level of accuracy and difficulty

Characteristics of input that may influence intake

The accuracy of input has attracted attention from researchers because of the belief that inaccurate input will lead to inaccurate development of grammatical features Rothman and Guijarro-Fuentes (2010) speak of the quality of input in terms of accuracy in syntactic, semantic, and morphological features However, Flege (2009), when he describes input, contends that input comes in a variety of types, including incorrect grammatical utterances In this section that explores the characteristics of input, I argue that the accuracy of grammatical features of input needs to be considered because incorrectness in the input may be harmful to learners’ language development This has been found in both formal and naturalistic settings For instance, Rothman and Guijarro-Fuentes (2010) as well as Nel and Muller (2010) raised the issue of instructed L2 learners who still produce errors in various aspects such as functional morphology, pronunciation, grammar, and spelling This is explained by the fact that they have been immersed in an L2 learning environment with non-native teachers and learners whose instructions and feedback may be insufficient in both morphological and syntactic structures Furthermore, in a naturalistic case of immigrant families, Paradis (2011) found that input provided by family members who are non-proficient users of L2 may indeed be harmful to the children’s L2 development Paradis (2011) concluded by suggesting that the non-target use of L2 should be limited, and L1 is a better option at home The findings of these studies suggest that the inaccuracy of grammatical features

in the input may have negative effects on language acquisition Consequently, the accuracy of input is worth paying attention to

While accuracy of input may be an extremely important condition, it seems that input may need to meet another condition if it is to contribute to language acquisition This is the level of input compared to the learner’s current stage of language development In simple terms, input needs to have certain features that are new to learners in comparison

to their existing knowledge (Gass, 1997; Krashen, 1985; Ying, 1995) This condition is necessary but complicated to investigate The condition proposed by Krashen (1985) is

described as i+1, which means the input should be beyond the learners’ current level

As explained by Krashen (1985), if an individual keeps encountering similar input overtime, there will be no further acquisition This idea of i+1 contains two elements, learners’ current levels as “i” and the appropriate but more advanced level of input as

“i+1” However, this is not easy to describe, and neither Gass (1997) nor Krashen (1985) fully investigates it As such, although input should be higher than learners’ current level for further acquisition, Ying (1995) asks a question about what exactly that higher level should be so that learners can possibly process that input for further development Ying (1995) states that input can be an aid to learners’ language development only if this input

is accessible, in other words, within the learner’s accessibility range and compatible with

the learner’s ability In his belief, if learners are not exposed to accessible input, or input

is so high that learners’ current developmental stages cannot cope with it, learners may not be able to further process that input and the input processing will break down If we take the aforementioned definition of accessible input presented by Ying (1995), we have another very important factor to consider before any discussions on input processing in SLA proceeds

Concluding remarks

In general, the claims are strong that input plays an important role in language acquisition since it seems now commonly accepted that without input, language acquisition may not occur Although Saleemi (1989) mentions that input can refer to both L1 and L2 in language acquisition, my own view of input that this study adopts

refers particularly to the second, foreign, or additional language that learners are going

to acquire in either aural or written forms and which entails previously unknown features This input needs to be slightly beyond learners’ current stage of language development, and it needs to entail accuracy in its grammatical features If input is believed to be the starting and vital point in language acquisition, it is worth questioning whether exposure to input guarantees language acquisition

Young-Scholten and Piske (2009, p.1) seem to emphasise acquisition as a natural consequence of input, and they claim that when there is input, there is language acquisition However, this statement is contested by other researchers (Gass, 1997; VanPatten, 2003; Ying, 1995) because for these researchers, it is believed that input is necessary but not always sufficient for language acquisition Other researchers have offered no guarantees that input will always lead to language acquisition (Gass, 1997; VanPatten, 2003; Ying, 1995) For illustration, Ying (1995) requires that input is not only accessible but also that it is processed for acquisition Gass (1997) provides a framework for the overall SLA process and exposure to input is only one stage in a multi-stage process Likewise, VanPatten (2002, 2003) contends that SLA includes sets

of processes Hence, there is a need to be able to identify exactly what process input needs to go through for LA to occur VanPatten (2002) examines the role of input in SLA and states that the primary concern in input processing in SLA is how intake is derived from input Adopting that idea, the focus of my study is the processing of input

to create intake A common point that is presented by many researchers is that intake is subsequent to input (Chaudron, 1983, 1985; Corder, 1967; Gass, 1997; Schmidt, 1990,

1995, 2010; VanPatten & Cardierno, 1993) but when researchers investigate how input leads to intake, a number of divergences are found The next section will first identify the concept of intake in different views and second describe how different researchers relate intake to input

Since the early description of intake by Corder (1967), the concept of intake has been extensively investigated by many other researchers (Chaudron, 1983, 1985; Gass, 1988, 1997; Liceras, 1985; Reinder, 2005, 2012; Schmidt, 1990; 1995, 2010) However, it seems that many researchers have defined the concept of intake and its relation to input only at a very general level This does not help investigate how intake is derived from input, particularly when this relation has been claimed as one of the foremost concerns

in SLA (Liceras, 1985) I will explore how intake is created and the functions of intake

in language acquisition The first part of this section focusses on the particular concept

of intake and the latter part focusses on how intake is converted from input

Definitions of intake in second language acquisition

Whilst researchers have developed a range of conceptualisations of intake, Chaudron (1985) and Reinders (2005, 2012) have considered much of this research to establish the need to understand that there are varied definitions of intake In the 1980s, Chaudron (1985) reviewed how a wide range of researchers had defined intake and he realised that intake had been inadequately investigated Due to the fact that the views of intake are varied, when discussing intake, it is necessary to identify what particular view of intake

is employed (Reinders, 2012) Intake is commonly defined under three categories: a product, a process and a combination of both (Reinders, 2005, 2012) This section will outline these definitions of intake under those three categories

When researchers define and categorise intake as a product, the common belief is that

intake is a selected part of input that is processed Researchers in this group include

Corder (1967), Sato and Jacobs (1992), and VanPatten (2002) Corder (1967) establishes

a relation between input-intake and states that not all of what is provided to learners will

be absorbed because learners need to control and decide what to take in for their language development Corder (1967) mentions intake as what goes in; also, Sato and

Jacobs (1992) view intake as a product of information processing from input With the

same view of intake as a product, Ying (1995) and VanPatten (2002) seem to have more

detailed definitions of intake For instance, Ying (1995) demonstrates that intake is a subset of input which has been internalised by learners after processing and that exposure to input is not sufficient for intake VanPatten (2002) defines intake as “the linguistic data actually processed from the input and held in working memory for further processing” (p 757) Likewise, Sharwood-Smith (1993) sees intake as the “part of input which has actually been processed by the learner and turned into knowledge of some kind” (p.167) According to this view, learners are controllers in this input-intake process This refers back to Beebe’s (1985) belief that learners are not passive when they encounter input; in fact, learners are, or need to be, active to decide what parts/aspects

of input will be further processed to become intake This is described by Beebe (1985)

as learners’ preferences In her conclusion, when studying what parts of input become

intake, she argued that we need to understand the factors and also individual differences that shape learners’ preferences

Other researchers see intake as a process not a product Chaudron (1985) discusses intake as “referring not to a single event or product, but to a complex phenomenon of information processing that involves several stages” (p.2) Chaudron (1985) further clarifies his view of intake as “the mediating process between the target language available to learners as input and the learners’ internalized set of L2 rules and strategies for second language development” (p.1) Leow (1993) views intake differently from input since intake is “an intermediate process between the exposure to input and actual language acquisition” (p.334)

However, Alcon (1998) mentions that both points of view of intake, as a process or a product, in fact have some limitations If intake is seen as a product or a subset of input, there is a lack of explanation of how that product, or that subset, is created or processed from input If intake is seen as a process, there is an ignorance of the fact that “a small proportion of the learners’ intake can go beyond the boundaries of the input they are exposed to” (Alcon, 1998, p 345) Therefore, Alcon (1998) suggests a combination of

both viewpoints for a more precise understanding of the concept of intake, stating that intake is a product of a process In other words, intake is input or parts of the input that learners attend to and process; the product gained after that process is intake Reinders (2012), after widely reviewing different definitions of intake, develops his own views which he calls “working definitions” of intake as “a subset of the detected input (comprehended or not) held in short-term memory, from which connections with long-

term memory are potentially created or strengthened” (p.28) From all of the above, it is

clear that intake is not created solely by exposure to input; input needs processing for intake, and intake is a stage between input and acquisition

The lack of precision in discussions of intake and its role in language acquisition seem

to result from researchers using the term intake in far too general a sense An initial clarification is that there are two types of intake defined as preliminary and final intake

(Chaudron, 1983, 1985) that have different roles but are related to each other These are described as sequences in the language acquisition process Building on this perspective,

it is not only necessary to categorise intake as a product, process, or both but also important to distinguish what types and functions any particular intake has in the overall SLA process Therefore, to have a more detailed view of intake in SLA, the following sections will discuss the classifications of intake and their functions in SLA

Intake in second language acquisition

A major work that has contributed to the classification of intake types was presented by Chaudron (1983, 1985) Chaudron (1985) argued that input processing exists to create intake as “(1) the initial stages of perception of input, (2) the subsequent stages of recoding and encoding of the semantic (communicated) information into long-term memory, and (3) the series of stages by which learners fully integrate and incorporate the linguistic information in input into their developing grammars” (p.2) These three

stages in fact, happen as a continuum The former stage, known as preliminary intake

includes the perception and comprehension of forms (Chaudron, 1983) The latter one

is final intake, which contributes to language acquisition referring “only to input on the

basis of which the learner forms her hypotheses about the L2 rules and tests them out subsequently” (Faerch & Kasper, 1980, p.64 cited in Chaudron, 1985) Although the processing of input for intake contains three stages, this process from preliminary to final intake is seen not as one or the other, but as a continuum connecting all three aspects

In fact, the view of intake presented by Chaudron (1985) has received support from other researchers To illustrate, intake defined by Leow (1993) “represents stored linguistic data that may be used for immediate recognition and does not necessarily imply language acquisition” (p.334) With a similar view to Leow (1993) and Chaudron

(1985), Alcon (1998) and Batstone (1996) classify intake of meaning for initial

recognition and intake of forms as internalisation of an underlying rule for language

acquisition I will also demonstrate below how Chaudron’s view of input processing for intake is strongly connected to Reinders’ (2005, 2012) description of the process of movement from detected input processing through short-term and long-term memory For instance, Reinders (2005, 2012) describes intake as part of input that has been detected; however, those parts are not necessarily comprehended yet Instead, those parts will be stored in short-term memory for immediate recognition and comprehension and then in long-term memory for further processing

Up to this point, all of those views of different types of intake and their functions establish another concern in relation to the input-intake process This concern relates to the issue of comprehension and acquisition in SLA Sharwood-Smith (1986) emphasised

a distinction that comprehension involves “the decoding of particular messages which have been encoded in linguistic form,” whilst acquisition refers to “the creation of new

mental structures which we call grammatical competence” (p.239) With this view, learners may make use of intake for the purpose of comprehension and for communication even though that intake is not adequate for acquisition For language

acquisition, learners need to process this preliminary intake so that it becomes final, which includes the creation of rules that learners form from those linguistic features This kind of intake can be used for hypothesis testing or rule strengthening Although intake is a major component in SLA, there has been an imbalance in researchers’ attention to the two types of intake For Chaudron (1985), most of the works on the issue

of intake deal with the final intake

Concluding remarks

In brief, intake is seen as the part in the process of language acquisition that is processed from input but intake may function as immediate recognition and comprehension (preliminary intake) or it can be further processed for acquisition, which does require the formation of rules for hypothesis testing or strengthening (final intake) This view of intake presented by Chaudron (1985) is very detailed and useful to understand the relationship between intake and SLA Therefore, this study adopts Chaudron’s (1985) view of intake when investigating the input-intake process Although preliminary intake and final intake are described as sequences in acquisition, it appears to be difficult to distinguish and also to test how those types are formed by learners’ input processing Also, the relation between intake and SLA is an extremely complex concept

This chapter has provided insights into the two major concepts of input and intake in SLA From what has been mentioned in this chapter, it is obvious that input is an important element in language acquisition Although there are no conclusions on acquisition as a certain outcome of input, it seems reasonable to conclude that without input, there are no other stages in the SLA process So, input is crucial for intake What researchers have studied about intake has stressed that when discussing intake, there should be clarifications about the type of intake and how it functions in the language acquisition process

Nonetheless, a point that can be deduced from those views is that the view of input processing for intake is described very generally by many researchers Another issue is how intake is processed for comprehension and the relation to acquisition, which still needs further justification Chaudron (1985), who had an interest in developing a more adequate view of intake, mentioned the need to obtain a better understanding of intake based on how learners’ input is processed and converted into intake

Bearing in mind that statement, there are still questions to be answered These include (1) what processes are involved in turning input into intake focussing both on intake for comprehension and acquisition in SLA and (2) what influential factors are involved in this input processing for intake These questions need of further investigation in order

to help obtain a more detailed view of the input-intake process and will be addressed in the following chapter

CHAPTER 3 INPUT – INTAKE PROCESSES IN SECOND LANGUAGE

ACQUISITION

The concepts of input and intake have been introduced in the previous chapter and their histories described A number of issues arise as the definitions are neither sufficiently explicit nor clear As such, more attention will be paid to these concepts and their relationships; the aim being to begin to develop a more precise understanding of how input is related to intake This allows me to focus on two areas which need attention: (1)

the process through which input becomes intake, which requires particular attention to

be paid to both preliminary intake and final intake (Chaudron, 1985) and (2) the influential factors involved in this input-intake process These concerns are presented and addressed in depth in this chapter

The issue of input processing in SLA has been widely researched Sun (2008) extensively reviewed a wide range of theoretical positions on input processing in SLA

In Sun’s (2008) work, the most important of these theoretical positions relevant for input-intake conversion are Gass’ (1988, 1997) framework of second language acquisition (hereafter referred to as FoSLA) and Schmidt’s (1990, 1995, 2010) Noticing Hypothesis (hereafter referred to as NH) In fact, these two models have been consistently recognised in research into input processing for intake Of all the models of input processing that Sun (2008) reviews, Gass’ (1997) framework of second language acquisition stands out because “it provides a detailed (though not necessarily definitive) description of each component stage and depicts the interrelated and dynamic processes

of language acquisition” (Izumi, 2003, p.172) The FoSLA focusses on the complete process of SLA from input to intake to output Notably, Gass (1988, 1997) argues that the FoSLA is a combination of sociolinguistic, psycholinguistic and linguistic aspects

of SLA She believed there was a necessity for such a model in 1988 due to the lack of

an extensive overview of SLA processes from different perspectives This model was re-introduced and elaborated in Gass’ book in 1997 where she added more detail to each component of the framework and added extra examples to ensure greater understanding Gass is also noted for covering, identifying and clarifying influential factors that can enable or hinder how one stage leads to another The FoSLA model is applied in the current study because of its comprehensive framing of the SLA process, including intake and in-depth explanations of how the different stages are related as processes These are significant aspects of the model, which many researchers do not fully explore

When discussing the input-intake process, Gass’ (1997) FoSLA mentions apperception,

comprehension and intake Each of these stages will be revisited and discussed in depth

When discussing the FoSLA, this chapter also points out some limitations confronting the FoSLA model in Gass’ attempt to provide a more complete view of the input-intake process in SLA In clarifying Gass’ process, it is important to discuss Schmidt’s (1990, 2001) concepts of noticing and awareness because Gass (1997) as well as Gass and Selinker (2008) align with Schmidt when considering how information is derived from

input The Noticing Hypothesis (Schmidt, 1990, 1995, 2010) has been also claimed to

be one of the major works that discusses how intake is created from input (Truscott 1998; Truscott and Sharwood-Smith, 2011) This NH is integrated with Gass’ framework in this study to clarify what is seen to be unclear in the FoSLA These unclear

points include the concept of apperception and how learners create intake in SLA

process Therefore, this chapter takes Gass’s FoSLA as the governing model and Schmidt’s NH as a support to Gass’ framework in order to explain the input-intake conversion

This chapter places its first emphasis on the FoSLA and its account of intake in comparison to the NH In brief, whilst the NH and the FoSLA agree that intake is subsequent to input, the two models diverge when it comes to explaining how input leads

to intake More specifically, NH claims that intake is the result of noticing input but in the FoSLA, Gass (1997) argues that input needs to go through apperception and

comprehension before it becomes intake This chapter, therefore, begins with an

exploration of (1) the concept of apperception and how the NH can help clarify this

particular concept and by extension the input-intake process and then moves to (2) the

concept of comprehension and its relationship to intake Consistent with Gass’ model, I

will argue that apperception and comprehension are believed to be prerequisites for intake Both NH and FoSLA describe how input becomes intake, I will compare if the ideas of intake in these two models are similar To be able to compare the ideas of intake

in the NH and FoSLA, I discuss the ideas of intake in the NH and the FoSLA in accordance with the types and functions of intake proposed by Chaudron (1983, 1985) and Sharwood-Smith (1986) discussed in Chapter 2 There is a consensus in the literature (see 2.2) that Chaudron (1985) makes an important distinction about intake that is based

on comprehension and acquisition, which Sharwood-Smith (1986) modifies to include how comprehension should be seen as different from acquisition This integration of Chaudron’s (1985), Gass’ (1997) and Schmidt’s (1990, 2001) works in this study offers

a more detailed understanding of the input-intake process and supports the development

of a more precise model of this input-intake process in SLA, including both preliminary

and final intake After explaining how input becomes intake, this chapter emphasises the influential factors that must be considered in the input-intake process

features in the input In other words, input must be apperceived (Gass, 1988, 1997; Gass

and Selinker, 2008) Apperception involves understanding how, “newly observed qualities of an object are related to past experiences” and “apperceived input is that bit

of language that is noticed in some way by learners because of some particular recognizable features” (Gass, 1997, p.4) Simply, apperception is the label for the process through which learners recognise new or unknown features in the input for further analysis in the process of SLA As a result of familiarity with available background or existing knowledge, learners will be able to sort out what is already known and identify what is still new to them – this is the process of apperception

Although apperception is one stage in the SLA process, apart from Gass (1988, 1997),

there is very limited literature that discusses the concept of apperception in SLA Even

Gass (1997) in her work, seems to have limited explicit information about the issue of

apperception and this makes her terminology unclear As such, apperception needs

further modifications to make it clearer and more explicit; thereby making what is involved in the input-intake process more overt In attempting to clarify the concept,

some researchers who include apperception in their discussions of the SLA process, tend

to relate this concept to the idea of noticing in Schmidt’s Noticing Hypothesis (Chapelle,

1998; Ellis, 1994; Lai et al, 2008) When discussing apperception, even Gass (1997) as well as Gass and Selinker (2008) also refer to Schmidt’s idea of noticing in the NH This raises the question of how apperception is related to noticing and whether or not apperception is actually equivalent to noticing These are my concerns and the FoSLA does not provide satisfactory answers for those questions Therefore, I will also explore

Schmidt’s (1990, 2001) Noticing Hypothesis and its leading term noticing to clarify

interpretations in order to answer those questions If we can clarify the relation of apperception and noticing, and whether or not they are equivalent and how noticing can support language development, we may obtain a more precise understanding of the

concept of apperception and its role in SLA process

The relationship between apperception and noticing and what roles apperception plays

in the SLA process, have been researched by Gass (1997), Schmidt (1990, 2010) and Ellis (1994) One of the initial points in common between apperception and noticing is that these two elements are intermediate stages between input and intake in SLA To obtain more information on the relation of apperception and noticing, the following

section is devoted to investigating the concept of noticing in the NH, its role in language learning and its relation to apperception

Noticing in the Noticing Hypothesis (NH)

The term noticing has been extensively used in many discussions of SLA (Ellis, 1994;

Mackey, 2006; Leow, 1997, 2000; Rosa & O’Neill, 1999; Soleimani & Najafi, 2012) It was introduced through the Noticing Hypothesis (NH) proposed by Schmidt and Frota (1986) and subsequently elaborated by Schmidt (1990, 1993, 1995, 2010) The point of emphasis in the NH is that noticing is a crucial condition, which is necessary for

language learning to occur In NH, the term noticing is used to refer to “conscious

registration of the occurrence of events” (Schmidt, 1995, p.29) In other words, noticing can help learners realise the existence of something in the input (Schmidt, 1990, 1993,

recognises the inflectional morpheme “-s” in “It will take six weeks” spoken by a native

speaker (Schmidt, 1993, p.213), it can be concluded that the learner has actually noticed the “-s” in the input Schmidt (1995, p.30) also provides another example of written input: “He goes to school”; in this example, if learners recognise the “-es” attached to the verb “go”, it can be said that the feature “-es” has been noticed In Schmidt’s (1990,

2010) work, noticing belongs to the concept of awareness Schmidt (1990, 1995, 2001,

2010) tries to classify different levels of awareness and develops a position where

noticing is included and seen as occurring at a very low level and understanding is a

higher level Therefore, the concept of noticing is restricted to learners’ recognition of the existence of a grammatical feature in the input only; this noticing does not necessarily include any understanding of that feature Since this study applies Schmidt’s

NH, this study adopts the idea of noticing as a very low level of awareness referring to

learners’ recognition of the existence of the grammatical features Further sections in

this chapter will explain how it is possible for this view of noticing as a very low level

of awareness to be related to the term apperception of the FoSLA The question here is

how this recognition of a linguistic feature can assist language development

The role of noticing in language learning

Schmidt, in his work in 1990, admitted that there was a lack of empirical research that proved the role of noticing in learning However, he saw his own study with Frota (Schmidt & Frota, 1986) as providing plausible evidence in relation to the crucial role

of noticing in language learning According to Schmidt and Frota (1986), only what is noticed will be learned Schmidt’s own study of learning Portuguese allowed him to come to the conclusion that if a form is not taught or is absent in input, there is no occurrence of that form in speech More importantly, there is no guarantee that a form will appear in the production of speech even though it has been taught explicitly, unless

it is noticed (Schmidt & Frota, 1986) This study is mainly based on Schmidt’ diaries of what he noticed in the input that he encountered through classroom instructions or daily interactions and subsequently compared to his production As such, Schmidt (1990,

p.141) sees evidence of the relationships that he uncovered as “strong evidence for a close connection between noticing and emergence in production” Schmidt’s position in the relation to noticing as a crucial condition for language learning has not changed In his later works, he in fact became more determined about the importance of noticing in language learning when he states that learning, in both cases of explicit and implicit learning, requires learners’ noticing of the target features before any other processes happen (Schmidt, 1995, 2010)

Later, the role of noticing became extensively researched and accepted as an integral condition in language learning The point which researchers agree on is that to be able

to acquire a target feature in the input, learners should firstly be able to recognise that target feature This recognition is an initial condition without which there are no further processes for acquisition of that feature For example, Leow (1997, 2000) examined learners’ learning outcomes in relation to different levels of awareness and concluded that those learners who fail to notice the target features are not able to obtain any awareness of the target forms Therefore, they do not incorporate those target features effectively in their output In addition, Mackey (2006) shows the effects of noticing on learners’ performances with the focus on question forms She documented that those learners, who report their noticing of how questions are formed, are able to produce questions in a target-like manner However, Mackey (2006) does not make any claims

as to whether noticing can support language development in other aspects of grammatical form Soleimani and Najafi (2012) researched different types of tests (e.g pop-quizzes and formative tests) and the tests’ effects on learners’ noticing and learning

of lexical items Groups of learners were compared in pre-test and post-test conditions Their findings were that groups in which noticing is mediated through tests performed better than others where noticing was not mediated Nevertheless, it is important to point out that in these aforementioned studies, learning is not solely dependent on noticing since there are other factors that enhance or restrict learners’ capacity to notice a target form These include factors like task types, feedback types and particular forms that may

be more noticeable than other types of forms (e.g question forms are more noticeable

than past tense forms in Mackey’s study) The factors that can affect learners’ ability to notice a form will be discussed in depth later in this chapter

Other researchers discuss the importance of noticing in helping a learner realise whether

or not the target features that learner produces are target-like To do this, a learner notices how the target features are produced in his/her own output and compares these to how those features are produced by native speakers of that language So, noticing in this case can be applied to learners’ output phase in comparison to how the target features are provided in the input This is similar to Schmidt’s (2010) idea of “noticing the gap” where he indicates that when producing the target language, a learner notices the errors compared to features available in the input To illustrate, Schmidt (2010) studied a non-native speaker of English, known as Wes The speaker was living in an English-speaking environment Although Wes was able to successfully communicate, he had problems with his grammar Schmidt (2010) explains that this was due to the lack of noticing of the differences between the target language produced by English L1 speakers and Wes’ own production of those grammatical features Mennim (2007) investigated how noticing fostered a learner’s language development through to target-like production of the word “garbage”, which is an uncountable noun This 9-month study showed that a learner started using the form in a non-target like way as a countable noun but after being exposed to a number of texts in which that word was correctly demonstrated and also through the feedback from his peers, there was an increased accuracy of the target form

in that learner Therefore, the importance of noticing as a learner’s recognition of target features or forms is demonstrated not only in the input phase (how those forms are provided) but also in the output phase (how those forms are produced)

Although the importance of noticing is widely accepted by researchers, it seems too early to come to a definitive conclusion that noticing a form leads to mastery of that form Schmidt (1990) realised that some forms, despite being noticed, did not occur in his own later speech Schmidt (1990) explained that this noticing only happened momentarily, and he did not maintain retention of the noticed forms Hence, it was

concluded that the noticed features are easily forgotten and may not be further processed

If they are not further processed, they are not mastered or acquired Consequently, the relationship between noticing and acquisition still requires attention Researchers in the aforementioned studies focussed on learners’ accurate language use in their performances and this was applied to confirm the important role of noticing in learning/acquisition An important contention was raised by Gass (1997), who argued that learners’ output does not always demonstrate their acquisition; and in some cases, different types of output show different levels of accuracy in learners’ language use Mennim (2007) also concluded that although learners had noticed and become aware of

the word “garbage” as an uncountable noun, in some cases they still produced it

incorrectly in their speech As a result, non-grammatical features in learners’ output may not be able to prove learners’ non-acquisition of those features in that the features may have emerged into the learners’ grammar but not been fully mastered Furthermore, Schmidt (1990, 2010) points out that learners’ accurate performances are not definitive proof of acquisition because although learners may notice some grammatical features in the input, they simply memorise and repeat those features in their output, which can still cause above chance performance Consequently, Schmidt (1990) does not equate learners’ use of those features with their mastery of those features although learners may have been able to notice those features in the input In fact, it has been mentioned that noticing is a very low level of awareness at which learners are only able to recognise the linguistic features in the input and this recognition may not be sufficient for language acquisition In fact, learners after recognition of the features need further processes to acquire those features How these processes occur will be explained in the following sections of this chapter in relation to the FoSLA

Consequently, while it can be agreed that noticing can facilitate language acquisition,

we cannot conclude that acquisition is a guaranteed consequence of noticing This requires further examination What can be concluded about the role of noticing is that to

be able to acquire a target feature, learners should firstly be able to recognise that feature before any further processes can happen

The relationship between noticing and apperception

When discussing the relationship between noticing and apperception, it should be remembered that the term noticing was proposed before apperception became a term within SLA research (Gass, 1988; Schmidt & Frota, 1986) However, in later works by Gass (1997) and Schmidt (1990, 2001), there are cross-references between the two terms For instance, in the Noticing Hypothesis, Schmidt (1990, 2001) elaborates his idea of noticing and he places noticing in relation to other terms; one of which is

apperceived input (Gass, 1988) As explained by Schmidt (1990, p.132), what noticing

and apperception have in common is that, “they identify the level at which stimuli are

subjectively experienced” As mentioned earlier in relation to Schmidt’s classification

of different level of awareness, noticing involves a very low level of awareness so that

it refers only to, “elements of the surface structure of utterances in the input-instances

of language, rather than any abstract rules or principles of which such instances may be exemplars” (Schmidt, 2001, p.5) Schmidt (1990, 2010) then claims that this is the

common point of his proposed idea of noticing and apperception Gass (1997), who

proposed the inclusion of apperception in the SLA process, also acknowledges a relation between apperception and noticing For instance, Gass (1997, p.8), when talking about noticing, accepts that, “this is not unlike what was claimed in the preceding sections with regard to apperception, which serves as a priming device or as a prerequisite to the intake

component” Therefore, it can be agreed that apperception and noticing are equivalent

and both apperception and noticing refer to a very low level of awareness, which only involves learners’ recognition of linguistic or grammatical features in the input This

equivalence of noticing and apperception and their being restricted to only a very low

level of awareness, as Schmidt’s (1990, 2001) study discussed in the previous section,

will be adopted in this thesis Because both apperception and noticing require only a

very low level of awareness, they are not considered sufficient for language acquisition

In other words, apperception or noticing is the initial condition that provides the entry point for further stages in the SLA process Both Gass (1997) and Schmidt (1990, 1995,

2010) argue that without apperception and noticing, there may be no further stages and the SLA process will break down

In addition to Gass and Schmidt, other researchers also agree on the similarity between these two concepts so that there is an interchangeable use of “apperception” and

“noticing” (Chapelle, 1998; Ellis, 1994; Lai et al, 2008) In particular, Ellis (1994), when discussing the process of language acquisition, views noticing and apperception as similar This means noticing features in the input is based on the salience of those features and learners’ existing knowledge As a result, in his SLA process, which is based on Gass’ (1988) framework, Ellis (1994) replaces the term “apperceived input”

by “noticed input”, demonstrating his belief in the equivalence of the two concepts However, those researchers (Chapelle, 1998; Ellis, 1994; Lai et al, 2008) accept the interchangeable use of the two concepts due to their equivalence without a clear and

explicit explanation of why noticing and apperception can be interchanged in their studies This section of my study has provided clarification about why apperception is equivalent to noticing and what both terms mean in relation to different levels of

awareness

Concluding remarks

Apperception is an important stage in the input-intake process, and it has been clarified with the support of the NH and its concept of noticing “Apperception” and “noticing” share an assumption that emphasises learners’ recognition of the features that have not been acquired and they are characterised by a very low level of awareness Certainly, input contains many features that cannot all be utilised, so after learners are exposed to input, the significance of the role of apperception and noticing is as a device to help learners filter certain aspects of the input for further processing Neither noticing nor apperception has been confirmed to be sufficient for language acquisition One point that can be agreed on is that apperception and noticing are an initial condition and facilitative for further stages in the process of SLA Also, it is one of the integral components for intake Gass’ (1988, 1997) FoSLA claims that intake is not simply