Input intake process in second language acquisition

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 INTRODUCTION CHAPTER INPUT AND INTAKE IN SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION 2.1 Input in second language acquisition 2.2 Intake in second language acquisition 15 2.3 Summary of the chapter 20 CHAPTER INPUT – 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 CONCLUSION 55 REFERENCES 60 i 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 ii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS FoSLA: Framework of second language acquisition L1: First language L2: Second language NH: Noticing Hypothesis SLA: Second language acquisition iii 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 inputintake process from apperception to comprehension and 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 iv 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:………………………… v CHAPTER 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 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 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 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” 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” Similar to Gass’ (1997, p.ix) work, this study uses the terms acquisition and learning interchangeably “with no theoretical implications intended” 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 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 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 processes and for intake in SLA Following this recognition of the existence of grammatical patterns, learners need to analyse and comprehend those noticed instances at both the semantic and, more especially, syntactic levels which Gass (1997) see as very useful for intake However, comprehension is different from intake because intake is a higher level than comprehension Gass’ (1997) FoSLA has its intake equivalent to Chaudron’s (1985) final intake which refers to hypothesis formation or generalisations abstract rules for those features This is where the FoSLA needs modification of how rules and hypotheses can be formed for intake The NH, although it focusses only on preliminary intake, supports the FoSLA in how learners can generalise the rules or hypotheses from noticed features through the NH’s explanation of understanding as the higher level of awareness This understanding is a higher level than comprehension and the FoSLA needs to include understanding after comprehension in order to explain how learners form hypotheses or generalise abstract rules for intake from noticed and comprehended features Another important point that this chapter highlights is the process by which a hypothesis is tested and modified to become a fixed representation of language knowledge These issues match with what Chaudron (1985) has mentioned previously as final intake for SLA This chapter also discusses the issue of uptake and its relation to the input-intake process and the influential factors that can foster or hinder learners from creating intake from input 54 CHAPTER CONCLUSION This study has revisited the research into the process through which input becomes intake in second language acquisition This research covers a wide range of concepts related to input and intake in SLA and how input leads to intake The wide selection of definitions of input and intake in SLA provides clear views of input and intake based on reviewing how researchers define these two concepts from their broadest to narrowest senses Consequently, input can be seen as the starting point which is very important in SLA So, this study comes to definitions of input, which refer to the target language and its features as well as whether this kind of input can be provided in oral or written forms This study also presents two important characteristics of input regarding its slightly higher level beyond learners’ current stage of language development and its accuracy in its grammatical features Intake is often defined as input that has been processed The study shows that the most detailed view of intake is offered by Chaudron (1985) which this study based on In fact, intake is agreed as a continuum going from preliminary to final intake, and each type of intake has different functions in SLA This thesis has its significance in specifying in greater detail than in other works on the input-intake process, which is very important but not sufficiently well-researched in SLA This study accepts the framework of second language acquisition presented by Gass (1997) to explain this process, which is shown to go from apperception to comprehension and intake, but refines and elaborates that framework in light of other key studies Gass (1997) has provided a very detailed view of the input-intake process, and her framework is highly valued for its contributions to identifying how input becomes intake and the influential factors in this process However, in discussing the 55 input-intake process, I find Gass’ (1997) framework contains some imprecise points These points include the concept of apperception and how learners generalise the rules or hypothesis for intake; these imprecise areas demand greater clarity It is by integrating Schmidt’s Noticing Hypothesis that a more precise view of the input-intake process is achieved The study additionally reviews how Gass’ (1997) and Schmidt (1990, 2001) describe how input leads to intake The views of intake in the two models are compared with the reference to what Chaudron (1985) has mentioned about different types and functions of intake in SLA The study accepts that after exposure to input, learners should be able to recognise the new features in the input as a prerequisite for further processes in acquisition of those features This is the stage of apperception Due to the limited support from literature into this concept of apperception, which may make the input-intake process unclear, this study identifies a need to clarify this concept of apperception by establishing the relationship between apperception and the concept of noticing described in Schmidt’s (1990, 2001) Noticing Hypothesis The equivalence between these two concepts reflects them both as being only a very low level of awareness and being restricted to learners’ recognition of the features in the input Although both concepts refers to only a low level of awareness, this stage is claimed to be crucial since it is the initial condition for the following stages in the input-intake process and, by extension, the SLA process This shows that following apperception, learners need to comprehend the features at both semantic and syntactic levels It is important to note that these are not two isolated factors but that the process from semantic to syntactic comprehension is a continuum Gass (1997) reminds us that it is only comprehension at the structural level that is useful for intake This stage of input comprehension is similar to that defined as preliminary 56 intake presented by Chaudron (1985) whose definition of intake includes preliminary and final intake and is referred to throughout this study Also, this stage of input comprehension is what the NH needs to include to justify its input-intake process because the NH claims its intake as equivalent to Chaudron’s (1985) preliminary intake, but the NH does not include learners’ comprehension of the noticed features Thus, input comprehension is accepted as an important part of the process However, Gass (1997) differentiates comprehension from intake Following this stage, intake is formed based on learners’ generalisations of grammatical rules and hypothesis formation This is what Chaudron (1985) defines as final intake, and Schmidt (1995, 2010) refers to as hypothesis and rule formation, noting that this is based on learners’ higher level of awareness – understanding where learners make generalisations across the language features that they have noticed in the input This idea of understanding in the NH is a support of the FoSLA as there are limitations in Gass’ explanation of how learners move from recognition of linguistic features to the comprehension of those features and then to grammatical rules or hypotheses represented by those features The NH on the other hand has a very explicit explanation of how this generalisation of grammatical rules/patterns is formed across the noticed instances This stage of understanding is what the FoSLA needs to include after the stage of input comprehension to make its input-intake process more explicit and complete Because the hypothesis formed can be incomplete or incorrect, it will be tested and modified to become a fixed one, and this process of hypothesis testing and confirmation are sub-stages of intake, or intake components During this, there exists the issue of uptake referring to learners’ reformation of incorrect linguistic features through teachers’ feedback Different ideas of uptake and its relation to input-intake process are 57 presented, but this study accepts uptake as a part of the intake component where hypothesis testing and confirmation occurs Another important point that this study highlights is the influential factors in the input intake process These include learners’ external and internal factors There are a great number of influential factors involved in this process but not many researchers pay enough attention to investigating these factors Apart from the factors Gass (1997) and Schmidt (1990) offer, this study adds another factor This factor is the mode of input, particularly aural mode, which can be seen as more problematic for learners It must also be remembered that when modifying input to make it more comprehensible, the elimination of unknown features may increase learners’ comprehension but decrease the chances of acquisition of those new features Apart from the significant contributions this thesis makes to understanding the inputintake process in SLA, some limitations require further research Firstly, because the focus of the current study is only up to the stage of intake, the other stages in the FoSLA such as integration and output are not considered Further research is needed to continue to develop the precision of models, which will extend the understanding of the whole process of SLA Secondly, as mentioned earlier, the field of SLA may not be fully explained based on one particular theory or model, and while this study does extend what may be currently known, there is still a need for future research to examine other theoretical perspectives to ensure continual revisiting of the input-intake process Thirdly, while the present study is able to integrate and revisit recent studies and from this raises further points which are uptake and its relation to input and intake in SLA Due to the limited time and scope of the thesis, the issue of uptake still needs further and 58 more in-depth investigation Hence, recommendations are made for further research into the issue of uptake and its relation to input and intake in SLA Finally, this study emphasises the theoretical view of the input-intake process, so there is a need for more empirical evidence for further understanding of the input-intake process in the SLA process In conclusion, despite the above limitations and the need for further investigation and clarification, this study has showed that through revisiting and integration of current research, it has been able to modify the input-intake process, which is considered as one of the most important issues in the field of language acquisition Understanding how input can become intake and what can affect this input-intake inversion will assist educators and learners in making this input-intake process happen more effectively and, by extension, allow learners to successfully acquire greater mastery of the target language 59 REFERENCES Alcon, E (1998) Input and input processing in second language acquisition International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 36(4), 343362 doi:10.1515/iral.1998.36.4.343 Basturkmen, H., Loewen, S., & Ellis, R (2002) Metalanguage in focus on form in the communicative classroom Language Awareness, 11(1), 1-13 doi:10.1080/09658410208667042 Batstone, R (1996) Key concepts in ELT- Noticing Applied Linguistics, 50(3), 273 Retrieved from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/content/50/3/273.full.pdf Beebe, L B (1985) Input: Choosing the right stuff In S M Gass & C G Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp 404-414) Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers Chapelle, C (1998) Multimedia CALL: Lessons to be learned from research on instructed SLA Language Learning & Technology, 2(1), 21-39 Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol2num1/pdf/article1.pdf Chaudron, C (1983) Simplification of input: Topic reinstatements and their effects on L2 learners' recognition TESOL Quarterly, 17(3), 437-458 Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3586257 Chaudron, C (1985) Intake: On models and methods for discovering learners' processing of input Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7(1), 1-14 doi:10.1017/S027226310000512X Corder, P (1967) The significance of learner’s errors International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 5(1-4), 161-170 doi:10.1515/iral.1967.5.14.161 Dai, M H., & Tseng, W T (2011) Measuring intention in language learning: A confirmatory factor analysis Psychological Reports, 108(3), 766-778 doi: 10.2466/08.11.28.PR0.108.3.766-778 60 de Bot, K., Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M (2005) Second language acquisition: An advanced resource book New York: Routledge Doughty, C (1991) Second language instruction does make a difference: Evidence from an empirical study of SL relativization Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13(4), 431-469 doi: 10.1017/S0272263100010287 Eckstein, D., & Perrig, W J (2007) The influence of intention on masked priming: A study with semantic classification of words Cognition, 104(2), 345-376 doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2006.07.005 Ellis, N., & Collins, L (2009) Input and second language acquisition: The roles of frequency, form, and function The Modern Language Journal, 93(3), 329-335 Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40264090 Ellis, R (1994) The study of second language acquisition Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press Flege, J E (2009) Give input a chance! In T Piske & M Young-Scholten (Eds.), Input matters in SLA (pp.175-190) Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters Gagliardi, A (2013) All input isn’t equal: how the nature of the learner shapes language acquisition Studia Linguistica, 67(1), 68 – 81 doi: 10.1111/stul.12005 Gass, S (1988) Integrating research areas: A framework for second language studies Applied Linguistics, 9(2), 198-217 doi: 10.1093/applin/9.2.198 Gass, S (1997) Input, interaction, and the second language learner Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Gass, S (2003) Input and interaction In C Doughty and M H Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp 224–255) Oxford: Basil Blackwell Gass, S M., & Selinker, L (2008) Second language acquisition: An introductory course New York: Routledge 61 Hall, M (1992) Language experience and early language development: From input to uptake Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Izumi, S (2003) Comprehension and production processes in second language learning: In search of the psycholinguistic rationale of the Output Hypothesis Applied Linguistics, 24(2), 168-196 doi:10.1093/applin/24.2.168 James, W (1980) The principles of psychology New York: Dover Publications Johnson, B J (2006) Foreign language learning: An exploratory study on the external and internal influences affecting success Unpublished thesis, Baylor University Krashen, S D (1985) The input hypothesis: Issues and implications New York: Longman Lai, C., Fei, F., & Roots, R (2008) The contingency of recasts and noticing The Computer Assisted Language Instruction Consortium Journal, 26(1), 70-90 Retrieved from https://calico.org/html/article_723.pdf Leeser, M J (2004a) The effects of topic familiarity mode and pausing on L2 learners' comprehension and focus on form Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(4), 587-615 doi: 10.10170S0272263104040033 Leeser, M J (2004b) Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue Language Teaching Research, 8(1), 55-81 doi:10.1191/1362168804lr134oa Leeser, M J (2008) Pushed output, noticing, and development of past tense morphology in content-based instruction The Canadian Modern Language Review, 65(2), 195-220 doi:10.3138/cmlr.65.2.195 Leow, R P (1993) To simplify or not to simplify: A look at intake Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(3), 333-355 doi:10.1017/S0272263100012146 Leow, R P (1995) Modality and intake in second language acquisition Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17(1), 79-89 doi: 10.1017/S0272263100013784 62 Leow, R P (1997) Attention, awareness, and foreign language behaviour Language Learning, 51(1), 113-155 doi: 10.1111/j.1467-1770.2001.tb00016.x Leow, R P (2000) A study of the role of awareness in foreign language behaviour Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(4), 557 - 584 doi:10.1017/S0272263100004046 Liceras, J (1985) The role of intake in the determination of learners’ competence In S M Gass& C G Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp 354-376) Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers Lightbown, P M (1985) Input and acquisition for second language learners in and out of classrooms Applied Linguistics, 6(3), 263-273 doi: 10.1093/applin/6.3.263 Littlewood, W (1984) Foreign and second language learning: Language acquisition research and its implications for the classroom Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press Loschky, L (1994) Comprehensible input and language acquisition: What is the relationship? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16(3), 303-323 doi:10.1017/S0272263100013103 Lyster, R., & Ranta, L (1997) Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37–66 Retrieved from http://0journals.cambridge.org.alpha2.latrobe.edu.au/action/displayAbstract?fromPage= online&aid=36367&fulltextType=RA&fileId=S0272263197001034 Mackey, A (2006) Feedback, noticing, and instructed language learning Applied Linguistics, 23(7), 405-430 doi: 10.1093/applin/ami051 McDonough, K., & Mackey, A (2006) Responses to recasts: Repetition, primed production, and linguistic development Language Learning, 56(4), 693-720 doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2006.00393.x Mennim, P (2007) Long-term effects of noticing on oral output Language Teaching Research, 11(3), 265-280 doi: 10.1177/1362168807077551 63 Nel, N., & Muller, H (2010) The impact of teachers’ limited English proficiency on English second language learners in South African schools South African Journal of Education, 30, 635-650 Retrieved from http://www.ajol.info/index.php/saje/article/viewFile/61790/49875 Oh, S Y (2001) Two types of input modification and EFL reading comprehension: Simplification versus elaboration TESOL Quarterly, 35(1), 69-96 Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3587860 Paradis, J (2011) Individual differences in child English second language acquisition: Comparing child-internal and child-external factors Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1(3), 213–237 doi: 10.1075/lab.1.3.01par Reinders, H.W (2005) The effects of different task types on L2 learners’ intake and acquisition of two grammatical structures Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Auckland Reinders, H W (2012) Towards a definition of intake in second language acquisition Applied Research on English Language, 1(2), 15-36 Retrieved from http://uijs.ui.ac.ir/are//browse.php?a_code=A-10-1-11&slc_lang=en&sid=1 Richards, J C (2008) Teaching listening and speaking from theory to practice Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press Richards, B J., & Gallaway, C (1994) Conclusions and directions In C Gallaway & B J Richards (Eds), Input and interaction in language acquisition (pp.251-270) Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press Robinson, P (1997) Individual differences and the fundamental similarity of implicit and explicit adult second language learning Language Learning, 47(1), 45-99 doi:10.1111/0023-8333.21997002 Rosa, E., & O’Neill, M D (1999) Explicitness, intake and the issue of awareness: Another piece to the puzzle Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(4), 511-556 doi:10.1017/S0272263199004015 64 Rost, M (2002) Listening tasks and language acquisition Japan Association for Language Teaching 2002 Conference Proceedings Retrieved from http://jaltpublications.org/archive/proceedings/2002/018.pdf Rothman, J., & Guijarro-Fuentes, P (2010) Input quality matters: Some comments on input type and age-effects in adult SLA Applied Linguistics, 31(2), 301-306 doi:10.1093/applin/amq004 Saleemi, A P (1989) Inputs for L2 acquisition International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 27(3), 173-191 doi:10.1515/iral.1989.27.3.173 Sato, E., & Jacobs, B (1992) From input to intake: Towards a brain-based perspective of selective attention Issues in Applied Linguistics, 3(2), 267-292 Retrieved from http://escholarship.org/uc/item/0mw1q1m6 Saville-Troike, M (2006) Introducing second language acquisition Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press Schmidt, R (1990) The role of consciousness in second language learning Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129-158 doi: 10.1093/applin/11.2.129 Schmidt, R (1993) Awareness and second language acquisition Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 206-226 doi: 10.1017/S0267190500002476 Schmidt, R (1995) Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on attention and awareness in learning In R Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp.1-63) Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai`i Schmidt, R (2001) Attention In P Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp.3-32) Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press Schmidt, R (2010) Attention, awareness, and individual differences in language learning In W M Chan, S Chi, K N Cin, J Istanto, M Nagami, J W Sew, T Suthiwan, & I Walker, Proceedings of CLaSIC 2010 (pp 721-737) Singapore: National University of Singapore, Centre for Language Studies 65 Schmidt, R., & Frota, S (1986) Developing basic conversational ability in a second language: A case study of an adult learner of Portuguese In R R Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp 237-326) Rowley, MA: Newbury Sharwood-Smith, M (1986) Comprehension versus acquisition: Two ways of processing input Applied Linguistics, 7(3), 239-256 doi:10.1093/applin/7.3.239 Sharwood-Smith, M (1993) Input enhancement in instructed SLA: Theoretical bases Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(2), 165-179 doi:10.1017/S0272263100011943 Sheen, Y H (2006) Exploring the relationship between characteristics of recasts and learner uptake Language Teaching Research, 10(4), 361-392 doi:0.1191/1362168806lr203oa Soleimani, H & Najafi, L (2012) The noticing function of classroom pop quizzes and formative tests in the uptake of lexical items of EFL intermediate learners International Journal of English Linguistics, 2(4), 73-84.doi:0.5539/ijel.v2n4p73 Stout, G F (1891) Apperception and the movement of attention Mind, 16(61), 23-53 Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2247191 Sun, Y A (2008) Input processing in second language acquisition: A discussion of four input processing models Teachers College, Columbia University Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics, 8(1), 1-10 Retrieved from http://journals.tc-library.org/index.php/tesol/article/download/359/260 Swain, M (1985) Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensive output in its development In S M Gass & C G Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp 235-253) Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers Swain, M (1993) The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren’t enough Canadian Modern Language Review, 50(1), 158 – 164 ERIC Document ID EJ479541 66 Swain, M (2000) French immersion research in Canada: Recent contributions to SLA and applied linguistics Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 20, 199-212 doi:10.1017/S0267190500200123 Swain, M., & Lapkin, S (1995) Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning Applied Linguistics, 16(3), 371-391 doi:10.1093/applin/16.3.371 Thornbury, S (1997) Reformulation and reconstruction: Tasks that promote “noticing” ELT Journal, 51(4), 326-335 doi: 10.1093/elt/51.4.326 Truscott, J (1998) Noticing in second language acquisition: A critical review Second Language Research, 14(2), 103-135 doi:10.1191/026765898674803209 Truscott, J., & Sharwood Smith, M (2011) Input, intake, and consciousness: The quest for a theoretical foundation Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33(4), 497-528 doi:10.1017/S0272263111000295 Underwood, M (1989) Teaching listening New York: Longman van den Bogaerde, B (2000) Input and interaction in deaf families Unpublished dissertation, University of Amsterdam Retrieved from http://dare.uva.nl/document/55953 VanPatten, B (1990) Attending to form and content in the input Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12(3), 287-301 doi: 10.1017/S0272263100009177 VanPatten B (2002) Processing instruction: An update Language Learning, 54(2), 755-803 doi: 10.1111/1467-9922.00203 VanPatten, B (2003) From input to output: A teacher’s guide to second language acquisition Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters VanPatten, B., & Cardierno, T (1993) Input processing and second language acquisition: A role for instruction The Modern Language Journal, 77(1), 45-57 doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.1993.tb01944.x 67 Ying, H (1995) What sort of input is needed for intake? International Review of Applied Linguistics, 33(3), 175-194 doi: 10.1515/iral.1995.33.3.175 Young-Scholten, M., & Piske, T (2009).Introduction In T Piske & M YoungScholten (Eds.), Input matters in SLA (pp.1-26) Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters 68 ... v CHAPTER INTRODUCTION CHAPTER INPUT AND INTAKE IN SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION 2.1 Input in second language acquisition 2.2 Intake in second language acquisition ... input- intake process and will be addressed in the following chapter CHAPTER INPUT – INTAKE PROCESSES IN SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION The concepts of input and intake have been introduced in the... 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