Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-wjfd9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T14:05:05.739Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Intake: On Models and Methods for Discovering Learners' Processing of Input

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Craig Chaudron
Craig Chaudron
Affiliation:
University of Hawaii at Manoa
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Models of the second language acquisition process have not specifically elaborated on the nature of the learner's perception and processing of target language input, a process known as intake. They have typically failed to specify the mechanisms or variables involved in the intake process or to distinguish between the stages of processing input from perception, to comprehension, to assimilation into an interlanguage grammar. Research and theoretical models from L1 psycholinguistic literature have been neglected. Recent L1 and L2 research on language processing are compared, and experimental methods for eliciting data to confirm them are discussed.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 7 , Issue 1 , February 1985 , pp. 1 - 14
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

Access options

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

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Ammon, M. S., & Slobin, D. I.. 1979. A cross-linguistic study of the processing of causative sentences. Cognition 7; 3–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bialystok, E. 1978. A theoretical model of second language learning. Language Learning 28; 69–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bialystok, E. 1982. On the relationship between knowing and using linguistic forms. Applied Linguistics III; 181–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaudron, C. 1983a. Simplification of input: Topic reinstatements and their effects on L2 learners' recognition and recall. TESOL Quarterly 17; 437–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaudron, C. 1983b. Research on metalinguistic judgments: A review of theory, methods, and results. Language Learning 33; 343–77.Google Scholar
Chaudron, C. In press. A method for examining the input/intake distinction. In Gass, S. & Madden, C. (eds.), Input and second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Cole, R. A. (ed.). 1980. Perception and production of fluent speech. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Cole, R. A., & Jakimik, J.. 1980. A model of speech perception. In R. A. Cole (ed.), pp. 133–63.Google Scholar
Corder, S. P. 1967. The significance of learners' errors. IRAL 5; 161–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faerch, C., & Kasper, G.. 1980. Processes and strategies in foreign language learning and communication. The Interlanguage Studies Bulletin—Utrecht 5(1); 47–118.Google Scholar
Gass, S. 1979. Sentence processing by L2 learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 2(2); 85–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S., & Selinker, L. (eds.). 1983. Language transfer in language learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Gasser, M. 1983. Towards a computer model of second language listening comprehension. Paper presented at the Second Language Research Forum, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, November 13.Google Scholar
Glanzer, M. 1982. Short-term memory. In Puff, C. R. (ed.). Handbook of research methods in human memory and cognition, pp. 63–98. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Harris, D. P. 1969. Report on an experimental group-administered memory span test. TESOL Quarterly 4; 203–13.Google Scholar
Hatch, E. 1974. Second language learning-universals? Wording Papers on Bilingualism 3; 1–17.Google Scholar
Henning, G., Gary, N., & Gary, J. O.. 1981. Listening recall—a listening comprehension test for low proficiency learners. Paper presented at the AILA Congress, Lund, August 9.Google Scholar
Henrichsen, L. E. 1984. Sandhi-variation: A filter of input for learners of ESL. Language Learning 34; 103–126.Google Scholar
Hulstijn, J., & Hulstijn, W.. 1984. Grammatical errors as a function of processing constraints and explicit knowledge. Language Learning 34; 23–43.Google Scholar
Hyltenstam, K. 1983. Data types and second language variability. In H. Ringbom (ed.), pp. 57–74.Google Scholar
Ioup, G. 1984. Testing the relationship of formal instruction to the input hypothesis. TESOL Quarterly 18; 345–350.Google Scholar
Jarvella, R. J. 1971. Syntactic processing of connected speech. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 10; 409–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarvella, R. J., & Herman, S. J.. 1972. Clause structure of sentences and speech processing. Perception and Psychophysics 11; 381–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johansson, S. 1973. Partial dictation as a test of foreign language proficiency. Swedish-English contrastive studies, Report No. 3. Department of English, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.Google Scholar
Jusczyk, P. W. 1981. Infant speech perception: A critical appraisal. In Eimas, P. D. & Miller, J. L. (eds. ), Perspectives on the study of speech, pp. 113–64. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. D. 1982. Principles and practice in second language acquisition. London: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. D. 1983. Newmark's ‘ignorance hypothesis’ and current second language acquisition theory. In S. Gass & L. Selinker (eds.), pp. 135–53.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. D. 1984. Response to Ioup. TESOL Quarterly 18; 350–52.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. E. 1976. ESL teacher speech as input to the ESL learner. Workpapers in Teaching English as a Second Language 10; 45–49. Los Angeles: University of California at Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Lehtonen, J., & Sajavaara, K.. 1983. Acceptability and ambiguity in native and second language message processing. In H. Ringbom (ed.), pp. 101–125.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. 1981. Questions in foreigner talk discourse. Language Learning 31; 135–57.Google Scholar
Markman, B. R., Spilka, I. V., & Tucker, G. R.. 1975. The use of elicited imitation in search of an interim French grammar. Language Learning 25; 31–41.Google Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, W., & Tyler, L. K.. 1980. The temporal structure of spoken language understanding. Cognition 8; 1–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Massaro, D. W. (ed.). 1975. Understanding language: An information-processing analysis of speech perception, reading, and psycholinguistics. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, B., Rossman, T., & McLeod, B.. 1983. Second-language learning: An information-processing perspective. Language Learning 33; 135–58.Google Scholar
Meara, P.. 1980. Syntactic structure and memory span in second language learners. The Interlanguage Studies Bulletin—Utrecht 5 (2; 31–54.Google Scholar
Naiman, N.. 1974. The use of elicited imitation in second language acquisition research. Wording Papers on Bilingualism 2; (1–37.Google Scholar
Nelson, T. O.. 1977. Repetition and depth of processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 16; (151–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ringbom, H.. (ed.) 1983. Psycholinguistics and foreign language learning. Åbo Finland; (Åbo Akademi.Google Scholar
Sajavaara, K.. 1981. Psycholinguistic models, second language acquisition, and contrastive analysis. In Fisiak, J. (ed.), Contrastive linguistics and the language teacher pp.87–120Oxford; (Pergamon.Google Scholar
Schachter, J.. 1983a. Nutritional needs of language learners. In Clarke, M. A. & Handscombe, J. (eds.), On TESOL ‛82: Pacific perspectives on language learning and teaching pp. 175–89 Washington; (D.C.: TESOL.Google Scholar
Schachter, J.. 1983b. A new account of language transfer. In Gass, S. & Selinker, L. (eds.), pp. 98–111.Google Scholar
Selinker, L. & Lamendella, J. T.. 1981. Updating the interlanguage hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 3(2); (201–20.Google Scholar
Shiffrin, R. M. & Schneider, W.. 1977. Controlled and automatic human information-processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general theory. Psychological Review 83; (127–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slobin, D. I. 1973a. Cognitive prerequisites for the development of grammar. In Ferguson, C. & Slobin, D. I. (eds.), Studies in child language development, pp. 175–208New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. & Bever, T. G.. 1982 Children use canonical sentence schemas: A cross-linguistic study of word order and inflections. Cognition, 12; 229–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spitze, K., & Fischer, S. 1981 Short-term memory as a test of language proficiency. TESL Talk, 12(4); 32–41.Google Scholar
Swain, M., Durnas, G. & Naiman, N.. 1974 Alternatives to spontaneous speech: Elicited translation and imitation as indicators of second language competence. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 3; 68–79.Google Scholar
Tarone, E. 1984 Variability in interlanguage use: A study of style-shifting in morphology and syntax. Paper presented at the eighteenth annual TESOL convention. Houston, (03 6–11.Google Scholar
Tommola, J. 1979 Testing listening comprehension through redundancy reduction. In Lautamatti, L. & Lindqvist, P. (eds.), Focus on spoken English, pp. 77–97. Jyvaskyla, Finland: Language Centre for Finnish Universities, University of Jyvaskyla.Google Scholar