Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-5g6vh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T14:18:10.534Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Optimal input for language learning: Genuine, simplified, elaborated, or modified elaborated?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2019

Michael H. Long
Michael H. Long*
Affiliation:
University of Maryland, USA
*
*E-mail: mlong5@umd.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Discussions of optimal types of spoken and written input for language learning have traditionally focused on the relative merits of authentic and linguistically simplified spoken and written texts. I will argue that elaborated input and, in particular, modified elaborated input, constitute better options, with tasks, not just texts, functioning as important input sources. Modified elaborated input, potentially coupled with bimodal presentation, has many positive features, especially, but not only, for programs seeking to increase students' opportunities for enhanced incidental learning.

Type
First Person Singular
Information
Language Teaching , Volume 53 , Issue 2 , April 2020 , pp. 169 - 182
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019

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.)

References

Al-Thowaini, A. (2018). Speech modification to non-native speakers and content dilution: Implications for English as a medium of instruction (EMI) (Unpublished PhD in Second Language Acquisition dissertation). College Park: University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Bartlett, N. D. (2005). A double shot 2% mocha latte, please, with whip: Service encounters in two coffee shops and at a coffee cart. In Long, M. H. (Ed.), Second language needs analysis (pp. 305–343). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Basturkmen, H. (2017). ESP teacher education needs. Language Teaching, doi:10.1017/S0261444817000398Google Scholar
Borro, I. (in progress). Enhanced incidental learning of formulaic sequences by Chinese learners of Italian (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation). Portsmouth, Hampshire: University of Portsmouth.Google Scholar
Brown, R. (1987). A comparison of the comprehensibility of modified and unmodified reading materials for ESL. University of Hawai'i Working Papers in ESL, 6(1), 49–79.Google Scholar
Cathcart, R. (1989). Authentic discourse and the survival English curriculum. TESOL Quarterly, 23(1), 105–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaudron, C. (1982). Vocabulary elaboration in teachers’ speech to L2 learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 4(2), 170–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learners’ errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 5, 161–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crossley, S. A., Allen, D., & McNamara, D. S. (2012). Text simplification and comprehensible input: A case for an intuitive approach. Language Teaching Research, 16(1), 89–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derwing, T. M. (1996). Elaborative detail: Help or hindrance to the NNS listener? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(2), 283–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Vos, J. F., Schriefers, H., & Lemhofer, K. (2018a). Noticing vocabulary holes aids incidental second language word learning: An experimental study. Bilingualism, Language and Cognition. doi:10.1017/S1366728918000019Google Scholar
De Vos, J. F., Schriefers, H., Nivard, M. G., & Lemhofer, K. (2018b). A meta-analysis and meta-regression of incidental second language word learning from spoken input. Language Learning, 68(4), 906–941.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dinsmore, D. (1985). Waiting for Godot in the EFL classroom. ELT Journal, 39(4), 225–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2005). At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(2), 305–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goo, J., Granena, G., Novella, M., & Yilmaz, Y. (2015). Implicit and explicit instruction in L2 learning: Norris and Ortega (2000) revisited and updated. In Rebuschat, P. (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 443–482). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granena, G. (2008). Elaboration and simplification in scripted and genuine telephone service encounters. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 46(2), 137–166.Google Scholar
Green, A., & Hawkey, R. (2012). Re-fitting for a different purpose: A case study of item writer practices in adapting source texts for a test of academic reading. Language Testing, 29(1), 109–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jin, T., & Lu, X. (2017). A data-driven approach to text adaptation in teaching material preparation: Design, implementation, and teacher professional development. TESOL Quarterly, 52(2), 457–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, K. (2003). Designing language teaching tasks. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelch, K. (1985). Modified input as an aid to comprehension. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7(1), 81–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Y. (2003). Effects of input elaboration and enhancement on vocabulary acquisition through reading by Korean EFL learners (Unpublished PhD dissertation). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai'i, Department of Second Language Studies.Google Scholar
Kim, Y. (2006). Effects of input elaboration on vocabulary acquisition through reading by Korean learners of English as foreign language. TESOL Quarterly, 40(2), 341–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kobayashi Hillman, K. (in progress). Effects of different types of auditory input on incidental vocabulary learning by L2 Japanese learners (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation). College Park, MD: University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1980). Input, interaction, and second language acquisition (Unpublished PhD dissertation). Los Angeles, CA: University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1983a). Linguistic and conversational adjustments to non-native speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5(2), 177–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H. (1983b). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 126–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H. (1985). Input and second language acquisition theory. In Gass, S. M., & Madden, C. G. (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 377–393). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (2009). Methodological principles in language teaching. In Long, M. H., & Doughty, C. J. (Eds.), Handbook of language teaching (pp. 373–394). Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (2017). Instructed second language acquisition (ISLA): Geopolitics, methodological issues, and some major research questions. Instructed Second Language Acquisition, 1(1), 7–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H. (2018). CLIL (and EMI): Two for the price of one? BFF Beiträge zur Fremdsprachenforschung. Band, 15, 17–42.Google Scholar
Long, M. H., Al-Thowaini, A., Al-Thowaini, B., Lee, J., & Vafaee, P. (2018). A micro process-product study of a CLIL lesson: Linguistic modifications, content dilution, and vocabulary knowledge. Instructed Second Language Acquisition, 2(1), 3–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H., & Ross, S. (1993). Modifications that preserve language and content. In Tickoo, M. (Ed.), Simplification: Theory and application (pp. 29–52). Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.Google Scholar
Lynch, T. (1987). Modifications to foreign listeners: The stories teachers tell. ERIC Document ED 274 255. Center for Applied Linguistics. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED274225Google Scholar
Mackay, R. (1986). The role of English in education in an eastern Arctic school: An account of success and failure in the Canadian Arctic (Ph.D. dissertation). L'Université de Montréal.Google Scholar
Mackay, R. (1993). Embarrassment and hygiene in the classroom. ELT Journal, 47(1), 32–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malone, J. (2018). Incidental vocabulary learning in SLA: Effects of frequency and aural enhancement. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40(3), 651–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50(3), 417–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Donnell, M. E. (2009). Finding middle ground in second language reading: Pedagogic modifications that increase comprehensibility and vocabulary acquisition while preserving authentic text features. Modern Language Journal, 93, 512–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oh, S.-Y. (2001). Two types of input modification and EFL reading comprehension: Simplification versus elaboration. TESOL Quarterly, 35(1), 69–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ortega, L. (2009). Sequences and processes in language learning. In Long, M. H., & Doughty, C. J. (Eds.), Handbook of language teaching (pp. 81–105). Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, K., & Chaudron, C. (1987). The effects of linguistic simplification and elaborative modifications on L2 comprehension. University of Hawaii Working Papers in ESL, 6, 107–133.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1984). Psychological constraints on the teachability of languages. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6(2), 186–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M. (2011). Developmental schedules, and Explaining developmental schedules. In Pienemann, M., & Kessler, J.-U. (Eds.), (2011), Studying Processability Theory: An introductory textbook (pp. 3–11 and 50–63). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutherford, W. (1988). Functions of grammar in a language teaching syllabus. In Rutherford, W., & Sharwood-Smith, M. (Eds.), Grammar and second language teaching (pp. 231–249). New York: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Sharwood Smith, M. (1993). Input enhancement in instructed SLA: theoretical bases. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(1), 165–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webb, S., Newton, J., & Chang, A. (2013). Incidental learning of collocation. Language Learning, 63(1), 91–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Widdowson, H. G. (1972). The teaching of English as communication. English Language Teaching, 27(1), 15–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Widdowson, H. G. (1976). The authenticity of language data. In Fanselow, J. F., & Crymes, R. (Eds.), On TESOL ‘76 (pp. 261–270). Washington, DC: TESOL.Google Scholar
Williams, M. (1988). Language taught for meetings and language used in meetings: Is there anything in common? Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 45–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yano, Y., Long, M. H., & Ross, S. (1994). The effects of simplified and elaborated texts on foreign language reading comprehension. Language Learning, 44(2), 189–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar