Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-kn6lq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-18T08:53:54.635Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Input Enhancement in Instructed SLA

Theoretical Bases

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Michael Sharwood Smith
Michael Sharwood Smith
Affiliation:
University of Utrecht
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The concept of input to the language learner is examined with reference to some current theorizing about language processing and the idea of modular systems of knowledge. The question of what this can tell us about the actions taken by teachers and textbook writers is addressed specifically with regard to manipulating, or “enhancing,” the input ideally so that it will affect learner knowledge and thereby learner behavior. The logic of the argumentation is that, in exposing the learner to the second language, we are engaging a whole battery of different processing mechanisms. Input enhancement research and the conclusions drawn from it have to be set within the context of a modular view of language and language learning.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 15 , Issue 2 , June 1993 , pp. 165 - 179
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

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

REFERENCE

Bialystok, E. (1987). A psycholinguistic framework for exploring the basis of second language proficiency. In Rutherford, W. & Smith, M. Sharwood (Eds.), Grammar and language teaching (pp. 31–50). Rowley: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Bialystok, E., & Sharwood Smith, M. (1985). Interlanguage is not a state of mind: An evaluation of the construct for second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 6, 101–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1980). Rules and representations. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corder, S. P. (1982) Interlanguage and error analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. (1983). The modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1987) Consciousness and the computational mind. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1986). Stage/structure versus phase/process in modelling linguistic and cognitive development In Levin, I. (Ed.), Stage and structure Reopening the debate (pp. 164–190). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1976). Formal and informal linguistic environments in language acquisition and language learning. TESOL Quarterty, 10, 157–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (1990). Focus on form and corrective feedback in communicative language teaching: Effects on second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 429–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutherford, W. (1987). Second language grammar. Learning and teaching. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Rutherford, W., & Sharwood Smith, M. (1985). Consciousness-raising and Universal Grammar. Applied Linguistics, 6, 274–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, B. D. (1993). On explicit and negative data effecting and affecting competence and linguistic behavior. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 147–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharwood Smith, J. (1977). On teaching classical languages, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Sharwood Smith, M. (1980). Consciousness-raising and the second language learner. Applied Linguistics, 2, 159–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharwood Smith, M. (1986). The competence/control model, crosslinguistic influence and the creation of new grammars. In Kellerman, E. & Smith, M. Sharwood (Eds.), Crosslinguistic influence in second language acquisition (pp. 10–20). Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Sharwood Smith, M. (1991). Speaking to many minds. Second Language Research, 7, 118–132.Google Scholar
Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. (1993). Instruction and the development of questions in L2 classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 205–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M., & Herron, C. (1988). Down the garden path: Inducing and correcting overgeneralization errors in the foreign language classroom. Applied Psycholinguistics, 9, 237–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M., & Herron, C. (1989). Feedback for language transfer errors: The garden path technique. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 385–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B. (1990). Attending to form and content in the input: An experiment in consciousness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 287–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar