What Can We Expect From Input Enhancement English Language Essay

Introduction

Today, it is by and large accepted that mark grammatical signifier of L2 ( 2nd linguistic communication ) must be noticed to do acquisition happens and that SLA ( 2nd linguistic communication acquisition ) direction must be integrated into linguistic communication instruction by which the grammatical signifiers are presented to scholars in meaningful context.

IE ( Input Enhancement ) , coined by Sharwood Smith ( 1991 ) , is a calculated use to do specific grammatical characteristics of L2 more salient. First of foremost, this technique underscores the cardinal function of input in linguistic communication instruction. Likewise, the intent of IE is to pull scholars ‘ attending to aim lingual signifier in L2 input.

Harmonizing to Sharwood Smith ( 1991 ) , scholars could be led to detecting mark signifier in two ways: Input Flood ( IF ) and Textual Enhancement ( TE ) . Through IF, Sharwood Smith ( 1991 ) demonstrated the basic thought that the more frequent the examples of the mark signifier appear in the input, the more likely the scholars will detect the signifier. In other words, IF manipulates input by saturating L2 lingual informations with mark signifier to pull scholars ‘ attending.

On the other manus, TE is a technique of pull stringsing the typographical characteristics of a written text to increase the perceptual saliency of mark grammatical signifier. The typographical cues such as altering the font manner, enlarging the character size, underlining, bolding, capitalizing, and foregrounding with colorss could be used.

However, the inquiry underpins the construct of IE is: Is it sufficient by exposing L2 manipulated input to scholars? This inquiry leads to farther probe as scholars might non necessary parse the lingual construction or do form-meaning connexion. Therefore, a more specific inquiry emerges: How effectual is IE?

Based on above treatment, this essay will reason that IE plays facilitative function in L2 acquisition. The intent of this essay is to picture what facets of IE could be productively applied to plan a linguistic communication instruction activity. Reappraisal on the cardinal empirical surveies of IE will be presented in this essay. Throughout, advantages and restrictions of IE will be identified within theoretical models which underpin the stance. Then, we will depict how to get the better of the deficits of IE by incorporating IE with other intercessions into schoolroom linguistic communication instruction. Finally, IE deductions and restriction on linguistic communication instruction will be reiterated as decision.

Before discoursing the findings and deduction of IE, we will foremost analyze several

input and detecting issues in SLA field.

Input and Noticing Issues in SLA Research

Wong ( 2005 ) defines of input as “ samples of linguistic communication that scholars are exposed to in a communicative context or scene ” ( Wong, 2005:119 ) . At the same clip, VanPatten ( 2003 ) describes input as “ the linguistic communication that a scholar hears ( or reads ) that has some sort of communicative purpose ” ( VanPatten, 2003: 25 ) . It is clearly to observe that both definitions emphasise the footings of “ communicative ” . As claimed by VanPatten ( 2003 ) , scholars play communicative function to pull out the significance encoded in the meaning-bearing vocalization or sentence. Through these readings, we could come to a apprehension that L2 larning procedure engages scholars as active participants in a communicative linguistic communication schoolroom when they are exposed to L2 input.

Despite of communicative value of input, it is by and large agreed that input is prerequisite for L2 acquisition. However, there is a demand to research whether use is indispensable to intercede input into consumption. Perceivably, the differentiation between input and consumption has been drawn in SLA literature. For illustration, Sharwood Smith ( 1993 ) defines input as “ the potentially processable languageA informations which are made availableA by opportunity or by design, to the linguistic communication scholar ” whereas intake as “ that portion of input that has really been processed… and turned to knowledge of some sort ” ( pp.167 ) . This reading leads to ongoing argument about the function of consciousness and unconsciousness mechanism in larning procedure. Despite extended research, it still remains controversial as to what type of cognitive mechanism is necessary for acquisition to happen ( Svalberg, 2007: 289 ) .

First, Krashen ( 1982 ) draws a differentiation between “ larning ” and “ acquisition ” . Learning is the consequence of witting procedure whereas acquisition is the merchandise of subconscious procedure. Harmonizing to Krashen ‘s ( 1982 ) strong Input Hypothesis, acquisition takes topographic point when scholars are exposed to comprehensible input which is a measure more advanced than their current proficiency degree. This perceptual experience non merely implies that input is prerequisite for acquisition procedure, subconscious procedure besides plays superior function compared to witting procedure. In such a instance, grammar direction plays no function in L2 acquisition ( Krashen, 1982 ) .

Comprehensible Input Hypothesis has therefore provokes considerable argument in SLA sphere. Among the research workers, Schmidt ( 1990 ) , contrary to Krashen ‘s ( 1982 ) hypothesis, postulates that witting consciousness is important and necessary for L2 acquisition ( p.27 ) . Harmonizing to Schmidt ( 1995: 20 ) , merely input noticed by scholars will be mediated into consumption. In contrast, disagree with Schmidt ‘s ( 1990 ) strong Noticing Hypothesis, Tomlin & A ; Villa ( 1994 ) postulate that unconscious sensing is the cardinal procedure whereas witting consciousness merely play facilitative function in L2 acquisition.

Schmidt ( 1990 ) outlines six factors act uponing detecting when scholars process the input, including perceptual salience of input, frequence of input, direction, undertaking demands, preparedness of scholar and processing capacity of scholar. During the on-going arguments between the two places, Sharwood Smith ( 1993 ) proposes IE techniques which are linked to Schmidt ‘s Noticing Hypothesis. IE techniques emphasise on the qualities of input, viz. TE ( related to input salience ) and IF ( related to input frequence ) . Hereby, we could claim that the principle for Sharwood Smith ‘s ( 1993 ) IE is driven by Schmidt ‘s ( 1990, 1995 ) Detecting Hypothesis. That is, Detecting Hypothesis is the theoretical footing for IE.

From this point, the argument has beyond doubt shifted off from general inquiry of “ Is detecting necessary? ” to more specific inquiries of “ How noticing influence the acquisition result? ” and “ How intercession facilitate constrained grammar acquisition procedure? ” However, before we claim that IE is efficaciousness to ease L2 acquisition, we need to analyze major empirical groundss in SLA research to warrant our position on Sharwood Smith ‘s impression.

2 Empirical Evidence of IE

As mentioned before, the underpinning theoretical model for IE is Schmidt ‘s ( 1990, 1995 ) Detecting Hypothesis.A Although Noticing Hypothesis remains controversial, linguists ‘ ( e.g. Alanen, 1995 ; Lee, 2002 ; Shook, 1994 ; White, 1998 ; Wong, 2001 ) has accumulated grounds over the last decennary due to its of import function in casting visible radiation on how outstanding input can lend to the acquisition of L2 mark signifier.

In this subdivision, we will discourse the advantages and restrictions of IE by reexamining empirical SLA surveies on IF and TE. Various position of effectivity such as grade of noticing, consumption of signifiers, accurate production of signifiers and content comprehension will be examined along the treatment.

Input Flood

Empirical Evidence: Input Flood has positive effects

Lee ( 2002 ) investigated the effects of input frequence on the incidental acquisition of Spanish hereafter tense morphology. The topics were 283 university pupils with different L1 backgrounds. The frequence of mark signifier appeared in the input transitions were 6, 10 and 16 exposures. In immediate post-test, he found frequence has positive effects on the comprehension and consumption. In both immediate and delayed post-tests, 16F group outperformed 10F and 6F group significantly.A

White ( 1998 ) investigated the comparing effects of IF and TE on the acquisition of English genitive clinchers ( PD ) . 86 Gallic kids were divided into 3 intervention groups: textual enhanced input inundation ( IF-TE group ) , textual enhanced input inundation plus extended reading and hearing ( IF-TE+ group ) and input inundation without sweetening ( IF group ) . In unwritten image description undertaking, all topics experienced betterment. For the frequence of grammatical usage, IF-TE+ significantly outperformed the IF-TE and IF group. However, there is no important difference between IF-TE group and IF group.

Empirical Evidence: A Input inundation has limited effectsA

Trahey & A ; White ( 1993 ) investigated the effects of IF ( positive grounds ) on the acquisition of English adverb arrangement. Subjects were divided into 3 groups: IF group was given afloat positive grounds ; IF-EI ( A ) group received afloat positive grounds and expressed direction ; IF-EI ( Q ) group received expressed direction on inquiry formation. They found IF group and IF-EI ( A ) group performed significantly better than IF-EI ( Q ) group on utilizing right word order. However, the consequences besides revealed that IF group and IF-EI ( Q ) group used incorrect word order more than the IF-EI ( A ) group.

Williams & A ; Evans ( 1998 ) examined the effects of IF ( positive grounds ) and explicit

direction on two English mark signifiers: participial adjectives and the inactive building. The university pupils were divided into 3 groups: IF group received IF with no expressed direction ; IF-EI group received IF and expressed direction on the signifiers, regulations direction and disciplinary feedback ; and command group. For the participial adjective, both IF and IF-EI groups showed betterment. However, IF-EI group had important higher mark than IF group. This suggested that expressed direction had greater effects than IF on this signifier. For the inactive building, both IF-EI and IF groups made greater betterment than the control group. However, there was no important difference between IF-EI and IF groups. This suggested that expressed direction has no greater consequence than IF on this mark form.A

A A

Advantages of Input FloodA

A A A A A A A Firstly, Sharwood Smith ( 1993, 2006 ) claims that the chief intent of IE is to implement noticing. Studies show that IF increases scholars ‘ attending on mark signifiers without any expressed counsel. This incidental-driven technique provides lingual stuffs that are indispensable for larning job solution ( Doughty & A ; William, 1998: 236 ) .A This statement is validated by Lee ‘s ( 2002 ) and White ‘s ( 1998 ) survey. The findings supports the basic thought of IF that the more examples in a inundation the better.

Second, IF enhances content comprehension. The major advantage of IF is that it provides a batch of meaning-bearing input ( Wong 2005: 42 ) . With the handiness of meaning-bearing input, scholars are provided chances to capture the significance embedded in words, sentence structure or morphology. In both immediate and delayed post-test, Lee ( 2002 ) found that input frequence has important positive effects on the comprehension. Thus it could be noticed that through theA exemplar-basedA and inexplicit acquisition method, scholars could execute form-meaning connexion and manage to perforate the significance of the message.A

Third, IF fosters the consumption of the mark signifier. Lee ‘s ( 2002 ) survey reported 16F group outperformed 10F and 6F group significantly in post-test. For callback undertaking, 16F and 10F groups performed significantly better than 6F group. Consequences of unwritten image description undertaking in White ‘s ( 1998 ) survey besides revealed that all topics experienced betterment in the usage of English PD.A However, there was no important difference between IF-TE group and IF group, bespeaking that IF entirely was sufficient to convey betterment whereas TE played no important function on the right usage of the mark signifier.

A A Limitation of Input FloodA

A A A A A A First of all, surveies reported that IF is a volatile technique. Findingss from Williams & A ; Evans ( 1998 ) survey suggested that signifiers did non behaviour uniformly in IF technique. Different signifier types can weaken or beef up the consequence of IF through their common interaction, every bit good as the interaction with other variables such as undertaking demand, single differences, content complexness, and matter-of-fact information in the context ( Han, Park & A ; Combs, 2008 ) .A A Thus farther probe on how to extinguish or cut down the consequence of the variables when utilizing IF is worthwhile.

A A A A A A Secondly, IF does non supply negative grounds. Trahey & A ; White ‘s ( 1993 ) survey revealed the restriction of IF that the inundation was non effectual in assisting scholars to be cognizant of impossible places or wrong grammar ( Wong, 2005 ) and expressed direction such as negative grounds might be necessary.A A

This state of affairs was besides demonstrated in White ( 1998 ) survey, as topics ‘ frequence usage of English PD was increased by TE, but both IF and TE did non hold aid scholars to utilize the grammatical signifier right. That is, no important difference was found for the truth ratio between IF group, IF-TE group and IF-TE plus extended reading and listening group. However, when mensurating the frequence of grammatical usage, IF-TE plus extended reading and listening group significantly outperformed the IF-TE and IF group. These findings suggest that comprehendible input might be more effectual than IE in the acquisition of English PD understanding regulations. Again, this issue still remains controversial and is deserving farther probe as Krashen ‘s Comprehensible Input Hypothesis is refuted by largely SLA research workers.

However, this phenomenon might be explained by the statement that comprehension precedes productionA ( Lightbown et al, 2002 ; Krashen, 1982 ) . Wong ( 2005: 94 ) cautiousnesss that acquisition is slow and complex hence we could non anticipate scholars to utilize mark signifier right instantly after IE intervention.

A A A A A A Thirdly, Input Flood is an implicit technique where no attempt is done to direct scholars to the embedded signifiers in the input ( Wong, 2005 ) . White ‘s ( 1998 ) survey reported that a 3rd of scholars were confused about the intent of the textual sweetening. The textually enhanced input failed to assist the scholars to calculate out the English PD understanding regulation.

As seen from empirical grounds, IF is an easy-to-use technique. It could be modified and incorporated easy in the schoolrooms to stress specific mark signifier ( Cowan, 2008 ) . However, IF imposes some restrictions on linguistic communication learning teaching method which is non every bit effectual as other focus-on-form activities. The treatment of how to use this technique in linguistic communication instruction will be demonstrated in following subdivision of this essay.

Textual Enhancement

A Like IF, SLA surveies on TE besides report assorted consequences. Researchers found that TE has positive effects, has partial effects, and has no consequence on L2 acquisition of grammatical characteristics. While Leow ( 2001 ) and Leow at Al. ( 2003 ) have merely manipulated the input by TE as an independent variable, the other surveies investigated effects of TE in the combination with other intercession.

A

Empirical Evidence: A Textual sweetening has positive effectsA A

Surveies conducted by Jourdenais et Al. ( 1995 ) , Shook ( 1994 ) , A Wong ( 2001 ) revealed that TE had non merely helps scholars to detect the mark signifiers in input, but it is besides really effectual for heightening scholars ‘ intake new grammatical forms.A

A A A A A A Shook ( 1994 ) investigated the effects of TE on Spanish present perfect tense and comparative pronouns ( quen/quein ) .A The topics were 125 university pupils. The consequences revealed that the two experimental groups who received the transitions with TE performed significantly better than the control group in all trials. However, there was no important difference between TE group and TE plus concentrate on signifier group, uncovering thatA focal point on formA information played no function in L2 acquisition.

A A A A A A Jourdenais et Al. ‘s ( 1995 ) investigated the effects of TE on the acquisition of Spanish preterite and imperfect yesteryear tense signifiers. Both enhanced and unenhanced versions came with images picturing the events of the narrative. Think-aloud protocols and a picture-based written narrative undertaking were used to roll up data.A Results indicated that TE increased noticing of mark L2 signifier and had a important positive consequence on scholars ‘ output.A

A A A A A A

Empirical Evidence: A Textual sweetening has limited effectsA

A A A A A A Alanen ( 1995 ) examined the effects of TE and expressed information on the acquisition of semi-artificial Finnish locative postfixs and harmonic alterations. 36 English topics were divided into 4 groups: unenhanced transitions ( UE group ) , unenhanced transitions plus expressed information ( UE-EI group ) , enhanced transitions ( TE group ) and enhanced transitions plus expressed information ( TE-EI group ) .A On the sentence completion trial, TE group performed better than UE group. However, Alanen ( 1995 ) found that both EI groups performed significantly better than non-EI groups on both mark signifiers. The consequence, contradict with Shook ‘s ( 1994 ) survey, indicated that expressed grammar direction had greater positive impact than TE.

A A A A A A Results from White ‘s ( 1998 ) survey, discussed in the old subdivision of IF, revealed that TE increased the grammatical usage of genitive clinchers. However, its impact was non every bit important as IF which brought greater betterment. White ( 1998 ) concluded that “ benefits ensuing from the experimental intervention conditions were due to increased exposure through IF of mark signifiers and non to any other sorts of sweetening ” ( White, 1998: 103 ) .A This claim means IF is the lone effectual tool to heighten L2 acquisition in her survey is.

A A A A A Izumi ( 2002 ) investigated the comparative effects of TE and end product on the acquisition of English comparative clause. Subjects were 61 grownups with different L1 backgrounds. Explicit information was given to the topics to go to to the highlighted signifier. The consequences found that output-input undertaking brought mensurable additions in mark signifier acquisition. Those who received TE intervention failed to demo important additions in acquisition.

Wong ( 2001 ) examined the effects of TE, simplified input and exposure to reading on the acquisition of Gallic gender understanding of past participials. 81 English university scholars were severally exposed to four conditions: enhanced and simplified transitions ( TE-S group ) , enhanced and unsimplified transitions ( TE-US group ) , unenhanced and simplified transitions ( UE-S group ) , and unenhanced and unsimplified transitions ( UE-US group ) . It is found that TE and simplification had no important effects on the consumption of the mark signifiers. However, TE had important positive effects on the content comprehension.A

A A Empirical Evidence: A Textual Enhancement has no ( or negative ) effectsA

A A A A A A In Leow ‘s ( 1997 ) study the effects of textual length and TE were examined. 84 college scholars were divided into 4 groups and were consequently given an unenhanced long transition, an unenhanced short transition, an enhanced long transition and an enhanced short transition. Consequences revealed that TE has no effects on either comprehension or consumption of the targeted signifier. Shorter text length improved comprehension but non the intake.A A

A A A A A A Overstreet ( 1998 ) replicated Jourdenais et Al. ‘s ( 1995 ) survey and found negative effects of TE. He combined two factors, viz. TE ( bolded, underlined, increased font size, different fount types and shadowed ) and topic acquaintance on the acquisition of Spanish preterite and imperfect yesteryear tense signifiers. 50 university scholars were given one narrative each, either enhanced or unenhanced. Neither factor significantly affected scholars ‘ consumption. Furthermore, Overstreet ( 1998 ) found that TE negatively affected comprehension, chiefly due to legion types of sweetenings ( Lee & A ; Benati, 2007: 25 ) .A

A A A A A A Leow ( 2001 ) , after a few old ages of his survey in 1997, conducted another survey to look into consequence of TE on the acquisition and comprehension of Spanish formal jussive mood. He did non use other innovation but merely TE in this survey. The consequences one time once more revealed TE has no effects on consumption and comprehension.A

A A A A A A Leow et Al. ( 2003 ) examined the effects of TE on the acquisition of Spanish present perfect tense and present subjunctive temper. 72 university scholars were divided into two groups. One group was given 2 enhanced transitions and another group was given 2 unenhanced transitions. Consequences showed that although topics noticed the mark signifiers when reading, TE did non heighten the consumption of the mark forms.A

A A A A A A S.Lee ( 2007 ) , similar to Overstreet ‘s ( 1998 ) survey, examined the effects of TE ( A±TE ) and topic acquaintance ( A±F ) on English inactive building. 259 Korean topics were divided to 4 groups: +E/+F group, -E/-F group, -E/+F group and +E/a?’F group. The consequences revealed that TE was good for the consumption of mark signifier, but interestingly, negatively affected the comprehension.A

Advantages and Restrictions of TEA

A A A A A Some of above surveies demonstrated that TE has important impact on SLA, either in positive or negative ways.

A First of all, TE increases detecting. This technique offers more outstanding mark signifier in written input that scholars may easy lose ( Wong, 2005: 49 ) .A Jourdenais et Al. ( 1995 ) stated that “ typographical alteration can be used as an effectual technique for heightening saliency of linguistic communication characteristics ” ( Jourdenais et al. , 1995: 208 ) .A As grounds, both Leow et Al. ( 2003 ) and Jourdenais et Al. ( 1995 ) used think aloud protocols and reported that topics noticed the typographically enhanced mark signifiers when reading.

Second, TE is effectual to heighten consumption of signifiers. For illustration, Alanen ( 1995 ) ‘s survey reported thatA TE group performed better than UE group in sentence completion trial. This indicates the positive function of TE on the acquisition of L2 grammar. Jourdenais et Al. ( 1995 ) besides reported that TE had a important consequence on scholars ‘ output.A

By contrast, TE failed to show positive impact on scholars ‘ comprehension and consumption in Leow ‘s ( 1997, 2001 ) and Overstreet ‘s ( 1998 ) surveies. These surveies demonstrated that “ inexplicit noticing ” is non every bit effectual as “ expressed direction ” and that, “ clearly, scholars needed more aid than the input provided ” ( White, 1998: 102 ) .

Besides, although topics in both Leow et Al. ‘s ( 2003 ) and Jourdenais et Al. ‘s ( 1995 ) surveies noticed the enhanced mark signifiers, they performed otherwise in production. Jourdenais et Al. ( 1995 ) found positive consequence of TE on the consumption of the mark signifiers whereas Leow et Al. ( 2003 ) reported that TE did non heighten the consumption of the mark forms.A

In add-on, Izumi ( 2002 ) found that topics who received TE intervention failed to demo important additions in acquisition, despite the positive impact on the noticing of the mark signifier. More interestingly, end product played important function in his survey.

These findings are contradicted to Ellis ( 1997 ) claim that TE is effectual to bring on scholars “ to set about a sort of signifier map analysis of the construction, as this is exemplified in input that has been specially contrived to exemplify it ” ( Ellis, 1997: 87 ) . Therefore Polio ( 2007 ) states that Sharwood Smith ‘s focal point was “ what had been done to the input ” , instead than “ what happened in scholar ‘s head ” ( Polio, 2007, cited in Gass & A ; Selinker, 2008: 388 ) .

However, this impression is inaccurate that Sharwood Smith ( 1991, 1993 ) has alerted that we should non trust entirely on TE to increase scholars ‘ attending. Noticing triggered unnaturally by TE might non ensue in consumption. “ Although scholars may detect the signals, the input may however be non-salient to their acquisition mechanism ” ( Sharwood Smith, 1991: 21 ) . As Ellis ( 1997 ) describes the usage of TE focuses scholars ‘ attending on specific lingual characteristics and assists them to encode the significance embedded in the characteristics, it is suggested here that TE should be integrated with other intercessions for better consequence.

Third, TE enhances comprehension. In Wong ( 2001 ) ‘s survey, TE had important positive effects on the content comprehension, viz. it enhanced the callback of the thought units that corresponded to the mark forms.A

However, grounds from Overstreet ‘s ( 1998 ) and S.Lee ‘s ( 2007 ) surveies suggested TE distracted scholars ‘ attending from intending. The consequences indicated that TE has negatively affected scholars ‘ comprehension on the content of the passages.A In malice of increasing grounds proposing that TE can advance noticing of certain lingual characteristics, it remains a affair a argument whether or non it has at the same time created a tradeoff between consumption and comprehension ( Han, Park & A ; Combs, 2008 ) .

Besides, Simard ( 2009 ) cautioned that choice and combination of different typographical cues lead to different impacts on the consumptions. His survey reported that the usage of capital letters and a combination of 3 typographical cues promote the consumption of the signifiers. Overstreet ‘s ( 1998 ) usage of legion types of typographical cues might take to distraction and confusion therefore did non heighten the acquisition. Therefore, in order to guarantee the quality of instructional stuff, linguistic communication instructors should choose cues carefully.

A A A A A A Fourth, TE is a volatile and mutable technique. In other words, external variables may impact the effectivity of TE. For illustration, with no anterior cognition about the mark signifiers, the technique is non good to scholars ( e.g. Leow, 1997, 2001 ; Leow et Al. 2003 ) . Alanen ‘s ( 1995 ) survey besides reported that TE had different effects on different mark grammatical forms.A

Age and pubescence are other factors that might extenuate the effects of TE. In White ‘s ( 1998 ) survey, the kids who are still developing their L2 may hold encountered a cognitive overload job ( Doughty & A ; William, 1998 ) and hence constrained the acquisition process.A

Clearly, conflicting consequences on the impact of IE on acquisition, whether positive, limited or negative, are noticeable from old surveies. Several inquiries emerged later from the reappraisal: are these assorted consequences attributed to different methodological designs that provide scholars different grade of input quality and measure? Or is it due to different grammatical signifiers targeted in different surveies? If so, does this mean that different mark signifiers are vulnerable variable that correspond to IE techniques in different ways? These penetrations are meaningful and of import for the deduction of IE in linguistic communication teaching method and will be discussed in following subdivision.

3 Pedagogical Deductions

Presents it is common for linguistic communication instructors to utilize IE techniques to heighten specific characteristics of L2 in order to pull scholars ‘ attending to aim lingual facets. Although IE does non supply full and consistent image to SLA teaching method, it offers valuable information on how to intentionally pull scholars ‘ attending to aim signifiers.

As shown, uncertainnesss still exist on the facilitative function of IF and TE in SLA research. The argument on Noticing Hypothesis still remains unfastened while old surveies failed to demo conclusive and consistent consequences on IE effectivity. However, fortuitously, the field has moved from the argument on the necessity of witting detecting to the assorted consequences of IE efficaciousness. That is, the theoretical development has now provided a clearer window to take a glance and connote IE techniques more efficaciously to linguistic communication teaching method with underpinning SLA issues.

In contrast with UG, IE is a sub-field of cognitive theoretical accounts which emphasis on how scholars process and decode the input. It should be borne in head that detecting triggered unnaturally by IE might non ensue in consumption. This implies that one can non be assured if the enhanced input will go comprehendible and that the effects of IE vary from instance to instance.

In footings of Input Hypothesis ( Krashen, 1982 ) , we argues that input play functions in L2 acquisition with the AIDSs of detecting. As stated by Wong ( 2005 ) , one time mark signifier is noticed, scholars need to do form-meaning connexion to encode underlies lingual regulations right ( p.90-91 ) . This impression is in line with VanPatten ‘s ( 1996, 2003 ) input treating theory where “ intake ” is equalised to “ form-meaning connexion ” . Thus IE and other focal point on signifiers undertakings such as treating direction ( VanPatten, 1996, 2003 ) and consciousness-raising undertakings might be combined in linguistic communication instruction for better consequences.

A

Besides, it is reckoned that end product undertakings might be integrated into SLA direction when using IE construct. Long ( 1996 ) distinguishes two types of input: positive grounds and negative grounds. In coherency with Long ‘s impression, Sharwood Smith ( 1993 ) proposed both positive and negative IE techniques. IE and TE are positive IE whereas negative IE is fundamentally feedback or negative grounds.

When there is a spread between scholars ‘ perceptual experience of L2 grammar and grounds in the input, so positive grounds ( input ) may trip to alter the grammar ( Sharwood Smith, 1991: 122-123 ) . On the other manus, when scholars are being confronted with their ain production ( end product ) , negative IE signals that given signifiers are wrong, therefore warns scholars that they have violated the grammatical regulations ( Sharwood Smith, 1993: 177 ) . This impression implies that IE attack non merely adopts Schmidt ‘s Noticing Hypothesis as major foundation, but has besides implies Long ‘s Interaction Hypothesis every bit good as Swain ‘s ( 1995 ) Output Hypothesis. Apparently, Sharwood Smith proposal of negative grounds has been by and large neglected by SLA research workers. Therefore, it would be good if linguistic communication instructors reckon that input ( positive grounds ) and end product ( negative grounds ) are both of import to advance acquisition with the assistance of noticing.

Particularly, Ellis ( 1997: 109 ) asserts that comprehendible input is derived from both input and interactive ( end product ) alterations makes specific lingual characteristics more outstanding and facilitates the development of L2. Negotiate for significance is therefore good to advance acquisition. It directs scholars ‘ attending to concentrate on the signifier that ab initio caused understanding jobs and besides helps scholars to modify their lingua franca production whenever the spread is being identified ( Long, 1983 ; Pica, 1992 ) .

Similarly, Wong ( 2005 ) suggested that input should non be one-way direction, viz. merely giving input to L2 scholars. Learners may be instructed to react to the input through activities such as quiz, replying inquiries, narrative reconstructing, pulling based on unwritten waies and games. Hereby, “ interaction ” has been stressed in order to do the IF more meaningful to the learners.A

As pointed out by Wong ( 2005: 46, 60-61 ) , teachers must ever maintain intending communicating as primary end of linguistic communication in efforts of heightening the input. Attending to both significance and signifier is of import to do form-meaning connexions possible. By this manner, respond to the input is a important compartment for linguistic communication acquisition. This penetration is compatible to Ellis ‘ ( 1997 ) claim that input-based reading grammar direction mediates input into consumption.

Consequently, Lee & A ; VanPatten ‘s ( 1995: 51 ) proposal to utilize scholars and schoolroom scene for linguistic communication instruction could be combined with IE in a communicative linguistic communication schoolroom.

Teachers might incorporate grammar learning into reliable context. For illustration, input could be presented to scholars through IF visually and verbally in a natural schoolroom scene. It will be good if simple scenarios could be constructed. In add-on, name of scholars could be addressed in the sentence to advance farther noticing, such as below:

cZ›eZ‰?SSe-?a…?a?Saˆ‚

Mary BA door close up.

a¤§a?«?SSez‹a­?c©?a?Saˆ‚

David BA places put on.

c?¦c?°?SS?¤…a­??‹?a?ˆaˆ‚

John BA chair travel off.

From such verbal illustrations, scholars will accordingly aware that teacher uses mandarin building BA in every sentence.

After that, teachers could compose the sentence on the chalkboard for ocular input inundation to farther increase the consciousness of the grammatical characteristic among scholars. Differenct colors could be use on BA ( ?SS ) words to do the signifier even more outstanding. When scholars are being exposed to the grammar building of course and genuinely, it is peculiar good as tense could be removed along larning procedure.

Refering the “ respond to input ” ( Wong, 2005 ) , TRP is peculiarly a good illustration of reading undertaking. Asher ‘s ( 1977, cited in Ellis, 1997: 150 ) surveies reveals that TRP enhances comprehension and production every bit good as promotes continuity and motive in linguistic communication acquisition. In this context, IE could be integrated with communicative linguistic communication learning attack by prosecuting scholars as “ histrions ” and “ audience ” to supply contextualised input. As stated by Lee & A ; VanPatten ( 1995: 51 ) , scholars ‘ engagement additions attending and injects personalised elements in the schoolroom as scholars play active functions alternatively of inactive function in their acquisition procedure. When scholars get grammar signifier in a merriment and insouciant acquisition environment, affectional barriers among scholars may be minimized or even be eliminated and therefore increases the opportunity of detecting.

4. Decision

It is argued that comprehendible input entirely is deficient for acquisition. Therefore focal point on signifier is necessary for the acquisition of L2 grammatical characteristics. The findings in SLA about IE are assorted and sophisticated. Restriction of implicit and volatile IE techniques on the comprehension and consumption are noticeable. However, it has led to better apprehension of the relationship between linguistic communication acquisition and teaching method. Specifically, IE surveies have addressed cardinal issues in SLA such as the function of end product, negative grounds and expressed direction for farther probe.

As pointed out by Ellis ( 1997: 104 ) , it is important that a SLA theory to be perceptive to pedagogical consequences. Krashen ‘s ( 1982 ) Comprehensible Input Hypothesis has proposed a utile teaching method on linguistic communication instruction but he has failed to re-evaluate his hypothesis. In such instance, the cogency of this hypothesis remains controversial at the present clip.

From the position of linguistic communication teaching method deduction, it is of import to bear in head that SLA theories and hypothesis such as Input Enhancement should be reformulated from clip to clip harmonizing to important findings in SLA field every bit good as teaching method issues. Therefore, this essay has demonstrated how to integrate IE into linguistic communication learning with the AIDSs of other hypothesis such as Input Processing, Output Hypothesis and Interaction Hypothesis. It is believed that integrating of these hypotheses provide a principle for IE pedagogic pattern.

Last but non least, although the cardinal ingredient of IE is input, end product can be helpful to stimulus acquisition procedure. As shown, IE can be a utile teaching method tool to heighten noticing of scholars with careful design.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *