The noticing hypothesis is a theory within second-language acquisition that a learner cannot continue advancing their language abilities or grasp linguistic features unless they consciously notice the input. The theory was proposed by Richard Schmidt in 1990. [1]
The noticing hypothesis explains the change from linguistic input into intake and is considered a form of conscious processing. It is exclusive from attention and understanding, and has been criticized within the field of psychology and second language acquisition. Schmidt and Frota studied noticing in Schmidt as a Portuguese language learner and collected their findings through diary study and audio recordings. The hypothesis was modified in 1994 in light of criticism.
Schmidt posited that a learner cannot continue advancing their language abilities or grasp linguistic features unless they are consciously processing the input, and that what the learner actually notices is called "intake". [1] This definition differs from that of Krashen's input hypothesis in which intake is similar to comprehensible input, and that of Chaudron which separates intake into preliminary intake and final intake. [1] Therefore in order for the language someone is hearing to become salient and sent to long term memory where it can be used naturally, the learner must first actively be aware of aspects of language being presented to them.
Other terms that fall under the concept of conscious processing that was put forth by previous researchers include attention, short-term memory, control vs. automatic processing, and serial vs. parallel processing, but these topics were not unified under a single concept until Schmidt. [1] [ non-primary source needed ] Schmidt argued that noticing is not a replacement or a synonym for attention or any other term previously existing, but rather its own function in second language acquisition.
Susan Gass put forth a suggestion of a second noticing process. In this case, learners notice the gaps between their knowledge of the second language and that of what a native speaker would say. [2]
"Noticing" differs from "understanding" in that the former refers to a finite moment where an aspect of language is understood and added to long term memory, rather than a general knowledge. [3]
Schmidt's hypothesis stemmed from his own experiences within learning Portuguese in Brazil. In which he attended a five week course in the language, speaking to native speakers as supplement. [1] Through working with Sylvia Frota and conducting monthly conversation recordings, they found that although explicit teaching of forms did not always become intake, linguistic features that he had been previously exposed to did not become apparent until they had been directly pointed out to him. Only after noticing something did Schmidt begin to use it. [1] While noticing and the emergence of language appeared to be connected, Schmidt also noted that he repeated things that the other speaker said only in that conversation, but it did not become intake, nor did he use it in future conversations. [1]
Tracking the noticing process was first done through journal entries and recordings in Schmidt and Frota's 1986 study, in which a linguistic form was noticed and used more than once but not written down. [1] Due to inconsistencies of memory, the main support for the noticing hypothesis comes from controlled environments. According to Cherry (1953)[ full citation needed ] and Kahneman and Treisman (1984)[ full citation needed ] in an auditory shadowing study, subjects could concentrate on one auditory input but not two simultaneously. The input that was not focused on could only be recalled from the short-term memory if the input had stopped immediately before the task of recalling was asked. [1] Therefore, Schmidt posits that input needs to be focused on explicitly to make it into the long-term memory. [1]
Four years after the original hypothesis was delivered, Schmidt updated it. He stated that noticing is helpful but is not required to learn different linguistic features of a language. He proposed that being able to notice more, lead to more learning. However, it is not necessary for all learners to notice. [4]
The noticing hypothesis has received criticism from John Truscott, on two grounds. First, he argued that the basis for the noticing hypothesis in cognitive psychology is unclear. Second, he argued that there is even less certainty over how to interpret the noticing hypothesis in the field of language acquisition. Because Schmidt's hypothesis does not specifically target the grammar of natural language, the noticing hypothesis is too vague. [5] Truscott argues that the noticing hypothesis should be limited to describing metalinguistic knowledge and not overall language competence. [5]
Tomlin and Villa (1994)[ full citation needed ] argued that the use of diary studies was not an appropriate choice of material for this research as the actual instance of noticing is a short time frame compared to what the diary can encompass, but overall agreed with the idea that attention must exist for learning to take place. Meanwhile, Gass (1997) proposed that not all learning requires input, and Schlachter states that certain aspects of language do not require noticing while others do. [3] Caroll (2006)[ full citation needed ] argued that input in the environment does not contain the information needed to acquire a language and therefore invalidates the noticing hypothesis.
Nick Ellis also found that Schmidt's hypothesis misconstrued the processes of implicit learning. Ellis stated that noticing occurs only with new linguistic features that the learner encounters in which they may find to be difficult. [6]
There is debate over whether learners must consciously notice something, or whether the noticing can be subconscious to some degree. [7]
There exists little research regarding concepts such as cognitive style, depth of processing, self-regulation, and executive attention in the scope of the noticing hypothesis. [3]
A heritage language is a minority language learned by its speakers at home as children, but never fully developed because of insufficient input from the social environment. The speakers grow up with a different dominant language in which they become more competent. Polinsky and Kagan label it as a continuum that ranges from fluent speakers to barely-speaking individuals of the home language. In some countries or cultures in which they determine one's mother tongue by the ethnic group, a heritage language would be linked to the native language.
Second-language acquisition (SLA), sometimes called second-language learning — otherwise referred to as L2acquisition, is the process by which people learn a second language. Second-language acquisition is also the scientific discipline devoted to studying that process. The field of second-language acquisition is a sub-discipline of applied linguistics but also receives research attention from a variety of other disciplines, such as psychology and education.
The generative approach to second language (L2) acquisition (SLA) is a cognitive based theory of SLA that applies theoretical insights developed from within generative linguistics to investigate how second languages and dialects are acquired and lost by individuals learning naturalistically or with formal instruction in foreign, second language and lingua franca settings. Central to generative linguistics is the concept of Universal Grammar (UG), a part of an innate, biologically endowed language faculty which refers to knowledge alleged to be common to all human languages. UG includes both invariant principles as well as parameters that allow for variation which place limitations on the form and operations of grammar. Subsequently, research within the Generative Second-Language Acquisition (GenSLA) tradition describes and explains SLA by probing the interplay between Universal Grammar, knowledge of one's native language and input from the target language. Research is conducted in syntax, phonology, morphology, phonetics, semantics, and has some relevant applications to pragmatics.
The critical period hypothesis is the subject of a long-standing debate in linguistics and language acquisition over the extent to which the ability to acquire language is biologically linked to age. The hypothesis claims that there is an ideal time window to acquire language in a linguistically rich environment, after which further language acquisition becomes much more difficult and effortful. The critical period hypothesis was first proposed by Montreal neurologist Wilder Penfield and co-author Lamar Roberts in their 1959 book Speech and Brain Mechanisms, and was popularized by Eric Lenneberg in 1967 with Biological Foundations of Language.
Input enhancement (IE) is a concept in second language acquisition. Mike Sharwood Smith coined the term to cover techniques used by researchers to make salient selected features of a language for students such as word order, parts of words that express tense, agreement and number for example, accents, idioms and slang. These techniques aim to draw attention to aspects of a language that have hitherto seemed to have made insufficient impact on the learner. This need not necessarily involve making learners consciously aware of the researcher's or teacher's intentions. Although IE was conceived of as a research tool, the term can also be used to describe techniques deliberately or instinctively used in language teaching and also in the way parents talk to their children as also the way people alter their speech when talking to non-native speakers who seem to have difficulty in communicating. IE may figure as a deliberate strategy in teaching methods but it has always been present implicitly in standard teaching practice.
In the field of second language acquisition, there are many theories about the most effective way for language learners to acquire new language forms. One theory of language acquisition is the comprehensible output hypothesis.
The input hypothesis, also known as the monitor model, is a group of five hypotheses of second-language acquisition developed by the linguist Stephen Krashen in the 1970s and 1980s. Krashen originally formulated the input hypothesis as just one of the five hypotheses, but over time the term has come to refer to the five hypotheses as a group. The hypotheses are the input hypothesis, the acquisition–learning hypothesis, the monitor hypothesis, the natural order hypothesis and the affective filter hypothesis. The input hypothesis was first published in 1977.
Bill VanPatten is a former Professor of Spanish and Second Language Acquisition at Michigan State University. He specializes in second language acquisition, which he investigates on both theoretical and practical levels, using techniques from psycholinguistics, applied linguistics, and cognitive psychology.
The order of acquisition is a concept in language acquisition describing the specific order in which all language learners acquire the grammatical features of their first language. This concept is based on the observation that all children acquire their first language in a fixed, universal order, regardless of the specific grammatical structure of the language they learn. Linguistic research has largely confirmed that this phenomenon is true for first-language learners; order of acquisition for second-language learners is much less consistent. It is not clear why the order differs for second-language learners, though current research suggests this variability may stem from first-language interference or general cognitive interference from nonlinguistic mental faculties.
The main purpose of theories of second-language acquisition (SLA) is to shed light on how people who already know one language learn a second language. The field of second-language acquisition involves various contributions, such as linguistics, sociolinguistics, psychology, cognitive science, neuroscience, and education. These multiple fields in second-language acquisition can be grouped as four major research strands: (a) linguistic dimensions of SLA, (b) cognitive dimensions of SLA, (c) socio-cultural dimensions of SLA, and (d) instructional dimensions of SLA. While the orientation of each research strand is distinct, they are in common in that they can guide us to find helpful condition to facilitate successful language learning. Acknowledging the contributions of each perspective and the interdisciplinarity between each field, more and more second language researchers are now trying to have a bigger lens on examining the complexities of second language acquisition.
Focus on form (FonF) is an approach to language education in which learners are made aware of the grammatical form of language features that they are already able to use communicatively. It is contrasted with focus on forms, which is limited solely to the explicit focus on language features, and focus on meaning, which is limited to focus on meaning with no attention paid to form at all. For a teaching intervention to qualify as focus on form and not as focus on forms, the learner must be aware of the meaning and use of the language features before the form is brought to their attention. Focus on form was proposed by Michael Long in 1988.
The Interaction hypothesis is a theory of second-language acquisition which states that the development of language proficiency is promoted by face-to-face interaction and communication. Its main focus is on the role of input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. It posits that the level of language that a learner is exposed to must be such that the learner is able to comprehend it, and that a learner modifying their speech so as to make it comprehensible facilitates their ability to acquire the language in question. The idea existed in the 1980s, and has been reviewed and expanded upon by a number of other scholars but is usually credited to Michael Long.
Language learning strategies is a term referring to the processes and actions that are consciously deployed by language learners to help them to learn or use a language more effectively. They have also been defined as ‘thoughts and actions, consciously chosen and operationalized by language learners, to assist them in carrying out a multiplicity of tasks from the very outset of learning to the most advanced levels of target language performance’. The term language learner strategies, which incorporates strategies used for language learning and language use, is sometimes used, although the line between the two is ill-defined as moments of second language use can also provide opportunities for learning.
The interface position is a concept in second language acquisition that describes the various possible theoretical relationships between implicit and explicit knowledge in the mind of a second language learner. Tacit knowledge is language knowledge that learners possess intuitively but are not able to put into words; explicit knowledge is language knowledge that learners possess and are also able to verbalize. For example, native speakers of Spanish intuitively know how to conjugate verbs, but may be unable to articulate how these grammatical rules work. Conversely, a non-native student of Spanish may be able to explain how Spanish verbs are conjugated, but may not yet be able to use these verbs in naturalistic, fluent speech. The nature of the relationship between these two types of knowledge in second language learners has received considerable attention in second language acquisition research.
In the course of learning a second language, learners will frequently encounter communication problems caused by a lack of linguistic resources. Communication strategies are strategies that learners use to overcome these problems in order to convey their intended meaning. Strategies used may include paraphrasing, substitution, coining new words, switching to the first language, and asking for clarification. These strategies, with the exception of switching languages, are also used by native speakers.
The natural approach is a method of language teaching developed by Stephen Krashen and Tracy Terrell in the late 1970s and early 1980s. It aims to foster naturalistic language acquisition in a classroom setting, and to this end it emphasises communication, and places decreased importance on conscious grammar study and explicit correction of student errors. Efforts are also made to make the learning environment as stress-free as possible. In the natural approach, language output is not forced, but allowed to emerge spontaneously after students have attended to large amounts of comprehensible language input.
The following outline is provided as an overview of and topical guide to second-language acquisition:
Alison Mackey is a Kenneth W. Mildenberger Prize-winning linguist who specializes in applied linguistics, second language acquisition and research methodology. She is currently a professor in the Department of Linguistics at Georgetown University. Her research focuses on applied linguistics and research methods.
The Teachability Hypothesis was produced by Manfred Pienemann. It was originally extracted from Pienemann’s Processibility model. It proposes that learners will acquire a second language (L2) features if what is being taught is relatively close to their stage in language development.
The Input Processing theory, put forth by Bill VanPatten in 1993, describes the process of strategies and mechanisms that learners use to link linguistic form with its meaning or function. Input Processing is a theory in second language acquisition that focuses on how learners process linguistic data in spoken or written language.