L2 Learning, Teaching and Assessment: A Comprehensible Input Perspective 9781783096343

Citation preview

L2 Learning, Teaching and Assessment

SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION Series Editors: Professor David Singleton, University of Pannonia, Hungary and Fellow Emeritus, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland and Dr Simone E. Pfenninger, University of Zurich, Switzerland This series brings together titles dealing with a variety of aspects of language acquisition and processing in situations where a language or languages other than the native language is involved. Second language is thus interpreted in its broadest possible sense. The volumes included in the series all offer in their different ways, on the one hand, exposition and discussion of empirical findings and, on the other, some degree of theoretical reflection. In this latter connection, no particular theoretical stance is privileged in the series; nor is any relevant perspective – sociolinguistic, psycholinguistic, neurolinguistic, etc. – deemed out of place. The intended readership of the series includes final-year undergraduates working on second language acquisition projects, postgraduate students involved in second language acquisition research, and researchers, teachers and policy-makers in general whose interests include a second language acquisition component. Full details of all the books in this series and of all our other publications can be found on http://www.multilingual-matters.com, or by writing to Multilingual Matters, St Nicholas House, 31-34 High Street, Bristol BS1 2AW, UK.

SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION: 104

L2 Learning, Teaching and Assessment A Comprehensible Input Perspective

Nihat Polat

MULTILINGUAL MATTERS Bristol • Buffalo • Toronto

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. Names: Polat, Nihat, author. Title: L2 Learning, Teaching and Assessment: A Comprehensible Input Perspective/Nihat Polat. Description: Bristol; Buffalo: Multilingual Matters, [2016] | Series: Second Language Acquisition: 104 | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2016022311| ISBN 9781783096336 (hbk : alk. paper) | ISBN 9781783096350 (epub) | ISBN 9781783096367 (kindle) Subjects: LCSH: Language and languages--Study and teaching--Research. | Language and languages--Ability testing--Research. | Language acquisition--Research. | Interlanguage (Language learning)--Research. | Second language acquisition--Research. Classification: LCC P53.755 .P57 2016 | DDC 418.0071--dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016022311 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue entry for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN-13: 978-1-78309-633-6 (hbk) Multilingual Matters UK: St Nicholas House, 31-34 High Street, Bristol BS1 2AW, UK. USA: UTP, 2250 Military Road, Tonawanda, NY 14150, USA. Canada: UTP, 5201 Dufferin Street, North York, Ontario M3H 5T8, Canada. Website: www.multilingual-matters.com Twitter: Multi_Ling_Mat Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/multilingualmatters Blog: www.channelviewpublications.wordpress.com Copyright © 2016 Nihat Polat. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced in any form or by any means without permission in writing from the publisher. The policy of Multilingual Matters/Channel View Publications is to use papers that are natural, renewable and recyclable products, made from wood grown in sustainable forests. In the manufacturing process of our books, and to further support our policy, preference is given to printers that have FSC and PEFC Chain of Custody certification. The FSC and/or PEFC logos will appear on those books where full certification has been granted to the printer concerned. Typeset by Deanta Global Publishing Services Limited. Printed and bound in the UK by the CPI Books Group Ltd. Printed and bound in the US by Edwards Brothers Malloy, Inc.

Contents

Acknowledgments Introduction

xi xiii

Part 1: Encountering Comprehensible Input: Conceptual Foundation

1

1

Comprehensible Input Defined Comprehensible Input What is Input? Comprehensibility of Input Nature of Comprehensible Input Linguistic elements Cultural elements Semiotic elements Stylistic elements Input Versus Output Encountering Comprehensible Input Chapter Summary

3 3 4 6 8 9 11 12 14 15 16 19

2

Theoretical Foundation of Input and Comprehensibility Laying the Groundwork: Origins and Historical Antecedents Theories of Processability and Comprehensibility of Input Cognitive load theory Automaticity theory Schema theory Dual-coding theory Multimodality theory Constructivist theory Sociocultural theory

20 20 21 21 23 24 26 27 29 30

v

vi

Contents

Poststructural theory Hybridity theory Chapter Summary 3

Linguistic Perspectives on Input Applied Linguistic Perspectives Sociolinguistic Perspectives Psycholinguistic Perspectives Neurolinguistic Perspectives Computational Linguistic Perspectives Chapter Summary

32 33 35 36 36 40 44 47 50 53

Part 2: Comprehensible Input: Second Language Acquisition 55 4

Input in Cognitive Processing-oriented Theories Cognition and L2 Learning Processes First Language-based Inferences Information Processing Attention, Control and Knowledge Processes Focal and peripheral attention Controlled/automatic processing Declarative and procedural knowledge Explicit and implicit knowledge Schema Theory Connectionism Chapter Summary

57 57 59 61 62 62 64 65 66 69 71 72

5

Input in Learner and Interaction-centered Theories Input Hypothesis Nature of processes of L2 attainment: acquisition versus learning and the monitor model Nature of input: Natural order, CI and i+1 Nature of processing and production: Innate acquisition resources, and the Silent Period Role of learner variables: Affective filter Interaction Hypothesis Output Hypothesis Chapter Summary

74 74 75 78 81 82 85 88 90

Contents

vii

6

Input in Socially-oriented Theories Social Theories of L2A Social Distance Psychological Distance Outcomes of Social and Psychological Distance Patterns of cultural practice Pidginized input Individual Versus Society in L2A Language Socialization Activity Theory Chapter Summary

92 92 93 95 96 96 98 99 100 103 106

7

Input in Alternative SLA Theories Socio-cognitive Theory Dynamic Systems Theory Ecological Theory Complexity/Chaos Theory Critical Period Hypothesis Interlanguage Theory A Comparative Synthesis Chapter Summary

107 107 109 110 111 114 117 119 119

Part 3: Comprehensibility-related Factors in L2 Teaching and Assessment

121

8

Input-related Factors in L2 Teaching Meaning-Focused Input Relevant and Coherent Input Multimodal Oral, Aural and Visual Input Modified Input Authentic Input Chapter Summary

123 123 125 127 129 132 134

9

Learner-related Factors L2 Self-Concept Power, positioning, identity, investment and CI Affective Factors Motivation

135 135 135 137 138

viii

Contents

Anxiety Cognitive Factors Language aptitude Learner styles Metacognitive Factors Beliefs about L2A Learning strategies Chapter Summary

140 142 143 144 145 146 147 149

10 Culture and Context-related Factors Culture and L2 Learning CI and Culturally Relevant and Contextual Affordances CI and Cultural Perspectives, Practices and Products CI and Cultural Dynamism and Symbolism CI and Culture Shock CI and Native and Non-Native Dynamics in the Classroom Chapter Summary

150 150 152 155 156 158 160 161

11 Discourse, Interaction and Modification-related Factors Interaction- and Discourse-related Factors and CI Cooperative learning and scaffolding Modifications in discourse and pragmatics Modification-related Factors and CI Modifications in curriculum and instructional materials Teacher-related modification considerations Learner-related modification considerations Setting-related modification considerations Chapter Summary

163 163 163 166 168 168 172 174 177 182

12 Modifications in Assessment-related Factors and CI Purposes of Assessment and CI Formative assessment and CI Summative assessment and CI Approaches to L2 Testing and CI Integrative versus discrete-point tests Direct versus indirect tests Norm-referenced versus criterion-referenced tests

184 184 185 186 188 188 189 191

Contents

CI and authenticity, dynamism and formality in L2 tests Kinds of Tests and CI Proficiency tests Placement tests Achievement tests Diagnostic tests Accommodated Assessment of Language Skills and CI Listening and reading Accommodated Assessment of Productive Skills and CI Speaking and writing Chapter Summary 13 Conclusions

ix

192 194 194 195 196 197 197 197 200 200 202 204

References

218

Index

235

Acknowledgments

I first would like to acknowledge the extremely useful reviews I received from the series editors, David Singleton and Simone Pfenninger, at Multilingual Matters. I also wish to thank the acquisitions editor, Laura Longworth, for making the communication process very collegial, consistent and helpful. I would like to acknowledge the graciousness of many family members, colleagues and friends who generously shared their ideas with me at different stages of writing this book. I am grateful for the valuable feedback I received from Keith Walters, Portland State University; Elaine K. Horwitz, University of Texas at Austin; Richard Donato, University of Pittsburgh; Lia Plakans, University of Iowa; Hayriye Kayi-Aydar, University of Arizona; Terri Rodriguez, College of St. Benedict and St. John’s University; and Davi Reis, HCL America. I also wish to thank my colleagues Xia Chao and Sandra Quinones and my former graduate student Becky Durbin for their feedback. I offer warm appreciation to my Polat, Mahalingappa and Michaud family members for their emotional support. Most importantly, I cannot thank enough my wife and colleague, Laura Mahalingappa, and my son Zeki for their unconditional love and support.

xi

Introduction

How people learn a second language (L2) and how we can teach one and assess student learning most effectively have always been subjects of great interest. As curiosity is the mother of all invention, theory generation and experimentation are natural responses to all mysteries. Although in the field of L2 education, many theories and educational models have been presented, some have enjoyed more attention in research and investment than others. Thus far, previous books on L2 learning, teaching and assessment have exhibited three common approaches in their content foci. Whether as an introduction to the field (e.g. Atkinson, 2011; Gass & Selinker, 2008), or on a more specialized topic (e.g. Cook & Singleton, 2014), one approach has focused only on second language acqusition (L2A). The second approach has concentrated only on methods and techniques in L2 teaching (e.g. Richards & Rodgers, 2010), while a third one has taken a more blended style, introducing L2A and teaching together (e.g. Cook, 2008; Horwitz, 2013). In line with its theoretical and pedagogical view and intended audience, each approach has highlighted different aspects and elements of five key components of L2A, pedagogy and assessment: the learner, teacher, environment, interaction and input. Topics of study have included particular groups of L2A theories (e.g. sociocultural theory), certain learner characteristics (e.g. motivation), some teacher-related factors (e.g. teacher cognition: Borg, 2006), special instructional methods (e.g. communicative language teaching ) and certain testing approaches, among others. In doing so, some placed the ‘L2 learner’ (Dörnyei et al., 2015) or certain ‘testing methods’ (Hughes, 2003) at the center of the discussion, while others used ‘conversational interactions’ (Mackey, 2007) or a ‘skill-based instructional method’ (Larsen-Freeman, 2003) as a basis. What is missing in the field, however, is an exploration of these subjects from the perspective of the role of comprehensible input (CI), or input and its comprehension. Such a need is warranted because the study of the learner, teacher, environment and interaction factors in L2A and pedagogy cannot be separated from that of input. In other words, we cannot have a meanigful discussion about the interactions of these players and the nature of the learning, teaching and assessment processes without one of

xiii

xiv

Introduction

the main objects – the input. In addition, as discussed in Parts 1 and 2 of this book, in many L2A theories and instruction and assessment models, CI and its pedagogical implications are considered indispensable. This is partially because the nature of input and the processes of its construction are profoundly implicated in understanding processes of L2A, including aspects of information processing, negotiation and construction of meaning and language use and assessment. Taking a blended approach that promotes the intertwinedness of theory, research and practice in L2 pedagogy and assessment, this book aims to address the commonly used concept of CI and its role in L2 education. More specifically, this book examines the learning, teaching and assessment of L2s from the perspective of CI. It explores the construct of CI by contextualizing it within the dialectical interplay of reflection and action (Freire, 2009) or praxis (practice informed by sound theory and research) in L2 education. CI, a term with psycholinguistic origins dating back to the Gouin method of the late 19th century, was introduced to the field by Stephen Krashen in the 1980s. According to Krashen (1985, 2003), CI refers to language samples (input) that L2 learners are able to understand when they hear or read them. Currently, the term is used in the field rather commonly; however, the constitutive elements of ‘comprehensibility’ and ‘input’ and the role of CI in L2A and pedagogy still remain unclear. To redress this gap, this book offers a comprehensive view of CI and its role in L2A, pedagogy and assessment to a broad base of audiences, ranging from undergraduate and graduate students to instructors and researchers in related fields. Because it exentuates the role of CI from a wide variety of perspectives and angles, without enforcing a particular view, this book can also serve as a preliminary resource for scholars who do research on different aspects of CI in the subfields of linguistics (e.g. applied linguistics), psychology, cultural studies, literacy studies, L2A and L2 teaching and teacher education. It can also appeal to preservice teachers in L2 teacher education programs and content area in-service teachers who need additional preparation to help non-native immigrant children in mainstream K-12 schools where the target language is the medium of instruction (e.g. English learners in US schools). Finally, the subject matter of this book is equally suitable for both pre- and in-service teachers of foreign and second languages other than English (e.g. Spanish, Arabic, Chinese, etc.) in different educational contexts around the world. In short, this book comprises • •

a comprehensive exposition of the conceptual foundation of CI, particularly focusing on its linguistic, cultural, semiotic and stylistic elements; a multimodal and dynamic interpretation of CI from the perspective of numerous theories in subfields of psychology, anthropology and linguistics;

Introduction

• •

•

•

xv

a critical discussion of well-known L2A theories and research, with a special focus on the role of CI in cognitive, learner-centered, socially oriented and alternative theories; a practical examination of the role of multimodal forms of CI in L2 pedagogy, with an emphasis on specific learner characteristics and discourse and interaction patterns in different teaching settings around the world; an analytic review of the curriculum-, learner-, teacher-, and settingrelated factors as well as the linguistic and cultural elements to be considered in modifying CI for pedagogical purposes in different settings; an overview of CI in L2 assessment, with a particular focus on its role in modifications in purposes of assessment and the use of different kinds of test techniques for receptive and productive skills.

Overview This book is organized around three complementary parts that build on each other in a logical sequential order: conceptual basis, theory and research and pedagogy and assessment. Specifically, Part 1, which presents the conceptual bases of the term, has three chapters. Part 2 focuses on the role of CI in L2A theory and research in four chapters. Part 3, which has five chapters, concentrates on the role and use of CI in L2 teaching and assessment. Each chapter ends with a brief summary of its salient features. Below, I present a short overview of the content covered in each part. To offer an expansive background about L2 learning and teaching from a CI perspective and to guide the readers in connecting theory, research and teaching progressively, Part 1 begins with laying the theoretical foundation for Parts 2 and 3. Chapter 1 introduces different views about what basic concepts like comprehensibility (comprehension), input (intake), output and CI mean; what the linguistic, cultural, semiotic and stylistic codes of input might be; and how input relates to output. The chapter ends with a brief section that attempts to offer a new perspective on CI in light of the cumulative wisdom accrued as a result of many theoretical and practical innovations in related fields. After describing CI’s historical antecedents and the theories of processibility and comprehension within which it is grounded, Chapter 2 explicates the concept from the perspectives of nine different theoretical frameworks: cognitive load, automaticity, schema, dual-coding, multimodality, constructivism, socio-constructivism, poststructuralism and hybridity. The last chapter in this part, Chapter 3, discusses the constitutive components of CI from the viewpoints of five different linguistics fields: applied linguistics, sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, neurolinguistics and computational linguistics.

xvi

Introduction

Part 2 offers a broad discussion about the role of CI in L2A theory and research, focusing particularly on cognitive processing-oriented, learnercentered and socially oriented views. In describing cognition-based L2A theories, Chapter 4 covers topics related to the role of CI in cognition and L2 learning processing, first language-based inferences, information processing, attention (focal/peripheral), control (controlled/automatic) and knowledge processes (declarative/procedural and explicit/implicit), as well as schema theory and connectionism. Chapter 5 is centered on the intersection of CI and learner and on interaction-oriented L2A views. The chapter begins by describing the role of CI in the Input Hypothesis, specifically focusing on the nature of processes of L2 attainment (acquisition/learning and monitor model), the nature of input (natural order, CI and i+1), the nature of processing and production (innate acquisition resources and silent period) and the role of affective factors (e.g. motivation). The chapter continues with the role of CI in the Interaction and Output Hypotheses. Chapter 6 is devoted to CI’s role in socially oriented L2A theories and research. Specifically, it outlines the following topics: social distance, psychological distance, outcomes of social and psychological distance (patterns of cultural practices and pidginized input), individual versus society in L2A, language socialization and activity theory. Lastly, in this part, Chapter 7 highlights how CI is used in some other (alternative) L2A frameworks such as sociocognitive, dynamic systems, ecological, complexity/chaos, critical period and interlanguage theories. Building on previous sections on what CI is and how it may operate in L2A, Part 3 takes the final step by offering a general knowledge base on what we can do with this information in L2 teaching and assessment. Chapter 8 covers several input-related factors that teachers must take into account to facilitate the comprehension of new input in L2 classrooms. Here, aspects of input such as meaning-focused, relevant, coherent, multimodal, oral, aural, visual, modified and authentic are described. Chapter 9 addresses some learner characteristics that L2 teachers ought to regulate to help them overcome comprehension challenges. These factors are presented under four categories: L2 self-concept (power, positioning, identity and investment), affective factors (motivation and anxiety), cognitive factors (language aptitude and learner styles) and metacognitive factors (beliefs about L2A and learning strategies). Chapter 10 tackles the intersection of CI with a complex group of cultureand context-related variables. In presenting how CI interfaces with L2 learning and culture, it particularly concentrates on culturally relevant and contextual factors, perspectives, practices and products; cultural dynamism and symbolism; culture shock; and native and non-native dynamics in L2 classrooms. Chapter 11 focuses on interaction, discourse and modificationrelated factors. In addition to explaining modifications a teacher can make to facilitate different interaction (cooperative learning and scaffolding)

Introduction

xvii

and discourse patterns (discourse and pragmatics) in L2 classrooms, the chapter describes other possible instructional adjustments pertaining to L2 curriculum and materials, teachers, learners and settings. The final chapter, Chapter 12, titled Modifications in Assessment-Related Factors and CI, covers five main subtopics, including the purposes of assessment and CI (formative/summative), approaches to L2 testing and CI (e.g. norm referenced versus criterion referenced), kinds of tests and CI (e.g. proficiency, achievement) and CI and accommodated assessment of receptive (reading and listening) and productive skills (writing and speaking).

Part 1: Encountering Comprehensible Input: Conceptual Foundation

To guide the readers in progressively connecting theory, research and practice about the role of comprehensible input (CI) in second language acquisition (L2A), teaching and assessment, Part 1 (Chapters 1–3) describes the theoretical foundation and conceptual bases of the concept of CI. Firstly, definitions of basic constructs such as comprehension, comprehensibility, input, intake, output and CI are provided. Here, input’s linguistic, cultural, semiotic and stylistic codes are particularly highlighted. Building on the cumulative wisdom in related fields, an alternative view of CI is also offered. Secondly, the conceptual underpinnings of CI are explicated from the perspectives of cognitive load, automaticity, schema, dual-coding, multimodality, constructivism, socio-constructivism, poststructuralism and hybridity theories. Finally, the constitutive elements of CI are described and exemplified from the viewpoints of five different fields of linguistics, including applied linguistics, sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, neurolinguistics and computational linguistics.

1

1 Comprehensible Input Defined

In this chapter, I aim to address the nature and conceptual foundation of comprehensible input (CI), namely existing views about and definitions of CI. Firstly, I focus on what the concepts input, comprehensibility, output and CI entail. Secondly, I examine what input’s linguistic (e.g. phonological, morphological), cultural (e.g. practices, perspectives), semiotic (e.g. semiosis, indexical) and stylistic (e.g. register, formality) elements are. Then, I explicate how CI pertains to processing and output production. I conclude the chapter with a brief section that offers a broad perspective of CI in light of the cumulative wisdom accrued as a result of many theoretical and practical innovations in related fields.

Comprehensible Input Human beings use language not only to construct concepts and metaphors but also to communicate reason, emotion and ideas (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980). If to communicate is to understand and be understood in different contexts of situations, successful communication depends largely on possessing and effectively using commonly shared units of language. Even the most common everyday communicative acts have an underlying assumption of shared understanding of linguistic forms and meanings. For instance, at the most basic communicative level, a child and a parent have to agree on the meaning of the utterance ‘I’m hungry’ to result in the parent giving the child food. In the academic world, for instance, technical terms (register) constitute a commonly shared basis for scientific communication among professionals in closely related fields. Without them, mutual intelligibility is impossible and the future of scientific advancement is in jeopardy. Indeed, the practical value of an innovative idea or a technical term resides in the adoption and dissemination of its shared understanding in the scientific community. In this sense, technical terms help researchers to label scientific phenomena and establish commonly shared roadmaps for communication. Conventionally, before a technical concept is added to a professional registry, it must undergo an adoption process. This could occur in two different ways. In the first way, the term is operationally defined by the theorist and the field adopts this definition. In the second way, a need for the operationalization and measurement of the concept arises as the concept becomes widely used in the field. However, note that when it comes to operational meanings and representations of abstract concepts, full consensus is often a forlorn hope.

3

4

Part 1: Encountering Comprehensible Input: Conceptual Foundation

The term CI in L2 education is one construct that needs closer examination for several reasons. Firstly, even with its historical antecedents dating back to the 19th (Gouinian method; Howatt, 2004) and 20th (Asher, 1969) centuries, and after its special introduction into the field by Stephen Krashen (1987) approximately four decades ago, the term could benefit from a more comprehensive operational definition. Naturally, when defining elements of a technical term are not clearly identified, it becomes more susceptible to misuse. Secondly, the frequency of its use in L2 education is bordering on overuse, pointing to a need to review its usages in different contexts. Thirdly, recent developments in related fields that correspond to the theoretical underpinnings of different aspects of the term (e.g. theories of comprehension, multimodality) necessitate a re-examination. Finally, L2A theory and research and instructional models that have emerged in the last four decades or so have opened new horizons and possibilities that warrant a more comprehensive view of CI. For example, in complexity theory (Larsen-Freeman, 1997) L2A is characterized by multilayered notions of highly fluid and self-adaptive systems and complex processes of interactions. Therefore, a comprehensive view of CI needs to extend beyond the linguistic properties and encompass aspects of multimodal and non-linear dynamic systems as well as semiotic and cultural codes and representations.

What is Input? According to Krashen (1981), success in L2A is primarily a matter of exposure to input that is comprehensible. Then, understanding the nature of defining elements of input is a prerequisite to the ability to make input comprehensible. Indeed, Gass and Mackey (2007: 177) define input as ‘the sine qua non’ – or the essential element – of acquisition. Input is generally used to refer to all language samples that are available to a learner in a context. There is no broad consensus in the field of L2 education as to what input really entails in terms of its linguistic, non-linguistic and metaphorical representations, as well as its multimodal forms and variations (for details, see Carroll, 2000). For example, it could refer to linguistic codes and properties at the phonemic or morphemic level, or it could mean a phrase, a clause or even a sentence. Likewise, one could assume that input of basic interpersonal communication skills (BICS) differs from that of cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP) (Cummins, 1984) in terms of levels of linguistic complexity, cognitive load and so forth. If we posit that input also has paralinguistic (e.g. body language) elements, we need to identify its cognitive and sociocultural particularities as well as how such elements interact with its socio- and psycholinguistic functions. Indeed, if we are to assume that ‘input’ encompasses all of the above-mentioned features,

Comprehensible Input Defined

5

modifying it with the simple adjective ‘comprehensible’ may not do justice to the complexity of its constitutive elements. The term ‘input’ has been used to refer to various forms of language samples in the L2A, teaching and assessment literature. Its meaning and uses are also closely linked to several other constructs (see Carroll, 2000). For example, a commonly used concept that is closely related to input is intake. Intake stands for the input that is perceived, attended to, processed and encoded as new knowledge by the learner (Gass, 1997). It is obvious that in one way or another, the term has been used either as a ‘label’ for linguistic codes, or as a misnomer for all linguistic, non-linguistic, semiotic, literal and sociocultural properties and functions it may possess. Either way, the assumption here is that ‘input’ is some kind of an existing bag of well-known, static and stable codes that L2 learners must learn. No matter how we look at it, such an assumption is reductionist, and goes against current research and theory on social semiotics, multimodality and sociocultural theories of L2A. Currently, more consensus is being built in the field that language elements are complex, dynamic and multimodal. They serve more than just literal and referential functions because learning (or L2A) is individual construction of meaning via social mediation in affordance-rich ecologies (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006; Larsen-Freeman, 2011; Mackey, 2012). Affordance refers to all cognitive (e.g. memory), affective (e.g. motivation), metacognitive (e.g. strategy use) and sociocultural artifacts, tools, resources and factors that a learner utilizes in his/her environment to learn an L2 (van Lier, 2000). To understand the complexity of the term, a few examples, as provided below, may help shed light on its constitutive elements at varying levels from phonemes to utterances, while also demonstrating potential challenges that different forms of input may pose for different first language (L1) and L2 audiences. We know from basic linguistics that each language sample is constituted of numerous properties and functions, including phonemic and morphemic elements that, on the grounds of interaction, can generate exponential complexities and variations in use (Yule, 2011). For example, the word ‘wolves’ can be parsed by a learner at the phonemic level (e.g. the initial /w/), the morphophonemic level with the realization of the inflectional suffix /s/ as [z], the morphemic level as two units, stem and suffix or the word level with ‘wolves’ as one unit. In each of these situations, the learners will face different comprehension challenges. Issues of comprehensibility only get more complicated with units of input at phrasal or clausal levels and beyond because additional governing parameters – such as morphosyntactic and socio-pragmatic rules – enable non-finite opportunities of generativity (Curzan & Adams, 2012). As a result, attending to the issues of the comprehensibility of input would require discussions centered around cognitive and social processes at the levels of both

6

Part 1: Encountering Comprehensible Input: Conceptual Foundation

linguistic and communicative competence. Thus, further complications can arise depending on, among others: whether exposure to input occurs in the area of listening versus reading skills; what the topic and/or genre is; whether input involves basic communication or academic register; what the intended referential, inferential, symbolic and metaphorical meanings of the input might be and what learners’ levels of L2 proficiency and their sociocultural and communicative backgrounds are. In addition, the context of situation, the patterns of interactions between the interlocutor and the text, the nature of processes of negotiation of meaning and the nature of other ecological affordances will influence the comprehensibility of input. The case of highly proficient non-native speaker graduate students in English-speaking countries is a good example to describe the complex nature of CI. To be admitted into highly competitive graduate programs in English-speaking countries like the United States, students have to present high proficiency scores on standardized tests (e.g. Test of English as a Foreign Language [TOEFL], International English Language Testing System [IELTS]) while also scoring within the range of their native-speaker peers on the verbal and analytic writing sections of the graduate record examinations (GRE). Nevertheless, even with such high proficiency both in general and academic English, they may experience difficulties with rather simple linguistic input (Kim, 2006). For example, when confronted with the occasional question, ‘How are you doing?’, a student may attempt to share genuine lengthy accounts of happenings in his/her personal life with the interlocutor instead of reciprocating with a simple ‘OK’ or ‘Hi’. Such instances indicate that the student’s comprehension of this particular input lacks the pragmatic and stylistic properties of a structurally simple interrogative sentence. Similarly, due to a lack of background about some of the salient social, cultural, political and economic events of the time, a student may experience great difficulty understanding jokes (humor) that are told in the plainest English by his/her native-speaker friends or on latenight television shows. In such cases, incomprehensibility of input is caused by a lack of sociocultural references, inferences and the context of situation, rather than input’s idiomatic, colloquial or metaphorical properties.

Comprehensibility of Input We can make one of two assumptions about comprehensibility of input: (1) it is possible to determine the comprehensibility of a unit of input in isolation; or (2) the comprehensibility of input largely depends on the context of situation and the particularities of the negotiation of meaning. The first makes an assumption about inherent (in)comprehensibility simply by virtue of the nature of input whereas the second one attributes (in)comprehensibility to ecological, social and learning-related variables. It is important to note that comprehension and comprehensibility refer to

Comprehensible Input Defined

7

different phenomena. Comprehension refers to information processing and construction of meaning at varying levels along a continuum. A person may comprehend something at a low or high level (for details, see Gass, 1997). Comprehensibility refers to potential comprehension challenges a unit of input is presumed to pose. While, in light of available research in L2 pedagogy, it is easy to endorse the latter, as counterintuitive as it may be, the first assumption is widespread in instructional practices and materials. For example, commercial textbooks for teaching English often list certain vocabulary or grammatical items as more incomprehensible than other items (McGrath, 2002). While highlighting some language samples may be helpful to achieve lesson objectives, such actions imply that a unit of input poses the same comprehension challenges for all learners. Endorsing the second assumption also requires clarifications in numerous areas. For instance, as is the case at the earliest stages of L2A, if an L2 learner can tell what language a particular input belongs to, does it mean she/he comprehends it? Or, comprehensibility may mean different things in the case of many non-native Arabic and Hebrew speakers who can read (decode) their religious texts for prayer purposes but may not understand their meanings. Similarly, in response to the question ‘How old are you?’, if a learner shows the correct number of fingers versus saying ‘seven’ or ‘I’m seven’ or ‘I’m seven years old’, can we conclude that the input is comprehended by the learner? Likewise, we would have arrived at the same conclusion had the learner taken out his/her pencil and put it on the desk as ‘commanded’ by the teacher, a typical activity in the total physical response (TPR) method (Asher, 1969). Input is constituted by numerous phonological, morphological and syntactic properties, each of which contributes to its varying levels of complexity for learners at different proficiency levels; however, when applied to communicative functions by language users, these properties take on contextual, semantic, socio-pragmatic and stylistic roles, generating infinite novel references that potentially increase processability difficulties. Thus, the comprehensibility of a unit of input involves a wide variety of factors related to the nature of the input, the source of the input (speaker or text), the context of use, the background of the users, the interaction patterns of users, the available compensatory resources (instructional modifications) and so forth. In this sense, no input should be categorized as comprehensible or incomprehensible by virtue of its linguistic or functional properties, its anticipated cognitive load, modality, presumed meanings or semiotic representations alone. Comprehensibility is a matter of languaging processes (negotiation of meaning) through which contextually bound products are generated. More specifically, comprehensibility depends largely on how successfully L2 learners negotiate and (co)construct meaning in a particular context of communication with the help (scaffolding) of the more knowledgeable other(s) (the teacher or caregiver). This notion applies

8

Part 1: Encountering Comprehensible Input: Conceptual Foundation

to both oral and written input because comprehension is not the transfer of input from a text to reader or speaker to listener; rather, it is individual construction of meaning via social mediation (Lantolf, 2011). Indeed, to understand the comprehensibility of a unit of input and its comprehension by a learner, an examination of the dynamic relationship between the input, the learner, the text/speaker and the context is warranted. As is commonly known, understanding and learning a word requires attendance to the properties of its form, meaning and use. To ascertain comprehensibility of the input, one could focus on the meaning, the form or the use of input in a specific context (Carroll, 2000). Undoubtedly, prioritization of one of these instructional approaches would indicate a person’s view of comprehensibility. For example, championing a meaning-focused approach would imply that comprehensibility is considered to be primarily a matter of socially and culturally situated meaning that is mediated by referential, inferential and contextual factors that involve processes of negotiation and scaffolding (Ortega, 2011). In this sense, comprehensibility would depend on successful regulation and management of the learners’ and teachers’ behaviors. Here, for example, clarification and confirmation checks and other effective communication strategies could enhance comprehension (Mackey, 2012). Needless to state, a learner’s activated prior knowledge and her/his perceived psychological proximity (perceptions about her/his L2 selfconcept) to the L2 language and culture (acculturation patterns), in addition to her/his affective (e.g. willingness, motivation) and metacognitive (e.g. beliefs, strategies) characteristics, play a vital role in the amount of time and effort she/he would invest in processing and understanding a particular unit of input (Krashen, 1981; Lightbown et al., 2006). Similarly, opportunities provided by the more knowledgeable other (teacher or caregiver) in this process, particularly the structure of power relations, ecological well-being and design, culturally relevant pedagogical practices, contextualized scaffolding techniques, appropriate speech/pace and text/ length adjustments and lexical and structural modifications, would also influence success in achieving comprehensibility.

Nature of Comprehensible Input Although, as described above, comprehensibility of input primarily depends on how a learner attends to the dynamic and complex interactional processes occurring in a particular ecology, what the nature of CI entails in terms of its linguistic, cultural, semiotic and stylistic codes also merits careful reflection. To begin with, we could at least agree on the fact that when so many variables constitute one entity and that entity can potentially take multiple forms and generate diverse outcomes for different learners in different situations due to possible interaction effects, the proper

Comprehensible Input Defined

9

overarching label is complex. Due to their nature, the comprehensibility of linguistic and communicative codes can be unpredictable because the expected processability load in terms of coding, decoding, negotiating meaning, attaining, forgetting, relearning, storing and repeating these processes for X number of times involves highly non-linear and selforganizing systems (Larsen-Freeman, 1997). Thus, to capture a somewhat more comprehensive view of CI, I briefly explain the nature of its linguistic, cultural, semiotic and stylistic codes below.

Linguistic elements Linguistic codes of input include the sounds and letters that form morphemes and words, which in turn form phrases, clauses, sentences and larger units of discourse as governed by the phonological, morphological, syntactic, semantic and pragmatic rules of a particular language. First, all languages have certain phonetic codes that can be described in terms of how sounds are produced and perceived via the speech chain (i.e. the vocal tract articulates certain sounds and the auditory system receives the sound, etc.), which implies that comprehensibility depends on learners’ knowledge of the organization of the vowels, consonants and their clusters known as the grammar of sounds of a language (phonology). Thus, in order to understand L2 input, learners must be able to break down the phonological codes, or the meaning-distinguishing sounds known as phonemes (Yule, 2011). World languages vary remarkably in terms of their phonological systems – the number and possible combinations of vowels and consonants present. Some languages have vowel harmony, which refers to the order in which different vowel classes (e.g. round, front, etc.) can be affixed to each other in a word (for more information, see Kramer, 2003). For example, Turkish vowel harmony demonstrates a highly systematic set of unique phonological regularities. When the noun ‘okul’ is pluralized, of the two possible suffixes, –ler and –lar, one must use –lar because the penultimate vowel /u/ is round and must be followed by a morpheme with a round vowel /a/, forming ‘okullar’. Thus, the nature of such sound-related linguistic codes can either inhibit or facilitate the comprehension of new input by L2 learners with different L1 backgrounds. The morphological and syntactic nature of input also contributes to its varying levels of comprehensibility. Morphological forms, also known as morphemes, are defined as the smallest meaningful units of a language. In linguistics, languages are often categorized differently based on how their lexical, derivational and inflectional forms are structured. For example, as in the case of the word ‘wolves’, the free morpheme ‘wolf’ and the inflectional suffix plural /s/, which becomes overtly represented as [z] in the phonological process of assimilation, are all different units of input (two morphemes). Hence, for an L2 learner with a beginning proficiency

10

Part 1: Encountering Comprehensible Input: Conceptual Foundation

level, each of these units requires varying underlying L2 knowledge and skills to process. On the other hand, the infamous tree diagrams often used in L1 or L2 education to learn sentence structures are good examples of how syntactic codes are assumed to contribute to the comprehensibility of input for language learners. The nature of the syntactic structure of a language – how people can use the same language units to generate infinite number of different utterances (Chomsky, 1965) – can potentially exacerbate the incomprehensibility of certain input for some learners. Comprehension may get complicated even further, particularly for some learners, simply due to the nature of the structure of input. A good example for such cases is agglutinating languages, where many inflections are ‘glued’ to each other in the form of one unit. For example, learners may encounter input in the form of a morphosyntactic unit comprised of 40 individual sound codes, e.g. ‘Amerikalılaştıramadıklarımızdanmışcasına’, which translates from Turkish as ‘As if they were among those who we were unable to Americanize’. Thus, given the processability, storage and retention load that such forms of input may require, it is appropriate to assume that it would engender different comprehension challenges for L2 learners, especially for those with certain L1 backgrounds. Input can be more or less comprehensible by virtue of its semantic and pragmatic elements. To help L2 learners understand input, instructors generally advise their students to exhaust all contextual and referential clues to deduce meaning before checking their dictionaries (Gutzmann, 2015). This is partially because dictionary meaning does not always correspond to its contextual and situated meaning. For example, knowing that the semantic features of the word ‘fox’ are animal, animate and so forth, may be inadequate to understand it because meaning is constructed in interaction and is contextually bound. In fact, lexical units reorganize themselves and take on many new meanings based on the purpose and affordances that become available in communication. In addition, input at the word level can have multiple meanings (polysemy) or be used to denote idiomatic or figurative meanings (e.g. as sly as a fox). They also denote hierarchical semantic relationships such as hyponyms (e.g. perennial flowers: firmament and drumstick), homonyms (e.g. heir and air) and synonyms and antonyms. Note that, as is the case for other linguistic elements (e.g. phonological and morphological), semantic and pragmatic qualities of input can change over time as well (pejoration or amelioration). As a matter of fact, comprehensibility of input beyond morpheme and phrase level poses even greater degrees of linguistic and cognitive load for L2 learners due to reasons related to the use of euphemisms and metaphors among others. Input also entails pragmatic codes that influence its understanding. Pragmatic components of input involve different forms and organizations

Comprehensible Input Defined

11

of discourse and speech acts. When L2 learners are presented with input beyond sentence level, whether in oral (utterance) or written (text) form, they have to capitalize on all available linguistic and non-linguistic resources to respond to a task (Ariel, 2010; Hatch, 1983). Indeed, the very nature of speech acts allows for comprehensibility difficulties for even very simple units of input, since the comprehensibility of a simple sentence in a particular context sometimes involves numerous complications related to its locutionary (observable meaning), illocutionary (intended meaning) and perlocutionary (understood meaning) intentions (for more information, see Searle et al., 1980). In other words, the actual meaning of a simple text, whether by intention or due to lexical or structural ambiguity, may be interpreted by a reader as the exact opposite of its intended meaning. An appropriate psycholinguistic story that can exemplify this case comes from a person who tries to enjoy a nap in a park. Every time he/she gets close to falling asleep on a bench, someone passing by would wake him/her up and ask him/her what time it is. To put an end to this misery and get some sleep, he/she writes on a piece of paper ‘I don’t know what time it is’ and posts it on the bench and goes back to sleep. A few minutes later, a person passing by interprets the message exactly to the contrary of its intended meaning, wakes him/her up and says ‘It’s 2:30’. Of course it is also possible that the input produced by a speaker is intentionally kept (in)comprehensible at the level she/he wants it to be. For example, as cited in Pinker (2007), when Hannibal Lecter in the movie The Silence of the Lambs says ‘I do wish we could chat longer, but I’m having an old friend for dinner’, the lexical ambiguity combined with the listener’s knowledge about the speaker can result in two different meanings. In addition, in such cases, due to their general education and L1 backgrounds, L2 learners may face greater degrees of comprehension difficulties in authentically positioning their L2 selves and identities with age- and gender-appropriate styles and tones. For instance, failing to follow simple protocols of turn-taking may decrease L2 learners’ chances of engagement in elaborated conversations or compensatory follow-ups with different interlocutors. Based on social theories of L2A and research on individual differences, it is not far-fetched to claim, especially with regard to attending to oral input, that pragmatic codes can even potentially deny L2 learners access to engaging in social interactions. Indeed, L2 learning is a two-way street and access to input also depends on providers’ willingness to communicate (MacIntyre, 2007).

Cultural elements Input is constructed within the historical and sociocultural realities of a particular social group. Thus, degrees of its comprehensibility cannot be separated from constitutive cultural components, practices, perspectives

12

Part 1: Encountering Comprehensible Input: Conceptual Foundation

and processes. Whether and to what extent a person’s language determines her/his thinking and perception of reality (i.e. the Sapir–Whorf Hypothesis) and what correlations exist among language, meaning-making and culture are still matters of contention. As argued by Whorf, in the Hopi (a NativeAmerican tribe) language, time is not the focus of action and the concept of time is a continuous stream that cannot be broken into increments, whereas for native English speakers, time of the action is encoded in the grammar and is a primary concern. For example, in processing the sentence ‘Dan just left’, an English speaker may primarily concentrate on the time of the action, whereas the Hopi speaker may be more concerned with how the person has come to know that ‘Dan just left’. Thus, regardless of the nature of the interconnections among language, culture and thought, the phenomenon of ‘time’ indexes a wide variety of culturally situated expressions and habitual and experiential connotations that may be hard for some L2 learners to comprehend (Yule, 2011). Indeed, in such cases, L2 learners also face aspects of comprehensibility related to additional cognitive processing because they need to create new schemata or reorganize their conceptual schema due to the learning of new conceptual categories. It is often hard to demonstrate how particular cultural elements relate to different linguistic features of a language. Indeed, arbitrariness is one of the basic assumptions linguists make about language. For example, one cannot establish a plausible connection between the unique cultural elements behind the word ‘dog’ in English versus those behind the word ‘köpek’ in Turkish. For the same reason, we cannot explain why some languages have more vowels or consonants, or have different forms of gender and case markings or follow a subject-verb-object (e.g. English) versus a subjectobject-verb (e.g. Turkish) word order. However, as far as discourse and interaction patterns, speech acts, style, levels of formality and politeness and notions of social class and gender are concerned, cultural and linguistic elements of input are inseparable. Hence, it would be naïve not to assume that cultural codes play an important role in the comprehensibility of either written or spoken input. For example, the English pronoun ‘you’ has two equivalents in Turkish: ‘sen’ and ‘siz’, and ‘siz’ can be used to denote plurality or formality, or both. Therefore, for a learner of Turkish, with an English (L1) background, understanding these uses of ‘siz’ involves knowledge of cultural values, perspectives and practices, not just its basic linguistic properties.

Semiotic elements To briefly define the term for the purposes of understanding CI better, semiotics (or semiology in the Saussurean tradition) is the typology of sign systems, referring to how meaning (a concept) is represented by a sign or object to constitute a language of communication. In more modern views

Comprehensible Input Defined

13

of semiotics (Peirce, 1998), semiosis, or dynamic processes of meaningconstruction, involves multimodal interactions between a sign, an object or the construct it signifies and the constructed meaning as the resulting outcome. At varying levels, Peircean semiotics is congruent with complexity (Larsen-Freeman, 1997), sociocultural (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006) and ecological (van Lier, 2004) theories of L2A because it links comprehensibility to learners’ ability to capitalize on all semiotic affordances available within the learning environment. Interpreting elements of the comprehensibility of L2 input from these theoretical perspectives, one could argue that the attainment of semiotic elements of L2 would require an immense amount of meaningful sociocultural interactions. For example, in current trends in electronic communication, the use of mobile devices for text messaging and posting on Twitter and Facebook has prompted an increased use of emojis, or small digital images or symbols, to communicate basic meanings and emotions. Although they are only pictures, understanding emojis still requires special knowledge that can be acquired only through membership in communities that have a shared understanding of their meanings. This is why learners in some L2 settings (e.g. beginning-level English learners in K-12 schools) have been reported to lack proficiency in semiotic undertakings, discourses, cultural perspectives and cultural practices that would give them access to deep processes of semiosis by negotiating issues of membership and citizenship in the L2 community (Walqui, 2000). Thus, without the indexical, iconic and symbolic elements (of the signs) of L2 input, learners’ struggle with comprehension is inevitable. Note that this struggle shall be even greater for learners in foreign language (English as a Foreign Language [EFL]) settings where exposure to authentic social interactions and culturally appropriate indices of multimodal semiotic resources is expectedly minimal, confined mostly to the classroom (Nizegorodcew, 2007). Symbolic, iconic and indexical properties of input are multimodal, dynamic and relational. Indeed, separating these semiotic elements of input and teaching them in isolation is impossible because what a symbol or a sign stands for makes sense only when it is used in relation to something else. For example, we understand the connection between the sign ‘red light’ and the action ‘stop’ in the context of traffic rules. If input were to be used interchangeably with sign, in Peircean (1998) semiotics, every input would have three defining categories: firstness, secondness and thirdness. Firstness is the sheer presence of a sign – what it is in isolation – while secondness refers to the relational and experiential quality of a sign. Thirdness, on the other hand, refers to the communicative and interpretive functions and representations of a sign. For example, when confronted with the statement ‘Feeling blue today’, an L2 learner needs both linguistic and experiential knowledge to be able to understand it. In this case, knowing the meaning of ‘blue’ in isolation (firstness) is

14

Part 1: Encountering Comprehensible Input: Conceptual Foundation

not enough to comprehend the statement. The learner needs to negotiate the meaning that the utterance represents through the process of semiosis (secondness and thirdness). Historically in the L2 education industry, L2 learners are exposed to context-free and form-focused instruction when the input is presumably ‘transmitted’ (see the banking model; Freire, 2009) by the teacher to the student. The outcomes of this type of exposure have proven it unsuccessful. Undoubtedly, comprehensibility of L2 input will pose even greater challenges for learners when learners are not provided with its semiotic elements in socioculturally situated, learner-goal-oriented, context-embedded and content-based ecologies.

Stylistic elements Stylistics involves a critical understanding of how linguistic features of a text can be utilized to create special artistic effects that are scientifically identifiable. Since the production of output involves systematic acts of decision-making, comprehensibility of L2 input also necessitates certain knowledge and skills to identify the producers’ (writer or speaker) style of language use (Curzan & Adams, 2012). Thus, stylistic elements lay the foundation for the organization of all types of genre and register in both spoken and written forms of input. For example, prose and poetry constitute two different kinds of texts; however, each consists of numerous subtype genres that follow their own literary forms and organization. A poem can take various forms of genre by the choice of theme (nature: Idyll; love: Ghazal; heroism: Canto), with each following different organization (e.g. stanza), choices of meter and rhythm (e.g. iambic), literary device (e.g. alliteration) and figurative speech techniques (e.g. metaphors). In addition, in oral dialogues, whether used for basic communication or academic purposes, stylistic elements (such as narration style, tone, diction, etc.) and use of reference markers can have an important impact on the comprehensibility of the input. Therefore, it is clear that the ability to comprehend input in such forms entails more than just knowledge of linguistics elements, and L2 learners face greater difficulty when exposed to stylistically dense input. Input used in L2 education is predominantly prose based and involves a great deal of stylistic variability within its numerous forms of multimodal texts and utterances. This kind of variance, by nature, presents different challenges of comprehensibility due to factors such as types of texts, cohesion and coherence, register, formality, direct/indirect speech and so forth (Meyerhoff & Schleef, 2010). Such knowledge of stylistic elements is typically acquired at higher proficiency levels, and even highly proficient learners seem to acquire such socio-pragmatic competence later in the process (Taguchi, 2012). Awareness that native speakers of a language also face great comprehension challenges accrued from stylistic variants, and

Comprehensible Input Defined

15

even greater difficulties when reading texts produced in different socialcultural settings, should help L2 educators and researchers understand the gravity of the stylistic load for L2 learners. For example, learners who have primarily been exposed to general input may demonstrate difficulty when reading a text about Game Theory. Despite the text being at her/ his level in terms of lexical and morphosyntactic requirements, the register and technical terms that belong to a particular field can cause additional comprehension problems. Similarly, these learners may also struggle with stylistic uses of anaphoric (backward) and cataphoric (forward) reference markers, as well as cases of ellipsis and substitution (Taguchi, 2012). Indeed, writers build numerous argument structures and inferential meanings that involve more than just the linguistic elements to understand.

Input Versus Output As championed in socio-constructivist views of L2A, learning is individual construction of meaning mediated via social interactions (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006), not transfer of information. This implies that every learner constructs her/his own versions of input when exposed to its linguistic (phonological, morphosyntactic, semantic), sociocultural, semiotic and stylistic properties. Since every learner utilizes these properties differently in processing new input, the output a person generates is reflective of the person’s unique construction of meaning that, as new input for another person, entails unique linguistic and cognitive demands of comprehension. This dynamic cycle of input/output provides clues about the complex nature of output produced by L2 learners. Their processing of input and production of output are not only socially mediated and situated within the particularities of a context of situation, but are also influenced by the nature of their interlanguage, elements of L1 and L2 (e.g. universals, markedness), age and individual differences. Indeed, one would assume that output produced by learners in foreign language settings can be even more incomprehensible than the output of learners in L2 settings. This is because generating output from learned input involves arduous and anxiety-provoking applications of a wide range of linguistic rules (e.g. see the monitor model in Chapter 5). In contrast, L2 learners, assuming they have acquired the L2 input, have easier access to a more well-organized and user-friendly repertoire of input. They tend to form their oral or written output faster and produce it more accurately and authentically, and possibly with less anxiety (Krashen, 1985). In addition, just like the construction of input, the production of output also requires engagement in processes of complex and dynamic systems of linguistic and paralinguistic elements. In fact, given the plethora of research on the role of individual factors (i.e. anxiety, motivation) in L2 production, it is appropriate to suggest that the production processes of comprehensible

16

Part 1: Encountering Comprehensible Input: Conceptual Foundation

output may impose higher-level demands and sanctions on communicative competence (Dörnyei, 2005). Likewise, while L2 learners’ willingness to engage in social interactions is desired in L2 education and often results in exposure to CI, even learners with fairly functional proficiency levels often refrain from producing output. This is partly because it is particularly hard for L2 learners to generate output that would authentically express their L2-self and identity (Csizér & Magid, 2014; Gass & Mackey, 2006). For example, even non-native speakers who have received doctoral degrees in linguistically demanding fields (e.g. applied linguistics) from Englishspeaking universities (e.g. in the US, or the UK) may struggle with the tone of academic communication in the form of an email message. Some have had a traumatic communication experience in an academic situation, which, due to lack of background in idiomatic expressions, figurative speech or elements of body language, may psychologically decrease the possibility of producing output. Others get frustrated by having to engage in painstaking circumlocution or convoluted paraphrasing when producing output. No matter how we approach it, production of L2 output, while very critical for L2 development, is a hazardous and slippery road that many L2 learners take great pains to avoid. Therefore, contrary to some of the early assumptions of the Output Hypothesis (Swain, 1985, 2000), it would be naïve to expect that L2 learners should be able to start producing accurate structures at sentence level and beyond simply because they have built some level of morphosyntactic proficiency.

Encountering Comprehensible Input As indicated in the introduction, Krashen (1985, 2003) describes CI as input that L2 learners can understand when they hear or read it. I believe that decades of changes in L2A and pedagogy and related fields like linguistics and educational psychology mandate a re-examination of the concept of CI in the field. From the Input Hypothesis to Complexity and Ecological L2A theories (see Part 2), many notable developments have occurred since the introduction of the term to the field. Similarly, L2 curriculum and instruction have undergone noticeable changes (from audiolingualism to communicative language teaching to content and task-based approaches to the post-methods era) (Horwitz, 2013) in line with advancements grounded in views such as poststructuralism, socioconstructivism, whole language theory and critical pedagogy. Needless to say, developments in the field of linguistics (from structuralism to generativism/minimalism to functionalism) can also contribute to the cumulative wisdom in better defining CI. Below, I offer my interpretation of CI as I re-examine the term in the context of this cumulative wisdom about the factors and dynamic systems and processes that underlie CI and its constitutive elements.

Comprehensible Input Defined

17

To be able to define CI, we must first describe ‘input’. As described earlier in this chapter, input is made of linguistic (phonological, morphological, syntactic, semantic and pragmatic), non-linguistic (body language), cultural (practices, perspectives, processes), stylistic (genre, register, formality, tone, modality) and semiotic (symbolic, iconic and indexical) codes (Gass & Mackey, 2007; Meyerhoff & Schleef, 2010; Peirce, 1998; Yule, 2011). It also comes in multiple modes and forms (text, auditory, visual). As described in this book, these qualities are inadequate to label a form of input as ‘(in)comprehensible’. To do that, we need information about the processes of its use. Basically, who produced what and in which context? Why and for whom? When? Where? In a nutshell, a unit of input cannot be labeled ‘comprehensible’ only based on its form and literal meaning(s). The field of sociolinguistics is replete with evidence of human production of an infinite number of variations of language samples, which negates the notion of fixed and static linguistic forms and meanings. Thus, one of the most crucial elements that can help define CI is use, or the socio-pragmatic processes of its construction (Taguchi, 2012). Through use, input’s forms and meanings are given soul and functionality. It is not too far-fetched to argue that the construct of ‘input’ resonates with the structuralist linguistic approach (language as inanimate and static) whereas CI aligns more with Hallidayan functionalist views that underscore the communicative purposes input serves. Thus, often times what is labeled as ‘CI’ in the field (e.g. textbooks) is just ‘input’. A specific variation of a unit of input, even at the phonemic level, is linked to many macro-level social indices (e.g. socioeconomic status and gender). Given the poststructuralist and socio- and psycholinguistic arguments that variation in the input is unique (speech act) and manifests a user’s purposeful acts of self-positioning, power and hybrid identities within the particularities of a discourse, attempting to define input may seem highly arduous (Canale & Swain, 1980; Curzan & Adams, 2012; Higgins, 2009; Traxler & Gernsbacher, 2006). Similarly, if we were to assume that ‘input’ means ‘sign’ in Peircean semiotics (1998), once again, we could not identify any input as ‘(in)comprehensible’ based on only one quality. In other words, to understand what a sign is in isolation (firstness) is not possible without also knowing its relational and experiential quality (secondness) and communicative and interpretive functions and representations (thirdness). From a socio-semiotic functionalist perspective, any use of a unit of input is governed by the systemic (all elements of language as a system – like grammar) parameters of the language (Halliday, 2003). People manipulate the many communication functions of input in their linguistic repertoire to craft appropriate output to communicate specific messages. For instance, in addition to using her/his repertoire of linguistic and non-linguistic elements, a person may choose to say ‘Would you mind if I used your pen?’ or ‘Can I borrow your pen?’ in asking for permission. The choices of specific lexical and syntactic units will influence the course of dynamic speech acts

18

Part 1: Encountering Comprehensible Input: Conceptual Foundation

(e.g. style, register) and processes of negotiation of meaning, inevitably leading to different outcomes in terms of comprehension difficulties. Therefore, to demystify CI, we must study the dynamic processes of L2 use – more specifically, how different people manipulate their linguistic, cultural, stylistics and semiotic capital in languaging non-finite nuances of meanings in different sociocultural settings and contexts. As defined by Swain (2006: 98), languaging is ‘a process of making meaning and shaping knowledge and experience through language’. In this sense, any potential languaging affordance at the disposal of a learner to communicate in a particular context is a constitutive element of CI. This implies that ‘comprehensibility’ is not an inherent attribute of ‘input’; rather, it is the outcome of the interaction of all input, learner, societal and setting-related affordances that contribute to different processes of negotiation of meaning in a particular discourse. Hence, to determine constitutive elements of CI, we must observe the processes of the negotiation of meaning as they unfold. We must examine who the source of the input (interlocutor or text) is, who the learners are, how and why some language elements and variations are used, what the particularities of the context of situation are and how processes of comprehension are mediated via scaffolding (help learners – by negotiating meaning – to move from one step to the next to learn) and compensatory resources. In addition, we must understand how the learners utilize their affective (e.g. willingness to communicate), cognitive (e.g. attention) and metacognitive (e.g. negotiation strategies) resources and sociocultural patterns (e.g. integration) in processing the new input (MacIntyre, 2007). Finally, to make any contribution to the available knowledge base in the field, a current definition of CI must be cognizant and inclusive of the common grounds in L2A, teaching and assessment. Such a view must acknowledge the following three points of broad consensus in the field: (a) L2 learning is not a matter of banking input, or a linear accumulation of linguistic elements; (b) L2 teaching is not knowledge transference; and (c) comprehension requires more than just the knowledge of literal meanings and grammatical rules. In this sense, without learners’ active participation in meaning-making, CI is a myth; it becomes reality with learners’ attendance to the complex and self-adaptive processes of communication. Since a form of input cannot be considered as ‘static’ or ‘inanimate’, it is hard to define it because taking a picture of a dynamic entity is hard. It becomes even harder, however, to define CI because it involves capturing culturally bound processes of social interactions and languaging that result in the construction of varying levels of L2 selves. The first assumption I offer here to describe my position about a possible definition of CI is that some forms of input may be more complex (CALP, morphosyntactic complexity), or certain tasks may be more or less cognitively demanding due to processing capacity or ecological affordances;

Comprehensible Input Defined

19

however, even if that is the case, we cannot entertain this notion until we observe the processes of the negotiation of meaning. Thus, for the sake of entertaining prevalent notions of ‘default bias’, one possible concession could be that a unit of input is ‘more’ or ‘less’ comprehensible. Secondly, a form of input that is presumed to be incomprehensible for a learner in a particular context may turn out to be rather comprehensible in another social interaction because the learner’s background (schema) in the topic is underestimated, or the interlocutor successfully scaffolds (negotiates the meaning of) the input, or the learner utilizes affordances better than expected. This implies that CI owes its existence to the mediated processes of social interactions that give rise to its construction. Therefore, CI could be defined as a ‘semiotic affordance’ that could be described only as ‘more’ or ‘less’ comprehensible depending on the processes of semiosis and languaging that are complex, self-adaptive, dynamic, unpredictable and relational.

Chapter Summary This chapter tackles the conceptual foundation of CI, a term that has been used in the L2 education literature rather profusely. Here, in light of recent advancements in L2A theory and research, the chapter attempts to unravel what the concepts ‘input’, ‘comprehensibility’ and ‘CI’ mean; what their linguistic, cultural, semiotic and stylistic codes are and how CI relates to output. Specifically, some ambiguous and reductionist assumptions about CI and its defining elements are challenged and the need for new interpretations that include its socioculturally situated, complex, dynamic, self-adaptive and multimodal nature is stressed. Firstly, the chapter addresses what it means for a unit of input to be comprehensible – namely, inherent qualities of input as product versus communicative elements and affordances, or input as process. Secondly, to capture a more comprehensive view of CI, the nature of its linguistic (phonological, morphological, syntactic, semantic and pragmatic), cultural (practices, perspectives and processes), semiotic (semiosis, indexical, iconic and symbolic) and stylistic (genre, register, formality, tone, modality) codes are described with examples. Thirdly, a brief account is offered about L2 learners’ experiences in maneuvering constitutive elements and processes of input versus output. For example, the role of social mediation, particularities of a context of situation and individual differences that are involved in processing input (and producing L2 output) are highlighted. The chapter ends with a brief summary that attempts to offer a more broad view of CI as ‘semiotic affordance’ that can only be described as ‘more’ or ‘less’ comprehensible as moderated by the highly unpredictable, relational and self-organizing processes of semiosis and languaging.

2 Theoretical Foundation of Input and Comprehensibility Building on the discussion on comprehensible input’s (CI) constitutive elements, or the conceptual foundation, in Chapter 1, this chapter begins with a descriptive account of the history of CI. Included in this short overview are the origins of the concept dating back to the Gouin method (19th century) and Asher’s Total Physical Response followed by its formal introduction to the field by Krashen in the Input Hypothesis in the 1980s. Next, in describing the conceptual foundation of CI, the chapter offers separate summaries for several linguistic, cognitive and socio-psychological frameworks. These accounts are presented from the perspectives of the cognitive load, automaticity, schema, dual-coding, multimodality, constructivism, socio-constructivism, poststructuralism and hybridity theories.

Laying the Groundwork: Origins and Historical Antecedents The concept of CI is grounded in a long historical foundation, encompassing theory and research from numerous fields such as linguistics, L2A, educational psychology, cultural studies and English as a Second Language (ESL)/English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teaching. Undoubtedly, a comprehensive examination of the use of the term would be incomplete without understanding its historical antecedents. It appears that CI’s origins, some of its underlying assumptions, date back to the Gouin method (cited in Handschin, 1912), a practice-driven psychological approach to L2 teaching that presented grammatical and lexical units in ways that they would be easy for L2 learners to understand and remember. Gouin, a 19th-century individualist who owned a language school in Geneva, believed that L2s should be taught in similar ways to how first languages (L1) are taught. He developed this method with a focus on situational authenticity (Hanzeli, 1975). As part of the contemporary reform movement, his ‘central concept was that the structure of language text reflected the structure of the experience it described’ (Howatt & Widdowson, 2004: 180). More specifically, this method followed a simple sequential order of ‘series’ that included smaller chunks of language samples (e.g. short descriptions, commands) that were considered to constitute ‘comprehensible units’. A good example that elucidates how this method conceptualized CI is provided by Howatt and 20

Theoretical Foundation of Input and Comprehensibility

21

Widdowson (2004: 180) who described some possible language input an L2 learner would hear in this method as ‘I am walking to the door, I am standing by the door, I am turning the handle’ and so forth. Another psycholinguistically inspired method, Total Physical Response (TPR), also shares certain commonalities with several defining elements of CI. Based on the supposition that L1 and L2 processes of acquisition are somewhat similar, this method involves exposure to a substantial amount of listening input accompanied by physical responses, or non-linguistic output (e.g. moving, smiling). In Asher’s (1969: 4) terms ‘The strategy of TPR is to have the students listen to a command in a foreign language and immediately obey with a physical action’. This way, comprehensibility of input is continuously monitored and ensured by the teacher as gauged by learners’ immediate behavioral responses to the teacher’s commands. The method was introduced by Asher (1969) in light of L2A research that comprehension and retention of input is highly successful when learning behavior is accompanied with physical action. Taken together, TPR promises a wide range of linguistic, psychological and instructional tools to facilitate the comprehension of input. Namely, by presenting learners with context-embedded linguistic input in a stress-reduced environment, it utilizes participatory instructional techniques that activate learners’ prior knowledge and offers constant modification support to facilitate the comprehension of new input (Richards & Rodgers, 2010). CI, as it is currently used in the field, was introduced by Krashen (1981) as one of the critical conditions to be met for successful L2A to occur. Basically, Krashen (1987) argues that L2A can happen only if learners are exposed to an ample amount of language input that is understandable to them. Like Gouin and Asher, Krashen also believes that L1 and L2 acquisition processes share certain similarities. Thus, just like L1 input to which infants are exposed, L2 input also presents itself in varying degrees of comprehensibility; whether due to its linguistic or communicative elements or the nature of instructional practices. Krashen and his colleagues (e.g. Terrell, 1982) have argued that TPR is a useful technique, particularly for learners at early stages of L2A, because it provides listening input with a focus on learners’ ability to understand the input not necessarily to generate output. As described by Krashen (1987), TPR is one of the first attempts to underscore the importance of comprehensibility and the utilization of body movement to help make input comprehensible.

Theories of Processability and Comprehensibility of Input Cognitive load theory Cognitive load (CL) theory argues that some learning tasks are intrinsically more difficult than others due to the greater information

22

Part 1: Encountering Comprehensible Input: Conceptual Foundation

processing demands that they impose on the working memory capacity of individuals (Sweller, 1994). Moreover, some forms of this theory attribute CL to extraneous and instructional variables. Thus, learning tasks can be categorized as more or less complex based on the anticipated nature and amount of information to be processed, the individual’s processing capacity, the number and nature of interactions to be attended to, environmental affordances and so forth. Interpreting CI within this theory, one can assume that some forms of L2 input are, by nature, more easily perceivable and comprehensible than others due to the ways they have been structured in the human mind. For this reason, despite being exposed to sizable quantities of input in a particular social situation, L2 learners are selective in perceiving and attending to some forms of input more than others. Thus, to examine lexical or morphosyntactic qualities of input in order to predict its inherent comprehension challenges, it may seem reasonable to explore it more extensively. These explorations could include the input’s parts of speech, length and amount of subordination and coordination, as well as structural features at the phrasal, clausal and utterance level. There is some research on indices and measurement of lexical and syntactic complexity in L2A, which use certain software and algorithmic and computational systems (Lu, 2010; Mancilla et al., 2015). In applying some principles of generativism or minimalism (Chomsky, 1965, 1995) to L2A, one may also attribute CL or comprehension difficulties of a unit of input to how its linguistic features are structured within innate systems of language biology and neurology (Hauser et al., 2002). In this sense, the input’s comprehensibility load would depend on its ‘abstract linguistic computational systems alone, independent of the other systems with which it interacts and interfaces’ and the ‘internal computational system…’ or the ‘biological capacity that allows us to readily master any human language without explicit instruction’ (Hauser et al., 2002: 1571). If human beings are preprogrammed to process and acquire linguistic input, what does ‘preprogramming’ entail for the language faculty, and different universals, parameters and principles? What differences should we expect in terms of markedness and various levels of morphosyntactic complexity? If this genetic endowment that grows in our brain (like other physical organs grow in other parts of our body like the growth of a toe) is a preprogrammed biophysical system, it is plausible to assume that such a system may have subsystems that interface without other systems. For example, these subsystems may include layers and functions that would ‘host’ forms and kinds of input of different structures differently. Then, it would be plausible to claim that the acquisition of some forms of input may be more or less difficult than that of others, by virtue of their biophysical structure. From this perspective, the cognitive processability of a form of input would also be a matter of the interactions and interfaces among its linguistic and internal computational systems as well as the other

Theoretical Foundation of Input and Comprehensibility

23

‘organism-internal systems’ (e.g. respiration, digestion) (Hauser et al., 2002; Ortega, 2009). Note that, however, as far as the CL is concerned, in this view the link between cognitive processing and syntactic complexity (e.g. the processing of ‘aspect’) is unclear. From some CL theory perspectives, comprehensibility of input involves more than just attending to the intrinsic challenges posed by its linguistic and cultural properties, a view rather congruent with some L2A research. Note that, some of the assumptions of CL theory feed into several controversies in L2 education theory and research, including issues of processability of input, nature of interlanguage development, L1 and L2A processes and even applications of the whole language theory in L2A (Gass & Selinker, 2008; Hawkins, 2001). For example, building on some of these assumptions and that L1 and L2 learning processes are similar, Diao and Sweller (2007: 85) argue that to ensure comprehension, smaller units of input are to be presented and learned before they are chunked into larger units, adding that ‘…when teaching novice second language learners to read, particularly those who may still have difficulties with sound symbol correspondences between the spoken and written language, the common procedure of presenting both written and spoken material simultaneously may not be optimal. If the aim of instruction is to teach novice learners to read, providing them with listening instruction could interfere with rather than facilitate learning’.

Automaticity theory This theory is mainly about the nature of cognitive processes involved in attending to and comprehending a task (Samuels, 1994). When human beings engage in meaningful repetition and practice of a receptive or productive task, they reach a point when they start performing that task with minimal cognitive and social demands. As argued by Bargh (1994), automaticity occurs when an individual is engaged in a task without having to employ high levels of cognitive resources. In fact, the individual may not even have intended to or be aware of engagement in the task; nor may she/ he be able to control it. For example, in Krashen’s view, when people have acquired a language versus learning it, generating output is less effortless and fast, or in this case, more automatic, because their processing of the input would not occupy as many cognitive processes and resources as they would have if they had learned the input. Thus, the comprehensibility of any input would initially require more intentionality, attention, awareness, cognitive capacity, and resources. Later, intentionality would occur in a decreasing amount through meaningful use, practice and internalization. Ultimately, automatic use of the input would reach a point where L2 learners could cognitively afford to invest their attention and resources in tertiary activities simultaneously; a case known as multitasking.

24

Part 1: Encountering Comprehensible Input: Conceptual Foundation

Automaticity is not just one level. Learners may demonstrate different degrees of automatic behavior when they encounter different forms of input. As far as a learner’s level of control over the processability and comprehension of the input is concerned, not only is the nature of the initial learning experience (e.g. inquiry based versus rote-learning) very critical but also how this experience is facilitated through scaffolded and guided interactions. Undoubtedly, subsequent practice and applications of the input in various contexts of situations are also highly important. This is partially due to the assumption that ‘…skills are learned and routinized (e.g., becoming automatic) only after the earlier use of controlled processes’ (McLaughlin, 1987: 135). Furthermore, only with continuous practice of the input, in short-term memory, can the connections to long-term memory be strengthened. That is why in order for readers to be able to read without consciously thinking about the words, some reading processes and skills have to become automatized. In this sense, automaticity theory sheds light on the understanding of fluency in the processability and comprehension of input (Gorsuch & Taguchi, 2008). Therefore, especially for struggling learners at early stages of L2 development, ample exposure (meaningful use and practice) to input, particularly word recognition, is critical for its automatic use.

Schema theory According to this theory, a unit of input’s comprehensibility is largely a matter of connections drawn by individuals between the old (prior schema) and new input. Schema theory makes assumptions about the nature of the representation of information in the human mind and how it is used in comprehension and inference (Anderson et al., 1977). It is another cognitive theory that has often been used in psycholinguistics to explain how human beings process and store new knowledge. A schema is a unit of information that may represent a concept, person, animal, object, event, action or the relationships among these. In linguistics terms, schemata represent all parts of speech like nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs and articles. According to this theory, the human mind engages, processes and stores new information like a computer. Thus, a schema is like a folder on a personal computer. When humans learn a new piece of information, or in the case of L2A, are exposed to new L2 input, they process it in the context of their existing knowledge and experiences. At this point, they either save it under an existing folder (reactivated schema), construct an entirely new folder (schema), or reorganize an existing folder based on the new information and save it as new input. In some ways, the theory follows a similar logic to that of a thesaurus or lexicon dictionary that organizes language units in terms of their many different interrelationships. As far as its nature and function are concerned, researchers have concentrated on different aspects of a schema. For example, Rumelhart

Theoretical Foundation of Input and Comprehensibility

25

(1984: 120) described schemata in terms of ‘how old knowledge interacts with new knowledge in perception, language, thought, and memory’. Pearson (1992: 1075), on the other hand, approached it from a product and process perspective, describing it in terms of its focus on ‘prior knowledge and inference in directing the construction of meaning’. In a recent seminal re-examination of the theoretical underpinnings of the schema theory in learning and literacy development, McVee et al. (2005: 555) stated that schemata are embodied ‘with the world and thus the nature of the representations we construct’, and that ‘knowledge is situated in the transaction between world and individual, and these transactions are mediated by culturally and socially enacted practices’. Describing its historical development, McVee et al. (2005) stated that in the early interpretations of the theory, cognitive processes of comprehension were considered as inextricably linked to cultural factors. Later, this connection was lost, with the focus shifting to the examination of rather fixed, topdown cognitive processes, and mental representations (Kintsch, 1998). In current interpretations, schematic processes are considered to be rather flexible and context-embedded processes, with some acknowledgment of the traditionally grossly reduced role of sociocultural factors, as they relate to the construction of new knowledge and the development of cognition and higher cognitive skills. Although controversies exist about the (de)coding aspects of comprehension and the formation of new schemata (Sadoski et al., 1991), this theory, rooted in Gestaltian psychology and frequently used in current research (e.g. computer science), is rather relevant to the understanding of CI. This is partially due to its focus on both the holistic schematic organization and the configuration of new input in the mind for access, processability, recall and output. In fact, referential, inferential and other linguistic affordances available in the context of a text not only affect its comprehensibility, but may also influence a learner’s success in recalling and retaining new input. In addition, when human beings face new input, they undergo different processes of selection, abstraction, interpretation, integration and reconstruction (Alba & Hasher, 1983), all of which relate to different aspects of processability and schema formation. For example, when a person reads a poem, she/he selects certain input that is connected to an activated schema. At this stage, the person processes the input at a very abstract level. Next, the person accesses the existing knowledge to interpret the new input. Finally, as the person co-constructs the new schema, she/he integrates the new input within the existing repertoires of input. The nature of these processes has an impact on how well the person recalls, retains and even uses the new input. Applying these five processes to the comprehensibility of L2 input at a more broad level, we would observe that learners take a very selective approach to processing new input by only activating contextually immediate schemata

26

Part 1: Encountering Comprehensible Input: Conceptual Foundation

that are somewhat relevant (or important) to the understanding of new input, thereby decreasing the CL and memory capacity needed for comprehension. Similarly, in the abstraction process, the learner would invest her/his energy particularly in the semantic elements of input as instigated or allowed by existing schemata. The individual will successfully engage and interpret new input to the degree that she/he is able to connect with and activate the existing schemata. Finally, since all forms of input are organized (stored in the brain) in the form of schemata that are interconnected, and by nature, are amenable to constant modification, integration of new input with the old (prior L2 input) is a requisite for the comprehension and/or construction of new input.

Dual-coding theory Paivio (1986), who initiated the dual-coding theory, proposed that information is represented in two coding systems: verbal and imagery. Although these two systems are separate processors, they complement each other as connected mental subsystems. The verbal coding system serves the processing of linguistic elements while the imagery system deals with the processing of non-verbal elements such as images and objects. When processing new input, human beings assign visual and/or symbolic meanings and representations to it to make sense, store, retain and use it (output) later. Dual-coding processing contains both external and internal variables; factors related to the individual or those related to the input and ecology. The external factors, which may appear as debilitating situational constraints or facilitating contextual affordances or instructional support, interact with internal variables, influencing a learner’s understanding of new input. The internal variables include a person’s existing knowledge, personal experiences and individual characteristics. According to this theory, unlike the verbal system that relies on sequential processing, the imagery system relies on holistic processing in complementing the verbal system in the representation of new input (Sadoski et al., 1991). The theory proposes three processes: representational, referential and associative. In the L2 context, when engaging an inputprocessing task, a learner may activate verbal or visual representations that she/he possesses. Likewise, one of these systems, whichever the learner has in her/his existing repertoire, would become a point of reference to activate the other. The associative process is when the learners would activate different representations available within each coding system. Finally, the theory attempts to explain linguistic and non-linguistic cognitive processes and their relations to each other. For an L2 learner, a linguistic representation can become more or less comprehensible when it is presented in a particular context that offers the learner compensatory resources (e.g. cognates, synonyms). As such, the comprehensibility of the same input can also be facilitated by an available non-linguistic symbol that

Theoretical Foundation of Input and Comprehensibility

27

represents that concept or emotion (e.g. pictures). Yet, as argued by Sadoski et al. (1991), the ideal scenario for comprehensibility is when the linguistic representations are facilitated by other linguistic and imagery supplements. For example, for a French learner of Spanish, the understanding of the word ‘armonia’ can be facilitated if the corresponding cognate ‘harmonie’ is activated while the input is paraphrased in the text and supplemented by a pictorial representation. As supported by the findings of some research, the utilization of such coding systems also has positive implications for retention. For example, Bruning et al. (2004) suggested that input can be recalled more easily if it is coded in both of these systems versus one of the systems in isolation. Note that, however, it would be naïve to assume that it is easy to form associations between verbal and visual elements of L2 input, which especially at upper proficiency levels, involves rather high levels of abstractions. For example, reading texts (e.g. some reading passages on graduate record examinations [GRE] tests) that are highly specialized (physics content), dense (readability) and complex (syntactic structure and lexical resources) may be hard to supplement with imagery resources to facilitate comprehension.

Multimodality theory From a multimodality theory perspective, media and forms of input encompass more than just the sensory means (seeing/hearing) through which the input is perceived. Modality refers to both the form (e.g. oral speech) and the media (e.g. poetry performance accompanied by music, video or dramatic flair) through which it is presented (Kress, 2000). The theory refers to multimodal representations of input as interactive systems that include the form of input, the physical medium, the interlocutors (individual or machine) and their resources, the sociocultural context and semiotic indices, the nature and form of interactions and so forth. Thus, learners’ reception and processing of certain kinds of input can be enhanced when it is presented through multiple modalities (Guichon & McLornan, 2007; Kress, 2000). For example, a person with color-blindness may accurately identify some imagery input whereas she/he may fail to perceive other visual input and only at lower degrees of accuracy. For this person, the learning experience can be maximized when the visual input is accompanied by a written text or an oral description. As documented in research on multiple intelligence (Gardner, 2006) and learner styles (Reid, 1987), human beings seem to demonstrate higher levels of reception or inclination toward some modalities than others. Therefore, the more modalities with higher levels of processability capacity that an individual has at her/his disposal, the more successful she/he will be in successfully processing new input. Input, by nature, is multifaceted and L2 learners have multiple sensory tools. This, in turn, improves the likelihood of the input’s comprehensibility

28

Part 1: Encountering Comprehensible Input: Conceptual Foundation

increasing when it is presented in multiple forms. These forms may include colorful pictures, graphs, videos and other non-textual multimedia features that aid the comprehension of newly introduced input (Ajayi, 2012). For example, based on the socio-semiotic view of multimodality, we could assume that L2 learners’ comprehension of input would be different when the input’s textual elements are accompanied by audio or visual media in a socioculturally relevant context (Bezemer & Kress, 2008). This way, the learner is given access to more media enhanced by sociocultural affordances, historical relevance and contextually situated semiotic representations that potentially offer additional cognitive benefits for comprehension. Furthermore, not only does each mode serve as a resource for the processability of the linguistic properties of the input, but it also carries with it the cultural and metaphorical elements. For instance, a German learner immigrant child’s comprehension of certain historical content in a middle school social studies classroom can be facilitated substantially when it is accompanied by historical artifacts, maps and other relevant visuals. Undoubtedly, multimodality of input has gained a new meaning with the evolution of computer-mediated communication (CMC). As argued by Kress (2003: 1), the media of sounds and images and the capability of screen technologies are creating a colossal change in ‘the uses and effects of literacy and of associated means for representing and communicating at every level and in every domain’. Thus, in this era of CMC and multimodal learning, considerations about comprehensibility of input must involve multimedia learning. Kress (2000: 337) maintains that ‘it is now impossible to make sense of texts, even of their linguistic parts alone, without having a clear idea of what these other features might be contributing to the meaning of a text’. A considerable bulk of research exists about the role of modality in L2A, which in principle suggests that greater comprehension and retention can occur when a textual input is accompanied with auditory and visual support (Ginns, 2005). In addition, according to this theory, which hinges on the dual-coding theory, ‘humans possess separate information processing channels for visually represented material and auditorily presented material’ (Mayer, 2005: 33). Mayer attributes such learning gains to learners’ abilities to process information in multiple channels simultaneously without cognitive overload. Indeed, L2 classrooms are semiotic ecologies where learners get to process multimodal input of spoken, auditory, written and visual forms. To put into perspective the value of a multimodal versus a unimodal L2 input, one could draw a parallel between the inherent rigor in the interaction effects of many variables versus a single variable in explaining a phenomenon. For that reason, L2 learners’ understanding of metaphorical input entails substantially more than just the translation of its linguistic elements. Comprehensibility of input can probably be further enhanced when learning is socio-historically contextualized and facilitated via

Theoretical Foundation of Input and Comprehensibility

29

multiple media that incorporate hyperlinks to materials involving cultural elements and perspectives and practices.

Constructivist theory Constructivist theorists propose that learning is an individual’s active construction of meaning that is subjected to constant change and modification based on the individual’s experience of the world. Constructivism places the learner and her/his individual experience and development at the heart of learning. Such learning is inherently open to unique and innovative perception, interpretation, comprehension and production of new input (Kaufman, 2004). Since the socio-constructivist view of CI will be presented in Part 2, the view here is restricted to individual constructivism, primarily focusing on an individual’s ability to process and learn new information. Applying this view to CI, we could argue that an L2 learner’s comprehension of a unit of input is ‘uniquely’ individual because such learners make sense of new input and come to comprehend it in the context of their existing knowledge. In this sense, comprehensibility of a new unit of input is directly tied to the other input a person already has in her/his knowledge repertoire (Kanselaar et al., 2000). In addition to their epistemological and ontological belief systems, L2 learners’ perceptions about factors and resources (e.g. materials, metacognitive strategies) involved in L2 learning and education can potentially facilitate or debilitate their understanding of new input. More specifically, just like the knowledge of linguistic elements of input (form), an L2 learner’s perceptions about what knowledge is (epistemological stand) and how ‘learning’ (as a behaviorist versus a constructivist process) occurs may influence comprehension too. Undoubtedly, a learner’s perceptions of L2 self and identity (ontology) and acts of positionality also play indispensable roles in levels of comprehension. According to this theory, learners actively engage in the task of learning in uniquely different ways. Therefore, for successful comprehension of a unit of input to occur, input needs to be presented in meaningful contexts that allow for need-based support and accommodation. By inference, one can assume that L2 learners’ successful comprehension of input depends on their active engagement in experiential and meaningful tasks as facilitated by their affective (e.g. motivation) and metacognitive (e.g. learning strategies, beliefs) characteristics. Given the painstaking cognitive processes and emotional (e.g. anxiety) perseverance a learner has to endure to learn an L2, his/her willingness (or motivation) to invest time and energy in a task and analyze, synthesize, generalize and internalize new input undoubtedly plays a critical role in processing new input (Dörnyei, 2005; MacIntyre, 2007). Krashen (1987) states that the constructivist view of learning explains the psycholinguistic processes that L2 learners go through in order to comprehend new input and build their own lexical and

30

Part 1: Encountering Comprehensible Input: Conceptual Foundation

structural competence. The fact that there is copious amounts of research on how learner variables play a vital role in L2A, interpersonal communication strategies and interaction patterns in L2 tasks, as well as the classroom discourse and linguistic and non-linguistic contexts in which the input is presented, have to be taken into consideration to ensure comprehension (Kaufman, 2004). From a Piagetian constructivist perspective, comprehensibility of L2 input would largely depend on learners’ cognitive (operations) and linguistic (proficiency) stages of development. This view, which highlights endogenous learner characteristics (cognitive) versus environmental affordance (social), also underscores the role prior knowledge and experience play in L2A. In other words, comprehension of L2 input is facilitated when learners are engaged in personal exploration, discovery and experiential activities in authentic communication. Indeed, learners process and acquire new input by intentionally positioning their L2 identity and actively negotiating meaning in a discourse, using their existing knowledge base, unique experiential background and contextual and environmental affordances (Block, 1982). While it may be considered immature to make assumptions about how Piaget’s theory of developmental stages (sensorimotor, preoperational, concrete operational and formal operational) may apply to CI, based on Krashen’s theory of infantization and some L2A research on age effect on L2A (Birdsong, 2006; Singleton & Ryan, 2004), it may not be too far-fetched to presume that L2 learners with different individual traits may face numerous comprehension challenges at different degrees of intensity depending on their age and proficiency levels when facing new input.

Sociocultural theory Although socio-constructivism shares the basic principles with constructivism in explaining human learning, unlike constructivists’ focus on the individual (intramental: within individual), it argues for the primacy of the social (intermental: social interaction) processes in learning and development. Without social mediation the individual construction of meaning, including the development of higher cognitive abilities and skills, is in jeopardy. This, as argued by Vygotsky (1978), is because society bears the cultural heritage and social processes that give rise to individual processes as they are mediated by language and cultural symbols and artifacts. In this view, input can be interpreted as any mediational tool that facilitates communication among people. Hence, input can be observed in many different forms and symbolic representations, including pictures, drawings, numbers and para- and metalinguistic elements and so forth. For example, Karpov and Haywood (1998) described two kinds of mediational tools. The first type involves sociocultural tools, which provide self-regulation and act like metacognitive aids to help learners monitor and evaluate their own

Theoretical Foundation of Input and Comprehensibility

31

performance in using symbolic representations (input) to communicate with interlocutors. The second type, concept-based regulation, refers to the cognitive tools and resources that can potentially mediate communication in different subject domains. Indeed, these two types of tools constitute different aspects of the communicative power of any given input. Vygotsky (1978) presumes that thought develops from society to the individual – not the other way around – and that higher mental functions develop through the mediation of social interactions, which are culturally binding. In other words, we are because of others. With this being said, the ‘shaping and reshaping of cognition is an aspect of learning’ and ‘the capacity for thinking is linked to our capacity for languaging’ (Swain, 2006: 95). As a result, the comprehensibility of L2 input also involves the application of certain cognitive skills in the target language. From the socio-constructivist perspective, input does not exist in a vacuum; nor is it a stable entity that can be transferred from one person to another. In other words, a unit of input is not a static thing; it is an activity process, and actions occur in interaction. In this sense, to comprehend a unit of input means to agree on what has been co-constructed within the particularities of a context of situation within a community of practice. Goodman (1986: 87) explains this as, ‘… the dialectical interplay of many minds’ that cannot be separated from the accumulated practices of prior generations, cultural elements or the multimodal media in which the participants interact and develop (Bruner, 1990; Lave & Wenger, 1991). Thus, rather than the elements of an imaginary product, the complex, dynamic and self-organizing sociocultural perspectives, practices and processes through which input is constructed are what really deserve examination. Finally, this theory explains learning processes and development with several constructs including mediation, cultural knowledge, dialogue, scaffolding, zone of proximal development (ZPD) and internalization (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006). In this view, expression and indexical power of every input is bound by sociocultural knowledge and habitual and experiential connotations of a particular society. Therefore, comprehension is largely a matter of how successfully an L2 learner can unpack the continuously changing sociocultural codes onto which the input’s meaning has been inscribed. Based on these assumptions, one can argue that for successful comprehension of L2 input, it is necessary to construct a highly acculturated L2 self-system that possesses all linguistic, cultural, semiotic and stylistic elements that would help the learner to engage in L2-dominant socialization patterns that offer exposure to input and comprehension processes (Duff, 2007; Mercer, 2011). Building on Krashen’s i+1 theory (1981), in terms of the negotiation and comprehension of an utterance, the nature and form of a successful dialog and scaffolding activity that occurs within the ZPD between the interlocutors may be more beneficial than an L2 learner ’s linguistic knowledge of the input’s lexical and structural

32

Part 1: Encountering Comprehensible Input: Conceptual Foundation

elements. This is also important for the distinction between ‘learned’ versus ‘internalized’ input, a concept that has additional implications related to ‘intake’ and retention and authentic output. As argued by Lantof and Thorne (2006), internalization implies that L2 learners have increasingly moved from social ways of knowing to internal ways of knowing. L2 development or successful comprehension of input, in this case, depends on successful engagement in social interaction (Long, 1981, 1996) that is closely related to what background knowledge and skills a learner brings to the context and how well she/he utilizes mediational tools (language, thought and cultural artifacts) to meet the interlocutors within the ZPD through processes of dialog and scaffolding. The ultimate goal is, undoubtedly, reaching a level when the learner becomes able to independently produce his or her authentic output: a desirable outcome of the process of internalization.

Poststructural theory Developed as an opposing theory to structuralism, poststructural theory builds on postmodern notions of relativisms, multiplexity, power relations and positionality, among others (Norton, 2000). Assumptions of the poststructural theory are rooted in numerous ontological and epistemological controversies surrounding issues of complexity, instability, non-linearity, dynamism and (inter)subjectivity in the psychology of human learning and actions. Indeed, in this view, neither a learner’s meaning-making, identity formation and positioning, nor a text or a discourse in which meaning is constructed, or the structure of power relations existing in the broader environment are stable (Block, 2007). Unlike Saussurean semiotics, this theory assumes no stable nexus between the form (signifier) and the meaning (signified) of a word. It claims that meaning is multiple in which each individual constructs meaning differently and in relation to other meanings. Those meanings also change constantly and sociocultural contexts and discourses, in which meaning is constructed, are also subject to continuous change (Higgins, 2009; Pavlenko, 2002). Therefore, as volatile and chaotic as it may sound, L2 learners are expected to acquire (construct) this constantly changing, non-existent cloud (input) under the circumstances of continuously changing and self-discrepant individual variables and social turmoil. Applying it to L2A, one would argue that comprehension of L2 input, which is multifaceted, is contextually bound and inherently situated within more or less facilitating discursive interactions and available affordances. It is these interactions and affordances on which a learner capitalizes (Norton & McKinney, 2011). An example of this could be the way in which a 30-year-old male, African English learner in the US in the 1960s (during the civil rights movement) comprehended the multiple meanings of a textual input and how it would be rather different from how he/she would approach the same input now.

Theoretical Foundation of Input and Comprehensibility

33

In addition, poststructuralists approach issues of language, language use and L2 learning from the perspective of socially situated relations. These relations are often unpredictable and asymmetrical, with specific power and prestige assignments to different social, ethnic, racial and gender groups (Higgins, 2009). Thus, comprehensibility of input entails different meanings and socio-cognitive processes for different individuals from different social strata. This is either due to ecological differences, individual differences or the textual affordances that allow for the construction of different kinds of meanings. From a poststructuralist view, due to the asymmetrical power distribution between men and women and gendered identity-positioning and socialization patterns, men and women are presumed to approach L2 input differently. For example, compared to a male counterpart, a Kurdish girl may want to invest more time and effort in attaining a more nativelike Turkish accent because such linguistic capital could give her access to possible employment opportunities and financial independence that she would not have within her Kurdish community. In this situation, the opportunities of access and exposure to Turkish input will also be vastly different from that of a male counterpart because unlike females, males have more freedom to socialize with people from the other gender. A male may intentionally follow Kurdish-dominant socialization patterns that restrict his access opportunities to such input due to the view that the attainment of a more native-like Turkish accent poses a threat to his Kurdish identity (Polat & Mahalingappa, 2010). Understanding the behavioral regulations of these two learners and their decision-making in engaging the Turkish input would be scientifically impossible, if not naïve, because it involves the interactions of numerous factors related to many individual variables, intertextual subjectivities and the social power relations.

Hybridity theory Hybridity theory refers to the blending and amalgamation of two or more interwoven elements of language and culture (Bhabha, 1994). It shares many common assumptions with several other theoretical frameworks. These frameworks include multimodality, socio-constructivism and poststructuralism. This theory is used rather broadly and equivocally in numerous fields, including biology, postcolonial cultural and race studies and even the automobile industry. The use of hybridity theory in linguistics is grounded in the notion that human beings depend on multiple intertwined sociocultural resources and tools when they read, listen to a text or produce an utterance. To apply it to the L2A field, comprehension of input would be an act of successful positioning of all relevant dynamic self-systems and contextual affordances. It involves integrating all relevant factors in a space (Moje et al., 2004) where the learners actively construct knowledge and/or engage in cultural practices and activities of authentic

34

Part 1: Encountering Comprehensible Input: Conceptual Foundation

self-expression that define their multiple and hybrid identities. One other unique contribution of this theory includes the notion that cultural identity formations (characterizing one particular race or ethnicity) are not essentially the same (cultural essentialism).Therefore, this would imply that patterns of language learning and use shape or are shaped by a particular cultural identity that represents their individual L2 selves, which implies a great deal of within-group variation (Young, 2005). For example, assuming that all Asians or Latinos approach certain kinds of L2 input or cultural elements similarly would be unfounded. As they attempt to comprehend linguistic or cultural input, L2 learners cognitively (mentally) and socially travel in the mazes of numerous culturally situated discourses, using their hybrid identities that are occasionally self-contradicting. Analogous to poststructural (e.g. Higgins, 2009) and critical theorists (e.g. Geuss, 1981), hybridity theorists also argue that political economy, dominance and power relations define most of the operational space (Young, 2005) and parameters of language use (Norton, 2000). Furthermore, the powerful, or dominant, groups also establish and attribute covert or overt value or prestige (Trudgill, 1972) to certain kinds of input in the form of ‘standard’, disenfranchising accents, dialects, pidgins or creoles used by the so-called ‘lower’ class. Thus, construction or maintenance of a culture, in the face of hegemony and dominance of another, involves constant power struggles. The construction of linguistic meanings and input cannot be separated from these power struggles. Applying it to L2A, one could argue that an L2 learner’s approach to and comprehension of any input are appositionally critical and entail deep negotiations of inferential meanings and ethnic, racial, and cultural conflicts. As Holub (1992) argued, comprehension of new input is about how an individual connects his/ her sociocultural experiences with its intended meanings. In addition, Bhabha’s (1994) interpretation of cultural hybridity and paradigms of colonial identity offers several potential applications to L2A, particularly with regard to second (versus foreign) language learning settings where ‘immigrant’ learners are immersed into L2 language and culture. This is sometimes due to national policy that enforces cultural assimilation. A learner’s perceptions about the L2 language and culture, particularly those about the L2 self-system that comprises elements of cultural identity, attitudes and acculturation patterns, influence her/his interpretation and construction of L2 input (see Chapter 6). When L2 learners feel that their L1 cultural identity is threatened, or not feel the necessity to engage with the L2 community due to sociocultural or political reasons (Polat, 2011c; Schumman, 1978), they may develop a psychological barrier (Krashen, 1981) and volitionally avoid exposure opportunities to L2 input. An example of this could be a Latino learner of English who has positive attitudes toward hybrid (additive bilingualism or biculturalism) cultural identity formation in the US context. This learner may attend to, interpret and comprehend a

Theoretical Foundation of Input and Comprehensibility

35

television news report about immigration and education policy in the US rather differently from a counterpart, who lacks legal residency status and/ or feels like his/her native language and cultural identity is endangered or being compromised. In settings where new oppressive immigration laws are enforced (e.g. Arizona in the USA) and language policy and educational practices undermine additive bilingualism or multilingualism (see Valenzuela, 1999), issues of cultural identity as they relate to processing and acquiring L2 input pose additional challenges.

Chapter Summary This chapter offers a historical overview of the origins of CI and expands the discussion on its conceptual foundation (Chapter 1) by interpreting the construct from the perspectives of several different theories. The chapter begins by situating the CI into its historical context beginning with the 19th-century Gouin method to Asher’s TPR in the early 1970s, and then moving onto Krashen’s Input Hypothesis that introduced the term as we know it in the 1980s. By unfolding the conceptual underpinnings of the construct, this chapter provides a highly broad foundation of CI as grounded in 10 different linguistic, cognitive and socio-psychological theoretical frameworks. The discussion on theories about the processability and comprehension of input is presented in such a way that each perspective builds on the previous with a unique focus. Specifically, this chapter offers a brief account of CI from the following views: CL, automaticity, schema, dual-coding, multimodality, constructivism, socio-constructivism, poststructuralism and hybridity. While some of these views offer cognitive, others advocate for socially oriented perspectives about processing new input. CL theory ascribes comprehension challenges to the cognitive demands a task imposes on processing new input; automaticity theory highlights the nature of cognitive processes (attention, control) involved in making sense of new information; schema theory underscores the nature of the representation of information in human mind (storage); dual-coding theory focuses on the representation of information in the verbal and imagery coding systems; multimodality theory accentuates the multimodal nature and forms of input; constructivist theory places the learner’s individual experience and traits at the heart of comprehension and learning and sociocultural theory hypothesizes social mediation and negotiation of meaning to be prerequisite to both the activation of cognitive skills and processing of new input. Finally, while the poststructural theory emphasizes the postmodern notions of relativisms, multiplexity, power relations and positionality, the hybridity theory concentrates on the role of the blended and amalgamated nature of multiple elements of language and culture in processing new input.

3 Linguistic Perspectives on Input

Building on the conceptual framework (Chapter 1) and the theoretical foundation (Chapter 2) of comprehensible input (CI), this chapter presents a comprehensive account of the term from the views of five subfields of linguistics. The applied linguistics section focuses on the role of CI in L2A and use in different contexts while the sociolinguistics section discusses how CI relates to sociolinguistic variation (e.g. indices of social categories) and micro- (e.g. discourse) and macro-level (e.g. power) aspects of language use in society. The psycholinguistic section concentrates on the nature of cognitive processes (e.g. recognition), style and speech act, as well as positionality and identity formation in L2A and use. While the neurolinguistics part describes the relationship between language and the brain (neurocognitive and neurobiological) and the structure of language faculties (locations in the brain), the computational linguistics section examines the intersections of neuroscience, cognition and mathematics with the complex nature of input and its comprehensibility.

Applied Linguistic Perspectives As an interdisciplinary field, applied linguistics (AL) covers a broad range of topics related to why and how languages are learned and used in particular ways by different people or social groups in different contexts (Davies & Elder, 2004; Schmidt, 2002). Thus, by generating theoretical, research-based and pedagogical knowledge, AL contributes to the individual lives of people and the well-being of communities around the world regarding solutions to numerous language- and culture-related problems. AL draws on theory and research in numerous areas of study, including educational psychology, literacy and language acquisition and language policy, pedagogy and assessment, as well as applications of sub-linguistics fields, linguistic theory, society and culture, sign language, translation and interpretation and language and computer technology. The nature, content and methodological orientations in which AL intersects are rather vague and controversial. Without delving into the ontological and epistemological tenets (e.g. AL versus linguistics applied) of the field (Davies & Elder, 2004),

36

Linguistic Perspectives on Input

37

it appears that the field has historically allowed for different aspects of these enumerated topics to take centrality in theory and research. Indeed, the breadth of the scope of the field not only requires a multifaceted approach to the constitutive elements and forms of input, but also a wide-ranging examination of the theories of comprehension that supplement it. Not always, however, are the operational definitions and uses of a concept agreed on by all experts in a particular field. In AL, CI has sometimes been situated within the ‘individual space’ and used to refer to static and stable language units and their ‘transference’ from one person to another (generic approach). More recently, it has been positioned in the ‘social space’ in the form of dynamic and fluid social interactions or the modified collaborative processes and ecological affordances (Cook, 2003). From a conversation analysis perspective, scholars like Schegloff (1992) have argued that comprehensibility can be negotiated and achieved even in the presence of impoverished and ambiguous input. For instance, as typical in natural oral communication, input is not always provided in the ‘standard’ format or complete sentences (e.g. ellipsis); yet the conversational affordances available in the context of situation facilitate and make the input comprehensible. On the other hand, oftentimes even practicing counselors (generally well-known for their linguistic capabilities) cannot agree on the multiple interpretations (comprehensions) they infer from a seemingly clear legal document (written input) scripted in the finest lexical and syntactic structures within the context of a rather narrow legal matter as fine-tuned with high-level editing and coherence and cohesion scrutiny. In addition, in other areas of AL, input (written and oral) has been examined with respect to quantity, frequency, quality, appropriateness, form, use, developmental stages, modifications, processability, dialog and interactions, among others. From an L2A perspective, the transformation in the conceptualization and use of input (acquisition of input is covered in Part 3) began with CI being the central focus of learning (Krashen, 1981) from the attention shifting to highlighting circumstances of interaction (Long, 1985), to the primacy of the sociocultural factors (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006) and ecological affordances (van Lier, 2000). For example, while in early L2A theory and research, input was the primary subject matter and comprehension referred to the decoding or deconstruction of its linguistic elements (traditional form-meaning-use approach), most current sociocognitive and constructivist L2A research (Atkinson, 2011) underscores the dialogic nature and quality of discursive affordances and sociocultural interactions in which input is negotiated, scaffolded and constructed. Thus, earlier approaches focused on the kind, amount, nature, order (in which input is presented) and the ‘standard’ procedures of modifications. The current focus is on how and why and when the learners engage an activity (task versus text) and who the interlocutors are (people versus input). Given the historical context and the nature of development in science, such an

38

Part 1: Encountering Comprehensible Input: Concept and Foundation

ontological shift is understandable. This is even more noticeable for AL, since as an applied field, its development is inherently linked to change in the foundational dynamics of other fields with which it is connected. Based on some first language (L1) perspectives that consider input to be impoverished and inadequate for children to build the syntactic structure of their mother language (Chomsky, 1975; Pinker, 1984), we could argue that L2 input may be even more imperfect than L1 input. For example, the fact that the non-native-speaker population of English is now bigger than the native-speaker population and that there are more non-native instructors than native speakers who are teaching English as a Foreign Language (EFL) could imply that the English input to which over a billion people are exposed around the world is probably more impoverished and varied (Kachru et al., 2009). Withstanding the role of input as a necessary condition of L2A, such a perspective complicates the role of CI in L2 education, particularly for the teaching and learning of global languages like English that are now referred to in the plural form: World Englishes (Kachru et al., 2009). This notion further complicates the conceptual foundation of CI because one wonders, then, whether people refer the comprehensibility of English ‘input’ as produced and written in the UK and/or the US or southern US and/or Australia and/or colonial English (e.g. used in India) and so forth. In fact, linguistic, cultural and semiotic elements of CI pose even greater comprehension challenges when we consider hundreds of English dialects, accents, pidgins, creoles and other regional variations that are often reduced to the category of ‘English input’. Conceptual understanding of CI is no easy task from the bilingualism perspective either. Based on research on bilingual education and bilingualism, the foremost assumption we could make would be that issues and processes of input comprehension are different for simultaneous versus consecutive bilinguals (Romaine, 1995). In terms of cognitive processing and issues of transfer, interference, code-mixing and code-switching, CI could be even more different for these two bilingual groups, depending on similarities and differences between the two languages and the age of learners (Seliger & Long, 1983). The variance could get even greater depending on social distance (see Chapter 6; Schumann [1978] – issues of dominance, attitudes, etc.) between the two language communities as well as language-use patterns in families with different sociocultural particularities. For example, notwithstanding potential variability in terms of being simultaneous versus consecutive bilingual (see Bialystok, 2001), for a six-year-old Chinese bilingual in San Francisco, California (where there is a large Chinese population) versus another child in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (where there is a very small Chinese populations), access to and comprehensibility of English input versus the Chinese one could be rather different. Such variance could emanate from differences between these two geographical locations and variance within each family’s place

Linguistic Perspectives on Input

39

and length of residence, socioeconomic status, school choice, attitudes, language socialization patterns and home language dominance in each location. Note that, from a contrastive analysis hypothesis perspective (Chapter 4), these two languages are also rather distinct in terms of the script and lexical and syntactic structures. The case of a bilingual Mexican child in California, on the other hand, would be rather different (positively or negatively) from that of the Chinese child due to linguistic and some cultural similarities as well as social distance (or proximity) factors and the history of the political situation of bilingual education in the state. Taken together, these examples demonstrate that the bilingual foundations of CI are deeply rooted in many socio-psychological factors that interact in ways that are difficult to predict. Interlanguage perspective, unlike other L2A research, concentrates on the acquisition and developmental processes of L2 with a particular focus on the linguistic elements of L1 and L2 (Selinker, 1972). In this view, comprehensibility of input involves many elements and variables that would characterize both observable (contrastively identifiable elements of L1 versus L2) and inseparably mixed (e.g. code-mixing, or the case of creoles) linguistic and cultural features of L1 and L2. For instance, a Mexican child who is learning English in Al Paso, Texas (in the US) may not know the specific linguistic sources of his/her interlanguage (Spanish, English or Spanglish). In the so-called global village, L2 learners may be exposed to input from all kinds of media that broadcast different kinds of input (e.g. Fox News versus the National Public Radio [NPR] in the US). Moreover, people (native versus non-native) who have constructed their own versions of input from such media and other sources may strategically produce the versions (output) that they believe would result in the highest amount of external gains. These include gains such as emotional empathy, likeness, agreement or capital benefits (accommodation theory, audience design, linguistic capital). In addition, for example, from a socio-semiotic functionalist (Halliday et al., 1964) perspective, when a non-native speaker (e.g. Arabic) receives English input from another non-native speaker (e.g. Japanese) in oral discourse, her/his comprehension also depends on that person’s use of the lexical, syntactic and cultural elements of the English language as well as those of her/his L1, which may be rather different from input from a native speaker of English. In other words, input to which L2 learners are exposed can be uniquely shaped to serve multiple functions because it is made up of an array of systemic and systematic choices of functional manipulations that are formed to purposefully communicate a pragmatic value; a message in a particular context of situation. Furthermore, from the Hallidayan (2003) view, input, which represents language functions (not text), is multidimensional and is constituted by the paradigmatic, stratification, metafunctional, syntagmatic and instantiation dimensions. Applying these principles, we could argue that input is an instantiated system of choices

40

Part 1: Encountering Comprehensible Input: Concept and Foundation

(paradigmatic) from which a person draws semiotic representations (forms and meanings) at varying levels of complexities (stratification) to make sense of the world and interact with it (metafunctional), using other written and oral units of input of different ranks and sizes (syntagmatic). Finally, based on such functionalist principles, one could argue that, in attempting to understand input, L2 learners must attend to these personal choices of language use by the input producers while also making their own choices to construct their own version of the input. If comprehensibility of input were mostly a matter of lexical and syntactic knowledge, the translation and interpretation (particularly in the simultaneous kind) business would not be so hard. Whether the native or non-native speaker’s input would be easier for that learner to understand could go either way depending on a myriad of factors (lexical/structural choice, enunciation, cultural knowledge, etc.). Similarly, for a highly proficient adult English learner who would follow news on daily basis in the US, comprehensibility of input from NPR would be very different from that of FOX News due to the scope and breadth of topics they cover, the reporting style each medium has, the ideological belief systems with which they operate and so forth. In brief, no matter whether we look at it from the producers’ language status, or the goals of individuals or media for producing certain kinds of input, comprehensibility of input is conceptually hard to operationalize and psychometrically tricky, if possible at all, to measure.

Sociolinguistic Perspectives Sociolinguistics is situated in the intersection of language and society, with an emphasis on social factors as they relate to different aspects of language use and change. Sociolinguistics focuses on the primacy of societal factors and their effects on or interconnections with language (Duff & Hornberger, 2010). It assumes that all language use exhibits inherent variation. Sociolinguists address questions like: why do people construct and convey meaning in different ways, and in doing so, how do they capitalize on different resources (phonological, syntactic, pragmatic, etc.) available in their linguistic repertoires? Sociolinguistics is concerned with the study of language use and change from the perspective of social practices and processes, with a focus on both macro- and micro-levels. Many in the field focus on differences among groups with regard to social categories, e.g. socioeconomic status, ethnicity, age, gender, sexual orientation and educational background (Meyerhoff & Schleef, 2010). Such work necessitates examining language use and change on a large scale using various units of analysis, such as phonological variation used by different ethnic groups of a certain age and gender in specific regions based on notions of prestige and covert varieties (see, for example, seminal research by Eckert, 1989; Labov, 1972; Milroy, 1980; Rickford, 1986; Trudgill, 1972).

Linguistic Perspectives on Input

41

Others take the level of analysis to the interactional level, concentrating more on individual practices reflected in variation in language use along social networks, in communities of practice or in multilingual settings – the micro-level analysis often seeks out ways to describe how individuals may construct and perform particular identities using a variety of stylistic resources, such as discourse markers that index particular social meanings. The sociolinguistic perspective and its application to language acquisition considers all input to which L1 and L2 learners are exposed as potentially variable; thus, without examining variation within the input as situated and enacted within the particularities of social factors and contexts, it is not possible to understand factors, processes and achievement in language acquisition (Tarone, 2007). In the application of this view to L2A, variation, the subject of study, refers to systematic lexical and morphosyntactic changes in a learner’s interlanguage. As described earlier in this chapter, a person’s ability to comprehend a certain input involves a learner’s use of the relevant elements of linguistic (morphosyntactic elements), psycholinguistic (e.g. feelings and emotions) and neurolinguistic (neurobiological and cognitive resources) competencies. In addition to these elements, it is imperative to consider sociolinguistic aspects that suggest a notable amount of variability within the linguistic and social elements of input. If so, what does sociolinguistic competence entail and how does the variability within input and sociocultural affordances contribute to the building and development of sociolinguistic competence? It seems rather well-established that sociolinguistic input shows a high level of systematic variation – or ‘orderly heterogeneity’ (Meyerhoff & Schleef, 2010). The question remains as to what such variation means for comprehension since individual variables cannot be excluded from the equation. In other words, exponential complexities should be expected in the comprehension and acquisition of any given L2 input when the input is variable, individuals are different and sociocultural factors are subject to constant change. It is hard, thus, not to imagine what a cognitive and social hardship it is for L2 learners to process new input – a variant of the sanitized feature they were exposed to through classroom instruction. From this perspective, one can understand better why a learner who has acquired the L2 input would comprehend its authentic semiotic representations easier than someone who has learned it (Krashen, 1987). In addition, considering variation in the linguistic, cultural, semiotic and pragmatics elements of input at different levels of analysis – from phonemic to discourse – it would be highly inaccurate to assume that comprehensibility of input for a learner in an ESL setting would be equivalent to that of a learner in the EFL context (Nizegorodcew, 2007). From the sociolinguistic perspective, input is a fluid phenomenon that is shaped within the particularities of sociocultural parameters. Hence, input’s indices of social categories and meanings are rich, multifaceted, and

42

Part 1: Encountering Comprehensible Input: Concept and Foundation

multidimensional in that they allow for unique individual expressions and identity representations without losing their common properties (semantic and pragmatic) to index and communicate meaning on some shared grounds. Every speaker of a language has her/his own linguistic repertoire (e.g. idiolect) which allows for individual levels of comprehension based on the nature of the input. Due to the indexical nature of how meaning is assigned to linguistic features, every unit of input may carry with it notions of ethnic identity, gender or social class (for examples, see Labov, 1972; Milroy, 1980; Rickford, 1986; Trudgill, 1972). For example, the ability to interpret input relies on the individual’s access to different varieties of language, which is largely dependent on her/his position in society, resulting in access or denial of social capital and benefits. In his 1999 study on linguistic profiling, John Baugh (1999) investigated how speakers’ use of phonological features indexing African American and Latino English speakers were interpreted in such a way as to lead to denial of housing. Ultimately, the listener (the landlord seeking tenants) received input (oral production over the phone) from an individual that indexed linguistic features that she/he interpreted as associated with a stigmatized group in society, resulting in ethnic discrimination. This study demonstrates how phonemic and morphosyntactic elements of input are not static or uniform; nor are they unbending. Thus, by intentionally choosing and using specific features that authentically represent who they are, what they stand for and who or which group they ally with, people categorically ‘other’ people or speech communities that carry different varieties. With much variation, despite mutual intelligibility within the so-called nativespeaker community, one can imagine the scale of potential challenges of comprehension for the L2 learners. To understand the sociolinguistic perspective of CI, a more careful look at its micro and macro aspects is warranted. The macro aspects of input (in conjunction with studies from the sociology of language) include broad interrelations among society, social interaction and language. One example is how social groups and speech communities interact and manage power relations to enact, distribute and maintain the relative positions of their varieties. Forms of input that are maintained and ‘standardized’ under the patronage of the powerful and dominant groups benefit from the advantages of hegemony in market share and distribution as prestigious and valuable linguistic and cultural commodity (or capital) (Bourdieu, 1991). The policy and planning efforts that manipulate and designate power and market value to specific languages or dialects have always existed in human history and will continue to exist (Fishman, 1999). The acquisition of such ‘hot’ commodity (prestigious input) entails privileges and access to special networks and societies whose membership not only multiplies opportunities of access to more such input, but can also open doors to numerous external gains. As arguably most brilliantly illustrated in Bernard Shaw’s classic, Pygmalion and its musical adaptation My Fair

Linguistic Perspectives on Input

43

Lady, some variations of input (like Eliza Doolittle’s accent) are dreadful and must be fixed while some forms may be a more valuable commodity than even money in potentially giving their speakers access to certain social groups. Moreover, different age and gender groups may differ in their ways and efforts to fight for such capital. For example, based on the perceived degrees of overt or covert prestige (Trudgill, 1972) attributed to a specific dialect (versus a vernacular), some men and women – like the Hungarians in Austria to learn German (L2) – may demonstrate varying degrees of willingness in investing their time and effort to attain a specific accent so that they can find someone to marry (Gal, 1978). Similarly, Kurdish girls, as compared with boy counterparts, may differ in their identity patterns and motivational forms in acquiring a certain kind of Turkish accent because they perceive such accent as a tool to gain access to interethnic networks or job opportunities and so forth (Polat & Mahalingappa, 2010). As such, it is expected that L2 learners would make more effort to have access to and process and understand some kinds of input more easily than others. Another macro-level aspect of sociolinguistic perspective about CI relates to the issue of diglossia. In diglossic settings, two dialects (or closely related languages) are spoken by the same speech community, with one of them (of the powerful/dominant group) being used as the primary (official or standard) language (Fishman, 1967). The nature of diglossia in many countries around the world shows a great deal of variation in terms of the uses of the two variants (literary or colloquial, formal or informal, oral and written) in different social or educational contexts. For example, in Saint Martin (Netherlands Antilles), people use either French (the French side) or English (the Dutch side) in schooling and official communication while most of the daily communication within the local population is in the creole. Thus, to some creoles native speakers (mostly older population) English is partially or entirely unintelligible. In contrast, in most Arabic-speaking countries, typically everyone can read the ‘standard’ (Quran Arabic) variant while predominantly using their own dialect (e.g. Moroccan, Syrian) in daily ordinary communication (both spoken and written). Generally, the primary (high or more prestigious) dialect is learned through formal education (or prioritized in the case of bilingualism) whereas the other one is acquired as the home dominant language. As a matter of fact, comprehension of English or French input by creole native speakers in Saint Martin would be quite different from that of the Quran Arabic by Moroccans and Syrians for reasons related to the social and cultural factors and individuals’ motivations for learning the input. Thus, the French input a learner is exposed to in Tunisia versus input someone would hear in France would pose different comprehension challenges because of lexical and morphosyntactic variations, which could be further exacerbated by power struggles for dominance between the language and gender groups (Walters, 2011).

44

Part 1: Encountering Comprehensible Input: Concept and Foundation

As for the micro-level that involves discourse and interaction, comprehensibility of input can be a matter of understanding parameters of pragmatic choices, including audience design (e.g. formality), accommodation, appropriateness and positionality as well as patterns of code-switching and code-mixing, style and register, among others. These microelements operate within the social sphere, and cannot be separated from the macro factors described above. The micro aspects of CI mostly refer to the processes in which dialogical negotiations of input, which are expected to result in comprehension, maneuver in a state of flux and instantaneous change in lieu of constant changes in the discursive forms of interactions. In other words, such aspects focus on how individuals enact language in society (Meyerhoff & Schleef, 2010). In this sense, micro aspects embark on how individuals position themselves in a discourse and use all social, cultural and linguistic capital they possess to communicate their intentional and weighted messages to a particular audience within a specific context of situation within the particularities of the macro-level factors. Thus, for any learner, comprehensibility of such L2 input would largely depend on understanding the pragmatics and parameters of the processes of interactions in addition to knowing its linguistic elements. Indeed, any word or text or an utterance could be used to mean exactly what a person (intended meaning), like Humpty Dumpty (Carroll, 1872), chooses it to mean. However, what the interlocutor (or reader) chooses it to mean (perceived or constructed meaning) may be notably different from the intended meaning. CI, then, involves the ability to deconstruct the intended and implied meanings while engaging in various stages and processes in a conversation, analyzing and identifying the audience, establishing boundaries of formality, accommodating to the needs and desires of the audience for maximum gains, negotiating power and positioning identity while also being able to decode the linguistic elements and their indexical styles and registers.

Psycholinguistic Perspectives Psycholinguistics examines the intersection of psychology and language, primarily focusing on the psychological aspects of comprehension, acquisition and production. Although it is hard to disentangle the study of psycholinguistic processes from that of the neurolinguistic and the cognitive science (behavior versus brain) as they relate to different aspects of L2A and use, psycholinguistics distinguishes itself by approaching the utilization of psychological resources, tools and processes in the construction (or production) of meaning at varying levels of complexity (e.g. phoneme, clause, sentence) (Traxler & Gernsbacher, 2006). From this perspective, the fact that attendance to and comprehension and production of input depend on both psychological and linguistic resources, to understand

Linguistic Perspectives on Input

45

what comprehensibility of a given input entails, a careful examination of individual-related, input-related and context-related factors is warranted. For example, in the context of L1 acquisition, a four-year-old child’s comprehension (or output) of a word or a sentence cannot be separated from her/his individual characteristics such as feelings, emotions, strategy use and cognitive capacity, which operate within the context of her/his prior knowledge and available sociocultural affordances. Thus, as described in Chapters 1 and 2, considering multiple perspectives in examining how, why and when an individual successfully processes and comprehends certain L2 input is warranted (van Dijk & Kintsch, 1983). Psycholinguistic perspectives about CI may focus on learners’ cognitive processes, interaction patterns or processes of construction of meaning (Traxler & Gernsbacher, 2006). From a cognitive psycholinguistic view, the focus of study should be on the nature and stages of mental manipulations and how language and thought interact in the processes of attending to different units of input, with the consideration that sentence is the primary unit of analysis since, by definition, it is a complete thought. In such views, in order to understand perception, processability and comprehension aspects of CI, one would have to demystify the intricate and largely unobservable nexus between language and thought. Psycholinguistic views that approach CI from the perspective of learners’ patterns of social interactions may direct their attention to more observable features such as negotiation and (co-) construction of input as manifested in learners’ acts of self-positioning and identity formation or enactment in a particular discourse. Here, a learner’s choices of speech patterns (literal versus figurative), styles, illocutionary acts and metaphors, as well as how he/she positions himself/herself (perceived power, autonomy, etc.) in engaging an interlocutor or a text, would be the primary features of CI (Hatch, 1983). For instance, an L2 learner’s comprehension of a simple interrogative form like ‘Isn’t he the best?’ could, to a certain degree, depend on her/his understanding of the bases of comparison and the context of situation; however, processing this input, the learner could construct a positive (the best) or a negative (the worst) interpretation, depending on her/his knowledge about the person for whom the reference (the best) has been made and/or her/his interpretation of what the speaker has really intended to say by ‘the best’. In fact, the speaker could have purposefully made this input even more ambiguous by means of his/her tone, a temporal interjection of some sort of gesture or the timing of his/her statement (adjacency with previous parts of conversation) in the discourse. This could lead people who know him/her and the other person (referred to as ‘the best’) well to interpret the statement as sarcasm (negative), while still allowing for the statement to be interpreted as a compliment by the people who do not know him/her or the person of reference well. Indeed, understanding CI from a generative (or minimalist) psycholinguistic perspective is not an easy task. For example, just like

46

Part 1: Encountering Comprehensible Input: Concept and Foundation

the case of first language acquisition (L1A), some aspects of L2A cannot be explained only by a person’s exposure to CI. This might mean that L2 processing and acquisition also depend on an inborn capacity that is capable of facilitating the acquisition of mental representations (unconscious input) that are more complex and abstract than the conscious CI. Note that the processing of such input occurs in the presence of the parameters and principles of L1 (or other languages for multilingual people) (Gass & Mackey, 2012). Based on generativist assumptions, we can postulate that rates of processability and comprehension and successful acquisition of any given input are dependent on both the nature of the input (e.g. number of words) and the biological endowment that makes L2A possible. If we could determine how the processing of such input happened, not only would understanding CI become easier, but also one could try to computationally model processability and comprehension of a given unit of input based on an analysis of its conscious (e.g. syntactic and lexical complexity) and unconscious properties (elements and systems of mental representations). Indeed, then, it could perhaps also help to demystify the ‘logical question of language acquisition’; namely, how children who have limited cognitive capacity (compared to adults) comprehend and acquire the complex systems of their native language so well through the input that is often produced by their caregivers in such ‘imperfect’ forms (Singleton, 2005). Sadly though, the remarkable levels of variability (in terms of rate and success in processability and acquisition) documented both in LIA and L2A research offers only limited evidence in this area (Doughty & Long, 2005; Hawkins, 2001). The fact that human beings can generate non-finite numbers of input from the finite number of linguistic rules (Chomsky, 1965) and acquisition of languages involves rather dynamic, non-linear and complex relations, it is rather hard to truly understand the psycholinguistic processes of L2A (Larsen-Freeman, 2011; van Lier, 2002). Psycholinguistic views also make assumptions about relationships among access, recognition, selection, comprehension and production processes of input. They attempt to explain how phonological and morphological features interface with and/or activate lexical, semantic and pragmatic representations to build larger units of input at phrase, sentence or discourse levels. In so doing, they underscore the role of bottom-up and top-down processes of comprehension (Traxler & Gernsbacher, 2006) and the possible hypotheses the learners entertain about what the input is and how it relates to its surrounding. For instance, it may be possible that an L2 listener or reader (like it would occur in L1 communications) begins processing and understanding the input by anticipating (and deducing meaning) the next input or input combinations from the lexical or syntactic sequence or context before actually perceiving and processing the next unit of input (Rayner & Slowiaczek, 1981). Then, how such anticipatory skills relate to their perceptions about what a unit of input

Linguistic Perspectives on Input

47

denotes in terms of parts of speech, kind (human versus animal trait), gender, transitivity and countability may influence comprehensibility rather critically. While some psycholinguistic perspectives underscore learners’ recognition of linguistic properties of input and how they are mapped onto abstract semiotic representations, others direct their attention to the processability of meaning and form in spoken language. For example, some psycholinguistic perspectives propose that when a learner is exposed to new input (a word) in oral speech, her/his processability and comprehension of it are affected by other words (existing in her/his linguistic repertoire) that share similar phonological features. Such similarities may actually influence comprehension more than the frequency of exposure to that particular lexical unit (Luce, 1986). According to others, like Grossberg and Myers (2000), semantic components are inseparably connected with lexical features in an utterance, and learners activate both semantic and phonological properties at the same time when encountering oral input. In a way, this implies that the processing of form and meaning are not separate from each other.

Neurolinguistic Perspectives Neurolinguistics, which studies the relationship between language and the brain, specifically how the elements and systems of the faculty of language are represented (functions) in different locations (structure) of the brain, has had a remarkable impact on cognitive and psychological perspectives in L2A. In addition to neurological and linguistic subfields, especially psycholinguistics, it also intersects with biology and cognition, with closer ties to communication disorders (e.g. aphasia, brain damage), aging and different aspects of cognitive processes of language acquisition and production (Poeppel & Embick, 2005). Using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) techniques, neurolinguists are now able to examine the structure of the human brain and its processes of biological changes as it engages receptive or productive linguistic functions (Stemmer & Whitaker, 2008). The left hemisphere of the brain has been known for predominantly specializing in performing linguistic functions. Some of the research in this area originated from aphasiology, which examines severe problems related to the processability of linguistic functions (comprehension or use) arising as a result of brain damage. For example, previous aphasiology research has suggested that the Broca’s area in the brain (frontal lobe of left hemisphere) is largely in charge of language production (expressive aphasia) while the Wernicke’s area facilitates the comprehension (receptive aphasia) of language samples (both oral and written) (Stemmer & Whitaker, 2008). In line with the focus of this book, this section will cover neurolinguistic aspects of the processability of CI from language use, comprehension and attainment perspectives. How aphasia-related processes can be explained

48

Part 1: Encountering Comprehensible Input: Concept and Foundation

in terms of the relationship between hemispheric structures and functions of the brain and speech disorders is beyond the scope of this book. In light of recent developments in research and some methodological tools, especially with the use of fMRI neuroimaging techniques, it is now possible to observe alterations in the structure of different parts of the brain due to language learning and use. For example, Mechelli et al. (2004) identified significant differences between the structure of the left parietal cortex of bilinguals and monolinguals, with the differences varying by age of exposure to input and proficiency level. They attributed such biological changes to social and environmental demands. In addition, current research has revealed that fMRI can also document what parts of the brain are activated when people are engaged in different kinds of language learning or using activities. Thus, the application of some views of neurolinguistics can be useful to understand CI. For instance, using some of the categories commonly used in the field (Ahlsén, 2006; Stemmer & Whiteaker, 2008), localism can help us understand how linguistic functions of different kinds of written and oral input are perceived and comprehended in the Wernicke’s area. Associationism can potentially provide explanations about how different parts of the brain make certain associations (perceptual, sensual, etc.) possible in instigating the learning and storage of different kinds of input. Or, the evolution-based theory, if studied through the use of fMRI techniques, could shed light on the longitudinal processes of the development of language skills at different stages of maturation and the aging of different brain functions. Also, although we already have several theories (e.g. critical period, ultimate attainment) and quite some evidence about age effects on and maturational constraints in L2 attainment, more evidence and better understanding of the acquisition and use of different kinds of input, in terms of explanations of biological reasons (attributions) and processes, are critically needed (for reviews, see Birdsong, 2006; Singleton, 2005). From a neurolinguistic perspective, understanding CI requires entertaining a number of challenging inquiries: namely, how language abilities and functions interface and develop over time; what the evolutionary (biological maturation) processes are in terms of synchronic and diachronic intersections of language functions and the developmental patterns of brain parts and hemispheres and what these brain and language relationships mean for the different developmental stages and processes of the acquisition of L1 versus L2 versus bilingual acquisition for people of different age and gender groups (Stemmer & Whitaker, 2008). For example, it has been reported that ‘a multilingual person may use more memorization for L2 and more direct processing of meaning for L1’ (SavilleTroike, 2006: 72). The fact that language and its functions cannot be separated from thinking, reasoning and constructing meaning, unveiling how and which brain parts and functions facilitate (at different ages)

Linguistic Perspectives on Input

49

cognitive processing, comprehension and the acquisition of linguistic input of different modalities, forms and units would also be very helpful in understanding the biological and cognitive aspects of CI. For instance, in terms of neurobiological (e.g. change in memory) and neurocognitive aspects of brain aging (e.g. decline in volume) (Birdsong, 2006; DeKeyser, 2003), one would expect a notable amount of variation in the syntactic and lexical (de)coding and the processing and retention rate and the quality of different kinds of input modes by people at different ages (Knudsen, 2004). Indeed, age has been found to have an impact on the location in the brain where acquisition occurs, with more involvement of the right side of the brain for older learners (Ahlsén, 2006). In addition, if indeed, brain structures and activities of monolinguals and bilinguals, and native and non-native speakers at varying proficiency levels show variation (Raz, 2005), it may be unwise to label any unit of input as (in)comprehensible. Another aspect we need to address relates to the neurolinguistic views about phonological, syntactic and lexical features of CI. We know that each individual has a linguistic repertoire to draw on for communication purposes; however, the abstract mental representations and structures (phonology) that L2 learners utilize to recognize, process and understand the sound systems (of input) are also vital in understanding CI. In addition, CI is also a matter of how neurobiological and neurocognitive processes pertain to the physical perception and production of sounds (phonetics). To understand the complexity of phonological elements of CI from a neurolinguistic perspective, we need to expand our knowledge in several different areas. For instance, we need to understand how the acoustic signals, which show a great deal of variation, are perceived by the brain. Equally as important is to understand aspects of comprehensibility with regard to variance in the production of a single sound (phoneme) or the unique articulation of a morpheme or their myriad combinations (prosody) (Eulitz & Lahiri, 2004). Here, how the brain of an L2 learner perceives and processes dialectical and accent-related variations of a sound could be highly critical in determining the comprehensibility of a unit of input. For example, when an L2 learner hears the input ‘car’, with the ‘r’ articulated in a certain way to index social class, what happens to its structure, functions and comprehension (Labov, 1972)? A further step here would be to observe if we could attribute certain brain activations (using fMRIs) in different hemispheres of the brain to particular stimuli, acoustical signals, memory and processing capacity when an indexical phonological nuance is presented to a learner in a particular context. Thus, it seems clear that neurobiological and neurocognitive processes of perception and comprehension of even the phonological features of input are remarkably complex (Eulitz & Lahiri, 2004). Similarly, assuming that the larger the language units, the more time and effort it would take for the brain to process, one could posit that the

50

Part 1: Encountering Comprehensible Input: Concept and Foundation

comprehension of syntactic and lexical elements of input would involve even more complex neurological and biological processes (Grodzinsky, 2000). For example understanding the unique roles that the Broca’s and Wernicke’s areas play in morphosyntactic processing (of various forms of input) could be interesting. If we take for granted the linguistic and neurolinguistic perspectives that suggest that internal variation and movements in input are somewhat constrained by structural (inter)dependencies of different hierarchical configurations, comprehensibility of input, to some degree, would also depend on the nature and structure of change in terms of neural activation and neurobiological processes (Poeppel & Embick, 2005). For instance, one would assume a learner’s processing and comprehension of certain input is related to different neurocognitive conditions constraining his/her reaction time to the input. Just on the basis of computational efficiency, one could assume that such processes and conditions would be relatively different for, say, a negative versus an interrogative clause in which each phrase makes a unique contribution to morphosyntactic positions at each phase of a movement (Chomsky, 2005). Note that, when encountering morphosyntactic units of different complexity levels, L2 learners seem to react differently to process them, either by simplifying or attempting to break them down into more manageable units to process them, which is indicative of the presence of varying conditions of input processability. Just as the L2A field needs to continue to explore further the contentious and unsettled theories and research about a possible natural order of acquisition or the processability of input at varying levels of complexity (Krashen, 1987; Long, 1981), for a more comprehensive view of CI, we also need to attend to the neurobiological and cognitive processes and conditions that L2 learners experience when encountering input at different morphosyntactic complexity levels. Undoubtedly, variation within and between these biological and cognitive processes and constraints that can emanate from L2 learners’ age, gender, language proficiency and identified special needs (e.g. pathological disorders) can also play an important role in the comprehensibility of a unit of input (Ahlsén, 2006).

Computational Linguistic Perspectives Computational linguistics studies language or a specific linguistic phenomenon from the perspective of its mathematical qualities and attributes, mostly utilizing computerized computational and statistical modeling based on data or a theory (Jurafsky & Martin, 2000). Theoretically, it is grounded in the intersections of fields like philosophy, linguistics, psychology and computer science. It is profusely incorporated in computer sciences, particularly artificial intelligence research and natural language processing systems and software. As described by the Association for

Linguistic Perspectives on Input

51

Computational Linguistics (2014), its applications are widespread and it has been used in ‘speech recognition systems, text-to-speech synthesizers, automated voice response systems, web search engines, text editors, language instruction materials’, among others. One of the areas to which this field has been applied abundantly is the ways in which computers can be used to (process) analyze and produce linguistic units (words or sentences), a notion that originates from the use of computer language in machine translation for military purposes (Gazdar & Mellish, 1989). At present, the field also draws on neurosciences, cognition and mathematics to build intelligent computer systems and software that can process and generate meaningful language input to improve human-to-human and human-to-machine communication (Mitkov, 2003). A publically available recent application of this sort is Google Translate, which provides free online text translation services. This view, like those of generativists who ‘see knowledge or competence as internally driven and universal’ gives ‘only minimal attention to external factors, including input and IDs (individual differences)’ (Sanz, 2005: 6). A computational linguistic perspective about input is predominantly based on impoverished (and inadequate for acquisition) L1 input and the assumptions and generalities it carries. Given the differences between a native speaker’s LI input and an L2 learner’s interlanguage input, one would assume that the amount of variability and consequently probabilities of computations that L2 learners have to encounter in comprehending input would be vastly greater for L2 learners because interlanguage is constituted by elements of both L1 and L2. From this perspective, linguistic properties of input (data points) can be parsed (clusters) and represented by algorithms in ways that each feature can act like a numerical value to take different locations and positions to generate new output. Here, the focus is on the kind of input as the subject of comprehension and production (Mitkov, 2003). Such deterministic prescriptions can involve morphosyntactic, semantic and pragmatic elements. When using data, movement and decision rules are set and parameters and classifications are defined for each function or role that a linguistic property is assumed to play. In a sense, such probabilistic computations of linguistic processing involve the interactions of many linguistic and cognitive factors, which are varied and potentially flawed (Abney, 2008). Indeed, even if we were able to computationally model positions, clusters and combinations of all variations of all phonological and morphosyntactic properties of language input, estimating probabilities of human behavior, namely variation in psycholinguistic, and neurocognitive and neurobiological processing, comprehension and production as well as the interactions of such varied processes with semiotic and pragmatic representations of such dynamic and complex linguistic features and systems would be impossible. That is why most machine translation software and systems have reached an impasse in that they continue to struggle with developing systems that

52

Part 1: Encountering Comprehensible Input: Concept and Foundation

can capture and translate the meaning of a text in its entirety; lacking aspects of speech acts, figurative speech, idiomatic expressions and socio-pragmatic competence that potentially require distinguishing between translation and interpretation (Gazdar & Mellish, 1989). It is for this reason that while Google Translate can somewhat translate some input at some level of accuracy; it almost completely fails when it comes to non-formulaic figurative usages. Applying this theory to CI in L2A requires a critical examination of the dynamic and self-organizing nature of linguistic input in the context of complex processes of speech recognition, recall, processability, reasoning, negotiation, modification and use (output) that are inherently susceptible to a remarkable amount of variability depending on learner characteristics and environmental factors. From this perspective, an upfront identification of a unit of input as ‘(in)comprehensible’ could be rather problematic, if computationally possible at all, because comprehension involves multivariate interactions of linguistic, cognitive, individual and context-related variables and processes that are also multifaceted and comprise numerous micro- and macro-level properties and stages of their own (Abney, 2008; Mitkov, 2003). To put this level of complexity into a numerical perspective, we would observe that it would become harder and harder to understand what CI really entails as we address some possible considerations that may affect comprehensibility. For example, input (1) has linguistic and non-linguistic forms (e.g. body language); (2) can be in varying levels of units (e.g. phoneme or sentence); (3) can be in textual and oral forms, which possess different linguistic characteristics; possesses (4) phonological; (5) syntactic; (6) semantic; and (7) socio-pragmatic elements, the comprehension of each of which poses multiple challenges; (8) can cause different difficulties when used alone and/or (9) in combination with other linguistic units; (10) can be more/less difficult for some learners depending on their L1 (contrastive analysis hypothesis); and (11) in different contexts. In addition, when processes of comprehension are inserted into the model, multiple steps – with which the number of factors to consider would increase – would have to be followed, because (12) recognition; (13) processability (density); (14) reasoning; (15) negotiation; (16) modification (scaffolded new input could require going back to Step 12); (17) storage (schema); (18) recall (automaticity); and so forth all would function in their unique ways depending on the nature and form of the input. In fact, the number of factors to consider in understanding CI gets even more complex when we add possible individual characteristics that may also affect comprehension; for instance, (19) anxiety, (20) motivation, (21) identity, (22) positioning, (23) attitudes, (24) styles, (25) strategy use, (26) beliefs, (27) prior knowledge, (28) cultural background, (29) gender, (30) age and so forth. Finally, the comprehensibility of input also, to some degree, depends on elements of interaction and setting; namely, for example, features of (31) the immediate context of situation, (32) the

Linguistic Perspectives on Input

53

nature and quality of social interaction and (33) the broader sociocultural setting in which the input is being produced. Indeed, all of these are possible variables (we could add even more possible variables) that may impact the comprehensibility of a unit of input (or degree of comprehension), have numerous constitutive elements (e.g. syntax; clauses, passive/active voice, etc.) and their potential impacts on comprehensibility are subject to constant change. Although, computational linguistics is not expected to undertake such a task, just to put it into perspective, even inserting the presence/absence (binary) of each variable into a mathematical model as a parameter of consideration would generate a 2-to-the-power of 33 (233) interaction, which would result in over a billion possibilities or aspects of CI. In sum, although such an approach is just a hypothetical example, not an actual mathematical model, it demonstrates that the use of CI in L2 learning and teaching should require a great deal of caution based on the numbers of factors for which we have to account.

Chapter Summary In concluding Part 1, Chapter 3 builds on the discussions around the conceptual framework (Chapter 1) and the theoretical foundation (Chapter 2) of CI, by presenting an extensive account of the term from the perspectives of five subfields of linguistics. The part on applied linguistics covers an array of topics on how people use languages (perspectives: generativism, interlanguage, socio-semiotic functionalism) in different contexts and what comprehensibility means for L2A in L1/L2 settings, bilingual communication and so on. The second part focuses on numerous issues and aspects of CI as they relate to sociolinguistic variation (e.g. multidimensional indices of social categories). Here, both micro- (e.g. discourse and interaction, positionality) and macro-level (e.g. power, dialects) aspects of the sociolinguistics views of CI are discussed. The psycholinguistic section covers topics related to the psychological and cognitive aspects of L2A and use, including the nature of cognitive processes (e.g. recognition, selection), learner’s choices of speech patterns, styles, speech acts, metaphors and interaction patterns, processes of construction of meaning, positionality and identity formation in a particular discourse. The neurolinguistics part attempts to shed light on the relationship between language and the brain (biology and cognition) and the structure of language faculties (locations in the brain). It also discusses processing functions and neurobiological (e.g. change in memory) and neurocognitive aspects of brain aging (e.g. decline in volume) as they pertain to CI. The last part, the computational linguistics section, addresses what the intersection of neuroscience, cognition and mathematics entail for the complex nature of input and its comprehensibility. This part presents numerical examples of levels of complexity involved in computationally modeling comprehensibility of a unit of input.

Part 2: Comprehensible Input: Second Language Acquisition

This part aims to describe the role of comprehensible input (CI) in second language acquisition (L2A) theory and research in four chapters. It particularly focuses on cognitive processing oriented, learner-centered and socially oriented views of L2A. The section on cognition-based L2A theories covers topics pertaining to the role of CI in cognition and L2 learning processing, first language-based inferences, information processing, attention (focal/peripheral), control (controlled/automatic) and knowledge processes (declarative/procedural and explicit/implicit). Schema theory and connectionism are particularly highlighted here. Next are brief sections on the intersection of CI and the nature of processes of L2 attainment (acquisition/learning and monitor model), the nature of input (natural order, CI and i+1), the nature of processing and production (innate acquisition resources and silent period) and the role of affective factors (e.g. motivation) in L2A. Here, there is also a brief section on CI’s role in the Interaction and Output Hypotheses. The section on the role of CI in socially oriented L2A theories and research covers the following topics: social distance, psychological distance, outcomes of social and psychological distance, individual versus society in L2A, language socialization and activity theory. This part ends with a brief section on the use of CI in socio-cognitive, dynamic systems, ecological, complexity/chaos, critical period and interlanguage theories of L2A.

55

4 Input in Cognitive Processingoriented Theories

To offer an expansive background about L2 learning, teaching and assessment from a CI perspective and guide the readers to connect theory, research and practice progressively, Chapters 1 through 3 (Part 1) laid the theoretical foundation. As the first chapter in Part 2, this chapter sheds light on cognition-based L2A theories. Basically, it examines how learners utilize their cognitive abilities and capacity when they attend to and process input. Here, the focus is on the nature and role of cognition in processing input because input is composed of numerous linguistic, sociocultural, pragmatic and stylistic properties (Chapter 2). Specifically, the subject matter included in this chapter includes cognitive aspects of comprehension, acquisition and development of L2 input as well as the nature of input (implicit versus explicit) and processes of attention (focal and peripheral), noticing, awareness, control, memory, retention, processability capacity, knowledge (declarative, procedural, explicit and implicit), association and storage.

Cognition and L2 Learning Processes In terms of the role of cognition in comprehending and learning L2 input, some cognitivists have viewed certain forms of input to be more difficult than others due to the higher levels of cognitive processing demands they impose on working memory capacity (Sweller, 1994). As far as cognitive demands are concerned, cognitive theory suggests that three types of cognitive processes take place when learners encounter new information: essential processing, incidental processing and representational holding. In terms of input, essential processing refers to cognitive processes a learner depends on for comprehension purposes. Incidental processing comprises supplementary information of secondary importance; information that plays a facilitating role in the comprehension of input. Representational holding, on the other hand, involves the temporary holding of some information to lessen possible overload on working memory capacity while other information is being processed (Mayer & Moreno, 2003). These processes are generally explained in terms of various assumptions relating to how the human mind perceives and engages environmental stimuli and input, what procedural and declarative stages of acquisition

57

58

Part 2: Comprehensible Input: Second Language Acquisition

are involved, whether such engagement is automatic or controlled and, if so, at what level, how memory capacity is used and so forth (Cook & Singleton, 2014). As described in the L2A field (e.g. Atkinson, 2011; Mitchell et al., 2013; Ortega, 2009), cognitive processes are generally explained in terms of how, when and why learners attend to a particular stimuli and notice a specific form of input. Other processes are described in terms of how and why learners choose to invest deliberate or incidental attention to different kinds and forms of input; when and how differently they access and maneuver their short- and long-term memory systems and capacities when encountering new input; how (if at all) their control over processability, namely attention, noticing, awareness, memory capacity, associative acts, retention and so forth, vary by the nature of input (e.g. implicit or explicit). In addition, this view also sheds light on how such processes fluctuate due to variation within psycholinguistic (e.g. speech act) or sociolinguistic (e.g. dialectical variation) elements of input; what associative or procedural stages (if any), systems and mechanisms the learners utilize to process and comprehend multimodal input; how these processes and other neurocognitive and neurobiological variables interact for oral versus written or receptive versus productive language skills; how we can explain (varying degrees of success in processability) variability among individuals who belong to different age, gender and language groups and so on. As a matter of fact, in response to the aforementioned questions, it may not be possible for one particular theory to provide such a comprehensive view of L2 processability, with clear identification of the nature of all of these factors and processes; however, Pienemann’s (2005) and her colleagues’ work (e.g. Pienemann & Kessler, 2011), namely the Processability Theory, attempts to elucidate some of these processes. This theory underscores learners’ ability to build a set of executive skills or procedural knowledge that would allow them to manipulate and restructure the lexical and morphosyntactic elements of new input. In other words, acquisition of input is considered to be dependent on the acquisition of computational systems and mechanisms without which processability is not possible. Thus, L2A involves the simultaneous attainment of linguistic properties and a set of computational systems of operations. The acquisition of such computational mechanisms involves a progressive set of stages of development that begin with the ability to hypothesize the canonical order and places of adverbs and verbs in subordinate clauses and sentences. In so doing, as their proficiency levels increase, learners move from understanding the meaning of a word or its lexical and grammatical categories to manipulating phrase structure rules and sentence and discourse-level computations.

Input in Cognitive Processing-oriented Theories

59

First Language-based Inferences Some cognitive work has attempted to explain L2A processes from how a learner’s first language (L1) may relate to her/his success in learning different L2 skills. Most of this work has either utilized first language acquisition (L1A)-based theories to explain L2A or concentrated on the particularities of the nature and impact of L1 interference on L2A and development (Mitchell et al., 2013). In drawing on the mechanics and processes of L1A to explain L2A, theories and research in this area explored the role and nature of numerous factors and processes, including language universals, parameter setting, frequency and exposure to input, adequacy and quality of input, biological (nature) and environmental (nurture) resources, access to certain neurobiological or neurocognitive capacities or devices (e.g. language acquisition device [LAD]), lexical and morphosyntactic similarities and differences between L1 and L2, markedness (from L1 and universals), age effect (environmental and biological effects), aspects of positive and negative transfer, (over)generalizations, the nature of L2 errors and interlanguage and so forth. Since there has been an extensive amount of SLA work on some of these factors (e.g. age effect, interlanguage) as they relate to various aspects of L2A that are explored in different chapters in this book, for scope and relevance purposes the discussion here will be primarily focused on Chomsky-inspired work in L2A (Hawkins, 2001) and the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH). Some aspects of Chomsky’s (1965) early work on generativism have been applied to the study of L2A. Specifically, theories of innate language ability, universal grammar (principles and parameters), impoverished input and LAD have been used as bases to describe certain processes of L2 development. Rooted in nativist and Cartesian philosophy, Chomsky’s general theory is based on three main assumptions: (1) biological endowment, (2) input and (3) language universals. Simply put, every child is born with the capacity to learn her/his L1 and learning is made possible by the input the children receive from their environment as facilitated by principle and parameters that are commonly shared by all languages. In Chomsky’s theory (1995), inborn capacity is considered to be a biological organ that is presumed to be responsible for language acquisition and development as well as cognitive or neurocognitive mechanisms that help people to process or produce language input. All of these three assumptions have implications for L2A. As documented in research, for instance, the presumed biological endowment seems to be able to facilitate or host the learning of an L2 or even multiple languages (Doughty & Long, 2005; Gass & Mackey, 2012), with varying ramifications for age effect (Birdsong, 1999; Singleton & Ryan, 2004) and the interlanguage processes (Selinker, 1972; Tarone, 1982).

60

Part 2: Comprehensible Input: Second Language Acquisition

According to Chomsky (1965), children are able to learn their L1 because of the inborn capacity and language universals, despite the fact that the environmental input is inadequate and impoverished. In other words, the input that the children receive from their caregivers is simplified or modified, from which it seems impossible to deduce language principles or complex language systems. In contrast, frequency and quality (comprehensible) of input, or exposure to input, has been argued to constitute the very basis for L1A (Clark, 2010; Lieven, 2010; Rast, 2008). Some of these assumptions have also been applied to the study of L2A and development (Hawkins, 2001; Horwitz, 2013). Note that in the L1A field there is a large group of researchers who either reject Chomsky’s nativist assumptions or describe L1A and development to be predominantly a matter of exposure to and usage of input, interpreting cognition as a socially bound phenomenon. For example, according to Tomasello (2003), child language acquisition can be explained without innateness and language universals because it is mediated by socio-cognitive skills and resources, namely through pattern identification, schematization, analogy generation, cultural learning and entrenchment in the processes of grammaticalization or usage-based syntactic operations. Whether impoverished or not, there is consensus in both L1 and L2 attainment fields (for the role of input in L2A, see Chapter 5) that input is a, if not the, major player in language acquisition (Mitchell et al., 2013). In line with Chomsky’s third assumption (language universals), one could argue that degrees of achievement in L2A would vary by learners’ knowledge of language principles and success in a parameter setting. Principles include rule-governed finite groups of abstractions that are commonly shared by all languages (Hawkins, 2001). For example, whether overt or covert, a sentence (complete thought) has a verb in all languages. Parameters, on the other hand, are language-specific components that help identify differences among languages in terms of their syntactic structures. For example, in Turkish (a prop-drop language), one could drop the subject pronoun at the beginning of the sentence: Onlar (they) yemeklerini (their food) yediler (ate) and would still have two inflections (-ler) to determine that the agent is onlar. Indeed, comparing world languages with each other to identify common principles helps the understanding of the nature of languages in general, which has implications for L2A and the development of languages like Turkish. Similarly, making comparisons among different languages to determine similarities and differences would help L2A researchers to follow different instructional models for learners with different backgrounds. As a matter of fact, most SLA work that is somewhat conceptually grounded in L1A theories and research has focused on L1 and L2 differences (markedness) within the broad umbrella of the CAH (Karmiloff & Karmiloff-Smith, 2001; Lado, 1957). Another theory that has often been utilized in L2A work is the CAH. It hypothesizes that degree and rate of success in L2A are mitigated by

Input in Cognitive Processing-oriented Theories

61

similarities and differences between a learner’s L1 and the target language (L2). Although the CAH is based on the behaviorist learning theory of the 1960s and the structuralist linguistic views that considered language as a cadaver to be studied, it is fitting here to briefly allude to its assumptions in explaining CI and L2A from an L1 interference perspective. Moreover, cognitive aspects of L1 and L2 interference, which need more attention in L2A research, are also worth studying. This hypothesis proposes that L2 learners acquire new input (easier and/or faster) if it shares certain lexical, phonological or morphosyntactic similarities with their native language. If the L2 input is markedly different from a learner’s native language, her/his native language will hinder or slow down L2A, partially because learners engage in positive (similarities) and negative (differences) transferring, possibly a largely cognitive process that is not explained in this hypothesis (Karmiloff & Karmiloff-Smith, 2001). Thus, in predicting challenges for L2 learners, we must identify differences between L1 and L2; getting L2 learners to invest more time and effort in learning the differences to avoid the fossilization of marked forms and structures. Most work that has used CAH as the theoretical framework has utilized error analysis as a technique to determine if differences between L1 and L2 can explain L2 learners’ errors, and if so, what such a conclusion means for the role of L1 in L2A. Such research has typically engaged in the analysis of morphosyntactic or lexical components produced by L2 learners (SavilleTroike, 2006). A good example of the application of the CAH is when L2 education programs determine the length of a course for a particular language. For instance, the length of an Arabic course for Persian learners might differ from that of a course for Spanish learners just by virtue of the similarities and differences between these languages. Additional considerations may be necessary depending on whether the program is in a foreign (e.g. Arabic in Spain) or second (e.g. Arabic in Saudi Arabia) language setting. Needless to say, such practices are based on assumptions that differences between the L1 and L2 have consequences for L2A.

Information Processing Applications of information processing theory to L2A do not distinguish between general learning and language acquisition, primarily highlighting the centrality of attention and the importance of manipulation of rules and structures in learning (Cook, 2001). Namely, this view proposes that the learning of physics is no different from the learning of English in terms of the nature of mental activity and the complexity of tasks and processes involved. Thus, human beings engage L2 input in somewhat analogous ways in perceiving, organizing, retrieving and producing new input (as output) of any kind. This theory assumes that the complexity of input affects its comprehensibility. While not necessarily in congruence

62

Part 2: Comprehensible Input: Second Language Acquisition

with some L2A work (e.g. complexity theory), according to this theory, for instance, learning an L2 morpheme at less than a syntactic level is easier than learning bigger units because the more number of words to be learned the more memory capacity and higher levels of essential skills are required to process them (Sweller, 1994). Information processing theory describes L2 learning in terms of the involvement and interactions of numerous cognitive factors and processes, including attention, memory, nature of knowledge and control and automaticity, as well as the restructuring and proceduralization of L2 input (McLaughlin, 1987). As summarized by Ortega (2009), applications of this theory to L2A theory and research are generally framed in terms of three basic assumptions: representation and access, control and automaticity and cognitive capacity. Recently, Mitchell et al. (2013) have summarized different theoretical assumptions and aspects of the theory into three broad stages of development. In Stage 1, L2 learners build a basic foundation of explicit knowledge of linguistic properties (phonological, lexical and morphosyntactic features) and rules about their representations through instruction, with the processing being highly controlled by limited attention and memory capacity. Stage 2, on the other hand, involves the proceduralization of this explicit knowledge, turning it into implicit knowledge through practice and performance. In this process, learners become more strategic in reorganizing their knowledge into more efficient and manageable ‘chunks’ for faster processability and production. Thus, as a learner’s implicit knowledge increases, her/his dependency on working memory capacity decreases. Finally, in Stage 3, by maintaining a high level of continuous and rectified practice of the implicit knowledge over time, the learners reach a more stabilized point when they can process new input faster and more accurately (automaticity). Below, a brief foundational account has been provided with regard to the role of control, attention and knowledge in processing new information.

Attention, Control and Knowledge Processes Focal and peripheral attention As it is the case with other elements of cognition (e.g. memory), attention is also a limited resource that plays a critical role in L2A. It is an attribute that is closely linked to numerous cognitive components, including awareness, perception, signal detection, selection, pattern recognition, memory, control over processability and so on (for a detailed description, see Robinson, 1995). Therefore, presumably, L2 learners act selectively in allocating a certain amount of attention for a specific unit of input that they intend to acquire during a limited period of time. Attention is generally characterized as mental effort involved in processing new information. In research, the amount of attention paid to a specific task is generally used to distinguish

Input in Cognitive Processing-oriented Theories

63

between incidental versus intentional learning (Schmidt, 2002). Since, by nature, L2A experiences can be more or less intentional depending on the setting (foreign language [FL]/SL) and individual differences, exploration of the contributions of attention to each case is indispensable. In intentional learning, attention acts as a mechanism and/or conduit to sustain (or prolong) the activation of working memory and its subsystems to process a targeted input (or task) at a high degree of intensity. In this view, attention may be related to a learner’s high level of awareness (noticing) (Robinson, 1995), goal-orientation (affect) (Pintrich, 2000) and self-determined behavior – especially perceptions about self-autonomy, competence and relatedness (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Yet, it also involves the use of metacognitive resources (e.g. beliefs) and perceptions about L2 selfsystems (e.g. identity, positioning). Assuming that intentional learning activities are generally planned and manipulated by external actors (e.g. instructors), we can also argue that a learner’s attention is often drawn to specific tasks, whereas in incidental learning the learner is more autonomous in directing her/his own attention. In incidental learning, initially a task or input is not specifically targeted and the allocation of attention is a matter of contextual affordances and self-directed actions that a learner instantaneously notices and decides to pursue. Note that, after the learner notices and pays attention to a task, the same affective and metacognitive resources become available in incidental learning as well. Some researchers have argued that intentional and incidental learning can be described on the basis of the nature and kind of attentional resources employed in processing new input; namely, the use of focal and peripheral attention (Bruning et al., 2004). At a given time, especially in SL settings, L2 learners are exposed to numerous communicative stimuli and linguistic input; yet, they seem to act selectively in detecting only a few of these stimuli and allocate most of their attention (focal) on one in particular while distributing the remaining little amounts among all others (Schmidt, 1994). Focal attention is generally described as deliberate and heightened attention that is directed to a targeted task. In contrast, peripheral attention, which is less intense and concentrated, is often enacted in multitasking situations. For example, according to Schmidt (2002), in intentional learning, the form of the input is the subject of focal attention whereas in incidental learning the focal attention is devoted to the meaning of the content. Hence, peripheral attention is channeled toward the form. Thus far, in L2A research, particularly regarding aspects and processes of intentional and incidental acquisition, differences between focal and peripheral attention have not been adequately explicated in terms of if and how attentional mechanisms relate to conscious and non-conscious processes of memory activation and capacity allocation as well as detecting, registering and processing declarative and procedural knowledge of a form and/or content of new input (Doughty & Long, 2005).

64

Part 2: Comprehensible Input: Second Language Acquisition

Controlled/automatic processing Language learners have to have a coping and management mechanism to process and comprehend new input. This is because the level of multilayered complexities involved in processing the morphosyntactic, metalinguistic and pragmatic elements of L2 input is immense, and yet brain and memory capacity is limited. Since L2 learners can only engage a limited number of cognitive demands at a time, they are strategically selective in attending to certain input at a time while also categorizing each with regard to their levels of complexity (Saville-Troike, 2006). By organizing input into chunks of digestible units, they become able to manipulate (control) the attention load and memory capacity, which results in successful processability and comprehension. Undoubtedly, this preparation process of getting the new input ready is crucial because it requires that the L2 learners perform an evaluation of the immediacy or saliency in attending to a particular unit of input. Note that, depending on the nature of the input and the processability requirements of a task, L2 learners typically face time constraints and numerous challenges related to variation within the input and its multiple modes, sociocultural norms of interactions and instantaneous changes during the oral negotiation or (de)construction of the meaning of the text. According to McLaughlin (1987), processing new input requires a considerable amount of initial attention, which declines gradually as the learner becomes more and more familiar with different aspects and elements of the new input and its place in the schemata. Thus, in terms of processing L2 input, learners are initially more reserved, cautious and self-aware. As they improve their language proficiency, their cognitive mechanisms and brain activity gradually move from a highly controlled to a highly automatic nature, which is considered to be indicative of faster rates of processability due to lowered demands of language and cognition. For instance, the amount of attention, time, energy and caution a novice driver has to invest in driving will be greater than those of an expert – who may sometimes even multitask while driving – because of her/his lack of practice and control over the task. Given SLA research on the low rates at which L2 learners respond to authentic oral encounters appropriately or their low-rate attempts to read (literacy, fluency) and comprehend a written text, one can conclude that L2 learners face painstaking processibility challenges (Doughty & Long, 2005), particularly at low proficiency levels. Indeed, this may imply strong relationships among practice, control and automaticity. Thus, when beginning-level L2 learners engage an utterance or text, most of their cognitive capacity is occupied by low-level lexical or morphosyntactic elements, which makes it ‘difficult or impossible to simultaneously pay attention to higher-order content or creative processes’ (Saville-Troike, 2006: 74). Controlled and automatic processes are generally explained in terms of task complexity, practice, transitory regulation systems, foundation

Input in Cognitive Processing-oriented Theories

65

building and memory capacity. If a learner is familiar with the task, the processability is expected to be less difficult and more automatic. Assumptions about complexity are generally based on a learner’s degree of experience with different aspects of the input or task in controlled practices. Thus, the activation of controlled versus automatic processes follows different patterns of memory and brain activity. Since automatic processing or its resulting outcome, automaticity, is considered to be the ultimate goal, controlled processing is viewed as a rudimentary stage (in L2 development) or a temporary and mediational activation of different elements of the input. This is partially because it is ‘tightly capacity-limited, and require(s) more time for activation’ (McLaughlin, 1987: 135). In addition, controlled processing is also viewed as a regulatory system that helps learners to move information from the short-term to the long-term memory. Another function of controlled processing is building the foundation for the allocation of memory and brain capacity for processing more complex input or higherlevel skills. McLaughlin (1987: 135) argues that ‘…once automatic processes are set up at one stage in the development of a complex skill, controlled processes are free to be allocated to higher levels of processing’. Another important caveat that deserves attention in this view is the mastery of low-level skills that are presumed to lay the foundation for the learning of high-level input. In addition, with higher proficiency levels, learners’ use of knowledge and procedures in input processing also become more automatic. For example, Cook (2001) argues that L2 learners who encounter greater comprehension challenges could be suffering from a lack of progress in automatizing low-level language skills that potentially provide aids such as anticipating, guessing and inferencing. In this view, there is a hierarchy in L2 development, and some language skills are prerequisites to the development of others. This is because learners process new input in connection with other contextual input and existing knowledge, and to establish morphosyntactic patterns that would serve as bases for the learning of other new input (as computers would do) learners make associations in perceiving, attending to, comprehending and producing it. Thus, as the level of proficiency increases and a functional language base is established, learners get better and faster in restructuring their mental representations and employing their memory and brain capacity for input that requires higher-level processing.

Declarative and procedural knowledge Note that the constructs of declarative and procedural have been used in L2A to discuss different aspects of knowledge (Mitchell et al., 2013; Ortega, 2009), stage or processes of development (Saville-Troike, 2006) and memory (Cook, 2001). Occasionally, they have also been used interchangeably with explicit and implicit knowledge. Here, they are used as adjectives to modify knowledge. Declarative knowledge refers to individual (linguistic and

66

Part 2: Comprehensible Input: Second Language Acquisition

non-linguistic) properties, rules and structures that constitute the input whereas procedural knowledge includes information about procedures to manipulate declarative knowledge to communicate appropriately. In other words, generally, proficiency in an L2 implies that not only do the learners know the phonemes, morphemes, phrases and their structural rules (declarative) but they also know what to do with them at a higher level (procedural) to comprehend input or generate output. Thus, declarative knowledge comprises isolated pieces of immature knowledge while procedural knowledge, which has been matured through use and experience, is automatized knowledge that is readily available for use in processing new L2 input. In this sense, one can argue that as a learner’s proficiency level increases, she/he undergoes a proceduralization process. In this process, links among the declarative nodes are turned into other more developed forms of declarative or procedural clusters and networks. This stage exemplifies a higher level of proficiency often characterized by effortless and high-level L2 processing and production (DeKeyser, 2007; Segalowitz, 2003). To understand the proceduralization process, an example may be useful here. For instance, to process a simple sentence like ‘A kid is eating the cake’, a learner must be able to evaluate its semantic, pragmatic and lexical properties, while also being able to apply relevant procedural knowledge (e.g. morphosyntactic rules) to decode its syntactic structure. To comprehend the sentence, the learner not only needs the lexical and grammatical rules to match the words with each other, but she/he also would need to know why to use the indefinite article ‘a’ to modify ‘kid’ but ‘the’ to modify ‘cake’; why the ‘kid’ (a noun) is selected to be the agent and not the ‘cake’, which is also a noun; and why a ‘kid’ is followed by ‘is’ not ‘are’ as the auxiliary verb; and so forth. According to Pienemann (2005) the acquisition of such procedural knowledge that facilitates the processability of L2 input follows a hierarchical order (Levels 1 through 6; Pienemann & Kessler, 2011), starting with the smallest lexical units to larger morphosyntactic structures. Each lower-level constitutes bases for the acquisition and/or functioning of higher levels. Hence, in the procedural stage, where the learners have already practiced low-level skills at some level of adequacy, more complex units of input can be processed more automatically with less attention. In terms of L2A processes, we can, then, assume that at the very initial stages, L2 learners know only isolated words and phrases at a lexical level. As proficiency level increases, they gradually add to their linguistic repertoire of grammatical categories. Later, they start building phrase structure rules and higher morphosyntactic functions at complex sentence and utterance levels (Pienemann & Kessler, 2011).

Explicit and implicit knowledge Another cognitive perspective we can utilize to understand the nature of language input and how it relates to L2A is through the dichotomous

Input in Cognitive Processing-oriented Theories

67

interpretation of explicit versus implicit knowledge. According to Bialystok (1978), explicit knowledge refers to ‘all conscious facts the learner has about the language’ that he/she is able to ‘articulate’. Such facts ‘may include some grammar rules, some vocabulary items, pronunciation rules, and so on’. Implicit knowledge, on the other hand, ‘is the intuitive information upon which the language learner operates in order to produce responses (comprehension or production) in the target language’ (Bialystok, 1978: 72). Knowledge that facilitates spontaneity in L2 comprehension and/or production is also characterized as implicit. Moreover, explicit knowledge has been reported to function in three capacities: as a buffer, a store and an articulatory system (Bialystok, 1978), and presumably with adequate practice, it is progressively integrated into implicit knowledge. Usually, a piece of knowledge can be categorized as explicit or implicit because the distinction between the two is generally made in terms of their functions. That is why, for example, while high proficiency in explicit knowledge does not guarantee fluent and/or accurate use of it, a high level of implicit knowledge may facilitate higher levels of fluency or accuracy. One of the most comprehensive views about this dichotomy comes from Ellis (2005) who summarizes the contrasting qualities of these kinds of knowledge in seven criteria, including degree of awareness, time available, focus of attention, systematicity, certainty, metalinguistic knowledge and learnability. In this view, compared to explicit knowledge, implicit knowledge requires lower degrees of awareness, with the learner primarily focusing on the meaning. In contrast to implicit knowledge, the use of explicit knowledge results in more variation and lower degrees of certainty in the comprehension or production outcomes or responses. In addition, although in L1A implicit knowledge is acquired earlier than explicit knowledge through life experiences, in L2A – particularly in FL settings – it is hard to determine which one is acquired first. In FL settings, a learner’s L2 development largely depends on explicit knowledge, which is predominantly offered through form-focused instruction (Ellis, 2005). As cautioned by Mitchell et al. (2013), explicit knowledge is not necessarily only attained through explicit learning; neither is implicit knowledge necessarily acquired through implicit learning. Although there have been some recent developments in L2A theory and research in this area, aspects and processes of the acquisition and comprehensibility of explicit versus implicit input still remain largely uncharted. This is partially due to the fact that, as described in Chapters 1 and 2, input is complex by nature and its processability involves numerous factors. Despite this, the field currently lacks interdisciplinary work that delves into neurocognitive and neurobiological aspects of acquisition particularly focusing on the interface between the two kinds of knowledge (Doughty & Long, 2005). For example, when it comes to Rod Ellis’s (2005) major contrasting qualities, say degree of awareness, focus of attention,

68

Part 2: Comprehensible Input: Second Language Acquisition

systematicity or learnability, what are the neurolinguistic mechanisms and socio-cognitive processes by which each kind of input is processed? In addition, in terms of specific aspects of cognitive variables and processes (e.g. perception, detection, selection), for instance, how differently noticing and attention or selection interface or interact when a learner encounters explicit versus implicit input is also intriguing (Shintani & Ellis, 2014). Furthermore, how internal structures and the nature of conscious and unconscious processes of comprehension look for explicit versus implicit input are also critical aspects of CI. The conceptual dichotomy between these two constructs is also observed in the form of explicit versus implicit learning in the L2A field. Such approaches have argued that, in terms of the nature and processes of attainment, L2 learning can be distinguishably characterized as explicit or implicit; the processes by which each is characterized are different in nature (conscious/unconscious). Each kind of attainment also involves varying sorts and forms of input (at varying frequency of use) that differ in terms of their potential contributions to the development of different receptive (listening/reading) and productive skills (speaking/writing) as well as overall oral fluency and linguistic and socio-pragmatic competencies (Carroll, 2000; Rast, 2008). According to Ellis (2008: 3) ‘Implicit learning is acquisition of knowledge about the underlying structure of a complex stimulus environment by a process which takes place naturally, simply, and without conscious operations. Explicit learning is a more conscious operation where the individual attends to particular aspects of the stimulus array and volunteers and tests hypotheses in search for a structure’. Based on these definitions, we could argue that neurocognitive and neurobiological mechanisms and attainment processes of these two modes would also be different. For example, it is possible that the structures of input in the brain are different in explicit versus implicit learning. Likewise, the nature of transferability and interlanguage and reaction to and proceduralization of marked and unmarked forms of input may also be different. Indeed, while there is a sizable amount of research related to some aspects of these assumptions, distinctions in terms of explicit versus implicit attainment are only rarely made clear (Shintani & Ellis, 2014). Krashen’s (1985) learning versus acquisition has also been used to discuss potential differences between explicit versus implicit learning. In fact, using variation in learners’ performances on memory tests as evidence, Robinson (1995: 309) claimed that ‘the existence of two neurophysiologically separable systems might lend credibility to Krashen’s acquisition-learning distinction; unconscious acquisition could contribute to the learned representations in explicit memory’. In Krashen’s theory, learning is associated with conscious activity and structured environments in which learners are fed explicit input. In contrast, acquisition is implicit in that learners subconsciously attain CI in social interactions. Also, in implicit learning, a learner’s use of affective

Input in Cognitive Processing-oriented Theories

69

(e.g. motivation) and metacognitive resources (e.g. pedagogical beliefs) may also be different from that of explicit. This distinction, particularly the conscious versus subconscious aspects, is often used to explain L2 learners’ struggle with automatic and authentic L2 production (oral output) when they have learned versus acquired L2 input. Furthermore, it has been reported that explicit learning is more involved in processing more complex forms of input that require formulating hypotheses based on metalinguistic knowledge. In contrast, processability of less-structured input with loose cluster strings falls within the purview of implicit learning (Mitchell et al., 2013). Indeed, based on some available work in SLA (e.g. the chaos theory), it is not safe to make strong predictions about human behavior in long and arduous processes of L2A; regardless of how the nature of learning is characterized. Moreover, how, when and why L2 learners attend to and navigate explicit versus implicit knowledge is almost impossible to model or predict. As described by Bialystok (1978: 81), ‘the language learner may begin his conversation on the basis of implicit linguistics knowledge and improve his communicative competence by the use of the inferencing/monitoring combination’. Note that issues related to whether form-focused instruction is needed or can be successful, or whether implicit and incidental exposure to explicit input is enough to build L2 proficiency (Norris & Ortega, 2000) (or even procedural knowledge) are still unresolved. Potential interfaces between the two forms of L2 knowledge, or whether and when explicit learning can be turned into implicit learning, also remain controversial (Doughty & Long, 2005; Krashen, 1981).

Schema Theory Schema is a cognitivist theory that explains general learning from the perspective of how information about concrete and abstract, and animate and inanimate categories of existence (e.g. objects, constructs) are represented in an associative and meaningful manner in the human mind (Bartlett, 1995; McVee et al., 2005): the computer mental. Applications of this theory to L1, L2 and bilingual acquisition would presumably involve different dynamic systems and processes, because it is rather well-established in research on human psychology that the learning of new information is closely tied to the information people already know, in which are embedded opportunities and/or challenges related to interferences, transfers and generalizations that human beings cannot avoid (DeKeyser, 2007). In other words, when receiving new input, L2 learners connect nodes of mental representations based on their existing schemata and then use such information units and clusters to make sense of the input and store it under a relevant schema. In fact, the technical term of schema is sometimes used rather broadly or freely in research. It has been used rather inconsistently and often interchangeably with existing or prior or background knowledge

70

Part 2: Comprehensible Input: Second Language Acquisition

(Sadoski et al., 1991); however, the overall assumption is generally that new input is perceived, processed and stored in connection with existing input. For instance, to make sense and place a piece of puzzle in the right spot, we have to review the whole picture and evaluate where we have (if any) placed the other pieces. Sometimes, when we get a random piece mixed from another puzzle, we temporarily put it somewhere until we find the right puzzle to which it belongs. As such, the comprehension and storage of new L2 input cannot occur independent of prior L1 and L2 knowledge (or interlanguage), and as L2 learners perceive new input they decide where in their schemata to save it based on their existing knowledge. If it corresponds to no existing category, then they would save it as a new schema. Thus far, L2A research that utilized this theory has not adequately examined how L2 input is distributed across such presumed multilayered systems of L1 and L2 schemata and how they draw on these complex structures of their interlanguage to process new input (Abbot-Smith & Tomasello, 2006; Bialystok, 2001). From the perspective of this theory, the acquisition of new L2 input primarily depends on a learner’s prior and background knowledge and ability to connect mental representations of the new and old input (Sadoski et al., 1991). In order for the connections to be made, a learner’s prior knowledge must be activated. While sometimes such schemata activation occurs due to natural stimuli and affordances available in the environment, in structured environments like classroom settings, they are highlighted or explicated for the learners. Thus, the outcome of attending to new input and processing is not only about the complex nature of input; rather it is a matter of managing the intersections and connections of new and old input. As documented by Anderson et al. (1977), a person’s schema can influence how she/he perceives and attends to new input. Nevertheless, from this perspective, the more complex the new input is (e.g. morpheme level versus phrase or clause level), the higher numbers of multifaceted connections the learners have to draw. As argued by Widdowson (1994), processing and comprehending a discourse involves the ability to make connections both within and between the linguistic and background knowledge, because oral and written texts do not contain all information that is needed for comprehension. Chiang and Dunkel (1992: 350) claimed that ‘The basic tenet of schema theory posits that written text, or spoken discourse, does not carry meaning in and of itself. Rather, meaning occurs as a result of the interaction between reader’s or listener’s prior knowledge about the world and the text or speech’. Applying this theory to CI in light of current SLA research and theory, one could argue that L2 learners’ comprehension, storage and retention of input would probably depend on numerous factors, including their age, prior knowledge, gender and so forth. In other words, since they already have an established language system, unlike L1 learners, they would have

Input in Cognitive Processing-oriented Theories

71

to encounter issues of interference or positive or negative transfer (e.g. overgeneralization) depending on individual differences. For example, a seven-year-old Chinese girl’s schema or processing and storage of the English word ‘dragon’ may be rather different from that of a Haitian girl. The degree of interference (positive or negative) could be different if these two individuals were 50 years old, with different cultural experiences that did not necessarily conform to expected norms of cultural essentialism. Finally, in light of some recent re-explorations of the theory (McVee et al., 2005), its applications to L2A can also be broadened in scope. From a sociocultural view, a schema is considered to be constructed in social interaction in the context of cultural particularities and is therefore made of both inter and intra-individual relations and factors (Vygotsky, 1978). In this sense, the contributions of social and cognitive factors to the comprehension and construction of L2 schema are a matter of interdependency, not if and how much one needs the other. In other words, as McVee et al. (2005: 544) argued, ‘the discursive aspects of meaning making further problematize psychological explanations of schemas that treat culture as a variable within, rather than a constituent of, mental representations’. Thus, rather than just the nature of schema, L2A research needs to study its mediational power in facilitating L2A and development. Indeed, approaching schema from the perspective of socio-cognitive interdependency is potentially more practical in terms of its pedagogical implications.

Connectionism Connectionist views of L2A draw on research and theory in numerous fields, including neurolinguistics, computational linguistics, statistical modeling, social networks and computer science. It supposes that L2 learners build internal mechanisms that allow them to compute probabilities of occurrences of linguistic properties in certain combinations to constitute input (Christiansen & Chater, 2001; Ellis & Larsen-Freeman, 2009). This view has resulted in entertaining interesting possibilities of modeling processability and comprehension in L2A. In a sense, as explored in artificial language learning experiments, each lexical and morphosyntactic element of input acts like a node in a network in an associative manner, and using the frequency of each node, the computer calculates which future combinations of different properties are likely to occur (for details see Rast, 2008). In addition, the more frequently a language property is fed into the network and registered as a correct response, the higher levels of accuracy in predicting its subsequent strings and clusters in the network. Unlike the processability hypothesis that highlights the acquisition of procedural knowledge (Pienemann & Kessler, 2011), this perspective, which also denies the existence or application of nativist assumptions to L2A, underscores that the development of computational mechanisms depends on exposure

72

Part 2: Comprehensible Input: Second Language Acquisition

to an ample amount of input at a sufficient level of accurate occurrence. Such connectionist assumptions have been proposed to hold some level of consistency in L2 data across individual differences as well (Misyak & Christiansen, 2012; Williams, 2005). While they highlight the primacy of exposure to adequate amounts of input, unlike the information processing theory’s focus on the manipulation of rules and structures, connectionist views also consider the strength of associations between nodes (phonemic) and clusters (morphosyntactic) in a network to be more important than degrees of linguistic complexity, because human beings are able to process multiple things simultaneously (Williams, 2005). From this lens, rather than focusing on the processability of presumably orderly or systematic stages of acquisition or development, L2A work should focus on the multiple parallel connections within and across elements of input because, as theorized in the Parallel Distributed Processing, ‘information is (not) conveyed in a fixed serial order from one storage structure to the next’ (Robinson, 1995: 288), and ‘processing takes place in a network of nodes (or “units”) in the brain that are connected by pathways’ (Saville-Troike, 2006: 80). Thus, L2 proficiency advances when learners build stronger and stronger associations among elements of input and their many possible combinations through exposure to CI. Undoubtedly, the amount and quality of input as well as the useful recast a learner may receive play an important role in strengthening such connections. Finally, unlike the information processing views about the centrality of attention, this theory considers attention to be a perpetual system that incessantly facilitates the processability of input and its connections at varying degrees. In this view, processability and acquisition of new input is, then, a matter of understanding the place and role of a node and its connections within a network structure (Misyak & Christiansen, 2012; Williams, 2005). In other words, in order for comprehension to occur, a learner simultaneously attends to its phonological, morphological, syntactic, semantic and pragmatic properties as well as its communicative functions and contextual, socio-pragmatic and stylistic elements. Assuming variation and irregularities in all of these properties as well as unanticipated challenges of interaction with people (oral speech) and/or a text (e.g. psycholinguistic: speech act; sociolinguistic: variation), the multitude of complexities that may be involved in processing a unit of input at a given time increases beyond computation. Hence, the application of this theory to the understanding of CI and L2A processes still remains in need of more research (Gass & Mackey, 2012).

Chapter Summary This chapter attempts to shed light on CI and its role in L2A from a cognitive theory perspective that postulates the successful utilization of one’s

Input in Cognitive Processing-oriented Theories

73

cognitive resources in processing new input as the basis of L2A. To understand the comprehension and acquisition of L2 input from this perspective, one must examine how learners use their cognitive skills and capacity when they face new opportunities of input. Therefore, special consideration is devoted to the nature and role of cognition and its many aspects related to processes of attention, noticing, awareness, control, memory, retention, processability capacity, knowledge, association and storage. The chapter explains how, as characterized by its oppositional stand to the behaviorist theory of habit formation and rote-learning, different cognitive theories explain L2A as a meaningful activity where connections between old and new input are made explicit for learners. It begins with L1 interference, particularly focusing on factors such as language universals, parameter setting, markedness, the nature of L2 errors and interlanguage and so forth. Next is a brief part on the information processing view that argues that processing L2 input is no different from processing any kind of information (regarding control and attention) and that complexity of input affects its comprehensibility. The next four parts focus on the role of attention, control and knowledge processes in L2A. Here, different aspects of focal and peripheral attention and controlled and automatic processing, as well as declarative, procedural, explicit and implicit knowledge are described. The chapter continues with the schema theory perspective; namely how new input is perceived, processed and stored in connection with existing input. The chapter concludes with connectionism, which supposes that L2 learners build internal mechanisms that allow them to compute probabilities of occurrences of linguistic properties in certain combinations to process new input.

5 Input in Learner and Interaction-centered Theories

Unlike Chapter 4 that forefronted the role of human cognition in noticing, processing and learning L2 input, this chapter places the ‘learner’ at the heart of L2A. It focuses on three major hypotheses: Input, Interaction and Output. The chapter begins with Krashen’s Input Hypothesis that introduced comprehensible input (CI) as a technical term to the field. The subject matters covered in this section include: the nature of processes of L2 attainment, acquisition versus learning (the Monitor Model), the nature of input (Natural Order Hypothesis [NOH], CI and i+1), the nature of L2 processing and production (Silent Period) and the role of individual differences (Affective Filter Hypothesis). Next is a brief description of the role of CI in different processes of interactions and participatory actions (e.g. communicative strategies) with different L2 speakers (Interaction Hypothesis [IH]). The last section on the Output Hypothesis concentrates on the importance of CI in processes of L2 use and production (languaging).

Input Hypothesis Krashen’s Input Hypothesis (Krashen, 1985, 1987) is one of the most influential, if not the most comprehensive, theories that have described L2A. This theory is built on the perspective of a broad range of factors and processes, including (1) the nature of attainment processes (acquisition versus learning); (2) the nature of input (natural order, CI or comprehension hypothesis, i+1); (3) the nature of processing and production (role of first language [L1], silent period, monitor model); and (4) and the role of learner variables (affective filter, infantization). It is important to note four main points about Krashen’s work to understand it better. First, he is among a rare number of scholars in the field who went beyond the narrow pedagogical implications of his theories and research and (co)developed an actual method of L2 teaching, the Natural Approach (Krashen & Terrel, 1983). Second, according to Krashen (1987), L1 and L2 acquisition processes share a remarkable number of commonalties, and L2 learning and teaching experiences can be more successful when they follow an approach that is somewhat similar to how children learn their native language (silent period). Third, as far as language universals and access to language acquisition devices (LAD) (for acquisition only) are concerned, Krashen and 74

Input in Learner and Interaction-centered Theories

75

Chomsky have similar ideas. Fourth, some of his theories and hypotheses have been substantiated by quite a large bulk of empirical research in L2A (Krashen, 2003) and profusely used in L2 teaching (e.g. the use of CI in L2 education). Finally, as argued by Sanz (2005), it seems ironic that this hypothesis has generated a remarkable amount of attention to external L2A factors (e.g. input, affective factors) while the theory ‘itself focused on internal universal constraints leading to predictable orders of acquisition undisturbed by external factors such as learning contexts’ (Sanz, 2005: 11).

Nature of processes of L2 attainment: Acquisition versus learning and the monitor model In hypothesizing a distinction between acquisition and learning as two distinct processes, Krashen (1985, 1987, 2003) describes acquisition as an unconscious process of attaining L2 input through exposure to natural and authentic communication. Learning, in contrast, refers to experiences that are conscious, planned and organized for individual study or classroom instruction. While in learning the input is explicit and provided to the learners sequentially, acquisition implies the attainment of implicit or procedural input, which compared to the learned input, is often associated with higher levels of authenticity and automaticity in the production of L2 input. These two processes are sometimes described in terms of the nature of the learner’s goal for engaging in an activity (e.g. reading for pleasure versus to complete an assignment) or the broad setting in which the learning activity takes place (SL/foreign language [FL]) or a combination of both. As described by Horwitz (2013), learning processes can take form in several distinct ways: second language learning, second language acquisition, FL learning and FL acquisition. It is clear that the environments in which acquisition and learning occur are characterized by different goal orientations and processes of attending to, negotiating and comprehending linguistic and non-linguistic properties of new input. Furthermore, when comprehension and attainment of input are considered in the context of all potentially contributing factors, assuming that individual differences may play different roles in acquisition versus learning processes is not too far-fetched. Acquisition is described as the optimal or desired process of L2 attainment because it has been attributed to better learning outcomes, resulting in the building of higher levels of linguistic and socio-pragmatic competencies. Input attained through acquisition is presumed to be more immediate and salient, more meaningfully constructed, more authentic and culturally appropriate and more readily available to produce (bypassing the monitor). Nevertheless, as argued by Krashen (1985, 2003), the physical presence of a learner in an environment does not, by default, imply that the attainment process should be characterized as acquisition; a learner’s active engagement

76

Part 2: Comprehensible Input: Second Language Acquisition

and the comprehensibility and level-appropriateness (CI and i+1) of the input are also crucial. In other words, while the general traits of the ecology and the particularities of the context of situation as well as the nature of input (complexity, saliency, frequency) play an important role in processes of acquisition, a learner’s individual differences (e.g. affective: anxiety, motivation; metacognitive: beliefs, strategies) are what bring meaning and usefulness to all of these affordances (Dörnyei, 2005). The power and autonomy attributed to the L2 learner as the center of L2 attainment is one of the features that distinguishes the theories and research presented in this chapter from the others. That is why, in SLA research, a learner’s low achievement in L2A has been attributed to sociocultural factors (covered in Chapter 6), while quite a portion of it is explained by learner variables (Pawlak, 2012; Roberts & Meyer, 2012). In a learning situation (e.g. formal classroom environments), issues of authenticity and naturality are always a subject of concern. In such strictly structured and artificial environments, in essence, the tasks are inauthentic, goals for communication are unreal, communication partners (or text) are unreal and need for the targeted input may not be perceived as necessary or important (immediacy, relevance, etc.) by the learners. Nevertheless, the approach to overall instructional philosophy and implementation can make a noticeable difference in learning outcomes (Richards & Rodgers, 2010). Thus, just like the case for the effectiveness of acquisition in L2 attainment, the effectiveness of learning is also not only about the pure nature of the setting and/or the kind of input: how instruction is planned and delivered, how the curriculum and materials are used, how competent and ready the teachers are, which roles and responsibilities are attached to the learners and the instructor and how assessment and evaluation is conducted can all bring learning quite closer to (or move away from) acquisition in terms of exposing the learners to CI and generating more desirable learning outcomes (Horwitz, 2013; Krashen, 1985, 2003). Broadly defined, the monitor is generally considered to be an outcome and a system of learned input and metalanguage (knowing about the language) that oversees and regulates the comprehension and production of new input. According to Krashen (1981: 3), learned input ‘is available to the performer (learner) only as a Monitor’ and ‘may be used to alter the output of the acquired system’. Yet, in order for the learner to process and produce L2 input successfully, or to monitor the whole process, three conditions must be met. Namely, the learner must have enough time to process, must be focused on the form and must know the needed morphosyntactic rules. Krashen (1985) argues that while it is rather rare that a learner meets all of these three conditions, variation in L2 performance is inevitable even when these conditions are met, because some learners, due to their individual characteristics (e.g. anxiety, pedagogical beliefs), may tend to overuse (or underuse) the monitor, or ‘over-monitor’ the processing of new

Input in Learner and Interaction-centered Theories

77

input. Krashen (1981: 4) describes the optimal user of the monitor to be ‘the performer who uses learning as a real supplement to acquisition’, which can be extended to both SL and FL settings. As stated by Krashen (1981: 47) ‘it seems plausible that the classroom can accomplish both learning and acquisition simultaneously. While classwork is directly aimed at increasing conscious linguistic knowledge of the target language, to the extent that the target language is used realistically, to that extent will acquisition occur’. As discussed in Part 3 of this book, a lexical or morphosyntactic unit can be taught through an instructional method that is grounded in behaviorism (audiolingualism) as the learning theory, structuralism as the linguistic theory and contrastive analysis hypothesis (CAH) as the SLA theory. In contrast, instruction can be offered in a context or task-based instructional model that may be based on constructivist learning theories, functionalist linguistic theories and social theories of SLA. The latter, if implemented appropriately, could result in more meaningful and authentic tasks and activities through which the learners engage in negotiation of meaning and scaffolding to learn the new L2 input (Richards & Rodgers, 2010). For example, in the case of learning English as a Foreign Language (EFL), exposure to input is highly limited to planned instruction, and a learner’s success predominantly depends on the input she/he receives from her/his teacher, the curriculum and the classroom conversations. Thus, when choices about the curriculum and materials and the instructional methods are poorly made, and when the teachers are not adequately prepared, learning gains can be minimal. This implies that learning processes can be enhanced to ensure better instructional gains (Nunan, 1991). For some learners, certain aspects of the L2 can be acquired while other competencies are built through explicit classroom instruction at the same time. For example, for immigrant children in the US, these processes are simultaneous and parallel: these children have numerous opportunities for exposure to authentic and natural input in the playground or in the mall or at the grocery store, while also receiving English instruction (and content instruction via English) as part of their ESL curriculum and K-12 education. Indeed, Krashen (1981) argues that both of these processes can potentially lead to learning to a high L2 proficiency level, with each contributing to the enhancement of distinct aspects of different competencies and with both complementing each other. Thus, these English learners (EL) may acquire, or pick up so to speak, a large bulk of their basic interpersonal communication skill-based vocabulary (BICS) in the locker room or on the basketball court, while most of their formal linguistic knowledge can be learned in their ESL programs (pull-out or immersion). Their cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP) (Cummins, 2000), on the other hand, can be naturally attained through their content area (e.g. social studies, math) instruction, which may not be particularly geared toward but modified for L2A purposes.

78

Part 2: Comprehensible Input: Second Language Acquisition

In contrast, ELs in FL settings (e.g. ELs in Turkey) may be restricted to only learning experiences.

Nature of input: Natural order, CI and i+1 As far as the nature of input is concerned, Krashen makes the following major assumptions of which some are grounded in the foundation of first language acquisition (L1A) and/or child and adult L2A work (Krashen, 1981, 1987): (1) the acquisition of morphological properties of L2 input follows a somewhat predictable natural order (like that of children) in the form of blocks; (2) acquired input is better for L2A and production than learned input; (3) acquisition occurs when input is comprehensible; and (4) in order to ensure development in L2A, the newly presented input has to be reasonably above a learner’s current proficiency level (i+1). As far as the nature of acquired versus learned input is concerned in Krashen’s view, acquired input is implicit, proceduralized, unconsciously attained and presumably results in more accurate and automatic output – or languaging experience (Swain, 2000). In contrast, learned input is superficial and explicit, and attained through formal instruction, resulting in less accurate and automatic output due to the intervention of the monitor. To avoid reiterating the information presented in different parts of this book, here, the focus is on how the NOH, CI and i+1 hypothesis describe the nature of L2 input. Krashen (1981, 1985, 1987) argued that the acquisition of grammatical features follows a rather predictable sequence of blocks of morphemes that pose varying degrees of comprehension and/or processability challenges (structural complexity) for L2 learners. At the micro-level, Krashen does not presume linearity for the acquisition of L2 morphology; however, at the macro-level, these assumptions could be interpreted as such. Namely, the NOH does not imply a morpheme-by-morpheme linear acquisition growth trajectory, but does so for several categorized groups of morphemes. According to this hypothesis (Krashen, 1981), L2 learners (child or adult), to some degree like L1 learners, acquire progressive –ing and plural marker –s and copula be (Block 1) before irregular past and progressive auxiliary verbs (Block 2), which they acquire before articles, regular past markers, third-person singular –s and possessive –s (Block 3). For example, for the morphemes within the same block, say, the definite article ‘the’ versus the indefinite article ‘a’, such predictions of acquisition order do not apply. For some learners the acquisition of ‘a’ may occur before ‘the’, while for others it may be just the reverse. Nevertheless, from a macro perspective, the NOH argues that L2 learners acquire some groups of morphemes before others; for instance, plural –s is acquired before possessive –s. This sequential order is also assumed to remain consistent despite the potential interference of formal instruction in acquired input, a case that is common in SL settings (e.g. ESL in the USA). Indeed, there has been a sizable amount of research

Input in Learner and Interaction-centered Theories

79

suggesting evidence both for and against the NOH (for a comprehensive review, see Krashen, 1981, 1987). Some of the elements that have made this hypothesis somewhat controversial are the scope and breadth of its cognitive and psycholinguistic assumptions and implications for L2 processing, comprehension, attainment and development. In other words, when interpreted from the perspectives of certain cognitive theories, including cognitive load, automaticity and information processing (Kress, 2003; McLaughlin, 1987; Paivio, 1986), some of the assumptions of this hypothesis need further detail and justification. Furthermore, as applied to SLA theory and research, it is not easy to unravel its intricate and implied links to specific cognitive resources and factors such as attention, memory, proceduralization and automaticity (Mitchell et al., 2013; Ortega, 2009). Also, some of its assumptions related to sequence and linearity in L2A can be problematized by some of the recent applications of complexity and ecological theories to L2A (Larsen-Freeman, 1997; van Lier, 2000). While some of these challenges relate to the applicability of L1 processes and mechanisms to those of L2A, others involve variability in the performances of children, bilingual and/or adult L2 learners with different L1 backgrounds. Although Krashen (1981, 1987) responded to some of these controversies with comparative empirical data from numerous studies (with different language skills) on specific morphological structures acquired through different tasks, some disagreements still remain (Gregg, 1984; Lightbown et al., 2006). Note that basic assumptions of this hypothesis have generally been made about the acquisition of morphological structures, not the acquisition of aspects of phonological, syntactic and/or socio-pragmatic competencies. Another theory about the nature of input, which has been rather profusely used in L2A research and pedagogy, is CI (Krashen, 1985, 1987, 2003). In line with the focus of this book, the defining components and nature of CI (Chapter 1) as well as its theoretical understanding from the perspectives of different comprehension theories (Chapter 2) and sub-linguistic fields (Chapter 1) have been elucidated in Part 1. Thus, to avoid repetition and redundancy, here, only the connections between CI, i+1 and acquisition are explored. To offer a comprehensive view of L2A, we must examine the intersection of processing, comprehension and acquisition, specifically tackling aspects and features that make a unit of input more or less comprehensible for different learner groups in different settings (Doughty & Long, 2005; Gass & Mackey, 2012). In so doing, we have to entertain the assumption that comprehensibility is not only a matter of some sort of presumed linguistic complexity or cognitive processing load; consequently, it cannot be separated from variables like individual differences, communicative strategies, environmental affordance and so on.

80

Part 2: Comprehensible Input: Second Language Acquisition

From such a multifaceted and comprehensive perspective, more complex and multilayered questions arise (Wagner-Gough & Hatch, 1975). Would the nature of the comprehensibility of a unit of input and its level of appropriateness and difficulty (i+1) vary depending on the setting, namely acquisition versus learning situations? For example, in FL settings where input is predominantly controlled and its learning is largely facilitated by instructors, learners may not face as many comprehension challenges as they would if they were to ask for directions on the street (acquisition). Such intensity of challenges could also vary if the input were explicit (declarative) versus implicit (procedural) (Ortega, 2009). In addition, one would assume that such variability, both in terms of degrees of comprehensibility and i+1, may also fluctuate for learners at different proficiency levels, generating different learning outcomes when they interact with different learner characteristics (e.g. anxiety, motivation). In addition, the responses to these questions may also differ for CI in written (discourse elements) versus oral use (communicative strategies). This could also imply variation in degrees of comprehension based on a person’s sociocultural background (Cook, 2001; Mitchell et al., 2013). For instance, the classroom teachers (and peers) or strangers on the street may not be as patient and willing as the parents of a child (L1A) to negotiate meaning and ensure comprehension of the input. Also, for example, it would be rather hard to make any i+1 assumptions about the complexity level of the kind of language produced by people working at a grocery store (BICS) or at a doctor’s office (medical terms or CALP) in their communication with L2 learners. Note that while communication breakdowns are rather common in L1 interactions, they are even more common in L2 speech. If so, we could assume that the nature of social interactions (e.g. error correction, caring) and a learner’s sociocultural background would play an important role in comprehension and consequently the learning of new input, particularly for learners with low proficiency levels. In general, despite disagreements about its nature and adequacy for development, the need for input in L2A is rather well-acknowledged in the field (Doughty & Long, 2005; Gass & Mackey, 2012). Given Cummins’ (2000) work underscoring that L2 skills develop at a rather slow pace in the face of years of formal instructional training, just as it may be the case in L1A (from a generativist perspective [Chomsky, 1965]), one could argue that L2 input may not be strong enough to ensure acquisition. L2A research thus needs to explore the interactions of all factors that contribute to comprehension and attainment of input, particularly ‘the nature of the input that feeds the learning process through interaction, the mechanisms that process the information (attention in particular), reliance on brain structures, and the role of IDs (individual differences) in explaining differential success in learning’ (Sanz, 2005: 17). While the Input Hypothesis’ focus on the ‘L2 learner’ is admirable, it is interesting that many of its assumptions require nuanced understandings and explorations of the psycholinguistic

Input in Learner and Interaction-centered Theories

81

(e.g. neurocognitive) mechanisms and processes of L2A. Note that, the adjectives ‘comprehensible’ and ‘+1’ define ‘input’ that is offered to L2 learners; however, these concepts are grounded in L1A work on the nature, complexity, adequacy, saliency and frequency of input to which L1 learners were exposed through caregivers (see Ritchie & Bhatia, 1999). Hence, it is warranted that we examine what more and less ‘comprehensibility’ entails to be able to understand the nature of L2 processing and production.

Nature of processing and production: Innate acquisition resources, and the Silent Period Withstanding some nuances, the Input Hypothesis agrees with generativist L1A hypotheses, which suggest that L2A processes are somewhat similar to those of L1A. According to this view, L2A is primarily a matter of exposure to CI, which should be slightly above a learner’s current level. In this view, L2 learners are not as successful as children in language acquisition partially because, compared to children, they do not have enough exposure opportunities to CI over a long period of time when the sole focus of their daily routine is language acquisition – an immediate necessity. Indeed, this notion has been applied to several areas, including computational linguistics, confirming that processability and comprehension largely depend on (a machine’s) existing background knowledge (frequency and training) (Mitkov, 2003; Rast, 2008). Note that the Input Hypothesis makes these assumptions despite acknowledging differences in the neurocognitive and neurobiological factors and processes (critical period hypothesis: Chapter 7) between children and most L2 learners (excluding bilinguals and/or L2 learners of very early ages) as well as differences related to the needs, goals and expectations and affective and metacognitive learner characteristics (Krashen, 1985, 1987). In addition, Krashen also believes that generativist assumptions about the use and role of LAD in L1A are valid for L2A. As argued by Chomsky (1957, 1965), LAD is an inborn resource and ability that not only facilitates the acquisition of new input but also regulates the generative development and non-finite production of new input in line with language universals. Applying this theory to L2A, we can argue that if LAD owes its existence to the explanation of (1) how L1A can happen despite the impoverished and highly variable input that children receive from their many caregivers, despite (2) their immature and limited cognitive capacity and skills (also known as the paradox of language acquisition). Thus, the field of SLA needs LAD even more to be able to explain L2A from an input-dependency perspective, because it is rather well-acknowledged that, compared to L1A, input is even more limited and varied in L2A situations (Doughty & Long, 2005; Gass & Mackey, 2012). The fact that this biological endowment is presumed to be triggered by listening input to which children are exposed

82

Part 2: Comprehensible Input: Second Language Acquisition

through a rather long process without being able to produce any substantial output (or languaging) has led scholars like Krashen to forefront listening skills in L2A. Advocating for simulating L1A processing in L2 learning, Krashen underscores a focus on receptive language skills (reading and listening), arguing that at early stages, L2 learners should be exposed to as much CI as possible through listening without being required to produce much output, a notion that has come to be known as the Silent Period. Nonetheless, due to his focus on social experience and interactive languaging (Swain, 2000; Swain et al., 2009) in L2A, Krashen (1981) suggests that, as implemented in Asher’s (1969) famous Total Physical Response (TPR), L2 learners should actively participate in receiving and constructing input by means of performing physical actions commanded by their teachers during their early stages of learning. Krashen (1985: 111) claims that ‘comprehension precedes production: children acquiring second languages typically exhibit a “silent period” during which acquired competence is built up via active listening, via intake; this period may last several months’. Note that Krashen (1981) uses the commonalities in the errors made by L1 users (children) and L2 learners under ‘monitor-free’ conditions such as knowledge of rules, time and form focus as evidence to hypothesize that L1A and L2A processes are somewhat similar. Undoubtedly, among other factors, the length of the Silent Period would also depend on the age of the L2 learners and the setting where the L2 is being attained as an SL versus an FL. Indeed, each of these settings would also demonstrate variation in terms of the potential contributions of the Silent Period to L2 development based on a learner’s language dominance (acquisition) or the kind of instructional models offered in a classroom (learning).

Role of learner variables: Affective filter It is quite important to note here that Krashen (1981, 1985, 2003) explains how an individual constructs and manipulates the monitor as a system to regulate and control the learning of new input from the perspective of a very wide range of variables. This comprehensive and multifaceted view includes explanations of the mechanisms and processes of age effects, and the nature of the input (complexity of rules) and individual differences (over versus under, or good versus bad users of the monitor), hypothesizing (for evidence, see studies cited in Krashen, 1981) connections to specific affective (e.g. anxiety), cognitive (e.g. aptitude) and metacognitive variables (e.g. strategies). Krashen’s focus on affective factors (see affective filter hypothesis) is not due to the magnitude of their presumed influences (effect sizes); rather it is about the nature of the psychological factors in human engagement in learning behavior (Dulay & Burt, 1977). In other words, since L2A processes primarily involve volitional acts of engagement in

Input in Learner and Interaction-centered Theories

83

input-rich (affordance-rich) interactions (ecologies), affective factors take precedence. Individual differences, or learner variables, which have been the subject of remarkable attention in L2A, are often studied under different categories (Dörnyei, 2005; Skehan, 1989). For example, Horwitz (2013) categorizes them as affective, cognitive and metacognitive variables. Affective variables (e.g. motivation) include a learner’s feelings about the L2, L2 learning processes and L2 community, while neurocognitive and neurobiological differences in processing L2 input fall under the cognitive variables (e.g. aptitude). Differences among L2 learners regarding their patterns of thinking about and regulating their own learning are studied under metacognition (e.g. strategies). In line with the focus of the discussion, only the factors that contribute to the affective filter are examined here; specifically, how factors such as motivational orientations, anxiety, attitudes, identity (or identification) patterns and so forth affect or relate to attending to, processing, comprehending and producing different forms of L2 input at varying degrees of success by different learners under different conditions. While each of these affective factors has its own defining components or different theoretical approaches (e.g. motivation: directed motivational currents versus self-determination theory), as established in SLA work, their interactions with each other (e.g. motivation and anxiety), an area in need of more research, may potentially generate even more interesting conclusions about the nature of the affective filter in L2A theory and research (Roberts & Meyer, 2012). How the affective filter functions in L2A can take numerous forms, including the way a learner initially engages a task and how she/he follows through processes of engagement. Basically, the affective filter may act as a gatekeeper that potentially grants or denies varying degrees of access to L2 learners to engage in opportunities of exposure to CI. Conversely, due to varying degrees of interactions of some of these affective factors, learners may decide to invest only a very limited amount of attention and memory capacity to process the new input. In fact, this can occur even when the input is presented perfectly well, very limited or no learning gains may occur. Based on this very argument, Krashen (1981: 110) claims that ‘motivational and attitudinal considerations are prior to linguistic considerations’. In explaining why affect can be so powerful in filtering L2 input, Krashen (1981: 110) has stressed that ‘some potential intake may not make it to the “language acquisition device”: acquirers’ motivations and attitudes, if they are less than optimal, may filter out certain aspects of the input, so that they are no longer available to the acquirer as intake, even if the requirements for intake outlined above are met’. In sum, at a macro-level, the individual may distance (e.g. social distance) herself/himself entirely from any kind of socialization with members of the L2 community, or at a micro-level, a learner may avoid participating in an instructional dialog.

84

Part 2: Comprehensible Input: Second Language Acquisition

In both cases, compared to affective factors, cognitive and metacognitive variables become factors of secondary (in terms of sequential relevance) importance. In addition, in line with their theoretical underpinnings, each of these broad categories is constituted by numerous emotional factors that cannot be separated from other socio-psychological factors. For example, motivation, a factor contributing the affective filter, has been studied in L2A from numerous different perspectives such as self-systems, self-efficacy, self-determination, goal-orientations, task-value, attitudes and willingness to communicate, among others (Bandura, 1993; Brophy, 1999; Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2009; Gardner, 1985; MacIntyre, 2007; Noels et al., 2003). Understanding the affective filter from the Self-Determination Theory (SDT) not only involves a distinction between extrinsic and intrinsic orientations but also an examination of learner autonomy, relatedness and competence (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Hence, studying the affective filter from this theoretical view mandates that we explain potential differences in the nature of filtering processes in terms of different degrees of intrinsic or extrinsic motivations. In addition, in the case of extrinsic motivation, such an explanation must be complemented by an explanation of how a learner’s learning outcomes are facilitated or debilitated by how each form of external, introjected, identified and integrated regulation relates to a learner’s varying degrees of perceived sense of autonomy, relatedness and competence. From, a socio-educational model perspective, though, the filter would be described in terms of a binary distinction between instrumental and integrative motivations and their degrees of intensity (Gardner, 1985). On the other hand, studying the affective filter from the perspective of Dörnyei’s (and his colleagues’) L2 Motivational Self System or Directed Motivational Currents requires taking a different path of focus that primarily involves the intersection of L2 self-processes and motivational behavior. More specifically, understanding the affective filter from this view not only requires an examination of a learner’s perceived Actual, Ideal and Ought-to self-systems (Csizer & Magid, 2014; Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2009), but also how ‘the internal structure of the L2 self-concept (that) encompasses numerous factors, including identity, beliefs about the self, socialization patterns, and investment in L2 learning activities’ (Polat & Schallert, 2013: 748). As a result, explaining the nature of a learner’s affective filter from this view may not be as easy as expected because it is constituted by many variables that evolve and interact with each other in very complex and often self-discrepant ways as regulated by immediate and broader ecological affordances (Dörnyei et al., 2015; Higgins, 1987). Hence, an optimal filtering situation could be explained only by capturing how stable and consistent (if possible) a learner’s affective self-system is as permitted (or affected) by the sociocultural and contextual dynamics and affordances. While the role of motivation in L2A has been explored from

Input in Learner and Interaction-centered Theories

85

different theoretical views rather multifacetedly (see Chapter 9), how it relates to other affective variables in influencing success in attaining L2 input remains understudied. For example, Krashen argues that allowing for the Silent Period and avoiding error-correction in the early stages of L2A can help lower the affective filter, partially due to lowered anxiety. As stated by Krashen (1981, 1985), anxiety, which also contributes to the affective filter, is a well-studied variable in L2A (see Horwitz, 2010); however, how it interacts with other variables like motivational forms, L2 self-systems and strategies in influencing a learner’s affective filter is also in need of theoretical and empirical work.

Interaction Hypothesis Another area of L2A work that places learner interactions at the center of discussion is the IH (Long, 1981, 1996). According to the IH, L2A and development are essentially matters of engagement in communicative interactions that involve participation, scaffolding and feedback as critical elements of learning. Thus, factors and mechanisms that influence a learner’s participation in facilitating conversation processes should be the main topics of investigation in L2A work. In other words, if CI is ‘the sine qua non’ of L2A (Gass & Mackey, 2007: 177), learning will not happen unless the learner engages in communicative actions without which even the goals for learning an L2 (communicative competence) become irrelevant. This hypothesis primarily underscores factors that may influence a learner’s patterns of participation in conversation, the nature of interaction and negotiation of meaning and the use of different communicative strategies. Hence, the focus of SLA work should be on the mechanisms and processes of interaction rather than the linguistic properties or presumed lexical or structural complexity of the input (see the early version of IH; Long, 1981). As argued by Franco (2006), interaction involves three conditions: two or more participants, participants’ competence to communicate and the communication goal around which the discourse is structured. From this perspective, how proficient and willing an L2 learner is to participate and continue to undertake i+1-level discourses to negotiate meaning, solve instantaneous communication breakdowns, scaffold and pursue further the conversation with feedback from interlocutors have enormous impacts on CI and its contributions to L2A. The IH presents input as a dynamic entity that takes markedly different forms due to constant modifications and adjustments that occur during the interaction processes (Long, 1985). The IH does not, however, devote much attention to some of the affective variables that are salient in the Input Hypothesis. The IH has two versions. The early version adds onto some of Krashen’s hypotheses about affective factors and CI, primarily focusing on interaction as a basis for making L2 input comprehensible. The later version,

86

Part 2: Comprehensible Input: Second Language Acquisition

a revision based on the testing of the initial hypothesis in light of some SLA research, shifts focus toward interaction as a facilitator (or opportunity) not the cause of learning gains. The second version highlights the role of cognition, particularly attention and processability capacity (Long, 1996). In fact, Long (1996: 414) argues that the effect of interaction on L2A is ‘mediated by selective attention and the learner’s developing L2 processing capacity, and that these resources are brought together most usefully, although not exclusively, during negotiation of meaning’. In addition, some studies have provided supporting evidence that input (including negative evidence) received in L2 interactions plays an instrumental role in the acquisition of marked input (also known as differences between L1 and L2), and lexical and morphosyntactic structures (for a review, see Mackey & Goo, 2007). In line with the focus of the hypothesis, it is critical to closely examine how the mechanisms and processes of interaction are conceptualized. The IH highlights the nature (e.g. quality, frequency) of input and the role of numerous factors such as repetition, comprehension, confirmation checks, clarification requests, prompts, repairs and self and peer correction (or recast) conversations. As described by Atkinson (2011: 118–119), in order to understand the role of conversation in L2A, we need to examine a learner’s interactional competence, including procedures of ‘turn-taking, sequence organization, turn-construction, and repair’. In other words, based on SLA research, we know that not all kinds of L2 conversations result in considerable learning gains (Brown, 2006; Doughty & Long, 2005). Therefore, we need to identify facilitating interactional procedures in terms of when and how and under what conditions and for which learners certain conversations are more effective than others in aiding the comprehension of new L2 input. For example, rather similar to Krashen’s focus on caution with error correction, Long (1985: 212) underscored the importance of providing a safe environment for conversation when he stated: ‘… freedom from the requirement for accuracy at all costs and entry into the richer and more accommodating set of relationships provided by small-group interaction promote a positive affective climate. This in turn allows for the development of the kind of personalized, creative talk for which most aural-oral classes are trying to prepare learners’. Some SLA research has, in fact, supported this notion with empirical evidence (Krashen, 1985; Mackey & Goo, 2007). In addition to its use in SLA work on participation in conversation, negotiation of meaning, recast and scaffolding activities, this hypothesis has also been applied to research on the role of feedback and communicative strategies in L2A (see Lyster & Izquierdo, 2009; Mackey, 2007). In this view, how a learner handles feedback can considerably affect the comprehensibility of new input. In order for the conversation to continue and learning to occur, a learner needs to remain engaged, constantly adjusting the input by receiving feedback from and giving feedback to the interlocutor (Mackey &

Input in Learner and Interaction-centered Theories

87

Goo, 2007). Thus, comprehensibility of input largely depends on how successfully a learner manipulates exchanges of feedback. Since interaction involves multiple parties, a learner’s interactional competence may not be enough to secure the continuation of a conversation. In fact, often, learner variables and the relationships between the interlocutors (e.g. trust in the teacher) as well as contextual (or topical) and environmental affordances can make a learner or the interlocutor more or less willing to accept or give feedback. This may be the case even in written communication where issues of apprehension attributed to face-to-face oral performance are less salient (Lee & Schallert, 2008). Hence, a learner’s affective filter – as influenced by that of the interlocutor’s – can impact how the nature and quality of comprehension and confirmation checks, clarification requests and recast as well as turn-taking and construction, and sequence organization may ultimately influence the comprehension of new input. Finally, as argued by Long (1996) and others (for a review, see Russell & Spada, 2006), feedback can also contribute to the comprehension and acquisition of L2 input by acting as a source of negative evidence to help identify gaps (e.g. morphosyntactic accuracy) in a learner’s interlanguage. Finally, the role of feedback in influencing the comprehension and acquisition of new input in oral interactions relates to both the nature of corrective feedback and communication strategies. From this perspective, a closer look at the effectiveness of different kinds of oral corrective feedback (OCF) in conversational interactions is warranted. For example, as a remedial technique that is rather frequently utilized by L2 teachers, OCF can potentially offer effective opportunities for exposure to CI, particularly in L2 programs where meaning-focused interactions are highly promoted (Gass & Mackey, 2006). Therefore, to ensure comprehension and acquisition of input in L2 classrooms, a teacher not only needs to identify and implement effective communication strategies but also guide the learners to become more competent and strategic communicators. In so doing, more effective forms of OCF must be carefully designed and implemented to ascertain oral interactions that are conducive to better learning outcomes in different language skills, because, as established in L2A research, L2 learners react to OCF in different ways depending on their uptake, individual differences and explicitness of each type of feedback. Note that, since Lyster and Ranta’s (1997) work that described the six different kinds of OCF used in L2 classrooms (explicit correction, recast, clarification request, metalinguistic feedback, elicitation and repetition), there has been quite a sizable bulk of SLA work that has examined the role of OCF in L2A (for reviews, see Gass & Mackey, 2006; Lyster & Saito, 2010). Interpreting this work from the IH perspective, two important caveats need to be forefronted: successful acquisition of L2 input is influenced by what the interactors bring to the communication (learner variables) and how the interactional patterns and affordances are manipulated, maneuvered and guided throughout.

88

Part 2: Comprehensible Input: Second Language Acquisition

Output Hypothesis Unlike Input Hypothesis’ focus on the role of receptive skills (especially in early stages), the Output Hypothesis (OH) problematizes the necessity and adequacy of CI in L2A, foregrounding L2 use and production processes as the main vehicle for L2A (Swain, 1985). The OH presumes that comprehension of a unit of input is tied to how a large number of communication factors relate to several systems of competencies of phonological, morphosyntactic and lexical resources. This hypothesis also attributes issues of comprehension to how paralinguistic (e.g. gestures) and conversational functions (e.g. greeting) and strategies interact, and how a learner positions her/his L2-self within the entirety of the particularities of a specific discourse (e.g. formality) (Canale & Swain, 1980). For example, when a learner engages in a conversation, she/he is forced to produce output; to do that, the learner has to negotiate meaning, which requires constant modifications in the linguistic and communicative properties of the initial input, which, by the time it is processed, may have transformed into a possibly unrecognizable form. Thus, in the end (through conversational exchanges), what the person acquires as input is the ultimate outcome of the conversation: the output, which is based on what was initially somewhat (see i+1 in this chapter) comprehensible. In this sense, CI and output complement each other and are both necessary for L2A and development. Swain (1995) argues that L2 output performs three language processing and communication functions, some of which directly pertain to the use of cognitive processes in L2A. Basically, in this view, processes of L2 production (e.g. noticing/triggering function) not only help learners identify their weaknesses but also assist them in negotiating and testing hypotheses (hypothesis-testing function), using the metalinguistic (reflective function) systems, competencies and strategies that are available to them. While communicating in L2, learners ‘notice’ weaknesses in their interlanguage, which makes them conscious and forces them to seek opportunities to rectify such knowledge and skills gaps. In this process, they get to test their own flawed output and receive feedback from the interlocutors, which enhances comprehension and acquisition. In addition, the two functions attained in this process give the L2 learners the opportunity to follow up on the subsequent (forced) exchanges and build on the existing knowledge to scaffold and control (reflect) linguistic and non-linguistic elements to generate new, presumably more internalized, forms of output (Swain, 1995, 2005). Undoubtedly, in this process, issues of comprehension and acquisition are also closely tied with the characteristics and competence of the other side of the conversation: the interlocutor. According to OH, L2 learners must be presented with as many opportunities of L2 production as possible because a unit of input is made comprehensible and acquired when it is used (output) in communication.

Input in Learner and Interaction-centered Theories

89

Thus, both the acquisition and procedural automatization of L2 input largely depend on the modification processes that take place during production. In this sense, OH shares striking similarities (particularly regarding attention and noticing processes) with the IH (Long, 1985, 1996). If the goal of L2 learning is communication, the acquisition of input is a matter of attaining reprocessed (modified) input that can be easily turned into output (proceduralization of socio-pragmatic competence). In other words, as argued by Swain (1985), L2 learners acquire elements and aspects of communicative competence (Hymes, 1972; Savignon, 1972) through the use of conversational exchanges that involve negotiation of meaning and personalized construction of new input. The OH has been applied to the exploration of certain cognitive factors and processes such as noticing and input enhancement, concluding that output processes result in noticeable gains in L2A (Izumi, 2002; Izumi et al., 1999). This hypothesis has also been used to examine how; for example, the nature and amount of output would vary by the kind of language task or the context of situation; yet, its long-term contributions to overall L2 development still remain rather understudied (Shehadeh, 2002). With regard to its contributions to the understanding of the CI in L2A, Swain (1985, 2005) highlights the processes of output production; not just their outcomes (products), underscoring that CI is not a prerequisite to comprehensible output (CO). One notion many L2A researchers agree on is the difficulty of studying the dynamic processes of L2A. Despite all recent developments in neurolinguistic and cognitive sciences (Ahlsen, 2006; Stemmer & Whitaker, 2008), our understanding of neurocognitive and neurobiological processes of L2A still remains meager at best. Therefore, some assumptions that are made about CI also apply to the study of CO; for example, the processes of CO with regard to neurobiological (change in memory) and neurocognitive aspects of brain aging (decline in volume) (Birdsong, 2006; DeKeyser, 2003). Indeed, we could anticipate possible variation in morphosyntactic and lexical (de)coding and the processing quality of different kinds of output by learners of different age groups (Knudsen, 2004). Similarly, we could not ignore possible age and gender effects on variation in the location of the brain where the processing of output occurs. Undoubtedly, such differences also have unique implications for brain structures and neurocognitive processing of output for monolinguals and bilinguals and native and non-native speakers at different proficiency levels (Raz, 2005). In congruence with research in relevant fields, particularly in linguistics (e.g. Halliday’s functionalism), learning theory (e.g. Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory) and their applications in the L2A field (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006), Swain (2000) and her colleagues (Swain et al., 2009) have recently problematized the construct of output as ‘a word that evokes an image of language as a conveyer of a fixed message’ (Swain, 2006: 95), adopting

90

Part 2: Comprehensible Input: Second Language Acquisition

languaging as a term that captures the production processes of output, rather than just the output itself. The use of the construct of languaging instead of output is an important shift because with the use of -ing the static noun (language as product) has been replaced with a progressive verb (language use as process) that implies continuity and action. Thus, from this view, understanding processes of languaging requires close re-examinations of the multifaceted and complex SLA factors and perspectives (acquisition bases in terms of cognition, interaction and sociocultural factors) that are covered in Part 2 of this book. Finally, the nature of languaging processes may vary by the particularities of the L2 learning setting. To understand languaging of an L2 in an SL setting, researchers must explore the role of a learner’s affective (e.g. motivation) and metacognitive characteristics (e.g. pedagogical belief systems). In addition, they need to examine the sociocultural particularities of the setting and the interaction effects of all related variables in the development of specific L2 skills and competencies. This is critical because SLA research has well-documented that participation in languaging processes is dependent on all affordances available in an environment. For example, noticing and attention capacity may be different for learners with different style or strategy preferences, which may influence how well they may utilize certain affordances. In FL settings, on the other hand, in addition to the factors that apply to both FL and SL factors, a careful re-examination of the institutional, curricular and implementational (e.g. participation in classroom oral and written activities) factors is also warranted (Richards, 2007). In both of these contexts, cognitive factors and processes (e.g. noticing, memory, retention) of languaging and how they relate to the attainment of linguistic, sociocultural, pragmatic and stylistic competencies need to be examined as well (Swain, 2000).

Chapter Summary In addressing CI and its role in L2A from the standpoint of research and theory that place the ‘L2 learner’ at the center of learning, this chapter concentrates on three major hypotheses: input, interaction and output. Along these lines, the chapter offers an overview of L2A theories and research that broadly fall within the purview of the Input Hypothesis (Krashen, 1985, 1987), IH (Long, 1981, 1996) and OH (Swain, 1985, 2005). The chapter starts with Input Hypothesis, describing the nature of processes of L2 attainment, particularly focusing on the Monitor Model and acquisition versus learning distinction. Next is a section title the nature of input that discusses three of Krashen’s hypotheses that pertain to the nature of input: NOH, CI and i+1. To complement this section, one part on the nature of L2 processing and production; namely, innate acquisition resources and the Silent Period; and one on the role of individual differences (the Affective

Input in Learner and Interaction-centered Theories

91

Filter Hypothesis) have been included. Second, a brief synopsis is offered about the role of CI in different processes (interactional competence) of interactions and participatory actions (e.g. communicative strategies, corrective feedback) with different L2 speakers (the IH). The chapter ends with a description of how the OH, which concentrates on the importance of processes of L2 use and production (languaging) in L2A, pertains to CI and L2A.

6 Input in Socially-oriented Theories

The previous two chapters focused on L2A and CI from the perspectives of human cognition (Chapter 4) and individual differences (Chapter 5). Taking a further step in this direction, this chapter offers a synopsis of the social theories in L2A, putting sociocultural factors and socially situated psychological processes at the center of discussion. The chapter first discusses CI in the context of the Social Distance Theory, particularly focusing on Schumann’s eight social factors of dominance, acculturation patterns, enclosure, cohesiveness, congruence, size, attitudes and length of residence. Second is a short section on how social and psychological distance relate to different patterns and practices of cultural integration and the acquisition of varying (e.g. pidginized) forms of L2 input. After describing the role of CI in the contexts of language socialization, the chapter ends with a brief account of the complex roles and processes of self-regulated action in L2A (Activity Theory).

Social Theories of L2A Socially oriented views underscore the importance of understanding L2A processes in terms of how learners utilize available environmental affordances and mediational tools and symbolic representations at their expense to regulate their affective and (meta)cognitive resources in ‘in-taking’ input and comprehending (languaging) and learning it. We know that humans are inherently social beings and communal habitation forces interaction without which neither basic cognitive functions nor higher processing abilities, mechanisms and skills may mean much. By implication, exposure to input is inadequate to ensure L2 attainment, which is – as norms of social interacts mandate – naturally mediated by certain social and psychological tools and resources. Indeed, such L2A views forefront the mediated dialogic act, the (inter)action and the culturally binding activity of acquisition, arguing that L2 learners’ actions are moderated by and cannot be separated from the particularities of their sociocultural environs (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006). Nevertheless, such theories do not disregard the role of cognition and learner variables in processing new input. In fact, some interpretations of theories like socio-constructivism also underscore 92

Input in Socially-oriented Theories

93

cognitive processes (e.g. inner speech) that take place within the zone of proximal development (ZPD) (Ortega, 2011). From a Vygotskyian (1978) view, one could argue that mediated social interactions occur, therefore there is input. Thus, society, or the warehouse of the cultural heritage, is the cumulative wisdom and memory of historical existence, and the linguistic and cultural artifacts and symbolic representations give life and functionality to it. In such views, separating product-related aspects of the input (input as product) from the processes that give rise to its construction (input as process) is a rather hard task, if possible at all. What an L2 learner must acquire as input is not static and even its existence is questionable; rather, it comes to existence as co-constructed meaning in social interaction that is highly variable, fluid, dynamic and self-organizing. Simply put, what is negotiated, comprehended and constructed as input is mediated, scaffolded and internalized through individual applications and uses via linguistic and cultural symbols and representations within the ZPD (Lantolf, 2011; Ortega, 2011). Therefore, it is not easy to disentangle the negotiated and mediated product (input) from the mediational process, the scaffolded from the scaffolding process and the internalized from the unique and individualized internalization processes. As a matter of fact, referential and indexical components of linguistic, cultural and semiotic representations and elements of any new L2 input (e.g. textual, imagery, written or oral) are constrained by socioculturally bound experiences and variations that are deeply rooted in the particularities of a community of practice. Hence, the epistemological and ontological underpinnings of the communicative value and metaphorical indices of a unit of L2 input cannot be comprehended and acquired without the experiential knowledge (or participatory action) of the metaphorical processes of its construction. In short, from social perspectives, how linguistic properties and semiotic representations as well as the presumed lexical or structural complexity of the input relate to its comprehension is not the primary focus of the study of L2A. If the attainment of new L2 input must involve the ability to unpack the social and cultural codes onto which the input’s communicative power is inscribed, without adequate L2 socialization, L2A is not possible (Duff & Talmy, 2011). In what follows, the acquisition of L2 input is described from the perspectives of some wellknown theories, including the Social Distance, Psychological Distance, Language Socialization and Activity Theory.

Social Distance Schumann’s theory of social distance (1976, 1978) distinguishes itself from other theories in the field by defining L2A factors, experiences, resources and processes from the perspectives of the relationships and interactions between the first language (L1) and L2 communities. Compared to other

94

Part 2: Comprehensible Input: Second Language Acquisition

theories, the scope of social distance is very broad and comprehensive. It encompasses the study of the psychology of the L2 learner and the macrolevel social, political and economic parameters, systems and dynamics that contribute to social relations and interactions between members of different language groups in a particular setting. As described by Schumann (1976: 109), social distance refers to ‘societal factors that either promote or inhibit social solidarity between two groups and thus affect the extent to which a second language learning group acquires the language of a particular target language group’. In explaining success in L2A, the theory capitalizes on individual differences (psychological distance), social factors (social distance) and cultural components (acculturation). Simply put, as grounded on the assumption that L2A is a two-way street, this theory presumes that the less the social and psychological distance between the L1 and L2 groups, the easier it is for the L2 learners to acculturate and acquire the L2 input. Typically SLA researchers offer theory or data that explain when, why and how learning gains can happen in L2A. Interestingly, the name ‘social distance’ seems to highlight when, why and how learning is less likely to happen. If social distance implies fewer learning gains or less success in L2A while ‘social proximity’ is associated with more gains and success, the name ‘social proximity’ may fit the interpretation of SLA theory and data better. In any case, according to this view, an individual’s actions are largely dependent on the particularities of her/his membership to a social group. Here, the nature and quality of actions are characterized by group members’ interactions with the members of other social groups. The quality (e.g. frequent and meaningful socialization) and content (e.g. roles) of such interactions are determined by the socioeconomic and political power relations that are somewhat hierarchical, interdependent, relative and unequal. Thus, depending on how power dynamics are structured and how they are perceived by the members of the two language groups, an L2 learner will have favorable or unfavorable learning conditions that are described by Schumann (1976) as ‘bad’ or ‘good’ language learning situations. Supporting his theory with some empirical data, Schumann (1976, 1978) identified eight major variables that contribute to the degree of social distance between the L1 and L2 groups. Note that neither the nature of L2 input nor processes of its comprehension is among these factors that include (1) degree of dominance (and subordination); (2) acculturation patterns (assimilation, preservation, acculturation); (3) degree of enclosure; and (4) cohesiveness between the two language communities; (5) degree of congruence between L1 and L2 cultures; (6) size of the L2 community; (7) each language community’s degree of favorable attitudes toward the other; and (8) L2 community’s intended length of residence. While some of these factors relate to individual agency and regulation (attitudinal orientations) and acculturation patterns, many of them seem directly

Input in Socially-oriented Theories

95

connected to the nature of social structures that potentially grant or deny access to and participation in processes and opportunities of exposure to CI in the L2 community. A few previous studies have utilized some of these factors (e.g. dominance, attitudes, enclosure) to study the acquisition of certain L2 skills (e.g. accent) in different settings (for examples, see Lybeck, 2002; Polat & Schallert, 2013). Schumann (1976) argued that these eight factors can make a language learning situation ‘good’ or ‘bad’ for L2 learners. Specifically, in this view, a greater social distance characterizes a ‘bad’ situation which implies that (a) one language group is perceived by the other to be politically and socioeconomically more dominant; (b) rather than seeking integration (acculturation), one or both groups aim to distance itself (or themselves) from the other to preserve its/their native cultural lifestyle and values (preservation); (c) both groups seek to have separate educational (schools) and religious (churches) institutions and recreational facilities (enclosure); (d) members of the L2 group seek to socialize and work within their own community (cohesiveness); (e) the cultural perspective and practices of the L1 and L2 groups are not similar (at least not at a good-enough level) (congruence); (f) the L2 community is sufficiently large not to need or depend on the use of the L2 for socioeconomic survival (size); (g) the groups demonstrate unfavorable attitudes (e.g. ethnic stereotypes) toward each other; and (h) the L2 community is not seeking long-term residence in the L2 setting. In contrast, a ‘good’ learning situation, as often exemplified by the case of American-Jewish immigrants to Israel, is when both groups are culturally congruent, have positive attitudes toward one another, consider themselves to be socioculturally and economically equal and are eager to socialize and live with each other for a long period of time (Schumann, 1978).

Psychological Distance Somewhat comparable to Krashen’s (1981) notion of affective filter, psychological distance pertains to the role of learner variables in L2A, particularly affective factors such as motivation and anxiety. In Schumann’s theory, the exploration of how individual differences relate to success in L2A becomes a relatively more critical issue when social distance factors fall short. In other words, when some learners in ‘bad’ learning situations (or relatively not so ‘good’ situations) demonstrate unexpectedly high learning gains, we need a closer examination of their learning characteristics to identify how and why they differ from those of the other learners. In any case, psychological distance is moderated by a learner’s feelings and emotions toward the target language, culture and society. At the macrolevel, it either diminishes a learner’s access to L2 socialization opportunities or acts like an occasional road block, hindering the learner’s investment in a particular aspect of L2 learning. For example, a learner may hide in

96

Part 2: Comprehensible Input: Second Language Acquisition

‘preservation’ due to her/his negative attitudes toward the L2 community, or the same learner, even when incidentally exposed to L2 input, may not perceive or even resist investing any time in negotiating, processing and learning the input. Most preeminently known factors that contribute to psychological distance include affective factors like motivation, anxiety, attitudes, identity and acculturation patterns. As one of the most commonly studied affective constructs, motivation has been reported to be one of the strongest predictors of success in L2A. Among numerous others, from Gardner and Lambert’s (1972) seminal work on instrumental and integrative motivation and the socio-educational model (Gardner, 1985) to Dörnyei and his colleagues’ L2 motivational self-system and directed motivational currents (Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2009; Dörnyei et al., 2015) and so on, different degrees and forms of motivation have been linked to varying degrees of success in L2A. In short, from what we know about motivation in L2A, it seems that less (degree) motivated learners or learners with some forms (orientation) of motivation (e.g. external or introjected regulations in self-determination theory) position themselves rather distantly to investing time and effort in the learning of an L2. Indeed, such psychological distance is inseparably connected with L2 learner’s socialization and acculturation patterns. Similarly, higher levels of L2 learning anxiety (Horwitz et al., 1986) have also been reported to contribute to the psychological distance between learners and successful learning behavior in L2A (for a review, see Horwitz, 2010). In addition, L2 learners’ attitudes (Spolsky, 1989) toward the L2 and the L2 culture and communities, as well as their identification patterns (Block, 2007; Norton Peirce, 1995) have also been the subject of a sizable bulk of L2A research, reporting higher levels of learning gains for learners with higher levels of positive attitudes toward and identification with a target language culture and community. Note that, however, these studies did not aim to test the structural basis of Schumann’s psychological distance theory. In fact, theoretical bases or supporting evidence about how these variables, alone or interactionally, contribute to varying levels of ‘psychological distance’ as an overarching variable are yet to be explored. Nevertheless, some L2A research has reported individual contributions of each of these variables to success in L2A (e.g. Polat & Schallert, 2013).

Outcomes of Social and Psychological Distance Patterns of cultural practice Whether related to social factors or individual differences or both, the expected outcomes of social and psychological distance seem to be the acquisition of an impoverished level of L2 culture and a pidginized form of input. Schumann’s (1976, 1978) Acculturation Theory and Pidginization

Input in Socially-oriented Theories

97

Hypothesis underscore this very point. Implications of both of these perspectives are quite commonly accepted in the field, particularly by researchers who study learner-centered theories (see Chapter 5), individual differences (see Chapter 9) and social aspects of L2A that are described in this chapter. Notwithstanding the contentions over its adequacy, L2A research, even nativist theory-oriented studies, is somewhat conclusive that exposure to input (or CI) is a prerequisite to L2 learning and development. Thus, it only makes sense to assume that learners whose access to CI and participation to facilitating sociocultural interactions are obstructed, for whatever reasons they might be, will attain only limited levels of competency in the L2 and culture. In Schumann’s (1978) theory, the acquisition of L2 culture is described in the Acculturation Theory, which presents a three-tier cultural practice continuum that L2 learners may follow. In this view, depending on their social and psychological distance, L2 learners may follow a preservation path that is characterized by the learners’ resistance or rejection to adopting the products (e.g. art, music), perspectives (e.g. notions of freedom, family) and practices (e.g. holiday celebrations, rites of passage) of the L2 community as a defense mechanism to preserve and maintain constitutive elements of their native language and culture. Learners who demonstrate this pattern may hold negative attitudes toward the L2 culture while also strongly identifying and socializing with their native culture and community (Polat & Mahalingappa, 2010). They may also lack motivation to seek exposure opportunities to input, feeling particularly anxious when having to communicate with members of the L2 community. In any case, for learners in this category, access to L2 input and interaction with the L2 community is highly limited. The exact opposite of preservation is assimilation, which implies that the learners have renounced defining components of their native culture and have, in exchange, adopted the cultural capital of the L2 community. Expectedly, this pattern is characterized by high motivation (sometimes also referred to as assimilative motivation) and positive identification and attitudinal orientations toward the L2 community (Dörnyei, 2005). The middle path, often branded as the optimal outcome in L2A, is acculturation. Learners who fall into this category are presumed to be willing to adopt relevant cultural values and norms of the L2 community without compromising their own. Thus, such learners may have high positive feelings and be highly motivated to live and socialize with the members of the L2 community. An integration pattern like this may also imply that the learner has low social distance, possibly because she/he does not perceive her/his language and culture to be dominated by the L2 group (no threats of identity) and is encouraged (by members of both L1 and L2 community) to live and socialize within the L2 setting for a relatively long period of time. Learners who follow assimilation or acculturation paths, arguably, have the greatest amount of exposure to CI since their dominant language is the L2.

98

Part 2: Comprehensible Input: Second Language Acquisition

Pidginized input The Pidginization Hypothesis examines the nature of the acquired L2 input as the outcome of social and psychological distance and patterns of cultural practices. This theory suggests that the L2 input that is attained in ‘bad’ learning situations, or where social and psychological distance is high, is largely impoverished or pidginized. Based on evidence from his analyses of Alberto’s (pseudonym) output, Schumann (1976, 1978) argued that social and psychological distance restrict a learner’s access to certain linguistic functionalities, resulting in the acquisition of a reduced form of phonological, morphosyntactic (e.g. case markings, articles) and lexical forms of L2 input. To understand possible implications of this theory for CI, a definition of the notion of ‘pidgin’ is needed. A pidgin is generally defined as a simplified and less prestigious language that is constructed as an L2 by members of different social groups who do not share a common language, over the course of long-term social interactions (e.g. trade purposes). Typically, in pidgins the lexical units (e.g. vocabulary) of a dominant language are blended with the morphosyntactic structure of one or more ‘local’ languages. Although pidgins do have fundamentally consistent phonological and morphosyntactic structures, they are typically characterized by impoverished forms of phrase (or clause) and tense structures as well as reduplication of certain grammatical features (e.g. parts of speech, plurals) and rather restricted levels of morphophonemic variation (e.g. tone, number of vowels) (for further reading, see Siegel, 2008). In this hypothesis, Schumann attempted to shed light on the learning consequence of restricted access to social interactions (as presumably caused by social and psychological factors) with the L2 community that involve authentic exposure opportunities to CI in varying contexts of situations (Anderssen et al., 2010). Basically, a 33-year-old Puerto Rican man (Alberto) restricted his sociocultural experiences to his Spanish-speaking community (preservation), socially distancing himself and psychologically eliminating the need to acquire a more highly functional proficiency level in English (Schumann, 1976, 1978). Although, based on some SLA work, we know that Schumann’s attempt to observe substantial evidence for improvement in Alberto’s English skills over the course of 10 months may have been too optimistic (Cummins, 1981; Gass & Mackey, 2012), it did result in documenting substantial evidence of pidginization in his language abilities. Inevitably, Alberto’s English input shared numerous characteristics of a pidgin language, specifically in the area of morphosyntactic transformations and inflections. Namely, as reported by Schumann (1976, 1978), Alberto consistently used a default ‘no’ to denote all negative meanings while also failing to follow the norms of an interrogative structure (inversion in question statements) and omitting the use of subject pronouns as well as lacking modal auxiliary verbs in conjugations. For example, in cases

Input in Socially-oriented Theories

99

where he made positive transfer from his native language, he produced rather high percentages of correct responses (plural -s); however, he failed to mark the regular past tense. While it was not the goal of Schumann’s study, a re-examination of his data would possibly indicate a greater degree (compared to basic interpersonal communication skill-based vocabulary [BICS]) of poverty in Alberto’s cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP) knowledge and skills. In addition, from a functionalist perspective, one would also assume that his comprehension of English input would possibly be even more highly impoverished in the areas of communicative competence (particularly strategic and sociolinguistic competence) and metaphorical and symbolic forms of communication that naturally entail more referential and indexical sociocultural knowledge that is often situational binding and context embedded.

Individual Versus Society in L2A In light of current SLA work, there is a need for new ways and validated instruments to measure Schumann’s eight factors. For example, operationalizing and measuring varying degrees of ‘relative dominance’ in highly multicultural L2 settings (in this global world) may be a problematic task. Issues of ‘enclosure’ and ‘cohesiveness’ in bilingual settings where L2 learners have myriad possibilities of social interactions with members of L1 and L2 communities are not easy to study. Not to mention, the dichotomous use of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ might imply rigid and stable states of non-continuums that may represent only more or less facilitating or debilitating situational affordances. If social and psychological distances are two measurably separate phenomena, how their defining elements relate to each other, which one is a stronger predictor of success in L2A and for which skills, or if any directional causality assumptions can be made about their interactions are still in need of further theoretical and empirical exploration. Indeed, some aspects of this issue have been debated in the field, with some scholars like McLaughlin (1987) claiming psychological distance to be the overarching variable because the traits that define the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ learning situations (social distance) are perceptual (perceived by the learner) not reality. The important point here is to identify what role each alone (or interactionally) plays in giving a learner initial access and helping in maintaining optimal interaction patterns within the L2 community. To understand this point, we need to examine how much power, autonomy and regulation a learner actually has over creating a ‘good’ language learning environment for herself/himself in the face of great social challenges and distance between the language communities. To understand the role of ‘the individual’ versus ‘the social’ in L2A, we must examine many factors. The role a person’s unique group membership plays in L1 and L2 socialization and the threshold that defines the tipping

100

Part 2: Comprehensible Input: Second Language Acquisition

point when the psychological distance begins overpowering the social distance are important. For example, the success likelihood of a learner with a high psychological distance versus that of a learner with a low psychological distance to learn an L2 in a ‘good’ learning situation might be remarkably different when the learning situation is characterized as ‘bad’. Here, equally as important to know is how bad a ‘bad’ situation is or how good a ‘good’ situation can be measured by the existence (or absence) of the numbers of eight ‘social distance’ factors (Schumann, 1976) and/or the varying degrees of how much each of these factors represents each language community (as perceived by members of each community). Even beyond the more or less ‘good’ or ‘bad’ dichotomy, given that L2 learning is a long process, the (in)stability of the L2 learning situation could also be critical. Undoubtedly, in the same equation, we must also consider the (in)stability of the learner variables (psychological distance). Indeed, the epistemological and ontological foundation of this theory begs for more investigation that is beyond the scope of this book.

Language Socialization Language socialization views in L2A are grounded in the intersection of numerous fields of study, including sociology, cultural psychology, education, L1 acquisition, sociolinguistics and linguistic anthropology. The theory also capitalizes on some underlying assumptions commonly shared by several theories; most evidently, the sociocultural theory, post-structuralism and cultural capital. Due to its focus on the processes of learning, L2A research that has been based on this theory has predominantly utilized qualitative and longitudinal designs, using ethnography, narrative inquiry and critical discourse analysis to capture contextualized individual constructions and enactments of different elements of the L2 self-system (Duff, 2007). L2A researchers have studied processes of language socialization and the acquisition of different language skills by different learner groups, including children, adolescents and adults in home environments, educational settings and work places both in SL and foreign language (FL) contexts (e.g. Zuengler & Cole, 2005). Some recent L2A work has also applied quantitative approaches to the understanding of possible connections between language socialization and success in L2A, using the social network theory (e.g. Polat, 2011c). As is the case in other comparable social theories covered in this chapter, while the nature and forms of input and its comprehensibility are not necessarily highlighted, variation in individual comprehension and construction of sociocultural meanings is considered essential to building an authentic L2 self. Language socialization-driven L2A work is preeminently process oriented; namely, the focus of exploration is the processes through which a learner constructs an L2 self-system. Although not commonly used in

Input in Socially-oriented Theories

101

this context, the use of L2 self-concept (Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2009) in defining competency or proficiency in an L2 fits this theory rather well. This is mainly because it presumes the attainment of linguistic (e.g. morphosyntactic, lexical) and cultural (e.g. perspectives, practices) elements while also acknowledging the possession of all relevant communication nuances and behavioral patterns that define authentic self-expression in the L2. In this sense, through socialization, L2 learners acquire all tokens necessary to build a new self that comes across authentically and naturally in communication. For example, compared to the notion of interlanguage (Selinker, 1972), which is typically used to refer to the acquisition of an L2 system that comprises the linguistic elements of L1 and L2, language socialization research sheds light on the nature of processes that give rise to the construction of an ‘interlanguage self-system’ – so to speak – that is highly comprehensive, fluid, self-adaptive and to some degree a coherent manifestation of a new self that is identifiably authentic. While such research does not offer detailed examinations of input and its comprehension, its implications for the acquisition of proceduralized input and automatic output production are self-evident because it seems rather clear that meaningful and long-term L2 socialization shares common ground with processes of L2 acquisition as opposed to learning. As summarized by Duff (2007) and Duff and Hornberger (2010), social interaction is the essence of all types of learning, including L2 learning. L2 socialization is a lifelong process of becoming a member of new communities of practice and linguistic and semiotic representations mediate both communication and the attainment of cultural knowledge and practices. In addition, socialization with learners both at high and low proficiency levels contribute to L2A and the outcomes of socialization vary by the kind of L2 self-system that language learners come to build in the process. From this perspective, we could argue that socialization is the process; language (linguistic and cultural input and symbolic representations) is the mediational tool and the construction of an authentic L2 self is the ultimate goal of L2A. To build an authentic L2 self, a learner must have the opportunity to use her/his mediational tools (all linguistic and sociocultural resources) and ample opportunities for practice (socialization) to negotiate meaning, which are inseparably intertwined with the simultaneous negotiations of identities, power dynamics, moral and professional positionings and autonomy. As a matter of fact, Bakhtinian construct of ‘ideological becoming’ could also be used to describe the notion of ‘L2 self’ because ‘becoming an additional one’, or adding a new self to your repertoires of selves, involves a progressive and continuous act of volitional selection in the presence of myriad options in constructing certain views, value judgments and various kinds of social, psychological, linguistic and cultural attributes and memberships. All of these elements would help the learner embellish and decorate the kind of self that she/he would like to represent ‘the new

102

Part 2: Comprehensible Input: Second Language Acquisition

her/him’ in social interactions in different communities of practice. Since all environments and discourses are inherently ideological (in Bakhtinian sense) and no actions are ideologically neutral (Bakhtin & Medvedev, 1978), understanding L2 socialization is somewhat understanding the conflicts and struggles of L2 learners because negotiating and acquiring new L2 input to construct an ideological L2 self is ‘an intense struggle within us for hegemony among various available verbal and ideological points of view, approaches, directions and values’ (Bakhtin, 1981: 346). Indeed, L2A research is replete with evidence about variability in how learners manage such authority tensions and power struggles in their interactions with members of other communities (e.g. attitudinal orientations), which in the end determine who they become (for further reading, see Duff & Hornberger, 2010). Based on its basic theoretical assumptions about learning and the research methodology underlying L2 socialization work, one could argue that this theory helps the field understand L2A processes by studying who the people really are, why they do what they do, when they do it and how they do it, as well as why, when and how they change what they do in different settings (Duff & Hornberger, 2010). This way, as a participant observer, the L2 socialization researcher has to document as many relevant experiences and variables as possible to be able to make sense of the processes of participatory actions and enactments of the authentic L2 self. Thus, from this theoretical lens, aspects of explorations of CI may include numerous variables and their interactions at the macro-level of the society and culture or the micro-level of individual characteristics or both. These macro- and micro-level aspects could also be studied in connection with other variables such as age, gender, identity, power relations, membership, positioning and autonym. Indeed, oftentimes it is not even possible to understand an L2 learner’s socialization patterns and processes of construction of an L2 selfsystem without situating all the participatory actions and experiences in the context of greater sociocultural factors and the communities to which the learner belongs. Undoubtedly, in today’s immensely diverse and fastchanging multilingual world, understanding processes of L2A extends beyond just understanding the particularities of L2 learners’ individual actions (Duff, 2004). L2A is a two-way street; thus, gaining access to an L2 community and the subgroups within and participating in authentic activities that would lead to building a competent L2 self is not an easy task (Ortega, 2009). In L2 or multilingual settings, conflicts and struggles for power and dominance are rather common. Particularly in contexts where the disenfranchisement of one particular language group is constituted by laws, which are made by the dominant group, resistance to socialize with the other-ed language community can be rather consequential in terms of exposure to CI. Hence, just like the learning of Turkish by the Kurdish adolescents in Turkey, a

Input in Socially-oriented Theories

103

person’s low achievement in the target language could be correlated with her/his identification patterns that may also be associated with the learner’s gender and socialization patterns (Polat & Mahalingappa, 2010). Sometimes, L2 learners are denied access to a community while othertimes they choose not to interact with the target language community. Indeed, some L2 learners may make a concerted effort (as evident by their motivational degrees of different forms) not to use the target language outside the domains required by law so as not to attain certain linguistic markers (e.g. accent features) because they may consider it as a threat to their L1 identity (Polat & Schallert, 2013). Either way, only by examining both sides of the experiences as well as the history of sociocultural clashes between the two language communities is one able to explain success in L2A. In this and possibly another complementary perspective like Freire’s (2009) critical pedagogy, learning an L2 by socializing with L2 communities can also be viewed as a process of constant judging and critical decisionmaking. An L2 learner’s choices about ‘becoming a new self’ are not solely her/his choices; the members of the target language community also have a say in whether or not and how much and how to socialize with L2 learners. However, L2 learners are largely responsible for how much time and effort to invest, with whom to socialize, with which groups to seek membership and how to regulate their learning behavior and socialization patterns, social networks, identities, native linguistic and cultural resources and so forth. Undoubtedly, unveiling the true nature of sociocultural and psychological mediational tools that facilitate negotiations and decision-making that instigate processes of L2 socialization as well as the comprehension and construction of new L2 input in a particular context for a particular group of learners seems to be a daunting task to undertake (Watson-Gegeo, 2004). Finally, approaching CI and L2A from the post-structuralist theory (Pennycook, 1990) perspective, which is another theoretical view that is often used in language socialization research, makes things even harder to explain. In this view, what L2 socialization research can offer about processes of and success in L2A is limited to subjective glimpses of momentary observations or pictures of instantaneous experiences at a given time. This is because ‘being’ is complex and unstable whereas meaning is constructed in social processes, the elements of which are in constant flux and subjected to complex ripple and interaction effects. Note that in the social sphere, the market place (discourse) where input is negotiated, not all variations of linguistic and cultural artifacts and semiotic representations (e.g. dialects) are exhibited; nor are they worth the same capital (Bourdieu, 1991; Pavlenko, 2002).

Activity Theory Activity theory, which originated from sociocultural theory, is also a general learning theory (Engestrom, 1999; Leontiev, 1978) that has been

104

Part 2: Comprehensible Input: Second Language Acquisition

applied to the study of SLA (Coughlan & Duff, 1994; Lantolf & Thorne, 2006). It shares common grounds with the Interaction Hypothesis (Long, 1981), and some motivation studies that explore the role and processes of self-regulated action and goal-orientation in learning. Namely, the theory builds on Vygotsky’s focus on the facilitation of individual action via environmental and psychological tools. It takes an interest in explaining the processes that human beings follow to engage in regulated collaborative actions to perform certain operations under specific conditions to meet a consciously set learning goal. Placing human need and motivation at the center of learning, the theory presumes the learning to be a collective act that can be truly understood only if all sociocultural affordances and psychological tools are examined within the context of activity occurrence, with the acknowledgment of all factors that contribute to the activity. To understand CI and how L2A happens, we must explore processes that demonstrate how an individual’s actions unfold collectively; how they are facilitated or debilitated by contextual affordance; how the individual’s goals and motivations interconnect with those of the settings’ and other interlocutors’; how motivatedly the individual utilizes available symbolic representations and cultural artifacts and tools; and what the developmental trajectory of a learner’s self-regulated behavior (longitudinally) looks like as environmental factors and conditions as well as mediational tools change. More specifically, we must study how learners’ needs, motivational orientations, goals and environmental conditions interact in the particularities of an activity. We must also examine how an individual’s learning behavior is regulated in action and how it changes as the conditions change. The most common example used to describe this theory is Engestrom’s (1999) model that graphically describes how elements (or systems) of an activity interrelate in action. The use of this theory in the field can potentially help SLA researchers understand the complex and multivariate processes of L2 development; not just the end state of L2 attainment. The theory has been applied to the acquisition of input of different forms (e.g. speaking, vocabulary) both in face-to-face (Coughlan & Duff, 1994; McCafferty et al., 2001) and different cyber ecologies (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006). Most such L2A research that has been grounded in this theory and its applications has primarily sought to determine how L2 learners approach certain tasks – or engage in and complete a learning activity. It has also focused on if and how learners’ needs, motivations and goals, as well as different approaches they take in utilizing psychological and sociocultural tools, can explain variation in their task performance. Due to the nature and goals of this theory, its applications in the field have predominantly been qualitative in research design, prioritizing processes of the individual performance of learners rather than between-group differences for inferential generalizability (Thorne, 2003).

Input in Socially-oriented Theories

105

Some of the L2A work based on this theory offered findings that shed light on how the individuality of the language learner was enacted in the process of negotiation and co-construction of meaning (Gregersen & MacIntyre, 2014). For example, Platt and Brooks (1994) reported that L2 learners approached the map-reading and jigsaw puzzle completion activities in rather different ways; with some utilizing L1 more often, while some experiencing greater difficulty in proceeding a conversation with a peer and others utilizing a wider range of strategies to comprehend and describe the graphical input. While Platt and Brooks explained these findings by differences in learners’ goal-orientations and engagement in the task, Thorne (2003, 2008) interpreted his results about the differences in approaches taken by different L2 learners by attributing them to variation in their cultural backgrounds and personal experiences with the activities. Note that online platforms provide different affordances (e.g. sense of autonomy) than the bricks-and-mortar ones, which can also result in peculiar variation between learners’ performances in certain tasks (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006; Polat et al., 2013). In addition, due to its focus on the environmental conditions and the context of situation in which a learning activity takes place, applications of this theory have also documented that an L2 learner’s performance in acquiring new input or processing may not be as stable and transferable across different occasions and times as it has been assumed in the field. For example, Coughlan and Duff (1994) reported that some learners did not react to the same task in a similar way at a different time. This rather underexplored notion in L2A has numerous implications about various factors and processes related to the fluidity of the environmental affordances, the constantly self-organizing nature of the interaction effects of different variables and the instability of learners’ characteristics and even self-discrepancy in their perceived L2 self-systems (Csizer & Magid, 2014). Input or CI is not highlighted in the Activity Theory; however, based on other SLA research, one can assume that variability in a learner’s performance in a task has something to do with both the nature of input to which the learner is exposed and how the more and less knowledgeable others play their part in completing the task. Finally, this theory does underscore the collective nature of meaning construction in completing a task, which entails negotiating meaning and scaffolding it with an interlocutor. It emphasizes that learners not only use different morphosyntactic or lexical variations and indexical and metaphorical uses of a particular L2 input but they also utilize individually peculiar or culturally binding discourse and communication styles (aspects of communicative and pragmatic competences) (Coughlan & Duff, 1994). Moreover, in performing any given task, an L2 learner has to regulate her/his own learning behavior and the physical conditions that cannot be separated from the interlocutor-related variables (e.g. goals, motivations).

106

Part 2: Comprehensible Input: Second Language Acquisition

Indeed, a less knowledgeable speaker can make the completion of a task noticeably more difficult for a learner (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006; Lave & Wenger, 1991). For example, an oral activity can take an unexpectedly different direction when the more dominant communicator enforces her/his needs, goals and motivations on those of her/his counterpart. Similarly, environmental affordances (e.g. a structured event) can mandate the nature, content and direction of a conversation in ways that limit learners control over the input (e.g. register) they exchange.

Chapter Summary This chapter offers a short summary of the social views about CI and the acquisition of new L2 input, placing sociocultural factors and socially situated psychological processes at the heart of success in L2A. As described here, socially oriented theories differ from learner-centered views (interaction, input and output hypotheses: Chapter 5) in that they prioritize the role of sociocultural factors over individual characteristics in L2A. In other words, in such theories, individual construction of meaning and the acquisition of L2 input are defined from the primacy of social factors (e.g. Social Distance) and experiences (intermental: e.g. socialization patterns) rather than the individual characteristics (intramental: e.g. anxiety). The chapter starts with a brief account of the role of CI in social and psychological distance theories, specifically concentrating on certain learner variables and Schumann’s (1978) eight categories of social factors (dominance, acculturation patterns, enclosure, cohesiveness, congruence, size, attitudes and length of residence) that contribute to the degree of social distance between the L1 and L2 groups. Immediately after this part, a discussion of possible outcomes of social and psychological distance is presented – namely, how social and psychological distance results in varying patterns and practices of cultural integration and pidginized forms of L2 input. After providing a comparative account on individual versus social factors in facilitating access to opportunities of exposure to input, the role of CI is described from the perspectives of two additional major social views: language socialization and Activity Theory. In the part on language socialization, participatory and mediational processes involved in the construction of an L2 self are described whereas the part on Activity Theory primarily focuses on the complex roles and processes of self-regulated action and goal-orientation in L2A in learning ecologies.

7 Input in Alternative SLA Theories

Thus far, the theories that have been covered in Part 2 have focused on the role of CI in conjunction with three broad factors in L2A: human cognition and input processing (Chapter 4), learner characteristics (Chapter 5) and sociocultural factors (Chapter 6). Progressively, the primary focus has shifted from cognition to the learner and then to the whole society. This chapter, on the other hand, tackles the comprehension and acquisition of L2 input from the perspectives of six unique L2A frameworks that are hard to place in one of these three categories. Thus, for pragmatic purposes and consistency in the field, they have been structured under the umbrella word ‘Alternative’ (Atkinson, 2011). These perspectives include SocioCognitive Theory (SCT), Dynamic Systems Theory (DST), Ecological Theory (ET), Complexity or Chaos Theory (CT), Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH) and Interlanguage (IL). The chapter concludes with a brief comparative synthesis of these theories.

Socio-cognitive Theory Basic assumptions of cognitive views, namely the consideration of the mind as a computer mental that uses linguistic resources to perform a set of mechanical operations to extract meanings from the environment and store them as abstract symbolic representations, have recently been problematized in some L2A work (Atkinson, 2011; Gibbs, 2006). For example, Atkinson (2011: 143) argued that ‘cognition per se is fiction’ and that studying the role of cognition in L2A independently of other individual variables and the social ecology is troubling because language learners are ecological and adaptive organisms who ‘survive by continuously and dynamically adapting to their environment’. While this view does not ignore cognitive variables in SLA, it champions the study of a socially situated cognition because as claimed by Atkinson (2011: 143) ‘cognition is a node in an ecological network comprising mind-body-world- it is part of a relationship’. Thus, understanding the nature of different modes and forms of input and how L2 learners attend to, process and comprehend them must involve a triangular approach.

107

108

Part 2: Comprehensible Input: Second Language Acquisition

In the socio-cognitive view, the role of cognition in and the nature of cognitive processes in L2A should be studied from the perspective of dynamic and adaptive biological systems. Cognition should also be studied with consideration for processes that function evolutionarily to offer L2 learners immediate affordances that would aid them to continue to survive and develop their language skills. For example, when facing a comprehension difficulty in processing (cognition) and negotiating (social dialog) new input in an oral conversation, L2 learners not only utilize all cognitive resources and tools (e.g. aptitude, memory capacity) and discourse strategies, but they must also maintain engagement in a dynamic process of constant adaptation and scaffolding. In this sense, comprehension and acquisition of new input is the outcome of interdependent interactions between the cognitive and the social factors and processes. Thus, the acquisition of new input happens when the relationship between cognition and environment is optimal to facilitate the learners’ actions in efficiently capitalizing on the ecological affordances. This means that they have to continuously make appropriate and necessary adjustments as the learner variables and/or the environmental factors change (Wheeler, 2005). In addition, from this perspective, while processes of noticing, attending to, processing and storing input are essential, they should be studied as situated within the particularities of the characteristics of the learners and the environment. Hence, the role of a socially situated cognition cannot be fully understood independently of constraints imposed by the characteristics of L2 learners (Bruning et al., 2004). The characteristics of learners that may influence the processability efficiency and the subsequent comprehension of input include cognitive variables such as aptitude, multiple intelligence (Gardner, 2006) and learner styles (Reid, 1987). For example, in the 1960s and during the heyday of the audiolingual method, the modern language aptitude test (MLAT) was rather commonly used and assumptions that ‘some people are just not good language learners’ were widespread. Measuring cognitive abilities like phonetic coding, grammatical sensitivity and memory capacity, this test was designed (Carroll, 1981) to predict how successfully (rate of learning) a person can learn a foreign language. Basically, these assumptions, as substantiated by the MLAT, implied that some people, for some unobservable cognitionrelated reasons, lacked aptitude and therefore failed to process L2 input at a normal rate. L2A research is still at the infancy stage in scientifically determining neurobiological (e.g. brain aging, lateralization, plasticity) or neurocognitive (e.g. changes in memory capacity) aspects (Birdsong, 2006) and operational processes of aptitude and multiple intelligences (Gardner, 2006). Equally in need of more empirical research is how and how much such cognitive systems and functions depend on social activity and instructional interventions (Robinson, 2005).

Input in Alternative SLA Theories

109

Dynamic Systems Theory Another group of researchers who have also argued that L2A research should focus on the interplay of cognitive and social factors, rather than cognition in isolation, is the DST. This theory originated from the field of mathematics (Shanker & King, 2002). It shares several commonalities with some applications of the CT and ET in L2A, and suggests that each variable that contributes to a system and its subsystems is constituted by dynamic properties which operate in a state of constant flux, continuously resulting in alterations of non-linear complex changes that lead to other changes that lead to infinite other changes, and so forth. Note that, by the nature of its ontological and epistemological assumptions, this view contends that the study of processes of L2A should be multidimensional, multifaceted and multivariate. Thus, by implication, it problematizes product-based, univariate SLA work, which resembles the task of videotaping an activity in progress versus taking a picture of a product. Then, although it may be hard to accomplish, SLA researchers would have to address how aspects, systems and subsystems of cognitive (neurobiological and neurocognitive functions) and information processing interact with learner characteristics (affective and metacognitive functions). They would do so while also simultaneously examining linguistic, cultural, semiotic and stylistic codes of input in the context of affordances available in a particular sociocultural setting. Yet, this would not be enough. At a more complete level, SLA researchers would have to be able to document the processes of all of these non-linear complex changes with the anticipation of numerous non-finite ripple effects and interactions. As applied to L2A (de Bot et al., 2005; Herdina & Jessner, 2002), one can argue that all complex factors involved in L2A, whether cognition – or learner related or even instruction related – are constantly interacting and are subject to perpetual change. Their long-term effects and alteration trajectories and patterns are unpredictable and cannot be scientifically established. Indeed, the mechanics of such unpredictable change and dynamism do not only pertain to processes of comprehension and acquisition, they are also closely linked to human being’s ability to generate infinite numbers of input from finite number of linguistic rules (Chomsky, 1965). As eloquently described by de Bot et al. (2005), the essence of DST lies in the notion known as the ‘butterfly effect’ (dependency on initial conditions). This implies that ‘A small force at a particular point in time may have huge effects and a much stronger force at another point in time may not have much effect in the long run. Each system has its own attractor and repeller states; however, variation is inherent to a dynamic system, and the degree of variation is greatest when a (sub)system moves from one attractor state to the other. Flux –growth or decline– is non-linear and cannot be predicted exactly’ (de Bot et al., 2005: 14). Thus, as expected,

110

Part 2: Comprehensible Input: Second Language Acquisition

having a complete understanding of the true nature of the acquisition of a particular L2 skill or computationally modeling its processes of acquisition is extremely hard, if possible at all.

Ecological Theory According to van Lier (2002: 144) ‘ecology is the study of relationships between all the various organisms and their physical environment’. Thus, from an ET perspective, L2A is a matter of how a learner (organism) utilizes all physical resources and semiotic and psychological tools that become available in social interaction and negotiation of meaning in spontaneous tasks or classroom activities (Donato, 1994; Swain, 2005). In fact, ET underscores the contextualization of linguistic input as a tool into all semiotic representations and cultural artifacts as situated within other affordances in the greater ecosystem. Affordance comprises all language (e.g. phonological, syntactic) and learner-related (e.g. cognitive, affective) factors and sociocultural artifacts, tools and resources that contribute to the relationship between the learner and her/his environment. Indeed, all micro-level affordances (e.g. instantaneous attendance to a task in an oral conversation) are indispensable parts of the macro-level subsystems (e.g. learners’ perceptions about linguistic oppression or hegemony) or the one ecosystem. In this view, which shares many commonalities with the sociocultural theory, success in L2A is a matter of how well a learner regulates her/his relationships and connections with the environmental affordances. Thus, as argued by van Lier (2000), as the agent, to learn an L2, the learner must seek out or capitalize on (just as any organism does to survive) any dialog and scaffolding activity to notice and attend to a language task, negotiate meaning and process and comprehend the input. Adopting a rather broad approach, ET rejects notions of input transmission and the explanations that solely concentrate on cognitive processes and functions. In a way, like the SCT, DST and CT, it champions a focus on the multivariate, multifaceted, multidimensional and dynamic processes of interaction (including non-verbal interactions) and negotiation of meaning, or semiosis. Hence, although neither the nature (and modes) of input nor the processes of its comprehension take precedence in this view, how well a learner utilizes the available affordances in a particular context of situation plays a critical role in maintaining communication in processes of languaging (Swain, 2000). In this sense, while the nature of the ecology is central to success in learning, the learner characteristics, which can maximize or minimize a learner’s pursuit and capitalization of available and potential affordances, are equally as critical to L2A and development because input emerges from semiosis (Peirce, 1998). As a matter of fact, learners notice, decide to engage in interaction and choose and continue to pursue a language task based on their needs, goals and interests. Thus,

Input in Alternative SLA Theories

111

they can make use of affordances only to the extent that they see them necessary for their survival in the ecosystem. To understand the factors and processes of L2A, one must study the language learner in the entirety of the ecosystem. To support her/his learning, one must make ‘resources available in the environment to guide the learner’s perception and action towards arrays of affordances that can further his or her goals’ (van Lier, 2007: 53). As an organism, an individual is generally more flexible and adaptive to her/his environment than, say, a tomato. This makes it highly challenging to document how stages of development may take place for different kinds of linguistic, sociocultural, semiotic and stylistic features of L2 input. The metaphor of the growth of a tomato fits some aspects of this view of L2A rather well. In order for a tomato to grow (well), numerous factors must conspire and complement each other (well); the right kind of soil, the right amount of water, large physical space, developmentally appropriate amount of sun and temperature, as well as physical protection from weeds, pesticides and wild animals. In order to understand the comprehension and acquisition of new L2 input, or overall L2A and development, one must take a holistic approach that meticulously examines all affordances that contribute to the learning process. Finally, from this view, a learner’s actions in when and how to utilize certain affordances or pursue certain learning behavior can be self-discrepant, erratic and even seemingly arbitrary, because L2 learners continuously change their actions to adapt to changes and subsequent changes in the ecology. Since learners interact with other learners who may have different patterns of affordance undertakings and adaptation to ecological variance (constant change and ripple effect), predictability in L2A becomes immensely difficult and precarious (van Lier, 2002). It is for this reason, among others, that L2A processes are considered to be non-linear and self-adaptive, which further complicates the possibility of tracking back or predicting future stages of the acquisition (order of acquisition) of a unit of input or one of its properties from a particular linguistic corpora or a curriculum.

Complexity/Chaos Theory In the field of L2A, the constructs ‘complexity’ and ‘chaos’ are used interchangeably when referring to this theory. Thus, the acronym ‘CT’ is used here to stand for this kind of interpretation. CT, a theoretical framework borrowed from the physical sciences, was introduced to the field by Larsen-Freeman (1997, 2011) as an alternative way to understand the mechanisms and nature of processes of L2A. As described in the last section of this chapter, some of the assumptions attributed to the SCT, the DST, the ET and the Interaction Hypothesis (IH) in this book share certain

112

Part 2: Comprehensible Input: Second Language Acquisition

commonalities with the CT. Basically, the theory is rested on an array of assumptions (Larsen-Freeman, 1997) related to the nature of chaos and probabilistic predictions in the dynamic and non-linear complex systems that are adaptive and self-organizing as determined by initial conditions. In other words, just as described in natural sciences (e.g. climate change), initial conditions of a dynamic system, or infinitesimal changes within them, may result in incalculable outcomes and non-linear changes in other systems. These properties, then, become (or trigger) initial conditions for other properties. This leads to vast subsequent changes in other systems (a dynamic cycle of deterministic chaos) due to each dynamic and adaptive mechanism’s non-finite numbers of interactions with other properties and mechanisms. These mechanisms are also subject to instantaneous changes that can potentially amplify the course of direction (trajectories) and the nature of all affordances (or contributing factors) within the ecosystem (Lorenz, 1996). This notion is also known as ‘the butterfly effect’. Thus, while one may assume that a combination of factors can predict a future outcome, it is nearly impossible to determine the true nature of their interactions and constantly fluctuating divergences and dynamic adaptations in the processes of their happening. To explore the role of L2 input and CI from this theoretical lens, one must not only explore the place of multimodal forms of input in the dynamic systems of communication, but also examine how a unit of input’s linguistic, cultural, semiotic and stylistics codes conspires with neurolinguistic, psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic properties, tools and resources. This occurs throughout the processes of use by a particular group of learners as they constantly adapt to the changes within the fluid communication discourse (negotiation of meaning) and instantly enact (or position) their (often self-discrepant) L2 selves within the particularities of a specific context of situation. Indeed, a frightening task to undertake. In this view, L2A research must be multivariate, cross-disciplinary, process oriented and bound by the dynamic and adaptive mechanisms of the whole ecosystem. Hence, to understand CI and its acquisition, a longitudinal and interactional examination of all input-related (Chapter 1), cognition-related (Chapter 4), learner-related (Chapter 5) and environmental factor-related (Chapter 6) dynamic systems and their outcomes is warranted. Such an approach may require revisiting the genesis of L2A research and theory, particularly if we are to assume that the paths (developmental trajectories) and outcomes (learning gains) of any single ripple effect resulting from exposure to any kind of input by any group of learners in any ecology are always in flux and never finalized. As in other theoretical frameworks covered in this chapter, CI is not at the forefront of this view; however, CT’s underlying assumptions about the emergence and development of an L2 include the use of socioculturally and contextually bound linguistic and non-linguistic multimodal input as an

Input in Alternative SLA Theories

113

essential component in L2A. For example, in describing CT’s view of L2A, Larsen-Freeman (2007) argued: what endures is not a rule-based competence, but a structured network of dynamic language-using patterns,…Because these variegated language-using patterns emerge from language use, they are not only characterized by linguistic features, but they are also sometimes accompanied by gesture, unique prosodics, and by affective, cognitive, and episodic associations, experienced as they are embedded in a sociohistorical context. (Larsen-Freeman, 2007: 783–784) In this view, input and its use require attention in terms of L2 emergence and development, while CI and its acquisition need explorations of the dynamic and adaptive mechanisms of constant change in the process of social interaction and negotiation of meaning. While the nature of input and its many complex and varied properties (phonological or morphosyntactic) are important in L2A, to understand comprehension and attainment, one must study how language behavior is enacted in constant flux in communication, particularly the non-linear short- and long-term erratic shifts and transitions that take place in processes of languaging and semiosis. Thus, input is not a fixed and transferable entity. It owes its existence to social interaction because it is co-constructed by communicators in a particular context and often necessitates numerous clarification exchanges and scaffolds due to its fluid psycholinguistic properties (locutionary, illocutionary and perlocutionary acts). Variationist research in the field of sociolinguistics alone is testament to the very notion that dynamism and change are inherent qualities of language use. Every time a learner attempts to comprehend an interlocutor’s indented meaning (illocutionary act), her/his use of certain features in her/ his language repertoire and interaction and discourse patterns change and constantly self-organize to be able to co-construct the negotiated meaning. In addition, as agued by Larsen-Freeman (2002: 39) ‘the dynamic processes of systems are independent of their physical manifestation and depend only on the nature of their interactions’. Thus, rather than defining CI in terms of the input’s linguistic or functional properties and/ or its presumed levels of morphosyntactic complexity and modality, or its assumed cognitive load, this view emphasizes a comprehensive and longitudinal study of how L2 learners capitalize on relevant affordances in negotiating and (co-)constructing meaning. That is why the ways that patterns of social interactions facilitate comprehension and acquisition of new L2 input depend on the interaction of numerous factors. These factors may include the kind of language skill (e.g. receptive: listening, or productive: speaking), the topic or genre, the language task, individual differences, the text (written), the style and register and the context of the negotiated referential, inferential, symbolic and metaphorical representations.

114

Part 2: Comprehensible Input: Second Language Acquisition

From this perspective, processes of negotiation and comprehension of input are inseparably interlinked with ever-changing and multiple roles and identities of learners as well as their multilayered ideologies, belief systems, social class and power relations (L2 self-concept) and so forth. Therefore, in line with the premise of the primacy of the dynamic systems and sociocultural processes over the presumed fixed product (input), it is critical to also point out that the foreign language (FL) and SL learning settings of today’s world may offer immensely different affordances. These differences should be considered in terms of processes of language socialization and acculturation patterns that naturally produce different learning outcomes. For example, in many FL settings where opportunities of socialization in the target language are markedly limited (e.g. teaching of Hindi in Russia), an L2 learner may not have access to interaction opportunities that offer multifaceted semiotic dimensions, and indexical aspects of the meaning(s) of a unit of input. In some FL contexts, the teacher is the main source of input. Consequently, no matter how many different role plays a teacher performs with her/his students, the scaffolded and co-constructed input will represent the teacher’s (variation of input) perspectives and indices of meaning. For instance, we can all agree that World Englishes input shows a remarkable amount of variation across the ‘native-speaking’ nations around the globe (Kachru et al., 2009). An English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teacher from the UK may choose to use trousers instead of pants, or pronounce tomato quite differently from someone from the US. Indeed, numerous aspects of variation can also be attributed to sociocultural categories and differences represented by people from the same region within the same country (e.g. regional dialects). Degrees and forms of variation in the teacher’s speech could also differ depending on gender, age, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, social class and so on. As a result, to understand L2A is to understand all relevant processes of language use as enacted within the particularities of a sociocultural ecology.

Critical Period Hypothesis The basic premise behind the CPH, and its many versions, is that children are better L2 learners than adults, or the learning capacity decreases ‘(ends) sometime between perinatality and puberty’ (Singleton, 2005: 280) possibly due to neurobiological, neurocognitive and environmental reasons. Withstanding some debates regarding the CPH’s basic assumptions, the methodological choice and rigor of CPH studies and the interpretation of variation (causation versus correlation) in the data of children versus those of adults (Bialystok, 2001; DeKeyser, 2003; Singleton, 2005), the theory has been applied to a sizable bulk of SLA research. This research, which has predominantly focused on the acquired rather than the instructed nature of L2 attainment, involved the examination of children and adult performance

Input in Alternative SLA Theories

115

regarding numerous language skills and measures in different bilingual settings. Numerous empirical studies and books (for reviews, see Birdsong, 1999, 2006; DeKeyser & Larson-Hall, 2005; Singleton & Ryan, 2004) have examined factors and mechanisms of age and maturational constraints. This work specifically addressed if and how L2 learners’ age-related factors (age of acquisition, age of exposure, age of schooling and age of arrival) including length of residence in the context of L2, biological and neurological constraints, and degree of L2 use correlate with the successful attainment of certain phonological and morphosyntactic features and skills. Indeed, it is highly challenging and arduous to tackle the construct of CI from the CPH’s perspective because some of the scientific assumptions underlying the notion of the CPH have been challenged. In Singleton’s words (2005: 280), CPH is a ‘mythical hydra whose multiplicity of heads and capacity to produce new heads rendered it impossible to deal with’. Nevertheless, with the cautionary caveats in mind, it seems worth entertaining some questions as to how biological factors might mitigate processes of L2A. For example, using Birdsong’s (2006) comprehensive review that summarized research on age effects and continuity in maturational functions in three basic patterns, one wonders if and how the pre- or post-maturational declines would hold for different kinds and modes of L2 input. It would also be interesting to note how processes of attainment would unfold for receptive versus productive skills, and the proceduralization of implicit input versus explicit knowledge in bilingual (even multilingual) acquisition versus learning contexts. Indeed, it would be interesting to see how differences between children and adult performances are manifested in terms of processes (sociocognitive, affective, metacognitive) of the comprehension of L2 input of different nature (e.g. complexity), forms (multimodality), genres, referential and inferential meanings and semiotic and indexical representations. Although some researchers have reported that native-like proficiency is not possible after a ‘critical period’ (for a review, see Abrahamsson & Hyltenstam, 2009; Bley-Vroman, 1989), others acknowledge that age is a significant factor, but it is not binding – even for late L2 learners whose L2 production typically shows more variation than those of early learners (see Birdsong, 2006; Moyer, 2004). Taken together, decades of research have confirmed that age is a significant predictor of success in L2A. Nevertheless, controversies (particularly pertaining to when the critical period begins, what the nature and rate of decline is, when it ends and how neurobiological and cognitive factors interact with the learner-related and environmental factors to generate the variance) still remain unsettled (Birdsong, 2006; DeKeyser & Larson-Hall, 2005; Singleton, 2005). Undoubtedly, without some of these debates resolved, the intersection of age and CI will continue to remain a ‘mythical hydra’. Note that most SLA research on age effect has been centered around two linguistic domains: phonological features and morphosyntactic structures. However, phonological elements have been

116

Part 2: Comprehensible Input: Second Language Acquisition

suggested to constitute a more conservative measure of language control than the morphosyntactic performance domains. SLA research that studied the acquisition of phonological features has predominantly utilized global accent ratings (see Jesney, 2004) and/or suprasegmental elements (see Kang et al., 2010). The CPH work on morphosyntactic structures used grammaticality judgment tests, cloze tests, sentence conjunction tasks, sentence comprehension tasks and translation exercises. In these studies, success in comprehending and acquiring new input has generally been attributed to such variables as neurocognitive and neurobiological factors, maturational constraints, access to language universals and first language (L1) transfer and markedness (Hawkins, 2001; Moyer, 2004). Some previous research has also explained age effects in terms of the differences between children and adult L2 performance being moderated by language dominance, learner variables, gender and social interactions (e.g. Flege et al., 2002; Lybeck, 2002; Polat, 2011b). Namely, these studies explained the age effect on success in accent attainment in terms of its interaction with other variables such as formal instruction, length of residence, motivation and so forth. Nonetheless, the role of such variables has not been adequately interpreted in terms of the comprehension and processability of explicit versus implicit multimodal input at associative versus procedural stages as they pertain to cognitive functions like attention, noticing, memory capacity, retention and so forth. At this point in the critical period research timeline, it seems rather evident that an aspect that deserves special credence for more empirical research pertains to how cognitive and metacognitive processing capacity and its systems and mechanisms vary in interaction with L2 learners’ socialization patterns as they age and mature in life. This is crucial because by only examining the rate and success in the acquisition (the product or end-state) of a particular unit of L2 input (e.g. a phoneme) or only one language skill (e.g. accent) through one type of task or measure (e.g. native speaker ratings), we can never truly understand the nature of variance in how children and adult learners attend to, process and comprehend new L2 input. As a matter of fact, such research could potentially shed light on some of the existing controversies in the field by conducting more rigorous, multivariate (multiple aspects of L2 proficiency measured simultaneously with all other factors) and mixed-method studies to produce empirical findings that include longitudinal observations and documentations of processes of L2 attainment in instructed learning or bilingual acquisition contexts. Such research could be highly consequential because, as argued by Birdsong (2006: 21), native-like attainment may be ‘least likely’ to occur in ‘certain domains of language processing’. As a matter of fact, such research would also uncover some age-related mysteries about the issues of access to language universal (or language acquisition device [LAD]), parameter setting and L1 effect on L2A processes (Hawkins, 2001).

Input in Alternative SLA Theories

117

Interlanguage Theory IL was introduced into the field by Selinker (1972) as a learner’s ‘intermediate state’ of the L2 in the process of gradually advancing toward higher levels of proficiency. The notion is often described as an orderly system of language competence that is constructed by a learner. This view argues that what a learner builds as the L2 system is markedly different from the language system of a native speaker of that language. Compared to an ‘imaginary’ native speaker’s patterns of communicative functions and competencies, IL competence is characterized by its highly varied nature and lesser quality of L2 knowledge (Gass & Selinker, 2008). The high level of variance in IL is generally ascribed to a lack of proficiency, interferences of a learner’s L1 features, overgeneralizations of certain morphosyntactic features of the L2 and the nature of instructional practices and language use. As a matter of fact, this theory defines an L2 learner’s knowledge and skills in terms of this intermediate language system that comprises IL phonology, IL grammar, IL pragmatics and so on. Depending on a learner’s unique learning experiences, developmental stages of an IL may seem idiosyncratic and haphazard, with certain language skills being either entirely fossilized (or pidginized) at some stages of certain L2 skills being limited to only a certain number of language tasks and communicative functions (Tarone, 2000). From this perspective, comprehensibility of L2 input is affected by numerous factors pertaining to the language, the learner, the environment and instructional and socialization patterns. The fact that, unlike a child, an L2 learner has to attend to and process input with the existing operating principles (Slobin, 1985) and mechanisms of her/his L1 makes interference and positive or negative transfer inevitable in processing and learning new input. CI, then, becomes more or less important depending on if the learner’s L1 shares lexical and morphosyntactic features with the target language (see Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis [CAH] in Chapter 4). In addition, input comprehension and interlanguage development are also inseparably linked to sociocultural distance between the two language communities, particularly how a learner positions her/his L2 self-system within the L2 community. In other words, if the learner is in a ‘good’ L2 learning situation (Schumann, 1976) and her/his L1 shares many commonalities with the L2, issues of L1 interference, fossilization and corrective feedback can mean entirely different things for the comprehension of new input. In contrast, a learner who is ‘affectively distant’ from the L2 and the L2 community may demonstrate input processing and communication patterns that are highly restricted (or ineffective) to tasks that only allow for limited amount of exposure and to only certain aspects, variations and functions of the L2. Although its role as a sufficient condition for L2A has been questioned in the field (Gass & Mackey, 2012; Swain, 1985), the importance of CI in

118

Part 2: Comprehensible Input: Second Language Acquisition

IL development seems rather self-explanatory because CI is the kind of input that fuels the IL system (Gass, 1997). In fact, in L2 pedagogy, CI is often referred to as modified input (Echevarría et al., 2014): the product of negotiation and co-construction of meaning through the output processes that facilitate the comprehension of new input. The fact that one of the most noticeable differences between first language acquisition (L1A) and L2A processes pertains to the nature of ecological affordances in social interaction, labeling any kind of acquired (or learned) L2 input as IL and attributing to it all kinds of morphosyntactic, lexical, sociocultural and pragmatic limitations is not surprising. Indeed, in both L1A and L2A situations, learners are exposed to imperfect and highly varied input (Chomsky, 1975; Sanz, 2005); however, unlike in the context of L1A, in L2A learners have fewer compensation opportunities and facilitating socio-cognitive factors for processing new input. For example, compared to children, L2 learners have to work with less time, less sympathy (from teachers versus parents), less motivation and less investment (a child’s immediate dependency on L1 use versus a learner ’s dependency on L2 use) to process new input. Thus, if no technical distinction is made for different L2A products and processes and all forms of L2A are considered IL, CI’s importance becomes rather self-explanatory. As a matter of fact, if a distinction was possible or some assumptions could be empirically founded; for example if we were to believe that all kinds of acquired input are, by default, identical and that they are somewhat similar to L1 input; or learned L2 input can reach a nativelike level of automatization and proceduralization with ‘ample’ practice (Krashen, 1985), a taxonomical exploration of the nature of CI in different language skills could shed light on the role of different kinds of input in IL development. Nonetheless, whether an L2 learner’s IL (learned or acquired) can ever reach the tipping point when it can be characterized as the real L2 (as spoken by the so-called native speaker) is still a matter of controversy in the field (Gass & Mackey, 2012; Krashen, 2003). For instance, according to Saville-Troike (2006) it is highly likely that IL development will hit a plateau (and often become fossilized or pidginized) before reaching a native-like level of proficiency despite exposure to CI over time. Whether due to social and interactional (Tarone, 2000), or individual differencerelated factors (Dörnyei, 2005), it seems rather intuitive that error analysis can no longer be an adequate analytic technique to understand (or predict a learner’s language behavior) the role of CI in IL development (Selinker, 1992). While a learner’s systematic errors and use of flawed lexical and morphosyntactic structures (a product-oriented approach) can be helpful in identifying comprehension challenges (see CAH in Part 1), the dynamic and interactionally embedded nature of L2 processing and comprehension necessitates a process-oriented approach that can unveil the role of affective, cognitive and metacognitive variables in languaging.

Input in Alternative SLA Theories

119

A Comparative Synthesis While all of these six theoretical frameworks have been described as unique views in L2A work, the descriptions provided in this chapter delineate that they also share noteworthy commonalities. Thus, a brief synthesis here may be helpful to highlight some of these common grounds. Among these theories, CPH sheds light on how learners’ acquisition of L2 input shows variation due to biological, maturational and environmental reasons (for a review, see Birdsong, 2006; Singleton, 2005). IL offers an explanation as to how L2 learners build a dynamic L2 system (an interlanguage) that comprises elements of L1 and L2 (Selinker, 1972). Withstanding some differences, basic assumptions that underline SCT, DST, CT and ET seem somewhat similar. Basically, these theories are quite hybrid and comprehensive in that they point to the instable and complex nature of L2A processes that involve countless interactions of numerous fluid dynamics and multifaceted and multidimensional mechanisms and interdependencies of all possible subjects, factors, resources and tools (affordances) of SLA, including the interdependency of the learner, cognition and society. As described above, to understand CI from the perspectives of SCT (Atkinson, 2011) and DST (de Bot et al., 2005), one must examine all the nodes that constitute the dynamics, mechanisms and processes of an L2A network system. In this web, input is just one of the nodes, the processability (and comprehension) of which largely depends on how its role and place relate to those of the other nodes in different clusters within the constantly changing network systems. The fact that human beings do not always act rationally and environmental factors are subject to constant change, learners’ attendance to and utilization and manipulation of learning affordances may produce a great deal of randomness and unpredictability in how certain factors may contribute to the comprehension of an L2 input in a specific situation. Such views are also comparable with CT and ET. For example, in CT, modes of input (linguistic and semiotic representations), their comprehensibility (semiosis) and acquisition processes (cognitive or social) must be examined within the context (and assumptions) of a highly complex, chaotic, non-linear and self-organizing and dynamic system (Larsen-Freeman, 1997, 2011). ET also rejects a reductionist and cognitive approach to L2A, underscoring the importance of examining the role of all affordances (environmental and learner related) that (interact) complement each other in a particular ecology to facilitate the acquisition of new input (van Lier, 2000, 2004).

Chapter Summary Being last in Part 2, this chapter builds on Chapters 4 through 6 that explore the role of CI in L2A from the perspectives of cognition-, learner- and

120

Part 2: Comprehensible Input: Second Language Acquisition

society-related factors. Here, the focus is on what CI might be and how it may relate to L2A from the perspectives of six ‘Alternative’ (Atkinson, 2011) SLA theories; namely, SCT, DST, ET, CT, CPH and IL. The chapter starts with DST’s and SCT’s views of CI as a node that is linked to other nodes in clusters of dynamic network systems that function in a state of constant flux, with the latter explicitly underscoring that cognitive and social factors are inseparably intertwined in facilitating the understanding and acquisition of new input. The chapter continues with the ET that highlights the role of CI as an affordance (a linguistic, semiotic and cultural tool) that enhances L2A in conjunction with other affordances within the greater ecosystem. Next, CI’s role in semiosis and L2A is described from CT’s view that presumes the modes of input and their acquisition processes to be dependent on highly complex, dynamic and non-linear systems that are adaptive and self-organizing (based on initial conditions). After providing a short synopsis of the role of CI in different CPH views on age effect in L2A (biological, maturational and environmental), the chapter continues with a brief comparative account of all of these six theories. The chapter ends with an interpretative summary of the importance of CI in IL development, particularly how L2A research interprets the processability of new input within the operating principles of a learner’s L1 and L2 systems and mechanisms.

Part 3: Comprehensibility-related Factors in L2 Teaching and Assessment

The five chapters in this part build on the previous chapters on the conceptual foundation of comprehensible input (CI) and its role in second language acquisition (L2A) by offering a general knowledge base about what we can do with this information in second language (L2) teaching and assessment. The first chapter covers aspects of input (meaning-focused, relevant, coherent, multimodal, oral, aural, visual, modified and authentic) that L2 teachers need to take into account to facilitate the comprehension of new input. The second chapter, which examines the intersections of CI and learner characteristics, focuses on variables such L2 self-concept (e.g. identity) and affective (e.g. motivation), cognitive (e.g. aptitude) and metacognitive factors (e.g. strategies). The next chapter describes CI’s connections with cultural (e.g. perspectives) and contextual (e.g. native versus non-native dynamics) factors in L2 classrooms. The fourth chapter discusses possible modifications that teachers can make in interaction (e.g. cooperative learning) and discourse patterns (e.g. style) to aid the comprehension of new input. Here, the focus is on instructional modifications related to L2 curriculum and materials, teachers, learners and settings. This part concludes with a chapter on CI and L2 assessment, specifically covering topics such as purposes of assessment (e.g. formative), approaches to L2 testing (e.g. norm-referenced), kinds of tests (e.g. proficiency) and CI and accommodated assessment of receptive (reading and listening) and productive skills (writing and speaking).

121

8 Input-related Factors in L2 Teaching

This chapter initiates the discussion on what we can infer from the content covered in Part 1 (what CI is) and Part 2 (its role in L2A) to inform L2 teaching and assessment. More specifically, it underscores different forms, units and modalities of input that teachers can utilize to facilitate L2 learning and assessment in their classrooms. The chapter first describes possible comprehension challenges that different forms of meaning-focused input may pose for learners with different proficiency levels. Secondly, what relevant and coherent input (optimality) may entail in terms of L2 learners’ interests, goal-orientations, backgrounds and proficiency levels are explicated. Next the particularities of aural and visual modalities of input and how they relate to different instructional factors and individual differences are discussed. After briefly explaining the intersection of comprehension and input modification, the chapter concludes with a summary of issues of comprehensibility of authentic input and its contributions to developing an L2 self-system.

Meaning-Focused Input To ensure that teachers appropriately facilitate the comprehension of new input for L2 learners, a comprehensive and methodical approach to the constitutive components of input-related factors is warranted. In terms of pedagogy, the L2 teaching industry has come a long way. The transition has moved quite a distance from grammar translation to audiolingualism and communicative language teaching all the way to content and task-based approaches (Richards & Rodgers, 2010). Current industry is presumably functioning by the latest principles and resources accrued as a result of decades of theory and research in related fields such as educational psychology, linguistic, SLA, methods of language teaching, curriculum and instruction and cultural studies (Kumaravadivelu, 2008). Notwithstanding some controversies regarding certain aspects of L2 pedagogy and methodological choices (a specific method versus beyond methods) (see Kumaravadivelu, 2001) and discrepancies in the use of such cumulative wisdom in different parts of the world (Kachru et al., 2009; Richards, 2007), new trends in the field champion meaning-focused instruction in L2 classrooms. In addition to the advancements in related

123

124

Part 3: Comprehensibility-related Factors in L2 Teaching and Assessment

fields, along with industrial and technological innovations and subsequent changes in global mobility, learners’ goals and motivations for L2 learning have also undergone drastic changes that also necessitate the acquisition of more meaning-focused and culturally appropriate L2 input and skills. While linguistic complexity, stylistic variations, semiotic representations and sociocultural and pragmatic codes of input can potentially cause comprehension challenges (Lu, 2010; Mitchell et al., 2013), the reasons for which a unit of input (or some aspects of it) is presented in an L2 classroom may arguably be more important. Indeed, L2 learners have a limited amount of time and resources to acquire non-finite amounts of input. For this reason, each L2 lesson has to be structured around the teaching of some aspects of a number of different input units that are designed and presented to meet explicit lesson objectives that correspond with broad curriculum and assessment goals. In line with the lesson objectives, sometimes input’s lexical and structural properties (form) or semantic components (meaning) are specifically targeted, while other times its pragmatic elements (use) become the focus of classroom instruction. This practice does not imply that these three aspects of input should or can be detached from each other and taught separately; rather, it simply points to the nature of instructional delivery to be focused, targeted and manageable so that the quality of teaching and learning can be measured through L2 tests (Brown, 2006). In this sense, meaning-focused input refers to the kind of input whose semantic elements are targeted as the main objective of an instructional session or unit. To understand comprehension difficulties with meaning-focused input, we must unpack semantic elements and comprehension mechanisms and processes involved in the teaching of different forms and units of input (e.g. morpheme, phrase and sentence) in L2 classrooms. For example, while vocabulary teaching (input at word-level) is quite common in current L2 classrooms, the unit of instruction (beyond word-level) is generally at the utterance level because languaging tasks are typically contextualized and involve focus on particular communicative functions (Brown, 2006). When a teacher exposes her/his learners to new input that is semantically demanding, possibly due to dense inferences and references, learners may have to invest additional processing resources to store it in their schemata at the morphemic level (see Schema Theory in Chapter 2). In addition, a common misconception in L2 pedagogy is that a unit of input is more or less complex ‘for all learners at a particular proficiency level’. As described in Chapter 9, learners’ rates of success in processing, comprehending and acquiring new input shows a remarkable level of variation due to their individual cognitive capacity, coping mechanisms and utilization of available affordances to process input at different levels of complexity. Finally, in L2 classrooms, some input, just by virtue of the nature of its linguistic and socio-pragmatic properties, may require special instructional procedures to facilitate or ensure comprehension. Thus,

Input-related Factors in L2 Teaching

125

why and when teachers target a specific unit of input and how they present it influences comprehension. Similarly, the types of instantaneous support they offer their students through contextual cues and referential and inferential deductions are also critical. In addition, personalizing semiotic representations and exemplifying cultural, stylistic, metaphorical and indexical variations and nuances can have a notable impact on comprehension. Likewise, comprehension of meaning-focused input also necessitates attendance to the specifics of its nature because its meaning is socioculturally and contextually situated, requiring efforts beyond studying its dictionary or literal meanings. That is why knowing the meaning of all morphemes in an utterance (e.g. cool as cucumber) is inadequate for some L2 learners to comprehend its intended metaphorical meaning. Needless to state, semantic and socio-pragmatic features and uses of L2 input change over time, attaining new pejorative or ameliorative meanings. Due to these changes, comprehensibility of input, particularly beyond the phrase-level, may pose even higher degrees of linguistic and cognitive load for L2 learners. This is partially because authentic language samples to which the learners may be exposed denote euphemisms, metaphors, slang and generational colloquialisms as well.

Relevant and Coherent Input Two other aspects that can potentially make L2 input ‘optimal’, or less comprehensible, are relevance and coherence. Krashen (1987) attributes input’s comprehensibility to its optimality, underscoring issues like interest, relevance, focus on meaning and i+1. It seems plausible to assume that these qualities may be correlated, because processability challenges become pointless if the input is mostly form focused and/or not slightly above a learner’s current level (i+1). Similarly, L2 learners may perceive input that is not relevant (enough) to their goals and expectations as less interesting, which may limit the investment of their time and effort in learning it. Another trait that may also contribute to the optimality of input is the coherence principle that suggests caution with the use of nonessential audiovisual elements that may either distract the learner or shift the focus from the targeted meaning (Lull et al., 2015), or increase demands on cognitive processability (Mayer, 2005). This quality is particularly crucial to the comprehension of input in the current L2 teaching industry, which is progressively becoming more multimedia and computer-mediated communication (CMC) driven (Satar & Ozdener, 2008). To understand why the construct of relevance may be a critical quality of input’s comprehensibility, we must unpack its constitutive components. It seems self-explanatory that when input is relevant to a learner’s sociocultural background, existing schemata and learning goals, its comprehension may be easier. For example, when teaching literature

126

Part 3: Comprehensibility-related Factors in L2 Teaching and Assessment

to a group of Hispanic-origin English learner (EL)s in a US high school, selecting books to which the learners can socioculturally relate (e.g. topic, characters) may potentially decrease affective filter and increase the learners’ likelihood of comprehension. Similarly, when the new input builds on some existing schemata, it may be more comprehensible. Such relevance becomes even more critical when the input is received in unstructured oral communications that can typically be highly anxiety provoking. In addition, we know from research in psychology that when learners’ expectations do not match reality, in this case, when they perceive the new input to be less relevant to their L2 learning goals and needs, cognitive dissonance arises (Cooper, 2007). This may result in (meta)cognitive and affective constraints that may debilitate the input’s comprehensibility. For example, due to such dissonance, L2 learners may not even notice (cognition) certain input, or they may be highly anxious or less motivated to engage in negotiating meaning and processing (affect) the input. The current L2 education industry is characterized by the use of highly diversified modes of self-expression and interaction opportunities aided by instructional technology. Such learning, which is no longer restricted to certain age groups, has gone beyond self-study efforts. For example, there are now thousands of cyber charter schools in the US that utilize different modes of multimedia to teach numerous L2s to tens of thousands of K-12 children (Polat et al., 2013). When L2 input is introduced through multiple media, the balance between considerations of multimodality and the coherence principle may be easily violated. While teachers are encouraged to capitalize on the benefits of multimodal instructional resources to be able to reach out to all learners with diverse learning styles and intelligences to achieve greater comprehensibility (Kress, 2003), the issue of coherence may go unattended. For example, aiming to integrate multiple language skills to achieve higher levels of learning, some commercial materials and websites tend to decorate their pages with many visual elements (e.g. pictures, graphs). Some of these visual elements may draw some learners’ attention to irrelevant or tangential content or cause confusion in understanding the essential (targeted) input. Finally, as a basic educational principle, all L2 classroom activities must be planned carefully with the assumptions that students are diverse in many ways (Crawford, 2004). Planning should consider that multimodality can potentially offer additional learning benefits for different learners. Yet, sometimes it is hard to understand the association between certain visuals and the textual input, particularly in context-reduced situations. In fact, the overuse of non-essential visuals may hinder the comprehension of some types of input more strongly for learners with lower proficiency levels than those who are more highly proficient. Thus, in trying to facilitate the comprehension of new input through the use of multimodal resources, L2 teachers must act cautiously so as not to inundate the input with irrelevant

Input-related Factors in L2 Teaching

127

and redundant audiovisuals that may limit a learner’s memory and processing capacity (Lull et al., 2015; Mayer, 2005). Indeed, this is especially true in content-based L2 education programs where learners primarily focus on understanding deeper meanings and processes of scientific inquiry, such distractions can be highly detrimental. This is particularly important since some recent SLA work has suggested that L2 learners do not always use the classroom technology and multimedia for the particular tasks assigned by their teachers (e.g. Lantolf & Thorne, 2006).

Multimodal Oral, Aural and Visual Input In line with research on individual differences, particularly aspects of multiple intelligence, learner styles and learning strategies (for further reading, see Chamot, 2005; Gardner, 2006; Reid, 1987), it is not too farfetched to assume that modality of input may have an impact on their comprehensibility and acquisition. In fact, the quality of input in terms of its potential contributions to L2A and literacy development has also been attributed to textual or audiovisual materials through which it is presented (Kress, 2000). It is well-acknowledged that presenting input to learners through multiple modes increases access and comprehension opportunities due to affective (e.g. motivation), cognitive (e.g. noticing) and metacognitive (e.g. strategy use) benefits that each modality may offer (Ginns, 2005; Guichon & McLornan, 2007). This becomes an even more critical issue when the L2A processes are inseparably linked to literacy and content area development. This is rather common in multilingual countries like the US where millions of immigrant children have to learn English along with K-12 content (e.g. math, social studies) simultaneously. In this sense, multimodality acts like a mediational tool that can help L2 learners with attending to and processing input, possibly achieving learning at higher levels (from comprehension to application and analysis and synthesis) described in Bloom’s taxonomy (Bloom et al., 1956). Since L2 classrooms are ecologies where learners employ different processing channels and capacities for different modes of input (Mayer, 2005), the role of multimodality in L2A cannot be overlooked. How L2 education programs utilize multimodal tools to facilitate the comprehension of conversational and academic input and content area knowledge may vary by their goals and pedagogical models. Such variance depends on whether the input is presented in a language-focused content instruction or a content-focused language instruction or in a cyber school context (Ginns, 2005; Sydorenko, 2010). For example, in an immersion program where both language and content objectives are enforced, presenting linguistically complex and academically loaded science and math concepts in the form of text, pictures and graphs and semantic maps can facilitate comprehension. Equally as critical is supplementing such input with

128

Part 3: Comprehensibility-related Factors in L2 Teaching and Assessment

auditory and video materials during different parts of a lesson (Echevarría et al., 2014; Martiniello, 2008). Such input entails the simultaneous learning of both academic register (cognitive academic language proficiency [CALP]) and the content area knowledge. Visual representations and aids such as semantic maps, graphics organizers and cohesion and coherence markers and other procedural references may enhance the understanding of higherlevel input. As such, use of task sequences markers such as during, before, next enables learners to perform the steps of an experiment meaningfully and in the right order (Settlage et al., 2005). Since L2 teaching is becoming more and more multimedia dependent and new CMC tools are being introduced for different language domains and skills (Guichon & McLornan, 2007; Kress, 2003), the L2 education industry must invest more resources in the use of multimedia. The virtue of multimodality not only resides in its potential to offer multiplicity of sensory resources (e.g. hearing, seeing) that aid the reception and processing of new input, but its actual power also lies in offering L2 learners the most basic right in education: access to input. Metaphorically speaking, from a need-based perspective, for some L2 learners multimodality is the cake while for others it may be the bread. For example, for L2 learners with learning disabilities (e.g. speech pathology, phonemic awareness) or physical special needs (e.g. visual impairment), the use of certain modes that can capitalize on specific sensory means (e.g. Braille) may be pedagogically necessary and legally mandatory (for details, see Individuals with Disabilities Act, 2014). Also, for L2 learners with beginning and lowintermediate proficiency levels, any instructional means that can reduce the linguistic load will presumably aid comprehension. For both of these groups, multimodal input is a matter of absolute necessity; access to education (bread). For learners who demonstrate stronger capabilities in certain areas of intelligences, greater learning gains can be achieved when input is offered in the modes of their strength. Expectedly, the degree of achievement can be commensurate with instructional practice. However, a learner’s proficiency level can also mitigate the outcome. For example, a lowlevel learner with weak linguistic intelligence may have greater difficulty with comprehending new input of a certain kind than a peer with stronger linguistic intelligence. Nevertheless, such a disadvantage could be eased off if that learner’s strength (whether related to intelligence, style or strategy) is identified and utilized through effective instruction. While for learners with mid- and upper-intermediate proficiency levels, multimodality may not be viewed as essential, in programs where both language and content objectives are enforced, its benefits cannot be underestimated. In addition, given the dynamic and complex nature of L2 input along with the non-linear nature of its acquisition, anticipating positive contributions of multimodality to the processability and comprehension of new input seems rather plausible (Ajayi, 2012). Along these lines,

Input-related Factors in L2 Teaching

129

some researchers have suggested the benefits of specifically prepared and targeted multimodal input for different language skills (e.g. grammar) (Fang, 2010), highlighting CI as an instructional intervention tool that facilitates processability (VanPatten & Uludag, 2011). From this view, since language proficiency, or communicative competence, is operationalized as being constituted by linguistic, sociolinguistic and discourse and strategic competences, one could argue that each mode could potentially assist the construction and development of different aspects of language skills. In discussing multimodality’s contributions to the acquisition of socio-semiotic elements of new input, Bezemer and Kress (2008) argued that multimedia helps situating the linguistic and literary properties of the input into its sociocultural context within the particularities of situation, providing historical background and relevant affordances that enhance its cognitive processability. Thus, for instance, an L2 learner’s comprehension of Martin Luther King Jr’s ‘I Have a Dream’ speech can be enhanced dramatically if it is presented in the audio form that carries the art of oracy. This has even more potential when the written and audio forms accompany historical pictures and videos that situate the speech within the context of emotions and realities of the civil rights movement of the 1960s in the USA.

Modified Input Modified input is generally considered to be more comprehensible than authentic input. This is true because unlike authentic input, which is not intended for instructional purposes (Gilmore, 2007), modified input is used to meet specific learning objectives set forth for a particular learner group. While such input is commonly produced by commercial publishing companies, oftentimes L2 teachers also adapt textual, aural and oral input for their learners. In fact, quite a sizable bulk of research has studied the effectiveness and advantages and disadvantages attributed to authentic versus modified materials that are used to teach L2 input of different forms and varying levels of lexical and morphosyntactic complexities (e.g. McGrath, 2002). Such modifications, which can occur during processes of producing entirely new materials or when slightly or substantially modifying existing authentic materials, should be made in line with a set of well-defined and coherent principles and criteria that are aligned with specific instructional purposes. Typically, publishing companies hire a group of writers with expertise and background in related fields; presumably both academics and in-service teachers from the settings for which the modifications are intended (for a comparative review on the effectiveness of commercial, authentic and teacher-made materials for different learner groups, see Polat, 2011a; Tomlinson, 2011). Regardless of its content and genre, all types of input can be linguistically modified for receptive (listening and reading) and productive

130

Part 3: Comprehensibility-related Factors in L2 Teaching and Assessment

(speaking and writing) skills, possibly taking multiple forms and modalities. Modifications of new L2 input may entail unique changes that are congruent with the nature and aspects of communicative competence and structural and organizational characteristics that define a language skill. In fact, some SLA research that utilized corpus linguistics, discourse and text analysis has identified certain lexical and morphosyntactic elements that pose comprehension difficulties in different language skills for different learner populations. These elements may include lexical units like idiomatic expressions and colloquialisms, or tense aspect and voice for learners with different first language (L1) backgrounds (for further reading, see Gass & Mackey, 2012; Gilmore, 2007). Thus, it only makes sense to use these categories of challenges as basis in modification efforts. One of the features that characterizes modified input in L2 classrooms pertains to lexical resources. Modified textual, aural or oral input includes lexical units that are expected to be familiar and frequently used (e.g. words, idioms) by the targeted learner group. Similarly, for example, modified input is also presumed to be developmentally appropriate in that the syntactic structures contain phrasal (e.g. embedded prepositional phrases) and clausal units (e.g. embedded relative clauses) that are slightly above the learner’s level. In addition, modifying the organization and readability in a textual input can lessen comprehension difficulties (Oh, 2001). Such input is also characterized by appropriate changes in the text layout, the density of content and the cohesion and coherence markers. Modification of new input entails more than just alterations in lexical and morphosyntactic elements to enhance decoding and processing speed and dynamic changes related to discourse and interaction patterns. They also involve learner variables and sociocultural and pragmatic features that also affect comprehension of L2 input (Pica et al., 1986). The comprehensibility challenges of modified input in a textual form may be different than those in an auditory form that often requires verbal or oral response. In processing a textual input during a silent reading task, the reader has to work with a static product containing a fixed number of modification compensations. In contrast, in an L2 reading classroom, the comprehension challenges can be instantaneously modified as the teacher aids the learners’ comprehension through clarifications, paraphrasing, elaboration and so forth. Thus, by nature modified input can refer to a finalized product or a set of dynamic and dialogic compensations that occur in process of comprehension (Markee, 2015). In other words, when trying to process (decode, deconstruct or construct) new input on their own, even with access to a dictionary, L2 learners may have greater difficulty with symbolic, metaphorical meanings and cultural references. In trying to understand oral input during a dialog, even in a classroom setting, the comprehension challenges may take entirely different forms and directions. This is simply because the modification dynamics, discourse and

Input-related Factors in L2 Teaching

131

interaction affordances could produce vast numbers of variations of input of multiple functions (instantiation, paradigmatic, stratification, metafunction and syntagmatic; Halliday, 2003). In addition, modified input involves different actions for different language skills. Therefore, the modification operations and attempts to make new input more comprehensible for learners of different age, grade and proficiency levels, may include less complex morphosyntactic structures and clear organization. They should also include controlled lexical range and speech patterns and appropriate cultural, pragmatic and metaphorical uses (Drucker, 2003). Nonetheless, in textual input ‘less complex’ can be a somewhat straightforward task to perform because presumably teachers are knowledgeable about the L2 system, the learner profile, mandates of national policy and standards, curriculum goals, aspects of L2A and development, setting particularities, instructional methods and resources and assessment and evaluation requirements. When producing textual input or modifying existing ones, they would make sure that the scope and sequence of each sentence structure is aligned with specific lesson objectives as guided by the curriculum and assessment goals. For example, for low-intermediate level learners, teachers would make sure that sentence structures in the past perfect continuous would either not appear at all, or when they appear (typical in spiral curricular approaches), their learning would not be essential. Such unfamiliar structures may impede the realization of the lesson objectives and raise questions related to issues of centrality (what is important) and gradation (scope and sequence) in the curriculum (Hughes, 2003). As for lexical units, such professional textual modifications are also mindful about issues of frequency of occurrence, teachability and similarity (e.g. cognates) (Ellis & He, 1999). Finally, although modified input used for passive listening comprehension purposes may share most of the characteristics of textual input, in aural input received in casual social interactions, comprehensibility may not be as controllably straightforward (Chiang & Dunkel, 1992; Saville-Troike, 2006). This is mainly because, in L2 classrooms, teachers are not the only sources of CI. Peer communication and scaffolding opportunities, which may constitute most of the listening and speaking input, are hard to control in terms of the nature of morphosyntactic structures and lexical resources that are used. In other words, regardless of their proficiency levels, unlike professionally trained teachers, L2 learners may not be able to engage in what is called a ‘foreigner talk’ – the ability to make appropriate adjustments in style, tone, register, pauses, articulation, emphasis and so forth. In order for such input to remain comprehensible and facilitate L2A and development, teachers must manage their classroom well, ensuring that the learners stay on task by making group arrangements and conversation dynamics and roles as meaningful as possible. Otherwise, most of the classroom input can remain mechanical and flawed, possibly

132

Part 3: Comprehensibility-related Factors in L2 Teaching and Assessment

resulting in reinforced errors and a fossilized and pidginized form of IL (see Chapter 7) (Long, 1996; McDonough, 2005). In fact, auditory input received in authentic conversations, outside the classroom – a major source of CI in SL settings – may be even more incomprehensible depending on the backgrounds of the interlocutors and their relationship with the L2 learners and familiarity with the topic (Nunan, 1991).

Authentic Input Like modified input, authentic input can also be provided in textual and visual formats in different discourses in social interactions. Presumably, some forms of authentic input are less comprehensible than certain kinds of modified input for some learners. This is typically because native speakers produce authentic input to communicate genuine messages in real social dialogs; not to teach an L2 (Gilmore, 2007). Authentic input is produced for communication purposes in real life; not to facilitate or reinforce LA2. Thus, neither its content (topic, genre) nor the elements of its linguistic (lexical, morphosyntactic), cultural (sociocultural and pragmatics) and discourse (style) patterns may be relevant to the needs of a particular L2 group. Note that, by nature, authentic communication only occurs among native speakers. When non-native speakers are involved, a communication can still be authentic depending on the purpose of interaction. If the non-native speakers are engaged in the communication activity just to perform a casual, business or other real transaction, the communication still remains authentic. The input, however, is semi-authentic because their participation in the discourse will have an impact on the kind of input they receive from the native speakers. In such cases, depending on the nonnative speaker’s L2 proficiency level, the native speaker participants may have to modify their input and certain aspects of communicative discourse (oral or written) to achieve the communication goals. Current considerations of L2A and development go beyond just the grammatical competence, involving meaningful and real-like social interaction that result in authentic self-expression in the L2. Therefore, in addition to discourse and interaction patterns, we must examine the authenticity of input in L2 pedagogy to understand issues of comprehension as they relate to the development of communicative competence (Walsh, 2006). As far as authenticity is concerned, two challenges define today’s L2 classrooms: firstly, authenticity is hard to achieve because instructional tasks, the classroom environment, the input and most of the instructional resources and materials are inauthentic (Horwitz, 2013) and secondly, many L2 classrooms are not very communicative. As a result, the best possible scenario in approaching authenticity is when the classroom replicates real-life language use as much as possible. This, however, is rarely the case. Furthermore, given that most L2s around the world are taught

Input-related Factors in L2 Teaching

133

by non-native speaker instructors, it would be too naïve to assume that the input used in L2 classrooms is authentic (Richards & Rodgers, 2010). Consequently, even when L2 teachers attempt to expose their learners to authentic input through multimedia and textual materials, the discourse patterns and communication goals make it hard to achieve authenticity (Walsh, 2006). There is some research in the field that has attributed positive outcomes to the use of authentic input in L2 classrooms (Little et al., 1989; McGrath, 2002). Indeed, one could approach the effectiveness of authentic materials from a learner’s L2 proficiency level, or how materials are utilized in different instructional methods, while others could weigh its benefits by the learning goals to which it is directed. Depending on their goals, L2 learners with low proficiency levels may struggle with the cognitive load of authentic input more than those with higher proficiency levels. As a matter of fact, the way situational and contextual affordances are utilized when authentic input is provided may also impact its potential usefulness (Guariento & Morley, 2001). In addition, authentic input can be less useful when the topic or the genre of a text or utterance is highly unfamiliar to the learners. Thus, if the ultimate goal of an L2 learner is to be able to authentically express her/his L2 self, authenticity of input is paramount. Yet, it seems clear that its usefulness is not to be assumed by default and depends on numerous factors including learning goals, familiarity, proficiency level and relevant compensations provided in the context of situation. Authentic input may potentially offer a more accurate representation of the sociocultural realities and linguistic and sociolinguistic variations in a particular context. In this century when L2 learners have countless face-to-face and online interaction opportunities with members of the L2 community, being exposed to culturally less-biased input is critical to be able to build a solid communicative competence. In fact, L2 learners may be particularly motivated (Clarke, 1989) by the use of such input, as they may strongly identify with its importance in meeting their authentic selfexpression needs. Giving the learners the opportunity to receive (reading and listening) or negotiate (speaking or writing) authentic input may enable them to acquire implicit elements that characterize value judgments and ideological standings with which they identify. In addition, with such authentic opportunities may come possibilities of adopting a wide range of sociocultural indices, positionalities and identities in which the L2 learners could be interested (Tarone, 2007). Note that with the acquisition of each of these power-laden roles, the learners could also attain the semiotic and metaphorical representations, stylistic and sociolinguistic variations and other linguistic and cultural capital that would give them authentic access to membership in different sociocultural groups. In cases where L2 learners seek opportunities of exposure to authentic input on the basis of self-study, its benefits or drawbacks are individualized

134

Part 3: Comprehensibility-related Factors in L2 Teaching and Assessment

and may remain outside the domain of L2 instruction. Oftentimes, some learners tend to utilize authentic input in the form of music and movies in the L2 just for entertainment purposes (particularly intrinsically motivated ones). This is rather common in SL settings where the learners have access to all kinds of input via different media. In fact, sometimes, such activities are highly utilized by L2 teachers to supplement the classroom instruction when full comprehension is not expected. Nevertheless, in L2 instruction that is strictly standards and curriculum based, the use of authentic input as the primary source may require a substantial amount of professional training related to curriculum and cultural studies, language and linguistics and instructional methods to ensure comprehensibility (Tomlinson, 2011). For example, as described earlier in this chapter, a teacher who plans to use Martin Luther King Jr’s ‘I Have a Dream’ speech in her/his English class will have to consider numerous factors before making such a decision. Such considerations, which may influence the effectiveness of input considerably, may include the sociocultural context of the speech (the civil rights movement) and how such particularities would relate to the backgrounds of the learners.

Chapter Summary As the first part of Part 3 on CI-related factors in L2 pedagogy, this chapter covers topics pertaining to the implications of the nature and forms of input in L2 classrooms. It describes how a unit of input can be more or less comprehensible by the nature of its meaning, relevance, multimodality and authenticity. Namely, the chapter presents brief descriptions of categories as: meaning-focused input; relevant and coherent input; multimodal oral, aural and visual input; modified input and authentic input. Firstly, the chapter discusses how meaning-focused input may pose comprehension challenges for learners with different proficiency levels, particularly with input units beyond word-level. Secondly, the possible impact of relevant and coherent input (optimality) on learners’ interest, relevance to learners’ goals and background and proficiency level are explicated. Thirdly, issues of comprehensibility are presented in line with the particularities of aural and visual modalities and their relevance to the various instructional factors and learner characteristics. Fourthly, the chapter explicates that modifying input to enhance comprehension in different language skills goes beyond alterations in linguistic elements and includes sociocultural and pragmatic features that are subject to dynamic change in discourse and interaction. Finally, a short overview has been provided about how different aspects of the comprehensibility of authentic input (e.g. level of difficulty and culture appropriateness) relate to issues of comprehensibility and L2 learners’ development of an authentic L2 self-system.

9

Learner-related Factors

Just as described in Chapter 8, a unit of input can be more or less comprehensible due to its meaning, relevance, multimodality and authenticity. However, learner-related factors also moderate issues of comprehension. Such effects manifest themselves in interaction with input-related and other factors that pertain to the cultural and contextual ecology (Chapter 10) and the discourse and interaction (Chapter 11). Learner variables, also referred to as individual differences, have been categorized and studied rather differently in the field. Nonetheless, regardless of differences in conceptual frameworks, L2 learning and teaching research is conclusive that a learner’s success can largely be explained by differences in their cognitive capacity and processing, their feelings and emotions, and their self-regulation of the learning behavior (Dörnyei, 2005; Pawlak, 2012; Skehan, 1989). Recent developments in L2A have defined the ultimate goal of L2A as ‘constructing an authentic L2 self-system’. Thus, this chapter utilizes the L2 self-concept (Csizér & Magid, 2014; Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2009; Mercer, 2011) as the overarching category that comprises some macro-level learner variables as they pertain to processing new input, particularly focusing on issues of power, positioning, identity and investment. In addition, other learner variables that contribute to the construction of the L2 self-concept are described under the categories of affective (anxiety, motivation), cognitive (aptitude, learning styles) and metacognitive (learning strategies, beliefs) factors (Horwitz, 2013). Finally, how differences in gender and age (neurobiological, neurocognitive and social elements) may influence the comprehension of new input is described.

L2 Self-Concept Power, positioning, identity, investment and CI As a microcosm of society, the L2 classroom is the stage where roles and identities, which are constituted by unequal and unjust distributions of power, authority and autonomy, are assigned by the more powerful to the less powerful. Indeed, L2 learners are aware of how power relations are enacted, structured and permeated in different strata of the macro sociocultural ecology and specific discourse and interaction opportunities in the L2 classroom (Walsh, 2006). Thus, an L2 learner’s behavior in

135

136

Part 3: Comprehensibility-related Factors in L2 Teaching and Assessment

terms of why, when and how to attend to a learning task and how much commodity (time and energy) to invest in processing new input is intentional, meaningful and purposeful. Therefore, L2 learning efforts cannot be separated from the structure of general power dynamics and the specific actions of other learners in society and the classroom. In fact, they are cognizant of the net worth of their linguistic capital, meticulously calculating every one of their social actions and learning behavior in terms of how each contributes to the construction and development of a new L2 self (Block, 2007; Norton & McKinney, 2011). Thus, how successfully they receive, process and acquire new input to build a more proficient L2 self (for further reading, see Csizér & Magid, 2014; Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2009; Mercer, 2011) is correlated with the classroom’s power dynamics that are inseparably interconnected with learner variables and acts of power relations, positioning, identity and investment. As L2 learners decide to engage in a languaging activity, they weigh their options and position themselves in terms of how much memory capacity and time to devote to the task, which comprehension strategies to use and how to monitor their own progress based on their perceptions about their self-concept (Mercer, 2011). As a matter of fact, the L2 classroom is a platform where no learning and teaching action or interaction is simple, unilateral or static. This makes it hard for teachers to anticipate and control how learners may approach, process and comprehend new information. Therefore, while this may be due to the power relations in the classroom, it also has to do with the complex and dynamic nature of education as well as human feelings, emotions and actions, which may sometimes be unstable and self-discrepant (Higgins, 1987; Larsen-Freeman, 2011). All of these factors constantly interact with each other, resulting in non-finite ripple effects that determine a learner’s actions. Indeed, it may never be truly possible for a teacher to confidently determine why a learner positions himself/herself in a certain way, or why the strength of his/her identification with the learning of a particular input abruptly shifts during a collaborative learning task. Thus, it is possible that even a learner who reports a strong desire to invest in identification patterns that can enhance his/her L2A may demonstrate conflicting learning behavior (self-discrepancy) during a particular lesson or task for reasons related to instantaneous adjustments or enactment of identity and power. In an L2 classroom where learners come from linguistically, culturally and socio-economically diverse backgrounds, issues of power, identity and investment can pose even greater complexities in processing L2 input. Such environments, especially multilingual settings where millions of K-12 immigrant children learn an SL (e.g. English in the USA) require careful pedagogical design and delivery to ensure a sense of safety and belonging for every child as a valuable member of the classroom. Thus, in some cases, when a learner’s L2 self comes across as noticeably different from that of other

Learner-related Factors

137

learners who share the same background demographics (e.g. ethnicity), his/ her group membership and some patterns of social interactions may be in jeopardy. Among Kurdish minorities in Turkey, for example, a learner who demonstrates high levels of willingness to produce a native-like Turkish accent can be perceived as a traitor by other members of his/her group who may consider speaking with a native-like accent to be a compromise of native identity (Polat & Schallert, 2013). Therefore, depending on the established power relations in the classroom, the same learner may either adjust his/her speech patterns for purposes of accommodation (Giles & Coupland, 1991) to maintain his/her networks and group membership or may refrain from engaging in certain tasks that would give away his/her alliances and affiliations (Norton, 2000). Finally, as a learner positions different systems and mechanisms of his/ her L2 self in certain ways to complete a particular task in the classroom, he/she is influenced by the dynamics of interactional power relations (Kayi-Aydar, 2013). Here, the way the learner perceives the power vested in his/her ‘actual self’ and how the learner perceives his/her ‘ideal self’ (the qualities and skills the person ideally wishes to attain) and ‘ought to self’ (perceived qualities and skills the person ought to attain) matter (Dörnyei, 2005; Higgins, 1987). Nonetheless, the way these aspects of the learner’s self-system are perceived by the school, the teacher and his/her classmates may have a bigger impact on his/her processes of participation, scaffolding and acquisition of new input. For example, in a US school, a Muslim English learner’s (EL) participation in a conversation can be noticeably limited when his/her ‘self’ and positions are constantly ‘othered’, which may later result in the acquisition of low levels of American cultural perspectives and practices as well. We can argue that while the enactment of power in the context of an L2 classroom involves purposeful positioning of the L2 self (taking a particular stance) and others (assigning a particular stance to the others), it is also bound by instantaneous evaluations of these positions. This may result in either adopting the position of others (firstorder positioning) as they are, or resisting their stances and forcing them to modify their position accordingly (strategic positioning) (Harré & van Langenhove, 1991). For instance, a Hispanic-origin EL in a US school may adopt certain positions just to take a stand to demonstrate unhappiness with how his/her ethnic and cultural background is being perceived or treated by the school, the teacher or the classmates.

Affective Factors In the field of L2A, affective factors refer to learners’ feelings and emotions as manifested in various forms and degrees of motivation, anxiety, attitudes, self-efficacy, self-esteem, etc. In line with the focus of this chapter, the description here focuses only on the two most

138

Part 3: Comprehensibility-related Factors in L2 Teaching and Assessment

notably studied factors – motivation and anxiety – as they relate to the comprehension and acquisition of L2 input. Years of research in the field have produced conclusive evidence that these two variables have a significant impact on the acquisition of different L2 skills and can be manipulated through instructional strategies. Note that there are many theories in the field about varying forms of motivation and anxiety, with each theory presenting different factor structures and constitutive elements. For example, since Gardner and Lambert’s (1972) original theory of instrumental and integrative motivation, which later became the Socioeducational Model (Gardner, 1985), there have been numerous theories that described motivation. They approached motivation in terms of willingness to communicate (MacIntyre, 2007), self-determination (Deci & Ryan, 1985), motivational self-system (Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2009), directed motivational currents (Dörnyei et al., 2015) and so on. Similarly, in work on foreign language learning anxiety (Horwitz et al., 1986), SLA research has identified numerous forms of anxiety, including test anxiety, audience anxiety, classroom anxiety and so forth (Horwitz, 2010).

Motivation Motivation is generally defined as being moved to engage in a task (Dörnyei, 2005). Undertaking the task of learning an L2 is not an easy one, because it requires a decisive source of energy and perseverance to seek and engage in sufficient numbers of learning opportunities. These opportunities may require interacting with members of the L2 community (SL settings); noticing relevant L2 input in different contexts; devoting adequate amounts of attention and memory capacity to processing countless variants of L2 input; being willing to participate in negotiation of meaning and scaffolding activities to internalize morphosyntactic, phonological, sematic and sociopragmatic elements of each input; and remaining devoted to the daunting task of continuous practice and use of the input to retain it. Undoubtedly, one can add more formidable tasks to this list pertaining to cognitive and social processes of L2A. Regardless, though, it appears indisputably obvious to assume that a force (motivation) that seems to be able to push L2 learners through such arduous experiences can be highly beneficial. Perhaps that is why, unlike five or six decades ago when some cognitive variables (aptitude) dominated the field, current SLA work has shifted the focus of attention to the exploration of sociocultural and learner-related factors (Doughty & Long, 2005; Dörnyei, 2005; Gass & Mackey, 2012). From a pedagogical perspective, we study motivation in L2 teaching because we know that some of its forms, particularly extrinsic ones, can be manipulated. We must also determine if motivation is situational or a stable attribute that can last throughout a learner’s entire learning experience or manifests itself in the form of self-directed currents

Learner-related Factors

139

(Dörnyei et al., 2015). For example, how much L2 teachers can manipulate a learner’s motivation and which strategies they can use under different conditions can be highly consequential in L2 teaching. While the nature and mechanisms of the stability of motivational forces in L2A still remain unresolved, there is consensus that some forms of motivation can be manipulated by L2 teachers. For example, in Deci and Ryan’s (1985) selfdetermination theory (SDT), a distinction is made between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation is defined as an inherent and natural inclination toward a particular task in the presence of many other possibilities. This form of motivation has been found to be more powerful than extrinsic motivational forms. However, it is assumed that teachers cannot manipulate intrinsic motivation, which makes its exploration less relevant and necessary in L2 education. Indeed, if a learner shows intrinsic propensity toward learning an L2 and invests all of his/her time and energy in seeking out opportunities for social interactions with its members, no matter how the learner processes comprehensible input (CI), he/she will have a substantial advantage over his/her peers who lack this trait. Extrinsic motivation, in contrast, is composed of external, introjected, identified and integrated regulations. It is defined in terms of how learning behavior is interconnected with a learner’s different levels of perceived autonomy, relatedness and competence (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Here, the sources of these different forms of motivation are externally imposed; they do not emanate from their L2 self. In other words, the more autonomy and competence a learner perceives and the more strongly he/she attributes relevance to a particular CI, the more time and energy he/she will invest in accessing and processing it (Dörnyei, 2015). A learner with external regulation orientation would make the initial contact (noticing, attention, etc.) with the new input and allocate resources and certain degrees of processing capacity to acquire it based on the rewards or punishments that are externally forced onto him/her. Similarly, with introjected regulation, the learner undertakes the learning of a particular input due to ego enhancement, avoidance of anxiety or the attainment of self-esteem. For example, a learner may think that if he/she does not pay attention and pronounce a word accurately, he/ she may be ridiculed by his/her peers, which may influence the learner’s investment in the learning of that word. Nonetheless, with the two other extrinsic orientations (identified and integrated), the learner is believed to have higher levels of autonomy, competence and relevance (Deci & Ryan, 1985). For instance, if a learner invests a substantial amount of time in acquiring a certain accent in order to secure a particular employment that he/she aspires to, his/her motivation can be defined as identified regulation (Polat & Schallert, 2013). Finally, it is only logical to assume that a learner’s feelings and emotions are interconnected in influencing the learner’s performance in L2 learning. For example, if in response to the question ‘How many pencils

140

Part 3: Comprehensibility-related Factors in L2 Teaching and Assessment

do you have in your backpack?’ a learner indicates the correct number with his/her fingers or says ‘three’ or ‘I have three’, we can conclude that the input is comprehended by the learner. We would have arrived at the same conclusion had the learner taken out three pencils and put them on the desk as directed by the teacher, which is an example of a typical response to teacher command in total physical response (TPR.) Undoubtedly, in both of these examples, when partial comprehensibility is evident in the learner’s response, a teacher’s expectation of comprehension and subsequent acts of corrective feedback will set regulatory guidelines for the learner’s future linguistic behavior in the class. Thus, in cases when it is made clear to students that only ‘fully’ accurate responses versus ‘partially flawed but intelligible’ ones are considered comprehensible, learners’ affective factors, particularly motivation and anxiety, will be negatively provoked.

Anxiety Foreign language anxiety (FLA) has been defined to be an operationally distinct form of anxiety that is peculiar to L2 learning (Horwitz et al., 1986). Research on the constitutive elements of anxiety and its scope and power in influencing success in L2A has gone beyond just the fear of negative selfevaluation or test and oral communication apprehension. FLA, which is one of the mostly highly studied learner variables in the L2 education field, has been attributed to success in learning numerous L2 skills (for a recent review, see Horwitz, 2010) and the detection of non-verbal clues in L2 learning (Gregersen & MacIntyre, 2014). Like motivation, FLA also manifests itself in different orientations of varying levels in affecting L2A, which requires the exploration of the sources of anxiety, its underlying factor structures and its stability over time in different contexts and settings. It also requires looking at the nature and size of the effects of its interactions with other affective (e.g. motivation), cognitive (e.g. memory) and metacognitive (e.g. strategy use) variables. As far as its sources are concerned, Young (1991) offered six main categories, while Yan and Horwitz (2008) identified over 10 different themes as potential reasons behind anxiety. These factors included regional differences, language aptitude, gender, interest and motivation, class arrangements, teacher characteristics, language learning strategies, test types, parental influence, comparison with peers and achievement (i.e. learning outcomes). Whether at a macro level (due to geographical differences) or at a micro level (due to classroom arrangements, teacherrelated factors or learner beliefs), the impact of FLA on L2A is generally reported to be negative. Namely, anxious learners seem to either refrain from using the L2 or interacting with the L2 community, limiting their own access to CI. In addition, they have also been reported to process and

Learner-related Factors

141

produce L2 input in ways that are not highly efficient in building high-level L2 proficiency. No matter how we look at FLA, it seems like its sources are highly complex and multifaceted. To understand the varying roles that anxiety may play in different stages of noticing, attending to (intaking), negotiating, processing, acquiring and producing new L2 input, a closer review of the sources of anxiety seems indispensable here. However, it is even more critical to explore aspects of FLA that can be manipulated and moderated to facilitate learning in L2 classrooms. Interestingly, many of the factors that have been commonly reported as potential reasons behind FLA seem to be related to affective and metacognitive factors, which are, unlike cognitive variables, maneuverable to some extent (Yan & Horwitz, 2008; Young, 1991). As a socially constructed variable, gender attributes can be manipulated and attended to in L2 classrooms. For example, if sitting at the same table with male classmates contributes to a Saudi female student’s anxiety, appropriate seating arrangements can be made. Similarly, factors related to interest and motivation, class arrangements, teacher characteristics and language learning strategies as well as test types, parental influence, comparison with peers and achievement can also be controlled in instructional practice. In other words, with careful planning and preparation both inside and outside the classroom, as well as individualized interventions and modifications, such forms of FLA that emanate from these sources can be tempered and possibly largely reduced. Indeed, this is a vital pedagogical implication that cannot be overlooked in L2 pedagogy. Given their presumed pedagogical implications, a few examples of or some salient reasons behind FLA may be helpful in understanding how it may relate to processing new input. A review of research, particularly Young’s (1991) and Yan and Horwitz’s (2008) categories of sources of FLA, indicates several commonalities. For example, both of these studies listed learners’ personal traits, teacher characteristics, classroom ecology and testingrelated factors as important predictors of FLA anxiety. What these two and other studies (e.g. Chen, 2002) have reported about a learner’s personal characteristics seem to include a wide range of attributes related to learners’ feelings about the L2, L2 learning and L2 culture and community as well as their pedagogical beliefs and self-concept. For instance, a learner who has negative attitudes toward or is perceived negatively by the L2 community may be reluctant to invest time in skills that would presumably bring him/ her closer to them. The same learner may hold debilitating beliefs that the L2 is too difficult to learn or that the L2 culture is too distant from his/her native culture (see ‘Social Distance’ in Chapter 6), building a thick affective filter (see Chapter 5) between himself/herself and the new input. The same learner could also be anxious and process input inefficiently due to being overly perfectionist about her/his oral performance in class (Gregersen & Horwitz, 2002).

142

Part 3: Comprehensibility-related Factors in L2 Teaching and Assessment

In addition, a teacher’s perceptions about the L2 and the L2 culture and community, as well as his/her motivation and pedagogical beliefs about L2 learning and teaching, influence his/her practice. Specifically, how he/she enacts his/her whole professional training in the classroom can also play a huge role in how well a learner will attend to, process and comprehend new L2 input. In fact, in some FL settings, some teachers may even expose their learners to predominantly grammar-based input because they believe that L2 proficiency equals the acquisition of L2 grammar (Polat, 2009). In addition, some classroom ecologies can be markedly less anxiety provoking than others (Horwitz, 2013), which can make it harder for highly anxious learners to attend to new input. In such classrooms, processing and comprehension challenges could be further exacerbated due to the interactions of other variables. For example, in such classrooms, a perfectionist learner or a learner with a particularly high level of oral performance anxiety may not want to participate in group discussions. Similarly, a teenage L2 learner who is in the same classroom with his girlfriend may become particularly highly anxious to make an oral presentation to fulfil the requirements of a speaking test in front of his classmates due to issues related to self-esteem, a feeling that also characterizes introjected regulation in SDT (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Thus, anxiety sources or levels of provocation can emanate from the ecology, the teacher, a particular classmate or certain aspects of all of these factors in affecting a learner’s processing and learning of new L2 input.

Cognitive Factors Cognitive factors refer to internal resources, systems and mechanisms that direct a learner’s information processing (Dörnyei & Skehan, 2003). This includes how a learner notices and uses his/her attention, memory and processability capacity to make associations between existing and new input to comprehend and store it. Unlike affective factors, cognitive variables, particularly innate or effortlessly acquired natural abilities (e.g. aptitude) and neurobiological (e.g. brain lateralization and plasticity) and neurocognitive (e.g. cognitive aging) aspects are known to be hard to alter through instructional interventions. As described in Chapter 4, there are several cognition-oriented theories that have attempted to explain success in and the processes of L2A. Here, the main focus is on if and how certain elements and aspects of cognition, mechanisms of information processing, attention and knowledge can be maneuvered in L2 instruction by helping the L2 learners to direct the internal structures of existing knowledge and make meaningful connections to acquire new L2 input more efficiently. In so doing, only two salient cognitive variables, aptitude and learner styles, are described here (Carroll, 1981; Dörnyei & Skehan, 2003; Reid, 1987).

Learner-related Factors

143

Language aptitude Research on language aptitude is still meager in explaining its operational processes and how they relate to other cognitive factors (e.g. intelligence, styles), social interactions and instructional affordances (Robinson, 2005). Indeed, to date, a consensus does not exist in L2A and pedagogy work as to what biological, neurological and socio-psychological systems constitute the factorial structure of language aptitude. As argued by Ortega (2009: 149), it is unclear if and how and why aptitude may be a ‘special gift’ and how it relates to success and the rate of acquisition in different contexts for learners of different proficiency levels, age and gender. Such ambiguities are in critical need of scientific explanations because they pertain to the epistemological and ontological nature of the construct and its attributes. Hence, it is hard, and potentially risky, to entertain generalizable pedagogical interpretations about how L2 teachers can manipulate a learner’s aptitude to facilitate the processability and comprehension of new input in their classrooms. Although research on language aptitude predates the early 20th century, it gained special attention as a variable in L2 education research around the late 1950s, when Carroll and his colleagues (Carroll & Sapon, 1959) devised the modern language aptitude test (MLAT) (Carroll, 1981). Simply put, the two main assumptions behind the early work on language aptitude were (1) that L2 learning is a fairly unique talent that is different from general ‘intelligence’ and (2) only a limited number of ‘special’ people in the general population possess this talent. Thus, people who lack this ability will not be able to process new L2 input at a normal rate. As a result, by identifying individuals with this special talent, the private sector and government agencies can save a great deal of monetary and other resources. The MLAT, which comprises five parts, targeted L2 learning abilities related to three specific skills: phonetic coding, grammatical sensitivity and memory capacity. Phonetic coding refers to the ability to notice and identify individual phonemes and associate the specific sounds with corresponding symbols. Grammatical sensitivity (and inductive learning ability) includes the ability to notice and identify distinct morphosyntactic structures with different functions, whereas memory capacity involves the special talent of being able to memorize (context-free) and retain the associations between the sounds and symbols so that they can be easily remembered and retrieved later (Carroll & Sapon, 2002). While we know that a teacher cannot do much to slow down a learner’s brain or combat cognitive aging, there is enough evidence and cumulative wisdom in the field that L2 teachers can direct and maximize learners’ attention to targeted input and tasks or language skills (Dörnyei & Skehan, 2003). In fact, research in psychology and neurosciences suggests that even some neurocognitive variables (e.g. memory loss) can be moderated through appropriate instructional training and resources (for further reading, see

144

Part 3: Comprehensibility-related Factors in L2 Teaching and Assessment

Poeppel & Embick, 2005; Stemmer & Whitaker, 2008). In addition, adopting a sociocultural and socio-cognitive approach here, it seems appropriate to argue that even the development of certain aspects and mechanisms of cognition and cognitive skills depends on social interaction (Vygotsky, 1978). As a cognitive ability, language aptitude is multidimensional (Robinson, 2005) and does not only consist of innate abilities. Its impact on L2 learning cannot be truly understood independently of affective and metacognitive variables. This perspective keeps the saliency and relevance of research on aptitude in L2 pedagogy, while also giving hope to those learners who are often labeled by the assumption that ‘they are just poor language learners’. Consequently, L2 teacher education programs should prepare teacher candidates in ways that they come to construct facilitating pedagogical beliefs about the potential role of aptitude in L2 classrooms; namely, that aptitude is pliable when developmentally appropriate and individualized instructional interventions are utilized. Such a theoretical shift will move the field from using MLAT to decide ‘whether a learner should or can learn an L2 at all’ to ‘the identification of specific cognitive challenges the learner may face when encountering new L2 input’. This way, L2 teachers can come to perceive the identification of language aptitude as part of their overall analysis of learner profile (strengths, weaknesses, needs, etc.), which will encourage them to modify new input for learners with low aptitude. For example, if a learner receives low scores on the phonetic coding section of the MLAT, the teacher can provide him/her with more instructional support pertaining to specific aspects of phonemic awareness (Cook, 2001).

Learner styles Another cognitive factor that may relate to the comprehension of new input is learner styles. This is a rather highly used construct in the field, particularly due to student-centered instruction, needs-based pedagogy and other approaches related to developmentally appropriate instruction in L2 education (Richards & Rodgers, 2010). As used in the field, theories of learner styles (also known as cognitive styles) imply that L2 learners approach and process new input differently due to some natural tendencies they have toward certain ways of noticing, attending to, negotiating, organizing and storing information. However, controversies as to what their internal structures look like and how they impact L2A, particularly their roles in different processes of comprehension and acquisition of input, are widespread. In addition, we do not know the specifics about how cognitive styles vary by age and gender and/or overlap and interact with affective and metacognitive variables (Saville-Troike, 2006). Despite such contentions, the basic implication commonly attributed to the identification of learner styles involves tailoring instruction to the strengths of different types of learners in an L2 classroom.

Learner-related Factors

145

Early L2 education work classified learner styles into two categories: field dependent (FD) and field independent (FI). In short, FD learners tend to focus on the whole forest whereas FI learners are naturally inclined to concentrate on individual trees (Cook, 2001). Typically, FD learners are considered to be holistic learners who demonstrate strength in perceiving the input in its contextual entirety. In other words, when presented with new input, FD learners tend to focus on the broad context and meaning of the input more efficiently than the FI learners. In contrast, FI learners are more efficient – than the FD ones – in detecting discrete linguistic forms and their individual functions and meanings. Although FD learners may seem better suited to learn an L2, FI learners have been reported to be more successful in L2A. This notion has often been justified by the fact that the L2 education industry has historically been overwhelmingly form focused and enforces the use of analytic skills (Horwitz, 2013). The L2 education business, particularly in many Western contexts, has moved toward task- and content-based instructional approaches. Due to such content-based approaches, which involve high cognitive demands, L2 teachers are expected to identify the natural tendencies of learners in processing and acquiring new L2 input. Another set of variables categorized as cognitive styles also include auditory, visual, analytic, kinesthetic, tactile, individual and grouporiented forms (for further reading, see Wong & Nunan, 2011). Visual learners show a stronger natural inclination toward noticing and processing visually presented input, whereas auditory learners tend to attend to and process input more efficiently when it is presented in the audio format. Tactile learners seem to process input more efficiently through lab work and hands-on activities. Kinesthetic styles involve the use of physical involvement (field trips, role-playing, etc.). In addition, some learners may show a stronger tendency toward learning tasks that involve discussion, collaboration and dialog. In contrast, others may prefer to learn on their own (Christison, 2003). Indeed, cognitive styles seem to share a substantial number of commonalities with research on multimodalities (Kress, 2003). Thus, it may be safer to argue that L2 teachers should expose their students to as many multimodal sources of input as possible instead of entertaining strictly individualized styles. In doing so, they must acknowledge one caveat: while the scientific foundation about the nature and role of these variables is weak (Saville-Troike, 2006) and controversial (Carter, 1988; Ellis & Larsen-Freeman, 2009), we can assume that learners demonstrate varying levels of strengths in numerous different styles and cannot be characterized only by one particular form.

Metacognitive Factors Metacognitive factors include the ways a learner reflects on, monitors, evaluates and directs his/her learning experience (Horwitz, 2013). It

146

Part 3: Comprehensibility-related Factors in L2 Teaching and Assessment

entails varying levels of self-awareness and self-directed learning behavior that is also interconnected with other learner variables. In other words, metacognition acts like a micromanager that regulates all human feelings and emotions, as well as their cognitive resources, in processing new knowledge and skills. When facing new input, learners with higher levels of metacognitive skills immediately evaluate their existing knowledge and determine what they need to learn. They then set reasonable goals and identify appropriate strategies to meet these goals. More importantly, they constantly evaluate the efficiency of their learning behavior and the quality of their learning outcomes, making appropriate changes in their pedagogical beliefs and strategy use. Below, two major metacognitive variables are described: beliefs about L2A and learning strategies. First, a brief description is provided about the kind of role a learner’s pedagogical beliefs may play in L2A (Horwitz, 1999). Then, how L2 learners may utilize different strategies in planning, executing and self-evaluating their learning performance is described (Cohen & Macaro, 2007; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 2011).

Beliefs about L2A There is a substantial amount of research suggesting that L2 learners hold pedagogical beliefs of varying types and levels of strength about L2A. The fact that some of these beliefs have been reported to have a negative impact on students’ investment in learning new input necessitates a closer examination of their many roles in formal classroom instruction (for a review, see Horwitz, 1999). Furthermore, the intersection of learners’ and teachers’ beliefs (e.g. match in beliefs) in L2 classrooms has also been reported to produce different learning outcomes (Polat, 2009). To drive accurate conclusions about the role of learner beliefs in L2A, the following stipulations must be carefully considered: (1) learner beliefs impact their learning behavior and outcomes; (2) they are deeply rooted; (3) as far as their sources are considered, they are complex and inseparably interconnected with other learner variables; and (4) when acknowledged, identified and specifically targeted, some learner beliefs can be manipulated in L2 instruction. To summarize beliefs research in the field, particularly in light of Horwitz’s (2013) Beliefs about Language Learning Inventory (BALLI), one could argue that a learner’s strong subscription to certain pedagogical beliefs may direct him/her to adopt pedagogically more or less facilitating (or debilitating) learning behavior. Such behavior may pertain to numerous aspects of L2A due to beliefs about general learning theory (learning equals memorization), presumed level of difficulty attributed to the target language, cultural biases, gender-based biases, motivation, self-esteem, anxiety, skill priority, strategy preferences, etc. In other words, a learner may perceive the target language to be particularly hard to learn or he/

Learner-related Factors

147

she may perceive some language skills to be more important than others (e.g. grammar versus speaking) (Polat, 2009). In addition, he/she could also prefer certain instructional methods to others (e.g. grammar-based versus communicative) or choose to adamantly employ only certain learning strategies (e.g. memorization) that could be incongruent with his/her other beliefs, which could undermine his/her overall learning. Indeed, in all of these cases, one could assume that both the processes of negotiating new input and the learning outcomes may vary drastically. It is very important that L2 teachers demonstrate high levels of metacognitive awareness toward the potential influences of their own actions on different kinds of learner beliefs in L2 classrooms. For example, despite research in the field (Cummins, 1984), it is not uncommon that some learners believe that L2 learning is an easy process and that attaining a high proficiency level takes only a short period of time. Thus, they become gradually disheartened (demotivated) as they face the arduous reality of learning an L2. In such a case, a teacher must first identify this belief. Then, the teacher must systematically discuss with the student that such a belief is unrealistic and that almost everyone faces similar challenges in L2A. As far as their incongruence with research is concerned, a learner may hold strong beliefs about the levels of fluency or accent in the L2, the consequences of making mistakes in the class (accuracy) or the role and importance of specific language skills (e.g. grammar is the most important skill) in overall L2 development. Acknowledging the possible impacts of such debilitating beliefs on their students’ attendance to and processing of new input, a teacher must try to understand possible reasons behind such beliefs and work with individual students to rectify them. Indeed, Horwitz (2013) advises teachers to discuss the processes and goals of L2 learning with their students, carefully elucidating the rationales behind different aspects of their instructional practices to help them modify their existing beliefs. Given the four cautionary caveats and potential interactions between learner beliefs and other factors (affective and cognitive), such advice deserves due attention to maximize comprehension of new input.

Learning strategies Another metacognitive factor that has been found to influence the comprehension and acquisition of new input is learning strategies that consist of a wide range of approaches that L2 learners utilize (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990). These may involve broad approaches to the learning of an L2 (e.g. rote-learning) or may entail a particular step a learner takes to participate in a class discussion to complete a reading comprehension task. According to Oxford (2011), a strategy is not good or bad by default; it becomes useful when it is congruent with the targeted task and the

148

Part 3: Comprehensibility-related Factors in L2 Teaching and Assessment

learner’s style repertoire while also complementing other strategies utilized by the learner. Previous research has categorized L2 learning strategies in several different ways. Bialystok and Fröhlich (1978) listed four categories of strategies that L2 learners employ to process input: inferencing, monitoring, formal practicing and functional practicing. For example, a learner may monitor his/her progress in learning new vocabulary by putting a check mark next to each word in a dictionary, while another learner may attempt to create his/her own dictionary by adding new words to a notebook on a daily basis. Another categorization comes from Oxford (1990), who presented six groups of strategies, some of which go beyond the scope of metacognition and include affective and cognitive approaches that learners follow in L2A. These strategies are cognitive (e.g. note-taking); metacognitive (e.g. self-evaluating and monitoring personal errors); memory related (e.g. use of rhyming, acronyms); compensation and communication (e.g. guessing meaning, turn-taking); affective (e.g. regulating own breathing during a talk); and social strategies (e.g. engaging in and carrying on a conversation). While some of these strategies involve direct use of language, others relate to the regulation of one’s feelings and learning behavior. For example, the direct strategies may include the use of cognitive and communication strategies that directly involve language use (e.g. flashcards, acronyms), whereas the indirect ones refer to affective (e.g. calming yourself down during a talk) and other metacognitive (e.g. managing your time during a writing assignment) steps that pertain to how learners regulate their own learning behavior. Finally, in line with some conclusions grounded in research on strategy use (Cohen & Macaro, 2007; Oxford, 2011), L2 teachers must explore opportunities for maximizing the number of strategies their students can adopt to become more ‘strategic learners’. By identifying a learner’s preferences in strategy use, L2 teachers not only understand why their students do what they do to learn new input but also capitalize on their challenges and offer relevant educational support. Such support may include setting and context-specific affordances, available opportunities of social interactions or specific instructional techniques and discourse strategies, etc. For instance, one could argue that L2 teachers have to be strategic in their instructional planning and execution in order for their students to have access to different strategies pertaining to their noticing, attention, memory capacity use, inductive and deductive reasoning, practice and application, culturally appropriate peer interaction, discourse and clarification efforts and so on. As argued by strategy researchers like Cohen and Macaro (2007), O’Malley and Chamot (1990) and Oxford (2011), the use of L2 learning strategies can be facilitated by teachers through the monitoring of student comprehension, the production of new input and the encouragement of student self-evaluation during classroom tasks and activities.

Learner-related Factors

149

Chapter Summary This chapter covers a summary of a selected number of learner-related factors that have been found to influence the processing, comprehension and acquisition of new input in L2 education. These factors interact with input-related (Chapter 8) and other factors (subsequent chapters), making some forms and kinds of input more or less comprehensible than others for some learner groups due to their proficiency levels, first language (L1) backgrounds and so forth. The chapter starts with a brief description of the intersection of CI and the L2 self-concept, specifically explicating the role of power relations, social positioning, identity and investment in L2 pedagogy. Then, the role of learners’ feelings and emotions (affective factors) in processing and acquiring different forms of new input is discussed. Here, the focus is only on levels and forms of motivation and anxiety in L2 education. For example, intersections of CI with aspects of self-regulated motivation (e.g. external pressure) and sources of anxiety (e.g. sitting arrangements) are explored. The next topic encompasses how two cognitive factors, specifically language aptitude and learner styles, relate to different ways that L2 learners notice, attend to and use their processability capacity to make connections between existing and new input in L2 classrooms. Finally, the chapter concludes with how the learners’ pedagogical beliefs and unique learning strategies may influence the comprehensibility and learning of new input. This part particularly concentrates on how learners with different kinds of metacognitive skills tend to monitor, evaluate and regulate their existing knowledge in approaching various forms of new input.

10 Culture and Context-related Factors

In addition to comprehensibility challenges emanating from the morphosyntactic nature and modalities of input (Chapter 8), individual differences (Chapter 9) and learners’ discourse and interaction patterns (Chapter 11), affordances available in the cultural and contextual ecology can also influence comprehension. This chapter highlights the following topics: culture in L2A, culturally relevant and contextual affordances, cultural perspectives, practices and products, cultural dynamism and symbolism, culture shock and native and non-native dynamics in L2 classrooms. After a short discussion of how certain cultural elements may moderate a learner’s comprehension of new input in L2 classrooms, the chapter describes the importance of cultural relevancy and contextual and sociocultural affordances in instructional strategies to facilitate comprehension of culturally laden elements. The chapter ends with a brief section on the stages and patterns of culture shock, followed by a short account of native and non-native dynamics in classroom interactions and the comprehension of new input.

Culture and L2 Learning SLA and L2 pedagogy research must concentrate on how cultural and contextual factors (solely or interactionally) may mitigate a learner’s successful processing and acquisition of new input (Tang, 2006). There are hardcore deterministic theories that equate L2A with the acquisition of L2 culture and milder versions that consider culture to be a critical part of building a functional level of L2 proficiency (Kramsch, 1998). Nonetheless, it seems rather well-acknowledged in the field that (1) culture plays an indispensable role in L2A and (2) certain linguistic, semiotic and stylistic properties of L2 input are inseparably intertwined with certain aspects of cultural practices and perspectives that are socially and contextually bound. In short, a learner’s processing of L2 input happens within the parameters and mechanisms of the particularities of both first language (L1) and L2 cultures. Although culture has always been considered an important element of language studies, its role in L2A became noticeably eminent sometime around the 1980s. This was the time when communicative language

150

Culture and Context-related Factors

151

teaching (CLT) started gaining more and more attention in L2 pedagogy (Brown, 2006; Horwitz, 2013). Currently, the common assumption in the field is that people are, to varying degrees, products of the dynamic systems surrounding their socio-historical and cultural realities. As a result, the nature and scope of a person’s interlanguage competence are determined by his/her access to specific L2 socialization and acculturation patterns (Polat & Schallert, 2013). They are also determined by particularities of cultural conditions constituted by specific gender roles, elements of identities, ideologies, value judgments and belief systems. Social class, race, geographical location and complex power relations also play a role in determining language competence. L2 teachers must be aware that processing and comprehending new L2 input involves decoding/deconstructing and then (re)constructing indexical, symbolic meanings and semiotic representations. Undoubtedly, such processes are largely influenced by a person’s (or textual source of input) socio-cultural background, prior knowledge and the relevant referential and inferential affordances (or speech acts) that are available in the context of learning. To understand the role of cultural elements in L2A, we need to explore more of what it means for an L2 learner to learn new input. In this sense, we would need to examine if language and culture are inextricably interlocked and if cultural elements can be separated from the input’s linguistic and semiotic codes. This could help us understand what the factorial structures of a learner’s interlanguage look like in terms of the linguistic and cultural components too. In other words, we know that L2 proficiency goes beyond just linguistic competence, encompassing elements of other competencies (e.g. socio-pragmatic competence) that constitute communicative competence (Savignon, 1972). That said, it is yet to be fully explored how linguistic and semiotic codes interact with cultural codes and what such interactions and interconnections entail for the cognitive, affective and social processes of L2A. In the context of work on world Englishes (Kachru et al., 2009), we would also need to discuss world cultures as well. For example, if we could establish which culture a certain English language input represents, say American culture, we would have to make some homogeneity assumptions about American culture and American English. Undoubtedly, regional, dialectical and other variations (e.g. northern or southern or African American, or Spanglish in the US context) pose different comprehension challenges for different learners. Therefore, with the metaphorical and semiotic codes and metalinguistic expressions of American cultural perspectives and practices, what an L2 learner would be exposed to in El Paso, Texas, versus in Brooklyn, New York, would involve different experiences of input processing and comprehension. The role of culture in successfully attaining an L2 in different settings also concerns affective learner variables. As described in Part 2, a learner’s feelings and perceptions about, attitudes toward or identification with

152

Part 3: Comprehensibility-related Factors in L2 Teaching and Assessment

the L2 culture appear to have significant impacts on success in L2A. Although learners in foreign language (FL) settings also hold emotions and beliefs about the L2 culture, particularly during the early stages of culture shock, such affective factors may be more relevant to SL settings because, at the macro level, such considerations about L2 culture pertain to the very critical issue of access. For example, if a learner has negative attitudes toward the L2 culture or perceives L2 cultural perspectives and practices as a threat to his/her native culture, he/she may limit his/her access opportunities (socialization) to gaining culturally relevant input. Learners’ willingness to immerse themselves in the L2 culture could also be influenced by their motivational forms. For instance, as described in the Gardner socio-educational model (1985), parts of the constitutive elements of a learner’s ‘integrative’ motivation include the learner’s willingness to seek opportunities of acculturation within the L2 community. In addition, for example, an English learner living in the US (SL) who strongly identifies with the cultural practices of Americans (e.g. celebrating Thanksgiving) may be more willing to seek membership in different American communities or to invest more time and effort to overcome his/her anxiety and shyness to engage in such practices. Although for someone who is learning Japanese in Finland (FL), such opportunities may be highly limited, how the person feels about the Japanese culture will still have an impact on his/her learning behavior as well. L2 teachers must consider these interconnections of language and culture in their instructional practices.

CI and Culturally Relevant and Contextual Affordances To be able to offer culturally relevant input or affordances that would facilitate the comprehension of new input, L2 teachers must know their learners’ cultural backgrounds, perspectives and practices. While we know that cultural elements are rather closely related to these factors, trying to identify the role of local culture, family practices, a learner’s personal cultural identity and socialization patterns may help an L2 teacher with instructional planning, preparation and execution. Indeed, the school environment and its classrooms are the primary spaces over which teachers have most control. Thus, the day-to-day school experiences of L2 learners (particularly in multilingual settings), namely how they voice their perspectives, reconcile their L1 and L2 cultures and situate their cross-cultural identities in different social interactions, are among the areas that L2 teachers must explore. In their words, to be able to aid the acquisition of culturally relevant input, L2 teachers must utilize a myriad of affordances related to learners’ attitudes toward learning, social behaviors, use of instructional resources and materials, clothing, etc. For example, a

Culture and Context-related Factors

153

hijab-wearing Muslim girl in a US high school may demonstrate difficulty with negotiating a safe in-between (Sarroub, 2002) space and a cultural identity, which may inevitably influence her utilization of instructional materials and certain aspects of her social interactions, particularly with her male classmates. Thus, for an L2 teacher, understanding a learner’s (inter)cultural practices (educational and social) may be more important than knowing some student demographic information. Culture-related comprehension challenges can be exacerbated when two particular conditions exist: (1) the learners have difficulty connecting with the cultural elements of the input and (2) instructional affordance falls short in helping the learners to establish the connections. In fact, L2 learners may gradually develop a sense of resistance to the curriculum when they determine that the instructional materials (reading or listening) do not draw on any perspectives, themes, topics, people, places and practices with which they are familiar. Such situations are not rare. In many cases, particularly in FL contexts, instructional materials are published by commercial companies with a prototype or an imaginary learner in mind (Tomlinson, 2011). While it is possible to create or select more culturally relevant instructional materials for a particular L2 learner group, publishing companies – possibly due to limited resources – may occasionally adopt pragmatic assumptions of cultural determinism, producing materials based on geographical regions (McGrath, 2002). While the industry has come a long way in producing higher-quality materials, in the past, some commercial materials failed to include even basic cosmetic considerations. In fact, some countries started publishing adapted pirate versions of such materials simply to deal with issues of face validity or visual cultural incongruence. For example, in the 1990s in Iran, many people used adapted pirated copies of major commercial textbooks, tampering with and veiling the pictures of women to make them culturally ‘acceptable’ for educational purposes. In addition to the cultural appropriateness of the cosmetic aspects of sources of L2 input, we know that learners attend to and process new input more effectively when the topics, values, perspectives, places and characters have some connections with their life experiences. As a matter of fact, one of the reasons why immigrant children do not seem to make fast enough progress in attaining a high proficiency level in the target language in SL settings (e.g. English in the US or the UK) is the lack of culturally relevant affordance in different aspects of educational planning, preparation, practice and assessment and evaluation. Indeed, this is linked with the noticeably large educational gap between L2 learners and their native-speaker peers in the US (for further reading, see Polat et al., 2016). In other words, whether due to cultural incompatibility (Irvine, 1990) or experiences of in-betweenness (Sarroub, 2002), when culturally relevant input is not offered or when less culturally relevant materials are not made relevant through instructional modifications, learning outcomes fall short.

154

Part 3: Comprehensibility-related Factors in L2 Teaching and Assessment

To avoid such potential problems, L2 teachers can make sure that they take into consideration the cultural relevancy in their materials selection while also ensuring that they make appropriate modifications to enhance comprehension. Instructional materials are sources of input or platforms where input is presented. Another aspect of a source of input’s cultural relevancy that may influence new input’s processing and comprehension pertains to the availability and successful use of affordances in a context of situation. As a matter of fact, L2 input that is not culturally well-contextualized poses greater degrees of comprehension difficulty. Since exposure to new input is not restricted to only classroom communication, particularly in the SL setting, providing cultural background through the activation of existing cultural knowledge and the facilitation of discourse references may reduce comprehension challenges in L2 communication. Because this chapter focuses on comprehensible input (CI) in L2 classrooms, it seems fitting to stress that L2 teachers must seriously consider issues related to how culturally bound the L2 input is and how well it can be contextualized to facilitate comprehension. This is, indeed, one of the most common concerns often voiced in current L2 educational research (Durocher, 2007; Knutson, 2006); the ‘add on’ approach toward the teaching of cultural elements, which often inevitably leads to confusion and misunderstanding of new input. Thus, L2 curricula and instructional resources must provide adequate cultural background for the new input and teachers must situate all instructional experiences into an appropriate sociocultural context to help learners comprehend it (Schulz, 2007). Such an approach is particularly important in FL settings where exposure opportunities to L2 cultural perspectives and practices are predominantly limited to classroom instruction. Finally, sometimes a text may lack important cultural background due to the assumption that the learners are already aware of it, in which case the comprehension heavily depends on how well the teacher scaffolds. In SL settings, when a native-speaker student makes a joke with specific references to local colloquialisms (e.g. slang) or a political figure or a specific historical event, teachers need to contextualize the input within the relevant cultural perspectives and practices to facilitate comprehension. As a matter of fact, in the SL setting, where classroom learning is primarily shaped by the interactional dynamics and tensions fueled by elements of linguistic and cultural diversity, non-native-speaker learners may experience discomfort, anxiety and even embarrassment during collaborative learning activities. This inevitably makes the comprehension of new input more difficult. One way to enhance comprehension of such culturally decontextualized input is to create a learning environment in which the L2 learners feel safe and comfortable in engaging in extended negotiation of meaning and scaffolding activities with their native-speaker peers and teachers. Indeed, different types of corrective feedback (e.g. recast, explicit correction) – whether

Culture and Context-related Factors

155

provided orally or written – have been found to play significant roles in L2A (Ellis et al., 2006; Lyster & Izquierdo, 2009; Mackey, 2006). Also, how well L2 learners benefit from teacher-provided feedback is affected by how favorably (trust) they perceive their teachers (Lee & Schallert, 2008).

CI and Cultural Perspectives, Practices and Products What ‘culture’ entails as a technical term with regard to its defining elements has always been a matter of controversy in the field (Hinkel, 1999; Ishihara & Cohen, 2010). In the education of languages other than English in the US context, the technical framework that is most commonly used has been borrowed from the National Standards in Foreign Language Education Project (1999), which comprises a tripartite model, namely, cultural perspectives, products and practices, replacing the traditional binary approach of the ‘Big C’ and the ‘little c’. Indeed, aspects of cultural elements are linked with each other in ways that necessitate meticulous operational definitions that can describe particularities of an element without ignoring its foundational role in being an inextricable part of the bigger whole (Savignon & Sysoyev, 2002). Cultural perspectives are often described as commonly shared beliefs, attitudes and values related to numerous aspects of life (e.g. individual freedom, privacy). They constitute the foundation for cultural practices that give way to the construction of cultural products that include tangible (e.g. a car, a monument) and intangible cultural elements (e.g. folk tales, dance). Cultural practices (e.g. communication patterns, celebrations) consist of the behavioral patterns and life experiences of a particular group of people (National Standards in Foreign Language Education Project, 2006). Despite the fact that it may be necessary for instructional purposes to distinguish between these aspects of culture, L2 teachers must bear in mind that such distinctions may be too obscure or even flawed, because essentially each of these aspects owes its existence to the others (Tang, 2006). Traditionally, the teaching of culture in L2 classrooms has been criticized for being too product oriented (Schulz, 2007). This is partially because it is not easy to teach cultural perspectives or to expose L2 learners to all aspects of cultural practices, especially in FL settings. As a result, rather than focusing on the perspectives and practices of the target-language community in a particular context, teachers may be tempted to adopt the easiest option of following a ‘tourist-guide’ approach, wherein (products) monuments, pieces of art or literature and so forth are highlighted. Given the fact that learners already have certain cultural perceptions of their own, such an approach may cause them to resist acquiring L2 cultural perspectives, particularly those that may seem incongruent to their existing conceptions. Also, it is very hard for L2 teachers to identify specific cultural perspectives to teach because making homogeneous assumptions about an L2 community can often be misleading. Moreover, many L2 communities

156

Part 3: Comprehensibility-related Factors in L2 Teaching and Assessment

are multicultural or show a great deal of geographical or regional variability with regard to cultural factors. In fact, even native speakers often have difficulty articulating their own perspectives, which are shaped by different aspects of their life experiences (Kramsch, 1998). As a result, for example, a teacher may face tough challenges in trying to teach the ‘American perspective’ on ‘individual freedom’ to an Iraqi teenager who has recently immigrated to the US. The same teenager may purposefully refrain from practicing certain aspects of the American way of life (e.g. going to a prom) that seem contradictory to his/her L1 lifestyle. Finally, in teaching cultural perspectives, teachers inevitably face difficulties due to their own biases about what represents the L2 cultural perspectives accurately, their feelings about the learner’s L1 culture and their educational philosophy about how and how much of such elements the students should learn (see concepts of additive biculturalism versus subtractive schooling: Valenzuela, 1999). Other challenges pertain to how congruent the L1 and L2 cultures are; how the learner perceives the L2 cultural values, belief systems and practices; how the learner’s family and broader communities are structured in the context of L2 learning; and so forth. Undoubtedly, the nature of the school administration and resources; how the learner’s native culture is treated in the context of education (acknowledged, tolerated or promoted); and the national or local assessment mandates also play a role in the teaching and learning of cultural perspectives and practices. To ensure that the target culture, especially its cultural practices and perspectives, is adequately covered in the curricula of FLs (e.g. Arabic, Chinese), ‘culture’ has been highlighted in three of the 5-Cs framework (communication, culture, connections, comparisons, communities) of the National Standards (2006) of FL education in the US. These standards mandate knowledge and understanding of (1) cultural elements underlying the use of L2 input in a particular context through processes of (2) comparison (with their own and other variations within the L2 culture) as they participate in various culturally appropriate practices in different language (3) communities. Also, as aligned with the other two Cs, learners can become more successful when they are offered adequate communication opportunities in the L2, which may result in more culturally appropriate viewpoints due to newly made connections through the additional linguistic and cultural resources.

CI and Cultural Dynamism and Symbolism High proficiency level in an L2 is often defined in terms of the ability to become a fully functional member (or pass as a native speaker) of the L2 community, which entails the acquisition of an adequate amount of cultural capital. Such capital, which also underlines elements of sociocultural and pragmatic competencies, equips L2 learners with the necessary indexical, iconic and symbolic meanings to pursue social

Culture and Context-related Factors

157

interactions, claim membership and earn citizenship in the target society. The culturally bound symbolic capital, which may be offered in the form of different genres (e.g. poetry, metaphors, legends) consists of personalized and contextualized historical and cultural background. Learners who lack such background may demonstrate additional comprehension challenges instigated by other variables. Indeed, a learner lacking relevant cultural background may need to engage in additional cognitive processing to be able to reorganize the existing schemata or create new ones to construct the new input. For example, all cultures have some folk tales or legends that have been passed onto new generations for centuries. When listening to or reading a folk tale, an L2 learner may demonstrate greater difficulty in understanding certain elements of the historical references, the metaphors and the symbolic meanings of certain artifacts. Every input comprises constitutive cultural elements that are subject to constant change and involve a unique communication purpose, serving the transmission of specific aspects of cultural perspectives and practices that have been constructed within the particularities of a culture. Speech acts and symbolic and semiotic communication patterns and artifacts gradually build their own historical precedence in the form of cultural perspectives and practices that define the identity formation of a community. In fact, as members of a community co-construct these metaphors, symbols and meanings, they also build explicit and implicit or verbal and non-verbal agreements about culturally bound semantic and pragmatic references and inferences that may sound highly unintelligible to outsiders. We could take for granted many examples of such cases pertaining to different countries that speak the same language (e.g. the US and the UK), geographical locations (south and north in the US), ethnic or racial dialects (AfricanAmerican English or Ebonics), generational colloquialism or even genderbased language use. For instance, American and British Englishes may differ from each other due to each country’s own historical and cultural heritage; however, pragmatic differences also exist within different racial or gender groups within each country. Parents having difficulty understanding some of the colloquialisms used by their teenage children, or the so-called Valley Girl talk (which originated in southern California in the US) are good examples of such differences. The dynamic and culturally bound nature of input and its relation to the comprehension of L2 input may mandate new interpretations of the well-known phenomenon of linguistic relativity or determinism (Sapir– horf hypothesis), because it relates to the issue of semiosis and is not just a matter of polysemy. In other words, it may be easier for L2 learners to learn the many meanings of a word (polysemy); however, understanding cultural properties and indexical and iconic representations of the input requires personal experience and engagement in the dynamic processes of meaning construction that encompass all elements (semiosis): the sign,

158

Part 3: Comprehensibility-related Factors in L2 Teaching and Assessment

the object and the culturally loaded meaning as the resulting outcome (Peirce, 1998). Thus, comprehension challenges emanating from the dynamic nature of cultural factors may be multiplied when the classroom affordances fall short in providing opportunities of culturally appropriate social interactions. Although in L2 classrooms in FL settings such exposure opportunities may be logistically difficult to offer, it is hard to understand why, for example, the self-contained pull-out programs are still the most common options (Crawford, 2004) for immigrant children in some SL settings (e.g. the US). It is hard to imagine how an immigrant child in an SL setting could acquire the metaphorical and symbolic properties of input (e.g. cultural perspectives) without socializing with his/her native-speaker peers in the same classroom.

CI and Culture Shock Regardless of the nature of the setting, all L2 learners experience some kind of culture shock of varying degrees of strength, particularly in the early stages of L2A. The term culture shock refers to feelings of confusion and anxiety emanating from being exposed to the unfamiliar perspectives and practices that define another culture. In the FL context, it manifests itself in the form of reactions to the instructional curriculum, materials and some teacher practices. In contrast, in SL settings, where L2 learners typically seek long-term residence in different patterns of social integration (e.g. acculturation, assimilation, preservation; Schumann, 1978), it may be a highly strong predictor of a lifestyle or a new L2 self. Note that the severity of the culture shock can vary depending on both learner-related and social variables (Lybeck, 2002). Just as a learner’s age or gender or socioeconomic status can affect his/her socialization patterns, the characteristics of the L1 community and culture to which the person belongs also have a significant impact on the type and degree of culture shock and how successfully the person deals with it. For example, a first-grade immigrant child’s socialization is largely determined by compulsory schooling, which typically involves interaction with children from other cultural backgrounds too; however, an adult SL learner, particularly in a context where there is a sizable L1 population (see Chapter 6), may restrict his/ her socialization to members of his/her own community to avoid potential experiences of culture shock. As for FL settings, for instance, while some learners may make extra effort to immerse themselves into and acquire the cultural perspectives and practices of the L2 community, others may do just the opposite for reasons described in Chapters 5 and 6. It is of utmost importance that L2 teachers, particularly in SL contexts, are aware of the possible symptoms and effects of culture shock on their students’ learning. To overcome emotional or sociocultural obstacles, including instances of miscommunication, confusion, homesickness,

Culture and Context-related Factors

159

boredom, fear and anxiety as well as negative/hostile attitudes on the part of the members of the L2 community, learners undergo a cultural adjustment period. How successfully a learner undergoes different stages of culture shock may influence his/her comprehension and acquisition of new L2 input in a number of different ways. Whether in classroom instruction or during casual encounters, such effects may manifest themselves in the form of correlation or causation. For example, in SL settings, cultural adjustment patterns can partially determine a learner’s degrees of socialization with members of the L2 community. Similarly, a learner’s initial socialization patterns can affect his/her type and degree of culture shock, which in either case will affect opportunities of access to CI. Moreover, in such settings, culture shock and adjustment are also interrelated with Schumann’s (1978) eight indicators (dominance, acculturation, enclosure, cohesiveness, congruence, size, attitudes and length of residence) of socio-distance between the L1 and L2 communities (see Chapter 6). In SL contexts, numerous variables influence the processibility and acquisition of new input during the negotiation, adjustment and mastery phases; yet, one can imagine that L2 teachers can manipulate certain aspects of some of these variables in their classrooms. For instance, being aware and discussing with the students how such feelings of culture shock are natural and experienced by everyone can alleviate some of the psychological burden (Horwitz, 2013). Finally, although culture shock is generally attributed to SL settings, FL learners may also experience certain feelings of disorientation or confusion due to cultural differences. The use of certain curricula frameworks (e.g. English literature-based curricula in former British colonies) or instructional materials can cause such feelings. This is mainly because it may result in low motivation or a sense of estrangement from L2 cultural perspectives and practices, particularly if the learner perceives these as a threat to his/ her native cultural values (Richards, 2008). For example, a teacher’s use of the American sitcom Friends in his adult English classroom in Iran may be perceived negatively due to some sexual innuendos or situations. Thus, how effectively an L2 teacher supports a learner in dealing with culture shock during the early phases can be strongly correlated with the learner’s willingness to immerse himself/herself into the L2 cultural materials. This, in turn, may lead to higher levels of willingness to seek out socialization opportunities with members of the L2 community and adopt the acculturation pattern. In fact, with the use of technology, particularly via social media tools (i.e. Skype, Facebook), FL learners can seek and gain access to a large number of cultural experiences in the target language. As a result, L2 teachers must anticipate comprehension difficulties due to culture shock and reduce its severity as much as possible by selecting more culturally appropriate materials and providing support when learners show symptoms of culture shock.

160

Part 3: Comprehensibility-related Factors in L2 Teaching and Assessment

CI and Native and Non-Native Dynamics in the Classroom Language socialization in classroom settings offers one of the most crucial CI opportunities for L2 learners. How well learners benefit from such CI experiences may depend on several factors related to the nature of the setting, the ecological affordances and learner demographics. In some FL settings where L2 learners share the same ethnic and cultural backgrounds, issues of ethnic identity, cultural dominance and power relations may only require a limited amount of special attention; yet, in SL classroom environments where native and non-native speakers learn together, such dynamics must be observed carefully. For example, in the US K-12 context, approximately 5 million immigrant English speakers of diverse cultural backgrounds (National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition: NCELA, 2011) are immersed in mainstream classrooms to learn English and content areas (e.g. math) with their native-speaker peers. Whether in immersion or bilingual programs or pull-out programs enhanced with push-in activities (for further reading on program options, see Crawford, 2004), these students spend a noteworthy amount of time together to communicate in English. We know that, particularly in such SL contexts, teacher readiness and quality would have a significant impact on the design of a culturally responsive classroom environment where native and non-native students feel comfortable and included to learn together (Hoover et al., 2008). Although native and nonnative dynamics can influence the comprehension of new input both in verbal (Chapter 11) and non-verbal communications, in this section the focus is on comprehension challenges due to the non-verbal (or cultural–behavioral) dynamics of interactions between native and non-native students. Some comprehension challenges due to the native and non-native speaker dynamics can be triggered by non-verbal communication or body language. Body language constitutes a large portion of oral communication, particularly in SL settings where the learners seek L2 citizenship. It is not uncommon that L2 learners receive perplexing non-verbal input or face unfamiliar behavioral encounters from teachers, classmates or strangers. Such communication skills are generally habitual in the sense that they are self-directed, conscious and somewhat consistent (Knapp et al., 2014). In fact, sometimes, native speakers use culturally unique nuances of body language elements to indicate a personality trait (e.g. posture indexing self-confidence) or a temporary state of boredom/disinterest (Gregersen & MacIntyre, 2014). For example, an American teenager’s act of imitation, with a hand gesture such as shooting himself in the head, to express boredom during a lesson may seem incomprehensible or may be entirely misinterpreted by a recently arrived exchange student from Syria. Such possible intercultural challenges can be instigated by the comprehension challenges of body language input received from strangers as well. For

Culture and Context-related Factors

161

example, in the Republic of Georgia, to get on a public transportation vehicle, people point their index finger to the ground to indicate to the driver that they are willing to stand if there are no seats available. Lacking this cultural reference can cost a non-native speaker a great deal of time. In addition, all cultures have well-established tacit protocols regarding eye contact, physical distance, sitting patterns, greeting, touching and facial expressions in oral communication (Knapp et al., 2014). Hence, certain aspects of such non-verbal communicative acts can also come across as highly unintelligible to some L2 learners or can even interrupt or terminate an ongoing conversation. In fact, some of these issues can cause tensions in L2 classrooms, both between native and non-native students and among different non-native speaker groups. Such cultural differences also vary by age and gender. For example, Americans are known to keep their distance (elbow room) and make consistent intermittent eye contact (a sign of interest) during a conversation, whereas in some cultures physical distance and eye contact can vary significantly depending on the age and gender of the speakers. For example, Saudi males may follow somewhat American-like patterns of physical distance and eye contact in a conversation. However, when they talk to a woman, interaction patters of touching, distance and eye-contact almost completely change. In fact, direct and consistent eye contact by an interlocutor of the opposite sex may even be perceived as rude, leading to the termination of a conversation. In brief, it is part of a teacher’s responsibility to ensure that the cultural perspectives and practices of all student groups are respected and even promoted, when appropriate, in the classroom. This will allow students to observe each other’s values and behaviors, which may potentially result in higher levels of intercultural competence. It is fair to assume that, in safe ecologies, students not only feel more comfortable in demonstrating their own cultural perspectives but they also make extra effort to negotiate and understand new cultural input.

Chapter Summary This chapter elucidates the role of the contextual and cultural variables and processes that facilitate the comprehension and acquisition of new L2 input. Specifically, the intersection of CI with the following topics is explored: culture and L2A; culturally relevant and contextual affordances; cultural perspectives, practices and products; cultural dynamism and symbolism; culture shock; and native and non-native dynamics in L2 classrooms. The chapter begins with a short description of how culture-related factors mitigate a learner’s successful processing and acquisition of new input in L2 classrooms. Here, the focus is on how readily available cultural affordances and contextual conditions may influence comprehension of input for different learners. The second section tackles the role of cultural relevancy and contextual

162

Part 3: Comprehensibility-related Factors in L2 Teaching and Assessment

affordances in facilitating the comprehension of new input, particularly concentrating on the different ways that learners connect with cultural elements of input and how instructional practices can facilitate such connections. Section three briefly examines what the teaching and learning of CI might mean with regard to cultural perspectives (e.g. perceptions of individual freedom, privacy), practices (e.g. communication patterns, celebrations) and products (e.g. a monument, folk tales). The next section discusses CI and its acquisition with respect to the dynamic nature of sociocultural affordances and contextually bound (linguistic relativity) symbolic capital (e.g. metaphors, local variants). Section five offers a short account of how different stages and patterns of culture shock (e.g. distancing, anxiety) interact with the processibility of new input, while the last section sheds light on how native and non-native dynamics of classroom interactions and socialization (e.g. power relations, body language) pertain to the comprehension of new input.

11

Discourse, Interaction and Modification-related Factors

This chapter covers two groups of instructional modification factors that contribute to the successful teaching of new input in L2 classrooms. The first group (interaction and discourse-related factors) includes several considerations related to classroom interactions such as cooperative learning and scaffolding. More specifically, this section focuses on the changes that teachers can make to regulate specific learning behaviors (e.g. motivation), processes of mediated dialog (e.g. group activities), scaffolding (e.g. positive interdependence) and student (e.g. reporter) and teacher (e.g. facilitator) participatory roles in the classroom. The section on modification-related factors explains how certain changes in discourse and pragmatics may facilitate the learning of new input. In this section, a broad range of possible instructional adaptations varying from the curriculum and instructional materials to the teacher, learner and setting-related factors are discussed and supported with visual aids (Figures 11.1 and 11.2).

Interaction- and Discourse-related Factors and CI Cooperative learning and scaffolding There is a plethora of research suggesting that exposure to CI through culturally situated and augmented social interactions results in success in L2A (Krashen, 2003; Lantolf & Thorne, 2006; Long, 1983). Since learning is meaning construction, successful acquisition of new input largely depends on the dialogic mechanisms and processes of negotiation of meaning. Such processes are further enhanced through constant feedback and modifications, as shaped by dynamic systems of a discourse and interaction (Walsh, 2006). As a result, how L2 teachers maneuver factors related to discourse and interaction to facilitate the learning of new input necessitates special attention. Whether championing the primacy of the language learner and their interactions or the society in L2A processes, the role of individual and sociocultural factors and the mechanisms and processes of mediated dialog (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006) and languaging (Swain, 2006) mandate a thorough exploration of possible adjustments that the classroom teachers can make to facilitate the comprehension of

163

164

Part 3: Comprehensibility-related Factors in L2 Teaching and Assessment

new input. Such adjustments can manifest themselves in the form of direct interventions at the intermental level, which includes factors related to social interactions; or at the intramental level (Vygotsky, 1978), which involves the regulation of learners’ affective and (meta)cognitive behavior, which would ultimately influence a learner’s socialization patterns. Thus, whether due to the unequal power dynamics or his/her anxiety in the classroom, when a learner is not participating in a discussion activity, the teacher must anticipate comprehension and learning difficulties. Undoubtedly, the complex nature of the relationships both within and among individual and social variables (see Chapters 5 and 6) make it agonizingly hard to diagnose individual variables that may impact specific mechanisms and processes of a mediated dialog in a particular context of situation. This influences the ability to offer a special treatment that would enhance the dialog without causing negative interaction or ripple effects. In fact, as some socio-constructivists (e.g. Lantolf & Johnson, 2007) would argue, since learning is the co-construction of meaning, by default, it owes its existence to dialog and social interaction. This would mean that any act of mediation or scaffolding in classroom communication is a modification that is subject to constant and self-adaptive transformations due to inevitable changes in the target language, social factors, learner behavior, teacher practices, etc. (Larsen-Freeman, 2011). Nevertheless, under appropriate conditions, some instructional modifications could help with the comprehension of certain input, particularly through cooperative learning activities. Any time a learner engages in a dialogic learning activity, comprehension challenges arise because the linguistic, cultural, semiotic, and stylistic codes of the input (Chapter 1) must be negotiated. The fact that in learner-centered classrooms most dialogs are presumed to take place among the students, how well a teacher regulates mediation in classroom discussions can play a highly critical role in the successful processibility of L2 input. For instance, a teacher could provide support through linguistic feedback in the form of recast (Lyster & Izquierdo, 2009) or clarify a perplexing cultural practice via a comparative example. Others could involve mediation of conversation strategy, including turn-taking, remaining on task and so forth (Horwitz, 2013). Use of effective cooperative learning strategies naturally increases student participation, attaching an authentic purpose to student engagement in dialog. Cooperative learning conducted with clearly assigned systematically rotated participation roles (e.g. leader, reporter, reader) has been suggested to promote positive interdependence, individual accountability, leadership, social responsibility, and peer evaluation (Hoover et al., 2008). According to Diaz-Rico (2012), interactive and scaffolded learning and teaching practices are grounded in positive interdependence (students depend on each other), face-to-face interaction (students work together closely), individual accountability (everyone is responsible for the whole outcome), social

Discourse, Interaction and Modification-related Factors

165

skills training (teachers model targeted goals) and group processing (students evaluate their group performance and identify improvement areas). In such tasks and activities, the act of overcoming learning challenges is removed from dependency on individual knowledge, skills and dispositions and elevated to a group level, making comprehension difficulties everyone’s problem. This enables everyone to work together to move onto the next step and achieve the goals set for the whole group. By interacting with each other, learners are forced to engage in processes of clarification and confirmation and negotiation of opinions and positions at their own pace. This results in the languaging of a large quantity of CI. In fact, when interactions are prudently regulated by the teacher and adjusted through appropriate communication strategies (Fang, 2010), learners’ chances of meeting within the zone of proximal development (ZPD) and comprehending the intended messages are maximized. For instance, in collaborative projects, when a learner struggles with the meaning of a word or detail, he/she is no longer solely dependent on help from the teacher because his/her comprehension is constantly checked by his/her participation, and necessary clarification amendments are made throughout. As a teaching technique, scaffolding is a complex skill and requires professional training. By scaffolding, L2 teachers present the learning tasks in cognitively and developmentally manageable increments and moderate what their students need to prioritize in a lesson. They also guide and coach the learners about the specific steps and stages they must take throughout the negotiation of meaning practices to process the new input. Thus, scaffolding pertains to the management of numerous pedagogical factors. These include the learning goals, content, resources and classroom design as well as classroom interactions and verbal and non-verbal communication patterns (Stone, 1993). Therefore, knowing the curriculum goals and specific lesson objectives, a teacher should anticipate potential comprehension difficulties and make appropriate modifications even prior to a specific instructional episode. For example, initiating a small-group discussion around a listening task prior to the listening activity can activate the learners’ prior knowledge, enabling them to better connect with and relate to the content of the listening material. In K-12 SL classrooms, for example, the case of immigrant children in immersion programs in the US, English-speaking students can be utilized as a source to maximize peer-scaffolding opportunities (Lynch et al., 2001) that can help struggling learners with comprehension challenges caused by the linguistic and cultural codes of new input. In enhancing the comprehension of new input, scaffolding tasks designate special roles to both the teacher and the learners. The teacher is expected to act as a guide and a coach, methodically regulating potential challenges related to learners’ anxiety and participatory roles. They must select topics of interest for all learners and oversee the processes and stages of collaboration. Thus, they scaffold learners’ understanding of assignment

166

Part 3: Comprehensibility-related Factors in L2 Teaching and Assessment

instructions while also ensuring that they remain on task and perform the assigned duties throughout the process of scaffolding. As argued by Anton (1999: 303), in collaboration and scaffolded learning activities ‘students interact with others, they are actively engaged in negotiation of meaning, they have an opportunity to express themselves by sharing ideas and opinions, and they are responsible for their own learning’. Undoubtedly, one can assume that such experiences are highly meaningful, involving high socio-cognitive processes and higher levels of learning because they empower and encourage the learners to fulfill a personal responsibility (the assigned role) to accomplish a goal set for the whole group by collaborating with peers. Indeed, the comprehension outcomes could be even greater when the group is formed by learners of heterogeneous backgrounds, knowledge, skills and experiences (Hoover et al., 2008).

Modifications in discourse and pragmatics Research has documented that modifications in discourse mechanisms and processes can greatly enhance success in L2A (for a review, see Mackey, 2007). In identifying possible modifications in L2 classroom discourse to aid student comprehension, teachers must carefully examine pragmatic elements of the new input as well. Such considerations must involve broad patterns of classroom language socialization, aspects of structural and lexical ambiguity and specific acts of communicative discourse. These may also include style, positionality, identity and indexicality (KayiAydar, 2013; Norton, 2000). In fact, lack of background knowledge in aspects of speech acts can noticeably impact a learner’s understanding of new messages, particularly beyond sentence level, since it involves more than just morphosyntactic and lexical knowledge (Curzan & Adams, 2012). Hence, teachers must be cognizant of how learner variables may relate to such issues of speech acts. They should also consider what possible modifications can help learners to gradually build socio-pragmatic competence and allow them to successfully process such elements of new input. Possible comprehension support could be multimodal and involve both oral and written communication, requiring skill-specific adjustments. In other words, classroom discourse could involve oral communication (Walsh, 2006), during which the teacher would have to make modifications in listening and speaking skills. It could also be in the form of an inquirybased project that requires support in oral skills. Oral discourse includes numerous unique features, each of which may require a different approach to facilitate comprehension. As described by Luoma (2004), such discourse can be planned, for instance, in the form of a classroom discussion; or unplanned, as a follow-up discussion. While in an unplanned spoken discourse, teachers may not be able to make adequate numbers of adjustments for every student, in a planned discourse, they can

Discourse, Interaction and Modification-related Factors

167

be more organized in offering support in different areas. Such areas can include forming heterogeneous discussion groups, giving more wait time, providing immediate clarifications and repairs of breakdowns, adjusting the syntactic and lexical complexity of their speech, paraphrasing, using their first language (L1) (depending on group formation and lesson objectives) and so on. When compared to written discourse, oral discourse involves shorter morphosyntactic structures (phrases and clauses) and less technical words. It also involves more colloquialisms and informal and local variations complemented with conversation fillers and formulaic phrases. Due to these factors, students may face greater comprehension challenges that necessitate a teacher’s immediate intervention. In fact, when such instantaneous support is not given, the struggling students can terminate a conversation because, in oral discourses, interlocutors depend on each other’s continuous feedback (Taguchi, 2012). In addition, in oral discourse where the so-called rapid-fade principle of linguistics is enacted in its true meaning, L2 learners, particularly those at low proficiency levels, often struggle with understanding the ‘intended’ meaning. Such learners typically allot most of their attention and noticing and memory capacity to understanding every isolated structural and lexical unit, instead of focusing on the context of use. They also direct attention to the interlocutor’s purposeful acts of demonstrating a unique style and positionality, which index his/her identity in the message. Note that, despite discourse analysis research on the organization of oral speech, we know that for an L2 learner, understanding of listening input involves highly variable processes of interpretation (Richards, 2008). As a result, a learner cannot understand the message without understanding the nuanced indices of positionality and identity that underline the semantics of a discourse (Long, 1983). Aware of such aspects of classroom discourse, L2 teachers can have discussions with their students on important mechanisms of a successful communication (Walsh, 2006). This discussion could include what the primary goals of engagement in a discourse are (e.g. getting the gist), which communication strategies are more effective, what the context of situation is, what the expected protocols of turn-taking are and what culturally appropriate interaction patterns are (e.g. elbow room, eye contact) (Ishihara & Cohen, 2014). It could also involve talk on when and how the learners can use non-linguistic communication affordances (e.g. body language, gestures, etc.) and when and how they should ask for clarification (negotiation of meaning techniques), etc. For example, getting the students to learn that understanding the gist and carrying on a conversation are more important than understanding every word can help them establish clearer goal expectations, possibly reducing their performance anxiety. Finally, another aspect of pragmatics that L2 teachers must address to be able to help their learners with comprehension difficulties involves the issue of cross-cultural and interlanguage pragmatics in instructional

168

Part 3: Comprehensibility-related Factors in L2 Teaching and Assessment

materials. While L2 teachers should try to use materials of different types (e.g. authentic, commercial), forms (e.g. oral, written) and modalities (e.g. graphs, videos), their classroom materials cannot truly replicate all possible communication patterns and acts in different contexts of situations. Thus, as Bardovi-Harlig (1996: 31) stated, while it may not be an effective strategy or even possible for an L2 teacher to try to get his/ her students to learn and follow verbatim a particular discourse structure, he/she can ‘make students more aware that pragmatic functions exist in language, specifically in discourse, in order that they may be more aware of these functions as learners’. However, it should be noted that in structured classroom discourses, interlocutors, goals, tasks and language use are somewhat contextually embedded, whereas in the naturalistic conversations L2 learners may encounter a territory of many unknowns. This means that teachers must also prepare their students for potential communication breakdowns in authentic conversations that occur outside the classroom instruction. As suggested by Horwitz (2013), when learners try to perform their memorized dialogs in real life, they may be hit hard by the harsh reality (with the risk of increasing anxiety) that in oral speech, things rarely go the way they have planned.

Modification-related Factors and CI Modifications in curriculum and instructional materials Before any further ado, it is critical to note here that instructional modifications should not be confused with simplification efforts that often involve noticeable reductions in the rigor of the curriculum, denying the learners opportunities for more meaningful and higher levels of learning. Thus, implementing CI in an L2 classroom entails teacher planning, preparation and practice that extend beyond the simplification of the lexical and morphosyntactic structures of an utterance. It also involves professional knowledge and skills related to the adjustment and adaptation of relevant aspects of the curriculum and input, teacher behavior, individual differences and setting-related factors. In a sense, a curriculum is the constitution of an educational system and covers many macro-level goals, factors and processes. These processes need to be clearly delineated for instructional purposes (Figure 11.1). As far as the curriculum is concerned, possible modifications can involve a wide range of aspects related to procedures to determine the underlying educational philosophy, particularities of the setting and culture, skill/content focus, alignment with national standards, learning goals, learners’ needs and scope and sequence. Other aspects like the kind and role of instructional materials and teacher and learner-related variables in the overall instructional design and implementation are also by-products of curricular choices (Richards, 2007).

Discourse, Interaction and Modification-related Factors

Assessment evaluation

169

Setting culture Standards goals

Scope and sequence

Learning theories Content

Curriculum Language

Linguistic theories

SLA theories

Teachers

Learners

ESL methods Materials

Figure 11.1 Aspects of modification considerations in L2 curriculum

One area of modification that can improve possible comprehension challenges pertains to the ideological stand underlying the rationale of the curriculum and instruction. According to Richards (2007: 113), all curricular frameworks carry with them an ideological baggage that comprises ‘beliefs and values that provide the philosophical underpinnings for educational programs and justifications for the kinds of aims they contain’. Therefore, while some ideological motivations characterizing a curriculum may be based on learners’ needs and socioeconomic pragmatism, others may be grounded in promoting the acquisition of assimilationist views versus cultural pluralism. For example, in many colonial contexts (e.g. some Caribbean islands), rather than targeting communicative competence, the L2 curriculum used to be predominantly based on the teaching of L2 literature and other cultural products (e.g. French, British) to get the native speakers to assimilate into the L2 cultural perspectives and practices (Norton & Toohey, 2004). Even in today’s world, where the goals of L2 curricula are mainly driven by communication purposes related to educational, social and economic gains, issues of L2A and linguistic and cultural imperialism still remain salient in language policy and planning. Thus, L2 teachers must correctly identify the ideological foundation of their curriculum and make appropriate modifications to ensure that their learners are not forced into unnecessary and irrelevant learning goals and comprehension difficulties. Moreover, depending on the ideological underpinnings of a curriculum, the focus on language skills, the selection of content and its organization in

170

Part 3: Comprehensibility-related Factors in L2 Teaching and Assessment

terms of scope and sequence and their alignment with national standards (Nation & Macalister, 2010) also fall within the purview of L2 teachers as areas of consideration for modifications to ease off potential comprehension problems. While controversies over thematic and integrated versus skill-based curricula still exist, some language skills often take precedence over others. In an oral proficiency-based L2 program, learners are encouraged to do more listening and speaking, rather than engaging in reading and writing tasks. Hence, varying forms and levels of comprehension challenges related to these dominant skills (e.g. use of communication strategies) must be anticipated and attended to by teachers. In contrast, in a grammar or vocabulary-based curriculum, teachers need to expect potential difficulties emanating from issues of expediency, frequency of occurrence, complexity, selection, gradation and so forth (Richards, 2007). In fact, depending on the general learning (e.g. behaviorism, constructivism) and SLA (e.g. Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis [CAH]) theories underlying the curriculum, teachers may tap into different modification techniques (e.g. bilingual materials) and L1-related factors to understand the sources of some of the comprehension difficulties. Finally, how successfully such challenges can be lessened or overcome may also depend on the general approach to curriculum. In a spiral approach, where learners are familiarized with the input first before it is actually taught, there will presumably be fewer understanding challenges compared to a linear curriculum, where each input is introduced once and is expected to be acquired in a predictably cumulative manner (Nation & Macalister, 2010). In terms of the role of instructional materials in influencing the comprehension of new input, a number of factors must be explored. In fact, forms and modalities of materials, which are presumably adopted based on the curriculum goals, can pose numerous comprehension hardships. It is well-established in the field that the selection of materials is highly consequential in teaching effectiveness. This is because materials maybe ideologically biased, impose subjective philosophies and subtle curricula and enforce certain attitudes toward teacher and student roles and interactions, while also influencing classroom practices and management (Tomlinson, 2011). For example, by selecting materials produced in the US versus those in the UK, English learners in Turkey could be exposed to American versus British cultural perspectives and practices, as well as certain dialectical variations that may pose varying levels of processing difficulties. Similarly, while materials that predominantly require individual work can limit the learners to their own resources to understand the content, communicationoriented materials can provide opportunities for peer scaffolding. Although empirical research on the role of materials in L2A is still limited (Tomlinson, 2011), aspects of instructional materials that may facilitate or hinder comprehension of L2 input can be examined from two perspectives: kinds and modalities, and quality. In instructional material development, adaptation and evaluation literature (e.g. Cunningsworth,

Discourse, Interaction and Modification-related Factors

171

1995; McGrath, 2002; Tomlinson, 2011), three kinds of materials are described in terms of varying levels of quality and effectiveness: authentic (not developed for L2 learning/teaching), commercial (published to teach an L2) and teacher-made (created by teachers for their own students). For example, in examining preservice teachers’ beliefs about authentic, commercial and teacher-made materials, Polat (2011a) summarized five areas of evaluation to identify the effectiveness of each kind of material in L2 teaching. These areas included pedagogical considerations, program-related considerations, learner-related considerations, language-related considerations and practical considerations. For example, as far as pedagogical considerations are concerned, some commercial materials may be more effective than authentic and teacher-made materials in helping L2 learners understand new input because they provide more varied, meaningful and sequentially organized tasks. Similarly, more effective materials also involve the use of collaborative activities and a broader range of strategy use. Nonetheless, effectiveness of materials also varies by program options (e.g. SL/foreign language [FL], English for Specific Purposes [ESP]). In addition, the choice of an instructional material could engender comprehension problems due to the nature of the language it uses (languagerelated consideration). For example, in materials where a sanitized (or inauthentic) form of L2 input or predominantly basic interpersonal communication skill (BICS)-based versus cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP)-based input is presented, comprehension challenges become inevitable, particularly when incongruences between learner needs and the nature of input become apparent. Instructional materials can also be more effective in facilitating the processibility of new input depending on how well they pertain to certain learner-related considerations, namely, materials that project gender or age bias may cause comprehension problems (Fukkink, 2010). For example, female and male students may be more interested in different themes and subject matters or have higher levels of prior knowledge and background in some topics, which may facilitate comprehension in some areas more than others. In addition, materials that fail to account for learners’ proficiency level and offer input at an i+2 level (versus Krashen’s i+1) may also exacerbate comprehension problems. Indeed, some research has suggested that some materials (e.g. authentic) are more effective than others for L2 learners at certain proficiency levels (e.g. advanced) (Guariento & Morley, 2001). Finally, some materials may offer better organizational structures, more appealing designs and modalities (practical considerations), which can ultimately facilitate the processing of complex input, particularly for learners with certain aptitudes or learning style preferences. (For more details relating to the specific items that constitute these categories, see Polat, 2011a.)

172

Part 3: Comprehensibility-related Factors in L2 Teaching and Assessment

Teacher-related modification considerations Although teachers are not the only source of input for L2 learners, particularly in SL contexts, they can play a vital role in facilitating the comprehension of new input in the classroom. Classroom modifications may include an extensive number of macro-level activities ranging from well-established daily routines and sitting arrangements to micro-level simplifications in instructional directions, or adjustments in instructional elaborations and task-specific exemplifications (Oh, 2001). While the kind and number of modifications that L2 teachers can make may vary depending on the learner demographics, proficiency levels, needs, program/curriculum goals and instructional practices, teacher-related modifications (Figure 11.2) could potentially include (1) well-established daily routines; (2) appropriate sitting arrangements; (3) adequate wait time; (4) level-appropriate language use and speech rate; (5) appropriate use of L1 and L1 resources; (6) frequent use of body language, (7) repetitions; (8) synonyms; (9) paraphrasing; (10) clear and simple task directions; (11) gentle error correction and corrective feedback; (12) adequate interaction and participation support; (13) use of diverse teaching modes and reinforcement activities; and (14) need-based adjustments to assignments.

Management Diverse Modes

Routines Wait time

Assignment

Speech Pace

Participation Lesson Increments

Language Use

Teacher

Repetitions

Reinforcement

Body language

Synonyms

Paraphrasing L1 use

Feedback Correction

Directions

Figure 11.2 Aspects of teacher-related modification considerations

Discourse, Interaction and Modification-related Factors

173

As a matter of fact, whether in the form of simplification (lexical or morphosyntactic) or elaboration (Yano et al., 1994), L2 teachers may provide different kinds of remedial support to facilitate comprehension of new input in different language skills. By nature, modifying reading input may entail different adjustments than modifying listening input. In a reading class, a teacher may modify a text by simplifying the sentence structure of tenses (for a review on syntactic complexity, see Lu, 2010; Mancilla et al., 2015) or by replacing certain vocabulary with easier and more salient words. Depending on the focus and objectives of the reading lesson, a teacher can also provide additional background information (elaboration) about the topic, the setting or the main characters to reduce the linguistic load and enhance comprehension. In addition, in orally explaining directions to a place (listening input), the teacher could use a slower speech rate, clearly and empathically enunciate key vocabulary and use certain syntactic and cohesion and coherence markers (e.g. first, second) to help the learners better understand (co-construct) the meaning. The teacher could also paraphrase his/her directions or elaborations while also providing constant peerscaffolding support and effective reading strategies and tools (e.g. graphic organizers) throughout classroom discussions. Such scaffolding among the learners, particularly for struggling students, could facilitate comprehension. The kinds of modifications that L2 teachers can make to lessen the comprehension challenges in interactive input, namely during writing and speaking (languaging) activities, may involve both linguistic and behavioral adjustments. To enhance the comprehension of oral input, L2 teachers need to regulate their learners’ interactional patterns and participatory actions while also making constant instantaneous linguistic adjustments. Some of these modifications relate to helping the learners to notice and pay attention (cognitive support) to the targeted forms (e.g. use of stress), whereas others help with maintaining a conversation to scaffold (e.g. conversation strategies) and comprehend new input (Gass & Mackey, 2006). On such occasions, two caveats must be carefully observed to ensure the effectiveness of the provided modifications. First, teachers must know their learners well (motivations, needs, goals, proficiency level, etc.) and provide appropriate lexical and grammatical support. Second, due to the dynamic nature of instantaneous exchanges of linguistic (and nonlinguistic), cultural and semiotic input (languaging), issues of corrective feedback and remedial scaffolding and negotiation of meaning must be handled very meticulously. Research on the role of oral corrective feedback in L2A, and communication strategies and techniques used in L2 classrooms can potentially prove very useful both in meaning and form-focused instruction (Mackey, 2007) because such support helps L2 learners identify mismatches between their interlanguage and new input (Gass & Mackey, 2006). Thus, in line with learner-related factors, a teacher has to allow enough wait time for the learners to process new input while also regulating their interaction and learning

174

Part 3: Comprehensibility-related Factors in L2 Teaching and Assessment

behavior through appropriate use of L1 cultural references, repetitions, paraphrasing, body language, synonyms/antonyms and less obtrusive corrective feedback (e.g. recast). Such dynamic adjustments can be vital in facilitating comprehension because they allow ‘teachers to provide students with helpful information about their language production while focusing on non-linguistic content that engages students cognitively and motivates them to use the target language’ (Lyster & Saito, 2010: 277). Note that depending on the learning goals (e.g. form versus meaning focused) and context of instruction, some forms of feedback may be more effective than others. For example, Lyster and Saito (2010: 291) argued that among the six types of oral feedback (explicit correction, recast, clarification request, metalinguistic feedback, elicitation and repetition), recasts ‘might be especially effective for averting an overemphasis on form at the expense of meaning’. In light of current research, which underscores the role of L2 socialization and the use of particular discourse and conversation strategies in L2A (see Chapters 6 and 7), one could even argue that teacher preparation programs must train teachers more rigorously in the areas of oral communication studies.

Learner-related modification considerations Modification considerations relating to learner variables are multilayered and multifaceted (Figure 11.3). They encompass a wide array of factors pertaining not only to learners’ needs and goals but also to their perceptions •BICS •CALP •ESP •Culture •Academic •Age/gender •Etc.

•Aptitude •Learning styles •Age/gender •Etc.

Needs goals

L2 Self & affective traits

Cognitive traits

Metacognitive traits

•Identity •Positioning •Motivation •Anxiety •Age/gender •Etc.

•Beliefs •Strategies •Age/gender •Etc.

Figure 11.3 Aspects of learner-related modification considerations

Discourse, Interaction and Modification-related Factors

175

of L2 self-concept and affective (meta)cognitive traits (Pawlak, 2012). In other words, to facilitate learners’ comprehension of new input, L2 teachers must be well-prepared to identify challenges due to specific learner-related factors and offer developmentally appropriate modifications. Indeed, when there are noticeable incongruences between learners’ needs and goals and instructional practices, learning outcomes are negatively affected (Richards & Rodgers, 2010). To begin with possible modification considerations in this area, L2 teachers must be able to conduct a comprehensive needs analysis of their students. In so doing, they must be skillful in determining the scope of a needs analysis and psychometrically conducting it. Withstanding some differences related to the nature of the context of learning (SL versus FL) and the program choice (e.g. general versus ESP), typically L2 learners’ needs, goals and expectations involve three major categories identified by TESOL (2010): language, culture and academic needs. All L2 learners need a relatively high proficiency level in BICS while also needing to be competent in CALP. Nonetheless, depending on their age and grade level, especially if they are in a SL context in K-12 schools, their CALP needs may become the focus of classroom instruction because CALP proficiency has been suggested to be highly correlated with academic literacy development and academic achievement, which is another goal for such learners (Cummins, 2000). For adult FL learners who aim to attend graduate school at L2-speaking settings (e.g. English in the UK or the US), a high level of CALP proficiency is also highly critical. Hence, L2 teachers in such settings need to be aware of this and be able to distinguish between BICS and CALP needs and support learners with comprehension difficulties. For example, a 6th-grade English learner’s social integration patterns, whether acculturation, preservation or assimilation (see Chapter 6), can require different modifications to ease off understanding difficulties in a language arts classroom in Canada. In contrast, for adult learners in FL settings, a modification to facilitate a comprehension challenge due to lack of cultural knowledge may take a different form (e.g. comparing aspects of L1 and L2 cultures). The second area of possible modifications pertaining to individual differences comprises learner perceptions about their L2 self-concept and feelings and emotions about the attainment of the target language and culture (Csizér & Magid, 2014). As described in Chapter 9, individual differences have been documented to have a significant impact on L2A (Dörnyei, 2005). Thus, it is vital that L2 teachers know that some learners may be struggling with the comprehension of certain kinds and forms of input due to their affective filter. In fact, as argued by Krashen (1981), learners’ feelings and emotions can be highly powerful in facilitating or debilitating L2 learners’ access to CI opportunities. By identifying a learner’s affective factors, L2 teachers can be preemptive in taking necessary steps (both in and outside the classroom) that can enhance learning outcomes. For example, if a teacher knows that a learner is not participating in classroom discussions

176

Part 3: Comprehensibility-related Factors in L2 Teaching and Assessment

due to his/her negative attitudes toward the L2 culture or because the learner perceives attaining an L2 identity as a threat to his/her L1 identity (Polat & Schallert, 2013), the teacher can design a series of accommodations (e.g. setting arrangements) and special cultural activities (e.g. a trip to a museum). Such accommodating activities could result in macro-level perceptual and behavioral changes. On the other hand, if a student does not understand the classroom materials because of a lack of motivation or refrains from oral presentations due to his/her anxiety (see Chapter 5), the teacher can consider other possible adjustment options in motivating the student. The teacher can have a one-on-one discussion, make changes in classroom discussion formats or redesign the physical environment (Horwitz, 2013). Note that in making such modifications, issues of age and gender must also be taken into consideration. The third possible consideration in facilitating the comprehension of new input in L2 classrooms includes the cognitive variables. Although the field is beyond the times when some cognitive abilities or innate natural tendencies (e.g. aptitude) were considered to be the main determinant of success in L2A, the role of cognition in L2A cannot be ignored (Dörnyei & Skehan, 2003). The fact that L2 learners seem to act differently in noticing, attending to, allocating memory capacity for and making associations among schemata to process, comprehend and store new input requires a close examination of the pedagogical implications of such differences (see Chapter 4). For example, an L2 learner may be facing difficulties in understanding new input due to low levels of sensitivity in cognitive abilities like phonetic coding, grammatical competence and memory capacity. Taking research in this area for granted (e.g. Carroll, 1981, 2002), an L2 teacher could utilize some parts of the Modern Language Aptitude Test (MLAT) to determine if a particular learner is lacking one of these three abilities, which could enable him/her to offer more targeted and refined modifications to enhance student learning. Similarly, in today’s classrooms, which are presumed to be learner centered, the identification of a learner’s cognitive styles and intelligences could also yield critical outcomes in determining and implementing certain instructional modifications (Wong & Nunan, 2011). For instance, a comprehension difficulty could arise when a field-dependent (FD) learner is asked to scan for a specific piece of information, whereas the comprehension of the same input may come rather naturally for a field-independent (FI) learner (see Chapter 5). Likewise, learners with ‘weaker listening abilities’ may need more help from their teachers to process auditory input. Also note that such abilities may vary drastically due to age and gender differences and their possible interactions. This may markedly alter the nature and kind of modifications a teacher can offer. In sum, identifying learners’ cognitive strengths and weaknesses can help classroom teachers not only to diversify their instructional techniques but also to tailor each task and activity to the specific cognitive needs of their learners.

Discourse, Interaction and Modification-related Factors

177

Finally, teachers also need to consider metacognitive variables as potential sources of variance in students’ comprehension in L2 classrooms. In addition to systematically collecting and analyzing data as part of their learner profile identification efforts, teachers also need to understand the pedagogical belief systems their students hold (Horwitz, 2013). Moreover, they need to identify the specific learning and self-reflection strategies their students utilize to learn and evaluate their own progress. Some learners have been reported to be better than others in analyzing their own learning behavior and identifying and selecting more effective learning strategies (Cohen & Macaro, 2007; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990). Indeed, since some strategies are not more or less effective than others for all learners by default, teachers must identify their learners’ strategies using scientifically validated inventories (for further reading, see Oxford, 2011). When a teacher identifies that a learner is constantly using an ineffective strategy, he/she can modify the input or its form and/or its modality to facilitate the adoption of a new strategy that would reduce comprehension challenges. Similarly, a teacher could utilize Horwitz’s (2013) Beliefs about Language Learning Inventory (BALLI) to determine which, if any, of the beliefs about L2 learning might be hindering a student’s learning. In short, knowing learners’ specific pedagogical beliefs could result in specific modifications that would target the debilitating belief systems for change. Note that, just as teacher beliefs can influence their practices, learner beliefs (Horwitz, 2013) and matches between learner and teacher beliefs (Polat, 2009) can also have a notable impact on L2 comprehension and learning.

Setting-related modification considerations Another possible modification area involves macro- (society) and microlevel (classroom) aspects of the setting in which L2 teaching takes place. The first macro-level factors include four major social considerations: SL versus FL context, national policy, socioeconomic status (SES) and resources and established pedagogical practices. As part of the second category, the racial, ethnic, cultural and linguistic fabric of the context (diversity) as well as the real and perceived cultural proximity (see Social Distance Hypothesis in Chapter 6) and linguistic congruence (see Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis in Chapter 4) also need attention to ease off comprehension challenges. The third area of macro-level modifications pertains to the institutional culture, program management, assessment and evaluation and accountability aspects. As described below, these macro-level considerations (Figure 11.4) are inseparably intertwined with each other while also being closely interconnected with the micro-level variables like class size, classroom management, instructional technology, paraprofessional resources and so forth. To begin with the first group of macro-level factors, it seems highly sensible to anticipate that classroom teachers may have to consider different modification options to facilitate the comprehension of new input in SL versus

178

Part 3: Comprehensibility-related Factors in L2 Teaching and Assessment

FL contexts. Some of these differences may be related to teacher capacity and preparation or differences in learners’ need and goals, while others may be due to the opportunities of access to CI. For example, in FL settings, learners are overwhelmingly dependent on the CI they receive through classroom instruction. In many FL contexts around the globe, teachers are predominantly non-native speakers of the L2 (e.g. in the case of English) that they teach. Hence, when they negotiate meaning with their students to scaffold comprehension of new input, they may feel more competent or secure with some forms or types of input than others. For example, if they lack high-level oral proficiency in the L2 or feel insecure about the use of idiomatic expressions or colloquialisms or metaphors in classroom activities, their willingness to offer appropriate support to facilitate the comprehension of new input may be noticeably low. In addition, the fact that other students in the classroom are also non-native speakers also diminishes the chances of receiving help in the form of peer scaffolding from classmates, a highly readily available resource in SL classrooms (Richards & Rodgers, 2010). The second set of macro-level factors that requires modifications encompass national policy, SES, educational resources and common pedagogical practices in the setting (Figure 11.4). The nature and type of modifications an L2 teacher can offer may also depend on the national policy where the L2 is being taught. For instance, in some countries, the teaching and learning of L2s is highly valued and enforced at rather early ages (e.g. teaching of L2s in some European countries), whereas in other countries it is either considered less valuable or offered at middle- or high-school level when L2A is relatively more difficult (e.g. teaching of L2s in the US) (Richards, 2007). As a result, teachers need to build different competencies and skills to make appropriate adjustments in their instructional practices to make new input more comprehensible for L2 learners at different age groups. Furthermore, in some settings, certain outdated learning theories (e.g. behaviorism) and instructional methods (e.g. audiolingual method) can be enforced through the use of certain instructional materials, which may require different modifications to ensure comprehension. In fact, sometimes certain instructional materials replace national policy and instructional practices due to a lack of better and newer resources. For example, in countries with low SES and limited educational resources (e.g. some of the former Soviet republics), grammar and reading-based textbooks may dominate the L2 teaching industry, and in such cases students may be asked to engage in many drill-to-kill exercises (audiolingual practices) and memorization (behaviorism) activities (Polat, 2009). In brief, the nature and type of modifications an L2 teacher can offer also depend on the availability of educational resources and common educational philosophies in the L2 setting. The third area of modification considerations in this category comprises the structure of ethnolinguistic diversity (racial, ethnic and multiculturalism)

Discourse, Interaction and Modification-related Factors

Macrolevel

• SL/FL • National policy • SES and resources • Common pedagogical practices • Ethno-linguistic structure • Sociocultural proximity • Institutional culture • Program management • Assessment and accountability

Microlevel

• Risk-free environment • Class size • Physical comfort • Classroom management • Buddy system • Classroom technology • Personal digital resources • L1 resources • Paraprofessional resources

179

Figure 11.4 Aspects of setting-related modification considerations

of the setting and the level of cultural and linguistic proximity between the L1 and L2 communities. Some societies, particularly those of multicultural countries that are formed by large immigrant populations, are highly diverse with regard to the representation of different racial and ethnic minorities (e.g. Australia, the US). In L2 classrooms in such environments, the tensions and benefits of linguistic and cultural diversity, as well as their implications for the comprehension and acquisition of new input, must be carefully considered. In other words, even when all learners in a classroom are presumed to seek the same learning goals, how they approach the learning of an L2, their socialization and acculturation patterns and their feelings and utilization of cognitive and metacognitive resources inevitably generate different comprehension challenges. These inevitably require different approaches and techniques in modifications, forms and practices. In such diverse ecologies, teachers must demonstrate high levels of cross-cultural competence and knowledge about the role of socio-psychological factors in L2A. They should particularly consider how issues of subordination and assimilation, degrees of enclosure and cohesion and congruence between L1 and L2 communities may affect classroom learning (see Chapter 6). For example, in a K-12 US school where an American-born bilingual Chinese child is learning Spanish with her monolingual English-speaking peers, sources of comprehension challenges and possible modifications may vary drastically. Lastly in this category are the institution-, program- and accountabilityrelated factors that may generate different comprehension challenges.

180

Part 3: Comprehensibility-related Factors in L2 Teaching and Assessment

Variation in institutional structure and culture is an important issue in the L2 industry because the teaching of L2s can take place in public or private schools, with grade and age levels varying from pre-kindergarten to high school and adult language institutes that only focus on ESP. Thus, one could assume that all of these institutions may have different goals (e.g. profit) and systems of administration, power relations, decision-making mechanisms and so forth. In a school where teachers have little or no power over the curriculum or other instructional resources (McGrath, 2002), using teacher-made materials as a form of modification or providing special equipment for a learner with reading difficulty (or disability) to facilitate comprehension may not even be possible. With such variance also come differences in expectations and practices about how the assessment and evaluation of L2 proficiency and achievement is conducted and what the accountability outcomes are for the teachers. These are indispensable areas of consideration in determining instructional modifications possibilities. Furthermore, in cases when an L2 is taught in a small program, often as a part of a big institution (e.g. English preparatory schools in some Turkish universities), program administration and resources, teacher recruitment and quality expectations may also noticeably vary. This in turn affects the affordances teachers can utilize to enhance comprehension. In addition, in some SL contexts, learners may be taught their L2 in bilingual or immersion programs that seek the dual purpose of teaching both the L2 and content areas (e.g. science) simultaneously (Crawford, 2004). In such situations, teachers need a whole different set of professional skills and training to provide appropriate modifications to facilitate comprehension. The micro-level modifications include three main areas: the nature of the physical environment, issues of classroom management and the utilization of different instructional resources. Issues of physical environment may include the creation and maintenance of a risk-free learning ecology, class size and physical comfort. The second group of setting-related factors the L2 teachers must consider in trying to facilitate the comprehension of new input pertains to how teachers manage their classroom and regulate behavioral problems. As demonstrated in Figure 11.4, the last group of factors in this category concern matters related to classroom technology, personal digital resources, L1 resources and paraprofessional aids for learners with special needs. Note that as teachers make certain alterations in their instructional practices to enhance L2 learning, they function within the parameters, systems and mechanisms of the macro-level factors because classroom instruction cannot be separated from the broader sociocultural conditions in which it is situated (see Chapter 6). To ensure comprehension of new input, L2 teachers must be highly cognizant of alterations they can make in the classroom environment. This can help make the learning experience less anxiety provoking and risk free for all learners (Horwitz, 2010). Some of these changes, which may include

Discourse, Interaction and Modification-related Factors

181

access to resources, sitting arrangements and physical comfort, depend on class size. In L2 classrooms, particularly in linguistically, culturally and specially (in terms of disabilities, gifts and talent) diverse ones, how the resources are physically structured can make a significant difference on learning outcomes. For example, for learners with special needs, having access to a wheelchair or being able to maneuver comfortably within the classroom space can greatly affect their participation in classroom activities. In addition, in racially and ethnically heterogeneous classrooms, sitting arrangements can become a source of anxiety and discomfort when possible macro-level conflicts exist between the language communities to which the students belong. Similarly, in such classrooms, teachers must make sure that students are not ridiculed due to their unique clothing or culturally bound interaction patterns, or even accent and pronunciation features that implicitly index their many identification patterns. Indeed, it is commonly known that comprehension and learning gains are greatly reduced in anxiety-filled and risky learning ecologies (Horwitz, 2013). Finally, note that the possible modifications a teacher can make in a classroom also depend on the class size, which can also impact the nature of the negotiation of meaning and comprehension. The second group of setting-related factors to consider in facilitating the comprehension of new input pertains to how teachers manage their classrooms. Classroom management may involve vastly different things depending on the learner profile, the setting (FL versus SL) and the nature and goal of the program. Indeed, facilitating comprehension of new input involves different modifications in general versus ESP, or pull-out versus immersion, or online/cyber versus face-to-face classrooms. Nevertheless, certain classroom management variables and preventative strategies have been suggested to play significant roles in ensuring better learning gains and higher levels of learning (see Bloom et al., 1956). How a teacher delegates roles and power to himself/herself and different student groups (e.g. on the basis of gender, race and ethnicity) and how he/she establishes his/her rules (e.g. concerning tardiness) to regulate classroom behavior and expectations can influence learning. Similarly, the commensurate rewards and punishments and other disciplinary actions that he/she takes can also have a significant impact on student learning, possibly more so for some learners (e.g. minorities from marginalized communities) than others. For example, in the case of inclusion, a sheltered immersion English learning program (Echevarria et al., 2014) where non-native-speaking children are pushed in with their native-speaking peers, how different student groups are encouraged to participate in activities, where they sit and how they interact with each other (e.g. bullying, verbal abuse) can all influence the comprehension and acquisition of new input. Finally, other micro-level modifications that teachers can make to facilitate the comprehension of L2 input depend on the availability of

182

Part 3: Comprehensibility-related Factors in L2 Teaching and Assessment

different kinds of classroom technology, students’ digital tools and aids, L1 materials and paraprofessional resources for learners with special needs. While cyber ecologies are still not the main platforms for L2 teaching, currently many FL or SL classrooms utilize hybrid teaching methodologies or incorporate different technological resources to aid classroom teaching. Undoubtedly, L2 teachers must practice with serious consideration of research into computer-assisted language learning (CALL) and different ways that L2 learners regulate their motivational behavior and participatory actions (e.g. Perez, 2003; Polat et al., 2013) in the context of different technological affordances (Satar & Ozdener, 2008). Hence, teachers must identify relevant and developmentally appropriate modifications based on their classroom technology and the digital tools and aids to which their students have access. For example, if there is an internet-aided smartboard in the classroom, the teacher can use hypermedia to help struggling readers or listeners by clicking on external links to view relevant pictures or videos that would help contextualize the input or provide background knowledge. If the learners have access to an iPad, modifications could be in the form of specialized apps based on each student’s individual profile (needs, proficiency/grade level, etc.). In addition, in line with the program goals and learner needs, teachers could systematically allow their students to use L1 materials under appropriate circumstances. Finally, for learners with special needs, in light of their individualized education plan (IEP), the teachers could collaborate with the special education teacher or the paraprofessional to make appropriate modifications to make new input comprehensible.

Chapter Summary This chapter explores two broad sets of instructional modification factors that contribute to the successful teaching and learning of new input in L2 classrooms. The first part, interaction and discourse-related factors, sheds light on possible modification considerations pertaining to the role of cooperative learning and scaffolding, while the second part deliberates on how adjustments in aspects of discourse and pragmatics may serve the successful processing and acquisition of new input. Here, the topics are explicated from the perspective of possible changes that teachers can make in maneuvering certain learner characteristics (e.g. motivation, anxiety) and sociocultural factors and processes related to mediated dialog (e.g. group activities), scaffolding (e.g. positive interdependence) and student (e.g. reporter) and teacher participatory roles and interactions. Also included in this part are topics about suggestions pertaining to positionality, identity, authenticity and cross-cultural pragmatics (e.g. conversation strategies) to facilitate the comprehension of oral and written input. The modification-related factors and CI part includes a discussion on an array of subjects regarding instructional adaptations such as curriculum and instructional materials and teacher, learner

Discourse, Interaction and Modification-related Factors

183

and setting-related modifications. The curriculum-related modifications (Figure 11.1) include factors like particularities of the setting and culture, skill/ content focus, alignment with national standards, learning goals and needs, the scope and sequence and so forth. Teacher-related modifications (Figure 11.2) consist of daily routines, sitting arrangements, wait time, speech rate, corrective feedback and teaching modes. Learner-related ones (Figure 11.3) comprise four aspects of modification considerations relating to needs and goals; perceptions of L2 self-concept; and affective, cognitive and metacognitive traits. The setting-related considerations (Figure 11.4) are particularly highlighted in terms of macro- and micro-level modifications that can facilitate the comprehension of new input.

12 Modifications in Assessmentrelated Factors and CI

The content covered in this chapter includes five main topics as they relate to CI in L2 assessment: (1) purposes of assessment (formative/summative), (2) approaches to L2 testing (e.g. norm-referenced), (3) kinds of tests (e.g. proficiency) and accommodated assessment of (4) receptive (reading and listening) and (5) productive skills (writing and speaking). First, I discuss the role of CI in formative versus summative assessment approaches and tools. I briefly describe how teachers can use outcomes of formative and summative assessment to modify their instructional practices and/or accurately assess student learning outcomes in their classrooms. Second, using examples, I outline CI’s potential connections with different L2 testing approaches (integrative versus discrete; direct versus indirect; norm referenced versus criterion referenced; and authentic, dynamic and formal and informal assessment). After describing how proficiency (e.g. the Test of English as a Foreign Language [TOEFL]), placement, achievement (e.g. a midterm) and diagnostics tests involve different forms of input and comprehension challenges, I highlight some essential accommodation areas (Figure 12.1) to lessen comprehension difficulties in the testing of receptive (reading, listening) and productive (speaking, writing) skills.

Purposes of Assessment and CI Research on L2 assessment and evaluation is dispositive about the need for careful consideration of certain mechanics and processes. The congruence between the program and curriculum goals, instructional practices and assessment efforts is critical to ensure high-quality learning outcomes. Equally as critical are the kinds of testing instruments and their levels of accuracy in adequately meeting the specific purposes of assessment. Typically, test instruments are expected to measure what they are presumed to measure (validity) at adequate levels of consistency over time and across different settings and individuals (reliability) to be considered accurate. In addition, because of the well-known notion of backwash effect – the effect of tests and testing on different aspects of learning and teaching practices and learner behaviors – testing is also expected to positively inform L2 pedagogy (Hughes, 2003). Thus, a serious consideration of the relevant aspects of L2 assessment and evaluation is warranted both in terms of ascertaining 184

Modifications in Assessment-related Factors and CI • Text •Topic •Genre •Form •Authenticity •Level •Length •Time

• Operations •Skimming •Scanning •Bottom-up •Top-down

Listen/read & Speak/write

Listen/read & Speak/write

Listen/read & Speak/write

Listen/read & Speak/write

185

• Task •Extensive •Intensive •Academic •General •Recognition •Responsive

• Skills •Phonological •Lexical •Grammar •Cultural •Interactional

Figure 12.1 Possible accommodation considerations for the assessment of L2 skills

the successful comprehension and acquisition of L2 input (backwash effect) and the accurate measurement of learners’ knowledge, skills and dispositions. To ensure these two goals in L2 education, issues of input and comprehension and how CI relates to these mechanisms and processes also need exploration.

Formative assessment and CI Formative assessment involves classroom tests that aim to measure student learning as part of a specific curriculum. Such assessment procedures are typically used to identify weaknesses in learning outcomes in particular areas of L2 knowledge and skills, leveraging subsequent evaluations of the effectiveness of the curriculum, instructional methods and materials and so forth. Consistent with clearly articulated goals, formative assessment can be formal or informal, or highly broad and comprehensive versus skill or activity based (Hughes, 2003). For example, the testing office of an EFL/ESL education program may mandate periodical weekly and monthly quizzes to track students’ progress in different language skills. The office can then use the test results to suggest possible changes in the curriculum to improve student learning in certain areas, or they can request teacher training if student learning outcomes can be directly traced to the performance of specific teachers in the program. On the other hand, a teacher ’s oral corrective feedback in an informal conversation or an error correction on a writing assignment can also be considered a formative assessment, since they are presumed to aid the comprehension of new input. In essence, such tests are conducted to identify how, why and when some L2 learners seem to be challenged by the comprehension and acquisition of certain input.

186

Part 3: Comprehensibility-related Factors in L2 Teaching and Assessment

In order for the formative assessment procedures and results to be accurate and useful in positively informing future learning behavior and teaching practices, the nature, form and modality as well as the linguistic, cultural and stylistic codes of the input used in these tests need careful examination. The ultimate goal of a formative test is to facilitate learning, not to make a judgment about a learner ’s proficiency or competency. Thus, the kind of input as well as its presentation in the test must be user friendly and anxiety free, promoting a learner ’s motivation and sense of autonomy (Herrera et al., 2007). Hence, such assessment is typically expected to include more informal and casual forms of tests that involve input that may pose fewer comprehension challenges for L2 learners (Brown & Abeywickrama, 2010). The fact that teachers have more power and autonomy over such classroom tests also helps with adjusting the varying levels of lexical and syntactic complexity and readability of the input in these tests. In addition, supporting students’ understanding of new input and languaging experiences in such tests may also be less challenging than it is in, for example, formal summative tests due to a teacher’s knowledge of students’ individualized linguistic and cultural needs. In other words, since teachers are familiar with their learners and their skills and abilities, they can anticipate potential comprehension difficulties, which allows them to be preemptive and control for culturally inappropriate practices and negative influences of feelings and emotions commonly associated with test anxiety (Horwitz, 2013). Note that information about an individual student’s native language and cultural background as well as his/her broader sociocultural communities also allows a teacher to support a student’s comprehension of cultural and semiotic input more effectively. For instance, unlike in formal summative tests, when a SL teacher in a K-12 school in the US initiates extended informal conversations in the playground with her students, she has more control over the input and the scaffolding and corrective feedback to aid comprehension. Such an informal test can possibly elicit more accurate and natural language samples to identify weaknesses in the learners’ language skills (McNamara et al., 2002).

Summative assessment and CI Summative assessment includes tests that aim to measure if a group of learners has attained the knowledge and skills after undergoing an instructional program. Although the results of such tests can also be used for program improvement purposes (Brown & Abeywickrama, 2010), the ultimate goal of summative assessment is to summarize the outcomes of classroom learning. In L2 education programs, such measurement tools can include a final test to determine how well a student has mastered certain knowledge and skills in a particular course at the end of the semester. For

Modifications in Assessment-related Factors and CI

187

example, in an English preparatory program that aims to prepare Turkish students to become ready to undertake their undergraduate coursework through the medium of English, a summative test may involve an endof-year test to decide whether or not the students have attained the targeted language skills. Thus, depending on the specifics of the purpose of assessment, the results of summative tests can be of rather high importance (high stake). They can involve multiple sections, comprising basic linguistic and cultural input, general academic input (cognitive academic language proficiency [CALP]), highly specialized lexical resources (e.g. economics register) and conventions of academic communication (e.g. academic writing or presentation skills). Current accountability attempts to connect continuous assessment of learning outcomes to L2 teacher readiness and program effectiveness have attached an even more critical role to summative assessment (Ross, 2005). When developing or administering such tests, L2 teachers should therefore be more cautious about the nature (form and modality) of input, especially its lexical and morphosyntactic components and cultural and stylistic elements. Depending on who the testers are and what the test specifications entail, comprehension challenges and possible reasons behind them may vary. For example, it may be easier to control a unit of the input’s levels of complexity and decrease possibilities of comprehension challenges if the test involves knowledge and skills covered in a semester (end-of-semester test) versus content taught in a whole year (program exit test). Often, due to negative backwash effects emanating from the focus of certain classroom practices (e.g. heavy grammar teaching), students may develop debilitating pedagogical beliefs and devote most of their time and attention to studying certain language skills, which may result in additional hardships in processing new input in some language skills. In addition, if the test is developed by teachers, who presumably know their students better than testing-office personnel, more appropriate input can be used with possible modifications. For example, most L2 educators can attest to the fact that a planned curriculum does not always translate exactly into the implemented curriculum because learners progress at different paces. Hence, when the input of summative assessment is based on the planned curriculum, which may not have been covered entirely in the classroom or lacked focus on certain kinds or forms of input considered essential for the learners (e.g. technical vocabulary), students may encounter additional difficulty understanding the unfamiliar lexical and grammatical units. Note that, compared to formative assessment, the fact that the results of summative assessment involve high stakes, such tests can lead to greater levels of performance anxiety and negative backwash effect (Hughes, 2003).

188

Part 3: Comprehensibility-related Factors in L2 Teaching and Assessment

Approaches to L2 Testing and CI Integrative versus discrete-point tests Depending on the purpose of assessment, an L2 test can involve an integrative or discrete-point approach to the measurement of L2 skills. The name ‘integrative’ is self-explanatory enough to imply that this approach requires the use of multiple L2 competencies and skills for successful completion of the assessment task (e.g. a cloze test). On the other hand, a test of a single language skill (e.g. grammar) or a distinct aspect of an L2 skill (e.g. the present perfect tense) is considered to be discrete point (e.g. sentence completion tasks). Two caveats about how these two approaches pertain to CI need explanation. First, such a distinction in L2 testing is a developmental outcome of research in several related fields, including educational psychology, linguistics and SLA; that is, a global shift toward the adoption of a holistic and integrative view of L2 competence (communicative competence) occurred as socio-cognitive and socio-constructivist views of learning gained prominence over behaviorist theories. It progressed even further as interactionist, sociocultural and ecological views of SLA became more dominant (Part 2). Nevertheless, this does not, by any means, imply that discrete-point tasks have become obsolete or irrelevant. Indeed, classroom teachers can still use them to diagnose weaknesses in a particular aspect of certain skills (formative) and refocus their instruction to help learners improve in these areas. Second, based on the nature and modalities of the input and the socio-cognitive skills required to process the input in these two approaches, it is fair to assume that tests that utilize integrative tasks may inherently be more contextualized and cognitively demanding than tasks that measure a discrete element. One conceptual framework that can help us understand the role of CI in these assessment tasks better is Cummins’s quadrants. As Cummins (2000) argues, a critical factor that can influence the comprehension of targeted input on a test pertains to the nature of the assessment task. This is often referred to as task difficulty. According to Cummins (1981), L2 learners may find a task to be more or less difficult depending on how much demand the task enforces on cognitive resources and capacities. Equally as critical is whether or not the comprehension of the task is aided by supplemental affordances. Note that Cummins attributes successful processing to cognitive load, which is tied to the nature of input. He argues that basic interpersonal communications skill (BICS) is less cognitively demanding than CALP. He also asserts that ‘context embedded’ language samples are easier to process than ‘context reduced’ ones, because when the processibility of new input is aided via context clues, comprehension becomes easier. In light of Cummins’ (1981) illustration of these notions in the quadrants along a vertical (level of cognitive demand) and a horizontal

Modifications in Assessment-related Factors and CI

189

(level of contextual support) continuum, one could argue that the issues of CI in L2 assessment also necessitate attention beyond just the linguistic components of input. Based on this framework, to be able to help L2 learners with possible comprehension challenges in a language test, L2 teachers must ascertain that the comprehension of a targeted L2 input is enhanced by the integrative utilization of auditory and visual aids when cognitive demand is too high. This way, the assessment of input at a higher proficiency level can still be made possible via appropriate accommodations (Figure 12.1). For example, depending on the purpose of the test and the level of the targeted input in an authentic listening test, learners could be allowed to make notes so that they would not have to allocate too much immediate memory capacity. They could also follow the content of the listening task through a graphic organizer, which would provide metacognitive support to process information more efficiently by integrating listening and writing skills. As a matter of fact, when its context is noticeably reduced and L2 elements and skills are disintegrated (discrete-point tests), even an i-level (versus i+1, Krashen 1987) input could be hard to process. As has been the case with major standardized proficiency tests like TOEFL or the International English Language Testing System (IELTS), English learners are often required to process reading input under highly restricted time conditions, whereas in real life, such reading rarely occurs. Until recently, while taking these proficiency tests, English learners were neither allowed to make notes during a listening task, nor were they provided with any contextual clues or background on the content of the test task. Following Cummins’ (1981) framework, when measuring learners’ competency of CALP input and skills, L2 teachers or test developers could reduce potential comprehension struggles by providing contextual cues and supplementary aids using different modalities (Quadrant B) while still keeping the cognitive demand high. In contrast, L2 learners could be left facing serious comprehension difficulties even when less cognitively demanding BICS input is tested if the context is reduced to only the discrete linguistic elements (Quadrant C). In short, L2 teachers must bear in mind that, through integrative tasks, L2 input can be adjusted both in terms of contextual support and cognitive demand to lessen possible comprehension challenges without compromising the purposes of a test or taking away from its rigor.

Direct versus indirect tests Although some L2 skills allow for direct testing, others have to be measured indirectly. In direct testing, learners are asked to perform a skill directly without having to utilize any other skills or engage in any other intermediary tasks or processes. Naturally, productive skills are tested directly and receptive skills are tested indirectly (Hughes, 2003). For example, to measure how well a student writes or speaks in the L2, we can get the

190

Part 3: Comprehensibility-related Factors in L2 Teaching and Assessment

student to write or speak. In contrast, in measuring a student’s reading or listening comprehension, we must get the student to demonstrate his/her ability through a productive skill, which is an indirect way of assessment. For instance, students may be asked to orally explain to the teacher what they think a reading passage is about. In such cases, the nature and form of the intermediary task can greatly influence the validity and reliability (accuracy) of the test results. This implies that the student may have understood the reading input correctly but has failed to demonstrate his/her knowledge well enough due to the interference of his/her oral skills. In some cases, even certain elements of productive skills are tested indirectly. For example, a commonly used task (e.g. audiolingual method) to measure aspects of speaking ability is when learners are asked to fill in a hypothetical dialog. It seems that the nature of input and how L2 learners have to process it would be quite different under direct versus indirect conditions. In indirect tasks, students have to undertake the additional transaction of languaging (output) in addition to having to allocate their primary cognitive and metacognitive resources to the processing of input (reading or listening). Thus, considering task complexity, (meta)cognitive demands and the mechanics and processes involved in the comprehension of new input, indirect assessment may be more laborious. This may be even more pertinent in the case of L2 learners who are at lower proficiency levels. At lower proficiency levels, when learners heavily depend on focal attention and declarative (versus procedural) and explicit (versus implicit) knowledge, with highly controlled processing skills (limited automaticity) (see Chapters 2 and 4), they may encounter more comprehension challenges in the assessment of receptive skills. It is then important to consider the fact that, compared to direct tests, in indirect tasks learners not only face comprehension challenges to connect new input to the existing networks of nodes or restructure their existing schema, but they also have to deal with factors and processes of L2 production, including affective (e.g. anxiety) and sociocultural ones (e.g. interaction patterns) (Gass & Mackey, 2012). In contrast, direct tests may impose fewer processibility and comprehension difficulties because the measurement of productive skills has been characterized to be more straightforward, realistic and authentic (Hughes, 2003). For example, when measuring writing skills, we have a higher likelihood of accurately identifying a student’s weaknesses provided that the subskills that underlie the targeted writing ability are correctly identified and included in the test (construct validity). Yet, we can never be sure that a measurement score we have attributed to a learner’s listening ability is not mitigated by his/her speaking or writing ability. In addition, when learners are provided with adequate numbers of tasks and conditions, direct testing can expose L2 learners to more real-life and authentic uses of linguistic and cultural input. Needless to state, learners have higher chances of more authentically communicating their L2 self when the assessment

Modifications in Assessment-related Factors and CI

191

task involves exactly what they would do with the targeted input in real life. Undoubtedly, such tests would presumably result in more positive backwash effect as well.

Norm-referenced versus criterion-referenced tests A norm-referenced test aims to measure how competent a student is in certain language skills by comparing his/her performance to the performance of other students who have taken the same test. In other words, there are a set of predetermined performance benchmarks (norms) that include an overall proficiency level and skill-based sublevels that are defined by proficiency descriptors (e.g. beginning, intermediate), and each student competes with the other test takers for a position (rank order) that is closer to the upper levels of the norm. Whether or not a student has met the norm is established by the calculation of test takers’ mean scores, standard deviations and percentile ranks. Well-known standardized tests that measure L2 proficiency (e.g. TOEFL and IELTS) are norm referenced (Brown & Abeywickrama, 2010). For example, currently many Englishmedium universities require a minimum score of 79 internet-based (IBT) TOEFL or a 6.5 IELTS score for admission into a master’s degree program. It is assumed that the students who have attained a minimum score (the norm) will be able to handle the academic tasks of the graduate school in English (predictive validity). Since such tests are developed for a vaguely defined audience with highly broad goals, the input that is commonly measured is grossly comprehensive and elusive (Hughes, 2003). Thus, comprehension challenges of many different forms and sources should be expected. Indeed, such tests also report (a subscore) how well a student has done in each language skill, and some universities require a minimum subscore in addition to the overall score. For example, while the TOEFL official report sheet also includes a brief description of what the overall score and the subscores mean using proficiency descriptors, these descriptions are far from adequately explaining what general and academic tasks a test taker who has obtained a certain score can and cannot perform in English. In contrast, using clearly explicated performance evaluation indicators, criterion-referenced tests aim to identify what precisely a student can and cannot do in different L2 skills. Such tests, which are typically developed and administered either by specialized institutional offices (testing office) or classroom teachers and aligned with specific course and lesson content (input) and objectives, are based on the curriculum goals. Thus, a student can obtain a low or a high score on a test regardless of how well or poorly the other students might have done. Rather than focusing on competitionoriented performance and summative values, the results of such tests can be formative, potentially providing feedback for individual students to allocate additional time and resources to acquire certain types of input

192

Part 3: Comprehensibility-related Factors in L2 Teaching and Assessment

and improve certain skills. What makes this approach different from the norm-referenced one is not the use of a set of norms or criteria but rather a meticulous examination of learners’ needs, a high level of congruence between the curriculum goals and the measurable learning outcomes (objectives) and the inclusion of specific L2 input and skills. The content and implementation of such tests may vary by the nature of the setting. In SL contexts, as mandated by the use of proficiencyoriented and standards-based instruction (Horwitz, 2013), criterionbased assessment is highly preferred because through proficiency guidelines (e.g. American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages [ACTFL] guidelines, 2012) or can-do descriptors (e.g. WIDA, 2014), the content of the test (input) is directly aligned with the linguistic, cultural and academic knowledge and skills the students must attain. As a matter of fact, since the test developers have more knowledge about the learners (their needs, proficiency levels, etc.) and control over the assessment tools and processes, compared to norm-referenced assessment, fewer comprehension difficulties may occur. For example, as argued by Hughes (2003), in an English preparatory school (EFL setting), the criteria can be directly based on the English knowledge and skills that the students will need when they start receiving their college education via the medium of English.

CI and authenticity, dynamism and formality in L2 tests The use of dynamic assessment in L2 education is grounded in Vygotsky’s socio-constructivist theory (1978), which highlights the dialogic nature of the negotiation of meaning between the less (students) and more knowledgeable others (students or teacher) within the zone of proximal development. Poehner (2007: 324) argues that dynamic assessment aims to measure L2 skills and abilities ‘through dialogic collaboration between learners and assessor–teachers, or mediators’. In such an approach, a learner’s comprehension of new input and its simultaneous assessment are synchronously mediated in the process of assessment. In a sense, the assessment task has a dual purpose. More specifically, the learning and assessment of new input occur collectively and concurrently because they are inseparably interconnected. Indeed, in line with the chaos (Larsen-Freeman, 1997) and dynamic systems (de Bot et al., 2007) theories as well as ecological (van Lier, 2000) views of L2A, it seems pretty straightforward that the input in such tests would be highly dynamic, fluid, unpredictable, chaotic and self-organizing, posing insurmountable numbers of comprehension challenges triggered by the interaction of numerous factors. Metaphorically speaking, if a traditional assessment system represented a photograph, dynamic assessment would stand for a video or a motion picture. Hence, classroom teachers who want to conduct dynamic assessment may need additional professional training to be able

Modifications in Assessment-related Factors and CI

193

to successfully navigate highly variable and authentic uses of language while remaining as objective as possible to simultaneously measure and document learners’ L2 skills. Although the idea of dynamic assessment seems highly interesting and desirable, it seems almost impossible to determine what the roles of the examiner and the examinee are, and how and when the goals of learning and testing become distinguishable or complementary to each other in the processes of negotiation of meaning and assessment. Using the picture metaphor, it seems like in these types of tasks, the examiner is asked to take on a movie director role compared to an examiner who is just a photographer in traditional testing. From the perspective of dynamic systems theory (de Bot et al., 2007) it seems like a mission impossible to charge an examiner to accurately capture specific L2 knowledge and skills in the processes of semiosis (Peirce, 1998) or languaging (Swain, 2000). This is mainly because in such cases many variables, codes, mechanisms, and systems and subsystems and their complex and dynamic properties operate in the state of perpetual change and constant flux, resulting in L2 production neither the content nor the direction of which may be possible to forestall. It certainly seems like trying to make a motion picture with two specific goals (teaching acting while shooting a movie at the same time) in a highly complex setting with a semistructured movie script. Nevertheless, in line with specific goals of assessment, provided that the examiner is well trained, the instructional and assessment goals are welldefined and the learners are knowledgeable about pertinent participatory strategies, such hardships could be somewhat moderated by appropriate scaffolding activities. In L2 pedagogy, authentic assessment involves the use of meaningful activities that are directly pertinent to what the learners would do in real life. Among others, such tests may include portfolios, guided interviews, task-based inquiries, dialog journals, audience-specific exchanges and so forth (Herrera et al., 2007). While issues of design, task effectiveness and ecological validity (similarity to real life) can always impact the quality of a test, one could assume that L2 learners face relatively fewer comprehension challenges in authentic tasks because they can relate to the task, its content and the skills to communicate. One way of authentically assessing L2 knowledge and skills involves the use of portfolios (Delett et al., 2001). L2 teachers can use portfolios to measure students’ interlanguage progress while also offering suggestions (formative) for the improvement of learner’s specific weaknesses. Portfolios allow for the collection of longitudinal, comprehensive and authentic input, which may potentially offer a more representative picture of a learner’s communicative competence. Hence, evidence to identify comprehension struggles may be stronger since such documents include multiple data points that are produced under conventional classroom conditions or other settings that are free of possible

194

Part 3: Comprehensibility-related Factors in L2 Teaching and Assessment

influences like performance anxiety. Note that to ensure authenticity and avoid potential biases, the inclusion of student samples in their portfolios must be based on a set of criteria, preferably purposeful random selection (representative work). The last subject matter explicated here involves the issue of formality as it relates to CI in L2 assessment. The generative nature of language allows people to express themselves in incalculably different ways (Bell, 1997). As described in Chapter 1, in addition to linguistic and cultural codes, another constituting element of input is style. A frequently studied aspect of style is formality, which is a matter of situation or audience rather than an inherent quality of input. A more formal input is characterized by the meticulous use of language that is considered appropriate for communication with a particular audience in a situation that is defined as formal. Typically, considerations that govern the appropriate use of formal input include choices at the phonological, lexical and syntactic levels (Richards et al., 1992). While it may be impractical or hard to categorize a unit of L2 input as formal or informal by default, attributing to it levels of formality (or informality) is quite common in the field. Depending on the language assessment task, context and intended audience, L2 learners may have to process unexpectedly different stylistic variants, forms and modalities, which inevitably increases the number of comprehension challenges. Compared to informal language, formal input is considered to be more restricted in scope and pragmatics due to higher levels of predictability in the expected use of specific lexical and morphosyntactic forms and modalities in a situation. This may decrease the possibilities of comprehension difficulties or misinterpretation provided that the interlocutors are familiar with the context of situation. Nevertheless, as argued by Heylighen (1991), formal input is more static and context dependent than informal speech, which is more flexible and shifts rapidly in meaning as context changes. Hence, when information about the context of situation is lacking (or mostly decontextualized) for a unit of formal input on a test, learners face greater comprehension hardships.

Kinds of Tests and CI Proficiency tests L2 tests are classified on grounds of their intended purposes. Thus, just like the test purpose determines the focus of skills, the scope of content, the testing instruments, the assessment mechanics (e.g. time), the environment and test administration processes, the kinds and modalities of the target input and its comprehension also vary by the assessment goals. Proficiency tests, which are typically summative, norm referenced and standardized, aim to determine if a learner has an adequate level of general L2 proficiency.

Modifications in Assessment-related Factors and CI

195

These high-stakes tests are prevalently used by educational institutions around the globe to decide if a non-native speaker is ready to work in the L2 community or to receive undergraduate or graduate education with nativespeaker peers (Leclercq et al., 2014). Hence, the scope of the test is very broad. The two most commonly used L2 proficiency tests are TOEFL and IELTS, both of which comprise reading, listening, speaking and writing skills. For each candidate, both of these tests provide an overall proficiency score and four skill-based subscores. While such tests mainly target general L2 abilities, the test takers are sometimes given the choice to select general versus academic tasks that require the use or production of input with highly different processing requirements. A person who selects the academic version of the writing test on the IELTS may encounter different comprehension challenges than someone who has selected general writing. Indeed, the tasks to be completed, the lexical resources to be used, the scope and range of the morphosyntactic structures to be produced and the nature of coherence and cohesion vary greatly by such a decision. Compared to an academic task (e.g. interpreting a bar graph with many data points), a general writing one may involve the comprehension of a more straightforward writing prompt (a letter to a congressman) and the completion of a task that is less complicated in terms of the specificity of the content and the CALP register, expected writing style (e.g. formality) and so on. Furthermore, some of the assessment procedures used as part of these tests can also influence issues of comprehension. For example, on the TOEFL test, speaking ability is measured through a combination of a computer-mediated task and the rating of the recorded speech sample by a human examiner. In contrast, the speaking portion of an IELTS test involves a face-to-face conversation with a certified examiner who records the student’s performance instantaneously. The speaking section of this test takes approximately 15 minutes, with 5 minutes devoted to the first task, which leads to the second one, which builds the background for the final task. As the learner is prompted toward the second and then the third tasks, the level of L2 use (skills and abilities and demands of language complexity) is expected to gradually increase. As a result, the possible comprehension difficulties an IELTS examinee may encounter will be vastly different from those of a TOEFL examinee, due to the nature of input (general/academic), the task requirements, the processing support systems (machine versus people) and processes and the cognitive and social demands of languaging.

Placement tests One trait of a successful L2 program is providing instruction that is developmentally appropriate for a specific group of learners. Placement tests aim to do just this; namely, to ensure that the learners are offered an instructional program that is appropriate as far as their proficiency levels and

196

Part 3: Comprehensibility-related Factors in L2 Teaching and Assessment

linguistic, cultural and academic needs and goals are concerned. Basically, after the learners take such a test, their scores are computed and they are placed in the section of a program that offers instruction at the learner’s level (e.g. beginning, intermediate). Unlike proficiency tests that are based on elusive measurement norms for some loosely defined learner groups with highly vague goals, the content of such tests is generally based on a specific type of curriculum that is in alignment with the needs of learners (Hughes, 2003). Thus, all parties involved in teaching, learning and assessment activities have more control over the L2 input used in such tests. The teachers, or the institutional unit overseeing the assessment system (e.g. the testing office), are expected to be highly knowledgeable about the curriculum and what precisely the learners must be able to do after they undergo the specific levels of the program. For example, the phonological, lexical and grammatical resources as well as the cultural elements that are included in a placement test used in an English preparatory school at an English-medium university in China would be based on the knowledge and skills that the students would need to be able to receive their college education through English. Thus, provided that the test developers successfully align the test content and input with the linguistic, cultural and academic needs of the learners, such tests should pose fewer comprehension hardships for L2 learners.

Achievement tests Compared to other tests, teachers have the most control over the input used in achievement tests that measure if the learners have acquired the knowledge and skills that were taught by their teachers. In line with their specific purposes, the scope and breath of input included in such tests can be based on the content of a lesson, a unit or a whole semester or year-long curriculum. In a lesson, teachers are expected to regularly use comprehension checks or tests to the make sure that their objectives are met. For example, such a test can be utilized as a way to check students’ comprehension of a reading task at the end of a lesson in the form of a multiple-choice quiz or an oral discussion. It could also be used as a means of formative assessment to diagnose student progress and identify areas of improvement for instructional focus at the end of a unit. Some achievement tests (final achievement; Hughes, 2003) are designed to measure the outcomes of teaching at the end of a semester or a year, comprising a larger and more comprehensive sample of L2 input and skills. These tests are often developed and administered by an institutional unit (testing office) or even larger agencies like a state or federal department of education. In final achievement tests, where the content of the test is typically directly aligned with that of the curriculum rather than the practices of specific teachers, more comprehension challenges should be expected. For example, in Turkey, millions of K-12 children (beginning in 4th grade) receive English

Modifications in Assessment-related Factors and CI

197

instruction in public schools. The curriculum, the textbooks and the achievement tests to measure student learning outcomes are all mandated and provided by the government. Presumably all English teachers use the same curriculum and textbooks; however, some may cover the same content faster, while others may focus more on certain language skills. Thus, when all students take the same test regardless of the classroom instruction, additional comprehension difficulties should be anticipated.

Diagnostic tests Diagnostic tests are used to diagnose students’ strengths and weaknesses for purposes of instructional improvement (Brown & Abeywickrama, 2010). As far as the nature and modalities of CI are concerned, the scope of these tests could be rather straightforward and simple or highly complex and detailed. When such tests are developed at the program level, the purpose could be the identification of weaknesses in different language skills, in which case the results of the diagnosis may be rather broad and similar to the subscores of a proficiency test. Such results could be used to realign the focus of the program and restructure some of the program resources. In contrast, when the test involves an examination by a teacher of the particular L2 skills of a learner or group of learners, the results can be highly detailed, offering a basis for varying degrees and forms of individualized classroom instruction (e.g. inclusion of additional knowledge and skills for some learners). For instance, a grammar diagnostic test that is conducted to measure a student’s overall grammar knowledge can cover all grammar topics varying from parts of speech and basic tenses to more advanced forms of aspect, voice, speech and so forth. Similarly, a teacher can give a diagnostic test just to determine if the students can distinguish between direct and indirect speech across all tenses or just among a few of them. Outcomes of the former may result in the adoption of a totally new grammar textbook or a different instructional approach (with more explicit grammar teaching), whereas in the second case, the teacher may just decide to assign some additional homework. It seems justifiable to assume that in such cases, fewer comprehension hardships should arise. Since the teachers have more control over the input, they can predict possible comprehension challenges and make appropriate accommodations (see Figure 12.1).

Accommodated Assessment of Language Skills and CI Listening and reading Listening and reading (receptive skills) play vital roles in L2A and development (Krashen, 2003). Reading constitutes the basis for a learner’s

198

Part 3: Comprehensibility-related Factors in L2 Teaching and Assessment

general literacy skills, which are inseparably interconnected with aspects of numerous abilities ranging from phonemic awareness to the knowledge of different topics, CALP vocabulary and advanced grammar. In addition, literacy development is often considered to be the main venue for sociopolitical struggles and the foundation of an L2 self and cultural identity (Haley & Austin, 2004). Therefore, failing to select culturally unbiased input or not being able to make it comprehensible for L2 learners may contribute to an incomplete identity formation. Even in today’s world where access to the internet and audio-visual materials is still highly restricted for many L2 learners, reading is the main source of L2 input. That is why issues of comprehensibility in the testing of reading skills are highly critical. Similarly, listening abilities have been prioritized in L2A research, particularly in theories like the Input Hypothesis (Krashen, 1985), which underlines the importance of a silent period in L2 development. In fact, Krashen argues that during this period, a considerable amount of active listening occurs through intake, building the foundation for L2A. As important as it is, the assessment of receptive skills can also be highly complex and challenging, because (1) such skills have to be measured indirectly; and (2) their measurement requires experience with a wide range of competencies and subskills that are unique to different genres (e.g. prose, poetry), topics (e.g. sport, food), styles (formality), specific kinds of operations (e.g. skimming, scanning) and so on. Needless to say, not only does the assessment and evaluation of some other skills also depend on reading and listening abilities, but L2 learners also heavily depend on such skills to acquire content-area knowledge (e.g. science, math) and build background in L2 cultural perspectives and practices. L2 learners may encounter comprehension difficulties when forms, genres, topics and styles of the target input do not align well with the specifics of the purposes of assessment and when the targeted skills and their subskills are not clearly operationalized. As demonstrated in Figure 12.1, possible comprehension challenges that learners may face in reading and listening tests may emanate from a combination of four main factors, including the texts, tasks, operations and skills needed to process the target input. There are numerous factors related to the text that can influence learners’ comprehension in reading (Perkins, 1998) or listening (Buck, 2001) tests. For instance, some learners relate to certain topics or genres better than others. A student who has little experience with poetry and metaphorically loaded input may struggle with such a genre in a test despite the input being at his/her proficiency level. In addition, as argued by Brown and Abeywickrama (2010: 225) ‘an academic technical report may be comprehensible to a student at the sentence level, but if the learner has not utilized certain strategies for noting the discourse conventions of that genre, misunderstanding may occur’. Similarly, in a listening test, the length of the text, the dialectical variations used in it and the speed and

Modifications in Assessment-related Factors and CI

199

tonal quality of the speech can also affect a learner’s comprehension. Thus, classroom teachers and test developers must carefully consider text-related factors. To ease off comprehension hardships, particularly for students with low proficiency levels, L2 teachers can draw on student’s cultural backgrounds, providing them with anticipation guides, semantic maps, response logs or graphic organizers. The nature of a task may also impact how successfully learners may process the L2 input. When learners engage in a thorough examination of a short text (e.g. intensive) compared to a relatively longer one (e.g. extensive) for a broad understanding (e.g. gist), they may face greater comprehension difficulties due to the highly dense nature of the lexical and morphosyntactic features of the text (Saville-Troike, 2006). Comprehension difficulties may also vary by whether the task requires just the recognition of some elements of the target input (e.g. multiple-choice tests), or if the learners must verbally or physically respond to the task. Note that each task mandates the use of different operations such as skimming and scanning (reading) and bottom-up or top-down (listening) skills as well as the utilization of different linguistic elements (Horwitz, 2013). For instance, if the purpose of a listening test is to distinguish between two phonemes, a learner has to utilize a bottom-up approach, whereas if he/she is reading a passage for the main idea, a skimming operation is needed. In fact, in the case of a listening test, the phonological features and/or the cultural codes of certain lexical units of the input may become highly critical in understanding it. In a dynamic listening task where a learner has to communicate with an interlocutor, his/her comprehension may also be influenced by the nature of discourse and interaction patterns (see Chapter 11). In any case, when developing listening and reading tests, special attention must be paid to the text selection processes and the nature and form of the tasks and operations, as well as the particular subskills the learners have to utilize to be able to answer the test items. Finally, in listening tests, modifications in basic lexical resources and level-appropriate phrases and clauses (subordination and coordination), use of paraphrasing and synonyms, speech rate, enunciation, tone, pronunciation and body language can substantially aid the comprehension of input. In fact, research suggests that even seemingly simple differences in aspect of speech patterns can influence the comprehension of listening input. For example, Blau (1990) reported that even the use of hesitation markers in listening tasks aided the comprehension of input substantially because the learners perceived such elements to be natural elements of a discourse, which allowed the learners to take advantage of the extra time accrued as a result of such fillers to process the input. In brief, making testing expectations and instructions clear and selecting diverse (e.g. genre, general, academic) and age, culture and grade-level appropriate and authentic topics that build on students’ current knowledge can enhance comprehension.

200

Part 3: Comprehensibility-related Factors in L2 Teaching and Assessment

Accommodated Assessment of Productive Skills and CI Speaking and writing Speaking and writing are the two skills through which L2 learners communicate input. In research that highlights social interaction (e.g. Long, 1981; Swain, 1985) and language socialization (e.g. Duff & Hornberger, 2010) as the basis of L2A and development, productive skills are considered to be very crucial. Indeed, if the purpose of L2A is to become able to authentically express one’s L2 self, L2 skills depend on and complement each other in a fundamentally existential way. Subsequently, a lack of focus on the assessment of these skills in L2 programs can result in highly consequential negative backwash effects. Even worse, though, is when critical aspects of input (linguistic, cultural, etc.) are not carefully examined and necessary accommodations are not made to facilitate the comprehension and accurate assessment of target input. As described in Parts 2 and 3, individual differences and ecological affordances can play vital roles in the processibility of new input. Thus, in addition to the adoption of effective assessment tools, tasks and processes that control for possible effects of individual differences, accommodated assessment of such skills must involve a careful consideration of the highly dynamic and complex nature of input. Unlike that of receptive skills, the assessment of productive skills can be quite straightforward and direct; yet, input and competencies underlying speaking and writing abilities are multilayered and fluid. They include knowledge related to complementary skills like grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation and sociocultural competence. In speaking tests (Turner, 1998) that involve high levels of authentic and spontaneous communication, learners may encounter many unexpected comprehension difficulties because of text, task, operations and skills-related factors. In fact, even when the assessment goals related to textual factors (e.g. genre, topic) are explicitly described, students may not consistently remain on task, which may result in the production of an inadequate amount of relevant data to measure the targeted skills. In addition, a student’s comprehension can be negatively influenced by his/her perceptions about the test content and issues of cultural bias. For example, a student may not find the test content relevant (culturally relevant pedagogy) to his/her cultural identity and background (e.g. racial, ethnic) or may even be offended by uses of certain dialectical variations (e.g. Ebonics, stylistic variations) in derogative ways. This may result in a psychological dissonance and a reluctance to invest time and processing capacity to understand the input. It is indeed hard for L2 learners to even remain in a conversation and willingly allocate cognitive and affective recourses to processing new input without being

Modifications in Assessment-related Factors and CI

201

able to relate to the content of a test. Hence, to facilitate comprehension of input in such tests, the inclusion of linguistically and culturally diverse ‘local and situated perspectives’ (Fairbairn & Fox, 2009: 20) in the test content can be highly consequential. In cases when speaking tasks are not well-aligned with instructional goals (e.g. achievement tests), a student’s use of anticipatory affordances may be substantially reduced, thereby exacerbating comprehension hardships. For instance, in the speaking section of the IELTS, examinees are prompted into three tasks (short dialog, task-based monolog and extended discussion) that increase in terms of the demand for linguistic complexity. Indeed, comprehension difficulties vary by the nature and forms of operations and the skills utilized in completing these tasks. On the IELTS, in the second task, only story-telling and speech organization and presentation skills are required, whereas in the first task, basic grammatical and lexical resources as well as some communication strategies are needed. Nevertheless, in part three, which involves extended interactive discussions, comprehension challenges can be many, emanating from listening to and understanding the examiner’s speech and instructions and deducing the meanings of highlevel vocabulary items. While trying to demonstrate a high proficiency level, the learner has to deal with numerous information-processing and interaction tasks. Thus, in constructing an IELTS-like speaking test to measure their students’ oral proficiency, L2 teachers can use pictures, graphs or even video clips to support student comprehension to elicit data that is most representative of students’ actual L2 proficiency level. Whether general or academic, in most cases, a writing test requires understanding a prompt and responding to it (Weigle, 2002). Thus, in testing writing skills, a learner’s understanding of the assessment instructions is critical. This is because, unlike speaking tests, in such tests the learners are typically on their own in processing the input. Difficulties in processing writing input can emanate from linguistic units as small as a phoneme or a text message or as big as a clause, a sentence or a much larger discourse like an essay. Therefore, challenges underlying the understanding (and writing) of a business memo are different from understanding (and writing) a financial document, a medical record or an academic dissertation. Such differences may emanate from the linguistic, cultural, stylistic and semiotic codes (Chapter 1) that underline the nature and forms of the texts, tasks, operations and skills (Figure 12.1). Indeed, the types of writing texts and tasks mandate the use of a restricted range of possible lexical and grammatical structures. For example, comparing the results of 11 different assessments across math and science tests, Wolf and Leon (2009) found academic vocabulary to be the most salient element of linguistic complexity, suggesting that ‘the impact of language can be somewhat lessened if nonlanguage features such as charts, visuals, or graphs are included in items’ (Wolf & Leon, 2009: 156).

202

Part 3: Comprehensibility-related Factors in L2 Teaching and Assessment

Finally, to aid the comprehension of input in speaking and writing tests, test developers must ensure that the tasks are highly diverse in terms of topic, genre, audience, style and formality. Tasks should be designed around the notion of communicative competence and supplemented by other resources, including the use of paralinguistic affordances (speaking) and culturally appropriate (writing) conventions (Figure 12.1). The tasks should be as authentic and realistic as possible. In such tests, depending on the purposes of the assessment, rather than focusing on the production of an accurate utterance (output), a learner’s ability and skills in successfully engaging in processes of negotiation of meaning and conveying intelligible messages (languaging) must also be valued for positive backwash effect. Furthermore, the comprehension of input in speaking and writing tests can be enhanced through careful considerations of corrective feedback. For example, instead of a one-on-one interview, which often seems like an interrogation rather than an examination, a speaking test can be conducted in the form of a discussion where more interlocutors are available to facilitate possible comprehension challenges. Also, the use of non-essential linguistic elements in a text (especially in oral discourse) can help L2 learners with contextualizing and deducing certain meanings and inferences. Nevertheless, when measuring L2 skills through academically dense content or cognitively demanding tasks, such redundancies may require the use of additional processing and memory capacity, causing comprehension challenges (Martiniello, 2008). Finally, since scoring can be highly subjective, raters must be well-trained, with the performance indicators clearly explicated to them in the form of well-written test administration manuals and guidelines (e.g. the ACTFL).

Chapter Summary This chapter focuses on the role of CI in certain aspects of L2 assessment and how comprehension of new input may be regulated through different forms of modifications. The content is presented from CIs’ multidimensional intersections with four commonly known facets of L2 assessment: purposes of assessment, approaches to L2 testing, types of tests and accommodated assessment of L2 skills. The chapter begins with a brief overview of how CI informs and is informed by formative versus summative assessment systems and tools. This section discusses how teachers can utilize the concept of CI and results of formative assessment to improve their instructional practices and what factors they should consider in developing and administering summative tests in measuring the outcomes of their classroom teaching. Secondly, potential junctions of CI with numerous aspects of different approaches to L2 testing are examined. This section includes topics such as integrative versus discrete, direct versus indirect, norm-referenced versus criterion-referenced and authentic, dynamic and formal and

Modifications in Assessment-related Factors and CI

203

informal assessment approaches. For example, with regard to the nature and modalities of CI, how is an integrative approach (e.g. a cloze test) different from a test that aims to measure only a discrete point (e.g. present perfect tense) in the L2? Or, what do issues of complexity, familiarity and comprehensibility entail in the assessment of receptive (indirect) versus productive (direct) skills in norm versus criterion-referenced tests? A brief part is also added about CI’s interface with issue of authenticity, dynamics and formality in L2 assessment. Thirdly, different forms of input that L2 learners are expected to process as part of proficiency, placement, achievement and diagnostics are highlighted. Finally, issues of accommodations (Figure 12.1) and CI in the testing of receptive (reading, listening) and productive (speaking, writing) skills are discussed.

13

Conclusions

As students, teachers or researchers, we all seek knowledge to understand basic phenomena in our fields to make better decisions. However, knowing, or being ‘learned’, requires more than just attaining information. As outlined in Bloom’s taxonomy (1956), knowing has different levels involving the analysis, synthesis and application of information to new situations. Indeed, to stress the importance of what it means to be ‘learned’, Benjamin Franklin famously stated: ‘Tim was so learned, that he could name a horse, in nine languages. So ignorant, that he bought a cow to ride on’. As a L2A researcher and also a student and a teacher, I myself struggle with the successful use of my own accumulated knowledge. This book aims to help people like me with a basic understanding of L2 learning, teaching and assessment from the perspective of Krashen’s (1985) CI hypothesis, a concept that has been referenced often but perhaps not according to current conventions in the field. As is rather well-acknowledged in the field, L2A, teaching and assessment are highly dynamic, interdependent and multidimensional areas of study. What we know about different factors, systems and processes of L2 education and how they interact with one another is far from a complete picture. Yet, the field has produced a plethora of knowledge as to where particular sets of pieces can be placed in the big picture. Thus, as important as it is to try to address the unanswered questions about important pieces of the puzzle, raising awareness of the complex nature of the puzzle and identifying more questions for consideration are equally critical. This book attempts to do just that from a CI angle. Indeed, if the ultimate goal of L2A is ‘authentically languaging one’s L2 self ’, offering straightforward remedies as to how it happens would be no less unwise than trying to take a still picture of a constantly self-organizing dynamic system with countless elements. Irrespective of the rigor of conceptual justifications or the robustness of the research findings that support them, we know that different L2A theories concentrate on different factors and processes related to the five main variables of L2 learning and pedagogy: learner, teacher, environment, interaction and input. For example, some views have highlighted the role of human cognition in individual differences (see Chapter 4), while others focused on the primacy of interaction and sociocultural factors in L2A (Chapters 5 and 6). Likewise, numerous pedagogical approaches and methods are used in the teaching and assessment of L2s in different contexts around the world. As such, a meaningful discussion about the interactions 204

Conclusions

205

of these players and the nature of the learning, teaching and assessment processes is incomplete without the main object – the input. Taking a comprehensive approach in three parts, this book attempts to present basic concepts related to what CI’s conceptual and theoretical underpinnings are, how people learn an L2 and how we can teach and assess one most effectively from a CI perspective. Such a blended approach not only acknowledges the interconnectedness of theory, research and practice in L2 pedagogy and assessment, it also promotes the dialectical interplay of reflection and action (Freire, 2009) in L2A, pedagogy and assessment. Utilizing such an approach, this book sheds light on the role of CI in L2 education from a wide variety of angles so that it can serve as a preliminary resource for researchers who are particularly interested in the role of input and its comprehensibility in applied linguistics, educational psychology, cultural studies, literacy studies, L2A, L2 teaching and assessment and L2 teacher education. In addition, this book is also meant to offer guidance for L2 teacher candidates who need to build a solid foundation in teacher education programs. Likewise, the content of this book is suitable for pre- and in-service teachers of foreign and second languages other than English. For example, teachers of other languages like Spanish, Arabic, Chinese, Russian and Turkish in different settings, whether these are being taught as a foreign or second language, can also benefit from this book. Finally, this book can also be helpful for classroom teachers who need additional preparation to support the language development of emergent bilingual children in mainstream K-12 schools (e.g. English learners in US schools) in multilingual contexts such as the European Union, Australia, Canada and so on. This chapter first summarizes the most important conclusions about the role of CI in L2A, teaching and assessment from the perspectives of a wide variety of related fields, theories and research findings. Summaries of these major points will follow the organization of the book content, beginning with the conceptual foundation of CI (Part 1), followed by its role in L2A (Part 2) and ending with pedagogy and assessment (Part 3). After describing the role and pedagogical implications of CI in L2 education and assessment, the chapter will end by outlining some of the limitations of the use of CI in L2 education. As described earlier, to understand and define CI, we need to consider numerous concepts like comprehension, comprehensibility, input, intake and output. In doing so, we also need to identify the linguistic, cultural, semiotic and stylistic codes of input as they directly relate to the issue of comprehensibility. Since each related field shapes its own conceptualizations of technical concepts, the exploration of CI from the perspectives of different fields of study is also warranted. Below is a list of some major points about the conceptual bases and theoretical foundation of CI.

206

•

•

•

•

•

Conclusions

Defining technical terms like CI is of utmost importance. Technical terms constitute the bases for scientific communication. Without commonly shared bases of such terms, the advancement of research and effective instructional models is impossible. Therefore, while full consensus may not be possible, a need for clearer definitions of widely used terms like CI is necessary. The notion of CI has been in the field for a long time. The term shares many commonalities with the Gouinian method (19th century) and Asher’s total physical response (TPR). However, its current form was introduced to the field in the 1980s by Stephen Krashen, who described the term as input that L2 learners can understand when they hear or read it. The use of CI in related fields has been unclear. The term has been used in L2A and teaching and assessment rather loosely. Given its widespread use in different instructional models (e.g. the Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol), such ambiguities can negatively affect student learning (Polat & Cepik, 2016). In addition, considering its use in empirical research that relies on operational definitions and measurement, unclear uses of the term can have debilitating consequences on outcomes. Thus, its constitutive elements need to be carefully identified and thoroughly described. Such descriptions must involve recent advancements in theory, research and pedagogy in related fields. Multiple elements collectively determine the comprehensibility of a unit of input. CI has linguistic, cultural, semiotic and stylistic codes that are inseparably linked to different aspects and levels of comprehensibility. Linguistic elements include phonemes and morphemes that form utterances as governed by the phonological, morphological, syntactic, semantic and pragmatic rules of a particular language. Cultural components include products, practices and perspectives constructed within the historical and sociocultural realities of a particular social group. Semiotic elements (e.g. symbols, icons) involve multimodal interactions between a sign, an object or the construct it signifies and the constructed meaning as the resulting outcome. Finally, stylistic elements (e.g. tone, formality) lay the foundation for the organization of different types of genre and register in both spoken and written forms of input. Similarly, ‘comprehensibility’ also pertains to multiple variables. It is not an inherent attribute of ‘input’; rather, it is the outcome of the interaction of all input-related and learner-related factors as well as interactional and ecological affordances that contribute to various processes of negotiation of meaning in a particular discourse. Thus, it is not possible to determine the comprehensibility of a unit of input in isolation.

Conclusions

•

207

A newer definition of CI is needed. In light of the cumulative wisdom in related fields, CI is described in this book as ‘communication affordances’ that can be ‘more’ or ‘less’ comprehensible depending on the processes of semiosis and languaging that are complex, self-adaptive, dynamic, unpredictable and relational. Thus, CI owes its existence to the mediated processes of social interactions that give rise to its construction. This view is rooted in a common understanding in the field that (a) L2 learning is not a matter of banking input or a linear accumulation of linguistic elements, (b) L2 teaching is not knowledge transference and (c) comprehension requires more than just the knowledge of literal meanings and grammatical rules.

Different learning and comprehension theories project different views about the conceptual framework of CI. Similarly, subfields of linguistics offer varying views about the theoretical foundation of the term. Thus, whether using the term in theory, research or pedagogy, L2 teachers and researchers should entertain the broad range of views outlined below. •

•

•

•

Cognitive load theory implies that some forms of input are intrinsically more difficult to understand than others due to the greater informationprocessing demands that they impose on the working memory capacity. While there are different versions of this theory, its main argument is that we can examine the lexical or morphosyntactic qualities of input to predict its inherent aspects of comprehensibility. For example, research on lexical and syntactic complexity (e.g. lexical sophistication and length and amount of subordination and coordination) can be helpful in determining levels of comprehensibility of a unit of input. Automaticity theory mainly focuses on the nature of cognitive processes. Basically, when human beings engage in meaningful repetition and reinforcement of new information, they reach a point when they start using it with minimal cognitive demands. Thus, the comprehension and use of some forms of input (e.g. acquired versus learned) require fewer cognitive resources. According to schema theory, the comprehensibility of a unit of input is largely a matter of how successfully a learner makes connections between the old (prior schema) and new information. Thus, the way the new information is linked to the old and stored in the mind influences processes of selection, abstraction, interpretation, integration and reconstruction of new knowledge. Dual-coding theory presumes that information is represented in two coding systems: verbal and imagery. Although these two systems are separate processors, they complement each other as connected mental subsystems. The verbal coding system serves the processing of linguistic elements while the imagery system deals with the

208

•

•

•

•

•

Conclusions

processing of non-verbal elements such as images and objects. Thus, the comprehension of new input becomes easier when verbal input is accompanied by visual aids. Multimodality theory refers to multimodal representations of input as interactive systems that include the form of input, the physical medium, the interlocutors (individual or machine) and their resources, the sociocultural context and semiotic indices, the nature and form of interactions and so forth. Thus, a learner’s comprehension of new input is enhanced when it is presented through multiple modalities, such as having poetry performance accompanied by music, video or dramatic flair. Constructivist theory postulates that an L2 learner’s comprehension of a unit of input is ‘unique’ because learners make sense of new input and come to comprehend it in the context of their existing knowledge and individual differences. In this view, L2 learners’ successful comprehension of input depends on their active engagement in experiential and meaningful tasks as facilitated by their affective (e.g. motivation) and (meta)cognitive (e.g. strategies) characteristics. Sociocultural theory situates the issues of compressibility and comprehension in the context of social factors. Unlike constructivists’ focus on the individual traits of L2 learners, this theory underscores the primacy of the social factors and processes of scaffolding and negotiation of meaning within the zone of proximal development (ZPD). CI is not considered to be a stable entity that can be transferred from one person to another; rather, it is constructed in mediated dialog within the sociocultural particularities of a context of situation. An opposing theory to structuralism, poststructural theory builds on postmodern notions of relativisms, multiplicity, power relations, fluidity and positionality. Thus, just as the meanings of words constantly change, sociocultural contexts and discourses are also subject to continuous change. Therefore, in this view, L2 learners are expected to acquire (construct) the constantly changing cloud of new information under the circumstances of continuously changing and self-discrepant individual variables and social turmoil. Hybridity theory refers to the blending and amalgamation of multiple interwoven elements of language and culture. It shares many common assumptions with other frameworks like multimodality, socio-constructivism and poststructuralism. According to this theory, patterns of language processing and comprehension are shaped by particularities of multiple cultural identities that involve a great deal of within-group variation. Thus, an L2 learner’s approach to and comprehension of new input are appositionally critical and entail deep negotiations of inferential meanings and ethnic, racial and cultural conflicts.

Conclusions

209

In addition to exploring the conceptual framework and the theoretical bases of CI, L2 educators and researchers should examine how the term is viewed in different subfields of linguistics. Below, I outline how CI is viewed in applied linguistics, sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, neurolinguistics and computational linguistics. •

•

•

As an interdisciplinary field, applied linguistics (AL) covers a broad range of topics (e.g. interlanguage, bilingualism) related to why and how languages are learned and used in particular ways by different people or social groups in different contexts. Therefore, AL’s views of CI’s role in L2A, pedagogy and assessment also vary by the fluid dynamics and foci of related subdisciplines. Sometimes, CI is situated within the ‘individual space’ and is used to refer to static and stable language units. Other times, it is positioned in the ‘social space’ in the form of dynamic and fluid social interactions and modified collaborative processes and ecological affordances. Although later in this chapter, I summarize the role of CI in major L2A theories, a couple of examples may be helpful here. For instance, AL may focus on the nature of input and its processes of comprehension from the perspective of simultaneous versus consecutive bilingualism. On the other hand, an interlanguage perspective may concentrate on the role of CI in terms of how the linguistic elements of the first language (L1) and L2 form different units of interlanguage. Sociolinguistics is situated in the intersection of language and society, with an emphasis on social factors as they relate to different aspects of language use and change. It addresses questions like why do people construct and convey meaning in different ways and, in doing so, how do they capitalize on different phonological, morphosyntactic and pragmatic elements in their repertoires? In exploring questions about language use and variation, some sociolinguists study differences among social groups with regard to socioeconomic status, ethnicity, age, gender, sexual orientation and educational background. They may particularly concentrate on regional or local dialect variations in language use in the context of social networks or communities of practice. In contrast, others may investigate phenomenon at a micro level of analysis, seeking out ways to describe how individuals may construct and perform particular identities using a variety of phonemes (e.g. various pronunciations of the phoneme /r/ to index social class) or discourse markers (by gender) that index particular social meanings. Therefore, since in sociolinguistics, input is considered to be highly variable but with orderly heterogeneity, its comprehensibility extends beyond just input’s standard linguistic elements, with comprehension requiring appropriate levels of sociolinguistic competence. Psycholinguistics examines the intersection of psychology and language, primarily focusing on the psychological aspects of comprehension, acquisition and production. Psycholinguistics emphasizes psychological

210

•

•

Conclusions

resources, tools and processes in the construction of meaning at varying levels of complexity (e.g. phoneme, clause). Since the comprehension of new input depends on both psychological and linguistic resources, a careful examination of individual-related, input-related and contextrelated factors is reasonable to determine what comprehensibility of a unit of input means. For example, in L1 acquisition, a five-year-old child’s comprehension of a phrase cannot be separated from his/her cognitive capacity and emotions and strategy use in the context of his/her prior knowledge and available environmental affordances. Psycholinguistic perspectives that focus on patterns of social interactions may direct their attention to more observable features such as negotiation and the (co) construction of input as manifested in learners’ acts of self-positioning and identity formation or enactment in a particular discourse. Here, a learner’s choices of speech patterns, styles, speech acts and metaphors, as well as how he/she positions himself/herself (e.g. perceived power) in engaging an interlocutor or a text would all influence comprehension. Neurolinguistics studies the relationship between language and the brain, specifically, how the elements and systems of the faculty of language are represented in different locations (e.g. Broca’s area) in the brain. Undoubtedly, these topics are directly linked to the comprehension and comprehensibility of L2 input. Neurolinguistics also has close ties to communication disorders (e.g. aphasia, brain damage), aging and different aspects of the cognitive processes of language acquisition and production. Using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) neuroimaging techniques, neurolinguists also try to observe alterations in the structure of different parts of the brain due to language processing and use. For example, they may examine differences between the structure of the left parietal cortex of bilinguals and monolinguals and what such differences may mean for the comprehension and acquisition of new input. This field also helps us understand the role of neurobiological and neurocognitive aspects of brain aging in processing syntactic and lexical (de)codes of multimodal input. Computational linguistics studies language or a specific linguistic phenomenon from the perspective of its mathematical qualities and attributes. It utilizes computerized computational and statistical modeling to study data or generate a new theory. Some of its common applications are in speech recognition tools, machine translation and web search engines like Google. For example, in this view, the amount of variability and subsequent probabilities of computations that an L2 learner has to encounter in processing and comprehending a certain unit of input would vary greatly depending on the learner’s interlanguage. While the implications of computational linguistics are rather intriguing, its applications in machine translation software,

Conclusions

211

for example, have reached an impasse because they struggle with developing systems that can process and translate the meaning of a text in its entirety. Aspects of figurative speech, idiomatic expressions and socio-pragmatic competence that are hard to code in numeric values make it difficult to predict correct comprehension of new input. Now that the main points about the conceptual framework and theoretical foundation of CI have been reviewed, we can turn to how L2 teachers and researchers can examine ways existing theories and research have approached L2A from the perspective of CI. The summaries below include perspectives from cognitive-based, learner and interaction-centered, socially-oriented and alternative theories of L2A. •

•

•

In explaining CI and its role in L2A, cognition-based perspectives underscore the successful utilization of one’s cognitive resources in processing new input. Thus, aspects and factors of comprehension and acquisition of new input are studied in terms of processes of attention, noticing, awareness, control, memory, retention, processibility capacity, knowledge, association and storage. In such views, in order to comprehend new input, learners need to be able to make explicit connections (connectionism) between the old and new input (schema theory). Thus, a person’s L1, interlanguage elements, language universals and so forth all play a role in understanding new input. For example, according to the information processing view, processing L2 input is no different from processing any kind of new information (e.g. learning science). Applications of cognitive theories in L2A suggest that the processing of new input depends on how much attention (focal versus peripheral) learners invest in the learning task and how their cognitive mechanisms and brain activity gradually move from a highly controlled to a highly automatic nature. Such views also distinguish between declarative (e.g. linguistic elements) and procedural knowledge (rules and procedures to manipulate declarative knowledge). In highlighting the role of individual differences in comprehension and L2A, learner and interaction-centered theories have examined three major factors: input, interaction and output. The Input Hypothesis, which laid out the foundation for CI, focuses on the nature of processes of L2 attainment, distinguishing between acquisition and learning. Acquired input is presumed to be more meaningfully constructed, more authentic and culturally appropriate, and more readily available to produce. In contrast, learned input is less relevant, authentic and real and needs to undergo the monitoring process (the Monitor Model) before production. This theory also examines the nature of input in terms of learners’ proficiency level (i+1) and a predicted natural order of acquisition. In explaining the nature of L2 processing, the theory particularly

212

•

•

•

•

Conclusions

emphasizes the role of individual differences (the Affective Filter Hypothesis) in attending to and processing new input. The Interaction Hypothesis describes the role of CI in L2A in terms of processes of interactions and participatory actions (e.g. communicative strategies, corrective feedback) in different contexts of situations. In this view, the comprehensibility and comprehension of new input are matters of successful engagement in and management of communicative interactions that involve participation, scaffolding and corrective feedback. Thus, L2A work should concentrate on the mechanisms and processes of interaction (e.g. turn-taking, communicative strategies) rather than the linguistic properties or presumed lexical or structural complexity of the input. The Output Hypothesis highlights the importance of processes of language use and production (languaging) in L2A. This theory postulates that the comprehension of a unit of input is tied to the ways different communication factors relate to phonological, morphosyntactic and lexical resources. This hypothesis also attributes issues of comprehension to how paralinguistic (e.g. gestures) and conversational functions (e.g. greeting) and strategies interact and how a learner positions his/her L2 self within the entirety of the particularities of a specific discourse (e.g. formality). For example, when a learner engages in a conversation, he/ she has to produce output. To carry on the conversation, the learner has to negotiate meaning, which requires continuous scaffolding and modifications to the linguistic and communicative elements. By the time new input is processed, its initial form and nuances of meaning may have altered greatly. Social theories in L2A put sociocultural factors and socially situated psychological processes at the center of discussion. Rather than focusing on individuals, such views highlight the relationships between the L1 and L2 communities. Socially-oriented views study how L2 learners utilize available resources, such as environmental affordances, mediational tools and symbolic representations that are moderated by, and cannot be separated from, the particularities of their sociocultural environs. Social distance theory is one of these theories that has linked successful acquisition of an L2 to factors like dominance, acculturation patterns, enclosure, cohesiveness, congruence, size, attitudes and length of residence. This theory also examines the psychological factors (e.g. motivation) that interact with social variables in influencing patterns and practices of cultural integration and the acquisition of varying (e.g. pidginized) forms of L2 input. In views on language socialization and activity theory, factors and processes of comprehension and acquisition are forefronted in the context of socialization patterns and participatory acts of L2 self and identity. Primary attention is devoted to the complex roles and

Conclusions

•

•

•

•

213

processes of self-regulated action, mediational processes and goal orientation in different L2A in learning environments. In this view, L2 socialization is the process, language (linguistic and cultural input and symbolic representations) is the mediational tool and the construction of an authentic L2 self is the ultimate goal of L2A. Sociocognitive theory postulates that cognitive and social variables cannot be separated from each other. Thus, to understand the role of CI in L2A, we need to take a triangular approach that involves the simultaneous examination of cognition, the individual and society. Views of dynamic systems theory, ecological theory and complexity theory argue that L2A work should focus on the interplay of multiple factors rather than just one in isolation. To varying degrees, these views underscore the complex and dynamic nature of L2 input and ecological affordances. They emphasize that such variables operate in a state of constant flux, resulting in countless non-linear changes that lead to other changes and so forth. Thus, these views contend that the study of processes of L2A should be multifaceted, multidimensional and longitudinal. In this view, to understand the factors and processes of the comprehension and acquisition of new input, we need simultaneously to examine linguistic, cultural, semiotic and stylistic codes of input in the context of dynamic affordances in a particular sociocultural setting. However, at a more complete level, L2A researchers also need to be able to document the processes of all of these non-linear complex changes with the anticipation of numerous non-finite ripple effects and interactions. The Critical Period Hypothesis posits that there is an optimal period of time in human life when L2A is easier. While it remains an unsettled issue in the field, many researchers have suggested that after puberty, acquisition of an L2 becomes harder. Researchers have attributed such theories and supporting research findings to neurobiological, neurocognitive and environmental reasons. In short, from this perspective, aspects of the comprehension and acquisition of new input are mitigated by age, namely changes in memory (biological), decline in brain volume (maturational) and environmental (e.g. inadequate exposure to input) reasons. Interlanguage theory refers to a highly varied yet orderly system of language competence that includes elements of the L1 and L2. Thus, the input a learner builds as the L2 system is different from the language system spoken by ‘native’ speakers. From this perspective, an L2 learner attends to and processes new input with the existing operating principles and mechanisms of his/her L1, which makes interference and positive or negative transfer inevitable. Hence, a learner ’s comprehension of new input would depend on how successfully he/ she navigates the linguistic, cultural, semiotic and stylistic elements of the L1 and L2.

214

Conclusions

To be able to build on the sections on what CI is (Part 1) and how it operates in L2A (Part 2), L2 teachers and researchers need a general knowledge base about what this information entails for L2 education. Basically, what are the pedagogical implications of this cumulative wisdom for the comprehension of new input? Below is a summary of some of the main points on the role of CI and its modification in L2 teaching. These summaries include input-related, learner-related, culture and context-related and interaction and discourse-related modifications teachers should consider to facilitate the comprehension of new input in L2 classrooms. •

•

In this book, CI is defined as a complex, self-adaptive and dynamic ‘communication affordance’ that owes its existence to the mediated languaging processes of social interactions that give rise to its construction. Thus, while the comprehensibility level of a unit may vary by the nature of its meaning, relevance, multimodality and authenticity, instructional and communication strategies can make a unit of input ‘more’ or ‘less’ comprehensible. Issues of comprehensibility and comprehension should be a priority for teachers throughout all stages of planning, preparation, execution and assessment and evaluation of learning experiences. Therefore, in making decisions about sources and modalities of new L2 input and about teaching that input in classrooms, we need to make sure that new input is – – – – –

•

meaning-focused (e.g. meaningful context); relevant and coherent (e.g. goals, backgrounds); multimodal (e.g. oral, aural and visual); modified (e.g. linguistic elements or scaffolding strategies); authentic (e.g. level of difficulty and culture appropriateness).

To facilitate the comprehension of new input, we also need to take into account a set of learner-related factors. Based on research on individual differences, we know that L2 learners attend to, process and learn new input differently. We also know that we can manipulate some of these learner traits. To help them attend to and successfully process new input, L2 teachers can work with their students to develop or improve – a strong L2 self-concept (e.g. positive social positioning, identity); – facilitative feelings and emotions (affective factors) about the L2, L2 community and culture and L2 learning experience (e.g. motivation, anxiety); – positive pedagogical belief systems and self-regulatory metacognitive skills to be able to identify and utilize diverse learning strategies aligned with their cognitive strengths (e.g. aptitude, styles).

Conclusions

•

•

215

Another point of consideration in making new input more comprehensible for learners in L2 classrooms involves the regulation of cultural and contextual affordances. In other words, to facilitate the comprehension of new input, the following points should be carefully considered: – culture and L2A (e.g. role of cultural background in L2A); – culturally relevant and contextual affordances (e.g. in-betweenness, congruence); – cultural perspectives (e.g. perceptions of individual freedom), practices (e.g. celebrations) and products (e.g. a monument); – cultural dynamism (e.g. change in perspectives and practices) and symbolism (e.g. metaphors); – culture shock (e.g. distancing, anxiety); – native and non-native dynamics in L2 classrooms (e.g. power relations, dominance). Two sets of instructional factors also deserve attention in efforts to understand the role of CI and to make new input more comprehensible in L2 classrooms. The first group includes possible changes teachers can make in interaction and discourse-related factors. Such considerations may include the following points: – identifying and regulating learning behaviors (e.g. attitudes); – moderating processes of mediated dialog (e.g. group activities); – promoting cooperative learning and scaffolding activities (e.g. positive interdependence); – regulating student participatory roles (e.g. reporter, leader); – enhancing cross-cultural pragmatics (e.g. conversation strategies).

The second group, modification-related factors, includes a broad range of possible instructional adaptations varying from the curriculum and instructional materials to teacher, learner and setting-related factors (Figures 11.1 and 11.2). Basically, to aid the comprehension of new input, L2 teachers need to take into consideration the following examples of modifications in different aspects of L2 education: –

Curriculum-related modifications (Figure 11.1): • particularities of the setting and culture; • learning goals and needs; • alignment with national standards; • L2A theories and research basis; • skill/content focus; • methods; • scope and sequence.

216

Conclusions

–

Teacher-related modifications (Figure 11.2) • classroom management; • daily routines; • sitting arrangements; • wait time; • language use; • corrective feedback; • L1 use; • reinforcement strategies.

–

Learner-related modifications (Figure 11.3) • needs and goals; • perceptions of L2 self-concept; • affective, cognitive and metacognitive traits.

–

Setting-related macro-level modifications (Figure 11.4) • SL versus foreign language (FL) context; • national policy; • educational resources; • ethnolinguistic structure.

–

Setting-related micro-level modifications (Figure 11.4) • risk-free environment; • class size; • physical comfort; • classroom technology; • L1 resources.

To complement the tripartite of learning, teaching and assessment, some major points pertaining to the role of CI in L2 assessment are outlined here. In addition, some possible modification suggestions for input used in L2 tests are also included. •

The comprehensibility and comprehension of input used in L2 tests are influenced by many multidimensional aspects of assessment processes and tools. Thus, L2 test developers, administrators and teachers need to carefully attend to the nature and modalities of CI with regard to the following topics: – purposes of assessment (e.g. formative, summative); – approaches to L2 testing (e.g. norm referenced, authentic, integrative); – types of tests (e.g. proficiency, achievement, diagnostic).

•

The kind and form of assessment accommodations may differ by the nature of language skill (e.g. writing versus reading). Thus, relevant

Conclusions

217

elements of input (e.g. linguistic, cultural) need to be carefully examined so that necessary accommodations can be made to facilitate the comprehension and accurate assessment of new input. In doing so, teachers and researchers need to consider possible modifications in four main areas: text, task, skills, and operations (Figure 12.1): – text-related modifications (e.g. topics, genre, length); – task-related modifications (e.g. academic, general, extensive, intensive); – skills-related modifications (e.g. phonological, lexical, structural, interactional); – operations-related modifications (e.g. skimming, scanning, bottom-up, top-down). Finally, as stressed in the introduction and elaborated throughout this book, the field of L2 learning and teaching is replete with different theoretical perspectives and instructional and assessment models. No book, including this one, aims to or can offer a complete picture of what L2A truly entails and how it should be taught and assessed. Therefore, given the complex nature of the business, we are left with the personal choice of making certain aspects of a few key components of the learner, teacher, environment, interaction and input the focus of our professional contributions. I chose mine to be input – a critical component of L2A, pedagogy and assessment. By default, whether due to my subjective interpretations about the nature of topics under study (ontology) and how to go about understanding them (epistemology), or because of my biases in content selection or focus of settings, this book has limitations as well. Examining factors and processes involved in L2 learning, teaching and assessment from the perspective of CI should be done with caveats related to the nature of input, instructional practices and setting. For example, current research suggests that, rather than the nature of input, it is a learner’s engagement in processes of negotiation of meaning, the frequency and saliency of use, explicit instruction, scaffolding and the nature of corrective feedback he/ she receives that impact comprehension and L2A most (for reviews, see Ellis, 2002; Goldschneider & DeKeyser, 2001). Thus, as presented in this book, the role of CI in L2A, teaching and assessment can be understood better when it is examined in the context of L2 pedagogy and language socialization in different contexts or situations (Collins et al., 2009; Long, 1996; Pica et al., 1986).

References Abbot-Smith, K. and Tomasello, M. (2006) Exemplar-learning and schematization in a usage-based account of syntactic acquisition. Linguistic Review 23, 275–290. Abney, S. (2008) Semisupervised Learning for Compuation Linguistics. Chapman and Hall. Abrahamsson, N. and Hyltenstam, K. H. (2009) Age of onset and nativelikeness in a second language: Listener perception versus linguistic scrutiny. Language Learning 59, 249–306. ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines (2012) See http://www.actfl.org/publications/ guidelines-and-manuals/actfl-proficiency-guidelines-2012. Ahlsén, E. (2006) Introduction to Neurolinguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing. Ajayi, L. (2012) Video. Reading and multimodality: A study of ESL/literacy pupils’ interpretation of “Cinderella” from their socio-historical perspective. Urban Review: Issues And Ideas In Public Education 44, 60–89. Alba, J.W. and Hasher, L. (1983) Is memory schematic? Psychological Bulletin 93, 203–231. Anderson, R.C., Reynolds, R.E., Schallert, D.L. and Goetz, E.T. (1977) Frameworks for comprehending discourse. American Educational Research Journal 14, 367–381. Anderssen, M., Bentzen, K. and Westergaard, M.R. (2010) Variation in the Input: Studies in the Acquisition of Word Order. Dordrecht: Springer. Anton, M. (1999) The discourse of a learner-centered classroom: Sociocultural perspectives on teacher-learner interaction in the second-language classroom. The Modern Language Journal 83, 303–318. Ariel, M. (2010) Defining Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Asher, J.J. (1969) The total physical response approach to second language learning. The Modern Language Journal 53, 3–17. Association for Computational Linguistics (2014) See https://www.aclweb.org/ Atkinson, D. (2011) Alternative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition (1st edn). Taylor & Francis. Bakhtin, M.M. (1981) The dialogic imagination: Four essays. In M. Holquist, T.C. Emerson and M. Holquist (eds) Austin, TX/London: University of Texas Press, Discourse in the novel, 269–422. Bakhtin, M.M. and Medvedev, P.N. (1978) The Formal Method in Literary Scholarship: A Critical Introduction to Sociological Poetics. (Trans. Albert J. Wehrle). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bandura, A. (1993) Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist 28, 117–148. Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1996) Pragmatics and language teaching: Bringing pragmatics and pedagogy together. See http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED400702.pdf Bargh, J.A. (1994) The four horsemen of automati-city: Awareness, intention, efficiency, and control in social cognition. In R.S. Wyer Jr. and T.K. Srull (eds) Handbook of Social Cognition (2nd edn.) (pp. 1–40). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bartlett, F.C. (1995) Remembering. New York: Cambridge University Press. Baugh, J. (1999) Out of the Mouths of Slaves: African American Language and Educational Malpractice. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Bell, A. (1997) Language style as audience design. In N. Coupland and A. Jaworski (eds) Sociolinguistics: A Reader (pp. 240–50). New York: St. Martin’s Press. Bezemer, J. and Kress, G. (2008) Writing in multimodal texts a social semiotic account of designs for learning. Written Communication 25, 166–195. 218

References

219

Bhabha, H. (1994) Location of Culture. London: Routledge. Bialystok, E. (1978) A theoretical model of second landguage learning. Language Learning 28, 69–83. Bialystok, E. (2001) Bilingualism in Development: Language, Literacy, and Cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press. Bialystok, E. and Frohlich, M. (1978) Variables of classroom achievement in second language learning. The Modern Language Journal 7, 327–335. Birdsong, D. (1999) Second Language Acquisition and the Critical Period Hypothesis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Birdsong, D. (2006) Age and second language acquisition and processing: A selective overview. Language Learning 56, 9–49. Borg, S. (2006) Teacher Cognition and Language Education: Research and Practice. London: Continuum. Blau, E.K. (1990) The effect of syntax, speed, and pauses on listening comprehension. TESOL Quarterly 24, 746–753. Bley-Vroman, R. (1989) What is the logical problem of foreign language learning? In S. Gass and J. Schachter (eds) Linguistic Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition (pp. 41–48). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Block, D. (2007) Second Language Identities. London/New York: Continuum. Bloom, B.S., Engelhart, M.D., Furst, E.J., Hill, W.H. and Krathwohl, D.R. (1956) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay Company. Bourdieu, P. (1991) Language and Symbolic Power. Harvard, MA: Harvard University Press. Brophy, J. (1999) Toward a model of the value aspects of motivation in education: Developing appreciation for particular learning domains and activities. Educational Psychologist 34, 75–85. Brown, H. (2006) Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. New York: Pearson ESL. Brown, H. and Abeywickrama, P. (2010) Language Assessment: Principles and Classroom Practices. White Plains, NY: Pearson-Longman Pub Group. Bruner, J. (1990) Acts of Meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bruning, R.H., Shraw, G.J., Norby, M.M. and Ronning, R.R. (2004) Cognitive Psychology and Instruction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall. Buck, G. (2001) Assessing Listening. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Canale, M. and Swain, M. (1980) Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics 1, 1–47. Carroll, L. (1872) Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There. London: Macmillan. Carroll, J.B. (1981) Twenty-five years of research on foreign language aptitude. In K.C. Diller (ed.) Individual Differences and Universals in Language Learning Aptitude (pp. 83–118). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Carroll, J.B. and Sapon, S. (2002) Modern language aptitude test: Manual 2002 edition. N. Bethesda, MD: Second Language Testing, Inc. Carroll, S.E. (2000) Input and Evidence: The Raw Material of Second Language Acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Carter, E.F. (1988) The relationship of field-dependent/independent cognitive style to Spanish language achievement and proficiency: A preliminary report. The Modern Language Journal 72, 21–30. Chamot, A.U. (2005) The cognitive academic language learning approach (CALLA): An update. In P.A. Richard-Amato and M.A. Snow (eds) Academic Success for English Language Learners: Strategies for K-12 Mainstream Teachers (pp. 87–101). White Plains, NY: Longman. Chen, S.Y. (2002) A cognitive model for non-linear learning in hypermedia programs, British Journal of Information Technology 33, 449–460.

220

References

Chiang, C.S. and Dunkel, P. (1992) The effect of speech modification, prior knowledge, and listening proficiency on EFL lecture learning. TESOL Quarterly 26, 345–374. Chomsky, N. (1957) Syntactic Structures. London: Mouton. Chomsky, N. (1965) Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, N. (1975) Reflections on Language. New York: Pantheon Books. Chomsky, N. (1995) The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, N. (2005) Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry 36, 1–22. Christison, M.A. (2003) Learning styles and strategies. In D. Nunan (ed.) Practical English Language Teaching (pp. 267–288). New York: McGraw Hill International. Christiansen, M.H. and Chater, N. (2001) Connectionist psycholinguistics: Capturing the empirical data. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 5, 82–88. Clark, E.V. (2010) Adult offer, word-class, and child uptake in early lexical acquisition. First Language 30, 250–269. Clarke, D.F. (1989) Communicative theory and its influence on materials production. Language Teaching 22, 73–86. Cohen, A.D. and Macaro, E. (2007) Language Learner Strategies: 30 Years of Research and Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Collins, L., Trofimovich, P., White, J., Cardoso, W. and Horst, M. (2009) Some input on the easy/difficult grammar question: An empirical study. Modern Language Journal 93, 336–353. Cook, G. (2003) Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cook, V.J. (2001) Second Language Learning and Language Teaching. London: Hodder Education. Cook, V.J. and Singleton, D. (2014) Key Topics in Second Language Acquisition. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Cooper, J. (2007) Cognitive Dissonance: 50 Years of a Classic Theory. London: Sage. Coughlan, P. and Duff, P. (1994) Same task, different activities: Analysis of a SLA [second language acquisition] task from an activity theory perspective. In J. Lantolf and G. Appel (eds) Vygotskian Perspectives on Second Language Research (pp. 173–193). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Crawford, J. (2004) Educating English Learners: Language Diversity in the Classroom. Los Angeles, CA: Bilingual Education Services. Csizér, K. and Magid, M. (2014) The Impact of Self-Concept on Language Learning. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Cummins, J. (1981) The role of primary language development in promoting educational success for language minority students. In California State Department of Education (ed.) Schooling and Language Minority Students: A Theoretical Rationale (pp. 3–49). Los Angeles, CA: California State University. Cummins, J. (1984) Wanted: A theoretical framework for relating language proficiency to academic achievement among bilingual students. Language Proficiency and Academic Achievement 10, 2–19. Cummins, J. (2000) Language, Power, and Pedagogy: Bilingual Children in the Crossfire. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Cunningsworth, A. (1995) Choosing your Coursebook. Oxford: Heinemann Curzan, A. and Adams, M. (2012) How English Works: A Linguistic Introduction. New York: Pearson/Longman. Davies, A. and Elder, C. (2004) Handbook of Applied Linguistics. Oxford, MA: Blackwell. de Bot, K., Verspoor, M. and Lowie, W. (2007) A dynamic systems theory approach to second language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 10, 7–21. de Bot, K., Lowie, W. and Verspoor, M. (2005) Second Language Acquisition: An Advanced Resource Book. London: Routledge. Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (1985) Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior. New York: Plenum.

References

221

DeKeyser, R. (2003) Implicit and explicit learning. In C. Doughty and M.H. Long (eds) The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 313–348). London: Blackwell. DeKeyser, R. (2007) Practice in a Second Language: Perspectives From Applied Linguistics and Cognitive Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DeKeyser, R.M. and Larson-Hall, J. (2005) What does the critical period really mean? In J.F. Kroll and A.M.B. DeGroot (eds) Handbook of Bilingualism: Psycholinguistic Perspectives (pp. 88–108). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Delett, J.S., Barnhardt, S. and Kevorkian, J.A. (2001) A framework for portfolio assessment in the foreign language classroom. Foreign Language Annals 34, 559–568. Diao, Y. and Sweller, J. (2007) Redundancy in foreign language reading comprehension instruction: Concurrent written and spoken presentations. Learning and Instruction 17, 78–88. Diaz-Rico, L.T. (2012) A Course for Teaching English Learners. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Donato, R. (1994) Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J.P. Lantolf and G. Appel (eds) Vygotskian Approaches to Second Language Research (pp. 33–56). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Dörnyei, Z. (2005) The Psychology of the Language Learner: Individual Differences in Second Language Acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Dörnyei, Z. and Skehan, P. (2003) Individual differences in second language learning. In C.J. Doughty and M.H. Long (eds) The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 589–630). Oxford: Blackwell. Dörnyei, Z. and Ushioda, E. (2009) Motivation, Language Identity and the L2 Self. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Dörnyei, Z., Henry, A. and Muir, C. (2015) Motivational Currents in Language Learning: Frameworks for Focused Interventions. New York: Routledge. Doughty, C. and Long, M. (2005) The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Drucker, M.J. (2003) What reading teachers should know about ESL learners. The Reading Teachers 57, 22–29. Duff, P. (2004) Intertextuality and hybrid discourses: The infusion of pop culture in educational discourse. Linguistics and Education 14, 231–276. Duff, P. (2007) Second language socialization as sociocultural theory: Insights and issues. Language Teaching 40, 309–319. Duff, P.A. and Hornberger, N.H. (2010) Language Socialization. Encyclopedia of Language and Education. Boston, MA: Springer. Duff, P. and Talmy, S. (2011) Language socialization approaches to second language acquisition: Social, cultural, and linguistic development in additional languages. In D. Atkinson (ed.) Alternative Approaches to SLA (pp. 95–116). London: Routledge. Durocher, D.O. (2007) Teaching sensitivity to cultural difference in the first-year foreign language classroom. Foreign Language Annals 40, 143–160. Dulay, H. and Burt, M. (1977) Remarks on creativity in language acquisition. In M. Burt, H. Dulay and M. Finnochiaro (eds) Viewpoints on English as a Second Language (pp. 95–126). New York: Regents. Echevarria, J., Vogt, M. and Short, D.J. (2014) Making Content Comprehensible for Elementary English Learners: The SIOP Model. Boston, MA: Pearson Higher Ed. Eckert, P. (1989) Jocks and Burnouts: Social Identity in the High School. New York: Teachers College Press. Ellis, N.C. (2002) Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24, 143–188. Ellis, N.C. (2008) Implicit and explicit knowledge about language. In J. Cenoz and N.H. Hornberger (eds) Encyclopedia of Language and Education (2nd edn), Vol. 6: Knowledge about Language (pp.1–13). New York: Springer.

222

References

Ellis, N.C. and Larsen-Freeman, D. (2009) Language as a Complex Adaptive System. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. Ellis, R. (2005) Principles of instructed language learning. System 33, 209–224. Ellis, R. and He, X. (1999) The roles of modified input and output in the incidental acquisition of word meanings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21, 285–301. Ellis, R., Loewen, S. and Erlam, R. (2006) Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28, 339–368. Engeström, Y. (1999) Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen and R.L. Punamäki (eds) Perspectives on Activity Theory (pp. 19–38). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Eulitz, C. and Lahiri, A. (2004) Neurobiological evidence for abstract phonological representations in the mental lexicon during speech recognition. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 16, 577–583. Fairbairn, S.B. and Fox, J. (2009) Inclusive achievement testing for linguistically and culturally diverse test takers: Essential considerations for test developers and decision makers. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice 28, 10–24. Fang, X. (2010) The role of input and interaction in second language acquisition. CrossCultural Communication 6, 11–17. Fishman, J.A. (1967) Bilingualism with and without diglossia; diglossia with and without bilingualism. Journal of Social Issues 23, 29–38. Fishman, J.A. (1999) Handbook of Language and Ethnicity New York: Oxford University Press. Flege, J.E., MacKay, I.R.A. and Piske, T. (2002) Assessing bilingual dominance. Applied Psycholinguistics 23, 567–598. Franco, L.A. (2006) Forms of conversation and problem structuring methods: A conceptual development. The Journal of the Operational Research Society 57, 813–821. Freire, P. (2009) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum. Fukkink, R.G. (2010) Missing pages? A study of textbooks for Dutch early childhood teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education 26, 371–376. Gal, S. (1978) Peasant men can’t get wives: Language change and sex roles in a bilingual community. Language in Society 7, 1–16. Gardner, H. (2006) Multiple Intelligences: New Horizons. New York: Basic Books. Gardner, R.C. (1985) Social Psychology and Language Learning: The Role of Attitudes and Motivation. London: Edward Arnold. Gardner, R.C. and Lambert, W.E. (1972) Attitudes and Motivation in Second Language Learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Gass, S. (1997) Input, Interaction, and the Second Language Learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Gass, S.M. and Mackey, A. (2006) Input, interaction and output: An overview. AILA Review 19, 3–17. Gass, S.M. and Mackey, A. (2007) Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten and J. Williams (eds) Theories in Second Language Acquisition: An Introduction (pp. 175–199). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Gass, S.M. and Selinker, L. (2008) Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Gass, S. and Mackey, A. (2012) Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. New York: Routledge. Gazdar, G. and Mellish, C. (1989) Natural Language Processing in Prolog: An Introduction to Computational Linguistics. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley. Geuss, R. (1981) The Idea of a Critical Theory. Habermas & the Frankfurt School. New York: Cambridge University Press. Gibbs Jr., R.W. (2006) Embodiment and Cognitive Science. New York: Cambridge University Press.

References

223

Giles, H., Coupland, J. and Coupland, N. (1991) Accommodation theory: Communication, context, and consequence. In H. Giles, J. Coupland and N. Coupland (eds) Contexts of Accommodation (pp. 1–68). New York: Cambridge University Press. Giles, H. and Coupland, N. (1991) Language: Contexts and Consequences. Keynes: Open University Press. Gilmore, A. (2007) Authentic materials and authenticity in foreign language learning. Language Teaching 40, 97–118. Ginns, P. (2005) Meta-analysis of the modality effect. Learning and Instruction 15, 313–331. Goldschneider, J.M. and DeKeyser, R.M. (2001) Explaining the “natural order of L2 morpheme acquisition” in English: A meta-analysis of multiple determinants. Language Learning 51, 1–50. Goodman, K.S. (1986) What’s Whole in Whole Language? Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Educational Books. Gorsuch, G. and Taguchi, E. (2008) Repeated reading for developing reading fluency and reading comprehension: The case of EFL learners in Vietnam. System. International Journal of Educational Technology and Applied Linguistics 36, 253–278. Gregersen, T. and Horwitz, E.K. (2002) Language learning and perfectionism: Anxious and non-anxious language learners’ reactions to their own oral performance. The Modern Language Journal 86, 562–570. Gregersen, T. and MacIntyre, P. (2014) Capitalizing on Language Learners’ Individuality. From Premise to Practice. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Gregg, K.(1984) Krashen’s monitor and Occam’s razor. Applied Linguistics 5, 79–100. Grodzinsky, Y. (2000) The neurology of syntax: Language use without Broca’s area. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23, 1–71. Grossberg, S. and Myers, C.W. (2000) The resonant dynamics of speech perception: Interword integration and duration-dependent backward effects. Psychological Review 107, 735–767. Guariento, W. and Morley, J. (2001) Text and task authenticity in the EFL classroom. ELT Journal 4, 347–353. Guichon, N. and McLornan, S. (2007) The effects of multimodality on L2 learners: Implications for CALL resource design. System 36, 85–93. Gutzmann, D. (2015) Use-Conditional Meaning. Studies in Multidimensional Semantics. Oxford Studies in Semantics and Pragmatics 6. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Haley, M. and Austin, T. (2004) Content-Based Second Language Teaching and Learning: An Integrative Approach. Boston, MA: Pearson. Halliday, M. (2003) On Language and Linguistics. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. Halliday, M., Mclntosh, A. and Strevens, P. (1964) The Linguistic Sciences and Language. Teaching. London: Longman. Handschin, C.H. (1912) A historical sketch of the Gouin series-system of teaching modern languages and of its use in the United States. The School Review 20, 170–175. Hanzeli, V.E. (1975) Learner’s language: Implications of recent research for foreign language instruction. The Modern Language Journal 59, 426–432. Harré, R. and van Langenhove, L. (1991) Varieties of positioning. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior 21, 393–407. Hatch, E.M. (1983) Psycholinguistics: A Second Language Perspective. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Hauser, M., Chomsky, N. and Fitch, W.T. (2002). The language faculty: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science 298, 1569–1579. Hawkins, R. (2001) Second Language Syntax: A Generative Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell. Herdina, P. and Jessner, U. (2002) A Dynamic Model of Multilingualism: Perspectives of Change in Psycholinguistics. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

224

References

Herrera, S.G., Murry, K.G. and Cabral, R.M. (2007) Assessment Accommodations for Classroom Teachers of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students. Boston, MA: Pearson Education Inc. Heylighen, F. (1991) Design of a hypermedia interface translating between associative and formal representations. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 35, 491–515. Higgins, C. (2009) English as a Local Language: Post-Colonial Identities and Multilingual Practices. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Higgins, E.T. (1987) Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review 94, 319–340. Hinkel, E. (1999) Culture in Second Language Teaching and Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Holub, R.C. (1992) Crossing Borders: Reception Theory, Poststructuralism, Deconstruction. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. Hoover, J., Klinger, J., Baca, L. and Patton, J. (2008) Methods for Teaching Culturally and Linguistically Liverse Learners. Columbus, OH: Pearson. Horwitz, E.K. (1999) Cultural and situational influences on foreign language learners’ beliefs about language learning: A review of BALLI studies. System 27, 557–576. Horwitz, E.K. (2010) Foreign and second language anxiety. Language Teaching 43, 154–167. Horwitz, E.K. (2013) Becoming a Language Teacher: A Practical Guide to Second Language Learning. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Horwitz, E.K., Horwitz, M.B. and Cope, J. (1986) Foreign language classroom anxiety. The Modern Language Journal 70, 125–132. Horwitz, E.K. and Young, D.J. (1991) Language Anxiety: From Theory and Research to Classroom Implications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Howatt, A.P.R. and Widdowson, H.G. (2004) A History of English Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hughes, A. (2003) Testing for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hymes, D.H. (1972) On communicative competence. In: J.B. Pride and J. Holmes (eds) Sociolinguistics. Selected Readings (pp. 269–293). Harmondsworth: Penguin. Individuals with Disabilities Act (2014) See http://idea.ed.gov/ Irvine, J.J. (1990) Black Students and School Failure. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Ishihara, N. and Cohen, A.D. (2014) Teaching and Learning Pragmatics: Where Language and Culture Meet. New York: Routledge. Izumi, S. (2002) Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis: An experimental study on ESL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24, 541–577. Izumi, S., Bigelow, M., Fujiwara, M. and Fearnow, S. (1999) Testing the output hypothesis: Effects of output on noticing and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21, 421–452. Jesney, K. (2004) The Use of Global Foreign Accent Rating in Studies of L2 Acquisition. Calgary: University of Calgary Language Research Centre Reports. Jurafsky, D. and Martin, J.H. (2000) An Introduction to Natural Language Processing, Computational Linguistics, and Speech Recognition. Eglewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Kachru, B.B., Kachru, Y. and Nelson, C. (2009) The Handbook of World Englishes. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. Kang, O., Rubin, D. and Pickering, L. (2010) Suprasegmental measures of accentedness and judgments of language learner proficiency in oral English. The Modern Language Journal 94, 554–566. Kanselaar, G., de Jong, T., Andriessen, J.E.B. and Goodyear, P. (2000) New technologies. In P.R.J. Simons, J.L. van der Linden and T. Duffy (eds) New Learning (pp. 49–72). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Karmiloff. K. and Karmiloff-Smith, A. (2001) Pathways to Language: From Fetus to Adolescent. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

References

225

Karpov, Y.V. and Haywodd, H.C. (1998) Two ways to elaborate Vygotsky’s concept of mediation implications for instruction. American Psychologist 53, 27–36. Kaufman, D. (2004) Constructivist issues in language learning and teaching. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 24, 303–319. Kayi-Aydar, H. (2013) Social positioning, participation, and second language learning: Talkative students in an academic ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly 48, 686–714. Kim, S. (2006) Academic oral communication needs of East Asian international graduate students in non-science and non-engineering fields. English for Specific Purposes 25, 479–489. Kinsella, C. and Singleton, D. (2014) Much more than age. Applied Linguistics 35, 441–462. Kintsch, W. (1998) Comprehension: A Paradigm for Cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press. Knapp, M.L., Hall, J.A. and Horgan, T.G. (2014) Nonverbal Communication in Human Interaction (8th edn). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth (Cengage Learning). Knudsen, E. (2004) Sensitive periods in the development of the brain and behavior. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 16, 1412–1425. Knutson, E.M. (2006) Cross-cultural awareness for second/foreign language learners. The Canadian Modern Language Review 62, 591–610. Kramer, M. (2003) Vowel Harmony and Correspondence Theory. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Kramsch, C. (1998) Language and Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Krashen, S.D. (1981) Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. New York: Pergamom Press. Krashen, S.D. (1985) The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. London: Longman. Krashen, S.D. (1987) Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. New York: Prentice-Hall. Krashen, S.D. (2003) Explorations in Language Acquisition and Use: The Taipei Lectures. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Krashen, S.D. and Terrell, T.D. (1983) The Natural Approach: Language Acquisition in the Classroom. London: Prentice Hall. Kress, G. (2000) Multimodality: Challenges to thinking about language. TESOL Quarterly 34, 337–340. Kress, G. (2003) Literacy in the New Media Age. London: Routledge. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2001) Toward a postmethod pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly 35, 537–560. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006) TESOL methods: Changing tracks, challenging trends. TESOL Quarterly 40, 59–81. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2008) Cultural Globalization and Language Education. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Kupferberg, I. (1999) The cognitive turn of contrastive analysis: Empirical evidence. Language Awareness 8, 210–222. Labov, W. (1972) Language in the Inner City: Studies in the Black English Vernacular. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Lado, R. (1957) Linguistics Across Cultures: Applied Linguistics for Language Teachers. Ann Arbor , MI: University of Michigan Press. Lakoff, G and Johnson, M. (1980) Metaphors We Live By. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Lantolf, J.P. (2011) The sociocultural approach to second language acquisition: Sociocultural theory, second language acquisition, and artificial L2 development. In D. Atkinson (ed.) Alternative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition (pp. 24–47). New York: Routledge. Lantolf, J. and Thorne, S. (2006) Sociocultural Theory and the Genesis of Second Language Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

226

References

Lantolf, J. and Johnson, K. (2007) Extending Firth and Wagner’s (1997) ontological perspective to L2 classroom praxis and teacher education. The Modern Language Journal 91, 877–892. Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997) Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics 18, 141–165. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2002) Language acquisition and language use from a chaos/ complexity theory perspective. In C. Kramsch (ed.) Language Acquisition and Language Socialization: Ecological Perspectives (pp. 33–46). New York: Continuum. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2003) Teaching Language: From Grammar to Grammaring. Boston, MA: Thomson/Heinle. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2007) Reflecting on the cognitive–Social debate in second language acquisition. Modern Language Journal 91, 773–787. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2011) Complexity theory approach to second language development/ acquisition. In D. Atkinson (ed.) Alternative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition (pp. 49–72). New York. Routledge. Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991) Situated Learning. Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press. Leclercq, P., Edmonds, A. and Hilton, H. (2014) Measuring L2 Proficiency: Perspectives From SLA. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Lee, G. and Schallert, D.L. (2008) Meeting in the margins: Effects of the teacher–student relationship on revision processes of EFL college students taking a composition course. Journal of Second Language Writing 17, 165–182. Leontiev, A. (1978) Activity, Consciousness, and Personality. Englewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice Hall. Lieven, E. (2010) Input and first language acquisition: Evaluating the role of frequency. Lingua 120, 2546–2556. Lightbown, P., Spada, N., Ranta, L. and Rand, J. (2006) How Languages Are Learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Little, D., Devitt, S. and Singleton, D. (1989) Learning Foreign Languages From Authentic Texts: Theory and Practice. Dublin: Authentik. Long, M. (1981) Input, interaction, and second-language acquisition. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 379, 259–278. Long, M. (1983) Linguistic and conversational adjustments to non-native speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 5, 177–193. Long, M. (1985) Input and second language acquisition theory. In S.M. Gass and C.G. Madden (eds) Input in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 377–393). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Long, M. (1996) The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W.C. Ritchie and T.K. Bhatia (eds) Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 413–468). New York: Academic Press. Lorenz, E. (1996) The Essence of Chaos. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. Lu, X. (2010) Automatic analysis of syntactic complexity in second language writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 15, 474–496. Luce, R.D. (1986) Response Times: Their Role in Inferring Elementary Mental Organization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lull, R.B., Çetin, Y. and Bushman, B.J. (2015) Violent and sexual media impair second language memory during encoding and retrieval. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 56, 172–178. Luoma, S. (2004) Assessing Speaking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lybeck, K. (2002) Cultural identification and second language pronunciation of Americans in Norway. The Modern Language Journal 86, 174–191. Lynch, A., Klee, C.A. and Tedick, D.J. (2001) Social factors and language proficiency in postsecondary Spanish immersion: Issues and implications. Hispania 84, 510–524.

References

227

Lyster, R. and Ranta, L. (1997) Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19, 37–66. Lyster, R. and Izquierdo, J. (2009) Prompts versus recasts in dyadic interaction. Language Learning 59, 453–498. Lyster, R. and Saito, K. (2010) Interactional feedback as instructional input: A synthesis of classroom SLA research. Language, Interaction and Acquisition 1, 276–297. MacIntyre, P.D. (2007) Willingness to communicate in the second language: Understanding the decision to speak as a volitional process. The Modern Language Journal 91, 564–576. MacIntyre, P.D. and Gardner, R.C. (1991) Methods and results in the study of anxiety in language learning: A review of the literature. Language Learning 41, 85–117. Mackey, A. (2006) Feedback, noticing, and second language development: An empirical study of L2 classroom interaction . Applied Linguistics 27, 405–430. Mackey, A. (2007) Conversational Interaction in SLA: A Collection of Empirical Studies. New York: Oxford University Press. Mackey, A. (2012) Input, Interaction, and Corrective Feedback in L2 Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mackey, A. and Goo, J. (2007) Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In A. Mackey (ed.) Conversational Interaction in SLA: A Collection of Empirical Studies (pp. 408–452). New York: Oxford University Press. MacNeil, R. and Cran, W. (2004) Do You Speak American? New York: Random House LLC. Mancilla, R., Polat, N. and Akcay, A. (2015) An investigation of native and non-native English speakers’ levels of written syntactic complexity in asynchronous online discussions. Applied Linguistics. DOI:10.1093/applin/amv012. Markee, N (2015) The Handbook of Classroom Discourse and Interaction. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Martiniello, M. (2008) Language and the performance of English-language learners in math word problems. Harvard Educational Review 78, 333–368. Mayer, R.E. (2005) Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. New York: Cambridge University Press. Mayer, R. and Moreno, R. (2003) Nine ways to reduce coginitive load in multimedia learning. In R. Bruning, C.Horn and L. Pytlikzillig (eds) Web-Based Learning: What Do We Know? Where Do We Go? (pp. 23–44). Grenwich, CN: Information Age. McCafferty, S., Roebuck, R. and Wayland, R. (2001) Activity theory and the incidental learning of second-language vocabulary. Language Awareness 10, 289–294. McDonough, K. (2005) Identifying the impact of negative feedback and learners’ responses on ESL question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27, 79–103. McGrath, I. (2002) Materials Evaluation and Design for Language Teaching. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University. McLaughlin, B. (1987) Theories of Second-Language Learning. London: Edward Arnold. McNamara, T., Hill, K. and May, L. (2002) Discourse and assessment. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 22, 221–242. McVee, M.B., Dunsmore, K. and Gavelek, J.R. (2005) Schema theory revisited. Review of Educational Research 75, 531–566. Mechelli, A., Crinion, J.T., Noppeney, U., O’Doherty, J., Ashburner, J., Frackowiak, R.S. and Price, C.J. (2004) Structural plasticity in the bilingual brain. Nature, 431–432. Mercer, S. (2011) Towards an Understanding of Language Learner Self-Concept. Dordrecht: Springer. Meyerhoff, M. and Schleef, E. (2010) The Routledge Sociolinguistics Reader. New York: Routledge.

228

References

Milroy, L. (1980) Language and Social Change. Oxford: Blackwell. Misyak, J.B. and Christiansen, M.H. (2012) Statistical learning and language: An individual differences study. Language Learning 62, 302–331. Mitchell, R., Myles, F. and Marsden, E. (2013) Second Language Learning Theories. New York: Routledge. Mitkov, R. (2003) The Oxford Handbook of Computational Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Moje, E.B., Ciechanowski, K.M., Kramer, K., Ellis, L., Carrillo, R. and Collazo, T. (2004) Working toward third space in content area literacy: An examination of everyday funds of knowledge and discourse. Reading Research Quarterly 39, 38–70. Moyer, A. (2004) Age, Accent and Experience in Second Language Acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Nation, I.S.P. and Macalister, J. (2010) Language Curriculum Design. New York/London: Routledge. National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition (2011) The Growing Numbers of English Learner Students, 1998/99–2008/09. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education. National Standards in Foreign Language Education Project (NSFLEP) (1999) Standards for Foreign Language Learning in the 21st Century. Lawrence, KS: Allen Press. National Standards in Foreign Language Education Project (NSFLEP) (2006) Standards for Foreign Language Learning in the 21st Century. Lawrence, KS: Allen Press. Nizegorodcew, A. (2007) Input for Instructed L2 Learners. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Noels, K.A., Clément, R. and Pelletier, L.G. (2003) Intrinsic, extrinsic, and integrative orientations of French Canadian learners of English. Canadian Modern Language Review 59, 589–607. Norris, J. and Ortega, L. (2000) Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning 50, 417–528. Norton, B. (2000) Identity and Language Learning: Gender, Ethnicity, and Educational Change. Harlow: Longman/Pearson. Norton, B. and Toohey, K. (2004) Critical Pedagogies and Language Learning. Ernst Klett Stuttgart: Sprachen. Norton, B. and Pavlenko, A. (2004) Gender and English Language Learners. Alexandria, VA: TESOL Publications. Norton, B. and McKinney, C. (2011) An identity approach to second language acquisition. In D. Atkinson (ed.) Alternative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition (pp. 73–94). New York: Taylor & Francis. Norton-Peirce, B. (1995) Social identity, investment, and language learning. TESOL Quarterly 29, 9–31. Nunan, D. (1991) Communicative tasks and the language curriculum. TESOL Quarterly 25, 279–95. O’Malley, J.M. and Chamot, A.U. (1990) Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Oh, S.Y. (2001) Two types of input podification and EFL reading comprehension: Simplification versus elaboration. TESOL Quarterly 35, 69–96. Ortega, L. (2009) Second Language Acquisition. London: Hodder Education. Ortega, L (2011) SLA after the social turn: Where cognitivisrm and its alternatives stand. In D. Atkinson (ed.) Alternative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition (pp. 167-180). New York, NY: Routledge. Oxford, R. (1990) Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle. Oxford, R. (2011) Teaching and Researching Language Learning Strategies. Harlow: Longman.

References

229

Paivio, A. (1986) Mental Representations: A Dual Coding Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pavlenko, A. (2002) Poststructuralist approaches to the study of social factors in second language learning and use. In V. Cook (ed.) Portraits of the L2 User (pp. 277–302). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Pawlak, M. (2012) New Perspectives on Individual Differences in Language Learning and Teaching. Berlin: Springer. Pearson, P.D. (1992) Reading. In M.C. Alkin (ed.) The Encyclopedia of Educational Research (pp. 1075–1085). American Educational Research Education. New York: Macmillan. Pearson, B.Z., Fernandez, S.C., Lewedeg, V. and Oller, D.K. (1997) The relation of input factors to lexical learning by bilingual infants. Applied Psycholinguistics 18, 41–58. Peirce, C.S. (1998) The Essential Peirce, Selected Philosophical Writings, Volume 1 (1867– 1893), 1992, N. Houser and K. Christian (eds) Volume 2 (1893–1913), 1998, Peirce Edition Project. Bloomington and Indianapolis, IN: Indiana University Press. Pennycook, A. (1990) Towards a critical applied linguistics for the 1990s. Issues in Applied Linguistics 1, 8–28. Perez, L.C. (2003) Foreign language productivity in synchronous versus asynchronous computer-mediated communication. CALICO Journal 21, 89–104. Perkins, K. (1998) Assessing reading. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 18, 208–218. Pica, T., Doughty, C. and Young, R. (1986) Making input comprehensible: Do interactional modifications help? ITL Review of Applied Linguistics 72, 1–25 Pienemann, M. (2005) An introduction to processability theory. In M. Pienemann (ed.) Cross-Linguistic Aspects of Processability Theory (pp. 1–60). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pienemann, M. and Kessler, J. (2011) Studying Processability Theory: An Introductory Textbook. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Pinker, S. (1984) Language Learnability and Language Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Pinker, S. (2007) The Stuff of Thought: Language as a Window Into Human Nature. New York: Penguin. Pintrich, P.R. (2000) Multiple goals, multiple pathways: The role of goal orientation in learning and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology 92, 544–555. Platt, E. and Brooks, F. (1994) The “acquisition-rich environment” revisited. The Modern Language Journal 78, 497–511. Poehner, M.E. (2007) Beyond the test: L2 dynamic assessment and the transcendence of mediated learning. The Modern Language Journal 91, 323–340. Poeppel, D. and Embick, D. (2005) Defining the relation between linguistics and neuroscience. In A. Cutler (ed.) Twenty-First Century Psycholinguistics: Four Cornerstones (pp. 103–118). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Polat, N. (2009) Matches in beliefs between teachers and students, and success in L2 attainment: The Georgian example. Foreign Language Annals 42, 229–249. Polat, N. (2011a) Pedagogical treatment and change in preservice teacher beliefs: An experimental study. International Journal of Educational Research 49, 195–209. Polat, N. (2011b) Gender and age differences in motivation and L2 accent attainment: An investigation of young Kurdish learners of Turkish. Language Learning Journal 39, 19–41. Polat, N. (2011c) Examining the nature and content of L2 socialization patterns: Attainment of a native-like Turkish accent by Kurds. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies 8, 261–288. Polat, N. and Mahalingappa, L. (2010) Gender differences in identity and acculturation patterns and L2 accent attainment. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education 9, 17–35.

230

References

Polat, N. and Schallert, D.L. (2013) Kurdish adolescents acquiring Turkish: Their selfdetermined motivation and identification with L1 and L2 communities as predictors of L2 accent attainment. Modern Language Journal 93, 745–763. Polat, N. and Cepik, S. (2016) An exploratory factor analysis of the sheltered instruction observation protocol as a Teacher Performance Evaluation Tool. TESOL Quarterly. DOI:10.1002/tesq.248 Polat, N., Balog, R. and Mahalingappa, L. (2013) Anonymity and motivation in asynchronous discussions and L2 vocabulary learning. Language Learning & Technology 17, 57–74. Polat, N., Zarecky-Hodge, A. and Schreiber, J. (2016) Academic growth trajectories of ELLs in NAEP data: The case of 4th and 8th-grade ELLs and non-ELLs on Math and Reading tests. The Journal of Educational Research. DOI: 10.1080/00220671.2014.993461 Rast, R. (2008) Foreign Language Input: Initial Processing. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Rayner, K. and Slowiaczek, M.L. (1981) Expectations and parafoveal information in reading: Comments on McClelland and O’Regan. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 7, 645–651. Raz, N. (2005) The aging brain observed in vivo: Differential changes and their modifiers. In R. Cabeza, L. Nyberg and D. Park (eds) Cognitive Neuroscience of Aging: Linking Cognitive and Cerebral Aging (pp. 19–57). New York: Oxford University Press. Reid, J. (1987) The learning style preferences of ESL students. TESOL Quarterly 21, 87–111. Richards, J.C. (2007) Curriculum Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Richards, J.C. (2008) Second language teacher education today. RELC Journal 39, 158–177. Richards, J.C. and Rodgers, T.S. (2010) Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Richards, J.C., Platt, H., and Platt, H. (1992) Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics. London: Longman. Rickford, J. (1986) The need for new approaches to social class analysis in sociolinguistics. Language and Communication 6, 215–221. Ritchie, W.C. and Bhatia, T.K. (1999) Handbook of Child Language Acquisition. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Roberts, L. and Meyer, A. (2012) Individual Differences in Second Language Learning. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Robinson, P. (1995) Attention, memory, and the “noticing” hypothesis. Language Learning 45, 283–331. Robinson, P. (2005) Aptitude and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 25, 46–73. Romaine, S. (1995) Bilingualism. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Ross, S.J. (2005) The impact of assessment method on foreign language proficiency growth. Applied Linguistics 26, 317–342. Rumelhart, D. (1984) The emergence of cognitive phenomena from sub-symbolic processes. Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 59–62). Boulder, Colorado. Russell, J. and Spada, N. (2006) The effectiveness of corrective feedback for second language acquisition: A meta-analysis of the research. In J. Norris and L. Ortega (eds) Synthesizing Research on Language Learning and Teaching (pp. 133–164). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Sadoski, M., Paivio, A. and Goetz, E.T. (1991) Commentary: A critique of schema theory in reading and a dual coding alternative. Reading Research Quarterly 26, 463–484. Samuels, S.J. (1994) Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading, revisited. In R.B. Ruddell, M.R. Ruddell and H. Singer (eds) Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading (pp. 816–837). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

References

231

Sanz, C. (2005) Adult SLA: The interaction between external and internal factors. In C. Sanz (ed.) Mind and Context in Adult Second Language Acquisition: Methods, Theory, and Practice (pp. 3–20). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Sarroub, L.K. (2002) In-betweenness: Religion and conflicting visions of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly 37, 130–148. Satar, H. and Ozdener, N. (2008) The effects of synchronous CMC on speaking proficiency and anxiety: Text versus voice chat. The Modern Language Journal 92, 595–613. Saussure, F.D. (2002) Écrits de linguistique générale (edition prepared by Simon Bouquet and Rudolf Engler). Paris: Gallimard. English translation: Writings in General Linguistics. Savignon, S.J. (1972) Communicative Competence: An Experiment in Foreign Language Teaching. Philadelphia, PA: Center for Curriculum Development. Savignon, S. and Sysoyev, P.V. (2002) Sociocultural strategies for a dialogue of cultures. The Modern Language Journal 86, 510–524. Saville-Troike, M. (2006) Introducing Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schegloff, E.A. (1992) To Searle on conversation: A note in return. In H. Parret and J. Verschueren (eds) (On) Searle on Conversation (pp. 113–128). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Schmidt, R.W. (1994) Implicit learning and the cognitive unconscious: Of artificial grammars and SLA. In N. Ellis (ed.) Implicit and Explicit Learning of Languages (pp.165–209). London: Academic Press. Schmidt, R. (2002) Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching & Applied Linguistics. London: Pearson Education Limited. Schulz, R.A. (2007) The challenge of assessing cultural understanding in the context of foreign language instruction. Foreign Language Annals 40, 9–26. Schumann, J.H. (1976) Social distance as a factor in second language acquisition. Language Learning 26, 135–143. Schumann, J.H. (1978) The acculturation model for second language acquisition. In R.C. Gingra (ed.) Second Language Acquisition and Foreign Language Teaching (pp. 27–50). Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics. Scovel, T. (1988) A Time to Speak: A Psycholinguistic Inquiry into the Critical Period for Human Speech. New York: Newbury House/Harper & Row. Searle, J.R., Kiefer, F. and Bierwisch, M. (1980) Speech Act Theory and Pragmatics. Dordrecht: Springer. Segalowitz, N. (2003) Automaticity and second languages. In C.J. Doughty and M.H. Long (eds) The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 382–408). Oxford: Blackwell. Seliger, H.W. and Long, M.H. (1983) Classroom Oriented Research in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Selinker, L. (1972) Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics 10, 209–241. Selinker, L. (1992) Rediscovering Interlanguage. New York: Longman. Settlage, J., Madsen, A. and Rustad, K. (2005) Inquiry science, sheltered instruction, and English language learners: Conflicting pedagogies in highly diverse classrooms. Issues in Teacher Education 14, 39–57. Shanker, S.G. and King, B.J. (2002) The emergence of a new paradigm in ape language research: Beyond interactionism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25, 646–651. Shehadeh, A. (2002) Comprehensible output: From occurrence to acquisition. An agenda for acquisitional research. Language Learning 52, 597–647. Shintani, N. and Ellis, R. (2014) Tracking ‘learning behaviours’ in the incidental acquisition of two dimensional adjectives by Japanese beginner learners of L2 English. Language Teaching Research 18, 521–542. Siegel, J. (2008) The Emergence of Pidgin and Creole Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

232

References

Singleton, D. (2005) The critical period hypothesis: A coat of many colours. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 43, 269–285. Singleton, D. and Ryan, L. (2004) Language Acquisition: The Age Factor. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Skehan, P. (1989) Individual Differences in Second Language Learning. London: Edward Arnold. Slobin, D.I. (1985) The Crosslinguistic Study of Language Acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Spolsky, B. (1989) Conditions for Second Language Learning: Introduction to a General Theory. Oxford, MA: Oxford University Press. Stemmer, B. and Whitaker, H.A. (2008) Handbook of the Neuroscience of Language. New York: Academic Press. Stone, C.A. (1993) What is missing in the metaphor of scaffolding? In E. Forman, N. Minick and C.A. Stone (eds) Contexts for Learning. Sociocultural Dynamics in Children’s Development (pp. 169–183). Oxford, MA: Oxford University Press. Swain, M. (1985) Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass and C. Madden (eds) Input in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Swain, M. (1995) Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook and B. Seidlhofer (eds) Principle and Practice in Applied Linguistics: Studies in Honor of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Swain, M. (2000) The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. Lantolf (ed.) Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning (pp. 97–114). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Swain, M. (2005) The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (ed.) Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning (pp. 471–483). Mahwa, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Swain, M. (2006) Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced second language proficiency. In H. Byrnes (ed.) Advanced Language Learning: The Contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 95–108). London: Continuum. Swain, M., Lapkin, S., Knouzi, I., Suzuki, W. and Brooks, L. (2009) Languaging: University students learn the grammatical concept of voice in French. The Modern Language Journal 93, 5–29. Sweller, J. (1994) Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction 4, 295–312. Sydorenko, T. (2010) Modality of input and vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning & Technology 14, 50–73. Taguchi, N. (2012) Context, Individual Differences, and Pragmatic Competence. New York/ Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Tang, Y. (2006) Beyond behavior: Goals of cultural learning in the second language classroom. The Modern Language Journal 90, 86–99. Tarone, E. (1982) Systematicity and attention in interlanguage. Language Learning 32, 69–84. Tarone, E. (2000) Still wrestling with ‘context’ in interlanguage theory. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 20, 182–198. Tarone, E. (2007) Sociolinguistic approaches to second language acquisition research: 1997–2007. The Modern Language Journal 91, 837–848. Terrell, T.D. (1982) The natural approach to language teaching: An update. The Modern Language Journal 66, 121–132. TESOL Program Standards (2010) See http://www.tesol.org/advance-the-field/standards Thorne, S.L. (2003) Artifacts and cultures-of-use in intercultural communication. Language Learning & Technology 7, 38–67.

References

233

Thorne, S.L. (2008) Transcultural communication in open internet environments and massively multiplayer online games. In S. Magnan (ed.) Mediating Discourse Online (pp. 305–327). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Tomasello, M. (2003) Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Tomlinson, B. (2011) Materials Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Traxler, M. and Gernsbacher, M.A. (2006) Handbook of Psycholinguistics. New York: Academic Press. Trudgill, P. (1972) Sex, covert prestige and linguistic change in the urban British English of Norwich. Language in Society 1, 175–195. Turner, J. (1998) Assessing speaking. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 18, 192–207. Valenzuela, A. (1999) Subtractive Schooling: U.S.-Mexican Youth and the Politics of Caring. New York: State University of New York Press. Van Dijk, T.A. and Kintsch, W. (1983) Strategies of Discourse Comprehension. New York: Academic Press. van Lier, L. (2000) From input to affordance: Social-interactive learning from an ecological prospective. In J.P. Lantolf (ed.) Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning: Recent Advances (pp. 245–259). Oxford: Oxford University Press. van Lier, L. (2002) An ecological-semiotic perspective on language and linguistics. In C. Kramsch (ed.) Language Acquisition and Language Socialization: Ecological Perspectives (pp. 140–164). New York: Continuum. van Lier, L. (2004) The Ecology and Semiotics of Language Learning: A Sociocultural Perspective. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic. van Lier, L. (2007) Action-based teaching, autonomy and identity. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 1 (1), 46–65. VanPatten, B. and Uludag, O. (2011) Transfer of training and processing instruction: From input to output. System 39, 44–53. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978) Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner and E. Souberman eds and trans). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wagner-Gough, J. and Hatch, E. (1975) The importance of input data in second language acquisition studies. Language Learning 25, 297–308. Walqui, A. (2000) Access and engagement: Program Design and Instructional Approaches for Immigrant Students in Secondary Schools. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics and Delta Systems. Walsh, S. (2006) Investigating Classroom Discourse. London: Routledge. Walters, K. (2011) Gendering French: Historicizing Tunisian language ideologies. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 211, 83–111. Watson-Gegeo, K.A. (2004) Mind, language, and epistemology: Toward a language socialization paradigm for SLA. The Modern Language Journal 88, 331–350. Weigle, S.C. (2002) Assessing Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wheeler, M. (2005) Reconstructing the Cognitive World. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press WIDA Can Do Descriptors (2014) See https://www.wida.us/downloadlibrary.aspx Widdowson, H.G. (1994) Learning Purpose and Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Williams, J.N. (2005) Associationism and connectionism. In K.E. Brown (ed.) Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (pp. 1–7). Oxford: Elsevier. Wolf, M.K. and Leon, S. (2009) An investigation of the language demands in content assessments for English language learners. Educational Assessment 14, 139–159. Wong, L.C. and Nunan, D. (2011) The learning styles and strategies of effective language learners. System 39, 144–163.

234

References

Yan, J.X. and Horwitz, E.K. (2008) Learners’ perceptions of how anxiety interacts with personal and instructional factors to influence their achievement in English: A qualitative analysis of EFL learners in China. Language Learning 58, 151–183. Yano, Y., Long, M. and Ross, S. (1994) The effects of simplified and elaborated texts on foreign language reading comprehension. Language Learning 44, 189–219. Young, D.J. (1991) Creating a low-anxiety classroom environment: What does the anxiety research suggest? The Modern Language Journal 75, 426–439. Young, R.J.C. (2005) Colonial Desire: Hybridity in Theory, Culture, and Race. New York: Routledge. Yule, G. (2011) The Study of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Zuengler, J. and Cole, K.M. (2005) Language socialization and L2 learning. In E. Hinkel (ed.) Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning (pp. 301–316). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Index acculturation, 8, 34, 92, 94–97, 106, 114, 151–152, 158–159, 175, 179, 212 achievement tests, 196–197, 201 acquisition versus learning, 74–75, 80, 90, 115 Activity Theory, 55, 92–93, 103, 105–106, 212 affective factors, xvi, 55, 75, 82–85, 95–96, 110, 137, 140, 142, 149, 152, 175, 214 affective filter, 74, 82–85, 87, 95, 126, 141, 175, 212 anxiety, xvi, 15, 29, 52, 76, 80, 82–83, 85, 95–96, 106, 126, 135, 137–142, 146, 149, 152, 158–159, 162, 164–165, 167–168, 174, 176, 180–182, 186–187, 190, 194, 214 aphasia, 47, 210 applied linguistics, xiv, xv, 1, 16, 36, 53, 205, 209 approaches to L2 testing, xvii, 121, 182, 184, 188, 202, 216 assessment of productive skills, 189, 190, 200 assessment of receptive skills, 189, 190, 197–198, attitudes, 34, 38–39, 52, 83–84, 92, 94–97, 106, 137, 141, 151–152, 155, 159–170, 176, 212, 215 authentic Input, 123, 129, 132–134, 193 authenticity, 132–135, 182, 185, 192, 194, 203, 214 automatic processing, 64–65, 73, Automaticity Theory, 23–24, 35, 207 banking model, 14, 207 basic interpersonal communication skills (BICS), 4, 18, 77, 80, 99, 128, 171, 174–175, 188–189, 195, 198 beliefs about L2A, xvi, 8, 29, 52, 63, 69, 76, 84, 135, 140–142, 146–147, 149, 152, 155, 169, 171, 174, 177, 187 bilingualism, 34–35, 38, 43, 49, 209 biological endowment, 46–51, 53, 58–59, 67–68, 81, 83, 89, 108–109, 235

114–116, 119–120, 135, 142–143, 210, 213 body language, 4, 16, 17, 52, 160, 162, 167, 172, 174, 199 butterfly effect, 109, 112 classroom instruction, 41, 77, 124, 134, 146, 154, 159, 168, 175, 178, 180, 182, 197 cognition and L2 learning, xvi, 24–25, 31, 36, 46–47, 51–53, 55, 57, 60, 62, 64, 73, 83, 86, 90, 92, 107–109, 112, 119, 126, 142, 144, 146, 148, 176, 185, 199, 204, 210–211, 213 cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP), 4, 18, 77, 80, 99, 128, 171, 174–175, 187–189, 195, 198 cognitive factors, xvi, 51, 62, 71, 89–90, 115, 118, 121, 141–143, 145, 149 Cognitive Load Theory, xv, 1, 4, 7, 10, 20, 21, 79, 113, 125, 133, 188, 207 cognitive processing, xvi, 12, 23, 38, 49, 55, 57, 79, 157 coherent Input, 123, 125, 134 cohesion and coherence, 14, 128, 130, 173 communicative competence, 6, 16, 69, 85, 89, 99, 129–130, 132–133, 151, 169, 188, 193, 202 Complexity/Chaos Theory, xvi, 4, 55, 62, 69, 107, 111–112, 192, 213 computational linguistics, xv, 1, 22, 36, 46, 50–53, 58, 71, 81, 110, 209–210 computer-mediated communication (CMC), 28, 125, 195 conceptual foundation, xv, 1–3, 19–20, 35, 38, 121, 205 Connectionism, xvi, 55, 71, 73, 211 constructing meaning, 48, 82, 101, 113, 135, 151, 201 Constructivist Theory, xv, 1, 15–16, 20, 29–33, 35, 37, 77, 92, 164, 170, 188, 192, 208 contextual affordances, 26, 33, 63, 133, 150, 152, 161, 215 Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis, 39, 52, 59, 77, 117, 170, 177

236

Index

controlled processing, 24, 55, 58, 62, 64–65, 73, 80, 190, 211 cooperative learning, xvi, 121, 163–164, 182, 215 corrective feedback, 87, 91, 117, 140, 154, 172–174, 183, 185–186, 202, 212, 216–217 criterion-referenced tests, 191, 202–203 critical pedagogy, 14, 16, 103, 205 Critical Period Hypothesis, xvi, 48, 55, 81, 107, 114–116, 213 cultural assimilation, 34, 94, 97, 158, 169, 175, 179 cultural dynamism, xvi, 150, 156, 161, 215 cultural elements, xv, 11–12, 29, 31, 34, 39, 150–157, 162, 196 cultural essentialism, 34, 71 cultural perspectives, 13, 31, 137, 150–152, 154–159, 161–162, 169–170, 198, 215 cultural practices, xvi, 13, 33, 98, 150, 152–153, 155–156 cultural products, 155, 169 culturally-relevant affordances, xvi, 8, 28, 150, 152–153, 161, 200 culture and L2 learning, 150–152, 214 culture shock, xvi, 150, 152, 158–159, 161–162, 215 declarative knowledge, 65–66, 211 diagnostic tests, 184, 197, 203, 216 direct versus indirect tests, 189–190 Dual-Coding Theory, 26, 28, 35, 207 Dynamic Systems Theory, 107, 109, 112, 114, 151, 163, 192–193, 213 Ecological Theory, 107, 110, 213 errors, 59, 61, 73, 82, 118, 132, 148, experiential knowledge, 12–13, 17, 29–31, 93, 208 explicit knowledge, 62, 67, 115 exposure, 4, 6, 13–14, 21, 24, 31, 33–34, 46–48, 59–60, 69, 71–72, 75, 77, 81, 83, 87, 92, 95, 97–98, 102, 106, 112, 115, 117–118, 133, 154, 158, 163, 213 figurative speech, 14, 16, 52, 211 first language (L1), xvi, 5, 20, 18, 46, 55, 59, 75, 78, 93, 116, 118, 130, 149–150, 167, 209 focal attention, 63, 190 English as a foreign language (EFL), 6, 13, 15, 20–21, 34, 38, 63, 75, 77, 100, 108, 114, 138, 140, 152, 155, 171, 184, 192, 216

formative assessment, xvii, 121, 184–188, 191, 193, 196, 202, 216 form-focused, 14, 67, 69, 173 Functionalism, 16–17 39, 53, 89, 131 Generativism, 16, 22, 53, 59 goal-orientation, 63, 84, 104–105, 106, 123, Gouin method, xiv, 20, 35 grammar, 9, 12, 17, 59, 67, 117, 123, 129, 142, 147, 170, 178, 185, 187–188, 197–198, 200 Hybridity Theory, 33, 35, 208 i+1 hypothesis, xvi, 31, 55, 74, 76, 78–80, 85, 88, 90, 125, 171, 189, 211 iconic elements, 13, 17, 19, 156–157 identity, xvi, 16, 29, 30, 32–36, 42–45, 52–53, 63, 83–84, 96–97, 102–103, 121, 135–137, 149, 152–153, 157, 160, 166–167, 174, 176, 182, 198, 200, 210, 212, 214, implicit knowledge, 62, 65–67, 69, 73, 190 indexical elements, 3, 13, 17, 19, 31, 42, 44, 49, 93, 99, 105, 114–115, 125, 151, 156–157, 166 information processing, xvi, 55, 142 innate (ness) resources, xvi, 22, 55, 59, 60, 81, 90, 142, 144, 176 input defined, 3–19 Input Hypothesis, xvi, 16, 20, 35, 74, 80–81, 85, 88, 90, 198, 211 instructional methods, xiii, 16, 77, 123, 131, 133–134, 147, 169, 178, 185, 204, 215 intake, xv, 1, 5, 32, 82–83, 198, 205 integrative versus discrete-point tests, 184, 188–189, 202–203, 216 interaction and discourse related factors, 113, 163, 182, 214–215 Interaction Hypothesis, 74, 85, 104, 111, 212 interference, 38, 59, 61, 69, 71, 73, 78, 117, 190, 213 Interlanguage Theory, xvi, 15, 23, 39, 41, 51, 53, 55, 59, 68, 70, 73, 87–88, 101, 107, 117, 119, 151, 167, 173, 193, 209–213 investment, xiii, xvi, 84, 95, 118, 125, 135–136, 139, 146, 149 kinds of tests, xvii, 121, 184, 194

Index

L2 self-concept, xvi, 84, 101, 114, 121, 135, 149, 175, 183, 214, 216 language acquisition device (LAD), 59, 74, 83, 116, language aptitude, xvi, 82–83, 108, 121, 135, 138, 140, 142–144, 149, 171, 174, 176, 214 language socialization, xvi, 39, 55, 92–93, 100–101, 103, 106, 114, 160, 166, 200, 212, 217 language variation, 4, 5, 17–18, 36, 38, 40–43, 49–51, 53, 58, 64, 67–68, 72, 76, 80, 82, 89, 93, 98, 100, 103–105, 109, 113–115, 117, 119, 124–125, 131, 133, 151, 156, 167, 170, 180, 190, 200, 208–209 languaging, 7, 8, 19, 31, 74, 78, 82, 90–92, 110, 113, 118, 124, 136, 163, 165, 173, 186, 190, 193, 195, 202, 204, 207, 209, 212, 214 learner styles, xvi, 27, 108, 127, 142, 144–145, 149 learner variables, 30, 74, 76, 82, 83, 87, 92, 95, 100, 106, 108, 116, 130, 135–136, 140, 146, 149, 151, 166, 174 learning strategies, xvi, 29, 127, 135, 140–141, 146–149, 164, 177, 214 linguistic determinism, 12, 157 linguistic elements, 9–10, 12, 15, 17–18, 26, 28–30, 37, 39, 44, 88, 101, 134, 189, 199, 202, 206–207, 209, 211, 214 linguistic/cultural capital, 18, 33, 39, 42–44, 94, 97, 100, 103, 133, 136, 156, 162 macro-level factors, 17, 36, 40, 42–44, 52–53, 78, 83, 94–95, 102, 104, 110, 135, 140, 152, 168, 172, 176–181, 183, 216 maturational constraints, 48, 115–116, 119–120, 213 meaning-focused Input, xvi, 8, 87, 121, 123–125, 134, 214 memory, 93, 108, 116, 127, 136, 138, 140, 142–143, 148, 167, 176, 189, 202, 207, 211, 213 metacognition, xvi, 5, 8, 18, 29–30, 63, 69, 76, 81–83, 146, 148, 174, 177, 179, 183, 189, 190, 214, 216 metaphor(ical) input, 93, 99, 105, 111, 113, 125, 128, 130–131, 133, 151,

237

157–158, 162, 178, 192–193, 198, 210, 215 micro-level modifications factors, 41, 44, 78, 83, 102, 110, 172, 177, 180–181, 183, 216 modified Input, 89, 118, 129–134 morphological elements, 3, 7, 9–10, 17, 19, 46, 72, 78–79, 134, 206 morphosyntax, 5, 10, 15–16, 18, 22, 41–43, 51, 58–59, 61–62, 64–66, 71–72, 76–77, 86–89, 98, 101, 105, 113, 115, 117–118, 129–132, 138, 143, 150, 166–168, 173, 187, 194, 199, 207, 209, 212 motivation, xiii, xvi, 5, 8, 15, 29, 43, 52, 55, 69, 76, 80, 83–84, 90, 95–97, 103–105, 116, 118, 121, 124, 127, 135, 137–141, 146, 149, 152, 159, 163, 169, 173–174, 176, 182, 186, 208, 212, 214 multimodality, xv, 1, 4–5, 20, 27–28, 35, 115, 126–129, 134–135, 208, 214 multiple intelligence, 27, 108, 127 Natural Order Hypothesis, xvi, 50, 55, 74, 78, 211 neurobiological/neurocognitive, 36, 41, 49–53, 58–59, 67–68, 81, 83, 89, 108–109, 114–116, 135, 142, 210, 213 neuroimaging (FMRI), 48, 210 neurolinguistic(s), xv, 1, 36, 41, 44, 47–50, 53, 68, 71, 89, 112, 209–210 nonlinguistic elements, 173 norm-referenced tests, 121, 184, 191–192, 202 Output Hypothesis, xvi, 16, 55, 74, 88, 106, 212 overgeneralization, 71, 117 Peircean semiotics, 13, 17, 110, 193 peripheral attention, xvi, 55, 57, 62–63, 73, 211 phonological elements, 49, 115 pidginized input, xvi, 34, 38, 92, 96, 98, 106, 117–118, 132, 212 placement tests, 195–196 positioning, xvi, 11, 17, 30, 32–33, 44–45, 52, 63, 101–102, 135–137, 149, 174, 195, 210, 214 Post-Structural Theory, 32, 35, 208 power relations, 8, 32–35, 42, 94, 102, 114, 135–137, 149, 151, 160, 162, 180, 208, 215

238

Index

pragmatics, 41, 44, 117, 132, 163, 166–167, 182, 194, 215 preservation, 94–98, 158, 175 prior knowledge, 8, 21, 25, 30, 45, 52, 70, 151, 165, 171, 210 procedural knowledge, xvi, 55m, 57–58, 62–69, 71, 73, 75, 78, 79–80, 89, 101, 109, 115, 118, 128, 211 proficiency tests, 189, 194–196 pronunciation, 67, 181, 199–200, 209 psycholinguistic(s), xvi, xv, 1, 4, 11, 17, 21, 24, 29, 36, 41–47, 51, 53, 58, 72, 79–80, 102, 113, 209–210 psychological distance, xvi, 55, 92–100, 106 purposes of assessment, xv, xvii, 121, 184, 198, 202, 216 register, 3, 6, 14–19, 44, 63, 71, 106, 113, 128, 131, 187, 195, 206 relevant input, 152–153 retention, 10, 21, 27–28, 32, 49, 57–58, 70, 73, 90, 116, 211 Schema Theory, xvi, 24–25, 35, 55, 69–70, 73, 124, 207, 211 English as a second language (ESL), 20, 41, 77–78, 169, 185 self-determination, 83–84, 96, 138 self-regulation, 30, 135 semantic elements, 26, 124 semiosis, 3, 13–14, 19, 110, 113, 119–120, 157, 193, 207 semiotic elements, 12–14, 38, 129, 206 setting-related, 18, 163, 168, 177, 179–181, 183, 206, 215–216 Social Distance Theory, xvi, 38–39, 55, 83, 92–95, 97, 99–100, 106, 141, 177, 212 social networks, 41, 71, 103, 209 social proximity, 8, 39, 94, 177, 179 social theories of L2A, 11, 77, 92, 100, 212 Sociocognitive Theory, xvi, 37, 115, 213

Sociocultural Theory, xiii, 30, 35, 89, 95, 100, 103, 110, 208 sociolinguistic(s), xv, 1, 17, 36, 40–43, 53, 58, 72, 99100, 112–113, 129, 133, 209 special needs, 50, 128, 180–182 speech recognition, 51–52, 210 standards, 131, 134, 155–156, 168–170, 183, 192 statistical modeling, 50, 71, 210 structuralism, 16, 32, 77, 208 style, xiii, xvi, 11–12, 14, 18, 27, 36, 40, 44–45, 52–53, 90, 105, 108, 113, 121, 126–128, 131–132, 135, 142–145, 148, 166–167, 171, 174, 176, 194, 195, 198, 202, 210, 214 stylistics codes, 14, 18, 112 summative assessment, 184, 186–187, 191, 194, 202, 216 symbolic elements, 113, 130, 151, 156–158, 162, 212–213 syntactic complexity, 18, 22–23, 50, 113, 173, 186, 207 syntactic elements, 41–42, 58, 64, 130 teacher-related modification, xiii, 172, 183, 216 technology, 36, 126–127, 159, 177, 179–180, 182, 216 Monitor Model, xvi, 15, 55, 74–75, 90, 211 Silent Period Hypothesis, xvi, 55, 74, 81–82, 85, 90, 130, 198 tone, 11, 14, 16–17, 19, 45, 98, 131, 165, 199, 206 Total Physical Response (TPR), 7, 20–21, 26, 35, 82, 140, 206 translation, 28, 36, 40, 51–52, 116, 123, 210, world Englishes, 38, 114, 151 Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), 31, 93, 165, 192, 208