Hostname: page-component-6898cfcb55-zkb6p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-11T10:31:24.483Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Attending to Form and Content in the Input

An Experiment in Consciousness

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Bill VanPatten
Bill VanPatten
Affiliation:
University of Illinois, Urbana–Champaign
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

This study explores the question of whether or not learners can consciously attend to both form and meaning when processing input. An experimental procedure is presented in which three levels of learners in four groups were asked to process information under four different conditions: attention to meaning alone; simultaneous attention to meaning and an important lexical item; simultaneous attention to meaning and a grammatical functor; and simultaneous attention to meaning and a verb form. Results suggest that learners, in particular early stage learners, have great difficulty in attending to both form and content. These results raise important questions for current discussions of the role of consciousness in input processing.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 12 , Issue 3 , September 1990, pp. 287 - 301
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

References

REFERENCES

Carrell, P. (1985). Facilitating ESL reading by teaching text structure. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 727–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dulany, D., Carlson, R., & Dewey, G. (1984). A case of syntactical learning and judgment: How conscious and how abstract? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 541–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S., & Madden, C. (1985). Input in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis. London, UK: Longman.Google Scholar
Lee, J. F. (1986). On the use of the recall task to measure L2 reading comprehension. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 8, 201–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, J. F. (1987). Morphological factors influencing pronominal reference assignment by learners of Spanish. In Morgan, T., Lee, J. F., & VanPatten, B. (Eds.), Language and language use: Studies in Spanish (pp. 221–232). Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Liceras, J. (1985). The role of intake in the determination of learners' competence. In Gass, S. & Madden, C. (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 354–373). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Mangubhai, F. (1987). Beyond input: A closer look at what learners do with the intake. Paper presented at the annual TESOL meeting, Miami.Google Scholar
Reber, A. (1976). Implicit learning of synthetic languages: The role of instructional set. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 2, 88–94.Google Scholar
Reber, A., Allen, R., & Regan, S. (1985). Syntactical learning and judgment, still unconscious and still abstract: Comment on Dulany, Carlson, and Dewey. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 114, 17–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1988). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Plenary address delivered at the Eighth Second Language Research Forum, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu.Google Scholar
Sharwood Smith, M. (1986). Comprehension vs. acquisition: Two ways of processing input. Applied Linguistics, 7, 239–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In Gass, S. & Madden, C. (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Terrell, T. (1986). Acquisition in the natural approach: The binding/access framework. The Modern Language Journal, 70, 213–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terrell, T. (1988). The role of grammar in a communicative approach. Keynote speech delivered at the Northeast Conference on Foreign Language Teaching, New York.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (1983). Processing strategies in second language acquisition. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Texas, Austin.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (1984a). Learners' comprehension of clitic pronouns: More evidence for a word order strategy. Hispanic Linguistics, 1, 88–98.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (1984b). Processing strategies and morpheme acquisition. In Eckman, F., Bell, L., & Nelson, D. (Eds.), Uniuersals of second language acquisition (pp. 88–98). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (1985). Communicative value and information processing in second language acquisition. In Larson, P., Judd, E., & Messerschmitt, D. (Eds.), On TESOL '84: A brave new world for TESOL (pp. 89–100). Washington, DC: TESOL.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (1987). The effects of monitored listening comprehension on learners' processing of input. Paper delivered at the annual TESOL Convention, Miami.Google Scholar
White, L. (1985). The pro-drop parameter in adult second language acquisition. Language Learning, 35, 47–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar