Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-8r8nv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-08T03:27:21.706Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comprehension, Comprehensibility, and Learning in the Second Language Classroom

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Craig Chaudron
Craig Chaudron
Affiliation:
University of Hawaii at Manoa
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Two questions are fundamental to research on second language learning in instructional settings: (1) Does second language instruction have a positive influence on acquisition? and (2) If so, what factors in instruction make a difference, how, and for whom? This paper considers theory and research on second language classroom behavior that is aimed toward answering the second question, given evidence that the answer to the first one is affirmative.

Theory suggests that the provision of comprehensible input, a focus on formal aspects of the target language, and the learner's opportunity to practice the target language, all may contribute to L2 development. Empirical research is reviewed to explore what modifications of teacher speech might influence comprehensibility, whether amount of exposure to target forms is related to learners' development, and which instructional behaviors might lead to productive practice with and knowledge about the target language.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , June 1985 , pp. 216 - 232
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Brock, C. 1984. The effects of referential questions on ESL classroom interaction. Unpublished M.A. thesis. Honolulu: University of Hawaii at Manoa.Google Scholar
Brown, R. 1973. A first language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cervantes, R. 1983. Say it again Sam: The effect of exact repetition on listening comprehension. Unpublished term paper. Honolulu: University of Hawaii at Manoa.Google Scholar
Chaudron, C. 1977. A descriptive model of discourse in the corrective treatment of learners' errors. Language Learning 27; 29–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaudron, C. 1979. Complexity of teacher speech and vocabulary explanation/elaboration. Paper presented at the 13th Annual TESOL Convention, Boston.Google Scholar
Chaudron, C. 1983. Simplification of input: Topic reinstatements and their effects on L2 learners' recognition and recall. TESOL Quarterly 17; 437–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, D. A. 1981. The role of experience in speech modifications for second language learners. Minnesota Papers in Linguistics and Philosophy of Language 7; 78–93.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. 1980. Classroom interaction and its relation to second language learning. RELC Journal 11; 29–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felix, S. W. 1981. The effect of formal instruction on second language acquisition. Language Learning 31; 87–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaies, S. J. 1977. The nature of linguistic input in formal second language learning: linguistic and communicative strategies in ESL teachers' classroom language. In Brown, H. D., Yorio, C. A., and Crymes, R. H. (eds.), On TESOL 77: Teaching and learning English as a second language: Trends in research and practice, pp. 204–12. Washington, DC: TESOL.Google Scholar
Hakansson, G. In press. Quantitative aspects of teacher talk. In Kasper, G. (ed.), Learning, teaching and communication in the foreign language classroom. Århus: Arkona.Google Scholar
Hamayan, E. V. and Tucker, G. R.. 1960. Language input in the bilingual classroom and its relationship to second language achievement. TESOL Quarterly 14; 453–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatch, E. M. 1983. Psycholinguistics: A second language perspective. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Henzl, V. M. 1973. Linguistic register of foreign language instruction. Language Learning 23; 207–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henzl, V. M. 1979. Foreign talk in the classroom. International Review of Applied Linguistics 17; 159–67.Google Scholar
Hunt, K. W. 1966. Recent measures in syntactic development. Elementary English 43; 732–39.Google Scholar
Hyltenstam, K. 1981. Teacher talk in Swedish as a second language classrooms: Quantitative aspects and markedness conditions. Paper presented at the conference on Interdisciplinary Perspectives of Language Acquisition Research,University of Passau,July 14–17.Google Scholar
Kelch, K. 1985. Modified input as an aid to comprehension. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 7; 81–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krashen, S. D. 1982. Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. E. 1976. ESL teacher speech as input to the ESL learner. Workpapers in Teaching English as a Second Language 10: 45–9. Los Angeles: UCLA.Google Scholar
Lightbown, P. A. 1983. Exploring relationships between developmental and instructional sequences in L2 acquisition. In Seliger, H. W. & Long, M. H. (eds.), Classroom oriented research in second language acquisition, pp. 217–43. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Loban, W. 1976. Language development: Kindergarten through grade twelve. Research Report No. 18, NCTE Committee on Research. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. 1980. Input, interaction and second language acquisition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of California at Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. 1981. Input, interaction and second language acquisition. In H. Winitz (ed.), Native language and foreign language acquisition, pp. 259–78. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 379.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. 1983a. Does second language instruction make a difference? A review of research. TESOL Quarterly 17; 359–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H. 1983b. Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics 4; 126–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H. 1985. Input and second language acquisition theory. In S. Gass and C. Madden (eds.), Input in second language acquisition, pp. 377–93. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Long, M. H., and Sato, C. J.. 1983. Classroom foreigner talk discourse: Forms and functions of teachers' questions. In Seliger, H. W. and Long, M. H. (eds.), Classrooom oriented research in second language acquisition, pp. 268–85. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Long, M. H., Brock, C., Crookes, G., Deicke, C., Potter, L., and Zhang, S.. 1984. The effect of teachers' questioning patterns and wait-time on pupil participation in public high school classes in Hawaii for students of limited English proficiency. Technical Report No. 1, Center for Second Language Classroom Research, Social Science Research Institute, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, F. J., Stone, M. K., and Yates, A.. 1977. The effects of classroom interaction patterns and student characteristics on the acquisition of proficiency in English as a second language. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
Mitchell, R., Parkinson, B., and Johnstone, R.. 1981. The foreign language classroom: An observational study. Stirling Educational Monographs No. 9. Scotland: University of Stirling.Google Scholar
Pica, T. and Long, M. H.. 1982. The classroom linguistic and conversational performance of experienced and inexperienced teachers. Paper presented at the 16th Annual TESOL Convention, Honolulu.Google Scholar
Ramirez, A. G. and Stromquist, N. P.. 1979. ESL methodology and student language learning in bilingual elementary schools. TESOL Quarterly 13; 145–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salica, C. 1981. Testing a model of corrective discourse. Unpublished M.A. thesis, University of California at Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Steyaert, M. 1977. A comparison of the speech of ESL teachers to native speakers and non-native learners of English. Paper presented at the winter meeting of the Linguistic Society of America,Chicago.Google Scholar
Swam, M. 1985. Communicative competence: some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (eds.), Input in second language acquisition, pp. 235–53. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Wesche, M. B. and Ready, D.. 1985. Foreigner talk in the university classroom. In S. Gass & C. Madden (eds.), Input in second language acquisition, pp. 89–114. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
White, J. and Lightbown, P. M.. 1984. Asking and answering in ESL classes. Canadian Modem Language Review 40; 228–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar