1. Adapted from Franceschina, F.
The role of input in SLA
Adapted from Franceschina, F.

2. Types of evidence
Positive evidence Do they like cats?

3. Types of evidence Negative evidence Direct Indirect Absence of x
Explicit(correction, instruction) *‘Like they cats?’
Implicit (recasts) A: * Does they like cats? (wrong) B: Do they like cats? I think so.
Indirect Absence of x

4. Type / amount of input Delayed input Bilingual/multilingual input
Modified input (motherese, foreign talk, etc.)
Classroom/naturalistic input

5. How do learners make use of the L2 input?
For learners to be able to make use of the L2 input in learning they need to be able to parse it first, i.e., they have to be able to assign a structure to the strings of speech they hear.
This happens at many levels: - phonological - syntactic - semantic, etc.

6. Failure-driven learning
Assumption: learners parse the (L2) input on the basis of their existing grammar. If this grammar is insufficient/inadequate for parsing some input, this motivates restructuring of the grammar in an attempt to accommodate to the available input. This process is what drives development according to researchers such as,
Berwick and Weinberg (1984)
Carroll (2001)
Gibson and Wexler (1994)
Schwartz and Sprouse (1994, 1996)
White (1987)

7. Theories of the role of input in SLA
Input Hypothesis (Krashen, 1982, 1985)
‘Less is more’ (Newport, 1990)
Processability Theory (Pienemann, 1998)
Input Processing (Van Patten and Cadierno, 1993)
Autonomous Induction Theory (Carroll, 2001)

8. Morpheme studies Brown (1973) deVilliers and deVilliers (1973)
Burt and Dulay (1973)
Bailey, Madden and Krashen (1974)
Staubler (1984)

9. The L1 grammar as a filter
Brown (2000):
L1 Chinese, L1 Japanese / L2 English
can they learn to perceive the difference between /p/ vs /f/, /f/ vs /v/ and /l/ vs /r/?
findings: the features of the L1 determine what is achievable; no signs of development in problematic areas

10. Phonetic feature contrasts
English contrasts
Japanese phonemes
Chinese phonemes
Contrastive feature
Contrastive in Japanese
Contrastive in Chinese
Predictions for SLA of contrasts
/p/ vs /f/
/p/, /f/
continuant
yes
Jap: yes
Chi: yes
/f/ vs /v/
/f/
voice
/l/ vs /r/
/r/
/l/
coronal no
Jap: no

11. Brown’s results /p/ vs /f/ /f/ vs /v/ /l/ vs /r/ L1 Japanese (n=15)
94%
99%
61%
L1 Chinese (n=15)
90%
96%
86%
English NS (n=10)
100%
98%

12. The role of negative evidence
1. Short-lived effects of instruction Trahey (1996), Trahey and White (1993), White (1990/1991), and White, Spada, Lightbown and Ranta (1991): - L1 French / L2 English - Can L1 French speakers learn that the following is ungrammatical? *Cats catch often mice. - different types of input: direct instruction, indirect instruction and input flood - findings: direct instruction was the most effective in the short term, but none of the three methods had any long-term effects (after 1-year)

13. 2. L2 learners can override instruction Bruhn-Garavito (1995): - L1 French, L1 English / L2 Spanish - study of the acquisition of pronoun reference in subjunctive clauses in L2 Spanish - teachers and textbooks usually teach learners about a rule about pronoun co-reference that applies to subjunctive clauses across the board - however, NSs do make a difference between different types of clauses - findings: L2 learners appear to behave like NSs, despite misleading instruction

14. Subjunctive rule (as taught to L2 learners):
The subject of an embedded subjunctive clause must have disjoint reference from the subject of the matrix clause:
[I] want [me/he/she] to go to the party.

15. However, there are some subjunctive clauses (namely those containing modal verbs or adjuncts) where this does not hold:
[I] hope that [I/he/she] will be able to speak to John today.
[I] will call you when [I/he/she] arrive(s).

16. Subjunctives
Subjunctive+modal
Subjunctive adjuncts
L2 learners (n=27)
50.75%
86%
87.4%
Spanish NS (n=12)
2.5%
85%
91.66%

17. Input vs intake
Corder (1967)
Krashen (1982, 1985) and many others

18. Focus on form A definition:
“treatment of form in the context of performing a communicative task”
(Ellis et al. 2002: 419)

19. Form, forms and meaning (Long, 1991)
Focus on forms = structuralist approach
Focus on meaning = non-interventionist approach
Focus on form = communicative approach with occasional shift of attention to form

20. Types of focus on form (Ellis et al., 2002: 429)

21. The role of output
Swain’s (1985, 1993, 1995) Output Hypothesis proposes that output can be used to:
test hypotheses about structures and meaning
get feedback for the verification of these hypotheses
develop automaticity
shift from meaning- to form-focused mode

22. Interaction Hypothesis (Long, 1996)
“negotiation for meaning, and especially negotiation work that triggers interactional adjustments by the NS or more competent interlocutor, facilitates acquisition because it connects the input, internal learner capacities, particularly selective attention, and output in productive ways” (pp )

23. Reading
Doughty, C. 2001: Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In Robinson, P. (ed.): Cognition and second language instruction. Cambridge: CUP. Pp
White, L. 2003: Second language acquisition and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Chapter 5)