1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. ITL - International Journal of Applied Linguistics
  4. Volume 105, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 105, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0019-0829
  • E-ISSN: 1783-1490
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

This article reviews theory and research on the second language learning environment as a source of input to learners and the contributions made by speakers in learners' environment to their input needs and requirements. Discussion centers on connections between the formal and interactional properties of input which have been identified in research on learners and learning environments and theoretical claims about their contributions to second language learning.

© 1994 John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/itl.105-106.03pic
1994-01-01
2023-09-25

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/itl.105-106.03pic
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. ANDERSEN, R
    (1979): Expanding Schumann’s pidginization hypothesis.Language Learning29/1: 105–19.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. ARTHUR, B. , WEINER, P. , CULVER, M. , LEE, Y. and THOMAS, D.
    (1980): The register of impersonal discourse to foreigners: Verbal adjustments to foreign accent. In D. Larsen-Freeman (ed.), Discourse Analysis in Second Language Research. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. BEEBE, L.
    (1980): Sociolinguistic variation and style shifting in second language acquisition. Language Learning30/1: 433–47.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. (1988): Five sociolinguistic approaches to second language acquisition. In L. Beebe (ed.), Issues in Second Language Acquisition, Multiple Perspectives, 43–77. New York: Newbury House.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. BICKERTON, D.
    (1975): Dynamics of a Creole System. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. BLAU, E.
    (1982): The effect of syntax on readability for ESL students in Puerto Rico. TESOL Quarterly16/4: 517–528.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. BLOOMFIELD, L.
    (1933): Language. New York: Holt.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. BROCK, C. , CROOKES, G. , DAY, R. ann LONG, M.
    (1986): The differential effects of corrective feedback in native speaker-non-native speaker conversation. In R. Day (ed.), Talking to Learn, 229–236. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. CERVANTES, R.
    (1983): Say it again Sam: The effect of exact repetition on listening comprehension. I. Second Language Classrooms: Research on Teaching and Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. CHAUDRON, C
    (1977): A descriptive model of discourse in the corrective treatment of learners’ errors. Language Learning27/1: 29–46.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. (1982): Vocabulary elaboration in teachers’ speech to L2 learners.Studies in Second Language Acquisition4/1: 170–180.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. (1983): Foreigner talk in the classroom - an aid to learning. In H. Seliger and M. Long (eds.), Classroom Oriented Research in Second Language Acquisition, 127–143. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. (1983): Simplification of input: Topic reinstatements and their effects on L2 learners’ recognition and recall. TESOL Quarterly 17/4: 437–58.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. (1988): Second Language Classrooms: Research on Teaching and Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. CHAUDRON, C. and PARKER, K
    (1990): Discourse markedness and structural markedness. The acquisition of English noun phrases. SSLA12/1: 43–64.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. CHAUDRON, C. and RICHARDS, J
    (1986): The effect of discourse markers on the comprehension of lectures. Applied Linguistics7/1: 113–127.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. CHOMSKY, N.
    (1965): Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. CORDER, S. P.
    (1981): Error Analysis and Interlanguage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. CURTISS, S. P.
    (1977): Genie: A Psycholinguistic Study of a Modern-Day “Wild Child". New York: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. DAY, R. , CHENOWETH, N.A. , CHUN, A. , and LUPPESCU, S.
    (1984) :Corrective feedback in native-nonnative discourse. Language Learning34/2:19–45.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. DlTTMAR, N.
    (1978): Heidelberger Forschungsprojekt “Pidgin Deutsch". The Unguided Learning of German by Spanish and Italian Workers. A Sociolinguistic Study. Paris: UNESCO.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. EARLY, M.
    (1985): Input and Interaction in content classrooms: Foreigner talk and teacher talk in classroom discourse. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of California at Los Angeles.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. ELLIS, R.
    (1985): Teacher-pupil interaction in second language development. In S. Gass and C. Madden (eds.), Input in Second Language Acquisition, 69–85. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. FAERCH, C
    (1986): Rules of thumb and other teacher-formulated rules in the foreign language classroom. In G. Kasper (ed.), Language, Teaching and Communication in the Foreign Language Classroom, 125–143. Aarhus, Denmark: Aarhus University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. FALTIS, C
    (1984): A commentary on Krashen’s input hypothesis. TESOL Quarterly3/1: 352–354.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. FANSELOW, J.
    (1977): The treatment of errors in oral work. Foreign Language Annals10/1: 583–593.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. FERGUSON, C.
    (1971): Absence of copula and the notion of simplicity: A study of normal speech, baby talk, foreigner talk and pidgins. InD. Hymes (ed.), Pidginization and Creolization of Languages. New York: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. (1975): Towards a characterization of English foreigner talk. Anthropological Linguistics17/1: 1–14.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. FERGUSON, C. ann DEBOSE.
    (1977): Simplified registers, broken language, and pidginization. InA. Valdman (ed.), Pidgin and Creole Linguistics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. FREED, B.
    (1978): Foreigner talk: A study of speech adjustments made by native speakers of English in conversation with non-native speakers. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. FUJIMOTO, D. , LUBIN, J. , SAKASI, Y. ann LONG, M.
    (1988): The effect of linguistic and conversational adjustments on the comprehen-sibility of spoken second language discourse. InC. Chaudron (ed.), Second Language Classrooms. Research on Teaching and Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  32. GAIES, S.
    (1977): The nature of linguistic input in formal second language learning. Linguistic and communicative strategies in ESL teachers’ classroom language. In H. Brown , C. Yorio and R. Crymes (Eds.)? On TESOL 77, Teaching and Learning English as a Second Language, Trends in Research and Practice, 204–212. Washington D.C: TESOL.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. GASS, S. and VARONIS, E.
    (1984): The effect of familiarity on the comprehensibility of nonnative speech. Language Learning34/1: 165–89.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. (1985): Corrective feedback in NNS/NNS discourse. Paper presented at annual American Association of Applied Linguistics meeting, Seattle, WA.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. (1985): Task variation and NNS/NNS negotiation of meaning. InS. Gass and C. Madden (eds.), Input in Second Language Acquisition, 149–161. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. (1985): Variation in native speaker speech modification to non-native speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition7/1: 37–57.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. (1986): Sex differences in nonnative speaker-nonnative speaker interactions. In R. Day (ed.), Talking to Learn, 149–161. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. (1989): Incorporated repairs in non-native discourse. In Eisenstein (ed.), The Dynamics of Interlanguage, 33–47. New York: Plenum Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. (1989): Incorporated repairs in nonnative discourse. In M. Eisenstein (ed.), The Dynamic Interlanguage: Empirical Approaches, 33–47. New York: Plenum.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. GILES, H. , BOURHIS, R. and TAYLOR, D.
    (1977): Towards a theory of language and ethnic Relations. InH. Giles (ed.), Language, Ethnicity and Intergroup Relations. London, UK: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. GLEITMAN, L. , NEWPORT, E. and GLEITMAN, H.
    (1984): The current status of the motherese hypothesis. Journal of Child Language11/1:43–80.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. GOLDSTEIN, L.
    (1987): Standard English, The only target for non-native speakers of English, TESOL Quarterly21/4: 417–436.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. HAMAYAN, E. and TUCKER, G.R
    (1980): Language input in the bilingual classroom and its relationship to second language achievement. TESOL Quarterly. 14/4:453–468.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. HARKNESS, S.
    (1975): Cultural variation in mother’s language. Word27/1:495–498.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. HATCH, E
    (1978): Discourse analysis and second language acquisition. In E. Hatch (ed.), Second Language Acquisition: A Book of Readings. Rowley, Mass: Newbury House.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. HATCH, E.
    (1983): Psycholinguistics: A Second Language Perspective. Rowley, Mass: Newbury House.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. (1983): Simplified input and second language acquisition. InR. Anderson (ed.), Pidginization, Creolization as Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. HENZL, J.
    (1979): Foreigner talk in the classroom. International Review of Applied Linguistics17/1: 159–167.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. HENZL, V.
    (1973): Linguistic register of foreign language instruction. Language Learning23/1: 207–222.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. JOHNSON, P.
    (1981): Effects on reading comprehension of language complexity and cultural background of a text. TESOL Quarterly15/1: 169–181.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. KELCH, K.
    (1985): Modified input as an aid to comprehension. Studies in Second Language Acquisition7/1: 81–90.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. KRASHEN, S.
    (1981): Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. (1982): Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. (1985): The Input Hypothesis. London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. KUMARAVADIVELU, B.
    (1985): Patterns of interaction in English as a first and second language classroom discourse. PALM1/1: 41–55.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. LARSEN-FREEMAN, D.
    (1976): ESL Teacher speech as input to the learner. Workpapers in Teaching English as a Second Language, UCLA10/1:45–49.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. (1983): The importance of input in second language acquisition. In R. Anderson (ed.), Pidginization and Creolization as Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. LARSEN-FREEMAN, D. and LONG, M.
    (1991): An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research. New York: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. LIGHTBOWN, P.
    (1983): Exploring relationships between developmental and instructional sequences in L2 acquisition. InH. Seliger and M. Long (eds.), Classroom Oriented Research in Second Language Acquisition, 217–243. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. LIGHTBOWN, P. and D’ANGLEJAND
    (1985): Exploring relationships between developmental and instructional sequences in L2 acquisition. InS. M. Gass and C. G. Madden (eds.), Input in Second Language Acquisition, 415–430. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. LONG, M.
    (1980): Input, interaction, and second language acquisition. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, UCLA.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. (1981): Input, interaction and second language acquisition. In H. Winitz (ed.), Native Language and Foreign Language Acquisition. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, no.379, 259–278.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. (1983): Linguistic and conversational adjustments to non-native speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition5/2: 177–193.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. (1983): Native speaker-nonnative speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics4/1: 126–141.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. (1985): Input and second language acquisition theory. In S. Gass and C. Madden (eds.), Input in Second Language Acquisition, 377–393. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. LONG, M. , 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, HI.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. LONG, M. , GAMBHIR, S. , GAMBHIR, V. and NISHIMURA, M.
    (1982): Regulation of foreigner talk and interlanguage. Paper presented at theSecond Europe and North America, Cross-Linguistic Second Language Acquisition Research Workshop, Hamburg, German.
     [Google Scholar]
  68. LONG, M. and SATO, C.
    (1983): Classroom foreigner talk discourse: Forms and functions of teachers’ questions. InH. Seliger and M. Long (eds.), Classroom Oriented Research in Second Language Acquisition, 268–285. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
     [Google Scholar]
  69. LONG, M.H.
    (1981): Questions in foreigner talk discourse. Language Learning31/1: 135–157.
     [Google Scholar]
  70. LOSCHKY, L.
    (1989): Negotiated interaction. The roles of task and culture. M.A. thesis, University of Hawaii at Manoa.
     [Google Scholar]
  71. MANNON, T.
    (1986): Teacher talk. A comparison of a teacher’s speech to native and non-native speakers. M.A. thesis, University of California at Los Angeles.
     [Google Scholar]
  72. MCLAUGHLIN, B.
    (1987): Theories of Second Language Acquisition. London: Edward Arnold.
     [Google Scholar]
  73. MEHAN H.
    (1979): Learning Lessons. Social Organization in the Classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  74. MEISEL, J.
    (1977): Linguistic simplification. A study of immigrant workers’ speech and foreigner talk. In S. Corder and E. Roulet (eds.), The Notions of Simplification, Interlanguages and Pidgins, and their Relation to Second Language Pedagogy. Droz, geneva: 88–113.
     [Google Scholar]
  75. (1980): Linguistic simplification. InS. Felix (ed.), Second Language Development. Trends and Issues. Tubinger: Gunter Narr Verlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  76. MEISEL, J. , CLAHSEN, H. and PIENEMANN, M.
    (1981): On determining developmental stages in natural second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition3/2: 109–135.
     [Google Scholar]
  77. NEWPORT, H. , GLEITMAN H. and GLEITMAN L.
    (1977): Mother, I’d rather do it myself: Some effects and non-effects of maternal speech style. In C. Snow and C. Ferguson (eds.), Talking to Children: Language Input and Acquisition, 109–149. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  78. NYSTROM, N.
    (1983): Teacher-student interaction in bilingual classrooms. Four approaches to error feedback. InH. Seliger and M. Long (eds.), Classroom Oriented Research in Second Language Acquisition, 169–188. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
     [Google Scholar]
  79. OCHS, E. and SCHIEFFELIN, B.
    (1979): Developmental Programmatics. New York: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  80. PEINEMANN, M.
    (1984): Psychological constraints on the teachability of language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition6/1: 186–214.
     [Google Scholar]
  81. PICA, T.
    (1992): The textual outcomes of NS-NNS negotiation. InC. Kramsch and S. McConnell-Ginet, Text and Context in Foreign Language Learning. Papers from Sumposium on Foreign Language Learning, Cornell University. New York: Heath.
     [Google Scholar]
  82. (1991): Accommodating the needs of second language learners through negotiation. Paper presented atthe Second Language Research Forum, Eugene, OR.
     [Google Scholar]
  83. PICA, T. , DOUGHTY, C. and YOUNG, R.
    (1986): Making input comprehensible: Do interactional modifications help. I.T.L. Review of Applied Linguistics72/1 : 1–25.
     [Google Scholar]
  84. PICA, T. , HOLLIDAY, L. , LEWIS, N. , BERDUCCI, D. and NEWMAN J.
    (1991): Language learning through interaction: What role does gender play. Studies in Second Language Acquisition12/2: 343–76.
     [Google Scholar]
  85. PICA, T. , HOLLIDAY, L. , LEWIS, N. and MORGENTHALER, L.
    (1989): Comprehensible output as an outcome of linguistic demands on the learner. Studies in Second Language Acquisition11/1: 63–90.
     [Google Scholar]
  86. PICA, T. , LEWIS, N. and HOLLIDAY, L.
    (1990): Native speaker-non-native speaker negotiation: An equal opportunity for speech modification. Paper presented to annual TESOL convention, San Francisco.
     [Google Scholar]
  87. PICA, T. and LONG, M.
    (1986): The linguistic and conversational performande of experienced and inexperienced teachers. In R. Day (ed.), Talking to Learn. Conversation in Second Language Acquisition, 85–98. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
     [Google Scholar]
  88. PICA, T. , YOUNG, R. and DOUGHTY, C.
    (1987): The impact of interaction on comprehension. TESOL Quarterly21/4: 737–758.
     [Google Scholar]
  89. PlENEMAND, M.
    (1984): Psychological constraints on the teachability of languages. Studies in Second Language Acquisition6/2: 186–214.
     [Google Scholar]
  90. RAMMAMURTI, R.
    (1977): How do Americans talk to me? Term paper, Folklore, Spring 1977, University of Pennsylvania.
     [Google Scholar]
  91. SACHS, J. , BARD, B. and JOHNSON, M.
    (1981): Language learning with restricted input. Case studies of two hearing children of deaf parents. Applied Psycholinguistics2/1: 33–54.
     [Google Scholar]
  92. SCARCELLA, R. and HIGA, C.
    (1981): Input, negotiation, and age differences in second language acquisition. Language Learning31/1: 409–437.
     [Google Scholar]
  93. SCHACHTER, J.
    (1983): Nutritional needs of language learners. In M.G. Clarke and J. Handscombe (eds.), On TESOL ‘82: Pacific Perspectives on Language Learning and Teaching, 175–189. Washington, D.C.: TESOL.
     [Google Scholar]
  94. (1984): A universal input condition. In W. Rutherford (ed.), Language Universals and Second Language Acquisition, 167–183. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  95. (1986): Three approaches to the study of input. Language Learning36/2: 211–226.
     [Google Scholar]
  96. SCHINKE-LLANQ, L.
    (1983): Foreigner talk in content classrooms. In H. Seliger and M. Long (eds.), Classroom Oriented Research in Second Language Acquisition, 146–164. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
     [Google Scholar]
  97. SCHUMANN, J.
    (1978): The acculturation model for second-language acquisition. InR. Gingras (ed.), Second Language Acquisition and Foreign Language Teaching. Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics.
     [Google Scholar]
  98. (1978): The Pidginization Process: A Model for Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
     [Google Scholar]
  99. SNOW, C.
    (1977): The development of conversation between mothers and babies. Journal of Child Language4/1: 1–22.
     [Google Scholar]
  100. SNOW, C. , ARLMAN-RUPP, A. , HASSING, Y. , JOBSE, J. , JOOSTEN, J. and VORSTER, J.
    (1976): Mothers’ speech in three social classes. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research5/1: 1–20.
     [Google Scholar]
  101. SNOW, C.
    and FERGUSON, C. (eds.) (1977): Talking to Children. New York: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  102. SOTILLO, S.
    (1987): The impact of domain-specific instruction on language use. The case of a long term resident second language learner. Paper presented at Annual AAAL Conference, San Francisco, CA.
     [Google Scholar]
  103. (1991): The bridge classroom as a context for second language learning. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
     [Google Scholar]
  104. SPEIDEL, G. , THARP, R. and KOBAYASHI, L.
    (1985): Is there a comprehension problem for children who speak nonstandard English? A study of children with Hawaii and English backgrounds. Applied Psycholinguistics6/1: 83–96.
  105. 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, 235–253. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
     [Google Scholar]
  106. WAGNER-GOUGH, J. and HATCH, E.
    (1975): The importance of input data in second language studies. Language Learning25/2: 297–307.
     [Google Scholar]
  107. WATERSON, N. and SNOW, C.
    (eds.) (1978): The Development of Communication. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.
     [Google Scholar]
  108. WESCHE, M. and READY, D.
    (1985): Foreigner talk in the university classroom. InS. Gass and C. Madden (eds.), Input in Second Language Acquisition, 89–114. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
     [Google Scholar]
  109. WONG-FlLLMORE, L.
    (1976): The second time around. Cognitive and social strategies in second language acquisition. P.h.D dissertation, Standord University.
     [Google Scholar]
  110. ZUENGLER, J.
    (1982): Applying accommodation theory to variable performance data in L2. Studies in Second Language Acquisition4/2: 181–192.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/itl.105-106.03pic
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error