Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-68ccn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-09T12:18:28.291Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Modality and Intake in Second Language Acquisition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Ronald P. Leow
Ronald P. Leow
Affiliation:
Georgetown University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study replicates, in the aural mode, Leow's (1993) study on the effects of simplification, type of linguistic item, and second/foreign language experience on learners' intake of linguistic items contained in written input. Aural simplified/unsimplified input with either the present perfect or present subjunctive form was made available to learners at two levels of language experience. Statistical analyses performed on the raw scores of a pre- and posttest multiple-choice recognition assessment task revealed significant main effects for type of linguistic item, language experience, and task and a significant interaction between language experience and task. While results corroborate those found in the written mode for the effects of simplification and language experience on adult learners' intake, the same did not hold true for type of linguistic item, underscoring the need for research to consider seriously the role of modality while addressing cognitive processes in SLA.

Type
Replication Study
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 17 , Issue 1 , March 1995 , pp. 79 - 89
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Bransdorfer, R. L. (1991). Communicative value and linguistic knowledge in second language input processing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
Bretz, M. L., Dvorak, T., & Kirschner, C. (1992). Pasajes (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Chaudron, C. (1983). Simplification of input: Topic reinstatements and their effects on L2 learners' recognition and recall. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 437–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaudron, C. (1985). Intake: On models and methods for discovering learners' processing of input. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danks, J. (1980). Comprehension in listening and reading: Same or different? In Danks, J. & Pezdek, K. (Eds.), Reading and understanding (pp. 1–39). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.Google Scholar
Danks, J., & End, L. (1987). Processing strategies for reading and listening. In Horowitz, R. & Samuels, S. (Eds.), Comprehending oral and written language (pp. 271–294). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (1980). Process and strategies in foreign language learning and communication. The Interlanguage Studies Bulletin—Utrecht, 5, 47–118.Google Scholar
Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (1986). The role of comprehension in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 7, 258–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freedman, D., Pisani, R., & Purves, R. (Eds.). (1978). Statistics. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Gass, S. (1988). Integrating research areas: A framework for second language studies. Applied Linguistics, 19, 198–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gleitman, L., Newport, E., & Gleitman, H. (1984). The current status of the motherese hypothesis. Journal of Child Language, 11, 43–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Halliday, M. (1987). Spoken and written modes of meaning. In Horowitz, R. & Samuels, S. (Eds.), Comprehending oral and written language (pp. 55–82). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatch, E. (1983). Simplified input and second language acquisition. In Andersen, R. W. (Ed.), Pidginization and creolization as language acquisition (pp. 64–86). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Klein, W. (1986). Second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leow, R. (1993). To simplify or not to simplify: A look at intake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 333–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lund, R. (1991). A comparison of second language listening and reading comprehension. Modern Language Journal, 75, 196–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLaughlin, B., Rossman, T., & McLeod, B. (1983). Second language learning and information processing perspective. Language Learning, 33, 135–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharwood, Smith M. (1986). Comprehension versus acquisition: Two ways of processing input. Applied Linguistics, 7, 239–274.Google Scholar
Sharwood, Smith M. (1991). Speaking to many minds: On the relevance of different types of language information for the L2 learner. Second Language Research, 7, 118–132.Google Scholar
Simpson, M., & Thomas, K. (1984). A comparison of oral and written text: A new perspective. Reading Psychology, 5, 253–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slobin, D. (1985). Crosslinguistic evidence for the language-making capacity. In Slobin, D. (Ed.), The Crosslinguistic study of language acquisition: Theoretical issues (Vol. 2, pp. 1157–1256). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Townsend, D., Carrithers, C., & Bever, T. (1987). Listening and reading processes in college- and middle school-age readers. In Horowitz, R. & Samuels, S. (Eds.), Comprehending oral and written language (pp. 217–241). London: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle 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 (pp. 89–100). Washington, DC: TESOL.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (1990). Attending to form and content in the input: An experiment in consciousness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 287–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B., Lee, J., Ballman, T., & Dvorak, T. (1992). ¿ Sabías que …? Beginning Spanish. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
White, L. (1984). Against comprehensible input: The input hypothesis and the development of second-language competence. Applied Linguistics, 8, 95–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar