Comprehensible Input and Second Language Acquisition: What is the Relationship?
Abstract
This study attempts to test aspects of the input hypothesis (Krashen, 1980, 1983, 1985) and Long's modification of it (Long, 1980, 1983a, 1985). Specifically, it experimentally tests the hypothesis that both input and interactional modifications facilitate second language acquisition, using Japanese as the target language. Three experimental groups were differentiated in terms of input and interaction conditions: (1) unmodified input with no interaction, (2) premodified input with no interaction, and (3) unmodified input with the chance for negotiated interaction. The groups were compared in terms of (a) their degree of comprehension of the input and (b) their subsequent retention of vocabulary items and acquisition of two Japanese locative structures. The results indicated that moment-to-moment comprehension was highest for the negotiated interaction group, whereas there was no significant difference between the two noninteraction groups. Furthermore, there was no correlation found between differences in moment-to-moment comprehension and gains in vocabulary recognition and acquisition of structures, though significant gains on both measures were found for all three groups. Discussion of these findings centers on the relationship between comprehension and acquisition.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Interactionally modified input may be more beneficial for comprehension than other input.
“In terms of comprehension, there is evidence that interactionally modified input may be more beneficial (e.g.Pica, Young & Doughty 1987;Loschky 1994).”
From Interaction and instructed second language acquisition (2018) · cites this paper as Loschky 1994
Learners' attention is drawn to certain features more than others when there is no external manipulation, regardless of the target language.
“This difficulty is evident from a body of research revealing that learners' attention is drawn to certain features more than others when there is no external manipulation, regardless of the target language (e.g.English : Mackey 2006;French: Ayoun 2001;Japanese: Loschky 1994).”
From Interaction and instructed second language acquisition (2018) · cites this paper as Loschky 1994
Cites
The Role of Consciousness in Second Language Learning1
SCHMIDT, R. W. (1990) · Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1093/applin/11.2.129 · Cited by 4,910 · see citing works
"Information Gap" Tasks: Do They Facilitate Second Language Acquisition?
Doughty, C., & Pica, T. (1986) · TESOL Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3586546 · Cited by 498 · see citing works
SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING: AN INFORMATION‐PROCESSING PERSPECTIVE<sup>1</sup>
McLaughlin, B., Rossman, T., & McLeod, B. (1983) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1983.tb00532.x · Cited by 348 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Task‐based language teaching: sorting out the misunderstandings
Ellis, R. (2009) · International Journal of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1111/j.1473-4192.2009.00231.x · Cited by 1,031 · see citing works
INPUT, INTERACTION, AND SECOND LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT: An Empirical Study of Question Formation in ESL
Mackey, A. (1999) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263199004027 · Cited by 772 · see citing works
Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis
Spada, N., & Tomita, Y. (2010) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00562.x · Cited by 746 · see citing works
Feedback, Noticing and Instructed Second Language Learning
Mackey, A. (2006) · Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1093/applin/ami051 · Cited by 536 · see citing works
Interaction and instructed second language acquisition
Loewen, S., & Sato, M. (2018) · Language Teaching · doi:10.1017/s0261444818000125 · Cited by 377 · see citing works
- Authors
- Loschky, L.
- Affiliations
- University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
- Corresponding author
- Loschky, Lester
- ORCID
- Loschky, Lester
- Venue
- Studies in Second Language Acquisition
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 1994-09
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 303-323
- ISSN
- 0272-2631 (ISSN-L)
- 1470-1545
- OpenAlex
- W2169798304
- Cited by
- 241
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 29 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 16
- FWCI
- 31.51
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Studies in Second Language Acquisition (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Subtitles and Audiovisual Media
- Keywords
- comprehensible input, input hypothesis, Krashen, negotiated interaction, Japanese as a second language, vocabulary retention, vocabulary recognition, second language acquisition
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review