Cited by 241EFL/ESL Teaching and LearningSecond Language Acquisition and LearningSubtitles and Audiovisual Media

Comprehensible Input and Second Language Acquisition: What is the Relationship?

Loschky, Lester·1994·Studies in Second Language Acquisition

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

Crossref · 10.1017/s0272263100013103

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Loschky, L.
Affiliations
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
Corresponding author
Loschky, Lester
Venue
Studies in Second Language Acquisition
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