“Noticing” in second language acquisition

Abstract: Learners should “notice” something when they learn English. If they can absorb some English knowledge through “noticing”， it must be easier for English learners to become input into intake. From above， there are several factors that influence “noticing” in the process where input is changed into intake. When we learn English， we also should pay more attention to these factors， for they will help us how to notice more in learning English and how to improve our English easily.

Key Words: noticingseveral factors influencelearning English

1.Introduction

The significance of the role of conscious and unconscious processes and the notion of interface in second language development has been the focus of much debate in the general field of cognitive psychology. Both Long (1988) and Ellis (1990)， through reviewing a number of such empirical studies， have concluded that， overall， conscious learning seems to contribute to successful L2 development.

1.1 Acquisition-Learning distinction

The Acquisition-Learning distinction is the most fundamental of all the hypotheses in Krashen's theory and the most widely known among linguists and language practitioners. According to Krashen there are two independent systems of second language performance: 'the acquired system' and 'the learned system'. The 'acquired system' or 'acquisition' is the product of a subconscious process very similar to the process children undergo when they acquire their first language. It requires meaningful interaction in the target language - natural communication - in which speakers are concentrated not in the form of their utterances， but in the communicative act. The 'learned system' or 'learning' is the product of formal instruction and it comprises a conscious process that results in conscious knowledge 'about' the language， for example knowledge of grammar rules. According to Krashen 'learning' is less important than 'acquisition'.

1.2 Explicit- implicit knowledge distinction

The theoretical basis for noticing centers around the relationship between explicit and implicit knowledge. Explicit knowledge is conscious knowledge of grammar rules learned through formal classroom instruction. For example， Li knows every rule about subject-verb agreement but makes frequent mistakes in natural speech. This knowledge is only available to him when he has time to think about the rules and then apply them (i.e. a grammar exercise or a writing assignment). In contrast， implicit knowledge is unconscious， internalized knowledge of a language that is available for spontaneous speech. For example， Jim speaks English with near perfect use of the basic rules of subject-verb agreement. This is despite the fact that he may have no idea what subject-verb agreement is or what the rules are.

The question is whether explicit grammar knowledge (Li's knowledge) can become implicit knowledge (Jim's knowledge). There are two basic answers to the question. The first is the non-interface position proposed by Krashen. In his view， explicit knowledge can never become implicit knowledge because these two types of knowledge are located in different parts of the brain. Li could keep studying grammatical rules for the rest of his life and never speak like Jim. On the other hand， the interface position claims that explicit knowledge can have some impact on implicit knowledge. The interface position is divided into two views， the strong and the weak position. The strong interface position holds explicit knowledge becomes internalized through practice， like the acquisition of other skills. The weak interface position， however， agrees with Krashen that explicit learning does not become implicit knowledge， but that it can aid or foster the acquisition of implicit knowledge. Nevertheless， recent data suggests that students who have explicit grammar instruction as part of their study achieve a higher level of grammatical accuracy than those who do not (Ellis， 2002， p19). This suggests a weak-interface between explicit and implicit knowledge. Noticing is based on this position.

2.Noticing

2.1 What is “noticing”?

Noticing is basically the idea that if learners pay attention to the form and meaning of certain language structures in input， this will contribute to the internalization of the rule (Batstone， 1996). Ellis expounds on this idea:

“ . . . we don't actually try to influence the construction of the complex network [implicit knowledge] . . . because really learners can only do it themselves. We cannot implant rules into that network. Learners extract from the available information around them the regularities that form into their knowledge system. If this is the case， all that we can do is make them aware of some of these patterns . . . under the assumption that if you have an awareness of them， then ultimately your pattern detector might function a bit more efficiently\" (Ryan， 2001， p2).

2.2 Noticing and language acquisition

Schmidt (1990) identifies three aspects of consciousness involved in language learning: awareness， intention and knowledge. The first sense， consciousness as awareness， embraces noticing. According to Schmidt (1995， p. 20)， \"the noticing hypothesis states that what learners notice in input is what becomes intake for learning.\" Schmidt also states that a) whether a learner deliberately attends to a linguistic form in the input or it is noticed purely unintentionally， if it is noticed it becomes intake; and b) that noticing is a necessary condition for L2 acquisition. To help clarify Schmidt's hypothesis and the place of noticing in L2 acquisition the following model， proposed by Ellis， is useful.

Figure 1: The process of learning implicit knowledge (p. 119)

Reproduced by permission of Oxford University Press from SLA Research and Language Teaching by Rod Ellis

? Rod Ellis 1997. Unauthorised reproduction is strictly prohibited.

Ellis has based his model on current theories of L2 acquisition， where two main stages are seen to be involved in the process of input becoming implicit knowledge. The first stage， in which input becomes intake， involves learners noticing language features in the input， absorbing them into their short-term memories and comparing them to features produced as output. With regard to short-term memory， Kihlstrom (1984) suggests that 1) consciousness and short-term memory are essentially the same; 2) that for language items to be stored in long-term memory they must be processed in short-term memory; and 3) that items not processed into short-term memory or not further encoded into long-term memory from short-term memory will be lost. Schmidt therefore concludes， \"if consciousness is indeed equivalent to the short term store， this amounts to a claim that storage without conscious awareness is impossible\" (1990， p. 136). The second stage is one in which intake is absorbed into the learner's interlanguage system and changes to this system only occur when language features become part of long-term memory. As the discussion and analysis of the second stage of Ellis's model is beyond the focus -noticing， only the operations that occur in the first stage will be further discussed.

2.3 Influences on noticing

2.3.1 instruction

Instruction provides structured， differentiated input that assists noticing by focusing attention on and enhancing awareness of language features (Skehan， 1998). Also， Schmidt (1990) proposes that instruction may play an important role in priming learners to notice features by establishing expectations about language. In contrast， Ellis (1997) points out that instruction serves to draw attention to items that do not conform to expectations and may therefore not be noticed. Krashen suggests that natural communicative input is the key to designing a syllabus， ensuring in this way that each learner will receive some 'i + 1' input that is appropriate for his/her current stage of linguistic competence. It is comprehensible input and meanwhile instruction implies that some language features should be noticed by structured and differentiated input. Therefore， in our actual English learning we should attach importance to structured and differentiated input， which would be of great help for use to absorb knowledge.

2.3.2 Frequency

A language feature may become frequent due to repeated instruction or by way of teacher talk. As such， when the item does appear more frequently in the input， the likelihood that an item will be noticed and integrated into the interlanguage system is increased (Schmidt， 1990). Also， as Skehan (1998) suggests， at times learners' attentional resources are stretched and a form may， on occasion， go unnoticed. Therefore， the more frequent an item， the greater number of opportunities for noticing exist. In our English learning， we will come across a number of problems， such as negative transfer in second language acquisition. For instance， if a Chinese student studies English， the difference between Chinese and English seems very important for learners， so learners should get a clear knowledge of the differences， otherwise there will appear negative transfer. Therefore the differences can be emphasized more frequently whether by teachers or students themselves.

2.3.3 Perceptual salience

The more prominent a language form at input， the greater the chance it will be noticed (Skehan， 1998). It stands to reason， therefore， that the less salient a form， the less likely it is to be noticed and such forms include those morphemes that are bound， contracted， or unstressed (Slobin， 1985). Perhaps it is easy for learners to have intake if language forms are prominent. When we learn English and come across some language forms of indistinctive features， we should pay more attention to these language features.

2.3.4 Skill Level

According to Schmidt (1990)， skill level includes how well individuals are able to routinize previously met structures. This processing ability in turn determines how ready learners are to notice new forms in the input. Another relevant factor Schmidt identifies is an individual's ability to attend to both form and meaning in L2 processing. Noticing ability varies; some learners are better \"input processors，\" as they have a larger working memory capacity or due to their superior speed of analytical processing within working memory (Skehan， 1998). According to cognitive explanation， language learning is treated as “skill learning”， analogous to learning how to ride a bicycle or play a violin， although probably more complex. A “cognitive” view considers the mechanism s to be general in nature. (Ellis: 1997)

2.3.5 Task demands

Task demands refers to the way in which an instructional task causes learners to notice particular features that are necessary in order to carry out that task (Schmidt， 1990). To achieve this， Ellis (1997) suggests that language features may be made intentionally prominent or the task be designed to \"force\" learners to process the language. Also， Skehan (1998) points out that noticing may be more or less likely depending on whether the level of processing that the task demands is low， such as in the exchange of familiar information， or high， as in a task that requires imaginative and abstract decision-making. This factor is closely connected with the first one- instruction， which would be of great help for learners to learn English knowledge. For instance， in some English oral textbooks， there are some tasks， such as pair work， presentation， discussion which require students to use some relative knowledge. Therefore if learners have some tasks， they will pay more attention to the relative language features.

2.3.6Comparing

Ellis (1997) points out that only by learners recognizing that new language features are at variance with their current interlanguage version will those features become part of their developing interlanguage system. Similarly， Schmidt and Frota (1986) suggest that noticing alone is not enough for input to become intake. Rather， it requires learners to make a comparison between their observed input and typical output based on their existing interlanguage system， that is， they must consciously \"notice the gap.\" In doing so， learners are able to reflect on what is noticed， endeavor to understand its significance， and experience insight (Schmidt， 1990). From this point of view， “noticing” seems increasingly important to become input to intake. Interlanguage is dynamic and only by “noticing the gap” frequently can we approach the target language step by step.

3.Conclusion

It is apparent that Schmidt's noticing hypothesis and its role in language acquisition has attracted some support as well as criticism. Ellis (1994， 1997) and Skehan (1998) in particular espouse the view that noticing accounts for the way in which input becomes intake prior to processing and availability for integration into a learner's developing interlanguage system. Moreover， Gass (1988) asserts that noticing is the first stage of language acquisition.

However there are also some limited use of noticing in second language acquisition. Noticing is an internal process and cannot be observed directly. The empirical research with regard to noticing and L2 acquisition is not scientific enough.

In a word， it will be a great help for English learners. Learners should “notice” something when they learn English. If they can absorb some English knowledge through “noticing”， it must be easier for English learners to become input into intake. From above， there are several factors that influence “noticing” in the process where input is changed into intake. When we learn English， we also should pay more attention to these factors， for they will help us how to notice more in learning English and how to improve our English easily.

Work Cited:

[1]Batstone.[R].(1994).Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Brook， Andrew and Edina Torlakovic. The Role of Consciousness in Second Language Acquisition. 40 paragraphs.

[2]Available:http://www.cognitivesciencesociety.org/confproc/gmu02/final_ind_files/torlakovic_brook.pdf

[3]Ellis.[R].(1990).Instructed Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

[4]Ellis.[R].(1994).The Study of Second Language Acquisition.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[5]Ellis.[R].(1997).SLA Research and Language Teaching.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[6]Krashen.[S].(1981).Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[7]Krashen.[S].(1994).The input hypothesis and its rivals. In N. Ellis (Ed.)，Implicit and explicit learning of language，(pp. 45-77). London: Academic Press.

[8]Long.[M].(1988).Instructed interlanguage development.In L. Beebe (Ed.)， Issues in second language acquisition: Multiple perspectives (pp. 115-141). New York: Newbury House.

[9]Ryan.Kevin.(2001).Interview With Rod Ellis. ELT News Online Journal， 37 paragraphs.

[10]Available:http://www/eltnews.com/features/interviews/015_rod_ellis1.shtml

[11]Schmidt.[R].(1994).Implicit learning and the cognitive unconscious: Of artificial grammars and SLA. In N. Ellis (Ed.)， Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 165-209). London: Academic Press. [-8-].

[12]Schmidt.[R]. Frota.[S].(1986).Developing basic conversational ability in a second language. A case study of an adult learner of Portuguese. In R. Day (Ed.)， Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition， (pp. 237-326) Rowley， MA: Newbury House.

[13]Slobin.[D].(1985).Crosslinguistic evidence for the language-making capacity. In D. Slobin (Ed.)， The Crosslinguistic study of Language Acquisition，Volume2: Theoreical Issues (pp. 1157-1256). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

[13]Skehan.[P]. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.