Putting ‘input’ in its proper place

Abstract

Every theory of second language acquisition (SLA) hypothesizes that learners come to know the properties of a language by being exposed to instances of it in meaningful conversation. Within SLA, the standard analysis of the ‘input question’ appears to be that input equals objective properties of the stimulus array less the effects of selective attention (the intake). In this paper, I offer a critique of the standard analysis. I claim that it is not interpretable in the absence of a theory of mental representation, theories of speech perception and language parsing, and a theory of language learning. I show that it cannot account for aspects of signal detection, phonetic or phonological learning. The standard treatment is essentially pretheoretical. I define an alternative position which distinguishes input to speech processing and input to language-learning mechanisms, drawing on the Autonomous Induction Theory – a novel theory of learning which is compatible with a modular view of processing and a view of linguistic cognition based on Universal Grammar (UG).

The Innovated Writing Process (IWP) Approach: a Practical Bridge between Recent SLA and Applied Linguistics Theories

“…Autonomous Induction Theory (Carroll, 1999 and posits that, SLA is facilitated by a coalition of sources that create input to learning. As defined and explained by Herschensohn (2003, p. 26), this theory brings together spontaneous input and form-focused guidance as two complementary components of the learning process.…”

“…As defined and explained by Herschensohn (2003, p. 26), this theory brings together spontaneous input and form-focused guidance as two complementary components of the learning process. Carroll (1999Carroll ( , 2001 argues that the proposed input of learning is not simply processing input but can be considered as a restructuring of interlanguage grammar due to parsing failure on the part of the learner. In other words, Carroll made a distinction between processing for parsing and processing for acquisition.…”

Effects of Lexical Simplification and Elaboration on Iranian Intermediate EFL Learners’ Learning and Retention of Phrasal Verbs

“…As Corder (1967) originally pointed out and it has also been underlined by Krashen's input hypothesis (1980), any input must be comprehended if it is meant to assist the acquisition process. Different studies have been done in the area of input comprehension (Carroll 1999, Eliss1991, block 2003, Gass and Mackey 2007, most of these studies have developed from two important hypotheses first, Krashen's Input Hypothesis (1982) which emphasized the importance of comprehensible input in second language acquisition and second, long's interaction hypothesis (1996) which is related to the role of interaction in second language criteria.…”

Carroll's Autonomous Induction Theory: Combining Views from UG and Information Processing Theories

“…Accordingly, Carroll (1999) has posed three classic questions depicting the problem of environmental influence on SLA: "How does a signal in the perceptual environment become evidence for learning some linguistic distinction? How is prior grammatical knowledge involved in detecting grammatical distinctions…?…”

“…In structuralism it is believed that the L1 transfer hinders the representation of different units from those of the L1grammar (the strong version of contrastive analysis). Carroll (1999;p. 340) believes that "… by the notion of transfer, structuralists cast doubt on the possibility of L2 learning at all: How do learners ever represent a variety of categories if these are filtered out by the transferred grammar?…”