L2 Learning, Teaching and Assessment

A Comprehensible Input Perspective

Nihat Polat

• Publisher: Multilingual Matters
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9781783096350
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Psycolinguistics
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

This book explores second language (L2) learning, teaching and assessment from a comprehensible input (CI) perspective. This focus on the role of input is important for deepening our understanding of interactions between the learner, teacher and the environment as well as of the nature of the learning, teaching and assessment processes. The book takes a blended approach that promotes the intertwining of theory, research and practice in L2 pedagogy and assessment and aims to address the commonly used concept of CI and its role in L2 education. Content includes a comprehensive discussion of the conceptual foundation of CI; a multimodal and dynamic interpretation of CI from numerous perspectives; a critical discussion of well-known L2 acquisition theories and research; a practical examination of the role of multimodal forms of CI in L2 pedagogy; an analytical review of factors to be considered when modifying CI for pedagogical purposes in different settings and an overview of CI in L2 assessment. It will be of interest to students in the fields of L2 learning, teaching and assessment, teachers in second/foreign language settings and researchers of SLA and teacher education.

Part 1: Encountering Comprehensible Input: Conceptual Foundation

To guide the readers in progressively connecting theory, research and practice about the role of comprehensible input (CI) in second language acquisition (L2A), teaching and assessment, Part 1 (Chapters 1–3) describes the theoretical foundation and conceptual bases of the concept of CI. Firstly, definitions of basic constructs such as comprehension, comprehensibility, input, intake, output and CI are provided. Here, input’s linguistic, cultural, semiotic and stylistic codes are particularly highlighted. Building on the cumulative wisdom in related fields, an alternative view of CI is also offered. Secondly, the conceptual underpinnings of CI are explicated from the perspectives of cognitive load, automaticity, schema, dual-coding, multimodality, constructivism, socio-constructivism, poststructuralism and hybridity theories. Finally, the constitutive elements of CI are described and exemplified from the viewpoints of five different fields of linguistics, including applied linguistics, sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, neurolinguistics and computational linguistics.

1Comprehensible Input Defined

In this chapter, I aim to address the nature and conceptual foundation of comprehensible input (CI), namely existing views about and definitions of CI. Firstly, I focus on what the concepts input, comprehensibility, output and CI entail. Secondly, I examine what input’s linguistic (e.g. phonological, morphological), cultural (e.g. practices, perspectives), semiotic (e.g. semiosis, indexical) and stylistic (e.g. register, formality) elements are. Then, I explicate how CI pertains to processing and output production. I conclude the chapter with a brief section that offers a broad perspective of CI in light of the cumulative wisdom accrued as a result of many theoretical and practical innovations in related fields.

Comprehensible Input

Human beings use language not only to construct concepts and metaphors but also to communicate reason, emotion and ideas (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980). If to communicate is to understand and be understood in different contexts of situations, successful communication depends largely on possessing and effectively using commonly shared units of language. Even the most common everyday communicative acts have an underlying assumption of shared understanding of linguistic forms and meanings. For instance, at the most basic communicative level, a child and a parent have to agree on the meaning of the utterance ‘I’m hungry’ to result in the parent giving the child food. In the academic world, for instance, technical terms (register) constitute a commonly shared basis for scientific communication among professionals in closely related fields. Without them, mutual intelligibility is impossible and the future of scientific advancement is in jeopardy. Indeed, the practical value of an innovative idea or a technical term resides in the adoption and dissemination of its shared understanding in the scientific community. In this sense, technical terms help researchers to label scientific phenomena and establish commonly shared roadmaps for communication. Conventionally, before a technical concept is added to a professional registry, it must undergo an adoption process. This could occur in two different ways. In the first way, the term is operationally defined by the theorist and the field adopts this definition. In the second way, a need for the operationalization and measurement of the concept arises as the concept becomes widely used in the field. However, note that when it comes to operational meanings and representations of abstract concepts, full consensus is often a forlorn hope.

The term CI in L2 education is one construct that needs closer examination for several reasons. Firstly, even with its historical antecedents dating back to the 19th (Gouinian method; Howatt, 2004) and 20th (Asher, 1969) centuries, and after its special introduction into the field by Stephen Krashen (1987) approximately four decades ago, the term could benefit from a more comprehensive operational definition. Naturally, when defining elements of a technical term are not clearly identified, it becomes more susceptible to misuse. Secondly, the frequency of its use in L2 education is bordering on overuse, pointing to a need to review its usages in different contexts. Thirdly, recent developments in related fields that correspond to the theoretical underpinnings of different aspects of the term (e.g. theories of comprehension, multimodality) necessitate a re-examination. Finally, L2A theory and research and instructional models that have emerged in the last four decades or so have opened new horizons and possibilities that warrant a more comprehensive view of CI. For example, in complexity theory (Larsen-Freeman, 1997) L2A is characterized by multilayered notions of highly fluid and self-adaptive systems and complex processes of interactions. Therefore, a comprehensive view of CI needs to extend beyond the linguistic properties and encompass aspects of multimodal and non-linear dynamic systems as well as semiotic and cultural codes and representations.

What is Input?

According to Krashen (1981), success in L2A is primarily a matter of exposure to input that is comprehensible. Then, understanding the nature of defining elements of input is a prerequisite to the ability to make input comprehensible. Indeed, Gass and Mackey (2007: 177) define input as ‘the sine qua non’ – or the essential element – of acquisition. Input is generally used to refer to all language samples that are available to a learner in a context. There is no broad consensus in the field of L2 education as to what input really entails in terms of its linguistic, non-linguistic and metaphorical representations, as well as its multimodal forms and variations (for details, see Carroll, 2000). For example, it could refer to linguistic codes and properties at the phonemic or morphemic level, or it could mean a phrase, a clause or even a sentence. Likewise, one could assume that input of basic interpersonal communication skills (BICS) differs from that of cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP) (Cummins, 1984) in terms of levels of linguistic complexity, cognitive load and so forth. If we posit that input also has paralinguistic (e.g. body language) elements, we need to identify its cognitive and sociocultural particularities as well as how such elements interact with its socio- and psycholinguistic functions. Indeed, if we are to assume that ‘input’ encompasses all of the above-mentioned features, modifying it with the simple adjective ‘comprehensible’ may not do justice to the complexity of its constitutive elements.

The term ‘input’ has been used to refer to various forms of language samples in the L2A, teaching and assessment literature. Its meaning and uses are also closely linked to several other constructs (see Carroll, 2000). For example, a commonly used concept that is closely related to input is intake. Intake stands for the input that is perceived, attended to, processed and encoded as new knowledge by the learner (Gass, 1997). It is obvious that in one way or another, the term has been used either as a ‘label’ for linguistic codes, or as a misnomer for all linguistic, non-linguistic, semiotic, literal and sociocultural properties and functions it may possess. Either way, the assumption here is that ‘input’ is some kind of an existing bag of well-known, static and stable codes that L2 learners must learn. No matter how we look at it, such an assumption is reductionist, and goes against current research and theory on social semiotics, multimodality and sociocultural theories of L2A. Currently, more consensus is being built in the field that language elements are complex, dynamic and multimodal. They serve more than just literal and referential functions because learning (or L2A) is individual construction of meaning via social mediation in affordance-rich ecologies (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006; Larsen-Freeman, 2011; Mackey, 2012). Affordance refers to all cognitive (e.g. memory), affective (e.g. motivation), metacognitive (e.g. strategy use) and sociocultural artifacts, tools, resources and factors that a learner utilizes in his/her environment to learn an L2 (van Lier, 2000). To understand the complexity of the term, a few examples, as provided below, may help shed light on its constitutive elements at varying levels from phonemes to utterances, while also demonstrating potential challenges that different forms of input may pose for different first language (L1) and L2 audiences.

We know from basic linguistics that each language sample is constituted of numerous properties and functions, including phonemic and morphemic elements that, on the grounds of interaction, can generate exponential complexities and variations in use (Yule, 2011). For example, the word ‘wolves’ can be parsed by a learner at the phonemic level (e.g. the initial /w/), the morphophonemic level with the realization of the inflectional suffix /s/ as [z], the morphemic level as two units, stem and suffix or the word level with ‘wolves’ as one unit. In each of these situations, the learners will face different comprehension challenges. Issues of comprehensibility only get more complicated with units of input at phrasal or clausal levels and beyond because additional governing parameters – such as morphosyntactic and socio-pragmatic rules – enable non-finite opportunities of generativity (Curzan & Adams, 2012). As a result, attending to the issues of the comprehensibility of input would require discussions centered around cognitive and social processes at the levels of both linguistic and communicative competence. Thus, further complications can arise depending on, among others: whether exposure to input occurs in the area of listening versus reading skills; what the topic and/or genre is; whether input involves basic communication or academic register; what the intended referential, inferential, symbolic and metaphorical meanings of the input might be and what learners’ levels of L2 proficiency and their sociocultural and communicative backgrounds are. In addition, the context of situation, the patterns of interactions between the interlocutor and the text, the nature of processes of negotiation of meaning and the nature of other ecological affordances will influence the comprehensibility of input.

The case of highly proficient non-native speaker graduate students in English-speaking countries is a good example to describe the complex nature of CI. To be admitted into highly competitive graduate programs in English-speaking countries like the United States, students have to present high proficiency scores on standardized tests (e.g. Test of English as a Foreign Language [TOEFL], International English Language Testing System [IELTS]) while also scoring within the range of their native-speaker peers on the verbal and analytic writing sections of the graduate record examinations (GRE). Nevertheless, even with such high proficiency both in general and academic English, they may experience difficulties with rather simple linguistic input (Kim, 2006). For example, when confronted with the occasional question, ‘How are you doing?’, a student may attempt to share genuine lengthy accounts of happenings in his/her personal life with the interlocutor instead of reciprocating with a simple ‘OK’ or ‘Hi’. Such instances indicate that the student’s comprehension of this particular input lacks the pragmatic and stylistic properties of a structurally simple interrogative sentence. Similarly, due to a lack of background about some of the salient social, cultural, political and economic events of the time, a student may experience great difficulty understanding jokes (humor) that are told in the plainest English by his/her native-speaker friends or on late-night television shows. In such cases, incomprehensibility of input is caused by a lack of sociocultural references, inferences and the context of situation, rather than input’s idiomatic, colloquial or metaphorical properties.

Comprehensibility of Input

We can make one of two assumptions about comprehensibility of input: (1) it is possible to determine the comprehensibility of a unit of input in isolation; or (2) the comprehensibility of input largely depends on the context of situation and the particularities of the negotiation of meaning. The first makes an assumption about inherent (in)comprehensibility simply by virtue of the nature of input whereas the second one attributes (in)comprehensibility to ecological, social and learning-related variables. It is important to note that comprehension and comprehensibility refer to different phenomena. Comprehension refers to information processing and construction of meaning at varying levels along a continuum. A person may comprehend something at a low or high level (for details, see Gass, 1997). Comprehensibility refers to potential comprehension challenges a unit of input is presumed to pose. While, in light of available research in L2 pedagogy, it is easy to endorse the latter, as counterintuitive as it may be, the first assumption is widespread in instructional practices and materials. For example, commercial textbooks for teaching English often list certain vocabulary or grammatical items as more incomprehensible than other items (McGrath, 2002). While highlighting some language samples may be helpful to achieve lesson objectives, such actions imply that a unit of input poses the same comprehension challenges for all learners. Endorsing the second assumption also requires clarifications in numerous areas. For instance, as is the case at the earliest stages of L2A, if an L2 learner can tell what language a particular input belongs to, does it mean she/he comprehends it? Or, comprehensibility may mean different things in the case of many non-native Arabic and Hebrew speakers who can read (decode) their religious texts for prayer purposes but may not understand their meanings. Similarly, in response to the question ‘How old are you?’, if a learner shows the correct number of fingers versus saying ‘seven’ or ‘I’m seven’ or ‘I’m seven years old’, can we conclude that the input is comprehended by the learner? Likewise, we would have arrived at the same conclusion had the learner taken out his/her pencil and put it on the desk as ‘commanded’ by the teacher, a typical activity in the total physical response (TPR) method (Asher, 1969).

Input is constituted by numerous phonological, morphological and syntactic properties, each of which contributes to its varying levels of complexity for learners at different proficiency levels; however, when applied to communicative functions by language users, these properties take on contextual, semantic, socio-pragmatic and stylistic roles, generating infinite novel references that potentially increase processability difficulties. Thus, the comprehensibility of a unit of input involves a wide variety of factors related to the nature of the input, the source of the input (speaker or text), the context of use, the background of the users, the interaction patterns of users, the available compensatory resources (instructional modifications) and so forth. In this sense, no input should be categorized as comprehensible or incomprehensible by virtue of its linguistic or functional properties, its anticipated cognitive load, modality, presumed meanings or semiotic representations alone. Comprehensibility is a matter of languaging processes (negotiation of meaning) through which contextually bound products are generated. More specifically, comprehensibility depends largely on how successfully L2 learners negotiate and (co)construct meaning in a particular context of communication with the help (scaffolding) of the more knowledgeable other(s) (the teacher or caregiver). This notion applies to both oral and written input because comprehension is not the transfer of input from a text to reader or speaker to listener; rather, it is individual construction of meaning via social mediation (Lantolf, 2011).

Indeed, to understand the comprehensibility of a unit of input and its comprehension by a learner, an examination of the dynamic relationship between the input, the learner, the text/speaker and the context is warranted. As is commonly known, understanding and learning a word requires attendance to the properties of its form, meaning and use. To ascertain comprehensibility of the input, one could focus on the meaning, the form or the use of input in a specific context (Carroll, 2000). Undoubtedly, prioritization of one of these instructional approaches would indicate a person’s view of comprehensibility. For example, championing a meaning-focused approach would imply that comprehensibility is considered to be primarily a matter of socially and culturally situated meaning that is mediated by referential, inferential and contextual factors that involve processes of negotiation and scaffolding (Ortega, 2011). In this sense, comprehensibility would depend on successful regulation and management of the learners’ and teachers’ behaviors. Here, for example, clarification and confirmation checks and other effective communication strategies could enhance comprehension (Mackey, 2012).

Needless to state, a learner’s activated prior knowledge and her/his perceived psychological proximity (perceptions about her/his L2 self-concept) to the L2 language and culture (acculturation patterns), in addition to her/his affective (e.g. willingness, motivation) and metacognitive (e.g. beliefs, strategies) characteristics, play a vital role in the amount of time and effort she/he would invest in processing and understanding a particular unit of input (Krashen, 1981; Lightbown et al., 2006). Similarly, opportunities provided by the more knowledgeable other (teacher or caregiver) in this process, particularly the structure of power relations, ecological well-being and design, culturally relevant pedagogical practices, contextualized scaffolding techniques, appropriate speech/pace and text/length adjustments and lexical and structural modifications, would also influence success in achieving comprehensibility.

Nature of Comprehensible Input

Although, as described above, comprehensibility of input primarily depends on how a learner attends to the dynamic and complex interactional processes occurring in a particular ecology, what the nature of CI entails in terms of its linguistic,...