Can Learners Attend to Form and Content While Processing Input?

Author(s): Bill VanPatten

Source: Hispania, Vol. 72, No. 2 (May, 1989), pp. 409-417
Published by: American Association of Teachers of Spanish and Portuguese
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/343165 .
Accessed: 10/10/2014 10:31
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Association of Teachers of Spanish and Portuguese is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to Hispania.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 200.19.73.181 on Fri, 10 Oct 2014 10:31:28 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

LINGUISTICS: APPLIED

409

Can Learners Attend to

Form and Content
While Processing Input?
U Bill VanPatten, Universityof Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Introduction
Withouta doubt, the role of inputin second
language acquisition (SLA) has gained increased attention over the years (Gass &
Madden, 1985), yet the answer to a fundamental question remains elusive: how do learners
get intakefrom input?It is generallyacknowledged that not all of input is availablefor language processing, that much of input is
"noise."Intake is thus defined as a subset of
the input that the learner actually perceives
and processes.
One debated issue in SLA is whether or
not learners must consciously attend to features in the input in order to process them
and incorporate them into their developing
linguistic systems. Krashen has long maintained that acquisitionis a subconscious process, that a learner goes for meaning first
and acquisitionfollows as a by-productof processing languagefor meaning (Krashen 1983;
1985). Others, however, put the learner in a
more "activerole, by taking the position that
formal features of language must be consciously registered by the learner for successful language acquisition to occur. Swain
(1985), for example, suggests that "[negotiation] paves the way for future exchanges
where, because the message is understood,
the learner is free to pay attention to form"
(248). A much stronger and more detailed
position can be found in Schmidt (1988).
Schmidt has reviewed the literature on consciousness in cognitive psychology. Separating out the issues of consciousness into six
sub-issues, Schmidt concentrates on the issues of subliminal, implicit and incidental
learning(17). His rather exhaustive review of
the literatureleads Schmidtto concludethat:
... nothing in target language input becomes intake for
language learning other than what learners consciously
notice, that there is no such thing as learninga second
languagesubliminally.Incidentallearning- learningwithout consciously trying to learn--is certainly possible
when task demands focus attention on relevant features
of the input... Incidentallearningin another sense, pick-

ing up target language forms from input when they do

not carry informationcrucialto the task, appearsunlikely
for adults (61).

Positing a role for conscious attention during

input processing raises a critical question in
second language acquisition theory, namely,
if learners are consciously processing incoming languagedata for meaning, can they simultaneously process that data consciously for
linguistic form? In VanPatten (1985) I suggested that this was probablynot the case.
Given the limited capacity for processing involved in conscious attention and that conscious processing is serial in nature, it is
doubtful that learners in the early and intermediate stages of acquisitionconsciously attend to form in the input. I suggested then
that the simultaneous processing of meaning
and form (i.e., form that is not related to
utterance meaning, for example, features of
concordance)can only occur if comprehension
as a skill is automatized,thus releasing attention for a focus on form. However, features
of the language that carry significantinformation (i.e., lexical items, certain kinds of verb
morphology)can be consciously processed by
learners at all levels.
As reported in Schmidt, the literature on
conscious processing provides for some problematic issues regardingresearch design and
interpretation. In one set of experimentation
involvingartificialgrammars,Reber (1976) reported that subjects, after having been exposed to strings of letters, were able to make
accurate grammaticalityjudgments of novel
strings. He concludedthat learners implicitly
acquiredthe grammarof the strings through
simple structured exposure. Dulany,Carlson
and Dewey (1984) replicated Reber's design
but also asked subjects to articulate the
reasons for theirjudgments. Dulanyet al. concluded that subjects had learned some sort
of conscious rules that were utilized during
the judgmenttask. However,Reber,Allenand
Regan (1985) argued against Dulany et al.
claimingthat the task of requiringa subject to

This content downloaded from 200.19.73.181 on Fri, 10 Oct 2014 10:31:28 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

410

HISPANIA 72 MAY 1989

articulate a rule is equivalent to having the Level II = fourthsemester; Level III = third
subject rationalizewhat is from the outset an year conversation. Rather than volunteers,
intuitive and therefore implicitjudgment.
entire classes were used for testing to ensure
Indeed, judgments and justifications are a more random sampling of typical collegeproblematic from an interpretive viewpoint. level language students and to avoidthe probHowever, such problems could be circum- lems inherent in 'self-selection.'"No subject
vented by tackling consciousness indirectly reported hearing impairmentsnor any other
with a task involvingsimultaneousprocessing. auditory problems that might interfere with
That is, given that conscious processing is the nature of the tasks. Of the entire populaserial and effortful, if subjects are asked to tion, only three subjects reported that another
attend to form while also processing the input languageother thanEnglishwas used at home
for meaning, then a negative effect should with the parents, but since these three also
appear in the comprehension process, i.e., claimed English as their dominant language
attention to form "robs"processing time from they were not excluded from the study.
attention to meaning. If this can be shown,
then it can be argued that learners cannot Method and Procedure
Each class listened to two passages which
simultaneouslyattend to form and content (or
at the very least, they have great difficultyin were pilot tested in the Spring of 1987 (see
doing so). If this is so, then learners should VanPatten, 1987b). While the subjects were
not be able to acquirelinguisticfeatures from not told so, the first passage served merely
the inputin a conscious fashionif the purpose as a warm up while the second passage was
of listeningto some one else is to gather infor- used as the source of data.3This passage was
mation. On the other hand, if learners can a short 3 minute segment on inflationin Latin
simultaneously attend to form and meaning/ America which was recorded by a near-native
content, then we could argue for a much speaker4of Spanish and the tape was played
stronger role for consciousness during input to each class on a Magnavoxstereo cassette
processing. The first step, then, is to investi- recorder. It should be noted that the speaker
gate whether learners can actually process did not speak at a normal rate and paused
both form and content.
briefly at clause boundariesand other breath
This paper will report on one study de- group marks to allow for processing time on
signed to investigate learners' abilities to the part of the subjects. In no instance was
simultaneouslyprocess form and meaning in any of the targeted items given suprasegmenthe input. The study requiredlearners to per- tal emphasis to enhance its acoustical saliform various tasks while listening to a short ence.
Classes were randomly assigned to compassage for meaning. Three hypotheses
guided the study:
plete one of four listening tasks. Task I con1. If learners have difficultyin directingatten- sisted of listening to the passage for content
tion toward both content and form, then a only. Task II consisted of listening to the pastask involvingconscious attention to non- sage for content and simultaneously noting
communicativegrammatico-morphological the verb morpheme -n. Task II consisted of
forms in the input will negatively affect listeningto the passage for content and simulcomprehension of content.
taneously noting the definite article la. These
2. If these same learners are (basically)going two morphemes were selected based on their
for meaningfirst, a task involvingconscious differential structural properties. The first,
attention to importantlexical items will not -n, is a bound, word final, nonsyllabic moraffect comprehension of content.
pheme. The second, la, is a free syllabicmor3. More advanced learners will not exhibit pheme occurring before nouns. If differential
the same patterns of performance on the properties of morphemes make a difference
tasks as the early stage learners.
for input processing, then we would expect
the difference to show up in this study. The
Subjects
fourth task, IV, consisted of listening for conA total of 202 students of Spanish at the tent and simultaneouslynoting the key lexical
University level served.as subjects in this item inflaci6n. Each item occurred 11 or 12
study. Three levels of classes were chosen times in the passage. In all three tasks, noting
for us in this study: Level I = first semester; an item was achieved by having the subjects

This content downloaded from 200.19.73.181 on Fri, 10 Oct 2014 10:31:28 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

LINGUISTICS:APPLIED

put a check mark on a blank piece of paper

each time they heard the item.5 It should be
noted that eight check marks (out of 11 or 12
occurrences of the targeted item) on the page
were necessary for a subject's data to be includedin the pool. Table 1 offers a breakdown
of the number of subjects per experimental
cell.
LevelI
Level II
LevelIII

Task I
16
15
13

Task II
16
23
11

Task III
20
20
14

Task IV
21
19
14

Table 1. Number of Subjects per Task by Level.

For all tasks, subjects were instructed to

listen for meaning and were told that their
comprehension of the passage would be assessed afterward. Before the passage was
played, subjects were told that it was about
inflationin Latin America and the problems
that inflationhas brought to Latin countries.
This was done so that subjects might activate
relevant backgroundknowledge to assist in
their comprehension.
Each comprehension assessment consisted of free written recalls in English. This
assessment has been shown to be a valid experimental evaluation in reading (e.g., Lee
1986) and was also shown to be valid for experimentationin listening (VanPatten1987b).
Immediatelyafter the subjects heard the passage, they were told to write down in English
anything and everything that they could remember from the passage, no matter how
general, no matter how specific. Quantityof
informationwas stressed. These recall protocols were subsequentlyscored using an idea
unit analysis (Carrell 1985; Lee 1986).6 The
original passage was divided into idea units
based on syntactic and semantic features, resulting in a total of 53 idea units for this passage (see Appendix). Each subject's score
consisted of the raw number of idea units recalled. The recall protocols were independently scored by two assistants who then met
to compare scoring procedure. Inter-raterreliabilitywas .98 and in the end, the scorers
agreed on all protocol scorings.

411

the highest recallsregardless of level, followed

by Task IV (listeningfor content plus key lexical item), Task III (listeningfor content plus
definite article), with Task II (listening for
content plus verb morpheme) resultingin the
lowest recall scores. Moving down the table
another consistent pattern develops. As one
moves up the levels, recall scores improveon
each task. However, it should be noted that
with Task II, recall scores seem to cluster
arounda certain point such that both Levels
II and III subjects performin a mannersimilar
to Level I. This drop in performanceon Task
II appears to be very dramaticfor the Level
III subjects (see Figure 1).7

LevelI
LevelII
LevelIII

Task I
9.13
10.13
19.15

Task II
2.75
6.96
6.27

Task III
3.75
5.5
13.07

Task IV
6.90
10.0
16.36

Table 2. Mean Recall Scores by Task and Level.

To check for significance in these differences, a two-way analysis of variance

(ANOVA)with a 3 x 4 factorial design was
performed on the data. The results are reported in Table 3. As can be seen, there is a
significanteffect obtainedfor level andfor task
and for the interactionof level and task. This
suggests that simultaneousprocessing of content and linguisticform is indeed difficultfor
learners, but that they do improvesomewhat
over time. However, with a 3 x 4 design it is
possible that some cells do not obtain this
effect. Thus, a pairwise test using Tukey's
HSD was conducted so that cell comparisons
could be made. These results can be found
in Table 4. These show that expected differences did not obtainin several cells, but that
overall the task effect obtains.8
It shouldbe recalledfrom both Table2 and
Figure 1 that all three Levels seemed to conSource of
df
variation
Level
2
Task
3
Levelx Task
6
Error
190
***p < .001

SS
2200.660
1671.769
480.834
3340.016

MS
1100.330
557.256
80.139
17.579

F
62.593***
31.700***
4.559***

Results
Table 3. ANOVA for Recall Scores.
Mean scores per cell are displayedin Table
2. Moving across the table from left to right verge at Task II with their recall scores clusone can see a consistent pattern develop. tering arounda rather low point. In addition,
Task I (listening for content only) produced it was noted that there seemed to be an order

This content downloaded from 200.19.73.181 on Fri, 10 Oct 2014 10:31:28 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

412

HISPANIA 72 MAY 1989

20

16

14

12
Id

Id

6
4

Id

T I

T 3

T 2
$-400L
-U

+-+

T4

I
2
-L
tL 3

Figure 1. Recall Scores by Task and Level

A B C
A.L3T1 x - s
B. L3T4
x C.L3T3
x
D.L2T1
E.L2T4
EL1T1
G.L2T2
H.L1T4
I.L3T2
J.L2T3
K.L1T3
L.L1T2

D
s
s

E F
s s
s s
s
--x x
x

G
s
s
s

H I
s s
s s
s s
-s

J
s
s
s
s

K
s
s
s
s
s
s

L
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
x

TaskI
TaskIV
Task III
Task II

Task I

Task IV

Task III

Task II

s
s
X

s
s
X

s = p<.01
Table 5. Tukey HSD for Task Type.

focusing on content/lexicalitems vs. focusing

on grammaticalitems.

Discussion
The results of the ANOVAalong with the
two pairwise tests suggest a significantdrop
s= p<.01
in recall scores when subjects were asked to
simultaneouslylisten for content and note a
Table 4. Tukey HSD for Level and Task.
grammatical morpheme of little referential
for task scores: Task I ---> Task IV ---> Task meaning. At the same time, these results do
III ---> Task II, in order fromhighest to lowest not suggest that the simultaneous tasks of
mean scores. IgnoringLevel, a pairwise test listening for content and noting a lexical item
was conducted to see if there were overall result in a significant drop in recall scores.
significant differences based on task type Using a differentpopulationandusing multiple
alone. In Table 5 the results of a Tukey HSD levels of exposure to the language,these data
for Task are reported. These data reveal that support the findingsof VanPatten(1987b) rethere is no significant difference between garding early stage learners in which signifiscores on Tasks I and IV nor between II and cant differences were foundbetween content
III. But there is a significant difference be- only recalls and content plus form focused
tween scores on Tasks I and II, I and III as listening on the one hand, but no significant
well as between IV and II and IV and III, differences between content only recalls and
suggesting a split along these general lines: content plus lexically focused listening.9

This content downloaded from 200.19.73.181 on Fri, 10 Oct 2014 10:31:28 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

LINGUISTICS:APPLIED

413

Therefore, the first two hypotheses that occupythe highestrank,la is closerto being
guidedthis study are supported.They are word-likethanis the verb inflectionused in
this study.This resemblanceto words,howrepeatedhere:
1. Iflearnershavedifficulty
indirectingatten- ever,is information
thatis not available
to the
tion towardbothcontentandform,then a languageprocessorin the earlystages.
task involvingconsciousattentionto nonMorelikely,however,is an acousticexplacommunicative
nation.
For the early stage learner,Spanish
grammatico-morphological
forms in the inputwill negativelyaffect is nothingbut a streamof syllables'0when
of content.
listened to and roots of knownwords and
comprehension
2. Ifthese samelearnersare(basically)
going cognatesstandout to helparriveat meaning.
formeaningfirst,a taskinvolving
conscious Forthe moreadvancedlearner,wordboundattentionto important
lexicalitemswillnot ariesbecomemoresalientandthusfree moraffectcomprehension
of content.
phemessuchas la are moreeasily"isolated"
As suggestedinVanPatten
(1985),it would fromthe nounphrasesin whichthey appear
seem thatthe communicatively
loadeditems whereasboundmorphemes
maystillbe missed
ininputreceiveconsciousattentionfromearly since they are acousticallynot as salient.
as intake
In developingan inputbased acquisition
stage learnersandbecomeavailable
for the developinglanguagesystem. Gram- model, the results of the present study
maticalmorphemesof littlemeaningmaybe suggest that as inputbecomescomprehensileft "unattended."
ble (i.e., compareLevel1 TaskI recallscores
Concerning
hypothesis3 ("Moreadvanced with Level 3 Task I recallscores) available
learnerswillnot exhibitthe samepatternsof attentionand effort are not necessarilyreonthe tasksas earlystagelearn- leasedforfocusingon form.Onepossibleobperformance
ers"), the data offer mixedresults. On the jection that couldbe raised at this point is
one hand,moreadvancedlearnersdoprocess that the inputwas comprehensible,
but that
and recallmore content as revealedby the learnershadto workat understanding
everyscores on TaskI. However,the task demand thing. If attentionto formneeds to be conof consciouslynotinga verb inflectionwhile sciousat some point,thenthe inputmustbe
listeningfor meaningis so great that third easily comprehended.Commentsmade by
yearstudentsof Spanishperformedaboutthe some of the subjectsat the end of the exsame as the other subjects. However,it perimentation
attest to this:
shouldalso be notedthaton TaskII (definite "Itis hardto comprehendthe readings(sic) when listening
article),the LevelIIIsubjectsperformedsig- for certain verbs because you are more concerned with
nificantlybetter thanother LevelII subjects listening for the verbs than the actual words."
on Task II (verbmorpheme).This was not "I was concentratingon hearing the verbs with -n. I paid
the obtainedresultforLevelIIandIIIsubjects very little attention to the meaning of the oration."
who performedaboutthe sameon these two "I don't know. I forget to pay attention to the meaning
tasks. This findingsuggests that for lower of the passage. I was concentratingon the verbs."
levelsubjects,theremaybe no differencebe- "How are we supposed to listen for verb endings and for
tween boundand free morphemesbut that the information,too?"
for Level III subjectsthere is. Thus, while These early stage subjectsseemed to have
we see an overallpatternemerge based on been strugglingso muchwith meaningthat
task regardlessof level, type of formbeing consciousattentionandeffortusedto continuconsciouslyprocessedproducesdifferences ouslyseek out formsin the inputandprocess
at Level III. To what these differencesare them,hamperedthe processingof meaning."
attributable
can onlybe speculated.A tenta- Inotherwords,whenaskedto simultaneously
tive explanation
wouldleadus to lookat how listenfora grammatical
morphemeandto lisdefinite articles resemble lexical items ten for meaning,manylearnerscannotperwhereas bound morphemes do not. That is, formthe task.12The results do not suggest

la is a word. It stands alone and "means"'the.'

One can also find la in any Spanishdictionary.
But -n cannot stand alone, does not mean
anythingunless attachedto a verb, andcannot
be found in the dictionary.Thus, on a scale
of communicativevalue where words tend to

that early stage learners are completelyincapable of focusing on form in the input. What
the results do suggest is that a focus on form
is probablynot continuous in the real world
of inputprocessing. That is, it maybe possible
to occasionallynotice a formconsciouslywhen

This content downloaded from 200.19.73.181 on Fri, 10 Oct 2014 10:31:28 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

414

HISPANIA 72 MAY 1989

listeningto anotherspeak.In Schmidt'sdiary and, by extension,only when inputis easily

study,forexample,one sees a clearconscious understoodcan learnersattend to form as
attentionto formin the inputin a negotiated part of the intakeprocess. It wouldseem,
context.Whatis notclearfromSchmidt's
com- then, thatwe need a moreprecisedefinition
ments, however,is whetheror not therewas of comprehensible
inputandits roleinacquisimeaningloss whenattentionwas directedto tion. This role will necessarilyhaveto cona formin the input.The presentstudywould sider the cognitivepsychologyconcepts of
suggest that there was and that consistent attentionandeffort.Weshouldcautionhere,
andconstantawarenessof formin the input however,thatthisstudyandmostclaimsabout
if the learner'staskis to process a role for consciousnessin inputprocessing,
is improbable
the inputformeaning.Inaddition,inSchmidt's seem largelydirectedat the processingof
study, the types of forms that the subject grammaticalmorphologyin the input, but
seemed to be noticingconsciouslywere pre- what of syntax?Can and do learners conciselythose types of formsthatcarriedsome sciouslyregistersuchthingsas a movedNP,
sort of meaning,for example,tense andas- canonicaland noncanonical
wordorder,and
other structuralfeaturesthat operateat the
pect inflections.13
In short, the resultsof the presentstudy level of sentence?
Future research on the relationshipbesuggestthatlearnershavedifficultyinattendingto formwhichdoesnotcontributesubstan- tween inputand intakeand on the abilityof
tiallyto the meaningof the inputregardless languagelearnersto noticeformsin the input
of type of input(negotiatedor nonnegotiated, willneed to addressthese andotherissues.
streamof discourseor utterance).Learners In addition,other methodologiesmust be
are not free to attendto just anything.How- explored.A limitation
on the currentstudyis
inorienever,it wouldbe prematureto concludefrom thatit is notrealworldbutlaboratory
the present study that linguisticfeaturesof tationandit is possiblethatwe arenottapping
the languageare only subconsciouslypro- the samestrategyor processfornoticing/percessed andthat onlymeaningis consciously ceivingformthat is used in ongoingacquisiprocessed. At this time, it can only be con- tion. We mayfindthat perceptualstrategies
cluded that the kinds of linguisticfeatures for noticinghowmessages are encodedmay
used in this study are not consciouslypro- be isolatablefromcomprehension
strategies
cessed in anyconsistentmannerinthe earlier for simplyunderstanding
those messages, or
as Sharwood-Smith
stages of languageacquisition.
(1986)has suggested,we
Whilenota focalpointinthe presentstudy, maydistinguishbetweencomprehension
and
frequencyofoccurrenceininputmeritsa brief acquisitionas faras inputis concerned.The
discussionhere. In the currentstudy,each currentstudycertainlyunderscoresthe need
targeteditem appearedtwelve times in the to movetowardmoresophisticatedaccounts
input. However,a constant and conscious of the role of consciousnessin inputprocessawarenessof theirpresenceseemedto inter- ing.
fere withcomprehension.
Thus, a "morefrequent, sooner acquired"approachto the re- * NOTES
'It must be observed that while this paper discusses
lationshipbetween frequency,consciousattention, and acquisitionof form seems too the role of conscious attention to form and content in
simplistic.The fact thatin the presentstudy input processing, there is also the argument that intake
two equallyfrequentlyoccurringformsin the is structured by the learner's current grammar (e.g.,
White 1985; Liceras 1985). This argumentis not at issue
input, one lexical the other a verb ending, in this paper. More than likely, the input-intakeconnecshowed differential processing effects, tion, in order to be fullyexplainedwillconsist of a number
suggeststhatfrequencyis onlya factoronce of factors.
communicativeand linguistic properties of a
form are considered.
Conclusion
The results of the present study demonstrate
that conscious attention to form in the input
competes with conscious attentionto meaning

21 have been asked whether or not I can assume that

the classes at each level were of roughly equivalentproficiency. While I have no evidence based on cloze and/or
other proficiencymeasures used in L2 research, the fact
that the students in each level take a standardizedexam
based on language use (readingcomprehension,vocabulary, composition, short answer), that their final grades
are based on performanceratherthanknowledgecriteria,
and that the supervisors for each course did not detect
differences in exam averages or final grade averages,

This content downloaded from 200.19.73.181 on Fri, 10 Oct 2014 10:31:28 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

LINGUISTICS:
APPLIED 415
suggests that they probablywere roughlyequivalent. In
addition, the uniform pattern of behavior on the tasks
used in this study (e.g., Tables 2 and 5) where all groups'
scores peak and dip in the same mannerfurther suggests
that proficiency is not affecting outcomes within each
level.
3Passages were used since much of what formalclassroom learners hear as input is canned speech on tapes
(or if they're lucky, TV programs) or is monologued
teacher talk with minimallearner interaction.
4A near native speaker was used rather than a native
speaker since most formallanguagelearnersin FL classes
have nonnativeinstructors.
5The experimenter and his assistants monitored the
task carefullyto ensure that subjects were not 'peeking'
to see when others put check marks.
6Thefollowingis Carrell'sdefinitionof ideaunits: 'each
unit consists of a single clause (main or subordinate,
includingadverbialand relative clauses). Each infinitival
construction, gerundive, nominalizedverb phrase, and
conjunct was also identified as a separate idea unit. In
addition, optional and/or heavy prepositional phrases
were also designated as separate idea units' (737). The
passage on inflationwas independentlyanalyzedinto idea
units by two researchers in language learningwhich resulted in a final complete agreement on the units.
7Weare currently gathering data on super-advanced
learners' and native speakers' performanceon these two
tasks. Preliminaryanalysis suggests that there are no
significant differences between native speakers on the
tasks. However,due to smallsample size (only 8 subjects
in each cell) we are at this point refrainingfromreporting
the results until more subjects can be obtained.
8These cells are D x G, D x I, F x G and F x I. All
four involve level and task interactingand only the first
(D x G) can be used as evidence against the task as a
significant factor (e.g., D = Level II on Task I and G
= Level II on Task II). However, this cell just missed
the .05 level of significance.
'One possible objectionto the obtaineddifferences is
that inflacioin is a key polysyllabic word with stress
whereas -n is a non-syllabicboundmorpheme. The arguments againstthis are: (1) the definitearticlela is syllabic,
free, and prenominalbut falls in with third-person-n in
terms of subjects' task performance; (2) research on
polysyllabic but asemantic verbs (the Spanish copulas)
suggest that learners do not attend to something like
estd in the input (see VanPatten1983 and 1984). The only
difference between estd and inflaci6n is one of semantic
contributionto sentence meaning.
'oUnlike English, Spanishis a syllable timed language
and not a stress timed language.
"See also Terrell (1986) for discussion of the problem
of focusing on a (nonmeaningful)item in the input in a
NaturalApproachclassroom.
"This position is also supported by preliminaryevidence gathered by Francis Mangabhai (personal communication). Using data from a think-aloudtechnique,
Mangabhaireports that "my data suggests that learners
focused on the form only when they are able to retrieve
the meaning of an utterance more or less immediately."
These preliminarydatawere reportedat the 1987TESOL
in Miami (Mangabhai1987).
'3Datafrom other sources supportthe claimthat even
in a negotiated context, many early and intermediate
stage learners go for meaningfirst when processing input
and subsequently attend to those items in the inputthat

carry the most meaning. For example, in the following

interchanges, we see that the learners are so intent on
meaning that they ignore those features in the inputthat
they perceive to be irrelevant to message (I = interviewer, S = subject):
1. I: ?C6moestinellos?
(How are they?)
S: Son contento.
(They are happy.)
I: Yellos, jc6moestin? (Andthem, howare they?)
S: Son contento tambien. (They are happy,too.)
2. S: Que es esto?
(What'sthis?How do you
say this?)
(The rag.)
I: El trapo.
S: La trapo.
(The rag.)

3. S: ...y l, uh,uh,y 1l,uh... (...and he, uh....)

I: Se sent6.
S: Sent6, si.

(He sat down.)

(He sat, yes.)
(VanPatten1983, 125)
In example 1, the learner does not perceive and subsequently does not incorporate(i.e., does not copy) the
correct copulaestd in his own utterance. This is particularly interesting in the second part of the interchange
where the interviewer moves the copula (which carries
strong stress) to sentence finalposition thus heightening
its salience. In example 2, the definite article is ignored
by the learner and in example 3, the learner copies only
what he perceives to be the key lexical item (sentar =
to seat, sentarse = to sit down)and ignores the reflexive
particle. Clearly, in these examples, learners are demonstrating the effect of limited availableattention and
effort in input processing coupled with meaning before
form.
Regarding the ability to perceive third person final
-n, the results in VanPatten(1984b) are relevant here.
In that study, VanPattentested learners' comprehension
of isolated utterances of the followingword order:
Lo invitan
los chicos al cine.
to the movies)
(lit: him invite-they the boys
'The boys invite him to the movies.'
In that study, upwardsof 70% of the learners ignored
the pluralverb marker-n as a semanticclue to the subject
of the sentence andoverwhelminglywent for the interpretation thatlo was the subjectand los chicoswas the object
of the verb, i.e., 'He invites the boys to the movies.' In
such an onlinesentence level processingtask, the average
early stage learner of Spanishrelied on wordorderrather
thanmorphologicalmarkers.(See Lee, 1987foradditional
evidence based on subjects' comprehension of written
utterances.)

/ WORKSCITED
Carrell, P. "FacilitatingESL reading by teaching text
structure."TESOL Quarterly19 (1985) 727-52.
Dulany,D., R. Carlsonand G. Dewey. "ACase of SyntacticalLearningandJudgment:How ConsciousandHow
Abstract?"Journal of ExperimentalPsychology:General 113 (1984) 541-55.
Gass, S. and C. Madden. Input in Second Language
Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 1985.
Krashen, S. Newmark's'IgnoranceHypothesis' and Current Second LanguageAcquisitionTheory."InS. Gass
and L. Selinker (Eds.), Language Transferin Language Learning. Rowley: Newbury House, 1983.
135-53.
The Input Hypothesis.London, UK:
Longman, 1985.

This content downloaded from 200.19.73.181 on Fri, 10 Oct 2014 10:31:28 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

416

HISPANIA 72 MAY 1989

Lee, J. F. "On the Use of the Recall Task to Measure

L2 ReadingComprehension."Studies in Second Language Acquisition8 (1986) 201-11.
"MorphologicalFactors Influencing
Pronominal Reference Assignment by Learners of
Spanish."In T. Morgan, J. F. Lee and B. VanPatten
(Eds.), Language and Language Use: Studies in
Spanish. Lanham,MD: University Press of America,
1987. 221-32.
Liceras, J. "The Role of Intake in the Determinationof
Learners' Competence." In S. Gass and C. Madden
(Eds.), Input in Second LanguageAcquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 1985. 354-73.
Mangabhai, F. "Beyond Input: a Closer Look at What
Learners Do with the Intake."Paper presented at
the AnnualTESOL Meeting, Miami, 1987.
Reber, A. "ImplicitLearning of Synthetic Languages:
The Role of InstructionalSet."Journal of Experimental Psychology:Human Learningand Memory2 (1976)
88-94.
Reber, A., R. Allen and S. Regan. "SyntacticalLearning
and Judgments: Still Unconscious and Still Abstract."
Journal of ExperimentalPsychology:General14 (1985)
17-24.
Schmidt, R. "The Role of Consciousness in Second Language Learning."Manuscript of a plenary address
delivered at the Eighth Second Language Research
Forum, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu,
1988.
Sharwood-Smith, M. "Comprehensionvs. Acquisition:
Two Ways of Processing Input."AppliedLinguistics
7 (1986) 239-56.
Swain, M. "CommunicativeCompetence: Some Roles of
Comprehensible Input and Comprehensible Output
in Its Development." In S. Gass and C. Madden
(Eds.), Input in Second LanguageAcquisition. Rowley: Newbury House, 1985. 235-53.
Terrell, T. "Access and Bindingin the NaturalApproach."
The ModernLanguageJournal 70.3 (1986): 213-27.
VanPatten, B. "Processing Strategies in Second Language Acquisition."UnpublishedPh.D. Thesis, The
University of Texas at Austin, 1983.
"Processing Strategies and Morpheme Acquisition."In F. Eckman, L. Bell and D.
Nelson (Eds.), Universalsof SecondLanguageAcquisition. Rowley: Newbury House, 1984a. 88-98.
"Learnings'Comprehensionof Clitic
Pronouns: More Evidence for a Word Order Strategy."Hispanic Linguistics 1 (1984b) 88-98.
"CommunicativeValueand Information Processing in Second Language Acquisition."In
P. Larson, E. Juddand D. Messerschmitt (Eds.), On
TESOL '84: A Brave New World for TESOL.
Washington,D.C.: TESOL, 1985. 89-100.
"ClassroomLearners' Acquisitionof
ser and estar. Accounting for Developmental Patterns." In B. VanPatten, T. Dvorak and J. F. Lee
(Eds.), ForeignLanguage Learning:A ResearchPerspective. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House Publishers, 1987a. 61-75.
"The Effects of MonitoredListening
Comprehension on Leaners' Processing of Input."
Paper delivered at the annual TESOL Convention,
Miami, 1987b.
White, L. "The Pro-drop Parameter in Adult Second
LanguageAcquisition."LanguageLearning35 (1985):
47-62.

APPENDIX

Analysis of inflaci6n passage

Totalwords inpassage:
274
Totalsentences:
17
16.11
Averagewordsper sentence:
2.01
Averagesyllablesper word:
Averagesyllablesper sentence: 32.47
Totalclauses headed byque:
3
Sample Passage: La inflaci6n (adapted from Con
muchogusto, R. Valette et al., N.Y.: Holt, Rinehartand
Winston, 1978).
Uno de los problemasmaisgraves en los paises latinoamericanos es la inflaci6n. Claro, en los Estados Unidos
la inflaci6ntambienes un problema,pero no es tanelevada
como la inflaci6nde algunosde los paises hispanos. Como
los Estados Unidos sufre de una inflaci6nde 2-3%, un
pais como Chile cuenta con 30% y la inflaci6n en la
Argentinaes ahora 200%.
?C6moafectala inflaci6na la gente? La inflaci6nafecta
a todos, sobre todo a la clase trabajadora.Sus salarios
muchas veces no son suficientes para comprarlas cosas
basicas. Es un circulo vicioso porque cadavez que suben
los salarios, suben los precios tambien. Cuandolos precios suben es necesario aumentar los salarios otra vez.
Asi la inflaci6nestA constantemente alta.
En una situaci6necon6mica como sta, es casi imposible poner dinero en el banco: primero porque la gente
tiene que pagar mais para vivir y no tiene dinero para
poner en el banco; y segundo porque no es buena idea
ahorrarnada en estas circunstancias.La gente cree que
en vez de ahorrar dinero, es mejor invertirloen cosas
que no pierden su valor. Entonces, las personas que
tienen suficiente dinero lo invierten en propiedades y
otras cosas que mantienen un valor constante. Y si no
tienen mucho dinero, comprantelevisores, ropao aparatos electricos porque saben que en poco tiempo los precios de estos articulos van a ser ainmmis altos.
No sabemos muy bien del futuro econ6mico de Latinoamerica respecto a la inflaci6n.Con los problemasde
la industriapetrolifera, hasta paises como Venezuela y
Mexico son muy afectados. La inflaci6nesti consumiendo
a estos paises...
Sample of idea unit divisions: La inflaci6n
(based on Carrell 1985, 737)
1. Uno de los problemasmis graves en los paises latinoamericanoses la inflaci6n
2. Claro, en los Estados Unidos tambien
3. la inflaci6nes un problema
4. pero no es tan elevada
5. como la inflaci6nde algunos de los paises hispanos
6. Como los Estados Unidos sufre de una inflaci6nde
2-3%
7. un pais como Chile cuenta con 30%
8. y la inflaci6nen la Argentinaes ahora 200%
9. ?C6mo afecta la inflaci6na la gente?
10. La inflaci6nafecta a todos
11. sobre todo a la clase trabajadora
12. Sus salarios muchas veces no son suficientes
13. para comprarlas cosas bisicas
14. Es un circulo vicioso
15. porque cada vez que suben los salarios
16. suben los precios tambidn
17. Cuandolos precios suben

This content downloaded from 200.19.73.181 on Fri, 10 Oct 2014 10:31:28 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

LINGUISTICS: APPLIED

18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.

es necesario
aumentarlos salarios otra vez
Asi la inflaci6nesti constantemente alta
En una situaci6n econ6mica como esta
es casi imposible
poner dinero en el banco
primero porque la gente tiene que pagar mais
para vivir
y no tiene dinero
para poner en el banco
y segundo porque no es buena idea
ahorrarnada en estas circunstancias
La gente cree
que en vez de ahorrardinero
es mejor
invertirloen cosas
que no pierden su valor
Entonces, las personas

36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.

417

que tienen suficiente dinero

lo invierten en propiedades
y otras cosas
que mantienen un valor constante
Y si no tienen mucho dinero
comprantelevisores
ropa
o aparatos electricos
porque saben
que en poco tiempo
los precios de estos articulos vana ser aunmaisaltos
No sabemos del futuroecon6micode Latinoambrica
muy bien
respecto a la inflaci6n
Con los problemas de la industriapetrolifera
hasta paises como Venezuela
y M6xico son muy afectados
La inflaci6nesti consumiendo a estos paises...

This content downloaded from 200.19.73.181 on Fri, 10 Oct 2014 10:31:28 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions