Noticing in Second Language Acquisition

Noticinginsecondlanguageacquisition:acriticalreviewJohnTruscottNationalTsingHuaUniversityThisarticleexaminestheNoticingHypothesis–theclaimthatsecondlanguagelearnersmustconsciouslynoticethegrammaticalformoftheirinputinordertoacquiregrammar.Iargue,first,thatthefoundationsofthehypothesisincognitivepsychologyareweak;researchinthisareadoesnotsupportit,orevenprovideaclearinterpretationforit.Theproblemofinterpretingthehypothesisismuchmoreacuteintheareaoflanguageacquisition.Partlybecausethehypothesisisnotbasedonanycoherenttheoryoflanguage,itisverydifficulttodetermineexactlywhatitmeansinthiscontext,ortodrawtestablepredictionsfromit.Intheabsenceofspecificpredictions,researchonform-focusedinstructionandfeedbackprovideindirecttests,theresultsofwhichcreateadditionalproblemsforthehypothesis.ThevariousproblemscanbeeliminatedorgreatlyreducediftheNoticingHypothesisisreformulatedasaclaimthatnoticingisnecessaryfortheacquisitionofmetalinguisticknowledgebutnotcompetence.IIntroductionRecentyearshaveseenagrowingconcernwiththeroleofconsciousprocessesinsecondlanguageacquisition(SLA).ThisconcernisfrequentlycenteredontheNoticingHypothesisofSchmidt(1990;1993a;1994;1995a;1995b;SchmidtandFrota,1986),whichhasbeenadoptedbyalargeandprobablygrowingnumberofresearchers(e.g.,Ellis,1993;1994b;Fotos,1993;1994;FotosandEllis,1991;Harley,1993;Larsen-FreemanandLong,1991;Long,1991;Robinson,1995;1996;Zalewski,1993).Thehypothesisisaclaimabouthowinputbecomesintake–thatpartoftheinputthatisusedforacquisition.Itclaimsthatconsciousawareness(noticing)ofgrammar1playsanimportantroleintheprocess.Inthestrongformofthehypothesis,favouredbySchmidt(1990;1993a;1994;1995b),noticingisanecessaryconditionforlearning.Otherresearchersmightpreferaweakerversion;thatnoticingishelpfulbutmightnotbenecessary.Iwillassumethestrongerversion,©Arnold19980267-6583(98)SR122OAAddressforcorrespondence:DepartmentofForeignLanguagesandLiterature,NationalTsingHuaUniversity,Hsinchu,Taiwan;e-mail:[e-mail]1Thehypothesishasbeenappliedtoareasoflanguageotherthangrammar(seeespeciallySchmidt,1993b),butIwillconsideronlygrammarlearning.SecondLanguageResearch14,2(1998);pp.103–135104Noticinginsecondlanguageacquisitionthoughadoptionoftheweakerviewwouldrequireonlyminorchanges.Thehypothesisalsohasstrongandweakformsinanotherrespect.Intheweakversion,learnersneedonlybeawareoftheinputinaglobalsense;theydonothavetonoticeanydetailsofitsform.Iwilldisregardthisweakclaim,fortworeasons.First,inalmostalldiscussion,advocatesoftheNoticingHypothesisclearlyfavourthestrongerview,thatawarenessofgrammaticalformiscrucial.Second,theweakversionisnotinteresting,becausevirtuallynoonewoulddisputeit.Discussionsofnoticingarecommonlydirectedagainsttheoriesofunconsciousacquisition,Krashen’s(1983;1985;1987)inparticular.Butnomajortheories,includingKrashen’s,predictthatlearnersbenefitfrom‘input’thatoccurswhiletheyareabsorbedinsometaskthathasnothingtodowiththe‘input’.SoIwillassumethattheNoticingHypothesisrequiresconsciousawarenessofgrammaticaldetailsratherthansimplyglobalawarenessofinput.Noticingisoftenassociatedwiththeinfluentialnotionofconsciousnessraising(Rutherford,1987;SharwoodSmith,1981)orinputenhancement(SharwoodSmith,1991).Butdespitethe(old)name,theideadoesnotimplyacommitmenttoanyparticularviewontheroleofconsciousnessinlearning.Thelatteristheconcernofthisarticle,soIwillsaylittleaboutconsciousnessraising.Proponentsofnoticingalsogivemuchattentiontonoticingthegap–learners’awarenessofamismatchbetweentheinputandtheircurrentinterlanguage(seeespeciallySchmidtandFrota,1986).Itisimportanttoavoidconfusionbetweenthisidea,whichnecessarilyinvolvesawareness,andthemoregeneralnotionofacomparisonbetweeninputandinterlanguage.Theoriesofunconsciousacquisitionnaturallyhypothesizeanunconsciouscomparisonprocess.SchmidtandFrota(1986),infact,presentednoticingthegapasanadjustmentofKrashen’s(1983)theory,theonlydifferencebeingtheiradditionalclaimthatconsciousawarenessofthegapisarequirement.Thus,argumentsthatlearnersmustcompareinputtotheirinterlanguagegrammar(e.g.,Ellis,1994b)arenotargumentsfornoticing.IwillarguethattheNoticingHypothesisisvulnerableinseveralrespects.InthenextsectionIchallengeitsfoundationsincognitivepsychology,concludingthatitderivesnosupportfromresearchinthisarea.Inthetwofollowingsections,Iconsiderconceptualproblemsthatariseinattemptstoapplytheconceptofnoticingtolanguageacquisition.Thisisfollowedbyalookatempiricalproblems.Finally,Isuggestareformulationofthehypothesis,theJohnTruscott105revisedversionbeingmuchnarrowerthancurrentversions.ThroughoutthediscussionIwillfocusontheworkofSchmidt(1990;1993a;1994;1995b),becauseheprovidesthecleareststatementandthemostthoroughdefenceoftheNoticingHypothesis.IINoticingincognitiveresearchAdvocatesofnoticingarguethatcognitiveresearchpointstothenecessityofawarenessforlearningandthereforesupportstheNoticingHypothesis.Butoneshouldbewaryofstrongclaimsaboutwhatpsychologyhasfoundinregardtoconsciousness.Importantinsightshavebeenachieved,buttheroleofconsciousnessincognition(aswellasitsgeneralnature)co