A Theory of Input Processing: How Learners Work with Input

There are many theories and theoretical orientations that guide contemporary research on second language acquisition (SLA). Mitchell and Myles (2004: 2) comment that '... although the field of second language learning research has been extremely active and productive in recent decades, we have not yet arrived at a unified or comprehensive view as to how second languages are learnt'. VanPatten and Williams (2007a) ask why just one comprehensive theory to account for all of second language acquisition does not exist. Their response to the question is amusing but insightful nonetheless.

To understand [why there isn't just one theory to account for SLA], one might consider the parable about the four blind men and the elephant. These sightless men chance upon a pachyderm for the first time and one, holding its tail, says, 'Ah! The elephant is very much like a rope'. The second one has wrapped his arms around a giant leg and says, 'Ah! The elephant is like a tree'. The third has been feeling along side the elephant's massive body and says, 'Ah! The elephant is very much like a wall'. The fourth, having seized the trunk cries out, 'Ah! The elephant is very much like a snake'. For us, SLA is a big elephant that researchers can easily look at from different perspectives ... Thus, researchers have grabbed onto different parts of the elephant as a means of coming to grips with the complex phenomenon. (VanPatten & Williams, 2007a: vii–viii)

While we do not make any assertions as to which part of the elephant we are grabbing, we can assert that, as far as second language acquisition is concerned, we are working with input and examining the ways in which learners work with input. What is input? 'The raw linguistic data (oral or written) to which learners are exposed' (Farley, 2005: 109). 'Samples of language that learners are exposed to in a communicative context or setting' (Wong, 2005: 119). 'Samples of second language that learners hear or see to which they attend for its propositional content (message)' (VanPatten, 1996: 10).

We can also assert that we are working with input processing, the process by which learners make the initial connection between a grammatical form and its meaning.

Indeed, it is common ground among all theorists of language learning, of whatever description, that it is necessary to interpret and to process incoming language data in some form, for normal language development to take place. There is thus a consensus that language input of some kind is essential for normal language learning. (Mitchell&Myles, 2004: 20)

We are working, in particular, with VanPatten's theory of input processing (VanPatten, 1996, 2000, 2002, 2004a, 2007).

VanPatten's theory of input processing in adult second language acquisition frames the research questions, methods and procedures we used in the work we present in this book. It is critical, then, that we begin with an account of this theory. We draw from several sources to present our account. We draw extensively from the work of its principal theoriser (VanPatten, 1996, 2000, 2004b, 2007) as well as fromour own work with and within this theoretical framework (Lee & Benati, 2007a, 2007b). As a theoretical framework, input processing is concerned with three fundamental questions that involve the assumption that an integral part of language acquisition is making form–meaning connections:

• Under what conditions do learners make initial form–meaning connections?

• Why, at a given moment in time, do they make some and not other form–meaning connections?

• What internal strategies do learners use in comprehending sentences and how might this affect acquisition? (VanPatten, 2007: 116)

We can add to this list of three umbrella question more specific ones that the research on input processing has attempted to delineate.

• What linguistic data do learners attend to during comprehension?

Why?

• What linguistic data do learners not attend to? Why?

• How does a formal feature's position in the utterance influence whether it gets processed?

• What grammatical roles do learners assign to nouns based on their position in an utterance?

In its current form, VanPatten's theory consists of two overarching organising principles, each of which is further explicated with sub-principles. We quote here from VanPatten (2004b: 14–18) noting and footnoting, of course, the differences in the development of some principles from 1996 to 2004b to 2007. The two overarching principles address two different aspects of processing. The first, the Primacy of Meaning Principle asserts that when learners are engaged in communicative, meaningful interchanges, they are primarily concerned with meaning. The second, The First Noun Principle, asserts that the order in which learners encounter sentence elements is a powerful factor in assigning grammatical relations amongst sentence elements. These two principles are as follows.

• Principle 1 (P1): Primacy of Meaning Principle: learners process input for meaning before they process it for form.

• Principle 2 (P2): First Noun Principle: learners tend to process the first noun or pronoun they encounter in a sentence as the subject or agent.

The Primacy of Meaning Principle is further subdivided into six subprinciples (a–f). Some of these subprinciples had previously been referred to as the corollaries of the principle (VanPatten, 1996) and some are new developments to the framework, adding as such to its explanatory adequacy. These subprinciples are meant to capture the interplay of various linguistic and cognitive features during comprehension. The subprinciples to the Primacy of Meaning Principle are as follows.

• (P1a) Primacy of Content Words Principle: learners process content words in the input before anything else.

• (P1b) Lexical Preference Principle: learners will tend to rely on lexical items as opposed to grammatical form to get meaning when both encode the same semantic information.

• (P1c) Preference for Nonredundancy Principle: learners are more likely to process nonredundant meaningful grammatical form before they process redundant meaningful forms.

•...