Chapter 2

Learning: Factors and Processes

2. INTRODUCTION

In the previous chapter, I stated that knowing an L2 may be considered as

having linguistic knowledge/ability and pragmatic knowledge/ability re-
quired to use the language with grammatical accuracy and communicative
appropriacy. In the context of classroom-based L2 learning and teaching, it
is the task of the teacher to help learners reach a desired level of linguistic
and pragmatic knowledge/ability that addresses their needs, wants, and sit-
uations. In order to carry out such a task, the teacher should be aware of the
factors and processes that are considered to facilitate L2 development. An
important aspect of L2 development is the conversion of language input
into learner output.
It is widely recognized that there is both a qualitative and a quantitative
mismatch between the language output produced by L2 learners and the
language input they are exposed to. In a seminal paper written nearly four
decades ago, Corder (1967) highlighted this mismatch and made an im-
portant distinction between input and what he called intake. Since then,
several attempts have been made (see Gass, 1997, for a review) to explore
the connection between input, intake, and L2 development. Despite nearly
a quarter century of exploration of that connection, we have hardly
reached a clear consensus on the fundamental characteristics of intake,
let alone a cogent understanding of the psycholinguistic processes gov-
erning it—a state of affairs that attests to the complexity of the construct
with which we are wrestling.

25
26 CHAPTER 2

In this chapter, I discuss five major constructs that constitute the in-
put–output chain: input, intake, intake factors, intake processes, and out-
put as they relate to adult L2 development in formal contexts, and then
present a revised version of what I have called an interactive framework of in-
take processes (Kumaravadivelu, 1994a). I do so by synthesizing theoretical
and empirical insights derived from areas such as second language acquisi-
tion, cognitive psychology, and information processing.

2.1. INPUT

Input may be operationally defined as oral and/or written corpus of the tar-
get language (TL) to which L2 learners are exposed through various
sources, and recognized by them as language input. This definition posits
two conditions: availability and accessibility.
The first condition is rather obvious: either input has to be made avail-
able to learners or they have to seek it themselves. One can easily identify
three types of input attributable to three different, but not mutually exclu-
sive, sources from which learners are likely to get/seek input:

· Interlanguage input: the still-developing language of the learners and of

their peers with all its linguistically well-formed as well as deviant utter-
ances;
· simplified input: the grammatically and lexically simplified language
that teachers, textbook writers, and other competent speakers use in
and outside the classroom while addressing language learners; and
· nonsimplified input: the language of competent speakers without any
characteristic features of simplification, that is, the language generally
used in the media (TV, radio, and newspapers), and also the language
used by competent speakers to speak and write to one another.

Each of these three sources of input can manifest itself in various forms:
spoken and written, formal and informal, and so on. Learners are exposed
to input from these sources at different points in their learning experience
and in varying degrees.
The second condition—accessibility—is less obvious than the first but is
equally important: input has to be recognized by learners as language in-
put, and accepted by them as something with which they can cope. In other
words, input should be linguistically and cognitively accessible to them.
The language input that is available, but not accessible, is no more than
noise. Some segments of the language input available to learners has the
potential to become accessible, in part, through the process of what Gass
(1997) called apperception. Apperception
LEARNING: FACTORS AND PROCESSES 27

is an internal cognitive act in which a linguistic form is related to some bit of

existing knowledge (or gap in knowledge). We can think of apperception as a
priming device that prepares the input for further analysis. Thus, apperceived
input is that bit of language that is noticed in some way by the learner because
of some particular recognizable features. (p. 4)

What actually makes the learners notice and accept a subset of language ex-
posed to them as potential input is not clear. Schmidt (1990, 1993) sug-
gested factors such as frequency of occurrence, perceptual salience, linguis-
tic complexity, skill level, and task demands. One might also add other
factors, such as learners’ needs and wants, as well as their interests and mo-
tivation.

2.2. INTAKE

Unlike input, the concept of intake is not easy to pin down. The literature
on second language acquisition (SLA) presents several conflicting defini-
tions and explanations for the term intake. Amid all the conceptual and ter-
minological ambiguity, two strands of thought emerge: one that treats in-
take primarily as product, and the other that treats it primarily as process.
Taking a product view, Kimball and Palmer (1978) defined intake as “input
which requires students to listen for and interpret implicit meanings in
ways similar to the ways they do so in informal communication” (pp.
17–18). This has been echoed by Krashen (1981) for whom “intake is sim-
ply where language acquisition comes from, that subset of linguistic input
that helps the acquirer acquire language” (pp. 101–102). A common
thread running through these definitions is that all of them treat intake pri-
marily as a product, a subset of linguistic input exposed to the learner.
Perhaps the first one to emphasize the role of “language acquisition
mechanism” in converting input into intake is Corder who defined intake
as “what goes in and not what is available to go in” (1967, p. 165, emphasis in
original). Similarly, Faerch and Kasper (1980) defined intake as “the subset
of the input which is assimilated by the IL (interlanguage) system and
which the IL system accommodates to” (p. 64). Hatch (1983) is in agree-
ment when she defines intake as a subset of input that “the learner actually
successfully and completely processed” (p. 81). Likewise, Chaudron (1985)
referred to intake as “the mediating process between the target language
available to the learners as input and the learner’s internalized set of L2
rules and strategies for second language development” (p. 1). Liceras
(1985) also opted for a process-oriented definition when she talks of cogni-
tive capacities that intervene at the level of intake. A more recent definition
by Gass (1997) also conceptualized intake “as apperceived input that has
been further processed” (p. 23).
28 CHAPTER 2

Notice that the product view identifies intake as a subset of input before
the input is processed by learners. In other words, intake is input, even
though it is only a part of it. The process view, however, identifies intake as
what comes after psycholinguistic processing. That is, intake is already part
of the learner’s IL system. According to the product view, intake then is un-
processed language input; according to the process view, it is processed lan-
guage input. The two views can be diagrammatically represented as follows
(Fig. 2.1 and Fig. 2.2):

FIG. 2.1. Input, output: The product view.

FIG. 2.2. Input, intake, output: The process view.

The product view of intake appears to be severely flawed. It implies that

there is no need to differentiate input from intake because intake, after all,
is no more than a part of input and is independent of language-learning
processes. In such a scenario, the distinction between input and intake, cru-
cial to the nature of L2 development, becomes insignificant if not irrele-
vant. Furthermore, without such a distinction, we will not be able to ac-
count for the fact that “input is not perceived and processed by different
learners in an identical manner” (Stern, 1983, p. 393).
Intake, then, is an abstract entity of learner language that has been fully
or partially processed by learners, and fully or partially assimilated into
their developing IL system. It is the result of as yet undetermined interac-
tion between input and intake factors mediated by intake processes (see be-
low). It is not directly observable, quantifiable, or analyzable; it is a complex
cluster of mental representations. What is available for empirical verifica-
tion is the product of these mental representations, generally called output.
Intake is treated as a subset of input only to the extent that it originates
from a larger body of input data. Features of learners’ output can be traced,
not only to the input they are exposed to, but to the dynamics of intake
processes as well. The relationship between input, intake, and output can
be diagrammatically represented as shown in Fig. 2.3.
LEARNING: FACTORS AND PROCESSES 29

FIG. 2.3. Input, intake, output: A quantitative view.

This figure shows that, quantitatively speaking, output is a subset of what

has been internalized, which in turn is a subset of input. However, there is
no simple part–whole relationship between intake and input, and between
intake and output. Furthermore, parts of learner intake and learner output
can go beyond the boundaries of language input because the learners’ de-
veloping system provides instances of grammatically deviant utterances that
are not part of input. This happens when, as Gass (1988) pointed out, “a
learner imposes regularities on the data or uses native language marked-
ness values” (p. 199). It may also happen when learners use various commu-
nication strategies (see text to come) that result in linguistically deviant
forms of expression. What part of input gets converted into intake is deter-
mined by certain intake factors and intake processes.

2.3. INTAKE FACTORS

Intake factors refer to learner internal and learner external factors that are
brought to bear on the psycholinguistic processes of language learning.
Just as scholars differ on the concept of intake, they differ widely on their
choice of intake factors as well. Corder (1967) suggested that “it is the
learner who controls the input or more properly his intake” (p. 165). To
the learner control, he added “the characteristics of his language acquisi-
tion mechanism” as another factor. He explained further, “what elements
are, in fact, processed from the data that is available is determined by what
the current state of the learner’s interlanguage grammar permits him to
take in at that moment” (Corder, 1978, pp. 81–82). Hatch (1983) believed
that if input “is held in memory long enough to be processed (or if process-
ing breaks down and the learner asks for a new clarification), it has been
taken in” (p. 80). Seliger (1984) echoed the same idea: “long term memory
and its effect on the selection of tactics is what determines when input will
become intake” (p. 45).
30 CHAPTER 2

Krashen (1981, and elsewhere) asserted that comprehensible input and

low affective filter are the only two factors that determine intake. He is con-
vinced that “every other factor hypothesized to relate to SLA reduces to in-
put plus low filter” (1983, p. 141). Larsen-Freeman (1983) too suggested
that “the key to input’s becoming intake is its comprehensibility” (p. 14).
Sharwood Smith (1985) took exception to these views and stated that it is
“particularly unreasonable to give L2 input the unique role in explanation
of intake” (p. 402). Instead, he emphasized the role played by cross-lin-
guistic (i.e. language transfer) features in intake processing. According to
Swain (1985) comprehensible output is crucial for converting input into in-
take. Although these scholars highlight the importance of one or two in-
take factors that are understandably the focus of their immediate research,
Spolsky (1989), in a comprehensive review of the SLA literature, isolated,
defined, and explained no less than 74 factors (he called them “condi-
tions”) of varying importance that, separately or in combination, contrib-
ute to L2 development.
The multiplicity of definitions and interpretations one finds in the SLA
literature is evidently a result of varied perspectives with which researchers
have approached the concept of intake and intake factors. Although the di-
versity of perspectives has undoubtedly broadened our understanding of
intake, the sheer range of intake factors hypothesized to influence L2 devel-
opment—two according to Krashen and 74 according to Spolsky—might
militate against a proper understanding. It seems to me that we need an in-
tegrated view of the major intake factors in order to help us make informed
judgments about L2 development and consequently about L2 teaching.
The task of isolating major intake factors then rests largely on individual
perception rather than on indisputable evidence. My attempt to isolate fac-
tors that facilitate L2 development has yielded a cluster of six major factors,
and two variables within each. Notice that I call these intake factors facilitat-
ing, not causal, factors. I do so because, to my knowledge, no direct causal
relationship between any of the intake factors and adult L2 development
has been established beyond doubt. It is, however, fairly reasonable to as-
sume that each of these factors plays a facilitating role of varying impor-
tance. The major intake factors I highlight can be represented by an acro-
nym, INTAKE:

Individual factors: age and anxiety;

Negotiation factors: interaction and interpretation;
Tactical factors: learning strategies and communication strategies;
Affective factors: attitudes and motivation;
Knowledge factors: language knowledge and metalanguage knowledge;
Environmental factors: social context and educational context.
LEARNING: FACTORS AND PROCESSES 31

FIG. 2.4. Intake factors continuum.

These factors can be classified into two broad categories: learner internal and
learner external factors. By this categorization, I do not suggest a dichoto-
mous relationship between the two categories; rather, I look at them as a
continuum as represented in Fig. 2.4. In the rest of this section, I briefly
sketch the facilitating role played by each of these intake factors in develop-
ing the learner’s L2 knowledge/ability. I do so by drawing upon currently
available theoretical as well as empirical knowledge. Because of the vast
body of information available in the literature, what follows cannot be more
than a brief summary.

2.3.1. Individual Factors

Several individual factors have been studied in order to assess their role in
L2 development. They include age, anxiety, empathy, extroversion, intro-
32 CHAPTER 2

version, and risk-taking. Of these variables, age and anxiety appear to play a
relatively greater role than the others.

2.3.1.1. Age. It is generally believed that the age at which learners be-
gin to learn a second language influences their ultimate attainment in lan-
guage knowledge/ability. In 1967, Lenneberg proposed a critical period
hypothesis (CPH), arguing that languages are best learned before puberty,
after which everyone faces certain constraints in language development. In
a comprehensive review of the SLA research based on this hypothesis,
Scovel (2001) found three different strands of thought. The first strand
holds that there is a critical period but it is confined only to foreign accents.
Citing evidence that demonstrates a massive mismatch between the L2
learners’ excellent lexicogrammatical and their deficient phonological
abilities, researchers claim that, if L2 learners begin their language learn-
ing after about the age of 12, they will end up with some degree of foreign
accent. The reason is that L2 phonological production is presumably the
only aspect of language performance that has a neuromuscular basis. The
second strand is that there is a critical period, not only for accents, but also
for grammar. Scovel finds very little evidence to support this claim. The
third strand is that there is no critical period, not even for pronunciation.
There are studies that suggest that, given adequate phonetic training and
proper conditions for learning, L2 learners can actually acquire sufficient
phonological competence to pass for native speakers. But such cases are
rare.
Those in favor of the “younger is better” case (e.g., Krashen, 1981) ar-
gued that L2 development by children and adults might actually involve dif-
ferent processes; the former utilizing innate properties of language acquisi-
tion as in L1 acquisition, the latter employing general problem-solving
abilities, and thus accounting for the differential effect of age. But, there
are others who suggest that “older is better” because older learners have
cognitive and literacy skills that tend to enhance their L2 development
(McLaughlin 1987; Snow 1983). They suggest that there are contexts in
which teenagers and adults not only reach nativelike proficiency, but they
also progress more rapidly and perform with greater accuracy in the early
stages of learning than do their younger counterparts.
A balanced approach suggests a sensitive rather than a critical period for
L2 development (Lamendella, 1977; Singleton, 1989). As Hyltenstam and
Abrahamsson (2003) pointed out in a recent review, in the critical period
formulation, “maturation is thought to take place and come to an end
within an early phase of the life span, abruptly set off from the rest at a spe-
cific age (puberty or earlier)” (p. 556). But, in the sensitive period formula-
tion, “the sensitivity does not disappear at a fixed point; instead it is thought
to fade away over a longer period of time, perhaps covering later child-
LEARNING: FACTORS AND PROCESSES 33

hood, puberty and adolescence” (p. 556). In other words, the critical period
represents a well-defined “window of opportunity,” whereas the sensitive pe-
riod represents “a progressive inefficiency of the organism.” Such a sugges-
tion acknowledges that certain language skills are acquired more easily at
particular times in development than at other times, and some language
skills can be learned even after the critical period, although less easily. It
seems reasonable to deduce from research that age does have an influence
on L2 development, but the nature of influence will depend on which in-
take factors, when, and in what combination, are brought to bear on the
learning experience of an individual learner.

2.3.1.2. Anxiety. Anxiety refers to an emotional state of apprehension,

tension, nervousness, and worry mediated by the arousal of the automatic
nervous system. In the context of L2 learning, anxiety is characterized by
feelings of self-consciousness, fear of negative evaluation from peers and
teachers, and fear of failure to live up to one’s own personal standards and
goals (e.g., E. K. Horwitz, M. B. Horwitz, & Cope, 1986). Adult L2 learners
typically develop a sense of incompetence about internalizing the proper-
ties of their L2, and about the inability to present themselves in a way con-
sistent with their self-image and self-esteem.
Although psychologists postulate a positive, facilitating anxiety, and a
negative, debilitating anxiety, each working in tandem (Alpert & Haber,
1960), L2 researchers have by and large focused on the effect of the latter.
In a series of experiments, Gardner and his colleagues (Gardner, 1985;
Gardner, Day, & MacIntyre, 1992; MacIntyre & Gardner, 1989; 1991, 1994)
found that anxiety has a significant deleterious effect on L2 development.
Language anxiety has also been found to correlate negatively with global
measures of achievement such as objective tests and course grades as well as
measures involving specific processes, such as vocabulary recall. Similarly,
studies conducted by E. K. Horwitz et al. (1986), and Madsen, Brown and
Jones (1991) showed that a significant level of anxiety is experienced by a
majority of their subjects in response to at least some aspects of L2 develop-
ment.
Gardner and his colleagues explain the effects of language anxiety by
surmising that it consumes attention and cognitive resources that could
otherwise be allocated to developing L2 knowledge/ability. Thus, anxiety
may occur at any of the three levels of language development: input, intake
processing, or output (Tobias, 1986). At input, it may cause attention defi-
cits, thus impacting on the initial representation of items in memory; intake
processing may be affected because time is divided between the processing
of emotion-related and task-related cognition; and, it may also interfere
with storage and retrieval of previously learned information, thereby affect-
ing output. The combined effects of language anxiety at all three stages,
34 CHAPTER 2

MacIntyre and Gardner (1994) argued, “may be that, compared with re-
laxed students, anxious students have a small base of second language
knowledge and have more difficulty demonstrating the knowledge that
they do possess” (p. 301).
The experimental studies just cited uphold a persistent argument by
Krashen (1983) that high anxiety can impede language acquisition, where-
as low anxiety is “conducive to second language acquisition, whether meas-
ured as personal or classroom anxiety” (p. 31). Although a clear picture of
how anxiety actually affects L2 processes is yet to emerge, it appears that
anxiety may have different effects at different stages of L2 development de-
pending on its interplay with other intake factors and intake processes.

2.3.2. Negotiation Factors

The term negotiation has been widely used in conversation analysis to refer
to the ways in which participants in a communicative event structure their
social relationships through interaction. Negotiation is important for L2
development because it implies the use and constant refinement of both
linguistic and pragmatic knowledge/ability. There are at least three dimen-
sions to negotiation: introspection, interaction, and interpretation. Intro-
spection is intra-personal, involving a language learner’s lonely mental jour-
ney through and about meanings and contexts. It can sometimes lead to
hypothesis formation and testing (see following). But, it is rarely available
for direct observation and analysis. The other two dimensions of negotia-
tion—interaction and interpretation—are largely interpersonal involving joint
exploration of meaning between participants in a communicative event,
and are directly available for investigation.

2.3.2.1. Interaction. Negotiated interaction in the L2 context entails the

learner’s active involvement in such communicative activities as clarifica-
tion, confirmation, comprehension checks, requests, repairing, reacting,
and turn-taking. Several experimental studies have revealed that negotiated
interaction plays a facilitative, not a causal, role in helping L2 learners de-
velop necessary language knowledge/ability. In a series of studies on the re-
lationship between input, interaction, and L2 development spanning over a
period of 15 years, Long (1981) proposed and updated (Long, 1996) what
has come to be known as the interaction hypothesis. To put it simply, the hy-
pothesis claims that interaction in which communication problems are ne-
gotiated between participants promotes comprehension and production,
ultimately facilitating L2 development.
Subsequent studies have shown that learners who maintained high levels
of interaction in the L2 progressed at a faster rate than learners who inter-
acted little in the classroom (Seliger, 1983) and that learners gain opportu-
LEARNING: FACTORS AND PROCESSES 35

nities to develop their productive capacity in the L2 if demands are placed

on them to manipulate their current IL system so that they can make their
initially unclear messages become more meaningful (Swain, 1985). These
results have been reinforced by Pica and her colleagues (e.g., Pica, 1992)
and by Gass and her colleagues (see Gass, 1997, for a review) who report
that what enables learners to move beyond their current interlanguage re-
ceptive and expressive capacities are opportunities to modify and restruc-
ture their interaction with their participants until mutual comprehension is
reached. Furthermore, interaction helps the learners notice the gap be-
tween target language forms and learner-language forms, as it “connects in-
put, internal learner capacities, particularly selective attention, and output
in productive ways” (Long, 1996, p. 452). These studies lend credence to an
earlier claim by Allwright (1984) that “the importance of interaction is not
simply that it creates learning opportunities, it is that it constitutes learning
itself” (p. 9).

2.3.2.2. Interpretation. Closely associated with the opportunity to inter-

act is the capacity to interpret target language utterances as intended. Inter-
pretative procedures help learners differentiate what is said from what is
meant. Inability to do so results in pragmatic failure (Thomas, 1983). The
L2 learner’s interpretive ability entails an understanding of pragmatic rules
such as those enunciated in the Hymesian concept of communicative com-
petence (see chap. 1, this volume, for details).
Interpretive procedures have implications for L2 development for, as
Widdowson (1983) pointed out, they are “required to draw systemic knowl-
edge into the immediate executive level of schemata and to relate these
schemata to actual instances” (p. 106). Thus, the L2 learner encountering
TL instances has to learn to deal with several possibilities, such as: (a) utter-
ances may convey more than their literal meaning. It’s cold in here, when,
spoken in certain contexts, may convey the meaning of Would you mind clos-
ing the Window?; (b) utterances may not convey their literal meaning. In a
day-to-day conversation, How are you? is no more than a polite question, one
for which the speaker does not expect to hear a litany of the hearer’s ail-
ments; (c) utterances may convey meaning only if they are accompanied by
certain specifications. In American English, as several foreign students are
likely to find out to their chagrin, Drop in any time is not a genuine invitation
unless clearly followed by the mention of time and place.
In addition, learners need to be aware that norms of interpretation are
likely to diverge at cultural (Gumperz, 1982) as well as at subcultural levels of
ethnic heritage, class, age, or gender (Tannen, 1992). Acquiring pragmatic
knowledge/ability of how extralinguistic factors contribute to the process of
meaning making implies acquiring knowledge of how language features in-
terface with cultural and subcultural expectations. Emphasizing that the mas-
36 CHAPTER 2

tery of cultural norms of interpretation poses a severe challenge to L2 learn-

ers and users, Kasper (2001) advocated creation of learning opportunities
both inside and outside the classroom: “inside the classroom by raising learn-
ers’ awareness about implicature and improving their comprehension of it,
and outside the classroom by focusing their attention to implicatures and en-
couraging them to seek out practice opportunities” (p. 56).
For a realization of the full potential of negotiation factors, a positive
correlation with other intake factors, particularly, the individual factor of
anxiety and the affective factors of attitude and motivation (see text to
come) may be required. Aston (1986), for instance, found that interactive
classroom tasks designed to promote negotiation may indeed fail to do so if
they produce tension and anxiety in the learner. Thus, in conjunction with
other relevant intake factors, negotiation factors provide ample opportuni-
ties for L2 learners to pay particular attention to new features of the linguis-
tic input that are being currently learned thereby contributing to activate
psycholinguistic processes.

2.3.3. Tactical Factors

Tactical factors refer to an important aspect of L2 development: the learners’

awareness of, and their ability to use, appropriate tactics or techniques for
effective learning of the L2 and efficient use of the limited repertoire devel-
oped so far. In the L2 literature, such tactics are discussed under the gen-
eral rubric of learning strategies and communication strategies.

2.3.3.1. Learning Strategies. Learning strategies are operations and rou-

tines used by the learner to facilitate the obtaining, storage, retrieval, and
use of information (Rubin, 1975). They are also “specific actions taken by
the learner to make learning easier, faster, more enjoyable, more self-
directed, more effective, and more transferable to new situations” (Oxford,
1990, p. 8). The term learning strategies then refers to what learners know
and do to regulate their learning.
It is only during the 1970s that researchers began to study systematically
the explicit and implicit efforts learners make in order to learn their L2
(Naiman, Frohlich, Stern, & Todesco, 1978; Rubin, 1975). Major typologies
of learning strategies were proposed by Rubin (1975), O’Malley and
Chamot (1990), Oxford (1990) and Wenden (1991). Although there are
subtle differences between them, they generally classify learning strategies
into three broad categories: metacognitive, cognitive, and social/affective
strategies. Metacognitive strategies refer to higher order executive strategies
such as thinking about the learning process, planning for and monitoring
learning as it takes place, and self-evaluation of learning after the learning
activity. Cognitive strategies refer to conscious ways of tackling learning mate-
LEARNING: FACTORS AND PROCESSES 37

rials and linguistic input. They include specific steps such as note-taking,
summarizing, deducing, transferring, and elaborating. Social/affective strate-
gies refer to interpersonal strategies that are consistent with the learners’
psychological and emotional conditions and experiences. They include co-
operative learning, peer group discussion, and interacting with competent
speakers. As Dornyei and Skehan (2003) concluded, “the students’ own ac-
tive and creative participation in the learning process through the applica-
tion of individualized learning techniques” (p. 608) cause them to excel in
their L2 development.
Research conducted by some of the aforementioned scholars shows that
there are different ways of learning a language successfully and that differ-
ent learners will approach language learning differently. This is because in-
dividual learners not only have to consider the strategies that contribute to
effective learning but, more importantly, they have to discover those that
suit best their learning objectives as well as their personality traits. Research
also reveals that more effective learners use a greater variety of strategies
and use them in ways appropriate to the language-learning task and that
less effective learners not only have fewer strategy types in their repertoire
but also frequently use strategies that are inappropriate to the task (O’Mal-
ley & Chamot, 1990). Therefore, one of the primary objectives of research
on learning strategies has been to make the intuitive knowledge possessed
by good language learners more explicit and systematic so that such knowl-
edge can be used for strategy training to improve the language learning
abilities of other learners. Strategy training manuals (e.g., Chamot, Bern-
hardt, El-Dinery, & Robbins, 1999; Ellis & Sinclair, 1989; Scharle & Szabo,
2000) offer practical suggestions to make learners more active participants
in their language learning, and to make teachers more sensitive to learner
diversity and learning difficulties.

2.3.3.2. Communication Strategies. In addition to learning strategies, L2

learners also use what are called communication strategies, which are “po-
tentially conscious plans for solving what to an individual presents itself as a
problem in reaching a particular communicative goal” (Faerch & Kasper,
1980, p. 81). These are compensatory or coping strategies that learners em-
ploy in order to make do with their still-developing linguistic and pragmatic
knowledge/ability. One of the earliest taxonomies of communication strate-
gies is the one proposed by Tarone (1977). It has three broad categories:
paraphrase, involving the use of an elaborate descriptive phrase instead of a
core lexical item; borrowing, involving a word-for-word literal translation from
native language; or avoidance, involving the attempt to avoid using a required
expression or just to give up the effort to communicate. Other taxonomies
(e.g., Paribakht, 1985; Dornyei & Scott, 1997) provide more elaborate and
more nuanced lists of communication strategies used by L2 learners.
38 CHAPTER 2

Although earlier taxonomies of communication strategies focused on

product-oriented, surface-level features, subsequent research (e.g., Bialy-
stok, 1990; Bialystok & Kellerman, 1987; Dornyei & Scott, 1997; Kumara-
vadivelu, 1988) attempted to differentiate surface-level communication
strategies from deep-level psychological processes. Bialystok & Kellerman,
for instance, suggest that the strategic behavior of learners can be classified
into linguistic and conceptual strategies. The linguistic strategy refers to the
use of features and structures from another language (usually L1), and the
conceptual strategy refers to the manipulation of the intended concept. They
further divide conceptual strategy into two possible approaches: holistic
and analytic. Holistic approach involves using a similar referent, as in stove
for microwave. Analytic approach involves selecting criterial properties of the
referent, as in a machine that cooks and defrosts very fast by means of waves for mi-
crowave.
Although scholars differ on the relative explanatory power of various tax-
onomies, and the complex nature of implicit and explicit mental processes
that are involved in the use of communication strategies, they generally
agree that they are “responsible for plans, whether implicit or explicit, by
which communication is shaped” (Routledge Encyclopedia, 2000, p. 577).
There is, thus, a general consensus on the facilitating role played by tactical
factors in L2 development. Tactical factors can help learners pay attention
to potentially useful linguistic input and also promote opportunities for ne-
gotiation thereby activating necessary cognitive processes.

2.3.4. Affective Factors

The individual learner’s disposition to learn has always been recognized as

crucial for L2 development. The term affective factors stands for several vari-
ables that characterize learner disposition, the most important of which are
attitudes and motivation. As Siegel (2003) observed, motivation is consid-
ered to be “influenced by the learner’s attitudes toward the L2, its speakers
and culture, toward the social and practical value of using the L2, and to-
ward his or her own language and culture” (p. 185). Because of the close
connection between attitude and motivation, L2 researchers have studied
them together, proposing a linear relationship in which attitude influenced
motivation and motivation influenced L2 development (e.g., Gardner,
1985). There are others who have argued for the usefulness of separating
them (e.g., Crookes & Schmidt, 1991).

2.3.4.1. Attitudes. Attitudes are one’s evaluative responses to a person,

place, thing or an event. According to social psychologists, attitudes are in-
dividually driven, that is, they are one’s personal thoughts or feelings based
on one’s beliefs or opinions; therefore, different individuals develop differ-
LEARNING: FACTORS AND PROCESSES 39

ent shades of attitudes toward the same stimuli (Eiser, 1987). Attitudes are
also socially grounded, that is, they must be experienced as related to sub-
jects or events in the external world. Attitude is intricately linked to lan-
guage learning processes and practices because, as pointed out in the
Routledge Encyclopedia (2000), it “affects the learner not only with respect to
the processing of information and identification with people or groups, but
also with respect to motives and the relationship between language and cul-
ture, and their place within the existing linguistic and cultural diversity” (p.
57).
In addition to the individual’s personal dispositions, there are at least
two external forces that appear to shape the learner’s language-learning at-
titude: environmental and pedagogic. The environmental factor includes
social, cultural, political and economic imperatives that shape the L2 edu-
cational milieu, and is explained in section 2.3.6. The pedagogic factor
shapes how teachers, learners and the learning situation interact with each
other to trigger positive or negative attitudes in the learner. The teacher’s
curricular objectives, classroom activities and even personal attitudes play a
role in influencing the learner’s attitude to language learning (Malcolm,
1987). In fact, the teachers’ attitudes seem to have a greater influence on
L2 development than even parental or community-wide attitudes (Tucker
& Lambert, 1973). Similarly, as diary studies show, learners can hold nega-
tive attitudes toward the learning situation if there is a mismatch between
their and their teacher’s curricular objectives (Schumann & Schumann,
1977). It is in this context that Breen and Littlejohn (2000) advocated
shared decision-making based on meaningful “discussion between all mem-
bers of the classroom to decide how learning and teaching are to be orga-
nized” (p. 1).
Furthermore, learners’ attitude toward the speakers of the TL and its im-
pact on L2 development has been widely studied, resulting in conflicting
findings. Early experiments conducted by Gardner and his colleagues (see,
e.g., Gardner & Lambert, 1972) showed high correlation between learner’s
positive attitude toward the speakers of the TL and L2 development. Such a
strong claim has been questioned (Cooper & Fishman, 1977; Oller, Baca, &
Vigil, 1977). Later research, however, shows that although L2 learners
might develop a negative attitude toward the TL community because of cul-
tural or political reasons, a positive attitude toward the TL itself and its use-
fulness can contribute to L2 development (Berns, 1990). In sum, it is fair to
assume that a positive attitude to language learning is a necessary but not a
sufficient condition for success.

2.3.4.2. Motivation. Motivation provides “the driving force to sustain

the long and often tedious learning process” (Routledge Encyclopedia, 2000,
p. 425). It is perhaps the only intake variable that has been consistently
40 CHAPTER 2

found, in various contexts and at various levels of L2 development, to corre-

late positively with successful learning outcome. Most studies on motivation
have been inspired by the distinction social psychologists Gardner and
Lambert (1972) made between integrative and instrumental motivation. In-
tegrative motivation refers to an interest in learning an L2 in order to
socioculturally integrate with members of the TL community. Instrumental
motivation refers to an interest in learning an L2 for functional purposes
such as getting a job or passing an examination. In several studies, Gardner,
Lambert and colleagues (see, e.g., Gardner, 1985) reported that integrative
motivation is far superior to instrumental motivation.
Studies conducted in other learning and teaching contexts (Chihara &
Oller, 1978; Lukmani, 1972) failed to show the superiority of integrative
motivation. In fact, a comprehensive review of motivational studies found a
wide range of correlations covering all possibilities: positive, nil, negative,
and ambiguous (Au, 1988). Later studies by Gardner and his colleagues
themselves (Gardner, 1988; Gardner & MacIntyre, 1991) clearly demon-
strated that both integrative motivation and instrumental motivation have
“consistent and meaningful effects on learning, and on behavioral indices
of learning” (Gardner & MacIntyre, 1991, p. 69).
Unlike the binary approach proposed by social psychologists, cognitive
psychologists have suggested three major types of motivation: intrinsic, ex-
trinsic, and achievement motivation. Intrinsic motivation is the desire to en-
gage in activities characterized by enjoyment (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975; Deci,
1975; Deci & Ryan, 1985). There is no apparent reward except the experi-
ence of enjoying the activity itself. According to Csikszentmihalyi (1975)
true enjoyment accompanies the experience of what he calls flow, that pe-
culiar, dynamic, holistic, sensation of total involvement with the activity it-
self. Thus, intrinsically motivated activities are ends in themselves rather
than means to an end. Individuals seek out and engage in intrinsically moti-
vated activities in order to feel competent and self-determining. Like basic
human drives, intrinsic needs are innate to the human organism and func-
tion as an important energizer of behavior.
Extrinsic motivation can be triggered only by external cues that include
gaining and maintaining peer, sibling, or adult approval, avoiding peer or
sibling or adult disapproval, and gaining or losing specific tangible rewards.
It is conditioned by practical considerations of life with all its attendant
sense of struggle, success, or failure. Thus, extrinsic motivation is associated
with lower levels of self-esteem and higher levels of anxiety compared to in-
trinsic motivation. Achievement motivation, on the other hand, refers to the
motivation and commitment to excel. It is involved whenever there is com-
petition with internal or external standards of excellence. It is a specific mo-
tive that propels one to utilize one’s fullest potential. The driving force for
achieving excellence can be either intrinsic, or extrinsic or a combination
LEARNING: FACTORS AND PROCESSES 41

of both (Deci, 1975; Deci & Ryan, 1985; McClelland, Atkinson, Clark, &
Lowell, 1953).
It may be assumed that all three types of motivation will influence L2 de-
velopment in different degrees depending on individual dispositions and dif-
ferent environmental and pedagogic contexts. To be primarily motivated for
intrinsic reasons, the learners have to get involved in continual cycles of seek-
ing language-learning opportunities and conquering optimal challenges in
order to feel competent and self-determining. They have to let their natural
curiosity and interest to energize their language-learning endeavor and help
them overcome even adverse pedagogic and environmental limitations. To
be primarily motivated for achievement considerations, the learners have to
strive to reach internally induced or externally imposed standards of excel-
lence in a spirit of competition and triumph. It appears that a vast majority of
L2 learners are primarily motivated for extrinsic reasons. In fact, extrinsic
motivation accounts for most of what has been reported under integrative
and instrumental motivation (van Lier, 1991).
The general trend of the experimental studies has been to suggest that
motivation “involves all those affects and cognitions that initiate language
learning, determine language choice, and energize the language learning
process” (Dornyei, 2000, p. 425). It operates at the levels of language,
learner, and learning situation. Over time, several intake factors, particularly
individual, affective and environmental factors, contribute to determine the
degree of motivation that a learner brings to the task of language learning.

2.3.5. Knowledge Factors

Knowledge factors refer to language knowledge and metalanguage knowl-
edge. All adult L2 learners exposed to formal language education in their
L1 inevitably bring with them not only their L1 knowledge/ability but also
their own perceptions and expectations about language, language learn-
ing, and language use. Both language knowledge and metalanguage knowl-
edge play a crucial role in L2 development.

2.3.5.1. Language Knowledge. Language knowledge represents knowl-

edge/ability in the native language, in the still developing target language,
and in other languages already known. By virtue of being members of their
native language speech community and by virtue of their experience as lan-
guage users, all adult L2 learners possess varying degrees of implicit and ex-
plicit knowledge/ability in their L1. Empirical studies show that L2 learners
do not “effectively switch off the L1 while processing the L2, but has it con-
stantly available” (V. Cook 1992, p. 571), and that prior linguistic knowl-
edge functions as “some sort of anchor with which to ground new knowl-
edge” (Gass, 1997, p. 17).
42 CHAPTER 2

The influence and use of language knowledge can be a facilitating or a

constraining factor in L2 development. As Corder (1983) suggests, prior
language knowledge “created and remembered from the learner’s own lin-
guistic development” (p. 91) may very well provide the starting point (or
what he calls “initial hypothesis”) of the L2 developmental continuum. It
forms the basis for initial comprehension of the linguistic input exposed to
the learner. Prior knowledge may also impose a set of constraints on “the
domains from which to select hypotheses about the new data one is attend-
ing to” (Schachter, 1983, p. 104). As Becker (1983) put it, the role of prior
knowledge is to help the learner characterize the present in the past and
“to make any new utterance reverberate with past ones, in unpredictable di-
rections” (p. 218).

2.3.5.2. Metalanguage Knowledge. Metalanguage knowledge, also known as

metalinguistic awareness, refers to “one’s ability to consider language not just
as a means of expressing ideas or communicating with others, but also as an
object of inquiry” (Gass & Selinker, 2001, p. 302). It ranges from making
puns in casual conversations to possessing insights into what a language sys-
tem is and what it is used (and misused) for. It also leads to a conscious per-
ception and sensitivity in language learning, and language teaching. It is “an
individual’s ability to match, intuitively, spoken and written utterances with
his/her knowledge of a language” (Masny & d’Anglejan, 1985, p. 176). It is
considered to be an important factor in L2 development because it encom-
passes learners’ knowledge/ability not only to think about language as a sys-
tem but also to make comparisons between their L1 and L2, thus facilitating
the psycholinguistic process of language transfer.
There seems to be a strong relationship between language experience
and metalanguage knowledge. Studies reveal that prior language experi-
ence helps L2 learners develop an intuitive “feel” for the TL (Donato &
Adair-Hauck 1992; Gass 1983). L2 learners have been shown to be able “to
produce a correct correction when they have an incorrect explicit rule or
no explicit rule at all” thereby demonstrating the presence of L2 intuitions
(Green & Hecht 1992, p.176). Extending the role of metalanguage knowl-
edge, V. Cook (1992, and elsewhere) proposed the concept of multicompe-
tence, as we discussed in chapter 1. Cook hypothesized that a heightened
metalinguistic awareness may impact other aspects of cognition thereby
shaping the cognitive processes of L2 development and use.

2.3.6. Environmental Factors

Environmental factors refer to the wider milieu in which language learning

and teaching take place. These include the global, national, social, cultural,
political, economic, educational, and family contexts. The impact of these
LEARNING: FACTORS AND PROCESSES 43

overlapping factors on L2 development is not fully known, partly because,

as Siegel (2003) pointed out, “one shortcoming of the field of SLA is that
generalizations have been made on the basis of research carried out in only
a limited range of sociolinguistic settings and involving only standard vari-
eties of language” (p. 183). However, even the limited knowledge we have
suggests that environmental factors contribute to shape L2 development.
Now, we focus on two closely connected factors: social and educational.

2.3.6.1. Social Context. Social context refers to a range of language-learn-

ing environments such as the home, the neighborhood, the classroom, and
the society at large. Recently, scholars such as Pavlenko (2002), Hall (2002)
and Siegel (2003) suggested that the movement from the L1 to the L2 in-
volves more than psycholinguistic abilities, because it depends on histori-
cal, political, and social forces as well. Such a conclusion echoes earlier
studies reported in the 1980s that any serious attempt to study L2 develop-
ment necessarily entails the study of social context as an important variable
(Beebe 1985; Heath 1983; K. K. Sridhar & N. Sridhar 1986; Wong-Fillmore
1989). In fact, Beebe (1985) pointedly argued that the learner’s choice of
what input becomes intake is highly affected by social and situational con-
texts. Additionally, social context is critical because it shapes various learn-
ing and teaching issues such as (a) the motivation for L2 learning, (b) the
goal of L2 learning, (c) the functions an L2 is expected to perform in the
community, (d) the availability of input to the learner, (e) the variation in
the input, and (f) the norms of proficiency acceptable to that particular
speech community.
Specific social settings such as the neighborhood and the classroom, in
which learners come into contact with the new language have also been
found to influence L2 development. Studies conducted by Wong-Fillmore
(1989) revealed that social settings create and shape opportunities for both
learners and competent speakers of the L2 to communicate with each
other, thereby maximizing learning potential. A study by Donato and
Adair-Hauck (1992) concluded that the social and discursive context in
which instructional intervention is delivered plays a crucial role in facilitat-
ing L2 development in the classroom.
The social context also shapes the role of the TL in a particular speech
community and the nature of the linguistic input available for learners.
Comparing the sociolinguistic profiles of English-language learning and
use in India, West Germany, and Japan, Berns (1990) illustrated how these
three different social contexts contribute to the emergence of various com-
municative competences and functions in these countries, thereby influ-
encing L2 development and use in significantly different ways. In these and
other similar contexts, the TL plays a role that is complementary or supple-
mentary to local languages (Krishnaswamy & Burde, 1998). The compe-
44 CHAPTER 2

tences and functions invariably determine the nature and quality of input
that is available to the learner. Most often, the learner is not exposed to the
full range of the TL in all its complexity that one would expect in a context
where it is used as the primary vehicle of communication.

2.3.6.2. Educational Context. Closely related to the social context is the

educational context. Studies on educational contexts grounded in educa-
tional psychology emphasize the inseparability and reciprocal influence of
educational institutions and settings in which learning and teaching opera-
tions are embedded (Bloome & Green, 1992). In the context of L2 develop-
ment, it is the educational context that shapes language policy, language
planning, and most importantly, the learning opportunities available to the
L2 learner. It is impossible to insulate classroom life from the dynamics of
political, educational, and societal institutions, because, as I have argued
elsewhere (Kumaravadivelu, 2001), the experiences participants bring to
the classroom are shaped not only by the learning and teaching episodes
they have encountered in the classroom, but also by a broader social, eco-
nomic, educational, and political environment in which they grow up.
These experiences have the potential to affect classroom practices in ways
unintended and unexpected by policy planners or curriculum designers or
textbook producers.
As Tollefson (2002) and others pointed out, it is the educational context
that determines the types as well as the goals of instructional programs
made available to the L2 learner. For instance, the educational context will
condition the relationship between the home language and the school lan-
guage, between “standard” language and its “nonstandard” varieties. As a
result of decisions made by educational policymakers, the L2 learners will
have a choice between additive bilingualism, where they have the opportu-
nity to become active users of the L2 while at the same time maintaining
their L1, or subtractive bilingualism, where they gradually lose their L1 as
they develop more and more competence and confidence in their L2. Simi-
larly, as Norton (2000) and Pavlenko (2002) asserted, the educational con-
text can also shape the complex relationship between power, status and
identity by determining “how access to linguistic and interactional re-
sources is mediated by nonnative speaker status, race, gender, class, age,
and social status, and to ways in which discourses appropriated by L2 learn-
ers are linked to power and authority” (Pavlenko, 2002, p. 291).
To sum up this section on intake factors, all the six major intake factors
already outlined—individual, negotiation, tactical, affective, knowledge,
and environmental—appear to interact with each other in as yet undeter-
mined ways. They also play a role in triggering and maximizing the opera-
tional effectiveness of intake processes, to which we turn now.
LEARNING: FACTORS AND PROCESSES 45

2.4. INTAKE PROCESSES

Intake processes are cognitive mechanisms that at once mediate between, and
interact with, input data and intake factors. They consist of mental opera-
tions that are specific to language learning as well as those that are required
for general problem-solving activities. As procedures and operations that
are internal to the learner, intake processes remain the most vital and the
least understood link in the input–intake–output chain. The intake proc-
esses that appear to shape L2 development may be grouped under three
broad and overlapping categories: inferencing, structuring, and restructur-
ing. These processes appear to govern what goes on in the learners’ mind
when they attempt to internalize the TL system, that is, infer the linguistic
system of the TL from the available and accessible input data, structure ap-
propriate mental representations of the TL system, and restructure the de-
veloping system in light of further exposure and experience. In the rest of
this section, I briefly outline each of them.

2.4.1. Inferencing

The intake process of inferencing involves making a series of intelligent

guesses to derive tentative hypotheses about various aspects of the TL sys-
tem. Inferences are normally made by using all available, at times inconclu-
sive, linguistic and nonlinguistic evidence based on the learner’s implicit
and explicit knowledge base. Implicit knowledge refers to information
learners intuit about the TL, even though they cannot articulate that infor-
mation in the form of rules or principles. Explicit knowledge refers to the
learners’ knowledge about the TL, their L1, and their knowledge of the
world (see also section 2.3.5). Similarly, inferencing can be made using in-
ductive as well as deductive reasoning. That is, learners can infer how a par-
ticular subsystem of language works by moving inductively from the particu-
lar to the general (i.e. from examples to rules), or moving deductively from
the general to the particular.
Furthermore, L2 learners may benefit from the processes of overgenerali-
zation and language transfer to make inferences about the TL system. Using
intralingual cues, they may overgeneralize certain features of the TL system
on the basis of any partial learning that may have already taken place. Some
of the communication strategies such as paraphrase or word coinage (dis-
cussed in section 2.3.3) that learners employ in order to get across their
message while using their still-developing interlanguage system are an indi-
cation of this process of overgeneralization. Similarly, using interlingual
cues, learners may transfer certain phonological, morphological, syntactic,
or even pragmatic features of their first language. Language transfer, as a
46 CHAPTER 2

cognitive process, has been considered to be essential to the formation of

IL (Selinker, 1992).
Inferencing is particularly useful when the learners are able to pay atten-
tion to the new features presented in the input data in order to find the gap
between what is already known and what needs to be learned anew. The
process of inferencing can be expected to vary from learner to learner be-
cause it reflects individual cognitive capabilities involving the connections
made by learners themselves and not the connections inherently found in
the input data. It can lead to working hypotheses that in turn may lead to in-
terim conclusions that are tested against new evidence and are subse-
quently rejected or refined. Inferencing thus may entail framing new in-
sights or reframing what is already vaguely or partially known.

2.4.2. Structuring

I use the term structuring to refer to the complex process that governs the
establishment of mental representations of the TL, and their evolution in
the course of IL development. As Rivers (1991) argued, the notion of men-
tal representation “is at the heart of the process of internalization of lan-
guage” (p. 253). It refers to how the L2 system is framed in the mind of the
learner. It combines elements of analysis and control proposed by Bialystok
(1990, and elsewhere). Analysis is connected to language knowledge, and
control is connected to language ability. As learners begin to understand
how the L2 system works, and as their mental representations of the system
become more explicit and more structured, they begin to see the relation-
ships between various linguistic categories and concepts. Control is the
process that allows learners “direct their attention to specific aspects of the
environment or a mental representation as problems are solved in real
time” (Bialystok, 2002, p. 153). In other words, the intake process of struc-
turing helps learners construct, structure and organize the symbolic repre-
sentational system of the TL by gradually making explicit the implicit
knowledge that shape their IL performance. It also guides the gradual
progress the learners make from unanalyzed knowledge, consisting of pre-
fabricated patterns and memorized routines, to analyzed knowledge, con-
sisting of propositions in which the relationship between formal and func-
tional properties of the TL become increasingly apparent to the learners.
Compared to inferencing, structuring gives learners not only a deeper
understanding of the properties and principles of the TL system, but also a
greater control over their use for communicative purposes. It helps them
pay selective attention to relevant and appropriate input data in order to
tease out specific language problems. It can also regulate the flow of infor-
mation between short-term and long-term memory systems, taking the re-
sponsibility for differential applicability of interim knowledge to various sit-
LEARNING: FACTORS AND PROCESSES 47

uations before interim knowledge gets fully established. The difference

between inferenced knowledge/ability and structured knowledge/ability
may contribute to the distinction Chaudron (1983) made between prelimi-
nary intake and final intake. The former relates to “perception and com-
prehension of forms” and the latter to “the incorporation of the forms in
the learner’s grammar” (pp. 438–439). Although inferenced knowledge/
ability and structured knowledge/ability are partially independent and par-
tially interacting dimensions of intake processes, they may be seen as consti-
tuting two ends of a learning continuum.

2.4.3. Restructuring

The idea of restructuring as an intake process is derived from the work of

Cheng (1985) and others in cognitive psychology and applied with some
modification to L2 development by McLaughlin and his colleagues (Mc-
Laughlin, 1987; 1990; McLeod & McLaughlin 1986). Restructuring can be
traced to the structuralist approach enunciated by Jean Piaget, who main-
tained that cognitive development is characterized by fundamental, qualita-
tive change when a new internal organization is imposed for interpreting
new information. In other words, restructuring denotes neither an incre-
mental change in the structure already in place nor a slight modification of
it but the addition of a totally new structure to allow for a totally new inter-
pretation. It results in learners abandoning their initial hunch and opting
for a whole new hypothesis. It marks a strategy shift that coordinates, inte-
grates, and reorganizes task components resulting in more efficient intake
processing. It can operate at phonological, morphological, syntactic, se-
mantic, and pragmatic levels (McLaughlin, 1990).
Although most aspects of inferencing and structuring account for the
reasons why intake processing requires selective attention and an extended
time period of practice for the formation of mental representations of the
TL system, restructuring as an intake process accounts for discontinuities in
L2 development. It has been frequently observed that although some learn-
ing occurs continuously and gradually, as is true of the development of
automaticity through practice, some learning occurs in discontinuous fash-
ion, through restructuring (McLeod & McLaughlin, 1986). Restructuring
is mostly a sudden, abstract, insight-forming phenomenon happening
quickly and incidentally, taking very little processing time and energy.
To sum up this section, the intake processes of inferencing, structuring,
and restructuring constitute the mental mechanisms governing L2 develop-
ment. They work in tandem in as yet undetermined ways to facilitate or con-
strain the formation of mental representations of the TL system. They seem
to operate at various points on the implicit–explicit continuum, triggering
incidental learning at some times and intentional learning at some other
48 CHAPTER 2

times. In conjunction with various intake factors, these processes help

learners synthesize the developing knowledge into grammar, and internal-
ize it so as to effectively and efficiently access it in appropriate contexts of
language use.

2.5. OUTPUT

Output refers to the corpus of utterances that learners actually produce

orally or in writing. In addition to well-formed utterances that may have al-
ready been structured and/or restructured, the learner output will contain,
as discussed in section 2.1, deviant utterances that cannot be traced to any
of the three major sources of input because they are the result of an inter-
play between intake factors and intake processes.
Traditionally, output has been considered not as a mechanism for lan-
guage learning but as evidence of what has already been learned. Research,
however, indicates a larger role for output. Introducing the concept of com-
prehensible output, Merrill Swain (1985) argued that we need “to incorporate
the notion of being pushed towards the delivery of a message that is not
only conveyed, but that is conveyed precisely, coherently, and appropri-
ately” (pp. 248–249). She further asserted that production “may force the
learner to move from semantic processing to syntactic processing” (p. 249).
In other words, an attempt to produce language will move learners from
processing language at the level of word meaning (which can sometimes be
done by guessing from the context or by focusing on just key words) to
processing language at the level of grammatical structures (which requires
a much higher level of cognitive activity).
In a later work, Swain (1995) identified three possible functions of out-
put: the noticing function, the hypothesis-testing function, and the meta-
linguistic function. The noticing function relates to the possibility that when
learners try to communicate in their still-developing target language, they
may encounter a linguistic problem and become aware of what they do not
know or know only partially. Such an encounter may raise their awareness,
leading to an appropriate action on their part. The hypothesis-testing func-
tion of output relates to the possibility that when learners use their still-
developing TL, they may be experimenting with what works and what does
not work. Moreover, when they participate in negotiated interaction and
receive negative feedback, they are likely to test different hypotheses about
a particular linguistic system. Finally, the metalinguistic function of output
relates to the possibility that learners may be consciously thinking about
language and its system, about its phonological, grammatical, and semantic
rules in order to guide them to produce utterances that are linguistically
correct and communicatively appropriate.
LEARNING: FACTORS AND PROCESSES 49

2.6. AN INTERACTIVE FRAMEWORK OF INTAKE

PROCESSES

Having briefly discussed various aspects of input, intake, intake factors, in-
take processes and output, I now attempt to pull these constructs together
in order to make sense of how learners might internalize the L2 knowledge
system. There is no clear consensus among SLA researchers about what
plans or procedures learners use for thinking, remembering, understand-
ing, and using language. There seems to be a general agreement, however,
that “SLA is a terribly complex process, that understanding the process re-
quires the contributions of numerous fields, from linguistic theory to an-
thropology to brain science, and that the process is not yet very well under-
stood” (Gregg, 2003, p. 831). The primary reason why the process is not
very well understood is that the phenomenon we wish to study—the under-
lying mental mechanism—is not directly available for empirical verifica-
tion; it can be studied only through its external manifestation: spoken and/
or written performance data produced by language learners and language
users.
Despite the challenging nature of investigation and the limited tools
available for the researcher, several exploratory models of cognition both
in psychology and in SLA have been proposed. They include the monitor
model (Krashen, 1981); the ACT* model (Adaptive Control of Thought, fi-
nal version; Anderson, 1983); the language-processing model (Bialystok,
1983, 2002); the parallel distributed-processing model (McClelland,
Rumelhart, & the PDP Research Group, 1986); the model for attention and
processing (McLaughlin, 1987); the competition model (MacWhinney,
1987); and the model of input processing (van Patten, 1996). These are
mainly descriptive models that are useful for explanation, not for predic-
tion, of language learning. Although none of them fully and satisfactorily
explains L2 development, each of them has contributed to partial under-
standing of certain aspects of it. Drawing from these models rather eclecti-
cally, I present below an interactive framework of intake processes, with
particular reference to adult L2 development. Descriptive as well as specu-
lative in nature, the framework seeks to highlight the intricate interplay of
input, intake, intake factors, intake processes, and output.
Before I present the framework, it seems reasonable to posit two criteria
that any framework of intake processes must necessarily satisfy: (a) it must
be capable of including all the intake factors known to play a role in intake
processes, and (b) it must reflect the interactive and parallel nature of in-
take processes. The first criterion is quite explicit in the SLA literature. As
the discussion in section 2.3 amply shows, there are several learner internal
and learner external intake factors of varying importance that, separately or
50 CHAPTER 2

in combination, facilitate or constrain L2 development. The issue facing

the current scholarship is not whether any of the intake factors play any
role in L2 development, but in what combination, in what learning context,
and in what way.
The second criterion emerges from the insights derived from the models
already cited. We now learn that processing goes on simultaneously in
many areas of cognition and at many different levels. Language learning
entails a nonlinear, parallel, interactive process rather than a linear, serial,
additive process. It was earlier believed that learners internalize the TL sys-
tem primarily by using either a top–down processing, a knowledge-governed
system characterized by a step-by-step progression where output from one
level acts as input for the next, or a bottom-up processing, an input-governed
system characterized by a serial movement of information from the lower to
the higher levels. It is now becoming increasingly clear that language learn-
ing is governed by interactive processing in which multiple operations oc-
cur simultaneously at multiple levels drawing evidence from multiple
sources. In other words, from the perspective of the framework presented
below, language processing is considered essentially interactive, involving
intake factors and intake processes that operate in parallel and simulta-
neous ways, shaping and being shaped by one another.
As Fig. 2.5 indicates, the interactive framework consists of input, intake
factors, a central processing unit (CPU), and output. The CPU consists of the
cognitive processes of inferencing, structuring, and restructuring. The ini-
tial phase of intake processing is probably activated when learners begin to
pay attention to the linguistic input they deem accessible or comprehensi-
ble. The input, with bits and pieces of information about the TL system, en-
ters the CPU either directly or through any one or more intake factors. The

FIG. 2.5. An interactive framework of intake processes.

LEARNING: FACTORS AND PROCESSES 51

entry initiates the process of language construction. At this early stage, in-
take processing appears to operate at several layers, some of which may de-
pend heavily on temporary, limited capacity, short-term working memory
systems that in turn involve, to a large degree, prefabricated routines and
idiomatic expressions.
An important task of the CPU at this stage appears to be to reduce the
pressure on working memory systems by coding the incoming pieces of in-
formation into some meaningful organizational schemas. Such coding,
which is probably a precursor to fully established mental representations, is
assisted by the intake process of inferencing. Inferencing helps learners de-
rive working hypotheses about syntactic, semantic and pragmatic aspects of
the TL. Depending on the learning and teaching situation, learners might
get various types of positive evidence, that is, well-formed utterances ex-
posed to them, and negative evidence, that is, explicit corrections from
their teachers or other competent speakers of the language, both of which
will help them reject or refine their working hypotheses. This level of intake
processing involving attention-allocation, short-term memory, and integra-
tion of pieces of information constitutes a part of what has been called
controlled information processing.
If inferencing leads to the formation of working hypotheses, structuring,
which is a higher level of processing, contributes to the establishment of
mental representations. As we learn from schema theory, which explains
how the human mind organizes knowledge in long-term memory (Schank
& Abelson, 1977), the faster the testing and refinement of working hypoth-
eses, the swifter the formation of mental representations and greater the
chances of limited capacity, working-memory systems being purged and re-
placed by permanent long-term memory schemas. Memory schemas are re-
sponsible for storing incoming information, retrieving previously stored in-
formation, and pattern-matching mental representations (McClelland et
al., 1986). This transition from working memory systems to permanent
memory schemas is critical because, as we learn from schema theorists, lan-
guage use requires that linguistic units such as phonemes, morphemes,
words, phrases, syntactic patterns, and other discourse units be abstracted
and stored in the form of memory schemas.
Repeated cycles of hypothesis formation, testing, and confirmation or
rejection, and the construction of memory schemas mediated by intake
processes, particularly by the process of structuring, result in the strength-
ening of mental representations of the TL, thereby considerably increasing
the learners’ ability to gain a greater analysis of and a better control over
the properties and principles of the TL system. Any remaining gap in the
establishment of mental representations is taken care of either by further
opportunities for intentional corrective learning or by the activation of the
process of restructuring. Restructuring, as mentioned earlier, represents
52 CHAPTER 2

quick insight formation that could result in incidental learning whereby

complex and hitherto unclear language problems are teased out paving
way for accurate decisions about the TL system. This level of intake process-
ing, where the complex and combined processes of inferencing, structur-
ing, and restructuring gradually assist the learners in internalizing the L2
system and in accessing the system for effective communicative use, consti-
tutes a part of what has been called automatic information processing.
An important point to remember in the overall process of internaliza-
tion of the L2 system is that each of the intake processes is facilitated as well
as constrained, not merely by the availability and accessibility of linguistic
input and the interplay of intake factors, but also by the role played by
learner output. The arrows connecting input and output (Fig. 2.5) suggest
that learner output is not a terminal point; it is rather a part in a cycle serv-
ing as an important source of input data for the learner thereby affecting
the course of L2 development.
The interactive framework of intake processing described here incorpo-
rates several aspects of parallel distributed processing at both micro and
macro levels. At the micro level, intake processing is considered to involve a
large number of parallel, simultaneous, and interacting processes such as
perception, syntactic parsing, and semantic interpretation, and the selec-
tion of whatever input information is relevant and useful, be it phonologi-
cal, syntactic, semantic, or pragmatic. The development of a particular syn-
tactic rule, for example, depends often on the development of a rule in
some other domain, say a phonological or lexical rule, or vice versa (Ard &
Gass, 1987; Klein, 1990). Following the connectionist perspective, the intake
processing network is seen as a continual strengthening or weakening of in-
terconnections in response to the language input encountered by learners,
and to the language use employed by them.
At the macro level, the framework posits a criss-cross interplay among in-
take factors on one hand, and between them, and intake processes on the
other hand. Most of the intake factors appear to interweave and interact
with each other in a synergic relationship where the whole is greater than
the sum of the parts. How the learner seeks, recognizes, attends to, and
controls the input data depend to a large extent on the synergy of intake
factors.
The interactive framework also suggests that the linguistic input is not
processed linearly by proceeding step by step from one intake factor
through another, or from one intake process through another. Instead, the
entire operation is seen as interactive and parallel, responding simulta-
neously to all available factors and processes at a given point of time. In
other words, none of the intake factors by themselves seems to be a prerequi-
site for another to be activated but each is considered to be a corequisite. The
processing of input data is never consistent; it varies according to varying
LEARNING: FACTORS AND PROCESSES 53

degrees of influence brought to bear on it by an unstable and as yet un-

known configuration of intake factors and intake processes. Different in-
take factors and intake processes take on different statuses in different learn-
ing contexts, thereby significantly affecting the learners’ working hypotheses
about the TL and their strategies for learning and using it. The configuration
also varies widely within an individual learner at different times and situa-
tions of learning, and also between learners, thereby accounting for wide
variations in the degree of attainment reached by learners.

2.7. CONCLUSION

In this chapter, I explored the concepts of intake, intake factors, and intake
processes in order to explain the factors and processes facilitating adult L2
development in formal contexts. I argued that any framework of intake
processing must be capable of including multiple intake factors known to
play a role in L2 development, and that it must reflect the interactive, paral-
lel, and simultaneous nature of intake processes. Accordingly, I presented
an interactive framework by synthesizing theoretical and empirical insights
derived from interrelated disciplines such as second-language acquisition,
cognitive psychology, information processing, schema theory, and parallel
distributed processing.
In addition to input and output, the interactive framework of intake
processes presented here consists of a cluster of intake factors (Individual,
Negotiation, Tactical, Affective, Knowledge, and Environmental factors)
and intake processes (inferencing, structuring, and restructuring). Inter-
weaving and interacting in a synergic relationship, each intake factor
shapes and is shaped by the other. The interactive nature of intake factors
and intake processes suggests that input can be successfully converted into
intake if and only if the intake factors and intake processes are optimally fa-
vorable and that consistent absence of one or a combination of these con-
structs may result in partial learning, or even nonlearning.
The interactive framework presented here casts doubts over the nature
and scope of current research in L2 development. For the past 30 years or
so, we have been focusing mostly upon narrowly circumscribed research
problems within each intake variable, accumulating an impressive array of
unrelated and unrelatable findings, which by the very nature of investiga-
tion can allow only a limited and limiting view of L2 development. If, as this
chapter emphasizes, several intake factors facilitate the course of L2 devel-
opment, if these factors shape and are shaped by each other, and if they are
constantly acted upon by intake processes that are interactive, parallel, and
simultaneous, then it is imperative that we reframe our research agenda by
focusing on the synergic relationships between and within intake factors
54 CHAPTER 2

and processes in order to understand how they relate to each other, and
how that relationship impacts on language learning.
Given the tentative and limited nature of knowledge that can be drawn
from L2 research, the classroom teacher is faced with the task of making
sense of such knowledge as well as with the task of making use of such
knowledge for teaching purposes. In addition, the teacher has to take into
account the dynamics of the classroom, which is the arena where learning
and teaching is constructed. What is the nature of instructional interven-
tion the teacher can profitably employ in order to construct a pedagogy
that can accelerate language learning and accomplish desired learning out-
come is the focus of the next chapter.