After reviewing the nature of language and language acquisition and presenting three basics facts about the nature of instruction (see the discussion here), VanPatten poses a series of questions that are the core of the current chapter.
Acknowledging that input, not explanation + practice, is the data for language acquisition, is it possible to help acquisition along? We can’t alter stages or ordered development. We can’t override the internal mechanisms that guide and constrain acquisition. We can’t alter the piecemeal nature of acquisition. So what might be possible? We can start by asking ourselves the following:
What aspects of language do learners seem to have trouble with, and which ones are “easy”?
If we can’t alter natural processes, can we speed them up in some way?
VanPatten’s answer to the first question is rather straightforward: Students have trouble with those “aspects of language that take a long time to acquire or are protracted in their acquisition.” (2017, p. 101)
In other words, the aspects of language that cause problems are not the ones that most teachers identify because students struggle with them on paper-and-pencil tests. They are aspects of language that are not amenable to reduction to textbook rules of grammar.
Perhaps “late-acquired” items are late acquired simply because we need more exposure to them than to “early-acquired” items. Obviously, then, learners will struggle with these aspects of language until they have had sufficient exposure to them. Conscious memorization of rules does not help, and the order of acquisition is not subject to rearrangement.
The response to the second question, “If we can’t alter the natural processes, can we speed them up in some way?”, forms the remainder of this chapter. That response entails an investigation of “Input Enhancement” and “Focus on Form”.
Today, we’ll look at Input Enhancement.
Input Enhancement “refers to any attempt by instructors to draw learner attention to more difficult aspects of language by manipulating input.” (2017, p. 102) This manipulation may be oral or written.
For example, one form of Input Enhancement is simply adding emphasis on a word while speaking. This can be done through voice stress, inflection, pausing, or something else. Van Patten gives the following example:
… the class is engaged in a discussion about a colleague’s schedule. At one point the instructor says, “no, he leaves at 5:00, not arrives,” emphasizing the verbs and perhaps slightly lengthening the final consonant that indicates third-person. (Note: the teacher is actually emphasizing content, but in doing so he is making the verbs more salient through stress and pitch.)
Beyond the discussion that VanPatten provides, the example prompts the question of what is efficacious here, if anything. Does this “Input Enhancement” work because students become more aware of the verb forms or because they receive more comprehensible input through the negotiation of meaning?
Input Enhancement can also consist of bolding, color coding, or otherwise “highlighting” particular things in written texts.
Whether oral or written, Input Enhancement must meet two important criteria:
- Learners are working with input, not practicing language in the traditional sense. Real communication is going on.
- The primary focus is on meaning, trying to interpret input for its content.
So, what is the verdict on Input Enhancement?
The jury is out on the relative benefits of input enhancement.
(2017, p. 102)
This is hardly a ringing endorsement of the strategy. However, as VanPatten points out, at least it does no harm as long as the focus is on meaning. It provides content for classroom discussion and interaction, and it can be used outside of class in online environments. And it is easy to use.
VanPatten does not mention this, but some sort of “Input Enhancement” is also something we do unconsciously as part of our natural process of expressing and negotiating meaning.
I agree here with VanPatten’s final evaluation:
As long as educators don’t slip into using it to explicitly teach grammar, and as long as they keep their sights on the roles of input and meaning-making in the communicative classroom, there’s nothing wrong with making use of input enhancement.
To this, I would add: But don’t expect too much from it.
That’s it for this post. Next time we’ll take a look at Focus on Form and its variants.