Cover not available
Part of
Research on Second Language Processing and Processing Instruction: Studies in honor of Bill VanPatten
Edited by Michael J. Leeser, Gregory D. Keating and Wynne Wong
[Studies in Bilingualism 62] 2021
► pp. 201–232

Chapter 7
Multilevel input processing

Emerging developments and future challenges

 | Washington University in St. Louis
Research on input processing (IP) to date has focused largely on sentences and acquisition of morphosyntax. Other research has addressed IP at the lexical level for different aspects of vocabulary acquisition. This chapter clarifies how understanding multilevel IP can improve our understanding of IP across the board. Section 1 defines multilevel IP and clarifies its overarching role when learners are exposed to input. Section 2 summarizes research on sentence-level IP and identifies areas in which research on lexical IP can be informative. Section 3 summarizes research on lexical IP, noting areas in which research on sentence-level IP can be informative. Finally, Section 4 discusses challenges to be met in new efforts to investigate and advance theory related to multilevel IP.
Keywords: multilevel input processing, input processing, grammar acquisition, vocabulary acquisition, grammar, vocabulary, second language, second language acquisition
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Multilevel input processing: An introduction
  • Sentence-level input processing
    • Input as the necessary ingredient
    • Input processing principles
    • Sentence-level input processing and other levels of input processing: Crosstalk
  • Lexical input processing
    • The scope of research on lexical input processing
    • Contexts of vocabulary learning
    • Key developments in research on lexical input processing
      • Specificity in type of processing and learning
      • The partial nature of word form learning
      • Thirty observations about lexical input processing
    • Lexical input processing and other levels of input processing: Crosstalk
  • State of the science for multilevel input processing: Where are we now?
  • Future research on multilevel input processing: Where might we go from here?
    • Within-level research
    • Between-level research
    • Global-level research
    • Combining different areas of language science
  • Summary and conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 17 March 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.62.07bar
References (34)
References
Bahrick, H. P. (1979). Maintenance of knowledge: Questions about memory we forgot to ask. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 108, 3, 296–308. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bahrick, H. P., Bahrick, L. E., Bahrick, A. S., & Bahrick, P. E. (1993). Maintenance of foreign language vocabulary and the spacing effect. Psychological Science, 4, 316–321. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barcroft, J. (2001). Attention to form and meaning in the written mode: Unconstrained and constrained reading. Spanish Applied Linguistics, 5, 95–127.Google Scholar
(2002). Semantic and structural elaboration in L2 lexical acquisition. Language Learning, 52, 323–363. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Lexical input processing and vocabulary learning. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019). Sentence-level processing for content and new L2 words: Where does deeper processing go? In R. Leow (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language research in classroom learning (pp. 242–255). New York, NY: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barcroft, J., & Sommers, M. S. (2005). Effects of acoustic variability on second language vocabulary learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 387–414. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barcroft, J., & VanPatten, B. (1997). Acoustic salience of grammatical forms: The effect of location, stress, and boundedness on Spanish L2 input processing. In A. T. Pérez-Leroux & W. R. Glass (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives on the acquisition of Spanish, Volume 2: Production, processing, and comprehension (pp. 109–122). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Finkbeiner, M., & Nicol, J. (2003). Semantic category effects in second language word learning. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24, 369–383. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kida, S., & Barcroft, J. (2018). Semantic and structural tasks for the mapping component of L2 vocabulary learning: Testing the TOPRA model from a new angle. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40, 477–502. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krashen, S. D. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.Google Scholar
(1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.Google Scholar
(1985). The input hypothesis. London, UK: Longman.Google Scholar
Lee, J., & Van Patten, B. (2003). Making communicative language happen. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
McLeod, S. A. (2008). Information processing. Retrieved from <[URL]>
Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, G. A., Galanter, E., & Pribram, K. H. (1960). Plans and the structure of behavior. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nakata, T., & Suzuki, Y. (2019). Effects of massing and spacing on the learning of semantically related and unrelated words. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41, 287–311. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pulido, D. (2003). Modeling of the role of second language proficiency and topic familiarity in L2 incidental vocabulary acquisition through reading. Language Learning, 53, 233–284. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosa, E., & O’Neil, M. (1998). Effects of stress and location on acoustic salience at the initial steps of Spanish L2 input processing. Spanish Applied Linguistics, 2, 24–52.Google Scholar
Rott, S. (1999). The effect of exposure frequency on intermediate language learners’ incidental vocabulary acquisition and retention through reading. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 589–619. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007). The effect of frequency of input-enhancements on word learning and text comprehension. Language Learning, 57, 165–199. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rott, S., Williams, J., & Cameron, R. (2002). The effect of multiple-choice L1 glosses and input-output cycles on lexical acquisition and retention. Language Teaching Research, 6, 183–222. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sommers, M., & Barcroft, J. (2007). An integrated account of the effects of acoustic variability in L1 and L2: Evidence from amplitude, fundamental frequency, and speaking rate variability. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28(2), 231–249. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tinkham, T. (1997). The effects of semantic and thematic clustering on the learning of second language vocabulary learning. Second Language Research, 13, 138–163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ullman, M. T. (2004). Contributions of memory circuits to language: The declarative/procedural model. Cognition, 92, 231–270. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005). A cognitive neuroscience perspective on second language acquisition: The declarative/procedural model. In C. Sanz (Ed.), Mind in context in adult second language acquisition: Methods, theory, and practice (pp. 141–178). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
(1990). Attending to form and content in the input. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 287–301. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(Ed.) (2004). Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B., & Wong, W. (2004). Processing instruction and the French causative: A replication. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research and commentary (pp. 97–118). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walenski, M., & Ullman, M. T. (2005). The science of language. The Linguistic Review, 22, 327–346. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wong, W., & Pyun, D. O. (2012). The effects of sentence writing on second language French and Korean lexical retention. Canadian Modern Language Review/ La Revue Canadienne des Langues Vivantes, 68, 164–189. DOI logoGoogle Scholar