Article published In: ITL - International Journal of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 72 (1986) ► pp.1–25
Making Input Comprehensible
Do Interactional Modifications Help?
Published online: 1 January 1986
https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.72.01pic
https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.72.01pic
In view of the evidence that comprehensible input is necessary for language acquisition (Krashen 1980, 1982, Long 1981, 1983, 1985), this study compared the listening comprehension of NNSs' of English on directions to an assembly task given by a NS under two input conditions : (1) Syntactically and semantically premodified input without interaction and (2) Unmodified input with interaction.
Two hypotheses were tested in the study. First, it was predicted that interaction in Condition (2) would lead to even greater syntactic and semantic modification of input than was built in a priori in Condition (1) and second, that NNSs' comprehension of input in Condition (2) would exceed that in Condition (1). Both hypotheses were supported.
Analysis of the data indicated that the most significant aids to comprehension brought about by interaction were increased quantity and redundancy of input. Several specific interactional modifications, such as confirmation and comprehension checks and clarification requests were also shown to be critical factors in input comprehension. However, a reduction in the syntactic complexity of the input was observed to play no significant role in its comprehension.
References (18)
Blau, E.K. (1982) : The effect of syntax on reada-bility for ESL students in Puerto Rico. TESOL Quarterly 16/4:517–528.
Brumfit, C. and K. Johnson (eds) (1979) : The Com-municative Approach to Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chaudron, C. (1983) : Simplification of input : topic reinstatements and their effects on L2 learners' recognition and recall.TESOL Quartely 17/3:437–458.
Chaudron, C (1985) : Intake : On models for dis-covering learners' processing of input. Studies in Second Language 7/1:1–14.
Johnson, P. (1981) : Effects of reading comprehension on language complexity and cultural background of a text. TESOL Quarterly 15/2:169–181.
Krashen, S. (1980) : The input hypothesis. In J. Alatis (ed.), Current Issues in Bilingual Education.Washington, D.C. : Georgetown University Press.
Krashen, S. (1983) : Newmark's "ignorance hypothesis" and current second language acquisition theory.In S. Gass and L. Selinker (eds). Language Transfer in Language Learning Rowley, Mass. : Newbury House.
Krashen, S. (1985) : The Input Hypothesis. London : Longman.
Long, M.H. (1981) : Input, interaction, and second language acquisition. In H. Winitz (ed.), Native Language and Foreign Language Acquisition. New York : Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 3791:259–278.
Long, M.H. (1983) : Linguistic and conversational adjustments to non-native speakers. Studies in Second Language 5/2:177–193.
Cited by (28)
Cited by 28 other publications
Ellis, Rod
Alcón, Eva
2021. The role of conversational interaction in the development of a second language. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics. Series S ► pp. 135 ff.
Moradi, Arezoo & Mohammad Taghi Farvardin
Palma, Gildardo
Kitajima, Ryu
Davin, Kristin, Francis J. Troyan, Richard Donato & Ashley Hellman
Serra, Cecilia
Moyer, Alene
Smith, Bryan
Yu, Ming–Chung
Gass, Susan M.
Del Pilar García Mayo, María
Soler, Eva Alcón
Van Den Branden, Kris
GASS, SUSAN
Long, Michael H.
Wagner, Johannes
Braidi, Susan M.
Yule, George & Maggie Powers
Johnstone, Richard
Derwing, Tracey M.
Pica, Teresa, Lloyd Holliday, Nora Lewis & Lynelle Morgenthaler
Pica, Teresa
Pica, Teresa
Pica, Teresa
Pica, Teresa
Scarcella, Robin
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.