A Review of Input Processing Theory in Second Language Acquisition Research

DOI: https://doi.org/10.62517/jhet.202515644

Author(s)

Chunyi Yan

Affiliation(s)

School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Xi'an Polytechnic University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China

Abstract

Since Van Patten introduced input processing theory in the 1990s, it has become essential for understanding language teaching by emphasizing learners' limitations in processing input and the significance of processing strategies. This paper reviews key concepts, empirical developments, and teaching applications from 1990 to 2023, highlighting the practical effects of processing instruction across various contexts and the evolution of research methodologies. It also outlines future research directions, including the influence of individual learner differences, innovative research methods for understanding processing mechanisms, and long-term effects at the discourse level. These insights aim to help foreign language teachers optimize instruction and deepen researchers' understanding of language processing.

Keywords

Second Language Acquisition; Input Processing Theory; Processing Teaching

References

[1]VanPatten B, Williams J. Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction. New York: Routledge, 2015: 245-272. [2]VanPatten B. Processing instruction: Theory, research and commentary. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2004: 5-31. [3]Henry N. The effects of processing instruction on the acquisition and processing of grammatical gender in German. Language Teaching Research, 2022, in press. [4]VanPatten B, Borst S, Collopy E, et al. Explicit information, grammatical sensitivity, and the first-noun strategy: A cross-linguistic study in processing instruction. The Modern Language Journal, 2013, 97(2): 506-527. [5]Benati A. Classroom-oriented research: Processing instruction (findings and implications). Language Teaching, 2019, 52(3): 343-359. [6]VanPatten B, Cadierno T. Explicit instruction and input processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 1993, 15(2): 225-243. [7]Cox J G, Sanz C. Deconstructing PI for the ages: Explicit instruction vs. practice in young and older adult bilinguals. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 2015, 53(2): 225-248. [8]Benati A, Batziou M. Discourse and long-term effects of isolated and combined structured input and structured output on the acquisition of the English causative form. Language Awareness, 2019, 28(2): 77-96. [9]Zhang S M. A comparative study of processing instruction and 3P grammar teaching from the perspective of foreign language learning motivation. Journal of PLA University of Foreign Languages, 2014, (6): 74-82. [10]VanPatten B, Oikkenon S. Explanation versus structured input in processing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 1996, 18(4): 495-510. [11]Sanz C, Morgan-Short K. Positive evidence vs. explicit rule presentation and explicit negative feedback: A computer-assisted study. Language Learning, 2004, 54(1): 35-78. [12]Farhat A, Benati A. The effects of motivation on processing instruction in the acquisition of Modern Standard Arabic gender agreement. Instructed Second Language Acquisition, 2018, 2(1): 61-82. [13]Dracos M. The effects of form-focused training and working memory on the L2 processing and learning of morphological cues. Pennsylvania State University, 2013. [14]VanPatten B, Smith M. Word-order typology and the acquisition of case marking: A self-paced reading study in Latin as a second language. Second Language Research, 2019, 35(3): 397-420. [15]Benati A. A comparative study of the effects of processing instruction and output-based instruction on the acquisition of the Italian future tense. Language Teaching Research, 2001, 5(2): 95-127. [16]Sanz C, Morgan-Short K. Positive evidence vs. explicit rule presentation and explicit negative feedback: A computer-assisted study. Language Learning, 2004, 54(1): 35-78.