The Noticing Hypothesis

Richard Schmidt (1990) proposed the Noticing Hypothesis (NH) which in its essence states that if there is to be any language development, the items have to be first noticed by the language learners. Schmidt documented his own second language learning experience of learning Portuguese. He discovered that the language that he noticed were of two forms: either they were brought to his attention or some other kind of experience had made them salient (Lightbown & Spada, 2006; Schmidt, 1990 ;).

It is said that the language learner must be aware of the linguistic input for it to be learnt. But before that can happen, Schmidt (1990) argues that attention is essential to learning. Attention and its related concept of noticing which forms part of the cognitive process is thought to be important in SLA. For Schmidt, “intake is that part of the input that the learner notices” (p.190). Schmidt also points out that all noticing is conscious. To elaborate, he continues that a learner in noticing something is conscious of the fact of noticing. In his discussion on noticing, Schmidt equates awareness to consciousness. Therefore, in his point of view noticing involves awareness and consciousness.

Along this same line on noticing, Gass explains that noticing “includes awareness, and awareness presupposes attention, and attention is central to any concept of noticing” (Gass, 1997, p. 8).

The centrality of attention is also acknowledged in learning by Gass and Mackey (2007). According to them attention is one of the mechanisms that “mediate between input and learning” (p. 18). Therefore, it is accepted that learning will take place when the learner is aware of the linguistic input for it to become internalized. They also remind researchers in the interaction perspective that attention and awareness form part of the interaction-L2 learning process.

In extending the notions of noticing and attention, Ellis (2008) makes a point that Schmidt distinguished three subsystems of attention based on the work on Tomlin and Villa (1994). The first is attention as ‘alertness’ which refers to learners’ motivation and readiness to learn, and that noticing and acquisition do not hinge on the learner’s intention, that is, involuntary noticing can also take place. Secondly, ‘orientation’ refers to the general focus of attention. It states that orientation may lie in the design of the task, that is, whether the focus of the task is on meaning or form. The third subsystem is ‘detection’; it is what is registered in the mind that allows for further processing of information. It is this third subsystem which triggered a controversy of whether detection involves awareness on general attention to form or attention to a specific aspect of language. This question made Schmidt re-examine the Noticing Hypothesis and differentiated it into the strong or weak form. In its strong form, Schmidt’s assertion is that there is no learning at all if input is not noticed and that attention has to be specifically directed. In its weak forms he contends that there is some form of learning as there is representation and storage of unattended stimuli in memory. In other words, there is some learning taking place without attention.

It has to be pointed out here that all the hypotheses in the Input-Interaction model of second language acquisition do acknowledge the role of consciousness in varying degrees. For instance, at the extreme end, the Input Hypothesis rejects the role of consciousness as Krashen claims that acquisition is a subconscious process, while Long in his IH makes the opposite claim that learners have to be conscious to benefit from negotiated interaction. In the same thread is Swain’s Comprehensible Output Hypothesis which makes the point that consciousness is important for the learners to notice the gaps in their interlanguage and develop metalinguistic awareness.

It is important here to set the stage to elaborate how the elements of noticing and attention can be beneficial for SLA in a research context, for example, for learning vocabulary in a text. Nevertheless, before attention and noticing can occur, another element which should not be overlooked is saliency. It is believed that “saliency can affect acquisition” (Gass, 1997, p. 19). Saliency in SLA can include elements such as stress, word position and even frequency.

In vocabulary learning, the saliency of the target words may trigger learning. The target words can be made salient in several ways, for example, by making them more frequent in the text or by highlighting the words differently from the other words in the text which can also be termed as input enhancement. This is done in what is termed as “researcher-driven or externally-driven” (Gass, 1999, p. 321). This means, the onus of bringing the attention of the learners to the words is undertaken by the instructor or researcher.

A study done by deRidder (2002) on noticing found that when learners are presented with marked glossed words, they would be more willing to consult their meaning compared to if learners read a text without marked glosses. However, she discovered that consulting the word meanings did not have any gain in either vocabulary learning or reading comprehension.

The researcher is indeed cognizance of the difficulty of pinning noticing on linguistic data on its own. Hence, the need of documenting or recording the learners as they interact with the input as provided in the study by the students’ interactions with the gloss. This in itself is also not direct evidence of noticing but it comes as close as possible to clarifying the construct noticing.

As opposed to this external noticing, there is another type of noticing. It is the learners themselves who notice the words. What is meant here is that learners notice that there is a gap in comprehensibility when they are reading the text and are faced with the unfamiliar words; hence it is called learner-driven or internally-driven. Gass (1999) emphasizes that both types of noticing are equally important for acquisition and have to be taken into account. These two forms of noticing are shown in the diagram below.

Externally driven (Target words are made salient by the researcher or teacher)

Noticing Internally driven

(Learners notice the gap in their own knowledge)

Figure 2.2: The two types of triggers which can induce noticing

It is through interaction with the text that attention is focused on a part of the language which has caused communication or comprehension problems. Gass and Selinker (2006) illustrate this when learners notice the deficiency of their between learner-language forms and target language forms. In this same vein of attention, is the fact that learners’ requests for help also signal the instances of noticing (Hegelheimer & Chapelle, 2000).

This claim then puts it that it is through the process of getting help or feedback in the form of negotiation of meaning or interaction that the notion of noticing is heightened. This is supported by Gass (1997) who states that “the input-interaction view must take the position that noticing is crucial” (p. 100). In negotiation the learner is focusing on linguistic form, and that focus, or specific attention paid to linguistic form, is the first step toward grammar change