Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message

Login Alert

Cancel
Log in
×
×
Register
Log In
(0) Cart
Logo for Cambridge Core from Cambridge University Press. Click to return to homepage.
Logo for Cambridge Core from Cambridge University Press. Click to return to homepage.

Cited by
  • Crossref logo 252
  • Google Scholar logo
Crossref Citations
Crossref logo
This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by Crossref.

Jensen, Eva Dam and Vinther, Thora 2003. Exact Repetition as Input Enhancement in Second Language Acquisition. Language Learning, Vol. 53, Issue. 3, p. 373.
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

Izumi, Shinichi 2003. Processing Difficulty in Comprehension and Production of Relative Clauses by Learners of English as a Second Language. Language Learning, Vol. 53, Issue. 2, p. 285.
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

Shehadeh, Ali 2003. Learner output, hypothesis testing, and internalizing linguistic knowledge. System, Vol. 31, Issue. 2, p. 155.
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

Nassaji, Hossein and Fotos, Sandra 2004. 6. CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS IN RESEARCH ON THE TEACHING OF GRAMMAR. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, Vol. 24, Issue. , p. 126.
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

Izumi, Yukiko and Izumi, Shinichi 2004. Investigating the Effects of Oral Output on the Learning of Relative Clauses in English: Issues in the Psycholinguistic Requirements for Effective Output Tasks. The Canadian Modern Language Review, Vol. 60, Issue. 5, p. 587.
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

Leeser, Michael J. 2004. Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language Teaching Research, Vol. 8, Issue. 1, p. 55.
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

Shehadeh, Ali 2004. Modified output during task-based pair interaction and group interaction. Journal of Applied Linguistics, Vol. 1, Issue. 3, p. 351.
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

ORTEGA, LOURDES 2005. Methodology, Epistemology, and Ethics in Instructed SLA Research: An Introduction. The Modern Language Journal, Vol. 89, Issue. 3, p. 317.
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

Svalberg, Agneta M-L. 2005. Consciousness-raising Activities in Some Lebanese English Language Classrooms: Teacher Perceptions and Learner Engagement. Language Awareness, Vol. 14, Issue. 2-3, p. 170.
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

Radwan, Adel Abu 2005. The effectiveness of explicit attention to form in language learning. System, Vol. 33, Issue. 1, p. 69.
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

Alcón Soler, Eva 2005. Does instruction work for learning pragmatics in the EFL context?. System, Vol. 33, Issue. 3, p. 417.
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

Mota, Mailce and Zimmer, Márcia Cristina 2005. Cognição e aprendizagem de L2: o que nos diz a pesquisa nos paradigmas simbólico e conexionista. Revista Brasileira de Linguística Aplicada, Vol. 5, Issue. 2, p. 155.
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

Martínez-Flor, Alicia and Fukuya, Yoshinori J. 2005. The effects of instruction on learners’ production of appropriate and accurate suggestions. System, Vol. 33, Issue. 3, p. 463.
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

Marsden, Emma 2005. Input-based grammar pedagogy: a comparison of two possibilities. The Language Learning Journal, Vol. 31, Issue. 1, p. 9.
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

Toth, Paul D. 2006. Processing Instruction and a Role for Output in Second Language Acquisition. Language Learning, Vol. 56, Issue. 2, p. 319.
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

Morgan-Short, Kara and Bowden, Harriet Wood 2006. PROCESSING INSTRUCTION AND MEANINGFUL OUTPUT-BASED INSTRUCTION:: Effects on Second Language Development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, Vol. 28, Issue. 01,
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

Mackey, Alison 2006. Feedback, Noticing and Instructed Second Language Learning. Applied Linguistics, Vol. 27, Issue. 3, p. 405.
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

SHEKARY, M. and TAHRIRIAN, M. H. 2006. Negotiation of Meaning and Noticing in Text‐Based Online Chat. The Modern Language Journal, Vol. 90, Issue. 4, p. 557.
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

Marsden, Emma 2006. Exploring Input Processing in the Classroom: An Experimental Comparison of Processing Instruction and Enriched Input. Language Learning, Vol. 56, Issue. 3, p. 507.
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

Yoshimura, Fumiko 2006. Does manipulating foreknowledge of output tasks lead to differences in reading behaviour, text comprehension and noticing of language form?. Language Teaching Research, Vol. 10, Issue. 4, p. 419.
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

Download full list
Google Scholar Citations

View all Google Scholar citations for this article.

×
Cambridge University Press

Our Site

  • Accessibility
  • Contact & Help
  • Legal Notices

Quick Links

  • Cambridge Core
  • Cambridge Open Engage
  • Cambridge Higher Education

Our Products

  • Journals
  • Books
  • Elements
  • Textbooks
  • Courseware

Join us online

Please choose a valid location.

  • Rights & Permissions
  • Copyright
  • Privacy Notice
  • Terms of Use
  • Cookies Policy
Cambridge University Press 2025

Cancel
Confirm
×

Save article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

OUTPUT, INPUT ENHANCEMENT, AND THE NOTICING HYPOTHESIS
  • Volume 24, Issue 4
  • Shinichi Izumi (a1)
  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263102004023
Please provide your Kindle email.
Available formats Please select a format to save.
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

OUTPUT, INPUT ENHANCEMENT, AND THE NOTICING HYPOTHESIS
  • Volume 24, Issue 4
  • Shinichi Izumi (a1)
  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263102004023
Available formats Please select a format to save.
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

OUTPUT, INPUT ENHANCEMENT, AND THE NOTICING HYPOTHESIS
  • Volume 24, Issue 4
  • Shinichi Izumi (a1)
  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263102004023
Available formats Please select a format to save.
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Contents help
Close Contents help

- No HTML tags allowed
- Web page URLs will display as text only
- Lines and paragraphs break automatically
- Attachments, images or tables are not permitted

Please enter your response.

Your details

Email help
Close Email help

Your email address will be used in order to notify you when your comment has been reviewed by the moderator and in case the author(s) of the article or the moderator need to contact you directly.

Please enter a valid email address.

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? * Conflicting interests help

Close Conflicting interests help

Please list any fees and grants from, employment by, consultancy for, shared ownership in or any close relationship with, at any time over the preceding 36 months, any organisation whose interests may be affected by the publication of the response. Please also list any non-financial associations or interests (personal, professional, political, institutional, religious or other) that a reasonable reader would want to know about in relation to the submitted work. This pertains to all the authors of the piece, their spouses or partners.