Noticing Hypothesis
The noticing hypothesis (Schmidt, 1990) states that conscious attention to input features is necessary for second language acquisition — unnoticed input does not convert to intake.
Richard Schmidt proposed the noticing hypothesis after studying his own Portuguese acquisition in Brazil. He found that forms he consciously noticed in input were far more likely to appear in his output than forms he was merely exposed to.
The hypothesis draws a crucial line between input (what learners hear or read) and intake (what actually gets processed for acquisition). Only noticed input becomes intake. This challenges Krashen's implicit acquisition model by insisting that some degree of attention is required, even if explicit instruction is not.
Noticing does not require metalinguistic knowledge — you don't need to name a grammar rule to notice it. What matters is focal attention: the form must register in working memory. Techniques like input flooding, typographic enhancement (bold or italics in texts), and recasts in conversation are designed to increase the probability of noticing.
Check your understanding
Your score:
FAQ
Is noticing the same as explicit grammar study?
No. Noticing is focal attention during input processing. Explicit grammar study is one way to trigger noticing, but input enhancement techniques (bold/italics, recasts) achieve the same without metalinguistic explanation.
Does Krashen agree with the noticing hypothesis?
No. Krashen argues acquisition is fully implicit and that conscious noticing is not required. Schmidt's hypothesis is one of the main SLA challenges to Krashen's Input Hypothesis.
How can learners increase noticing?
Slow down and re-read complex sentences; keep a vocab/phrase journal; use subtitles while watching; request recasts from conversation partners.