Noticing Hypothesis

The Noticing Hypothesis, proposed by Richard Schmidt, claims that conscious attention to linguistic form is necessary for acquisition. You can't learn what you don't notice. This challenges Stephen Krashen's view that acquisition is entirely subconscious.

Core Claim

"The noticing hypothesis states that what learners notice in input is what becomes intake for learning." — Schmidt (1995)

Input ≠ Intake

Input: All language a learner is exposed to
Intake: The portion that is noticed and available for processing

Only noticed input can become intake.

Three Levels of Awareness

Schmidt distinguishes:

Level	Description	Example
Perception	Registering input (may be subliminal)	Hearing sounds without processing
Noticing	Conscious registration of form	"She said 'went,' not 'goed'"
Understanding	Grasping rules and patterns	"Oh, irregular verbs don't take -ed"

The hypothesis focuses on noticing—the middle level. Understanding may help, but noticing is the necessary condition.

What Gets Noticed?

Factors affecting whether input is noticed:

Factor	Effect
Frequency	More frequent = more noticeable
Salience	Perceptually prominent forms stand out
Instruction	Teachers can direct attention
Task demands	Tasks can require attention to form
Readiness	Learner's developmental stage matters
L1 influence	Differences from L1 may be noticed

Noticing the Gap

A key concept: learners notice the gap between:

What they want to say and what they can say
Their output and target language norms

This gap-noticing often happens during production (connecting to Output Hypothesis) or when receiving feedback.

Challenge to Krashen

Schmidt directly challenges the Input Hypothesis:

Krashen	Schmidt
Acquisition is subconscious	Noticing requires consciousness
Input just needs to be comprehensible	Input must be noticed to become intake
Learning (conscious) can't become acquisition	Conscious attention is necessary

If noticing is necessary, purely incidental acquisition is impossible.

Evidence

Schmidt's own language learning diary studying Portuguese showed:

Features he noticed appeared in his production
Features present in input but not noticed did not

Research shows:

Directing attention to forms improves acquisition
Learners don't acquire unnoticed high-frequency forms
Enhanced input (bolding, highlighting) aids learning

Strong vs. Weak Versions

Schmidt proposed two versions:

Strong: Noticing is necessary—no learning without awareness
Weak: Noticing is facilitative—awareness helps but isn't required

Most researchers accept at least the weak version.

Criticisms

Consciousness is messy: Hard to define and measure
Implicit learning exists: Some learning may occur without awareness
Operationalization: How do we know what was noticed?
Individual differences: Attention capacity varies

Classroom Applications

If noticing is necessary, teachers should:

Strategy	How It Helps
Input enhancement	Bold, underline, highlight target forms
Input flood	Increase frequency of target structures
Consciousness-raising tasks	Guide discovery of patterns
Focus on form	Brief attention to form in meaning-focused tasks
Recasts	Draw attention through reformulation
Dictogloss	Notice gaps during reconstruction

Relationship to Other Hypotheses

[Input](/terms/input) (Krashen)
    ↓
Noticing (Schmidt) — filters what becomes intake
    ↓
Processing / Acquisition
    ↓
Output (Swain) — helps learners notice gaps

Noticing connects input and intake—it's the gateway to acquisition.

Richard Schmidt - Developer of the Noticing Hypothesis
Input Hypothesis - Krashen's contrasting view
Output Hypothesis - Production helps noticing
Interaction Hypothesis - Negotiation draws attention
Cognitive Theory - Broader attention-based framework