url?sa=t&source=web&cd=13&ved=0CC4QFjACOAo&url=http://livelongday.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/kumaraposmethod

LEARNING: FACTORS AND PROCESSES 27is an internal cognitive act in which a linguistic form is related to some bit ofexisting knowledge (or gap in knowledge). We can think of apperception as apriming device that prepares the input for further analysis. Thus, apperceivedinput is that bit of language that is noticed in some way by the learner becauseof some particular recognizable features. (p. 4)What actually makes the learners notice and accept a subset of language exposedto them as potential input is not clear. Schmidt (1990, 1993) suggestedfactors such as frequency of occurrence, perceptual salience, linguisticcomplexity, skill level, and task demands. One might also add otherfactors, such as learners’ needs and wants, as well as their interests and motivation.2.2. INTAKEUnlike input, the concept of intake is not easy to pin down. The literatureon second language acquisition (SLA) presents several conflicting definitionsand explanations for the term intake. Amid all the conceptual and terminologicalambiguity, two strands of thought emerge: one that treats intakeprimarily as product, and the other that treats it primarily as process.Taking a product view, Kimball and Palmer (1978) defined intake as “inputwhich requires students to listen for and interpret implicit meanings inways similar to the ways they do so in informal communication” (pp.17–18). This has been echoed by Krashen (1981) for whom “intake is simplywhere language acquisition comes from, that subset of linguistic inputthat helps the acquirer acquire language” (pp. 101–102). A commonthread running through these definitions is that all of them treat intake primarilyas a product, a subset of linguistic input exposed to the learner.Perhaps the first one to emphasize the role of “language acquisitionmechanism” in converting input into intake is Corder who defined intakeas “what goes in and not what is available to go in” (1967, p. 165, emphasis inoriginal). Similarly, Faerch and Kasper (1980) defined intake as “the subsetof the input which is assimilated by the IL (interlanguage) system andwhich the IL system accommodates to” (p. 64). Hatch (1983) is in agreementwhen she defines intake as a subset of input that “the learner actuallysuccessfully and completely processed” (p. 81). Likewise, Chaudron (1985)referred to intake as “the mediating process between the target languageavailable to the learners as input and the learner’s internalized set of L2rules and strategies for second language development” (p. 1). Liceras(1985) also opted for a process-oriented definition when she talks of cognitivecapacities that intervene at the level of intake. A more recent definitionby Gass (1997) also conceptualized intake “as apperceived input that hasbeen further processed” (p. 23).