Input and Interaction in second language learning

By Mahsa Farahanynia

Allameh Tababie University, Tehran

2015

What is input in L2 learning? Input is operationally defined as oral and/or written corpus of the

target language (TL) to which L2 learners are exposed through

various sources, and recognized by them as language input.

Two important elements of input :

1. Availability: The degree the input is available via different sources

2. Accessibility: The extent the input is linguistically and cognitively

accessible to the learners

1. Authentic and pedagogic materials and books

2. Foreigner talk: native-nonnative speaker talk

3. Teacher talk: student-teacher talk

4. Interlanguage talk: learner-learner talk

5. The learners’ own Interlanguage

Various sources of input in SLA Modified

speech

L2 learnerNative

speaker/teacher/ learner

Input

Positive evidence

Authentic

Modified

Simplified

Elaborated

Negative evidence

Preemptive Grammatical rules

ExplicitOvert error correction

Implicit Recast

Simple

Complex

Various types of input in SLA

Reactive

Taken from Long (2015)

Importance of input in L2 learningVarious SLA theories pinpoint the role of input but differ greatly in the importance that is attached to it (Ellis, 2012):

Behaviorism theories Appropriate stimuli (learners are language producing machines who look at correct models imitate practice produce)

Input + reinforcement learning

Mentalist theories A trigger that sets off the internal learning processing, and it is indeterminate by itself (poverty of stimulus).

(non-interactive) Input+ internal processing learning

Interactionist Theories Input is provided via social interaction (interactive) Input + internal processing+ interaction(linguistic environment) learning

Two broad views on input leading to acquisition

Input is both necessary and sufficient for L2 acquisition

1. The frequency hypothesis

2. Input processing theory

3. Input hypothesis

Input is not sufficient on its own but interaction/output are also required.

1. Interaction hypothesis

2. Comprehensible output hypothesis

3. Gass’ model of L2 acquisition (The most comprehensive model available)

4. Sociocultural theory

The Frequency Hypothesis (Hatch and Wagner Gough)

The Frequency Hypothesis the order of L2 acquisition is determined by the frequency with which different linguistic items occur in the input (acquisition is input dependent)

Input frequency enhance or lessen the form-function relationship by providing cues.

What makes a cue useful

Cue availability

The extent to which a cue always maps the same form

onto the same function

Whether a cue loses or wins when it appears in competitive

environmentsHow often it is

available in the input

Cue reliability Conflict validity

Input processing theory (Vanpatten) The idea behind it Acquisition is input dependent The focus is on how learners process input and convert it into intake, and

hence how an internalized system develops.

Input-processing principles

1. Learners process input for meaning before they process it for form.

2. Learners process content words in the input before anything else.

3. Learners process lexical items before grammatical items (e.g. morphological markings).

4. Learners prefer processing “more meaningful” morphology before "less" or "non-meaningful" morphology.

Input hypothesis (Krashen) Input hypothesis: The availability of (comprehensible) input (i + 1) is the

only necessary and sufficient condition for language acquisition to take place.

Claims of input hypothesis:

1. Learner progress along natural order provided i+I input

2. Input becomes comprehensible as a result of simplification and

contextual and extralinguistic clues (pre-modified input)

3. Sufficient amount of comprehensible input is the main feature of

effective SLA.

4. Speaking is a result of acquisition and not its cause

Critiques of Input hypothesis (Krashen)1. Processing of comprehension is different from processing of production.2. Input vs. intake (Cordor, 1967)3. A considerable part of acquisition is input free (e.g., overgeneralization)

6.Understanding does not necessitate close attention to linguistic forms

7. White (1987) declares: “ the driving force for grammar change is that input is incomprehensible, rather than comprehensible” when learners fail to understand the sentence they pay closer attention to its syntactical properties to find clues about its meaning.

Input for learning (bottom-up processing)

noticing the gap between input and their interlanguage

Input for meaning (top-down processing)

Role of interaction in SLA

Input is not sufficient for SLA on its own; rather, the ways in which

learners interact with the input and their interlocutors are of

paramount importance (interactionist approaches).

“The development of competence in a second language requires

not systematization of language inputs or maximization of

planned practice, but rather the creation of conditions in an effort

to cope with communication” (Prabhu, 1987, p. 1)

Types of interaction in SLA

1. Interaction as a textual activity Computational/information

processing model (more cognitively-based model) which is concerned with

how input feeds into the universal mechanism responsible for acquisition

acquisition is the result of interaction

2. Interaction as an interpersonal activity Sociocultural theory

(socio-cognitive model) acquisition occurs in the interaction

3. Interaction as an ideational activity An interpersonal activity in

which social, cultural, and political processes are taken into account for

identity formation and social transformation

Interaction as a textual activity Ellis (1985) defines interaction as the discourse jointly constructed by the

learner and his interlocutors, and input is the result of interaction, and

language acquisition is the result of an interaction between the learner’s mental

abilities (learner-internal factor) and the linguistic environment.

During interaction, learners and their interlocutors modify their speech

phonologically, morphologically, lexically, and syntactically in order to

maximize chances of mutual understanding, and minimize instances of

communication breakdown Negotiation of meaning

Negotiation of meaning

During negotiation of meaning

Adjustments

We try to make input comprehensible

a) to communicateb) to teach languagec) to socialize

Adjustments of input during negotiation of meaning

Ungrammatical input adjustments

Omission of functors

Expansion

Replacement/ rearrangement

Linguistic-based adjustments Interactional adjustments

Discourse management (to avoid communication problem)

Communication strategies

pre-modified input interactionally modified

input

Negotiation of meaning (during interactional adjustment)

interactiontrigger

resolutionresponse

indicator

reaction

A: what is your father’s job? B: my father is now retire. triggerA: retired? indicatorB: yes. responseA: oh, Yes. reaction

Example of Negotiation of meaning (teacher talk)

(Teacher does a warm-up activity with 12 year old students) T = teacher; S1, S2 = different students

T How are you doing this morning?S1 I’m mad!S2 Why?T Oh boy. Yeah, why?S1 Because this morning, my father say no have job this morning.T Your father has no more job this morning? Or you have no job?S1 My father.(from: Lightbown & Spada, 1999, p. 123).

In teacher talk no ungrammatical adjustment must be applied

Example of interlanguage talkA: And here goes er, er, a rule.

B: A rule? Sorry?

A: So sorry, a rule like like for distance

B: A rule?

A: A rule.

B: A tape like soft or hard?

A: Hard.

In Interlanguage talk (superior to foreigner talk) more interactional

modifications associated with the negotiation of meaning; in other words, when learners

talk amongst themselves in the L2 they are more likely to experience communicative

problems and more likely to negotiate solutions to these problems.

Example of interlanguage talk A: now you question me B: where to put the lizard A: what B: where to put the lizard A: no you need to tell me put the B: lizard in the right A: no because the lizard I got it you need to do tell me what you can see tell put the bear in the left B: where to put the bear on the left A: bear put the cat on the right B: what the hell can’t do it we’re not to do it A: because you don’t know in the left B: left A:but you don’t know because on left there’s three box so you don’t know where the box which

box

Long’s Interaction hypothesis (an extension of Krashen’s Input hypothesis)

Long considered three steps during interaction (first version):

1. Linguistic/conversational adjustments comprehension of input

2. Comprehensible input acquisition

3. Therefore, linguistic/conversational adjustments acquisition

He reports that the input that has not been comprehended may become comprehensible through the process of interaction or negotiation.

Focus on comprehensible input and positive evidence

Revised version of Long’s interaction hypothesis

“Negotiation for meaning and negotiation work that triggers interactional adjustments by the NS or competent interlocutor, facilitates acquisition because it connects input, learner internal capacities and output in production ways.” (Long 1994)

It accounts for how interaction contributes to acquisition:

Interactionally modified input

Negative evidence

Modified output

Revised version of Long’s interaction hypothesis (Cont.) Interactionally modified input leads to acquisition

1) when it assists learners to notice linguistic forms in the input (selective attention to form)

2) The noticed forms lie within the learners’ processing capacity

Negative evidence assists learners to initiate interlanguage change

Modified output when there is uptake-with-repair after locating the ‘gap’ between their own production and the target form (noticing the gap in Schmidt’s [2001] term) and trying to minimize the gap based on the feedback provided.

Comprehensible output hypothesis (Swain) Comprehensible output hypothesis: The only way to learn how to produce language is

through speaking. Learners can fake their comprehension but they can not do so in the same way in

production (modified output).

The importance of output and language production (Ellis, 2012):

1. to practice what they know in the process of automaticization

2. to move from semantic (top-down) to syntactic (bottom-up) processing It is becoming clear that output contributes to language acquisition. What is yet

unclear is whether output assists learners to acquire new linguistic forms or to automatize use of partially acquired forms

other-initiated (uptake) self-initiated (monitoring)

Modified output

Gass’ model of L2 acquisition

Gass’ model an overarching framework incorporating

aspects of all the other hypotheses mentioned

A serial-processing model

The input apperceived via noticing that there is a gap in their own knowledge and what they are provided (Noticing Hypothesis and Input Frequency)

Some part of the input is comprehended (vs. comprehensible input)

Intake involves the process of assimilating linguistic material via cognitive comparisonFacilitative factors: interaction, L1 knowledge, innate knowledge of linguistic universals

The intake is stored for later retrieval or analysis (incubation period)

The explicit representation of acquisition and as a source of acquisition when It serves as a means for testing hypothesis

Noticing hypothesis (Schmidt) Strong form There is no learning whatsoever from input that is not

noticed Weak from People learn about the things they attend to and do not

learn much about the things they do not attend to Attention to input is a conscious process consisting of the following

subsystems:

1. Attention as alertness: motivation and readiness to learn

2. Orientation: general focus of attention (form/meaning)

3. Detection: cognitive registration of stimuli for the further processing of information

Essential processes of L2 acquisition

1. Noticing registering formal features in the input

2. Noticing the gap identifying how the input to which the learner is exposed differs from the output the learner is able to generate

Noticing hypothesis (Cont.) Awareness at the level of ‘noticing is the necessary and sufficient

condition for the conversion of input to intake for learning’ (Schmidt, 1994: 17)

Role of attention in different hypotheses:

Frequency hypothesis no claim

Input hypothesis reject it

Interaction hypothesis required

Comprehensible output hypothesis required both for noticing the gap and developing metalinguistic awareness

Gass’ model of L2 acquisition required

Big questions

Does interactional modifications result in comprehension?

Pica, Young & Doughty (1987) found positive effects; however, Pica

(1992) found no special effect.

Does comprehensible input lead to SLA?

Comprehensible input can facilitate acquisition but 1) is not

necessary condition of acquisition, and 2) does not guarantee

that acquisition will take place.

Age and working memory as factors affecting interaction

Age (as a learner characteristic): Older learner benefit more from

interaction and feedback than younger ones (due to making better

cognitive comparison and being less meaning-oriented)

Working memory (as a cognitive process): Those with higher WM

capacities benefit more from recasts than those with lower WM

(due to greater noticing ability and greater ability to produce

modified output)

Input / interaction in classroom settings1) Employing Form-focused Instruction in which the input of a

meaning-centered activity is devised in a way to involves learners briefly or perhaps simultaneously attending form, meaning, and use during one cognitive event which promotes interlanguage (IL) development (focus on form vs. focus on forms) (e.g. providing recasts)

2) Using Input Processing Instruction a comprehension-based instruction that involves the manipulation of the input in the comprehension task to alter the processing strategies that learners take to the task and to encourage them to make better form-meaning connection than they would if left to their own devices.

Three ways of manipulating the input:

1. Input flooding input that contains many examples of the target structure (frequency)

2. Enhanced/enriched input input with the target feature made salient such as bolding, underlining…. (saliency)

3. Structured input input that has been contrived to induce processing of the target feature in a controlled way

Input / interaction in classroom settings

Task features More positive Less positiveInformation exchange Required (information

gap)Optional (opinion gap)

Information gap Two-way One-way

Outcome Closed (convergent) Open (divergent)

Topic Human-ethicalFamiliar

Objective-spatialLess familiar

Discourse domain NarrativeCollaborative

DescriptionExpository

Cognitive complexity Context-freeDetailed information

Context-dependentLess detailed information

Tasks dimensions hypothesized to impact L2 acquisition according to interactionist hypothesis (Ellis, 2003)

3) Employing Task-based language teaching by manipulating task features

Methodology in Input/interaction research Research mostly focus on how interaction affects L2 learning. Methods

are:

1. Descriptive methods (naturally occurring samples or clinically elicited

samples)

2. Experimental methods

3. Self-report methods

4. Introspective methods (think-aloud tasks [problem of reactivity or dual

processing] or stimulated recall [problem of veridicality], immediate

recall [problem of untypical learning behavior]), Uptake chart

5. Priming: The tendency of the speaker to use syntactic structure they

had heard from the interlocutor’s preceding utterance evidence

of noticing and modified output.

Interaction as an interpersonal activity Sociocultural theory (Vygotsky) Acquisition occurs during the interaction not as a result of it. Interaction, as a primary source, is used to construct meaning (than

facilitate acquisition)

Through interaction, we move from interpsycholigical activity towards intra psychological activity.

Interaction serve for ZPD via scaffolding

Focusing on participation than interaction A blurry distinction between use of L2 and knowledge of the L2

since knowledge is use and use creates knowledge

How

References Ellis, R. (2003). Task based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford

University Press. Ellis, R. (2012). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford:

Oxford University Press. Gass, S.M. (2003). Input and interaction. In Doughty C.J. & Long M.H.

(Eds.), the handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 224 - 255). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Understanding language teaching: from method to postmethod. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Long, M (2015). Second Language Acquisition and Task-Based Language Teaching. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Mackey, A. (2012). Input, interaction, and corrective feedback. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Vanpatten, B., & Benati, A.G. (2010). Key terms in second language acquisition. Great Britain: Continuum.