Input and Interaction in SLLAutonomous individualsocial and linguistic environmentLanguage learning in social termsLanguage structure Language use in Inter-language developmentInput receivedoutput produced

1st Challenge:Michael Long: Interaction is not one dimensional source of TL input (page # 160)Engaged with interlocutor in negotiationqualitatively changedRecycled, paraphrased &usefulness

2nd Challenge:Swain: Immersion and Output hypothesis

Immersion is a term used to denote a type of bilingual education program that was developed in Canada in the 1970s (Lambert and Tucker 1972) where children were educated within the medium of a second language and therefore immersed in this L2 with a view to becoming a competent user of that language with no cost to their academic achievement.

(The) Output hypothesis is attributed to the work of Merryll Swain. It is part of the general interaction research tradition, which also includes modified input (the other speaker adjusts his or her speech due to perceived difficulties in learner comprehension) and negotiation of meaning both of which Swain claimed were necessary but not sufficient for acquisition. Swains basic premise is that forcing learners to speak in the L2 (i.e., putting them in a situation where they have to construct an utterance which they know may be wrong) furthers acquisition, and is in direct contrast to Krashens (see comprehensible input) claim that output is the result of acquisition not its cause. Swains forced output furthers acquisition because:

1. It encourages noticing learners may notice the gap between what they want to say and what they believe they know(Consciousness raising role)

2. It encourages hypothesis testing which in turn may result in either a communication breakdown forcing the learner to reformulate the utterance, or simply in useful feedback from a native speaker(Corrects himself of by native speaker)

3. It operates as a meta-linguistic function encouraging learners to think about linguistic information. This contributes to consolidating knowledge.(Reflective role)

Whereas modified input and negotiation of meaning may only result in learners focusing on the messages being exchanged in interaction, all these three functions of output serve to focus the learner on form as well as meaning.

Comprehension abilities were close to native speaker level

Productive ability lagged behind (Reading & Listening were focused: INPUT)

Only 2nd Language production effective development of 2nd Language 6.2: Input & Interaction in 1st Language AcquisitionBaby talk, Motherese, Child Directed Speech, Caretaker speech, Foreigner talk

1. Recasts: Utterances in which the caretaker produces an expanded and grammatically correct version of a prior child utterance (explicit formal corrections are unusual)

CHILD: Fix LilyMOTHER: Oh.Lily will fix it

Negative evidence is an indication of what is not grammatically possible in a childs developing L1. Despite the fact that there are potentially numerous possibilities for how language might be structured, children seem to readily learn the linguistic features of their native language without ever being formally taught or without any indication of what is and is not allowed in the language. The notion here is that when/if children are ever corrected on their linguistic utterances it is mostly in consideration of the truth value of the utterance, without reference to the grammatical accuracy of the utterance. If for example a child were to say I putted the book on the table, the adult caregiver would be more likely to comment on whether that event actually occurred as opposed to pointing out to the child that putted is not correct in English.

Chomsky (1965) argued, therefore that such negative evidence either is non-occurring in the environment or occurs so infrequently and so inconsistently as to be useless to the child in learning language.

If negative evidence is not available to children while learning their L1, the question posed by Chomsky is how do they actually learn to discriminate between what is grammatically possible from what is grammatically impossible in their language? Chomskys answer to this question is that children acquire language through universal grammar.

3. Usefulness of Child Directed speech as input data (p #163)4. Cross-cultural studies ..CDSIs not universalSouth-eastern USA (children not addressed directly by adults)BIRD TALK

Lieven Unanalyzed and rote-learned segments, picked up in routinised situations Contextualized talk routines