Date post: | 14-Jan-2017 |
Category: |
Education |
Upload: | mahsa-farahanynia |
View: | 2,421 times |
Download: | 3 times |
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.