Downloaded 873 times
![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.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/inputninteractioninsll-151219230347/85/Input-and-Interaction-in-second-language-learning-22-320.jpg)
![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.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/inputninteractioninsll-151219230347/85/Input-and-Interaction-in-second-language-learning-32-320.jpg)
![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.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/inputninteractioninsll-151219230347/75/Input-and-Interaction-in-second-language-learning-22-2048.jpg)
![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.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/inputninteractioninsll-151219230347/75/Input-and-Interaction-in-second-language-learning-32-2048.jpg)
More Related Content
Similar to Input and Interaction in second language learning
Input and Interaction in second language learning
- 1. Input and Interactionin second language learning By Mahsa Farahanynia Allameh Tababie University, Tehran 2015
- 2. What is inputin 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
- 3. 1. Authentic andpedagogic 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
- 4. Input Positive evidence Authentic Modified Simplified Elaborated Negative evidence Preemptive Grammatical rules Explicit Overt error correction Implicit Recast Simple Complex Varioustypes of input in SLA Reactive Taken from Long (2015)
- 5. Importance of inputin L2 learning Various 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
- 6. Two broad viewson 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
- 7. 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 environments How often it is available in the input Cue reliability Conflict validity
- 8. 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.
- 9. 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
- 10. Critiques of Inputhypothesis (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 6. 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)
- 11. Role of interactionin 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)
- 12. Types of interactionin 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
- 13. Interaction as atextual 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
- 14. Negotiation of meaning Duringnegotiation of meaning Adjustments We try to make input comprehensible a) to communicate b) to teach language c) to socialize
- 15. Adjustments of inputduring negotiation of meaning Ungrammatical input adjustments Omission of functors Expansion Replacement/ rearrangement Grammatical input adjustments Simplification of language forms (just learnt features) Elaboration/regularization (to simplify the learners’ task of processing input- more than just learnt features) Linguistic-based adjustments Interactional adjustments Discourse management (to avoid communication problem) Communication strategies Discourse repair (to solve communication problem) Feedback Clarification requests Confirmation requests Comprehension checks Repetitions pre-modified input interactionally modified input
- 16. Negotiation of meaning(during interactional adjustment) interaction trigger resolution response indicator reaction A: what is your father’s job? B: my father is now retire. trigger A: retired? indicator B: yes. response A: oh, Yes. reaction
- 17. Example of Negotiationof 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
- 18. Example of interlanguagetalk A: 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.
- 19. Example of interlanguagetalk 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
- 20. 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
- 21. Revised version ofLong’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
- 22. Revised version ofLong’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.
- 23. 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
- 24. Gass’ model ofL2 acquisition Gass’ model an overarching framework incorporating aspects of all the other hypotheses mentioned A serial-processing model
- 25. The input apperceivedvia 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 comparison Facilitative 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
- 26. 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
- 27. 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
- 28. Big questions Doesinteractional 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.
- 29. Age and workingmemory 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)
- 30. Input / interactionin classroom settings 1) 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
- 31. Input / interactionin classroom settings Task features More positive Less positive Information exchange Required (information gap) Optional (opinion gap) Information gap Two-way One-way Outcome Closed (convergent) Open (divergent) Topic Human-ethical Familiar Objective-spatial Less familiar Discourse domain Narrative Collaborative Description Expository Cognitive complexity Context-free Detailed information Context-dependent Less 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
- 32. Methodology in Input/interactionresearch 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.
- 33. Interaction as aninterpersonal 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
- 34. 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.